Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Political Law – deals with the organization and operation of
government organs and the state
 It also defines the relationship of the state with the inhabitants
of its territory
 When it comes to structure of government, how the
government works, who will be elected in office, how are they
gonna be placed into office, what are the obligations of the
citizens and what are the rights of the citizens – these are
matters under political law
PEOPLE vs PERFECTO
Was there a Philippine Government at that time? We are talking
here about change in sovereignty. Why what happened? What’s
the change here? We are under Spanish rule then we were ceded
to the Americans (Treaty of Paris) so there is change in
Sovereignty. From allegiance to the Spanish crown we are now
under the American rule. So there’s a change in sovereignty.
What kinds of laws should be abrogated automatically when
there is that change?
Political laws. When there’s a change in sovereignty, that
relationship is also severed, but only those laws pertaining to
that relationship but not the other laws which pertain to
individual relationships like marriage. Relationship between
individuals remains unless abrogated by the new sovereign.
But the relationship between the new sovereign and the private
individual will be severed when there is change. Automatically
these kinds of laws would be abrogated meaning these laws
would no longer be in effect.
So this is a criminal law, how come the SC is of the opinion that
that particular provision be abrogated?
Under the American rule, they believe in equality of all men. They
believe in the principle that everyone has the freedom of
expression. So you have the right to criticize a public government.
So that particular provision is contrary to the principles of the
Americans.
Now what I’m asking is when you say criminal law it defines
crimes and provides for their penalty, so what is murder is
defined in that criminal law. So if there’s a change in sovereignty,
would murder still be the same? Would it be affected by the
change of sovereignty? No because it does not partake of political
nature. Spanish criminal code is not political in nature. It defines
relationship between an individual and the crimes that he
commits against another. Only that particular provision relates to
the relationship of an individual with representatives of the
sovereign. In that case, even if that is a criminal law, that
particular provision pertains to the nature of a political law, so
that is affected by the principle that when there’s a change in
sovereignty, there’s severance of relationship between the
sovereign and therefore those laws are political in nature and
thus abrogated AUTOMATICALLY unless there is declaration that
they are to be retained, repealed or amended.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
MACARIOLA vs ASUNCION
ISSUE: WON article 14 of COC is applicable in the case of Judge
Asuncion.
No. How come it is no longer applicable in the judge? The law of
the commerce relates to rules regarding business transactions. So
why are we talking about COC? Because we are still observing it
even if there’s a change of sovereignty from the Spanish rule to
the American rule. The code of commerce is still applicable it
governs transactions, sales. But how come judge Asuncion is not
held liable in the case?
The judge is not liable because Article 14 of the COC partakes
more of the nature of administrative law because it regulates the
conduct of certain public officers and employees with respect to
engaging in business: hence, political in essence.
It defines the extent or the limit of the capacity of a public officer
who engage in business. It is part of administrative law which is
under political law.
General Rule is the criminal laws are not part of political laws…
only of that particular provision partakes of that nature because
it relates to the relationship of an individual on how or when he
can criticize a public officer. So the SC said that even if it is a
criminal law, that particular provision partakes of a political law.
In this case the code of commerce is not a political law but that
particular provision (Article 14) is.
Constitution – the body of rules and maxims in accordance with
which the powers of the sovereign are habitually exercised.
 Written instrument agreed upon by the people to be the
absolute (true) of action and decision.
 Is the supreme law of the land. All laws must vow or conform
to it.
 The Philippine constitution is a written instrument by
which the powers of the government are established, limited,
and defined. And by which this powers are distributed among
different departments for their more safe and effective
exercise for the benefit of the body politic.
If you have scanned your constitution, there is an article for the
legislative department alone, there is an article for the executive
department alone, and there is an article for the judicial
department.
We have defined these 3 great fundamental powers, distributed
them, limited their powers. Where? In what instrument? It is not
a law. It is not your usual law. IT IS THE CONSTITUTION.
Ratified by the people – meaning the people is the author of the
constitution. We have set the limits. We have set the standards.
We have prescribed the organization of our government through
the constitution.
Being the supreme law of the land, all laws must conform to it.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
HIERARCHY OF LAWS
The President cannot issue orders that does not comply with the
laws, much more that does not comply with the constitution
because the chief executive does not enact laws, it merely
implements laws.
Looking back at the definition of the Philippine constitution, we
see the different purposes why we have our constitution.
 To prescribe the permanent framework of the system of
government
 To assign the several departments their respective
powers and duties.
 To establish certain principles on which the
government is founded.
Based on our experience, particularly on the Spanish rule,
we have decided as a people that part of our principle is the
separation of church and state. We have set that as an
establish rule of action through our constitution.
The ultimate guardian of our constitution is the Supreme
Court. We have decided as a people to assign that power to
interpret to the SC. When the SC construes a provision of the
constitution, particularly when it declares an act of the
government as constitutional or not, it is exercising what we
call the power of judicial review. It is not just the review of
cases on appeal. When we say judicial review, this is the
power of the Supreme Court to determine the
constitutionality of a governmental act to decide whether or
not a legislative act or law, etc. is constitutional or not.
The constitution, we cannot deny that, it is what the
Supreme Court says it is.
CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION:
1. Written or unwritten
Written – the precepts are varied in one document.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Unwritten – the sources are scattered
2. Conventional or cumulative
Conventional – there is deliberate effort to write the
constitution, time and place, purposely enacted.
Cumulative – the constitution just evolved, there is no
deliberate effort to write
3. Rigid or flexible
 How we can amend or revise the constitution
Rigid – change is only through a formal and usually difficult
process
Flexible – if it is change in ordinary legislation.
QUALITIES OF A GOOD WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
 BRIEF - general
 BROAD - be comprehensive enough
 DEFINITE – no ambivalence, it should be clear
Liberty
Sovereignty
Do we have a constitution at the very earliest time that we have
the Philippines? When did we start the Philippine
Constitutionalism?
 Spanish Regime (1821) they introduced to us their religion.
Do we have our own government during that time? Is there such
thing as Philippine Sovereignty during that time?
 NO! the rules, the laws of the government all came from
Spain. There was no sovereignty to speak of during that
time.
 But there were attempts but nagpatayin nalang din sila. They
have their own Malolos constitution. That could have been
the start of what we can call our own pero nagpatayan din
sila.
Then we were ceded to the Americans through the Treaty of
Paris. We insisted that we be liberated and we have our own
Philippine Government.
When the Americans came, that was when constitutionalism
began. They brought to us their brand of government. They
brought to us their brand of constitution. For the Americans,
sovereignty resides in the people. They are not called subjects,
they are called citizens. But when they came here, they saw us as
natives wanting to be liberated so slowly they introduce to us the
concept of constitutionalism. That’s why we have the first
Philippine Commission or the Schurman Commission, the first
legislative body of the Philippines. They act as the lawmakers.
They observe, they report to the Americans, and they make some
recommendations. The Spooner Amendment came after that.
What is significant is that there was this modification that the
Philippines now be under the US President rather than a military
government because apparently we are now ready for civil
government.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Taft Commission – served as the legislature of the Philippines. It
has enacted the establishment of municipal and provincial codes
(province, municipalities) Establishment of the Judicial systems.
Now we can make decisions but we are still under the American
rule.
Philippine Bill of 1902 or The Cooper Act – the first organic law
for the Philippines although not enacted by Filipinos.
 There is a bill of rights, establishes the Philippine Assembly
to be elected by Filipinos
 First law that defines us as citizens.
 Appointment of 2 Filipinos to represent us in the US but they
don’t have voting rights
Philippine autonomy Act of 1916 or Jones Law
 Provides for the framework for the creation of independent
government, in preparation for the grant of independence
Tydings Mcduffie Act of 1934
 Is the Philippine Independent Act. An act to provide for the
complete independence of the Philippine Islands in 10 years
time (transitional period)
1935 constitution – result of Tydings Mcduffie Act.
 Enacted and ratified by the people
 Enacted to please the Americans
1973 constitution – clamor of the amendment of the 1935
constitution.
And then Marcos happened…Javellana!
JAVELLANA vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PD 73 – submitting to the Filipino
They filed the cases questioning PD 73. Their main contention
was that the president does not have the authority to call for a
plebiscite because it was only the Congress who has the
authority. Also the appropriation of funds is not the function of
the President.
What did Marcos do after these cases were filed?
Why did they not agree January 15 to be beneficial as a schedule
for the plebiscite?
Remember that the propose amendment of the constitution was
approved in the congress on November 29 and then on the
following day, Marcos immediately scheduled the plebiscite on
January 15. If we count the number of days from November 30 to
January 15, that gives us only around 40 days to study and
discuss the changes in the constitution when supposedly we, as a
people, would approve or reject it. So it is a futile exercise of
going to the plebiscite because there was no time to study and
discuss the proposal and also considering the fact that it was
martial law.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Now what’s the problem with martial rule?
There’s no freedom of expression and discussion – the
curtailment of freedom of speech. We were just being controlled
and manipulated by Marcos around that time. Just to show that
there was ratification, they rescheduled the plebiscite, regardless
of the fact that we can’t discuss about it. So they filed the cases.
These were their contentions.
How did marcos address these contentions?
They were saying we have no way of discussing because there is
martial law. Marcos said “that’s your problem? Let’s postpone the
effects of martial law. Go discuss the quest on December 17.” And
that gave us less than a month before January 15.
After the suspension of the effects of proclamation 1081, the
president announced the postponement of the plebiscite date so
Marcos released a general order to postpone but no date was
given yet.
How did the Supreme Court resolve these cases?
The supreme court has no choice. How will it resolve the issue?
That the time is too short. That there was no way of discussing if
Marcos already suspended the effects of Martial law. So even with
the technicalities before the SC, Marcos was able to find a way. So
the SC has no choice but to refrain from making any decisions.
This mooted this made academic because of the after actions of
Marcos.
We have no way of questioning Marcos, but around that time we
just have to wait and see. Wala na. Set aside na yung cases. Wala
na tayong magawa.
One of the questions raised was that only the congress has the
authority to call plebiscite to appropriate the funds. So the SC
reasoned that anyway congress will be on January 22 let’s just
wait and see what happens after that meeting. But then PD86 was
issued. Around January 12, merong barangay assemblies. So they
were wondering what’s the purpose of these barangay
assemblies. Ano to? We don’t have this in our system. And so they
urged the SC to rule on their contentions. But in those cases they
were questioning PD73 which does not involve the barangay
assemblies. So that question is not part of the case. You see, by
reading this case, how the government works. The Supreme
Court is merely a reactive body. It cannot join an issue which they
have not joined in the original petition. What should have been
done? File a new case this time questioning the Citizen’s
assemblies. But then what were their evidence? Haka haka lang
that Marcos probably would use the Citizen’s Assemblies in his
agenda to have the proposed constitution approved. Pero may
evidence ba sila? Wala.
So they filed another set of cases this time questioning the
validity of the barangay assemblies. But which purpose for their
creation, they do not know. How can you question the validity of
something that you do not know.
While there were exchange of pleadings, while they were still
hearing the cases, while they were still making arguments for the
SC, another brilliant move by Marcos. He sent someone who
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
informed the SC that he issued PD1102. He informed the SC that
the proposed constitution has already been ratified by the people
by overwhelming majority. 14 to 15 million approved the
constitution when the registered voters were less than that. So
the cases that were filed were about the validity of the Barangay
Assemblies. Though this time something happened. Another
event. The approval supposedly of the constitution is not
included in these cases. Because this petition is all about the
validity of the Barangay Assemblies. Though this new event that
transpired is about WON the BA can approve or ratify the
constitution. Marcos is always one step ahead. Naisahan niya
talaga kahit ang pinaka matalino sa Pilipinas around that time.
JAVELLANA
What happened after? Javellana filed a case against Exec. Sec.
This time questioning the capacity or the power of the Barangay
Assembly to approve or ratify the constitution or WON the
constitution was ratified by the Barangay Assemblies.
When the issues are not joined in your original complaint of
petition, the court cannot decide on that. Because what we have
in our system is not a proactive court but a reactive court. It will
only react.
So this is now the Javellana Case – Questioning the
constitutionality of the ratification of the constitution.
The main contention was the unconstitutionality of the Barangay
Assemblies in ratifying the constitution. In ratifying the
constitution, which constitution will be followed? The 1935
constitution that was ineffect. So we go to the 1935 consti…how
should it be ratified? ELECTION more particularly known as
plebiscite to approve or reject a proposal. What does a plebiscite
mean? It means going to the polls and casting your votes. And
now under our system pursuant to the 1935 constitution, who
administers the election? It’s the COMELEC. In this case, it was
through Barangay Assemblies administered by an Executive
Department. Now there was a reason why the administration of
an election is removed from the exec department because there is
no way of ensuring the credibility of the election if it is
administered by the people who will be elected as executive
department.
1. There was no plebiscite (based on 1935 consti)
Plebiscite – 1 day, secret ballots, 21 years old
BA – several days and various takes, oral (raising of
hands), 15 years old and above
So we have the 1973 constitution ratified by minors and we were
under that for more than 20 years. So the question now was that
is that a valid constitution?
Supposedly, congress can do something about it. They can
question the exercise of the president of legislative powers. So we
said they were supposed to meet on January 22 but what
happened? Pumunta lang sila sa Batasang Pambansa Complex.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Because here, you will see that during that time we really have no
way of overcoming President Marcos’ plans. Ano nangyari? The
halls were podlocked. They were not allowed to go inside. They
tried to assemble somewhere else pero pinahuhuli na sila. There
were several political detainees because of that. Now we don’t
have a congress. What’s the only institution left to protect us? It
should have been the Supreme Court and in fact this case was
already filed before the Supreme Court. Remember that was
under background of Martial Law. There were several people
who were arrested without cause. There were people who
disappeared and mostly those who were vocal against the
President. They were found dead.
Questioning PD1102 Marcos Procalamation that the constitution
was already ratified. Bakit nagka 1973 constitution tayo? How
did the SC rule on the petition? In here, you can also see where
the rules of procedure depict the purpose of justice. The
procedure goes this way, in general, when we file a petition
before the SC, always the first step is for the SC to determine
WON to give due force to the petition. It was not decided based
on the merits. If you read the ponente, it says that this is not the
opinion of the court, this is my own opinion. So there is no
majority opinion. The issue is only WON to give due force to the
petition. Now along that issue, they enumerated several
questions:
 Is the issue on the validity of PD1102 a
justiciable or political question?
Majority says its justiciable because we can resolve the case by
going back to the 1935 constitution.
Justiciable – the SC can give due course or can discuss the
petition
Political – within the realm of the department of the people
themselves to decide. It is discretionary. The SC cannot act
on that question.
Has the proposed constitution been ratified?
 Majority says No. It is not been ratified because the
ratification is supposed to be in plebiscite and not in
Barangay Assemblies.
Now even if it is not ratified through a plebiscite, has the
proposed constitution accepted by the people?
 The SC was divided. How can you say that the people have
accepted when they were acting out of fear (Martial Law).
You have to obey under the fear of death. There’s no way of
knowing.
Are the petitioners entitled to relief?
 Unfortunately majority says NO because there were
considerations other than judicial that are relevant and
unavoidable. If you decide adverse to the president,
something will happen. So there were threats.
Is the proposed constitution enforced?
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
 Yes because the people has accepted it (Martial Law)
The SC on the question WON to give due course to the petition
 the SC voted to DISMISS the petition. 6:4 ON MERE
TECHNICALITY. “these, being the vote of majority, there is
no further judicial obstacle to the new constitution being
considered in force and effect.” There is no challenge
pending against the new constitution.
In other words, we have the 1973 constitution ratified in January
17, 1973 by majority of the Filipino people when the voters are
not... And we were under the 1973 constitution from 1973 to
1986 on a questionable ratification.
In the words of Father Bernas: “Javellana vs Exec Secretary – the
case has gone down in the Philippine History as a defining
moment. One in which the President’s efforts to grab power
succeeded because of the timidity of the only remaining
institution left to challenge its lost word.” The Chief Justice
resigned after that.
Now Javellana is something that the Supreme Court is not proud
of but we will learn a lot from that case. That’s part of our
experience when we now make our 1987 constitution.
One would be on how would we be as a people. What will we do
in case the president declares martial law. What will be the limits
that we will set to avoid the repeat of Marcos’ martial law.
Because Martial law is unavoidable and necessary. What will we
do in case there is a question regarding the president’s action?
Can we just rely on the decision of the SC WON it is political or
justiciable question? How can we question an act of the
department that is within its discretion to perform? If he does
that, can we question? If he does not, can we question? So there
are a lot of matters that we were able to correct in the 1987
constitution.
Even if Javellana is a tarnish in the Supreme Court’s record, I still
want you to read it.
DE LEON vs ESGUERRA
If it took effect on February 2, then OIC Governor General would
have no authority to make the appointments. Here, it is
significant to determine when the new constitution actually took
place. Is it Feb 2 or Feb 8 (when Aquino issued the
proclamation)? There were arguments for February 8. Take note
that under the 1973 Constitution, January 17 is actually the date
of presidential proclamation that the constitution was ratified. So
February 8 in this case is also the date of presidential
proclamation that the 1987 constitution was ratified. So there
were arguments for February 8. The argument was that there
was no way of knowing which constitution we should be
following (before 7minutes). But the majority ruling was it
should be on the day of the plebiscite which was on February 2.
The transitional provision provides that the Constitution will
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
take effect only upon ratification of the people pursuant to
the votes casted during the day of the plebiscite. The votes
were casted on Feb. 2, so that should be the day of ratification.
The proclamation of the results on Feb. 7 was only the official
announcement of the results.
Take note of the dates February 2, 1987 and January 17, 1973.
What is a STATE?
 It is a community of persons more or less numerous
permanently occupying a definite portion of territory
independent of external control and possessing an ordinary
government to which…..
Elements:
 People
 Territory
 Government
 Sovereignty
*lacking one element, you cannot call that a state
A state is a legal concept while a nation is an ethnical concept. We
belong to the Malay Nation but we are Philippine state as a legal
concept.
People. It must be of such a number sufficient for the continued
existence of the State. The State would usually define who will be
its citizens because its citizens will be entitled foremost to the
State‘s protection. On the flip side of the coin, the citizen, while
entitle to the State‘s protection, is bound to the laws of the State.
There are some that are specific to the citizens of the State.
Wherever they may be found, even outside of the territory of the
Philippines, there are laws which will follow them.
Territory. Pertains not only to the physical aspect of the State. It
includes the land, the water, and the airspace. These are the
physical attributes of a State. Now territory may sometimes be
not yet settled as to boundaries. Sometimes, there are disputes
when it comes to boundaries. Sometimes, a portion of the
territory is being occupied by another sovereign. But in these
cases, it doesn‘t necessarily mean that the entity failed to comply
with the idea of a State. It still remains to be a State
notwithstanding that there are temporary problems when it
comes to territory. Even if the entire territory is being occupied
by another sovereign provided that the occupation is merely
temporary, it retains its characteristic as a State.
REAGAN vs CIR
What is the extent of the territory of a state?
In this case, the transaction transpired in Clark Airbase, which is
during that time, occupied by US Army. But then the sales were
taxed by the Philippine state. There was a claim that the
transaction which happened within the US military base no
longer form parts of the territory of the Philippines. That was the
argument and therefore he can no longer be taxed by the
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Philippines. As held in the case of Reagan, the Philippines is an
independent and sovereign country. Thus, its laws are applicable
in all corners of its territory. All are bound by it. If there are some
instances that some people are not bound by its laws, it‘s because
the Philippines consents to that.
The general premise is that our control in power is in limitable
within our jurisdiction. If a portion of our territory is granted to
allow their sovereign, it does not mean that portion becomes
alien, of alien nature in that when you go to the military bases,
you will now present your visa. It retains its characteristic as
native soil. It is still part of our territory but precisely they‘re
allowed there because we have the sovereign capacity to allow
them to stay there but it is still within our territory.
Auto limitation - a concept of sovereignty wherein by virtue of
that power within your jurisdiction, that same power gives you
the power to restrict your sovereignty
By virtue of auto limitation, we consent to surrender that portion
to another state but it does not, by no means, mean that that
portion of the territory is already alia or foreign, it still remains to
be part of the native land or native soil.
What about the embassies of foreign nation? Is the US embassy
an alien territory? Do we lose our territorial rights over that
particular piece of land on which the embassy is situated? Just
because a foreign entity is occupying that land by our consent, it
does not mean that it becomes an alien land. It retains its
character as native soil. It is still part of the Philippines.
Why is it that we cannot sue the ambassadors when they commit
crime inside the embassy? Does that mean that our laws are no
longer effective in that place? Why is it that there are certain
situations where crimes cannot be prosecuted when they are
committed inside the US embassy? It is not because they have not
violated our laws, but because we exempted them from
prosecution so that, if for example, another person commits that
crime within the US embassy who is not so exempted, we can still
prosecute that person. In other words, it is because of our
consent that we exempt the application of our laws. But the
GENERAL RULE is within our territory, we can make effective all
our laws.
Government. Instrumentality by which the will of the state is
promulgated, exercised, and realized. As a General Rule, when we
talk about government, we are talking about the National
Government and these are the three great departments: Judicial,
Legislative, and Executive. But we will learn later on that we have
sub governments. Local Governments Units are also considered
as government. But when we relate with other nations, that
government is the National Government.
BACANI vs NACOCO
 This is a 1956 case. A case decided under the 1935 constitution
and a very old one. Now in that case, they are trying to
determine whether Nacoco is part of the government because
it enjoys certain privileges and in this case the exception of
payment of certain legal fees. So is it part of the government?
Now the Supreme Court, in order to answer that dilemma, has
adopted teachings from US jurisprudence. That to determine
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
whether or not a certain entity is part of the government, you
have to determine whether it is performing a constituent
function or ministrant function. In this case, therefore, there is
such classification of government functions into CONSTITUENT
AND MINISTRANT. It is part of government if it is performing
constituent functions.
CONSTITUENT FUNCTIONS – mandatory, compulsory functions
of a state which constitute the very funds of society. This is the
very reason why we call ourselves state. As enumerated in the
case, the Constituent Functions are:
1) Keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons
and property from violence and robbery. (peace keeping)
2) Fixing of legal relations between man and wife and between
parents and children (CF- meaning this cannot be
undertaken by any private entity)
3) Creation of the holding transmission and interchange of
property and
4) Determination of contract rights between individuals
5) Definition and punishment of crime
6) Administration of justice and civil cases
7) Determination of political duties, privileges,
8) Foreign relations
Now, these are the mandatory, compulsory functions which
constitute the very funds of society. IS NACOCO PERFORMING
THE FUNCTION?
 The Supreme Court said NO. If you look at the functions
of NACOCO, it is in the classification of ministrant. Ministrant
would be the optional functions of the government. These are
exercised by the government only for the improvement of the
general welfare, progress, prosperity of the people. These
functions may not be undertaken by the government. If you
look at the definition, the operation of schools and hospitals is
for the general welfare. Is it a mandatory function of the
government? During that time, the Supreme Court said NO.
The government can exist even without schools, even without
hospitals. These are functions for the welfare of the people. So
these are ministrant functions. NACOCO performs ministrant
functions. To determine whether the government should
perform the optional function, one principle would be that the
government should…..private entity would not naturally
undertake. This case was decided in 1956. You cannot yet
expect the private entities to put up schools in the Philippines
where the people are poor. You cannot expect private entities
to build the roads. So usually, it would be the government that
would undertake these activities. Now, another principle
would be that the government should….those things that by
nature it is better equipped to administer for the public
welfare that is the private individual or group of individuals.
It is better equipped to perform the function. Now, as you are
listening to me, I bet you are already disagreeing. How come
the government is not expected to put up schools or
hospitals? So actually that concept of ministrant and
constituent to determine whether or not it is part of the
government has already become obsolete.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
ACCFA vs CUGCO
Involve here is the function of administering one aspect of
land reform programs that is the extension of credits or loans.
If we base it on the definition in Bacani vs Nacoco, is this part
of government or not? What function can you classify land
reform program? It is for the welfare. So if you base it on
Bacani vs Nacoco, that is merely a ministrant function. But the
Supreme Court said because of the complexities of modern
life, the demands of the new society, the government has to
undertake these social programs so that it is no longer
optional. So now, that classification of constituent and
ministrant is already impractical. There are government
offices and entities that undertake ministrant functions but
they are nonetheless necessary. So that the better
classification now to determine whether this is part of
government or not is as to whether or not it is performing
government function or proprietary function. If it is
performing a proprietary function like it is engage in business
transactions or economic enterprises like for example Davao
City Water District is a GOCC. But is it part of the government?
Does it enjoy the privileges like privilege from taxation? You
determine whether or not it is performing a governmental
function or a proprietary function. So in lieu of constituent
and ministrant, we have governmental and proprietary
functions.
Another classification of government is whether or not it is a
de facto or de jure government. This time we are not talking
about function, we are talking about the basis of its
legitimacy.
De Facto – one established in defiance of the legitimate
sovereign, in violation of law, constitution
De Jure – legitimate government. One established by
authority of legitimate sovereign.
CO KIM CHAM vs VALDEZ TAN KEH
This case enumerated the kinds of De Facto Government:
 Government that gets possession & control of, or
usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority
 Established & maintained by military forces who
invade & occupy a territory of the enemy in the
course of war. (In this case, Co Kim Cham vs Valdez
Tan Keh, we have here the government under the
Philippine Executive Commission or Japanese Rule)
e.g. In the history of the Philippines, we have one de facto
government: in the Philippine Executive Commission
under the Japanese rule or the Republic of the Philippines
under Japanese rule. It is considered a de facto
government not a de jure. Why? Because it is established
by invading military forces.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
 Established as an independent government by the
inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection
against the parent state.
e.g. For example Davao City rise in insurrection against
the National Government and establish our own
government here, independent of the National
Government, our government would be considered as de
facto.
The question is, as stated in Co Kim Cham, how do you treat the
laws, the decisions, the rulings of that de facto government
during the time that it was effective? Because we know that after
the Philippine Executive Commission we were successful in
taking back our country through the help of the US Forces. We
are able to occupy our territory and claim Philippines. So what
happens to the laws, decisions of the courts under that de facto
government after we have reoccupied the Philippines? What
happens to these laws? Were they invalid?
 The General Rule is, in political law, all acts and proceedings
of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de
facto government are good and valid.
They were good and valid at the time that the de facto
government was in effective. So they were good and valid,
although after that, we have new laws. These will not be
continued or pursued. So when it comes to de facto
government we will learn later, for example, an officer has
held office pursuant to a law which later on became
unconstitutional, say he has therefore one year on the basis
of unconstitutional law, he is considered now a de facto
officer. What happens to his rulings? What happens to the
salaries he received during that time? These are, based on
the principle, are all valid. There is no need for you to
reimburse because he was a de facto officer based on an
authority, which unfortunately was rendered invalid and
unconstitutional.
We know that the government of Corazon Aquino came into
being through People Power. She was not declared the
winner in the 1986 snap election. The one that was
proclaimed by the Batasang Pambansa was Marcos. So how
do we classify the government of Corazon Aquino? How did
the Supreme Court answer the question on whether or not
the government of Corazon Aquino is a legitimate
government. Is it de jure or de facto government? It is a
product of people’s uprising or revolution.
LAWYER’S LEAGUE vs AQUINO
Who is the legitimate authority? The people. Sovereignty resides
in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
The Supreme Court said that this is not a justiciable question. We
cannot decide it. This is not a legal question. This is a political
question in which only the people can be the judge. Who is the
Supreme Court to say “people you are wrong! Let’s put Marcos
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
back.” The legitimacy of the government of Corazon Aquino is not
a justiciable question. This is within the realm of politics or
political law wherein only the people can be the judge and the
people has accepted the government of Aquino. They have
ratified it with the constitution and all the nations have also
recognized and acknowledged the new government under
Corazon Aquino.
In Renato Puno case, the Supreme Court explained that Aquino
Government came into power in defiance of the 1973
Constitution. That’s why she has to present to the people by way
of transition the freedom constitution or the 1986 Constitution
which is in effect for a year to give way for the new constitution
that would be the product of people’s will. In the case, because
she came into power by revolution (complete overthrow of the
established government in any country or state by those who
were previously subject to it). The Supreme Court answered the
question whether or not revolution is a right.
Is revolution a right of the people?
YES. Revolution is an inherent right of the people to cast out their
rulers, to change their policy or effect radical reforms in their
system of government or institutions by force or general uprising
when the legal and constitutional methods of making such
change have proved inadequate or are so obstructed as to be
unavailable.
Ano ba yung legal method of changing the administration or
government? ELECTION. Marcos has actually presented to us a
snap election but it has proved to be inadequate if not so
obstructed as to be unavailable. We cannot actually change him
or the policies or the system of government so, in that case,
revolution becomes a right. Take note that revolution is declared
a right only if it is successful. If not, those who revolted will
celebrate in jail. So it is only a successful revolution which would
be considered as political question where the legitimate
sovereign of the people has already made a judgment. So it is
taken out of the loop of constitutional discussion. Sila na ang nag
decide.
The general premise is that we have a legal procedure for
effecting change. But when this legal procedure are no longer
adequate as in the case of Martial Law, then we have the right to
assemble. I‘m emphasizing this because, ordinarily, the people
should not revolt because we have a system. Had the people
power failed, the people would have been prosecuted for
insurrection and for inciting rebellion.
ESTRADA vs DESIERTO
Here, we had another EDSA Revolution. People Power II. The
question in this case revolves around the legitimacy of Arroyo‘s
government.
The government of Aquino came into power through a
revolution in defiance to the 1973 Constitution. The case is a
political question because they cannot refer it to any law and in
the constitution. Therefore, it was the people who decided it for
themselves.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
In Arroyo‘s government, it was pursuant the revolutionary
power of the people that is actually cited in the 1987
Constitution. So the Supreme Court, in the case of Estrada vs.
Desierto can refer it to an existing law and therefore it is a
justciable case. In other words, Aquino‘s is extraconstitutional. In
the words of the Supreme Court, ―it orbits outside the loop of the
Constitution. On the other hand, Arroyo‘s government is
intraconstitutional.
Aquino‘s government is an overthrow of the entire government
or change of the government. In fact, the case of In Re: Puno, the
Supreme Court said that it is a completely new entity. But in
Arroyo‘s government, it was only a change of one department of
the government. In fact, only one person – the Executive. So
that‘s the difference between the two governments.
Is Arroyo‘s Government de facto or de jure? In fact, it is de jure.
Sovereignty. Supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a
state by which the state is governed. Meaning it can do anything
to ensure its existence. Internal sovereignty is the power to
control its domestic affairs. External sovereignty is the power of
the state to direct its relations with other states (independence).
If you are a government, you are a state, you have sovereignty.
You have that uncontrollable power to conduct your state affairs.
In relation to that, you have certain privileges. One of which is
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
So under Article 16, Section 3, it is there affirmatively stated that
the state may not be sued without its consent.
Can you file a sue before the courts against the state? The General
Answer is NO because the state enjoys sovereign immunity. What
is the foundation of this rule? This is a recognition of the
sovereign character of the state. Section 3 is an expressed
affirmation that the state is insulated from the jurisdiction of the
courts. Meaning, If it is not provided in the constitution, will the
Philippine state still be immune from suit? YES, with or without
this constitutional provision. This is the juridical and practical
notion that the state can do no wrong. A sovereign is exempt
from suit because, on a logical and practical ground, there can be
no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on
which the right depends as a sovereign state would make the
laws. The practical right is that there can be no longer rights that
can be claimed against the authority that which grants the right.
How can you claim the right from the entity which grants the
right? Imagine if we can sue the state, 80 million people would be
allowed to sue the state. It would be facing 80 million suits per
day, example. So there can be as many suits that it will be facing
and that could be detrimental to public service. Take note that
this principle of non-suability is not only observed in the
Philippines, but also in other states. If the state may not be sued,
who is the state? When the suit is one against Republic of the
Philippines (Dela Cruz vs Republic of the Philippines).
Automatically that will be dismissed because of the principle of
non-suability. Very rarely can you find in the SCRA cases entitled
blablabla vs Republic of the Philippines.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Another one: Suit against government offices for its
instrumentalities. It is the state determining whether or not that
government office instrumentality is incorporated or
unincorporated. It is unincorporated if it has no separate
juridical personality but is merged in the general machinery of
the government. For example, Department of Health is merged to
the general machinery of the government. It has no personality
separate from the government. But there are offices in the
government that are incorporated. Meaning, they have their
own charters. There are laws which created them. And they are
under the corporation law rather than under the general law on
administrative law. So it has its own charter and it is invested
with separate juridical personality distinct from the state. It has
its own Charter meaning there’s a basis for its creation. There’s a
law. The test of its … is found in its charter. If the charter says it
can be sued, then it is not immune from suability, it has
consented to the suit, so regardless of the function it is
performing.
Another way of classifying the sue-ability of the government is by
way of their function. Governmental or proprietary. If it is
performing governmental functions, it cannot be sued. If it is
performing proprietary functions, one that involves commercial
transactions or economic affairs, then it can be sued.
What about government officers? Do they enjoy immunity from
suit? If you cannot file a case against Department of Education
because it is incorporated, can you file a case against the
Department Secretary? The General Rule is YES because we
believe in the principle of public accountability. Public office is a
public trust, therefore, they should be made accountable. The
General Rule is Public officials on his official acts may be sued,
but there are instances where he cannot be sued if the ultimate
liability lies with the state. For example, there is money
judgment. If it’s made personally liable, hindi ang state ang
magbabayad, so they can be sued. Ultimately, it is the state which
has to set aside an amount or appropriate an amount for
damages then that is a suit against the state.
When it is a suit against the state? This time we are talking about
the character of the suit. Kanina pinag-usapan natin who are
possible parties. Now this time, when it is a suit against the state?
Character of the suit. The General Rule is if ultimately the
enforcement of the decision may require an affirmative act from
the state, the decision will require an affirmative act from the
state, it is actually a suit against the state and therefore it cannot
be allowed. So example, if it is a money judgment and to satisfy
that judgment money has to be appropriated (You will learn later
on that in order to appropriate money, a law has to be passed or
enacted), that judgment is requiring an affirmative act from the
state, and therefore it is a suit against the state.
DOH vs PHILPHARMAWEALTH
In that case, Philippine Pharmawealth is actually a private
corporation engaged in the manufacturing or supplying of
pharmaceutical products. It participates in government biddings
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
to supply medicines to government hospitals. Here, Philippine
Pharmawealth, prior to the case, it has requested DOH for the
inclusion of additional items in its list of accredited drug
products. But DOH did not act upon it. When the bidding came, it
was disqualified because this particular drug is a quality not
accredited in Pharmawealth pero nagpa accredited sya but it was
not acted upon so it was disqualified during the bidding and it is
rewarded to another bidder. So nagalit si Pharmawealth.
Pharmawealth filed a case against DOH. DOH again, is an
unincorporated government entity. It is part of the government
machinery. DOH is under the Executive Department but is this a
suit against the state?
What relief are they asking from?
1) Injunction for the court to annul the bidding.
2) Mandamus is to mandate. For the court to direct
DOH to award the bid to Pharmawealth
3) Damages for failure to act for its request
If you file a suit against a department of the State, you determine
if it is incorporated or unincorporated but…
The Supreme Court said, based on this relief they are asking, this
is not a suit against the state because ultimately the state is not
asked to perform an affirmative act. Why? There is nothing there
that would require the congress to enact a law, or to appropriate
funds. It is only the annulment of the bidding. Even though it is a
suit directed against DOH, an unincorporated, it is still not a suit
against the state.
What about the damages? Actually, the claim for damages is
addressed against the individual public officers rather than the
department itself. Had it been addressed against the DOH, it
would be a suit against the state. So here it had been addressed
against the individual officers, they will have to get from their
own pockets instead of asking the state to appropriate the funds.
So last time we we’re talking about sovereign immunity as part of
the privileges of a sovereign state. As a General Rule: It is a suit
against the state when the enforcement of the decision in the case
would require an affirmative act on the part of the state such as
appropriation of funds, or enactment of law to satisfy the
judgment.
PASI vs LICHAUCO
Here, PASI filed a case against Lichuaco. Lichauco is the
Undersecretary of DOTC. The cause of action is only for
injunction. They sought to establish that the award of a particular
orbital slot should be enjoined because that orbital slot has
already been assigned to it. So it’s only for injunction, declaration
for nullity of the award. There is no prayer for damages or
position of charge or financial liability against the state. And also,
in the case, the defendant is the Undersecretary rather than the
office, DOTC. Because if it is the DOTC, an unincorporated
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
government entity, there is a chance that the case will not be
permitted as the DOTC is an unincorporated entity attached to
the government and it has no personality separate from the
government and therefore, it could have been a case against the
state.
If it is now determined that the respondent is the state, whether
the respondent is the Republic of the Philippines, whether it is a
government entity or a government office, or whether it is a
public official, then it has to know WON the petition would still be
allowed or WON the case did consent to be sued. Now in
determining that, first we will determine WON the office or the
public officers performing governmental or proprietary function.
CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERIES vs SANTAMARIA
Here, the Supreme Court discussed and explained that there are 2
conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity.
Classical/absolute theory – a sovereign, without its consent,
cannot be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign.
The immunity is absolute.
Newer/restrictive theory – allows suit against the state with
regards to private acts or acts jure gestionis but does not allow
suit with regards to public acts or acts jure imperii. In other
words, if the state or government entity is performing a
governmental function, that immunity applies. But if it is found
out that the entity is performing a proprietary, commercial or
business transaction, then it is suable.
In this case of CNMEG, they have found out that CNMEG is
performing proprietary functions or activities. This restrictive
theory is observed in the Philippines and also in other states
because of newer activities in which the state is being engaged in.
Before, we use the ministrant and constituent classification, but
because of changes in modern society, it is now being rendered as
futile.
So as a conclusion, a state, or a government entity, or a public
officer is suable if it is engaged in proprietary activities, but non-
suable if it is engaged in governmental activities or function. But
we must also take note that the function that we should consider
is the PRIMARY FUNCTION, so that even if incidentally it’s
engaged in commercial transaction, when its primary function is
still governmental, it is still non-suable. You have the case of…
PROVI vs TESDA
In that case, we have TESDA purchasing from PROVI, PVC cards,
ID cards. TESDA is attached to the department of labor and
employment. It has no personality distinct and separate from
DOLE, thus it has no personality distinct and separate from the
government itself. It is an unincorporated government. Its
primary function is to develop and establish a national system of
skills in the country. This is a governmental function. This is not
something that private entities would be engaged in. Now in this
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
case, however, TESDA purchased ID cards. While the IDs were
already delivered by PROVI, TESDA was unable to pay. Can PROV
file a case for payment? Here, we see a classic case of that
prerogative dishonesty. TESDA is enjoying the cloak of immunity
because it is a governmental entity engaged in governmental
function. But what about the fact that it sells the IDs to those who
are certified? It does not change the fact that it is in relation to its
governmental function of certifying. It does not take away the fact
that it is engaged in governmental function. So TESDA was able to
hide behind the cloak of immunity. It cannot be sued.
WON a governmental entity is performing a governmental
function or proprietary, let’s say performing governmental
function, may it still be sued? Is there a possibility that it will still
be sued? Yes, when it CONSENTS to be sued (Article 16 Section 3
The state may not be sued without its consent). Consent is a
waiver of its immunity. The consent may be given by general law
or by implied law. So it may be expressed or implied. For
expressed consent, who may give that consent? Can it be given by
the President of the Philippines? Say for example the case is
against DOH, can the president consent to the filing of the case?
Who is authorized in behalf of the state to give the consent to be
sued? IT’S ONLY THE CONGRESS because consent may be given
pursuant to law or statute.
There is a general law which authorizes a person or any person
who meets the condition stated in the law to sue the government
in accordance with the procedures specified in the law. Where is
that general law giving general consent to be sued? Act No. 3083.
Act No. 3083 – An act defining the conditions under which the
government of the Philippine islands may be sued.
This law has been enacted in 1923. That is the General law
providing for a general concept to be sued. So under Section 1, it
is provided that the Philippine Islands consents and submits to
be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from
contract, expressed or implied, which could serve as a basis of
civil action between private parties. Now by Commonwealth Act
No. 327. An act fixing the time within which the auditor general
shall render his decisions and prescribing the manner of appeal
therefrom. Here, it is now clear that any money claims against the
state may be filed before the Commission on Audit. COA has the
primary jurisdiction to examine audit and settle all debts and
claims of any sort…What happens here? Actually you file a claim
in COA, it is not yet a case. COA will determine WON the state is
liable or there is a need to settle. Now when the COA makes his
decision, either blabla or denies, when it denies, you file a case
for certiorari before the Supreme Court. That is the time you file
the case. Because you followed the procedure, suing the state is
allowed via certiorari. What happens is you question the decision
of the COA for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Now in…
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE vs NLRC
Sued is the DA. Department of Agriculture is an unincorporated
entity. May it be sued? The General Rule is it cannot. Now here,
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
the case was filed by the Security Guards who are private
persons, they are not employees of DA. They were engaged by DA
via a security agency. Now they were unpaid their benefits under
the labor standards. So they filed a case before the NLRC. The DA
objected on the ground of non-suability. Is DA immune from suit?
Yes. What is now the recourse of the Security Guards? Based on
Act No. 3083 and Commonwealth Act No. 327, they may file a
case before the COA. This is an example of a money claim.
There is also such a thing as special law waiving immunity. What
do we mean by special law? You are that special because the
congress will convene and enact a law allowing you to file a suit
against the state. So a special law will be enacted to allow a
particular person or party to file a case against the state.
MERRIT vs GOVERNMENT (1916)
The Philippine legislature enacted a special law authorizing
Merrit to sue the Philippines. It does not mean that the state is
already admitting liability; it only allows you to prove, if you can,
that the state is liable. But what was the result of the case? The
Supreme Court said that the state is not liable because they were
discussing whether the chauffer is an agent of the state or not. In
this case, the ambulance driver did not act as a special agent of
the government therefore the State is not liable for his acts. (the
only person being allowed to sue the state pursuant to a special
law)
Implied consent
1) there is implied consent when the government enters into a
contract. This is in relation to our discussion on WON the
government entity is engaged in a governmental or
proprietary function. Because if it is engaged in a proprietary
function, it descends to the level of the individual and
therefore blabla itself from the immunity. What do you mean
by that? When the government enters into a contract, it does
not mean that it is suable already. You have to determine
whether the contract is one in relation to its governmental
function or proprietary function. So it does not mean that
when the government enters into a contract, automatically it
is suable. But if it is a business transaction or a proprietary
function, it descends to the level of the individual and
therefore has impliedly consented to be sued.
2) When it commences litigation. Of course when it files the
case, it opens itself to all possible defenses and
counterclaims of the other party.
REPUBLIC vs SANDIGANBAYAN
Here, it is the Republic of the Philippines through the PGG which
first filed the case alleging that the shares of stocks of Negros
Occidental Golf and Country Club were illegally obtained.
Republic initiated a complaint against Negros Oriental Golf and
Country Club for the re-conveyance of some shares in the country
club owned by Benedicto. They actually sequestered the shares of
Benadicto alleging that these shares were ill-gotten. A re-
conveyance was filed but it turned out that the membership fees
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
required for owning those shares were not paid. They failed to
return the shares or pay for the amount. They claimed non-
suability. The Supreme Court said that it was Republic who first
initiated the action. Therefore, the State opened itself up to
possible defenses and counterclaims. It has impliedly consented
to be sued.
There are instances where ostensibly it is a suit against the state
and it is asking for state liability. But then the Supreme Court still
allowed the suit to continue. And in fact favorably grants it to the
suitor. There are instances where the reasons would be equity
and justice. The General Principle is that the doctrine of
government immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument
for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Example case would be:
EPG CONSTRUCTION vs VIGILAR
In this case, DPWH engaged in several subdivision developers to
construct housing units. There’s another case that is the
completion of a construction. It should have been covered by
another contract and another appropriation of funds. Kaso gusto
na ni DPWH Secretary to finish all the construction so with his
assurances that the money would be forthcoming, the subdivision
developers continued the construction, despite the absence of
appropriation and written contracts. Tapos na ang mga bahay,
comes now is the collection for the payment. DPWH was not able
to pay. In fact it refused to pay. Ordinarily, can this contractors
demand payment and file a suit against the state? NO. because
DPWH is a governmental entity engaged in governmental
function. It is an unincorporated government entity. But in this
case, the Supreme Court noted certain circumstances that are
peculiar which necessitates the allowance of the petitioner’s
money claims. The legal officer of the DPWH, the internal auditor,
and the DBM agreed that they should be paid. It’s only the
Secretary who refuses to pay. The Supreme Court said that we
will not apply the general rule on non-suability. That is the
example where the Supreme Court did not apply the law because
applying the law would lead to injustice but rather it applies the
rule on equity and justice.
Also, even if it is a government entity performing governmental
function it may still be sued. When? When the state exercises its
sovereign function of eminent domain. When the state
expropriates private property for public use, it is now the
constitution which mandates payment of just compensation so
that when one’s private property is taken, and the government
did not pay. Can it hide behind the cloak of immunity that it
cannot be sued for payment? IT CANNOT because it’s now the
constitution which mandates payment of just compensation.
APO vs SPOUSES RAMOS
Spouses Ramos discovered that the portion of their land has been
used as part of the runway and running shoulder of lumacang
airport being operated by APO. APO failed to pay. Under ordinary
circumstances, can it be sued? The answer is the immunity
applies. But here, APO is an incorporated government entity. It
has a personality separate from the government. It is engaged in
proprietary function. What is that? Operation of Airport which is
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
now an exclusive prerogative of the government. So it is doing
what a private entity can do. It is engaged in proprietary function.
But even if, let’s say, it’s not APO, the answer would still be that
the suit is allowed because involved here is the exercise of
eminent domain or the power of expropriation.
Okay let’s say that the suit has been allowed, suability is different
from liability. What do we mean by that? When the state gives
consent to be sued, it does not consent to the execution of
judgment against it. The rule is that the execution will require
another waiver. The general law waiving the state’s immunity
from suit under Act No. 3083 ad Commonwealth Act No.327 is
subject to the general limitation expressed in Section 7 which
provides that no execution shall issue upon any judgment
rendered by any court against the government of the Philippines.
What do you mean by that? Say that you have a claim against the
government for non-payment. Dun tayo sa Security Guards. In
that case, NLRC is determined that they have been deprived or
denied of their wages and benefits. Can they now garnish the
funds of the government? Can they now file a motion for
execution? NLRC, in this case, actually issued the writ of
execution garnishing the funds of the government. Can that be
done? Under our General Policy in the constitution, public funds
may be used only upon appropriation pursuant to law. When
there is money, usually there is already a specific object and
purpose for that money. So if we use that money for another
purpose that is malversation of funds because you are
misdirecting the use of money. So if the Court says since you owe
this, you have that money, we will issue a writ of execution para
makakuha si plaintiff ng kanyang damages which I have granted
as a Court. Can the Court do that? Can the Court order the
misdirection of money? IT CANNOT because funds can only be
disbursed pursuant to an appropriation law. So even if you get a
favorable judgment . One, you were allowed to file a suit. Two,
you have favorable judgment, that ends there. Suability is only
upto judgment. There is no execution. What happens is you wait
for congress to enact a law, to appropriate that money. They have
procedure for that. This rule does not apply if the funds have
already been included in the general appropriations act. So we
have the case of…
HEIRS OF PIDACAN vs APO
This is also an exercise of expropriation. There is a judgment in
favor of the heirs of Pidacan. Now, can they force the liability of
the state to obtain just compensation? It was found out and the
court noted that there’s already money held by the Department
of Budget and Management. Money has already been in the hands
of DBM for that particular purpose to obtain just compensation.
Here, the judgment may be executed.
What else? If the funds of the GOCCs with personality of its own,
they are not exempt from judgment. Why? They have their own
funds. These are income generating corporations. There is no
need for act of Congress because they have their own funds. They
have their own personality distinct from the government.
Example of GOCC with personality of its own is NHA in the case
of…
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
NHA vs HEIRS OF GUIVELONDO
Here, a favorable judgment against NHA can be executed to
satisfy the judgment.
Suit against local government units. LGU are your cities,
municipalities, barangays. They have their own charters. Diba
meron tayong Araw ng Dabaw? We are celebrating the effectivity
of our charters when the city was born. In each of the charter,
common is the provision that the LGU may sue and be sued. It is
an attribute of a corporation. An LGU is a municipal or local
corporation. Now, notwithstanding that provision in that charter
that it may sue and be sued, the General rule of state immunity
still applies. Specially in cases of torts or negligence. So you have
the case of…
JAIME vs APOSTOL
The driver is an employee of the Municipality of Koronadal. He is
driving a private pick up. He is driving the Mayor. They were
going to the airport when an accident occurred. Can the
municipality, as an employer of the driver be sued? It cannot
because state immunity applies also to the LGU particularly in the
cases of torts and negligence. So as a General Rule, Municipal
corporations are suable because their charters grant them the
competence to be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not
liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of
governmental functions. It can only be held answerable only if it
can be showed that they are acting in proprietary capacity. So the
same rule applies.
MUNICIPALITY vs DUMDUM
The business woman here has entered into a contract with
Municipality of Hagonoy for the sale of surplus motor vehicles
worth around 5.8 million. The Municipality failed to pay the
amount. What can you do? Can you file a case? In this case, she
filed a case for payment and the Court issued the writ of
preliminary attachment directing the Sheriff to attach the estate
real and personal properties of the municipality. What is
preliminary attachment? This is an interim remedy while the
case is still pending. Can the properties of the municipality be
attached? IT CANNOT because the same rule also applies. There
has to be a statute or law allowing for the appropriation of that
particular property or fund for that particular purpose of
payment. So in this case, since we are talking about LGU, we are
talking about ordinances. There has to be an ordinance to be
enacted by the Local Sanggunian. The Judge cannot appropriate
the money of the LGU because only the local law making body can
do that. So here, the Judge is guilty of ignorance of law because he
issued the writ of attachment.
Now what is the remedy therefore available to you if you have a
favorable judgment against an LGU? In the case of…
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI vs CA (1990)
Here, there is a favorable judgment against the Municipality. To
satisfy the judgment, the Judge ordered the Municipality to enact
an ordinance. Can the Judge do that? That is not the proper
remedy. Yung party judgment that the judge will order
immediately the Sanggunian to promulgate or issue the
ordinance. Why? Because you need to prove that the LGU refused
to enact the ordinance that is needed? So what does that entail
proving your case? A new case has to be filed. It is suggested here
that one can file a case for mandamus. So it requires presentation
of evidence that the Municipality or the LGU refused to pay.
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of
Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and
establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop
our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the
blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of
law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and
peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
The Preamble is not mandatory part of the Constitution. We are
the authors of the 1987 Constitution. Thus if they are talking
about charter change, we must be also interested because we will
be the ones who will ratify it.
ARTICLE I
NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,
with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Is it necessary to write in our constitution our territory? A good
written constitution has three parts:
(1) Constitution on Liberty
(2) Constitution on Government
(3) Constitution on Sovereignty
These are the mandatory parts. May territory ba doon? Wala
diba? In other words, if the constitution is silent on the territory,
say we have no article 1, will it deprive us of our territory as a
sovereign state? The answer is NO. Remember that the
constitution is only a municipal law. Meaning that it is effective
and observed only within our jurisdiction. The other states do not
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
care what our constitution says about our territory. But it does
not mean that other states will recognize what we write in our
constitution about our territory. For us, this is relevant because
as a sovereign state, we need to know the extent of our
jurisdiction. But how do we solve territorial disputes? We go to
legal instruments that are supported and accepted by the
principles of international law. Because we are talking about
territory, any territorial disputes will be solved using generally
accepted principles of international law.
Legal instruments we can refer to in case of territorial disputes:
Treaty of Paris – the treaty between Spain and US where Spain
ceded to the US several territories including the Philippines.
There, it is provided the Mets and bounds of the Philippine
Territory. This is recognized by the international community.
The Treaty of Washington in 1900 – included Cagayan and Sibutu
Treaty with Great Britain in 1930 – which included Turtle and
Mangsee islands.
There are also International Conventions which define our
territorial rights as agreed by the International Community:
Aerial Civilization in 1944 - defines the extent of our territory
upwards and we have agreed with the other states.
Convention on Territorial Sea and Continuous Zone of 1958 and
the Convention of the law of the Seas or the UNCLOS - these
define territory or extent of sea use when it comes to how far a
particular state can use portions of the sea.
So what comprises our National Territory as stated in the
Constitution?
 The Philippine Archipelago with all the islands and waters
embraced therein
 All other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty and jurisdiction
 This could mean territories which are already part
of the Philippines when this constitution was written or
territories which later on we consider as part of the
Philippine Territory.
The Philippines is an Archipelago.
What is an Archipelago?
 Group of islands surrounded by water or body of water
studded with islands considered as one single unit.
 Is a group of islands, including parts of islands,
interconnecting waters and other national … that are so
closely interrelated
Let’s look at Spratlys. The Philippine Archipelago is a group of
islands. It has to be so closelt interrelated that such islands form
an intrinsic geographic, economic, and political entity. So even if
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
the Spratlys is really ours, we are able to prove it before the
international community, can it be part of the Philippine
Archipelago? IT CANNOT because it is not so closely interrelated
with all the other islands. That’s why in the definition of the
National Territory, we have the Philippine Archipelago and all
other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction. Spratlys and Scarborough is so separate from us that
we cannot consider it as part of the Philippine Archipelago. So
that is now all other territories.
Territorial Sea. It is still part of our territory that we can exercise
sovereignty. There’s a portion of the sea that’s part of your
territory where the state can exercise complete and full
sovereignty. Now what is the extent of territorial sea? As what I
have said, we have to agree with the rest of the international
community.
Who defines how far the territorial sea is?
The International Treaty or agreement does.
Before, they defined it using the cannon-shot rule. The territorial
sea is measured based on the reach of a cannon ball if it is shot
seawards. It will be the basis on the extent of protection that the
state can provide to its citizen. With this as basis, the
international community has agreed that the territorial sea is 3
nautical miles from the baseline.
Changes in modern time, we don‘t use cannon anymore on
warfare. The international community has agreed that the
territorial sea will be 12 nautical miles from the baseline.
The state exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea subject to
the right of innocent passage by other states. What do you mean
by innocent passage? This is passage not prejudicial to the
interest of the coastal state, nor contrary to recognized principles
of international law. It has to be 12 nautical miles.
There are 2 methods for fixing the baseline for which the
territorial belt is measured:
I. Normal baseline method – the breadth of the territory is
measured from the low waterline following the
indentations of the coast. So parang trinace mo yung map
ng Philippines. Just measure 12 nautical miles from the low
waterline.
II. Straight baseline method – na instead of the baseline
following the sinuosity, we draw a straight lines connecting
the outermost portions on the coast without departing to
any appreciable points from the general contour of the
Archipelago. This is what the Philippines use.
What is archipelagic doctrine?
The archipelagic doctrine is espoused particularly by the
Philippines along with the Bahamas, Indonesia, Papua New
Guinea and Fiji because all these are archipelagic states. We
claimed that the straight baseline method is to be used. Those
inside the line should be considered as one integral whole.
Another claim is that the waters around, between and connecting
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
the islands regardless of their dimensions are considered as
internal waters. So, are all these claims internationally
acceptable? The straight line method is accepted, considering
the islands as integral whole is accepted but as to our theory that
these should be considered as internal water is not accepted. In
the UNCLOS, the claimed internal water is to be recognized as
archipelagic waters.
What’s the difference between archipelagic and internal
waters?
It is internal water if it is in our position that we consider these
to be similar to lakes and rivers between islands. They are
exclusively ours and there is no right to innocent passage.
Whereas archipelagic water, the international customary laws
would require that there will be right to innocent passage by
foreign vessels.
High seas – beyond 12 nautical miles. Not part of the territory.
There is no such thing as International Police!!!
MAGALLONA vs ERMITA
In 2011, the congress enacted RA 9522 which is an amendment
to RA 3046. The purpose of this law is to demarcate the points as
basis for the baseline. In 1982, the UNCLOS was amended where
there is now a prescribed water to land ratio. So to comply with
the prescribed contour, water to land ratio and length of baseline,
congress enacted 9522 to amend 3046. As a result of the
amendment, they have maximized and stretched the territorial
sea but Magallona, professors of UP and even law students filed a
case and questioned the constitutionality of 9522. In comparing
9522 and 3046, they said that 9522 diminished our maritime
territory. But Supreme Court said it‘s not correct to say that it has
reduced our territory because the mode of acquiring or losing a
territory are through internationally accepted modes which are:
occupation, cession, accretion or prescription. You cannot acquire
or lose a territory by enacting alone. So the Supreme Court said it
does not result to a diminution of territory. UNCLOS have
required us to identify where the baselines are so that we can
identify up to where the 12, 24 and 200 nautical miles would
reach. So it is in fact, advantageous to our part because we have
already identified our baselines.
Another objection was raised again by the petitioners stating that
in 9522, the congress has classified the KIG and Scarborough
Shoals as Regime Islands. The point of the petitioner is that we
are surrendering our claim to the said islands because it is not
included in the baseline rather they are considered as regime of
islands having their own maritime zone. The Supreme Court said
that we cannot include this because we will be violating an
international agreement which says that the baseline should not
depart from any appreciable point to the general contour. So it‘s
just practical that we consider KIG and Scarborough as Regime of
Islands having its own maritime zone. It does not in any way
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
mean that we surrender our claim to these islands. In fact 9522
specifically states that we are exercising sovereignty and
jurisdiction over these islands.
Another objection made again by the petitioner is that internal
waters should not be available for the right to innocent passage
but the supreme court said whether you call it internal waters or
archipelagic waters, we are bound by customary international
laws. Even without 9522, we are still mandated by international
law to provide the right to innocent passage. Otherwise, they
would suffer retaliation from neighboring states. No state can
claim the right to absolutely prohibit a vessel from passing
through its archipelagic waters. Being member of the
international community, we are to follow its rules. The state
through the congress has the right to designate routes for the
passage of foreign vessels.
Enacting the baseline law is actually beneficial for our territorial
protection and the exercise of our right. If we do not have these
baselines, if we opt not to have this baseline law, there would be
no starting point as far as the international community is
concerned from measuring the territorial zones and the exclusive
economic zones. In other words, we would be inviting foreign
vessels and entity to explore our exclusive economic zones. And
when we go to the international court, it would weaken our
position because we have no actual instrument that would
demarcate from where the 12, 24 and 200 nautical miles would
be measured.
The Supreme Court said that the Baseline law serves as to point
and mark the starting point of our maritime zones. By marking
the maritime zone, it would give notice to other countries to
where our right is. In conclusion of the case, 9522 is
constitutional.
200 nautical miles from your baseline – Exclusive Economic Zone
Article II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
The principles are merely guidelines for the operation of the
Philippine government. These are the guidelines which the
government is ought to observe. Basically, these are ideological
principles. These are simply useful in interpreting provisions of
the Constitution and the laws. In other words, if the Congress
enacts a law, it should be pursuant to the principles and policies
of the Constitution. When we say principles, usually, the general
rule is that these are binding rules which must be observed. But,
based on jurisprudence, the distinction is immaterial because the
general rule is that these are merely guidelines.
PRINCIPLES
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.
Basically, this is a quotation for government that we are
democratic and republican. What do you mean by democratic and
republican? The definition is in the second sentence—that
authority rests in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.
Republican means that we observe a representative-type of
government. That is, we elect our officers and we have the option
to change them if they happen to be unsatisfactory. It is a
government run by the people, for the people through a
representative. And the representative acts through the mandate
of the people and he knows that he is accountable to the public at
all times because public office is of public trust.
Democratic means that the people have, in some instance, the
option to directly participate in the government particularly in
the initiative and referendum kind.
Now, since sovereignty resides in the people, actions of
government officials which are not sanction, provided that no law
supports it no matter how noble the action is, becomes invalid.
No government official is above the law.
Villavicencio vs Lukban
The mayor of Manila shipped the women of ill-repute from the
red light districts of Manila to Davao. The intention of the mayor
was somewhat noble. He wanted to rid the place of immorality.
But there was no law that time authorizing him to ship these
women to Mindanao. The relatives of the women filed a case
against the mayor. And in their decision, the Court said that no
official is above the law. The law is the only supreme power in the
government. And any person in public office is only more bound
and subject to the law being representatives of the people.
Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and
amity with all nations.
As regards to the renunciation of war, it is actually adopting an
international acceptance because all members of the
international community have agreed to renounce war as an
instrument of policy. In other words, in case of conflict between
other countries and other states, war will not be an option
because these countries or states renounce war as an instrument
of national policy. But it does not mean that, in case there is
aggression, we will not do the same. If war is brought to us, then
retaliation will not violate this principle because what we
renounce is offensive war.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Adoption of international law is consistent with incorporation. As
members of the international community, we have already
agreed to incorporate into our laws the internationally accepted
principles. One example of an internationally accepted principle
is the principle of pacta sunt servanda which means that
international agreements should be complied with faithfully. In
other words, when we enter into international treaties and
agreements, we have the legal obligation to comply with the
things in the treaty. That is automatically incorporated in our
laws. In case of conflict between the international law and the
local law, efforts should be made to reconcile them. But if there is
no way to reconcile them, then, in the exercise of sovereignty, we
will follow the local law as oppose to the international law.
Tañada vs Angara
The Philippines is a signatory in the agreement establishing the
World Trade Organization. Now there are provisions in that
international agreement which require that party State to make
their laws in such a way that they will comply with what has been
agreed. This has been questioned as unconstitutional because it
placed undue limitation on the power of the legislative power of
the Congress. The general principle is that the power of the
Congress is plenary. In other words, the Congress has the power
to determine what laws will be proper. But in this case, it seems
that the international community was dictating the Philippines to
enact laws in order to conform to the agreements in this WTO. Is
this tantamount to undue limitation on the legislative powers of
the Congress? This exemplifies pacta sunt servanda. Meaning that,
as a signatory in an international agreement, we are not only
under moral obligation but also legal obligation to comply with
the provisions in that agreement. And besides, in the principle we
have stated in the Constitution, we will adopt international laws.
And this includes treaties and agreements as part of the laws of
the land. A state which was contracted by international
agreements or obligations is bound to make its legislations such
modifications as deemed necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the
obligations under the agreement.
Does that reduce our sovereignty? The answer to that question is
the concept of auto-limitation. Precisely we have that right to
determine which way to go that includes the right to limit or
restrict the exercise of sovereignty.
In this case, there is no violationof any constitutional law. More
importantly, there is observance of the provisions of this
international agreement.
Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the
military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of
the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of
the State and the integrity of the national territory.
The role of the military is to protect the people and the state.
Civilian authority is at all times above and supreme over the
military. That authority is clearly manifested by the fact that the
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Commander-in-Chief of the military is the President. The CIC is a
civilian. He was placed in that position by the Constitution
because we believe that at all times civilian authority is supreme
over the military. In other words, there is a distinction between
the military and the police. When it comes to protection of our
state and security of our sovereignty, it is military work. When it
comes to implementation or enforcement of civilian laws, it is the
function of the police. In other words, you cannot put the military
to enforce traffic laws or to run after a theft because these are
civilian enforcement laws.
IBP vs. Zamora
President Erap called out the AFP invoking his powers under
Section 18, Article 7 to help in the visibility patrols in Metro
Manila. They had a project which involved visibility patrols due
to the alarming increase of criminality in Manila. In other words,
the marines were placed on the streets. The people in Manila got
alarmed. Could this be a violation of this principle? Is the military
now being used to enforce civilian laws? The Court said no. In
this case, we have to take note that the visibility patrolis headed
by the police. Now the police has the obligation to orient the
military on visibility patrolling procedures by police officers. It is
the police who provided them with the necessary implements. It
was also the police who process persons who get arrested. In
other words, the role of the military in this case was merely
assistive. So there is no violation of this provision. Here, civilian
authority is still supreme over the military. The police, by the
way, is civilian by nature. The Supreme Court also recognized
certain civilian enforcement activities wherein the military was
used to assist like elections, enforcement of agrarian laws,
enforcement of departmental laws, and enforcement of customs
laws. But they do it pursuant to civilian laws and not through the
laws of war or military laws.
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and
protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to
defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be
required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal,
military or civil service.
Because it is the duty of the state or the government to protect
the people, it has the power to mandate the people to protect the
people. Civilian military training may mandatory during this
time. Do we have the ground to object if we are called to render
mandatory military service? No because the people was the one
who drafted the Constitution in the first place. And it was the
people who gave the state or the government or the state this
right to call us to render military service.
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of
life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare
are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings
of democracy.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
The General Welfare Law.
Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
There are several principles which support the separation of
State and Church as being inviolable.
STATE POLICIES
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy.
In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration
shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national
interest, and the right to self-determination.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest,
adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in
its territory.
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social
order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the
nation and free the people from poverty through policies that
provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a
rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development.
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights.
Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and
shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and
primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for
civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall
receive the support of the Government.
Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in
nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical,
moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall
inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage
their involvement in public and civic affairs.
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-
building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the
law of women and men.
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to
health of the people and instill health consciousness among
them.
Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature.
Section 17. The State shall give priority to education, science
and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and
nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human
liberation and development.
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic
force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their
welfare.
Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the
private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides
incentives to needed investments.
Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural
development and agrarian reform.
Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the framework of
national unity and development.
Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental,
community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the
welfare of the nation.
Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication
and information in nation-building.
Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local
governments.
Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as
may be defined by law.
Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the
public service and take positive and effective measures against
graft and corruption.
Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law,
the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure
of all its transactions involving public interest.
When it comes to policies, the general rule is that these are
merely guidelines. These are not enforceable rights. While they
are stated as policies, it doesn‘t mean that they can be claimed as
right by the courts.
Lim vs. Executive Secretary
This is about the Balikatan exercise pursuant to the defense
treaty in 1951 and the Visiting Forces Agreement of 1999, both
signed by the US and the Philippines. Generally, these treaties
supply for the authority for the US military to come to the
Philippines and conduct military exercises. And the Visiting
Forces Agreement is the rules and regulations that the military
will observe if they are in the Philippines. This was during when
anti-terrorism was very active immediately after 9/11. Because
of this as an offshoot, US military came here. Some people feared
that they were just placed here in case there‘s an anti-terrorism
activity or war that will happen. Now, will these treaties and
agreements allow offensive war to be engaged by US military
men in the Philippines? To answer this question, the Court
looked not only UN agreement or the charter of the UN which
prohibits its member states from threat and use of force against
the integrity of another state but also the principles and policies
stated in the Constitution. So the first principle is the
renunciation of war. This is bolstered by Section 7 which states
that the state shall pursue an independent foreign policy in its
relations with other states the paramount consideration national
sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right
to self-determination. This principle and policy dictates and
points to the fact that these US military men in the Philippines
are not supposed to engage in offensive war. And the treaties and
agreements we entered into with them do not allow them to
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
engage in offensive war. So in interpreting these agreements, the
Court can use the principles and policies stated in Article II.
Bar Matter 6325
This is a petition to use maiden name to take the 2006 Bar
Examination by Josephine Uy-Timosa. She wanted to use Uy
instead of Timosa because she was undergoing separation or
annulment with her husband during that time. Should the
petition be granted? The governing law in this case is Article 370
of the Civil Code. (Please refer to Article 370). The options
inArticle 370 are the only options available. How will they be
construed? The Court ruled that since the word ―may‖ was used
in the said provision, then the wife‘s use of the husband‘s name is
optional not obligatory. The Court looked into the policy as stated
in Section 14 which says that the state recognizes the role of
women in nation building, , and shall ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men. The Court said that, if
this Constitutional provision means anything at all, it signifies
that women, no less than men, shall enjoy the same rights
afforded by law and this includes the freedom of choice in the use
of name upon marriage. In other words, it is not true that you
shall always change your name. The Court said that marriage
does not change a woman‘s name, and if I may add, identity as
well. It merely changes the woman‘s status from single to
married. In interpreting Article 370, the Court used Section 14 as
a guideline. It is not in itself an enforceable right. But there is a
law which now gives the parameters as to the role of women.
Since these are mere guidelines, the general rule is that the
policies are not self-executing. In other words, these are not
judicially enforceable rights. They do not delegate rights that we
can enforce or invoke before the courts. There is still a need for
legislation to determine the parameters on how these policies or
principles will be exercised or implemented.
Tanada vs. Angara
In this case, one of the provisions to which the petitioners were
reacting to is that provision which states that the Philippines
shall enact laws that these laws shall give equal treatment to the
imported goods. There‘s the commitment of the parties to give
equal treatment to imported products. Invoking Section 19, is
this a judicially enforceable right? Does this mean that only
Filipinos can exercise trade within the Philippines? If this is not
complied with, does this make the act of the state and the
Congress here null and void? The Court said no. This section,
along with other sections, is not self-executing. They are merely
guidelines. Contrary to the belief of the petitioner, it does not
necessarily out the entry of foreign investments and services. It
merely states that, as a policy, that the state shall develop self-
reliance and national economy. Independence here refers to the
freedom from foreign control over national economy especially in
such strategic industry as to the development of natural
resources and public utilities.
Kilosbayan vs. Morato
Petitioners argue that, if we introduce gambling in the
Philippines, it will destroy the sanctity of family life pursuant to
Section 12. They also allege that it violates Sections 13 and 17.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
The Court said nullity cannot be invoked through these sections
because these do not, by themselves, grant judicially enforceable
rights. In other words, a law must be enacted prohibiting
gambling absolutely.
Pamatong vs. COMELEC
The Court questioned is there a constitutional right to run for
public office? Pamatong ran for presidency but was declared as
nuisance because, per the COMELEC, he had to capacity to run a
national campaign. In questioning the resolution of the
COMELEC, he invoked Section 26. Does the first phrase of Section
26 mean that all of us have the constitutional right to run for
public office? The Court said that Section 26 is merely a guideline.
It is not a judicially enforceable right. It does not create or grant a
right to run for public office. Public office is a privilege only to
those who are qualified. The disregard of the provision does not
give rise to a cause of action because it is not self-executing. Is
there a section which the Court already declared as self-
executing?
Oposa vs Factoran
In this case, the petitioners were minors representing
themselves, and the next generation. Ordinarily, this will not pass
the Rules of Court. It will be automatically dismissed. The cause
of action is that they are seeking for the cancellation of Timber
License Agreements. They invoke Section 16. How did they justify
it to the point of convincing the Court that the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is already in the status of a right that you
can already invoke? They coined the term ―intergenerational
responsibility‖. They are saying that this generation has the
obligation to preserve and protect the ecology for the benefit of
the next generation and the generations to come. This is often
quoted in decisions of courts outside the Philippines.
The Court said that the right to a healthful and balanced ecology
already transcends just being merely a guideline. It is now a right
equal to the right to life because it means the right to self-
preservation. How can civilization continue if we do not exercise
this intergenerational responsibility? This right is in a different
classification because it ultimately boils down to self-
preservation. So far, Section 16 has been declared as self-
executing.
ARTICLE 4
Citizenship
-membership to a political community; more or less
permanent.
Why is citizenship important?
 You are awarded security by the state.
 You are able to exercise political rights that are
exclusive only to citizens of a particular state.
a.i. There are government positions that are
reserved only to Filipino citizens
a.ii. Voting or right to suffrage
a.iii. Properties
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
a.iv. Practice of profession
a.v. Right to regress in government
Modes of acquiring citizenship
1. Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship by place of birth. If
Jus Soli is observed in a particular state, regardless of who the
parents are or their citizenship, it’s just the place of birth that
matters.
2. Jus Sanguinis – citizenship is transmitted via blood
relations; acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood
relationship.
3. Naturalization – pursuant to a law, a person is adopted
and granted the privilege of citizenship of a particular political
community. Legal fiction awarded to aliens.
Filipino, Filipino citizenship, Filipino citizens, citizens of the
Philippine Islands
- appeared on the Philippine Bill of 1902. Prior to that, there
is no concept of Filipino citizenship because we were under the
Spanish regime; Spanish subjects.
Philippine Bill of 1902
- Americans had to know who were those under its
protection by virtue of its secession of the Philippine Islands
under the Spain’s rule to the Americans; defined who are the
citizens of the Philippine Islands.
- continuing to reside therein in 1899 and are citizen of the
Philippine Islands.
The Constitution is prospective in application; not retroactive.
Thus, in determining the citizenship of a particular person, you
have to know what constitution is applicable.
Election - choosing the citizenship the child would prefer (1935).
 Filipino mother.
 Filipino mother who is married to an alien.
1935 Constitution - women were not allowed to vote.
 Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
 Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign
parents who, before adoption of this Constitution,
had been elected to public office in the Philippine
Islands;
 Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines;
 Those whose mothers are citizens of the
Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority,
elect Philippine citizenship;
CA 63
- act providing ways in which Philippine citizenship may be
lost and reacquired.
 Philippine citizenship may be lost in case of a
woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner, if by virtue of
the laws enforced in her husband’s country, she acquires his
nationality.
- at least the mother is a Filipino at the time of
marriage.
E.g. Ana married in 1947. By virtue of the laws of
her husband, she acquires the citizenship of her
husband by marriage. They had a child 2 years
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
after (1949). Will the child have the right to elect
Philippine citizenship? Yes.
 Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
1973 Constitution - women were already empowered; concept
of equality. She can now transmit citizenship to her child.
CA 63
- no longer lost upon marriage.
- female citizens of the Philippines who married an alien retains
her Filipino citizenship unless by act or omission, she is deemed
under the law to have renounced her citizenship.
- Ana married in 1947. By virtue of the laws of her husband, she
acquires the citizenship of her husband by marriage. They had
a child 27 years after (1974). What is the citizenship of Y? Is Y a
Filipino?
- section 2 of the 1973 Constitution section 3 does not have the
effect of curing what was lost. The constitution is prospective. It
does not have the effect of returning to Ana her former
citizenship. Thus, when she bore Y, she is already and alien.
- Y is not a Filipino and she has no option to elect Filipino
citizenship. Y is born of an alien.
- mother has to be Filipino when the child is born.
 Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;
 Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
 Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to
the provisions of the Constitution of 1935;
 Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
1987 Constitution - paragraph 3 was changed to avoid
confusion.
 Those who are citizens of the Philippines ate the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;
 Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
 Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of maturity;
 Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
The primary mode of acquiring Filipino citizenship:
 Jus sanguinis - blood relations. “Children of
Filipino mothers or fathers”.
o The child of a Filipino mother who elect
Philippine citizenship is Filipino.
- Republic v Lim, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the
child is relevant. When you have to determine
whether or not there should be election of Philippine
citizenship, it is under the 1935 Constitution.
- The right to elect Philippine citizenship is only
available to those born on the 1935 constitution of the
Filipino mothers.
- An illegitimate child is only under the parental
authority of the mother.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
- The provision “those whose mothers are citizens of
the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority,
elect Philippine citizenship” is applicable only when
the mother is married to an alien. There is marriage
(1935).
b. The father if Filipino by he is illegitimate under the 1935
Constitution.
- It is only the citizenship of the father that is relevant.
Legitimate or illegitimate.
- Election of Filipino citizenship is no longer needed if
the father is Filipino.
 Election is available only to the 1935 Constitution.
 Election is made under CA 625. It has to be formally done.
 Sworn statement made for an officer authorized to
administer affidavit. A notarized document.
 Oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
its Constitution.
 Both these documents must be filed to the nearest civil
registry.
CA 625 took effect on January 7, 1941.
 Naturalization - pursuant to a law, a person is
adopted and granted the privilege of citizenship of
a particular political community.
o Judicial naturalization - filed before the
courts.
o Administrative naturalization
Effect of Naturalization on Wife and Children
 Although the she does not have all the qualifications
under CA 473, but she has none of the disqualifications,
then she may also derive the citizenship of the husband.
She becomes a Filipino citizen provided that she shows
in an Administrative proceeding or the cancellation of
her Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR).
- when the spouse of an alien has been naturalized as a
Filipino, you can benefit through derivative citizenship.
 The same is true for the minor children.
o Must be a minor
o Residing in the Philippines
3. If foreign born, the foreign born minor child who is not in the
Philippines by the time the parent is naturalized shall be deemed
Philippine citizen during his minority unless he permanently
resides in the Philippines.
CA 473
- the law that is still in effect when it comes to
naturalization
- approved on June 17, 1939; still the law being observed in
the naturalization process.
- qualifications and disqualifications; applicant must prove
that he possess all the qualifications provided by law.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
We do not grant naturalization that easily.
1. Before the petition can be filed, a year (1) prior to
that, one must file his declaration of intent for
naturalization.
- to allow the government to conduct investigations upon
that person. To observe how he is living in the country prior
to that. This will give that much time for the government to
give ts objections or not.
2. Once the petition is filed, the petition has to be
published for three (3) consecutive weeks.
- as a notice to the rest of the community that this person is
interested to become a Filipino and should they have an
objection, they should file it in the courts.
3. Setting of the hearing will be scheduled after six (6)
months after the publication.
4. A decision for the petition of naturalization
becomes final only after 30 days from
promulgation.
- under ordinary rules, decisions become final and
executory only after fifteen (15) days if there is no appeal.
- not yet executory; you cannot take oath.
- waiting period of 2 years because the government is not
done in observing you
- Co v HRET; naturalized in 1955, allowed to take his oath in
1957.
Naturalized v Natural-Born
- same rights and privileges unless when there is a
distinction provided by the charter itself or by the constitution.
Republic v Lim
FACTS: In 1999, Chuley Lim filed a petition for correction of
entries in her birth certificate with the regional trial court of
Lanao del Norte. Her maiden name was Chuley Yu and that’s how
it appears in all her official records except that in her birth
certificate where it appears as “Chuley Yo”. She said that it was
misspelled. The Republic of the Philippines through the local city
prosecutor raised the issue of citizenship because it appears that
Lim’s birth certificate shows that she is a Filipino. The prosecutor
contends that Lim’s father was a Chinese; that she acquired her
father’s citizenship pursuant to the 1935 Constitution in place
when she was born; that she never elected Filipino citizenship
when she reached the age of majority (she is already 47 years old
at that time); that since she is a Chinese, her birth certificate
should be amended to reflect that she is a Chinese citizen. Lim
contends that she is an illegitimate child hence she is a Filipino.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lim is a Chinese citizen.
HELD: No. The provision which provides the election of
Filipino citizenship applies only to legitimate children. In the case
at bar, Lim’s mother was a Filipino. Lim’s mother never married
the Chinese father of Lim hence Lim did not acquire the Chinese
citizenship of her father. What she acquired is the Filipino
citizenship of her mother. Therefore, she is a natural born Filipino
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
and she does not need to perform any act to confer on her all the
rights and privileges attached to Philippine citizenship.
(a) So if an illegitimate child?
-she is an illegitimate child of her father so she would not be
as a daughter of that parent. Since she is legitimately known as
the mother’s daughter, she would acquire what citizenship of her
mother.
Tecson v Comelec
FACTS: On 31 December 2003, Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also
known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), filed his certificate of candidacy
for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines
under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party, in the
2004 national elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ,
representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald
Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of
birth to be Manila. Victorino X. Fornier, (GR 161824) initiated, on
9 January 2004, a petition (SPA 04-003) before the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course
or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis that FPJ
made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy
by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth,
according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners; his mother,
Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was
a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish
subject. Granting, Fornier asseverated, that Allan F. Poe was a
Filipino citizen, he could not have transmitted his Filipino
citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate child of an alien
mother. Fornier based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of
FPJ on two assertions: (1) Allan F. Poe contracted a prior
marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie
Kelley and, (2) even if no such prior marriage had existed, Allan
F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of FPJ.
1. His grandfather was a Spanish member; was
included in Philippine Bill of 1902.
2. Why did they conclude that he was part of the en
banc Philippine Constitution?
a. His grandfather was staying in the
Philippines and according to the
Philippine Bill of 1902, anyone who is in
the Philippines will become a Filipino
citizen unless they opted their allegiance
to the Spanish.
b. His grandfather was in the Philippines
and he was included in the en banc
constitution.
c. His father was a Filipino. Therefore, he is
a Filipino.
d. He was born with a Filipino father and an
American mother.
 The contention was, because he was illegitimate, he was
American. Thus, he was taking the citizenship of his
mother. What was the reason for that contention? How
did the Supreme Court rule in that contention? What
about the illegitimacy?
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
o The illegitimate child is under the parental
authority of the mother.
o He is still a Filipino because of "those whose
fathers are citizens of the Philippines”. -1935
Constitution.
o According to the Supreme Court, illegitimacy
must be favorable to the child.
 If it is an issue of illegitimacy, the paternity should be
clear.
In Re: Mallare
FACTS:Mallare’s father Esteban was the illegitimate
child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, and believed
himself to be Chinese. Mallare became a lawyer, but his
admission to the bar was revoked because his citizenship was
questionable.
Florencio’s parents were Chinese. Thus, his admission to
the bar was revoked and they proved that he is a Filipino through
stating that his father, Esteban, was a born out of a Filipino
mother who was not married to his Chinese father.
 The Supreme Court considered two possibilities.
o If he was an illegitimate child, he would
take the citizenship of his mother. Even is
the parents were married, he would take
the citizenship of his father.
o If his father is legitimate
 Esteban performed positive acts of his citizenship
such as voting.
 Why were they relevant? It showed that they no
longer needed any formal acts of declaration. May
be done through informal declaration.
4. Why was it needed to have a formal act of declaration? CA 625.
In this case, however, it was still not in effect.
5. Who are covered by that law? Those who are born out of a
Filipino mother and elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority.
6. The father was born out of Chinese parents. If they were not
married, Esteban would take the citizenship of his mother
(Filipino). Even if they were married, he has the option to elect
Philippine citizenship, which he did through informal acts
discussed in CA625. No need to perform formal acts of electing
Filipino citizenship. There are informal acts to perform Filipino
citizenship such as voting, campaigning for a candidate.
Informal means was allowed because CA 625 was not yet effect.
Only Filipinos can practice the profession of law.
Re: Vicente Ching
FACTS: In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at
the Saint Louis University in Baguio City. He eventually passed
the bar but he was advised that he needs to show proof that he is
a Filipino citizen before he be allowed to take his oath.
Apparently, Ching’s father was a Chinese citizen but his mother
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
was a Filipino citizen. His parents were married before he was
born in 1963. Under the 1935 Constitution, a legitimate child,
whose one parent is a foreigner, acquires the foreign citizenship
of the foreign parent. Ching maintained that he has always
considered himself as a Filipino; that he is a certified public
accountant – a profession reserved for Filipinos; that he even
served as a councilor in a municipality in La Union.
The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that
as a legitimate child of a Chinese and a Filipino, Ching should
have elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority; that under prevailing jurisprudence, “upon reaching the
age of majority” is construed as within 7 years after reaching the
age of majority (in his case 21 years old because he was born in
1964 while the 1935 Constitution was in place).
Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so when
he was preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching
the age of majority. Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General
recommended that the rule be relaxed due to the special
circumstance of Ching.
 What was the position of the Supreme Court?
o He must show that he has formally elected
Philippine Citizenship.
o The Solicitor General stated that he be allowed to
elect Filipino citizenship so he did the formal
declaration. He has elected Filipino citizenship.
ISSUE: Has he elected Filipino citizenship within the
reasonable time required by the Constitution.
- he made the election of formal declaration after 14 after
reaching the age of majority.
HELD: Fourteen years is too long. It must be within a
reasonable time such as within three years upon reaching the age
of majority.
1. “Within reasonable period” means within 3 years upon
reaching the age of majority. If there is a delay, you must state the
reason for the delay.
Co v. HRET
FACTS: The respondent’s grandfather was a Chinese but a
Spanish subject. The respondent’s father, Jose Ong Chuan, was
born in China but was brought to and grew up in the Philippines.
He married a native Filipina, who bore eight children including
the respondent. In 1955, Jose Ong Chuan was declared a Filipino
citizen, and in 1957, he took his Oath of Allegiance and was
issued a certificate of naturalization.
Jose Jr. was a minor by that time and was finishing his
elementary education in Samar. In search for better education, he
went to Manila in order to acquire his secondary and college
education, and thereafter took and passed the CPA Board
Examinations. Since employment opportunities were better in
Manila, the respondent looked for work there. The respondent
frequently went home to Laoang, Samar, where he grew up and
spent his childhood days.
For the elections of 1984 and 1986, Jose Ong, Jr. registered
himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar, and correspondingly, voted
there during those elections. After being engaged for several
years in the management of their family business, he decided to
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
run for public office. On May 11, 1987, the congressional election
for the second district of Northern Samal was held. Among the
candidates who vied for the position of representative are the
petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co, and the private
respondent, Jose Ong, Jr.
Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the
second district of Northern Samar.  
 When was the petitioner born? He was born on 1942;
the 1935 Constitution is applicable in this case. Under
the provision, “those born of a Filipino mother and an
alien father would still have to elect Philippine
citizenship.
 There is a discrimination in the 1935 Constitution such
as “those born of a Filipino mother” or “those born of a
Filipino father.”
 There is a need to elect Filipino citizenship. In the case
of Mallare, it may be done through informal means. In
the case of Ching, it has to be through formal
declaration under CA625. What would be applicable to
him?
- He was born on 1948. CA625 was already in effect.
However, the Supreme Court considered the informal
means because he no longer needed to elect the Filipino
citizenship because it was already the father who elected
the Filipino citizenship for him.
1. What were the informal acts to show that he has elected
Filipino citizenship?
1) He has voted during election.
2) He was a CPA (reserved only for Filipinos).
3) He was a registered voter.
4) He served as a public official.
Belgamo v Fernandez
FACTS: Petitioners are the children of Felix (Yao Kong)
Ma, a Taiwanese, and Dolores Sillona Cabiling, a Filipina.
Records reveal that petitioners Felix, Jr., Balgamelo and
Valeriano were all born under aegis of the 1935 Philippine
Constitution in the years 1948, 1951, and 1957, respectively.
They were all raised in the Philippines and have resided in
this country for almost sixty (60) years; they spent their whole
lives, studied and received their primary and secondary
education in the country; they do not speak nor understand the
Chinese language, have not set foot in Taiwan, and do not know
any relative of their father; they have not even traveled abroad;
and they have already raised their respective families in the
Philippines.
During their age of minority, they secured from the Bureau
of Immigration their Alien Certificates of Registration (ACRs).
Immediately upon reaching the age of twenty-one, they
claimed Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section 1(4),
Article IV, of the 1935 Constitution, which provides that "(t)hose
whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching
the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship" are citizens of
the Philippines. Thus, on 15 August 1969, Felix, Jr. executed his
affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and took his oath of
allegiance before then Judge Jose L. Gonzalez, Municipal Judge,
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Surigao, Surigao del Norte. On 14 January 1972, Balgamelo did
the same before Atty. Patrocinio C. Filoteo, Notary Public, Surigao
City, Surigao del Norte. In 1978, Valeriano took his oath of
allegiance before then Judge Salvador C. Sering, City Court of
Surigao City, the fact of which the latter attested to in his Affidavit
of 7 March 2005.
Having taken their oath of allegiance as Philippine citizens,
petitioners, however, failed to have the necessary documents
registered in the civil registry as required under Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 625 (An Act Providing the Manner in
which the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared
by a Person whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen). It was only on 27
July 2005 or more than thirty (30) years after they elected
Philippine citizenship that Balgamelo and Felix, Jr. did so. On the
other hand, there is no showing that Valeriano complied with the
registration requirement.
Individual certifications all dated 3 January 2005 issued by
the Office of the City Election Officer, Commission on Elections,
Surigao City, show that all of them are registered voters
of Barangay Washington, Precinct No. 0015A since June 1997,
and that records on previous registrations are no longer available
because of the mandatory general registration every ten (10)
years. Moreover, aside from exercising their right of suffrage,
Balgamelo is one of the incumbent Barangay
Kagawads in Barangay Washington, Surigao City.
Records further reveal that Lechi Ann and Arceli were born
also in Surigao City in 195312 and 1959, respectively. The Office
of the City Civil Registrar issued a Certification to the effect that
the documents showing that Arceli elected Philippine citizenship
on 27 January 1986 were registered in its Office on 4 February
1986. However, no other supporting documents appear to show
that Lechi Ann initially obtained an ACR nor that she
subsequently elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority. Likewise, no document exists that will provide
information on the citizenship of Nicolas and Isidro.
Thus, the complaint. On 16 February 2004, the Bureau of
Immigration received the Complaint-Affidavit of a certain Mat G.
Catral (Mr. Catral), alleging that Felix (Yao Kong) Ma and his
seven (7) children are undesirable and overstaying aliens. Mr.
Catral, however, did not participate in the proceedings, and the
Ma family could not but believe that the complaint against them
was politically motivated because they strongly supported a
candidate in Surigao City in the 2004 National and Local
Elections.
1. Two formal requirements for citizenship under CA
625:
a. A statement of election under oath.
- Make a sworn statement before an officer authorized
to administer oaths such as notary public.
- Once sworn, it becomes a public instrument.
b) An oath of allegiance to the Constitution and
Government of the Philippines.
c) Registration of the statement of election and of the oath
with the nearest civil registry.
- The election of Philippine citizenship embodied in a
statement sworn before any officer authorized to
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
administer oaths and the oath of allegiance shall be
filed with the nearest civil registry and
Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID,
now Bureau of Immigration).
1. Was there substantial compliance with CA 625? Having
been elected Filipino citizenship?
HELD: Here, petitioners complied with the first and second
requirements upon reaching the age of majority. However,
registration of the documents of election with the civil registry
was done belatedly. Under the facts peculiar to the petitioners,
the right to elect Philippine citizenship has not been lost and they
should be allowed to complete the statutory requirements for
such election. Their exercise of suffrage, being elected to public
office, continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and
other similar acts showing exercise of Philippine citizenship do
not on their own take the place of election of citizenship.
But where, as here, the election of citizenship has in fact
been done and documented within the constitutional and
statutory time frame, registration of the documents of election
beyond the time frame should be allowed if in the meanwhile
positive acts of citizenship have been done publicly, consistently
and continuously. These acts constitute constructive
registration. In other words, the actual exercise of Philippine
citizenship for over half a century by the petitioners is actual
notice to the Philippine public, which is equivalent to formal
registration of the election of Philippine citizenship. It is not the
registration of the act of election, although a valid requirement
under Commonwealth Act No. 625, that will confer Philippine
citizenship on the petitioners. It is only a means of confirming
the fact that citizenship has been claimed.
They were allowed to file. According to the SC, the filing in
the civil registry served as a constructive notice of their election.
They have elected and have notified the world of their citizenship
by performing acts that are reserved only to Filipinos. Rule was
relaxed and deliberately applied so they could file their complete
requirements under the CA 625 regardless that is was already
late.
Republic v de la Rosa
FACTS: Frivaldo, a natural-born Filipino, lost his Filipino
citizenship upon being naturalized as an American citizen. In his
intent to run as Governor of Sorsogon, he filed a petition for
naturalization to be re-admitted as a citizen of the Philippines.
When the judge set the date of the petition hearing on March,
1992, Frivaldo filed a ‘Motion to Set the Hearing Ahead of
Schedule’ for it to be held on January instead, as the elections will
be on May. On February, Judge Dela Rosa vested Frivaldo as a
natural-born Filipino by naturalization. Subsequently, Frivaldo
ran and won as the Governor of Sorsogon in the May 1992
Elections. Petitioner questioned the validity of Frivaldo’s
citizenship, arguing that his citizenship is still pending at the
moment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Frivaldo is already a Filipino citizen
when he ran as Governor of Sorsogon
HELD: No, Frivaldo is not yet a Filipino citizen when he ran
as Governor of Sorsogon. Section 1 of R.A. No. 530 provides that
no decision granting citizenship in naturalization proceedings
shall be executory until after two years from its promulgation.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Therefore, Frivaldo is not yet a Filipino citizen at the time of the citizenship was automatically granted to her.
elections, as his petition for citizenship can only be made final b. Solicitor General appealed because CA 473 has
after two years. to be strictly complied with. It was done ex
1. Respondent was in a hurry because of election. parte (with the petitioner alone).
There were several shortcuts: b.i. Under CA 473, there must be a claim
a. Instead of the hearing to be scheduled to be conducted. Both parties have to
within six (6) months from the be present (petitioner and state has
publication, it was scheduled much to be represented).
earlier. When the hearing was set, on the b.ii. Why was it granted ex parte?
same day they had a hearing, the
b.ii.1. Because the
judgment was rendered instead of 30
Solicitor General failed to
days later. He was allowed to take his
file its answer and despite
oath on the same day.
several notices, it did not
- He insisted that the government should not be appear during the hearing.
strict on him because he was once a Filipino. SC ruled
b.ii.2. The court ruled
that it does not distinguish WON you were a Filipino
the hearing must continue
or an alien.
with or without the
Solicitor General.
Republic v Batuigas c) Appeals the case after being absent during the entire
FACTS: On December 2, 2002, Azucena filed a Petition for time. Claims that the appeal must be done publicly (Sol. Gen.
Naturalization before the RTC of Zamboanga del Sur. representation).
Azucena alleged in her Petition that she believes in the d) According to the Sol. Gen., she hasn’t
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; that she has reacquired a property because acquiring
conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during of property in the Philippines is against
the period of her stay in the Philippines, as well as in her our constitution.
relations with the constituted Government and with the i. Why is that argument relative? What does CA
community in which she is living; that she has mingled socially 473 require?
with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and
1. The petitioner must be a resident in the
embrace their customs, traditions, and ideals; that she has all the
Philippines.
qualifications required under Section 2 and none of the
disqualifications enumerated in Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 2. One must have acquired a property.
No. 473 (CA473);6 that she is not opposed to organized 3. One must be engaged in lucrative business or a
government nor is affiliated with any association or group of professional body.
persons that uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized e) Sol. Gen. stated that the business is not lucrative.
governments; that she is not defending or teaching the necessity Therefore, she must be denied the petition.
or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the
success and predominance of men’s ideas; that she is neither a HELD: She had already benefited Filipino citizenship
polygamist nor believes in polygamy; that the nation of which she from the naturalization of her husband. She does not need
is a subject is not at war with the Philippines; that she intends in to undergo the naturalization process (derivative
good faith to become a citizen of the Philippines and to renounce citizenship through Administrative proceeding or
absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign cancellation of ACR). She has the qualifications under the
prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to China; naturalization law.
and that she will reside continuously in the Philippines from the There are several modes of acquiring Filipino citizenship. The
time of the filing of her Petition up to the time of her choice depends upon the applicant.
naturalization. If you choose CA 473, you have to comply with the requirements
- Chinese citizen. under that law.
- filed a petition to be a naturalized Filipino but married a
naturalized Filipino citizen. Co v Civil Registrar
- already a resident in the Philippines before filing the (1) Mode of acquiring citizenship:
petition. Has already been teaching.
o Letter of Institution (LOI)
- her children are studying in public school.
- acquiring citizenship through presidential act. In this
- she and her husband are engaged in business. case, through a Letter of Instruction through President
(1) She filed a petition for naturalization before the RTC. Marcos. It is through an administrative procedure; not
What happened to the petition? judicial naturalization.
a. It was granted by the RTC because the court b) Can Marcos enact the LOI which is in effect of a law?
believed that it was ipso facto because she has -Yes. Since we were under the martial law, he had the
already married a Filipino citizen so the authority to also be a legislator.

Devilleres, Elden Claire A. I - Sanchez Roman

Lumanag, Jonah Rose G. 2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
c) WON the children can obtain derivative naturalization
when the father, a Chinese, became naturalized
through the administrative mode of the LOI of the
President. LOI is entirely material; a mode as of our
naturalization laws.
d) The LOI executed by Marcos should also
have the effect of derivative citizenship
to the children.
RA 9129
- naturalization through administrative vote being in
effect right now; current law
- administrative naturalization of 2000.
- enacted by the congress.
- you do not file the petition with the courts; filed with
the Special Committee on naturalization.
- no hearing required
- to whom is this applicable?
- those aliens born in the Philippines, lived their
entire lives, studied, known the culture, have not lived in
their mother country.
- Requirements:
- file their petition for citizenship to the Special
Committee in Naturalization (SCN), Sol. Gen., Secretary of
Foreign Affairs and National Security Adviser.
- if approved, only needs to take the
naturalization oath, P100,000.00, then oath of allegiance.
Has a derivative citizenship.
There is also derivative citizenship:
1) If husband was naturalized: Wife and minor children may file a
petition for cancellation of their ACR (Alien Certificate of
Registration). It is not automatic.
2) If wife was naturalized (Section 12): Husband will not benefit
from the naturalization of the wife but the minor children will
still be able to benefit.
Who are the naturalized citizens of the Philippines?
- citizens of the Philippines from birth; without having to perform
any acts to acquire Philippine citizenship.
How do we pacify those who are born before January 17,
1973 who has to elect Philippine citizenship?
- under the 1973 Constitution, they are considered as not as
natural-born citizen because they have to do something to obtain
Philippine citizenship. But as a curative provision in section 2,
article 4, the second sentence says, “those who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3 section 1 hereof shall
be deemed natural-born citizens”. This provision is curative in
nature. Meaning, it is applied retroactively so that there will be
no discrimination between those born between the 1935 and
1973 constitution.
Natural-born - those who have to elect Philippine citizenship
although they have to do something to perfect their citizenship
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
READ: Kilosbayan v Ermita
QUIZ:
1. Under the 1973 Constitution, children born before January 17,
1973 of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine Citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority are considered naturalized because
they are not natural-born.
Kilosbayan v Ermita
FACTS: This case arose when respondent Gregory S.
Ong was appointed by Executive Secretary, in representation of
the Office of the President, as Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court. Petitioners contended that respondent Ong isa Chinese
citizen, born on May 25, 1953 to Chinese parents. They further
added that even if it were granted that eleven years after
respondent Ong’s birth, his father was finally granted Filipino
citizenship by naturalization,that, by itself, would not make
respondent Ong a natural-born citizen. For his part, respondent
Ong contendedthat he is a natural-born citizen and presented a
certification from the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ
declaring him to be such.
- he was a justice of the CA
- naturally, he’s a lawyer
 What was required as a lawyer?
- Filipino citizen
 Was his appointment as a justice in CA proper?
- yes because he’s a Filipino citizen
 What does the Constitution require to be a justice in SC?
- natural-born citizen
 Is he qualified as a natural-born citizen? What was his
personal circumstance?
- he was born of a Chinese father who was naturalized
during his minority. Therefore, he has a derivative
Philippine citizenship and not a natural-born.
Although he is qualified to be a lawyer, he’s qualified to be a
justice of the CA, he cannot be appointed as a Justice of the SC.
Vilando v HRET
FACTS: Limkaichong ran as a representative in the 1st
District of Negros Oriental. Because of this, her opponent, Paras
and some other concerned citizens filed disqualification cases
against Limkaichong. They alleged that Limkaichong was not a
natural born citizen of the Philippines because when she was
born her father was still a Chinese and that her mother, lost her
Filipino citizenship by virtue of her marriage to Limkaichong’s
father. During the pendency of the case against Limkaichong
before the COMELEC, Election day came and votes were cast.
Results came in and Limkaichong won over her rival Paras.
COMELEC after due hearing declared Limkaichong as
disqualified. Few days after the counting of votes, COMELEC
declared Limkaichong as a disqualified candidate. On the
following days however, notwithstanding their proclamation
disqualifying Limkaichong, the COMELEC issued a proclamation
announcing Limkaichong as the winner of the recently conducted
elections. This is in compliance with Resolution No. 8062
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
adopting the policy-guidelines of not suspending the
proclamation of winning candidates with pending In 1973 Constitution, in case of a Filipino citizen who marries an
disqualification cases which shall be without prejudice to the alien retains her Filipino citizenship.
continuation of the hearing and resolution of the involved cases.
Paras countered the proclamation and she filed a petition before  Does that apply retroactively?
the COMELEC. Limkaichong asailed Paras’ petition arguing that - that provision of the Constitution does not have the effect
since she is now the proclaimed winner, it should be the HRET of returning the citizenship of the woman who has already
which has the jurisdiction over the matter and not the COMELEC. lost her Filipino citizenship by virtue of marriage.
COMELEC agreed with Limkaichong.  It could only make that existing provision null and void
- daughter of a Chinese father prospectively. Thereafter, those who marries an alien
- ran for congress which the constitution to be a retains their Filipino citizenship.
natural-born citizen  What happens to those women who have lost their
- the SC said there should be no issue as to her Filipino citizenship under CA 63?
citizenship; she is natural-born - they are still aliens unless by self-act, they reacquire their
- her father used to be Chinese naturalized as a Filipino Philippine citizenship.

Kilosbayan v Vilando v HRET CA 473

Ermita - it provides for cancellation of citizenship of
Both have Chinese naturalization. It is also a way of losing citizenship when
fathers who were certificate of naturalization is canceled.
naturalized as
Filipino The three (3) main ways of losing Philippine citizenship is
Ong was not Limkaichong is through 1, 2 and 3. The rest (4 to 7) are specific to particular
natural-born natural-born types of persons under the 1935 Constitution.
Already a minor Born only after the
when his father father took his 1. Express renunciation of citizenship
was naturalized oath as a Filipino.
Aznar v Comelec
- derivative When she was
born, her father - Lito Osmenia was born of a Filipino father and an
citizenship
was already a American mother. But he has applied for alien registration with
Filipino citizen the Philippine Immigration Authorities and was registered as
such. He is a holder of an ACR. His act of obtaining an ACR means
that he is Filipino and may also be an American.
Section 3 - Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in a
The fact is, he has no choice. He is both Filipino and an American.
manner provided by law. One becomes Filipino by Jus Sanguinis
He could be a holder of Philippine passport but he is still
or naturalization.
considered as an American as far is USA is concerned. He may be
a holder of ACR, a US passport but that does not mean that he is
Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship--The following are the not a Filipino.
existing laws of the Philippine citizenship under CA 63  Is he a Filipino being born of a Filipino father and an
1. By naturalization is a foreign country; American mother?
2. By express renunciation of citizenship; - Of course he is a Filipino.
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to  What is the citizenship of his parents?
support the constitution or laws of a foreign - Regardless of the visa, passport that he holds, you
country; cannot change the fact that he remains a Filipino unless
4. By rendering services to, or accepting there is actual proof that he has expressly renounced
commission in, the armed forces of another Philippine citizenship.
country;
5. By cancellation of the certificate of Valles v Comelec
naturalization;
FACTS: Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16,
6. By having been declared by competent 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to the
authority a deserter of the Philippine armed spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet,
forces in time of war; Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. In 1949,
7. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in the
foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her Philippines. On June 27, 1952, she was married to Leopoldo
husband’s country, she acquires his nationality; Lopez, a Filipino citizen, at the Malate Catholic Church in Manila.
-through these ways Philippine citizenship may be lost. Since then, she has continuously participated in the electoral

Devilleres, Elden Claire A. I - Sanchez Roman

Lumanag, Jonah Rose G. 2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well. She served
as Provincial Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Davao Oriental. In 1992, she ran for and was elected governor of
Davao Oriental. Her election was contested by her opponent, Gil
Taojo, Jr., in a petition for quo warranto, docketed as EPC No. 92-
54, alleging as ground therefor her alleged Australian citizenship.
However, finding no sufficient proof that respondent had
renounced her Philippine citizenship, the Commission on
Elections en banc dismissed the petition.
In the 1995 local elections, respondent Rosalind Ybasco
Lopez ran for re-election as governor of Davao Oriental. Her
opponent, Francisco Rabat, filed a petition for disqualification,
docketed as SPA No. 95-066 before the COMELEC, First Division,
contesting her Filipino citizenship but the said petition was
likewise dismissed by the COMELEC, reiterating substantially its
decision in EPC 92-54.
The citizenship of private respondent was once again
raised as an issue when she ran for re-election as governor of
Davao Oriental in the May 11, 1998 elections. Her candidacy was
questioned by the herein petitioner, Cirilo Valles, in SPA No. 98-
336.
The Commission on Elections ruled that private
respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is a Filipino citizen and
therefore, qualified to run for a public office because (1) her
father, Telesforo Ybasco, is a Filipino citizen, and by virtue of the
principle of jus sanguinis she was a Filipino citizen under the
1987 Philippine Constitution; (2) she was married to a Filipino,
thereby making her also a Filipino citizen ipso jure under Section
4 of Commonwealth Act 473; (3) and that, she renounced her
Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992 before the
Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia and
her Australian passport was accordingly cancelled as certified to
by the Australian Embassy in Manila; and (4) furthermore, there
are the COMELEC Resolutions in EPC No. 92-54 and SPA Case No.
95-066, declaring her a Filipino citizen duly qualified to run for
the elective position of Davao Oriental governor.
- born of a Filipino Father and an Australian mother
1. Do we entertain the issue of electing Philippine
citizenship?
No because the father is Filipino.
2. Do we entertain the question under what constitution
she was born? No because whether it is under the 1935,
1973 or 1987, she is born of a Filipino father.
3. She was born in Australia. Is that relevant? Will that
change the fact that she is Filipino? No.
4. She was born and raised in Australia with an Australian
mother. Will it change the fact that she is Filipino? No
because the father is Filipino.
The place of birth is irrelevant.
- the Supreme Court further said that holding a foreign passport
or ACR or even applying for an ACR does not change the fact that
she is a Filipino
- The presumption that he or she is a Filipino remains because
she is born of a Filipino father.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
- The only thing that could take away her Filipino citizenship is
when there is express renunciation and that is subject to proof or
some sort of evidence.
- The fact that she is holding her documents are mere assertions
of her other citizenship because at most she has dual citizenship.
Both Australian and a Filipino.
5. Is she qualified to run for public office? Yes she is
qualified.
6. Even if the position requires one to be natural-born, is
she qualified? Yes because she is Filipino from birth
having been born of Filipino father.
The ACR, alien passport, holding of ACR, standing alone, does not
amount to express renunciation.
Vilando v HRET
- as explained by the Supreme Court, the ACR only certifies that
the applicant is subjecting himself or herself to registration if
there is notification of basis or foreign citizenship or proof of
change of foreign citizenship.
- if you are both American and Filipino and you declare in a
document that you are American, it’s not a legal basis. There is no
legal conclusion that you have renounced Philippine citizenship.
- you can claim any citizenship that you want but it does not
change the presumption of your Philippine citizenship unless if
there is express renunciation.
Yu v Santiago
FACTS: Petitioner was issued a Portuguese passport in
1971 valid for 5 years and is renewable after presentment to the
proper Portuguese consular officer. Although he became a
naturalized Philippine citizen on February 10, 1978, the
petitioner applied for and was issued Portuguese passport by the
Consular Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo in July 21,
1981. While he was still a citizen of the Philippines, he declared
his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents which he
signed sometime in April 1980.
The Court issued TRO pending hearings with the Board
of Special Inquiry, CID. However, the pleadings submitted before
the Court clearly showed that the petitioner expressly renounced
his Philippine citizenship.
- the Supreme Court, this time, talking against the petitioner that
he holds a Portuguese passport and he has, on some occasion,
declared in commercial documents that he is Portuguese and not
a Filipino.
 What is the difference of this case?
- the petitioner was a former Portuguese citizen who
applied for naturalization in the Philippines and was
granted as such. So he is a naturalized Filipino citizen.
 What is required if we cloak an alien of Philippine
citizenship and afford him with the rights and
privileges of a Filipino? What is required by law?
- he must renounce all allegiances to his foreign country
or wherever. We want him to be Filipino only. In this case,
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
there is no dual citizenship to talk about. As far as the
Philippines is concerned, he is a naturalized Filipino, he has
renounced his Portuguese citizenship.
 What has he done?
- he has acquired a Portuguese passport and has in some
occasion declared himself to be Portuguese. This time the
supreme court said there is express renunciation of
Philippine citizenship after he has renounced his other
citizenship and reclaimed his former citizenship. This time,
there is express renunciation of citizenship.
Citizenship is not a commodity displayed whenever convenient to
the person. In this case, the supreme court said there is express
renunciation.
 What is the difference between the cases of Yu to
those of Valles, Aznar.
- the prior persons involved cases with dual citizenship. Yu,
in this case, only has one citizenship as far as the
Philippines concerned. There was express renunciation
when he claimed to be Portuguese.
If citizenship is lost, there is still a chance or hope to reacquire
lost citizenship.
How may citizenship be acquired?
1. If you are lucky enough, you can ask for a direct act of
congress; convene the congress and ask them to enact a law
granting you your Philippine citizenship back.
2. Naturalization - e.g. Frivaldo
3. Repatriation - general term for reacquiring Philippine
citizenship. There are different laws granting repatriation
depending on the manner that the Philippine citizenship was lost.
E.g. You are a deserter in times of war. There is the
section 4 of CA 63 that allows you to repatriate.
E.g. You serve in the armed forces of the allied forces in
WW2. That is very specific. There is a law that allows repatriation
- the more common law for repatriation is RA 8171.
RA 8171
- became a law on October 23, 1995
- this is repatriation for:
 Filipino women who have lost their
Filipino citizenship by marriage to aliens.
- why? Because the 1973 Constitution
states: Of female citizen who marries an
alien retains her Philippine citizenship
has no retroactive applicability. Those
who lost the Philippine citizenship can
only reacquire Philippine citizenship by
repatriation.
- the law made it easier for them to
reacquire Philippine citizenship.
- applicable to natural-born Filipinos who have lost
their Philippine citizenship on account of political or
economic necessity.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
- this is more relevant to those who have fled
the country by reason of political repression under the
martial law or rule. Those who sought refuge in another
country and had to be naturalized in another country to
be safe from political or economic repression.
Tabasa v CA
FACTS: The petitioner was born of a Filipino father who
was naturalized as an American when the petitioner was still a
minor. He has acquired the American citizenship through
derivative citizenship. He was considered as a naturalized
American. He came to the Philippines. While in the Philippines,
his US passport was revoked.
 What is his citizenship now?
- none. He has no citizenship. Floating. So now, as far as they
are concerned, an undocumented alien. A stateless person.
 Why was his passport revoked?
- he was running away from law. There were several cases
filed against him in his American motherland.
- he had an idea to apply for repatriation because he was a former
Filipino citizen.
- because he was already considered as an undocumented alien,
he is supposed to be deported. To avoid deportation, he applied
for repatriation under RA 8171.
 Is he qualified under that law? Has he lost his Philippine
citizenship on account of political or economic
necessity? Who applied for naturalization in another
country?
- it was his father. It’s supposed to be his father who has lost
Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic
necessity.
 Can he apply as minor child?
- no because he is already 35 years old. What the law says,
natural-born Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship
including their minor children. It means that the applicant
for repatriation is the father and not the minor child. Only
the father supposedly can apply for repatriation and only
the father can prove that he lost his Philippine citizenship
on account of political or economic necessity.
It has to be noted that the precursor of RA 8171 is PD 725
enacted in 1975. It provides for repatriation on Filipino women
who have lost their Philippine citizenship by virtue of marriage
and natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine
citizenship.
RA 8171 v PD 725
Difference: the addition of the phrase “on account of political or
economic necessity”. In other words, if 725 was still effective, he
could have applied for repatriation because what the law
requires is only you’re a natural-born Filipino and you lost your
Philippine citizenship whatever the reason may be. But it was
amended to qualify that those who lost their Philippine
citizenship lost it on account of political or economic necessity.
Repatriation is not a judicial process. It is an administrative,
very simple proceeding allowing former Filipinos to reacquire
their citizenship. You do not file it before the courts. The courts
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
have no jurisdiction over repatriation. The jurisdiction is with the
special committee on naturalization. This is pursuant to an
administrative order.
 How is repatriation done?
- repatriation that be effected by taking the necessary oath
of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of
Immigration. The Bureau of Immigration shall thereupon
cancel the pertinent ACR and issue the certificate of identity
as a Filipino citizen.
- take an oath of allegiance, submit that to the civil registry
and the Bureau of Immigration.
 What has Frivaldo done?
- he ran for governor twice and won twice. He was
disqualified twice because he as was not able to prove that
he has reacquired his Philippine citizenship.
 What were his personal circumstance?
- former Filipino, naturalized as an American, he wanted to
reacquire Philippine citizenship. He tried direct act of
congress (you must be the luckiest person in the Philippines
if you can get the congress to enact a law for you). He was
unsuccessful in getting the direct act of congress. He tried
naturalization which failed because of several, substantial
and procedural laws because naturalization law does not
distinguish whether or not you are a former Filipino or an
immediate alien wanting to be naturalized.
 What did he try this time? In this time, he was
successful.
- to reacquire Philippine citizenship, he filed repatriation.
The simplest and the easiest.
 Was he a Filipino who lost his citizenship on
account of economic or political necessity? He was
not.
 How come he was repatriated?
- it was still during the effectivity of PD 725 when the law
does not yet distinguish on how he lost his Philippine
citizenship. RA 8171 took effect on 1995. A year after.
 What is the effect of repatriation?
- in Frivaldo v Comelec, this is his uphill struggle to finally
be sworn into office as governor of Sorsogon. What
happened in this case? The election was on May 8, 1995.
Since it was not automated and it was still done on manual
counting, it will take too long to declare the winner so
finally, the following result, Frivaldo has he highest number
of votes but he was still not able to prove that he has
reacquired Filipino citizenship. Lee has the highest number
of valid votes if we discount the votes for Frivaldo. Election
was on May 8, 1995. Proclamation was on June 30, 1995.
This is a battle against time. Finally, he was repatriated. He
took his oath as Filipino, 2:00 pm on June 30. In the evening,
8:30, Lee was proclaimed winner. Who is the rightful
winner? The Supreme Court said that when he took his oath
of allegiance as Filipino, there were no legal impediment to
holding his office or his proclamation, thus, he should be the
rightful proclaimed winner. This is a very bolding issue
because it will just be a matter of time.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
 What is he slept and took oath at 9:00pm? Does that
mean that he has not proven he has reacquired
Philippine citizenship right on time?
- to remove any and all doubts as to this important issue on
what is the effect of repatriation. When does one become a
Filipino again when repatriated? The Supreme Court said,
and this is the landmark ruling, that the repatriation of
Frivaldo retroacted to the date of the filing of his application
on August 17, 1994. The election was on 1995. He appied
for repatriation on August 17, 1994. In other words, when
he took his oath of allegiance as Filipino, it retroacts to the
date on August 17, 1994 when he applied for repatriation.
- as explained by the Supreme Court further in the case of
Altarejos v Comelec
FACTS: Petitioner was a candidate for mayor in
the Municipality of San Jacinto, Masbate in the May 10,
2004 local and national election. Private respondents filed
a petition with the COMELEC to disqualify and deny or
cancel his candidacy on the grounds that he is not a Filipino
citizen and he made false representation on Certificate of
Candidacy he was not a permanent resident of the
Municipality of San Jacinto, Masbate. Altarejos answered
that he was already issued a Certificate of Repatriation by
the Special Committee on Naturalization in December 17,
1997.
Issue: Whether or not the registration of
petitioner’s repatriation with the proper civil registry and
with the Bureau of Immigration a prerequisite in effecting
repatriation and he is eligible to run as a Mayor of Masbate.
Ruling: Yes. Alterajos registration with Civil
Registry is a prerequisite in effecting repatriation.
Section 2 RA 8171 The repatriation shall be
effected by taking the Oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and registration in the proper Civil Registar
under the Bureau of Immigration.
Petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance Dec. 12,
1997 but his Certificate of Repatriation was registered
in the Civil Registry of Makati City only after 6 years
February 18, 2004 and with the Bureau of Immigration
March 1, 2004. Petitioner therefore completed all the
requirements of repatriation after he filed his Certificate
of Candidacy.
Petitioners repatriation retroacted to the date he
filed his application, therefore he is qualified to run for a
mayoralty position in the government.
- as the Supreme Court explains, the citizenship qualification
applies to the time of proclamation of the elected official and at
the start of his term. The court noted that under the Local
Government Code, (LGC) it is only the qualification of citizenship
that has no time requirement.
E.g.
 For residence requirement, the LGC requires 1 year
residency immediately preceding the day of election.
 Age requirement, 23 years old on the day of election.
 Citizenship - must be a Filipino citizen. No time
requirement when you have to be a Filipino citizen.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
What is the rationale why one has to be a Filipino in order to
qualify for elective public office?
- the idea is, that we will not be governed by aliens. The
governing starts only when he has been proclaimed and starts to
hold office as mandated by law.
- he has all the time that he needs to prove that he is a citizen of
the Philippines. When he is proclaimed, once he starts
performing is duties, he is no longer an alien. He is already a
Filipino.
- the Supreme Court says, citizenship qualification applies to the
time of proclamation of the elected official and the start of his
term. Repatriation retroacts to the date of filing of one’s
application for repatriation. That ruling would prevent prejudice
to applicants because there may be instances where the
processing of repatriation and the taking of oath would be
delayed for reasons or at the fault of the applicant.
One of the effects of repatriation is that it retroacts to the
date of application. Even if one takes his oath six (6) years after,
the moment he takes his oath, it retroacts to the date six (6) years
prior.
Bengzon v HRET
FACTS: Cruz is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines,
born of Filipino parents who enlisted in the US Marine Corps in
1985. Taking an oath of allegiance to the USA without expressed
consent of the Republic of the Philippines, he lost his Filipino
citizenship based on CA No. 63 by “rendering service to or
accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country.”
In 1994, Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship
through repatriation under RA 2630 [(An Act Providing for
Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost Such
Citizenship by Rendering Service To, or Accepting Commission In,
the Armed Forces of the United States (1960)]. He ran for and
was elected as the Representative of the 2nd District of
Pangasinan in the 1998 elections.
Subsequently, petitioner Bengson, filed a case for Quo
Warranto Ad Cautelam with respondent HRET claiming that Cruz
was not qualified to become a member of the HOR since he is not
a natural-born citizen as required under Article VI, section 6 of
the Constitution.
- this is about the citizenship of Theodore Cruz . According to the
constitutional requirement, no person shall be a member of the
House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen.
- Cruz was a natural-born citizen. Meaning, he was already
Filipino at the time of birth. However, he served in the United
States Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of
the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the United States.
Not satisfied, he was also naturalized as a US citizen in 1990. In
1994, he came back to the Philippines and reacquired Philippine
citizenship though repatriation under RA 2630. In 1998, he was
elected as representative of the 2nd district of Pangasinan. The
constitution says “no person shall be a member of the House of
Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen.”
– Cruz, former Filipino, naturalized as an American,
repatriated and reacquired Philippine citizenship.
– of naturalization as citizens of the foreign country and they are
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
 Is he a natural-born citizen as required by the
constitution? What is the effect of repatriation?
- natural-born citizens are those who are Filipino from birth
without having to perform any act to perfect his citizenship.
 Does he qualify under that definition?
- the Supreme Court said, under the 1987 Constitution, if
you look at it closely, there are only two (2) kinds of
citizens.
 Natural-born
 Naturalized
- there is no provision that says “former Filipino citizen who
reacquired Philippine citizenship. There is no classification.
Another effect of repatriation is that you go back to your
former status.
If you are natural-born, lost Philippine citizenship, repatriated,
you go back to your previous status as natural-born.
If you are naturalized, lost Philippine citizenship, repatriated, you
go back to being naturalized.
How do you classify a former Filipino citizen who is repatriated
as a citizen?
- it depends on what his former status is before he lost his
Philippine citizenship.
In Bengzon v HRET, repatriation is lost in the recovery of original
citizenship. As to the issue of whether or not one who is
repatriated, is natural-born or is naturalized, it depends on what
his original status was before he lost his Philippine citizenship.
Ways of reacquiring Filipino citizenship
 Naturalization
 Repatriation
 Direct act of Congress
Now, because we are opening up to the rest of the world, we are
now more liberal when it comes to treatment of citizenship. The
principle is the more citizens, more happy :)
We now have a reacquisition and intention of Philippine
citizenship much easier. We have RA 9225.
RA 9225
- citizenship retention and re-acquisition act of 2003.
- salient points:
 Act making the citizenship of
Philippine citizens who acquire part citizenship
permanent amending for the purpose CA 63 as
amended for other purposes.
- this law is applicable to natural-born citizens of the
Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking
the oath of allegiance to the republic.
- just take an oath of allegiance as Filipino, we will still
recognize you as Filipino. Under the law, you are deemed to have
retained your Philippine citizenship even if you were naturalized
as an American. What happens to you? Dual.
- if you were naturalized prior to 2003, maybe you will
argue the difference between reacquisition and retention.
- the law says, if you were naturalized prior to 2003, by
effectivity in law, you are deemed to have reacquired your
Philippine citizenship. If you were naturalized after the effectivity
of the law, 2003 and onwards, you have taken the oath of
allegiance, you are deemed to have retained, you have never lost
your Philippine citizenship.
- Requirement: Just take an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines.
- those who retained or reacquired Philippine
citizenship under this act shall enjoy full, civil and political rights
and shall be subject to all attended liabilities and responsibilities,
other existing laws of the Philippines and the following
conditions (section 5).
- the effect extends to unmarried children whether
illegitimate, legitimate or adopted below 18 years of age of those
who require Philippine citizenship. There is also derivative
citizenship.
- allows a former Filipino who lost his Philippine
citizenship by naturalization in a foreign land to retain his
Philippine citizenship by merely taking an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines. We have no concern on what
happens to his US citizenship.
E.g. It could be that he has dual citizenship. As far as we are
concerned under RA 9225, we will consider his as not having lost
his Philippine citizenship. In other words, it has amended CA 63
in that it’s no longer true that one may lose his Philippine
citizenship by naturalization because if only takes his oath of
allegiance, he is deemed to have retained his Philippine
citizenship.
CA 63
- act provided for ways for losing Philippine citizenship
- such as naturalization
Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M.
Dacanay
FACTS: Petitioner here is a lawyer who migrated to
Canada and became a citizen thereof in order to avail Canada’s
free medical aid program to remedy his ailments.
Two years after acquiring his Canadian citizenship, he
re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 and
returned to his home country intending to resume his practice in
law.
- he has been a lawyer since 1960s. Because of medical reasons,
he migrated to Canada and reclaimed the citizen in 2004.
Fortunately for him, in 2003, we already have the RA 9225. He
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
came back to the Philippines and wanted to resume his practice
of law. He must be around his 70s or 80s.
 After taking his oath, can he immediately go back to
practicing law? Because the law says, he will enjoy
full civil and political rights.
- it depends on whether he is still qualified to become a
lawyer.
- in this case, the Supreme Court says there is no problem.
He can go back to his practice of law but to resume the
practice of law, he has to meet certain conditions that is
applicable to anyone who wants to practice law.
 Update his IDP dues.
 Payment of professional tax
 Completion of 36 credit hours
 Reiterate his lawyer’s oath
The Effect of Marriage
- section 4 says, citizens of the Philippines who married
aliens shall retain their citizenship unless by the act or omission
they are deemed under the law to have renounced it and it goes
vice versa.
Labo v Comelec
FACTS: Ramon Labo, Jr. is the respondent in question
of his qualification for the position of Mayor of Baguio given the
speculation on his Filipino citizenship. He was naturalized as an
Australian in 1976, not in accordance to his marriage to an
Australian spouse, but by formally taking an Oath of Allegiance to
Australia. He used an Australian Visa in coming back to the
Philippines in 1980, when he declared before the immigration
authorities that he was an alien. He later asked for the change of
his status from immigrant to a returning former Philippine
citizen and was granted Immigrant certificate.
His rival for the Mayoral position, Luis Lardizabal filed a
petition for quo warranto against Labo, asserting that he is
disqualified on the ground of the invalidity of his Philippine
citizenship. Labo avers that his marriage with an Australian did
not make him an Australian; that at best he has dual citizenship,
Australian and Filipino; that even if he indeed became an
Australian when he married an Australian citizen, such
citizenship was lost when his marriage with the Australian was
later declared void for being bigamous.
- by virtue of marriage, because he married an Australian, giving
an oath of allegiance to the queen of Australia. When he went
back to the Philippines, he wanted to run for public office.
- there was an objection to his citizenship. He has lost his
citizenship.
- the Supreme Court did not say that lost his citizenship by virtue
of marriage. The constitution did not say that marriage will have
the effect of losing one’s citizenship of marriage to an alien. We
have no issue with that.
(a) How did he lose his Filipino citizenship?
- it was the fact that he took an oath of allegiance to the
queen of Australia. It is not the marriage. The marriage does
not make it easier. The facts under that law, under their law,
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
if you are married to an Australian, it is easier to be an
Australian citizen. It is not the marriage that has the effect
of losing his Philippine citizenship. He argued further that
his naturalization in Australia made him at worse only dual
citizen.
(b) Is he correct?
- he would have been correct is RA 9225 was already
effective during that time. But during that time, the case was
decided in 1989. One way of losing Philippine citizenship is
by naturalization in a foreign country.
(c) If the case happened in 2004, can he argue that he is
a dual citizen if he had take his oath of allegiance
under RA 9225?
- yes, he could have argued. However, during this time,
naturalization is one way of losing Philippine citizenship. He
further argued that the marriage was found bigamous and
as effect of the marriage, his naturalization was also
revoked.
(d) What happens to him when his naturalization is
Australia was revoked because his marriage was
bigamous. What’s effect of his annulment in
Australia?
- we do not care. The annulment of the marriage does not
have the effect of reacquiring Philippine citizenship. Once
lost, it is lost unless you reacquire it by ways provided by
law. He is now a stateless person.
- the marriage has nothing to do with losing and reacquiring
the Philippine citizenship.
Djumantan v Domingo
FACTS: Bernard Banez, the husband of Marina Cabael,
went to Indonesia as a contract worker.
On April 3, 1974, he embraced and was converted to
Islam. On May 17, 1974, he married petitioner in accordance with
Islamic rites. He returned to the Philippines in January 1979. On
January 13, 1979, petitioner and her two children with Banez,
arrived in Manila as the "guests" of Banez. The latter made it
appear that he was just a friend of the family of petitioner and
was merely repaying the hospitability extended to him during his
stay in Indonesia. When petitioner and her two children arrived
at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport on January 13, 1979,
Banez, together with Marina Cabael, met them. As "guests,"
petitioner and her two children lived in the house of Banez.
Petitioner and her children were admitted to the Philippines as
temporary visitors under Section 9(a) of the Immigration Act of
1940.
In 1981, Marina Cabael discovered the true relationship
of her husband and petitioner. On March 25, 1982, the
immigration status of petitioner was changed from temporary
visitor to that of permanent resident under Section 13(a) of the
same law. On April 14, 1982, petitioner was issued an alien
certificate of registration.
Not accepting the set-back, Banez' eldest son, Leonardo,
filed a letter complaint with the Ombudsman, who subsequently
referred the letter to the CID. On the basis of the said letter,
petitioner was detained at the CID detention cell.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
The CID issued an order revoking the status of
permanent resident given to petitioner, the Board found the 2nd
marriage irregular and not in accordance with the laws of the
Phils. There was thus no basis for giving her the status of
permanent residence, since she was an Indonesian citizen and
her marriage with a Filipino Citizen was not valid.
- the Indonesian wife, in the case, are now to be deported. They
argued that she cannot be deported because he is married to a
Filipino.
 Is the argument meritorious?
- marriage to a Filipino does not guarantee even entry to the
Philippines. You have to undergo the entry proceedings.
Much more, it does not provide or guarantee that one can
be a resident in the Philippines. Worse, she cannot
automatically be considered as a Filipino by the mere fact
that she is married to a Filipino.
 What will happen to her?
- she has overstayed her visit in the Philippines as an alien
or a tourist or a foreigner then she has to be deported.
 What about the marriage?
- that’s not part of the issue. Marriage has no effect on
citizenship. At most, it will make naturalization much easier.
 If you are a foreigner, married to a foreigner, and
you are naturalized as a Filipino, what happens to
your wife?
- she acquires derivative citizenship.
 If you are a Filipino, you married an alien, what
happens to your wife?
- she remains to be an alien.
ARTICLE 5
Suffrage
- may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not
otherwise disqualified by law. Who are at least 18 years of age
and shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year
and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six (6)
months immediately preceding the election. No literacy,
property, or other substantial requirement shall be imposed on
the exercise of suffrage.
– this right, the right to vote, is a manifestation
of the principles presides in the people and emanates from them.
This is also a manifestation that we are a democratic-republican
government or state in that we choose our representative. Thus,
the right of suffrage or the right to vote representatives is
reserved only to the citizens of the Philippines; one of the basic
and fundamental constitutional rights given to citizens of the
Philippines.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
ARTICLE V
SUFFRAGE
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the
Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least
eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year, and in the place wherein they
propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding
the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the
secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee
voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and
the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons.
Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and
such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to
protect the secrecy of the ballot.
Prior to the 1935 Constitution
- the right to vote is not a constitutional right, it has not
been provided in the constitution. In fact, it is only a statutory
right provided by law. There was still no constitution. It is
exercised only by privileged few--those who have properties,
educational attainments, male.
1935 Constitution
- this has been made a constitutional right/rule. It was
initially reserved to males. Females were allowed after.
1973 Constitution
- right to suffrage has been continued as a constitutional
right. It’s a mandatory right; obligatory. There is in fact a law,
constitutional at that, requiring mandatory participation in
voting so that boycotting is in fact punishable as a crime under
the Marcos’ constitution. On the positives side, there was a
scheme to enfranchise the most number of people; to encourage
the participation of the most number of voters. On the negative
side, it disallows boycotting as a form of expression which under
the constitution is the mostly part of freedom of speech. The right
to vote should include the right not to vote.
1987 Constitution
- freedom to vote and freedom not to vote. The right
not to participate, the right to boycott if you are not satisfied with
the candidates. If the candidates are not qualified as far as you
are concerned, then you are able to boycott. That is not
punishable because that is part of our constitutional right.
What do you mean by Constitutional right? Is that an
absolute right?
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Akbayan v Comelec
- provides a prohibition period on when to register a
voter. This is a procedural requirement before one can exercise
his right to vote.
FACTS:
 What is this prohibitive period?
- its prohibitive period is 120 days before the election. It
was mandated by law that there will be no registration of
voters. In contrast to that, beyond those days, there is daily
registration of voters for the entire year except for those
days.
 What is the relevance of this prohibitive period?
- to give it time to validate and verify if indeed the voters
who are registered are qualified.
 What are the qualifications of a voter under the
constitution?
- it must be of legal age (18 years old)
- must be a citizen of the Philippines
- resident of the Philippines (does not require you to be a
permanent citizen of the Philippines).
 Who are the petitioners? Why?
- the youth who were unable to register because the
registration period ends on December 2002.
 What were they asking?
- they were asking for a special registration to be held on
February.
 What were they invoking?
- they were invoking the right to vote. Since they have the
right to vote, they should be allowed to register despite
missing the period or the deadline of registration.
 How did the Supreme Court rule that petition?
- the Supreme Court did not grant the petition because the
right to vote is not absolute. Although you are qualified with
the substantial requirements (legal age, citizen, resident),
there may be instances that you may not be allowed to vote.
The right is there but there are substantial and procedural
requirements in order for one to exercise these rights and
these requirements are part of the due process and part of
the orderly system in the exercise of rights. It is necessary
that the Comelec be able to verify and validate whether or
not the voter was registered or the person who is exercising
the right to vote has actually that right or is qualified.
The prohibitive period is a necessary part in the exercise of the
right of suffrage and the petitioners have actualy not been denied
of their rights. They have not complied with the requirements
because of through their own fault that they were not able to
exercise that right.
Kabataan Party-list v Comelec
FACTS: The Supreme Court granted the petition; came
up with a different conclusion.
 What was raised this time because this time, the
Supreme Court granted the petition despite the end of
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
the period to register as provided by the Comelec in
implementing the election laws?
- if you would count the prohibitive period before or from
the election, 120 days before that should have been in
January 9, 2009. The 120 days prohibitive period should
begin on January 10 so the last day of registration so it
should have been January 9. Yet, the comelec scheduled the
last day of registration on December, initially, and moved
back much earlier on October because they wanted a longer
period of time for the first automated election. They were
not ready for it.
 When the petitioner asked for special registration, the
Supreme Court granted it. How come?
- the Supreme Court granted it because they were still on
time. It was not yet within the prohibitive period. The law
allows them to register. There is no reason for these non-
registered voters to be denied the right to vote because they
have not registered. They have been prevented to register
because of the preemptive actions of the Comelec unlike in
the Akbayan case wherein they filed for the petition; when
they asked for the special date, those dates were already in
the 120 days before the prohibitive period.
Although suffrage is a constitutional right, this may be subject to
regulation. Otherwise, there will be no ensuring the proper
exercise of their rights. In this case, what would be the
regulations procedural in relations which is the registration
process.
Qualifications:
 Citizenship
- it is the right to have a right once you are a member of
certain community. The right to participate in the
government. In this case, through suffrage.
 Age qualification
- before, the age majority was 21 in the time of Marcos
because they were determined if we live it up to 21 years
and above to participate in governance, it would just be
18% of the population who would dictate what would
happen to the destiny or fate of our country.
- lowered to 18 citing as a ground the study that an 18 year-
old are already capable of mature decisions.
- under the 1935 constitution, 13 and 14 years old are
allowed to get married.
- at least 18 years old at the time of the election.
 Residency
- one of the important qualification
- one has to be a resident in the Philippines for at least one
(1) year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at
least six (6) months immediately preceding the election.
- synonymous with domicile.
Romualdez v RTC
FACTS: He was a natural-born Filipino and a resident of
Malbog, Leyte. He has, in fact, established Leyte as his domicile
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
since the 80’s. He has been away from the Philippines and lived in
the US for seven (7) years because he has been an ally of Marcos.
He came back sometime in December 1991. There was an
election in May 1992.
If you would count his return, that would just be five (5) months.
WON he has complied with the residency requirement under the
constitution.
 What did the Supreme Court say?
- domicile and residence are used synonymous. Residence is
where one is physically present for specific purpose. You
may be here for business, work. That may be your
residency. There is a physical relationship of the individual
with the place where one intends to leave once that purpose
is served. Either you go back to your hometown or you look
for another another based on your purpose. Domicile, on
the other hand, is where one intends to return. It is beyond
physical presence, where one intends to return after his
purpose is completed.
- one should be attuned or familiar with the circumstances
of the case. If you are to be given that right to participate in
their governance, you should be a person who is at least
familiar to the case that is why we require residency as part
of the qualification.
- in this case, Romualdez cannot be denied that he is
familiar with the culture, the people, the needs because he
has been there his entire life since the 1980s. When he left,
he has found another place of residence. In this case, in US.
However, his domicile has always been in Malbog, Leyte.
They do not count the period of absence when counting the
number of years of residency. Absence does not mean
anything because domicile is more or less permanent. The
person may have several residences at a given time but he
will always have one domicile. It is difficult to lose a
domicile once it is acquired. It requires animus manendi and
animus non revertendi; you no longer have the desire or
intention to return to that place.
- the Supreme Court said, the absence simply does not
negate the fact that he always has been a resident and
domicile of Malbog, Leyte since the 1980s and he has
complied with the 6-months qualification requirement.
Prohibitions on Certain Qualifications (No Additional
Qualification Requirement)
1. Qualifications are only citizenship, age and residency.
2. There should be no other substantive qualification such as
literacy, property, or other substantive requirement (Article V,
Section 1).
3. Literacy - able to read and right; one can vote even if illiterate.
If a law is passed to deny a person to vote due to illiteracy, that
law is unconstitutional.
Disqualification should be not be in the form of additional
qualification. Disqualifications should be understood as grounds
for forfeiture of their right to vote. Such as:
1) Non-registration
2) One is already sentenced by final judgment to some crimes
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Section 2: The Congress shall provide a system for securing the
secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee
voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. The Congress shall also
define a procedure for the disabled and illiterates to vote without
the assistance of other persons.
So far, we have still not found a proper system for the disabled
and illiterates to vote without revealing their votes. In the
election laws, so far, those illiterates or disabled may be assisted
by family members. That goes against secrecy of ballots. No one
should know who we are voting for. Nonetheless, we have still
not found a system to enable them to vote secretly.
Absentee Voting
- a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
abroad. Section 1 says that the qualifications are citizenship, age,
residency. It is not unconstitutional because the constitution says
that there should be an absentee voting for those who are here.
 What is the idea of this provision?
- it is to enfranchise the most number of voters--
Filipinos at that to participate in the democratic process. But
there should be a system to ensure that they can indeed exercise
that right.
RA 9189 “Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003”
- Where one is not found in the Philippines and is
somewhere else abroad. He may still register as a voter and
participate only in national elections.
E.g.
 OFWs who are still very much in touch of the political
activities of the country. They still want to participate
because the policies of the law-makers or the executive
affects them.
 Those who happen to be on tour but there is an election
that is upcoming. According to section 5, the following
shall be disqualified from voting under this act (d)
*An immigrant or a permanent resident who is
recognized as such in the host country,
- For example, you are a green card holder in America. It
means that you are no longer a resident of the Philippines.
- What about OFW? Is he a resident where he is staying
abroad? Yes.
- Is he also a resident of Davao city? Yes because of the
concept of residency is synonymous with domicile.
- If one is a green card holder, the presumption is he already
has abandoned his domicile because he is a permanent
resident in another place.
d) An immigrants or a permanent resident who is
recognized as such in the host country, unless he/she
executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the
purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall
resume actual physical permanent residence in the
Philippines not later than three (3) years from approval
of his/her registration under this Act.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Macalintal v Comelec
 What provision was questioned by the petitioner in this
case? Why did the petitioner question the constitutionality
of section 5 (d) of RA 9189?
- The constitution in section 1 requires on to be a resident.
In section 2, it provides a system for absentee voting.
Meaning, these persons are not physically present in the
Philippines yet are allowed to vote by the constitution itself.
This is an exception to the residency requirement under
Article 5, section 1. It is provided by the constitution itself.
- it is about the immigrant, green card holders or permanent
resident in another country where there is already a
presumption that he has abandoned his domicile.
 Since there is disqualification, what is the essence of section
5 (d)?
- Disqualification means that they are not allowed and does
not have an issue. They are not allowed because they have
abandoned their domicile by permanent residency in
another country.
 Why is the petitioner questioning that disqualification
portion or provision?
- It is in the second phrase. “Unless he/she executes, upon
registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the
Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual
physical permanent residence in the Philippines.
4. If you say that positively, the negative way to say it is that “they
are disqualified unless”. So if you would rephrase that through a
positive or affirmative sentence, “permanent residents in another
country are allowed to vote as an absentee voter if they declares
in an affidavit that they shall presume permanent residence in
the Philippines within three (3) years from registration.”
5. Disqualification: those who are permanent residents in another
country such as green card holders, immigrants and are
recognized as such in the host country are disqualified under the
system of absentee voting.
6. Is there a constitutional issue on that?
-there are none because it is natural to barely qualified
because they are already permanent residents in another
country, they are presumed to have abandoned their domicile.
7. What is the issue of the petitioner? Why is he saying that this is
unconstitutional?
- If he does not write that affidavit, if he does not make
that declaration and he shall resume physical residence in the
Philippines, the presumption that he has abandoned his domicile
remains. So he should not be allowed to vote. That is why there is
a need to make the declaration. According to him, there should be
no provisional/conditional right to vote and/or registration. That
is how he under stands that provision.
- the Supreme Court said that this provision, that he
must make a declaration in an affidavit that he shall resume
physical residency is not a condition that is provisional. It is a
declaration that he has in fact not abandoned his domicile. It’s the
presumption that is abandoned. He must make a declaration that
he intends to return “animus revertendi” the intention to return is
always there so that he declares that (e.g. Philippines, Davao
City), is still my residence or domicile. That is the relevance of an
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
affidavit. Without that affidavit, a resident in another country FACTS: According to his opponent, there is
should not be allowed to vote. misrepresentation in his address so he is not found in that
address. However, he is a resident in Caloocan for seventy-two
(72) years. In his COC, the residence is not clear.
Nicolas-Lewis v Comelec
 Will that mean that he has lost his domicile?
FACTS: Petitioners were former Filipinos naturalized as
American citizens. After that, they reacquired Filipino citizenship  No. That could be a ground for election offense
by virtue of RA 9225 and are considered as dual citizens. (misrepresentation of his COC) but according to the
Petitioners sought to avail their right of suffrage under RA 9189 Supreme Court, that will not mean that he has lost his
or the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. Comelec, however, domicile or residence. He has been there his entire life. He
did not allow petitioners to vote in the 2004 election, reasoning has previously been a public officer in the past.
the petitioners failed to comply with the requirement of 1-year  The Supreme Court said, “Every Filipino’s right to vote shall
residency prior the elections as provided for under Article 5, Sec be respected, upheld and given full effect. A citizen cannot be
1 of the Constitution. disenfranchised for the flimsiest of reasons. Only on the
 If you look at them, after reacquiring Philippine most serious grounds, and upon clear and convincing proof,
citizenship after RA 9225, they were already considered as may a citizen be deemed to have forfeited this precious
Filipinos, have qualified with the age qualification, residency heritage of freedom
requirement fall under section 2 because they are Filipinos
abroad yet the Comelec said they were not allowed to vote.
 The Supreme Court ruled that they are allowed to vote
because of section 2 of article 5; all they need is an affidavit
under section 5 (d) of RA 9189. They are considered as
permanent residents.
 d) An immigrants or a permanent resident who is
recognized as such in the host country, unless he/she
executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the
purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall
resume actual physical permanent residence in the
Philippines not later than three (3) years from approval
of his/her registration under this Act.
 If a person is living abroad, they can vote through applying
for Filipino citizenship under RA 9225. Repatriation that is
done through taking an oath of allegiance before the
designated embassy.

Velasco v Comelec
FACTS: Petitioner was a natural-born Indian who grew
up in Pampanga, his domicile. In 1983 he became a
naturalized in the US. He went back to the Philippines
sometime on September 2006 and began his stay therein.
There was an election on May 2007 and has already stayed
in the Philippines for eight (8) months. He has not left since.
o Has he complied with the one (1) year
residency in the Philippines?
 Since he is here in the Philippines, you will have to register
as a local voter.
o Will he qualify under the absentee voting act?
 No because he is not abroad; he is in the Philippines.
o What would he have done otherwise if he
wanted to vote?
 You go back to where you came from and register as
absentee voter. He cannot vote or participate in the local
elections; only in the national elections.

V Aguirre

Devilleres, Elden Claire A. I - Sanchez Roman

Lumanag, Jonah Rose G. 2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
ARTICLE VI
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
So now, how are we related to the Constitution?
There, we know as citizens, we have certain rights and privleges.
Separation of Powers
When we say Separation of powers, each of the three great
branches have the exclcusive cognizance and supreme in matters
calling their own sphere. That legislation is for the Legislative
department, implementation of laws is for the executive and the
settling of legal controversies and questions is for the Judiciary.
Each of them has the jurisdiction over this matters. This also
means that each of these departments cannot usurp over the
functions of the other. The executive cannot legislate, the
judiciary cannot make arrest, it can only make decisions. Each is
prevented from invading the domain of others.
We have set up this system in order to avoid our past experience
with Marcos. To prevent the consentration of powers in one
department.
Now we must also understand that although we observe
Separation of P,owers these departments are also interconnected.
It is not actually abosolute independence, but interdependence.
For example, when the Congress enacts a law, the final act would
be tbe approval of the executive. It cannot be a law without the
approval. If the executive does not act on that, he neglects to act
on the bill submitted by the congress, is there a way out? Yes.
There's also a system.
Also the SC, as we know, would be that department that can
declare the acts of the Congress or the president as invalid. The
SC have to base its decisions on the provisions of the constitution.
So who will tell them that what they are doing is wrong? It's the
Supreme Court. The problem now is who will tell the Supreme
Court that it is wrong?
Let's go to the first department.
Article VI. Legislative Department
Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate
and a House of Representatives, except to the extent
reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.
Legilative power, by the way, is the authority not only to make
laws, but also to counter or repeal them. Now if you observe in
Section 1, Legislative power is vested in a body (Congress). And
the Congress consists of 2 institutions – The Senate and the HOR.
Therefore, when you see a congressman or a senator, is he
the Congress?
No he is not. Because the Congress is a collegiate body. A senator
alone is not that powerful. But he should be wise enough to work
in a collegiate body to make his positions known because
decisions are made collegiately by that body.
Legislation is classified as:
1. Original legislation or delegated
2. Constituent or ordinary
So original or delegated, let me ask you what is the principle in
our government? Philippines is a republican and democratic
government. Legislative Power is vested in the congress.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Is it original legislative power or delegated legislative power?
It is actually delegated legislative power. Who delegated that
power to the Congress? The people via the constitution. Original
legislative power, therefore, is possessed by the people in their
sovereign capacity.
What about constitutent or ordinary legislation?
It is called constituent when it involves the power to amend or
revise the contitution.
Now who may exercise constituent power?
Either the people or the Congress as a constituent body or
constitutional convention.
Ordinary legislation is the power to pass ordinary laws.
Take note: there is such a term as constituent legislation. That is
when you go back to the basic and you touch the consti itself.
Legislative power that is vested in the Congress is PLENARY.
Since the power of legislation is exclusively vested in the
Congress. It can legislate on any subject matter. It is all
encompassing. It has therefore no limits kung anong subject
matter, except as those provided by the constitution itself. For
example, substantive limits, those which are provided in the Bill
of Rights. Or procedural. Other than that, the legilsative power of
Congress is called PLENARY. There should be no limits.
Colloraliy to that, because the power to legislate is plenary,
Congress cannot pass irrepealable laws. Although as an
institution, congress is a continuing body, but every now and
then we change membership, each congress should no be bound
by the acts of the prior congress.
What happens if the Congress passed a law and says that this
law cannot be repealed or amended? Would that be
constitutional? What will happen? It will limit or reduce the
legislative power of the next congress. When it does that, it is
now, in effect, amending the Section 1 of the Article 6 of the
constitution that legislative power is vested in the Congress if
there's already a limit to the power.
So to say that the legislature may pass irrepealable laws is to say
that it may alter the very constitution from which it derives its
authority. It reduces the legislative powers of its successors up to
the extent that there will be no more laws to enact. So to a greater
extent, it would, more or less, render the Congress ineffectual if
they can pass irrepealable laws. That principle also include sthe
prohibition declaring in advance the mode of amendment or
repeal. Like in the case of...
CITY OF DAVAO VS RTC
In this case, GSIS has been in existence under the Revised GSIS
Act of 1977. There's a provision there which exempts GSIS from
taxation. Now, there's a provision in relation to that, it says that
the exception shall not be affected by subsequent laws, unless
this section is expressly and categorically repealed by law and a
provision is enacted to substitute the declared policy of exception
from any and all taxes as an essential factor for the solvency of
the GSIS fund.
There's a condition for repealing that provsion or for removing
that exception. What's the condition? There must be a substitute
provision to ensure that the fund is always solvent.
Now, what happened in this case? After that law came the Local
Government Code which imposes real property tax on
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
institutions, including the GSIS. So the Local Government Code,
now, withdraws the exemption by GSIS on real property tax, so
they question that saying that under the GSIS act, it says that our
right to exemption cannot be repealed or amended, unless there
is a law providing for that exact repeal and there's a provision
that there must a substitute provision etc. etc.
Now, the Supreme Court said that that provision in the GSIS Act is
more or less like an irrepealable making that law or provision
irreapealable which cannot be done without violating the
constitution.
So it effectively imposes restrictions on the competency of the
congress to enact future legislation on the taxability of the GSIS. It
goes against the principle that Congress' legislative power is
Plenary, when it limits that power by providing for traditions on
repealing a law.
Only the constitution may operate to preclude or place
restricitions on the amendment or repeal of laws. While this
section does not preclude repeal, the conditions it imposes have
the precise...of limiting the powers of Congress.
Now, what happened in the case of...
KIDA vs SENATE
RA 9054 is an act governing ARMM. Now, in that law, there is a
provision that states that any amendment to that law would
require a vote of 2/3 of the Congress.
It says that the amendment of the law can only be made if there is
2/3 vote by the Congress. Under the Constitution, General Rule in
enacting a law, what vote is required? Majority vote. With a
majority vote, the Congress can already enact a law. This law is
in question because the provision there says that to amend that
law, a vote of 2/3 is required.
Is that proper?
No. Why? It is limiting the plenary authority. It is providing for
another requirement not provided in the Constitution. Ordinarily,
Congress can amend law with only a majority vote.
Here, it is also like providing for a condition to amend a law
violating the principle that the congress legislative power is
supposed to be plenary and in relation to that, it should not pass
irrepealable laws or laws which provide for modes of repeal or
amendment that is not provided by the constitution. It is
effectively limiting the powers of the next congress. Laliman ka
under the constitution, they just require a majority vote, but this
time to repeal that law, they have to gather 2/3. They are
amending the provision of the constitution itself. So that is an
invalid provision of law.
The next principle: PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGABILITY OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER
Going back, how do we classify the legislative power of the
Congress? It is merely delegated pwoer. By virtue thereof, we
have the principle of non-delegability. It cannot be further
delegated.
Why?
1. because of the principle of separation of powers. Precisely we
have designated the power to legislate with the Congress. The
other departments cannot usurp with that power. So precisely
because of separation of powers, it would be a breach of the
constitution if the congress use up its legislative power and ipasa
nila kay President.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
If the president, on the other hand, exercises legislative power,
what do you call that? Usurpation. If the Congress delegate it to
the president, what do you call that? Invalid delegation of
legislative power.
2. because of the principle of what has been delegated cannot be
further delegated. More on an ethical consideration that you have
been delegated that task so you are expected to perform that task
yourself.
Going back, legislative power is vested in the Congress only
Congress can legislate. But if you look at the constitution, you find
their some provisions which grant legislative power to bodies
other than the congress.
Is this allowed?
Yes, because it's the constitution itself which grants. For example,
the president under Section 28, paragraph 2 of Article 6 can
exercise tarriff powers. What does that mean? Given that power
by congress, the president can enact laws in relation to tarriff. So
the Congress may delegate that because the constitution allows
that. What else? Emergency powers of the president (Energy
shortage).
Of course, the people can directly legislate through initiative and
referendum. Now, the Local Government Units can also legislate
(Smoking Ban). Who enacted that ordinance? The Local
legislative body. What is the basis of their power to legislate?
Time and memorial practice. It has been recognized as valid
exercise of legislative power.
Is congress that intelligent and all knowledgable that they can
enact on any matter. The presumption is YES, but the reality is
sometimes they do not know the details of the law, what details
to put in the law. For example, the law is about automation of
election, are they all quality experts? We cannot presume. Hindi
nga sila...
Can they delegate some aspects of legislation to the experts?
For example, can they call on the Department of Science and
Technology to provide for the details? The answer is YES. That is
what we call PERMISSIBLE DELEGATION or the power of
SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION. This is permitted because of the
increasing complexity of the task of the government and the
growing inability of the Congress to cope directly with the
problems demanding attention or because of their lack of ability.
You see here distinction of law making power and rule making
power. As to law making power, the discretion is what it shall
be, who will be affected by it, and when shall it effect.
So to determine what law to enact, is law making authority that
cannot be delegated. But to determine how it will be
implemented, this can be delegated to to other bodies. There's
what we call supplementary legislation, that is to fill up the
details of a statute also known as IRR. Implementing Rules and
Regulation. For example, the labor code. Working hours shall be
40 hours a week, 8 hours a day.
Can administrative bodies supply the details? Say, working
hours shall be held 8-5pm. These are the details. There's no
discretion required because the basic law is already there. What
is provided is merely the implementation of the law. So this can
be delegated to administrative bodies.
Another kind of permissible delegation is what we call contingent
legislation. This is to give to another body the function or duty of
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
ascertaining the facts necessary to bring the law into actual
operation.
There are conditions that the law will provide and they will leave
it to an administrative body to determine WON the conditions are
already met and therefore they will now be the catylyst for the
implementing the effectivity of the law. For example...
ABAKADA vs EXECUTIVE
The issue on VAT was raised. The VAT law fixed rates to 10%. It
says that the President, upon the recommendation of the
Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the
VAT to 12% after the following conditions are met.
One objection is that the power of taxation is exclusively vested
with the Congress. Only the congress can enact taxation laws.
Now by this provision, the petitioner has the impression that the
president is exercising taxation powers. Therefore, an invalid
delegation of legislative powers.
Is he correct?
The Supreme Court said NO. The function that is given to the
president is only to determine whether the conditions therein
provided by law are already met or in existence by January 1,
2006. If yes, then the VAT is raised to 12%. Merely
implementation. Who determines WON the conditions are
already present? Di na kaya ng Congress yan. Di na kaya na
maghintay pa sila so they can delegate to the President and this is
permissible delegation.
KMU vs GARCIA Jr.
Pursuant to the public service act, so there's a law, the DOTC and
LTFRB are charged with the duty to determine bus fares. Sila ang
mag pro-provide ng bus fares. So pursuant there to DOTC and
LTFRB, allowed the bus operators to charge passenger rates
within the range of 15% above and below the LTFRB official rate
for a period of 1 year.
For one, the power of the LTFRB to fix the fare rates is delegated
by the legislature. Can the legislature do that? LTFRB is an
administrative agency. It is given the authority to fix the rates.
And the Supreme Court said that it is permissible delegation,
provided that there are sufficient standards within which LTFRB
can fix the rates.
But what's wrong in this case?
LTFRB further delegated the fixing of the rates to the bus
operators. Bus operators, you can charge fare rates above and
below 15%. Naturally, they would charge. This is again the
principle of delegata potestas non potest delegari (no delegated
powers can be further delegated). In this case, the delegation is
invalid because the delegation is given to a private entity. It
should have stopped with the LTFRB.
ECHEGARAY vs SECRETARY
This is permissible delegation. The congress enacted the death
penalty act. That is a law. Now congress authorized the secretary
of justice in coordination with the director of bureau of
corrections to promulgate the implementing rules particularly
the procedure and details of the sequence of events before and
after injection. This is a valid delegation. Yes, there is already that
law. The policy is death penalty is allowed and death penalty is by
way of lethal injection.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
As to the details of the law, the sequence of events before and
after injection, kaya pa ba ng congress yan? So these can be left to
the administrative bodies to implement.
Now what's wrong in this case?
It's supposed to be the Secretary of Justice and the director of
bureau of corrections, but the implementing rule was only
prepared by the director of bureau of corrections without an
imprimatur of the Secretary of Justice. Anong nangyari? Secretary
of Justice has neglected the delegated authority and pass it on to
the bureau of corrections. Supposedly, the bureau of corrections
is just a mere constituent unit of the DOJ. In that case, it fails to
provide for mode of review and approval of the manual by
Secretary of Justice. The Secretary of Justice further delegated
what supposed to be his duty to prepare the manual.
For permissible delegation to be valid, we have the following
test:
1. completeness test
2. sufficient standard test
The law to be further delegated for implementation must already
be complete in itself. What do you mean by complete in itself? It
already sets forth the policy to be executed, carried out, and
implemented by the delegate. So the inquiries as to whether the
statute is complete with its terms and provisions will be vested in
the legislature, so that nothing was left to the judgment of any
other delegate of the legislature.
For example, the law is death penalty, but it leaves blank as to the
mode of execution. Is it a complete law? Can the congress
delegate to the secretary of justice to determine what would be
the best mode of killing? So that is an example of a law that is not
complete because it leaves to the delegate the discretion to
determine on what would be the substance of the law itself.
Suffiecient standard. Here, the limits of the statute are
sufficiently determinate or atleast determinable to which the
delegate must conform in the performance of its function. For
example, we have the case of...
PEOPLE vs DACUYCUY
A teacher was charged for a criminal act pursuant to this law. He
was convicted. The penal sanction provided by that law which he
was convicted is imprisonment or fine of not less than 100 or
more than 1000 or by imprisonment in the discretion of court.
Here, the court exercises its discretion. If the penalty is fine or
imprisonment in the the discretion of the court, what does it
mean? The court can exercise whether fine ang ibigay niya or
imprisonment. So some laws would even provide for both. So the
court can exercise it discretion.
Is that valid? Yes, as long as there is suffient standard.
What is the problem in this case?
There is no term of imprisonment. So the court said that since the
term of imprisonment is not provided, I will provide it myself. It
might be 1 minute to a lifetime because there is no length of the
term of imprisonment.
Now this time, the Supreme Court say that's invalid delegation of
legislative authority. Leave it to the judge to determine the
penalty? Meron nga tayong prision mayor, aresto mayor, etc. The
power to determine the term is to the Congress.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
In this case, it did not provide for the term. The function of the
judge is only to determine the length of service based on the term
provided by law. What the judge did here is to usurp legislative
power by legislating himself. Because it is not provided in the
law, I will just imprison you within this period. So this is an
example where the law has no standards and the delegate will
have to exercise discretion. Siya na ang ating Congress.
BELTRAN vs SECRETARY
This is about the National Blood Services Act of 1994 or the
phasing out of commercial blood banks. So, all commercial blood
banks shall be phased out for a period of two years, extendable
for a maximum period of another two years. So the phasing out of
commercial blood banks was a policy by the Congress to protect
public safety. It would seem that commercial blood banks are
mostly supplied by persons in need of money. The reason for
giving blood is economics.
Whereas, if it is voluntary, usually those who volunteer have this
charitable intentions. So it was determined that commercial
blood banks have contributed to the decline of health and so it
should be phased out. But there's a period to extend. Hindi muna
natin siya i-phase out. The secretary of health can extend it up to
another 2 years based on the result of the careful study and
review of the blood supply and demand and public safety. The
petitioners were arguing that there‘s no sufficient standard when
the secretary will exercise his discretion to extend it or not.
The Supreme Court said you can look for the standard elsewhere
in the law. In this case, in the law here, it's in the statement of the
policy. So in the law, it was stated that it would be based on the
result of a careful study, the policy is the promotion of public
health by providing a safe and adequate supply of blood through
voluntary blood donation. So the main standards would be public
safety and the result of supply and demand of the blood within
that period. If they cannot yet cope with the supply, then the
secretary has the authority to further extend prior to totally
phasing out commercial blood banks. What we can get from this
case is that the standards can be taken from the statement of
policy of the law.
TATAD vs SECRETARY
This is about the deregulation of downstream oil industry.
Before, we only have the big players – shell, petron, caltex. Now
there was this demand from the public to deregulate them. They
can determine for themselves the price, etc. kasi pag sasali pa si
government, lalong tumataas na mahihirapan si Filipino. That
was the problem before. So RA 8180 mandates the department of
energy upon the approval of the president to implement the full
deregulation of the downstream oil industry not later than March
30, 1997 provided that, the law set standards for the Department
upon delegation as far as practicable one that prices of oil and
petroleum products are declining and peso-dollar rate is more or
less stable.
Now again, this was objected to on the ground of impermissible
delegation. In that, it gives the president the authority to
deregulate the oil industry. Now, when its supposed to be the
function of the Congress. It is a legislative power. And the SC said,
even if there is that delegation, there is also an objection that
there are no standards when the president can fully delegate.
Now binigay mo ang authority sa President when it's supposed to
be the Congress to determine when to deregulate.
And the Supreme Court said:
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
1. The law itself provides for the date of the oil deregulation, that
is not greater than March 1997. So by the end of March, WON the
president would do anything, the oil industry would be fully
deregulated.
What is, therefore, the authority given to the President and
the Department of Energy?
That is to fully deregulate prior to the date in an earlier date
when some coditions are met: (1) as far as practicable, when the
prices of oil and petroleum products are declining in the world
market. And these are standards that can be verified. (2) the
exchange rate of the peso to dollar is stable. So these are
sufficient standards and therefore is a valid exercise of power of
subordinate legislation.
REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION vs ERMITA
In 2006, there was leakage in the Nursing Board Examination.
And the leakage was released by a member of the board of
Nursing operating a review center. As a reaction to that,
President Arroyo, mandated, through an Eecutive Order, the
CHED to regulate review centers.
Now what is the authority of the CHED and where does the CHED
derive its authority? It is pursuant to a law. So the CHED Act (RA
7722). If there is such a law, the CHED can only act within the
powers given to it by law. If you look at that law, CHED is only the
regulating body of higher education, the colleges alone. Exclusive
ang jurisdiction ng CHED. It is only the institutions on higher
learning.
Now what about the review centers? Is this and institution of
higher learning? It is not. You do not need to graduate in a review
center. There is no grading in there, so it's not under CHED.
So can the president mandate the CHED to oversee the
operations of review centers by enacting an executive order
directing the CHED to regulate the establishment and
operation of review centers and similar entities? Does the
president have that power? What did the president do?
Hindi siya nakapaghintay sa Congress to enact a law on which
body will regulate or oversee review centers. The president
make it a discretion and made the CHED oversee. What is the
president doing then? The president is legislating. She's enacting
a law. All acts of the president must be pursuant to the
constitution or law. Because the power of the president is only
implementation. He or she does something that is not provided
by law or the constitution, what she's doing is legislating. As in
this case, when she executed EO 566 directing the CHED to
regulate review centers. We go back to the Separation of Powers
principle. It means that legislation is exclusively the Congress'
power. Implementation, the president's. And the settlement of
controversies, the judiciary's.
LEAGUE OF CITIES vs COMELEC
There are 5. 1 decision 4 resolutions of motions in those cases.
The Local Government Code as amended requires income of 100
million. Prior to that it's just 20 million. When it was just 20
million, there were already pending bills to convert the
municipalities into cities. There were not acted upon. Dumating si
100 million requirement. The Local Government Code was
amended. Now under the constitution, the Local Government unit
shall be created only pursuant to the requirements provided in
the LGC. Ano yung requirement na yun? Income (100 million),
population, and land area. Their contention was when we started
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
with the filing of the bills converting the municipalities into cities,
the requirement was just 20 million. Pero, not withstanding that,
the laws, the bills which converted us from municipalities to
cities, there specifically provide. For example, Mati is exempted
from the 100 million income tax requirement. Dun sila nagkatalo.
Why? The constitution says there should be a uniform standards
on making LGUs. Ano yun? Those that are provided in the LGC,
not elsewhere.
Merong LGC, these are the requirements. Merong Congress who
enacted a law converting mati from municipality into a city,
exempting them from the income requirement of the LGC.
What was the original decision of the SC?
These city bills are invalid. They violate the constitution and the
LGC. There should be uniform requirements in converting
municipalities into cities. What is applicable to them should be
applicable to all. The exemptions should be found in the LGC,
otherwise pwede lang pala tayo mag create create ng law dito
neglecting or disregarding the requirements in the LGC.
There are motions for reconsideration.
As a GENERAL RULE, the decisions of the Supreme
Court are already final.
So far ina-allow ang one motion.
On the first motion, it was dismissed.
On the second, take cognizance with the SC. And the SC changed
its mind. Ano sabi ni supreme court? VALID! Congress has
plenary legislative power. Meaning it is all encompassing. It
should not be limited. The exemption provided in the charter of
the cities is effectively an amendment to the local government
code.
In the next motion for reconsideration, the SC said, INVALID!
Although it is plenary, it is subject to the provisions. So meron
pang issue on equal protection. In that case, limited lang sa
kanila.
In the last motion, the SC sticks to it's decision that the power of
Congress is Plenary. So VALID.
When we create, there should be uniform law. In this case, in
converting of muncicipalities to cities, there should only be one
set of rules. Otherwise, iba ang rule pag create ng Mati, iba ang
rule pag create ng tandag, iba ang rule pag create ng Bislig. So in
that case, I think, the discussion should not be on the principle of
plenary power. So that's the question, who corrects the
corrector?

Devilleres, Elden Claire A. I - Sanchez Roman

Lumanag, Jonah Rose G. 2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
ARTICLE VI
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate
and a House of Representatives, except to the extent
reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.
The Congress
– composed of HOS and HOR
– enactments of laws is done by collegiate decision
Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four
Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters
of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
– National Election. National Lever rather than local
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election,
is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a
registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not
less than two years immediately preceding the day of the
election.
PIMENTEL vs COMELEC
Here, the petitioner questions the constitutionality of the RA9165
and the implementing rule on the COMELEC under resolution
6486. In that law, there is an additional qualification or a
provision which states that all candidates for public office, both in
the National and Local Government, shall undergo a mandatory
process.
Is this a form of disqualification or a form of another
requirement?
The SC said as far as public officers are concerned, the
requirements are already provided in the constitution itself. No
law shall be enacted to act to that qualification. So that is a form
of disqualification. Any substantive qualification in addition to
what is already provided by the constitution. In this case, a
provision which requires that the candidate must be drug free is
a form of additional qualification which is now adding to or
amending the provisions of the constitution. So the SC explains
that the requirement in Section 3 and other provisions providing
for main qualifications are not to be supplemented by other
qualifications not provided by the constitution.
Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years
and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at
noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their
election. No Senator shall serve for more than two
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he
was elected.
Take note: All of the elected officers mentioned in the
constitution commence their office together on June 30, after the
election.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
– the term of office shall be 6 years. A senator can serve
for a maximum of 2 consecutive terms.
If you have been elected for a term of 6 years and can you
run again in the next election? YES
In our system, we have been observing staggering terms for the
senators. The basis of that is in the Section 2 of the transitory
provisions of the constitution which provide that “The Senators,
Members of the House of Representatives, and the local officials
first elected under this Constitution shall serve until noon of June
30, 1992.”
Staggering terms:
The first 12 obtaining the highest number of votes shall serve for
6 years and the remaining 12 for 3 years. Every 3 years,
therefore, we change the membership of the senate by electing
new set of the half of the senate.
– So every 3 years, we elect. Not only our congressmen,
but also senators. But if you observe, instead of electing
24 of them, we only elect 12. The idea being is that
there is continuity of the intended policies of the senate.
If you run again after serving 2 terms, how long should you
be resting before you can run again?
It has been opined that 3 years waiting is enough. After 3 years,
you can run again.
Now because of this system that senators serve on staggering
basis, there is another problem.
As an institution the senate is a continuing body. There is only
one senate in the Philippines. But as to its day to day business, is
it a continuing body? The principle being is that the legislative
body has plenary powers so that they cannot enact irreapelable
laws. Why? The legislative body now should not bind the
legislative body in the future. Diba? So even if its 1 institution, on
its day to day business, different constitutions means that in its
day to day business, this set could be different from the next set.
So the mixed deliberations or decisions here should not bind the
next set.
Is it a continuing body on its day to day business or transactions?
ARNAULT vs NAZARENO (decided under the 1935 constitution)
term of the Senate: 4 years
staggering terms: every 3 years
This is a discussion under legislative inquiry. But going to the
point...
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Here, the person who was invited in the legislative inquiry
refused to answer question, and therefore he was cited for
contempt, so he was detained in bilibid just because he refused to
answer question by the Senate Committee. So he questions his
detention on what ground. So apparently, that congress (1950s)
the entire term of that congress, HOS and HOR, is supposed to
end in 1953. But during this entire period, the term is only 4
years. During this entire term, every now and then, the Congress
will end the session but will resume 3 months after.
What happened in this case was that he was cited for contempt.
Detained in the Bilibid Prison and then that session for that
particular year ended. But the 3rd is still on going. He now then
questions the authority of the senate to continually order his
detention citing that the moment the senate has ended its
session, it already lost the power to continually order his
detention.
So the question is: Is the Senate a continuing body so that
during its business, its power to cite contempt remains? Or
does it end with every end of session?
For one, the SC said the power of the Congress itself shall
continue until the end of the entire term and not at every end of
session in between the terms. So it should continue. So the
Supreme Court said, had it been the House of Representative
which gave the contempt order, by the end of the term when all
of them would be replaced, whether or not they would be re-
elected, then that contempt and the authority to order his
continued imprisonment will also terminate. But the SC said, we
are talking here about the Senate.
Take note: The Senate under our system then (1935
constitution), we were observing also staggering terms. So every
2 years, we replace 1/3 of its composition. In other words they
are 24 of them, so every 2 years we replace 8. But each of them
will have 4 years.
The SC said that because of this staggering terms, there is no
occasion that the senate would cease to exercise its authority in
its day to day business. What's the reason? It's a continuing body
because any given occasion, there remains more than majority of
its membership. If we compare it with HOR, when the term ends
in 1953, how many are we replacing in the HOS? Just 8. So even
then, the majority remains so that its a continuing body. In no
occasion therefore, will the power to cite one for contempt cease.
To be much clearer....
GARCILLANO vs HOR (decided under the 1987 constitution)
Under the 1987 constitution, the question is again asked. WON
the senate is a continuing body particularly in the case of
Garcillano. There was a legislative inquiry. Apparently, the
COMELEC officer rigged the election. Election fraud involving the
President. It was already asked before the HOR, now, the Senate
is also interested to know. So they held their own Legislative
Inquiry. It has commenced. Fortunately or unfortunately,
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
elections were held, so 12 were replaced. We have now a new set
of Senators. Why did I say new set? The 12 being the old ones and
those who remained and then the newly elected senators.
Under the constitution, legislative inquiries are to be conducted
pursuant to duly publish rules of procedure. In other words, it is
constitutionally mandated that there has to be rules of
procedures in a conduct of legislative inquiries and these rules of
procedures have to be published. The question focuses on WON
there was duly published rules of procedure. According to
Garcillano, there was no published rules of procedure. So there
was violation of the constitution so the inquiry cannot proceed.
According to the Senators, they already have duly published rules
of procedures prior to 2004(?).
Is the Senate, under the 1987 constitution, and as far as their
day to day business is concerned, a continuing body?
If yes, the duly published rules , whenever it was published,
continues to be effective even with the change of the membership
of the senators. If the answer is no, we go back to the principle
that the prior senate cannot bind the next senate. For all we
know, they would have different set of rules of procedures. So
they must publish their own rules of procedure. What was the
relevant fact here? There was an election in between. So was
there a change in the composition of the Senators? If there was
change, the answer is yes, it means that it is not a continuing
body. It must publish its own rules of procedure. Or is it like
under the 1935 constitution where even if there is an election,
there is no change in the composition because always there is the
majority? If yes, there is no need to be published. The Supreme
Court said that the senate, under the 1987 constitution, is not like
the senate under the 1935 constitution. Consistent with the
ruling in that case, the senate under the 1987 constitution, is no
longer a continuing body in its day to day business. Why?
When under the 1935 conatitution, with every change, the
majority remains. Under the 1987 constitution, with every
change, there is no longer the majority. And under the
constitution, the senate and the HOR, conducts its business when
there is a quorum. A quorum means there is a majority. Majority
means ½ + 1. So when we changed the composition of the senate,
everytime that there is an election, we lose the majority of the
membership. Therefore, when the 2nd half comes in, it is an
entirely new composition and no longer a continuation of the
prior senate. It has the discretion to change the rules of
procedures. Or even if, according to the SC, they decide to just
adopt the prior rules of procedure, the SC still said that it has to
be duly published.
Again, the senate as an institution is a continuing body. We are
discussing this because of the fact that the senators serve on
staggering terms. It affects the conduct of their activities. Under
the 1987 constitution, there is a caution of that term where in
their day to day business, it ceases as that senate and has to
reconduct that business if it so wants. Even in fact in their own
rules of procedure, “unfinished business at the end of the session
shall be taken up at the next session in the same status. But all
pending matters and proceedings shall terminate upon the
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
expiration of one (1) Congress, but may be taken by the
succeeding Congress as if present for the first time.” (Rule XLIV
Section 123).
So what does it say?
For example, there are now discussing BBL and the discussion is
still pending and nd we have an election by 2016.
Question: After the election, is the next set mandated to
continue with the discussion?
Because it is no longer a contiuing body, the discretion is taken
up for the first time. Or just leave it as it is. Going back to the
principle that the set cannot bind the next set. Even if it is just
one institution, it comprises of different heads and different
opinions. That's your senate. We don't have that problem with
regards to the HOR because they start and end their terms
together, unlike sa senate na staggering sila. The authorities
begin at the start of their terms and ends at the end of their term
and it continues in between, even if in between, they recess from
time to time.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Section 5
1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of
not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected
from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area
in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by
law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
True or False:
There are just 250 members of the HOR? FALSE
The Congress can increase their membership. TRUE (unless
otherwise fixed by law)
What are the compositions of HOR? 2 kinds of congressmen:
1. District representatives
2. Party-list representatives
District Representatives
A municipality can have 1 district? FALSE
– Legislative districts can only be apportioned among
cities, provinces, and the Metropolitan Manila Area. In
other words, it is not true that one municipality can be 1
district or we can create several districts in 1
municipality. It is not provided in the constitution.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
3. Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as
practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent
territory. Each city with a population of at least two
hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have
at least one representative.
- In other words, the composition of the district must
be, whether in the city or barangay ba sya, in the
province or municipality ba sya, as far as practicable
physically close or connected. The idea is to avoid
gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the creation of
Legislative districts from territories that are far from
each other in order to give advantage to a particular
candidate. (Toril and Agdao)
The only exception would be ethnical and cultural
similarities. (As far as practicable)
4. Within three years following the return of every
census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment
of legislative districts based on the standards
provided in this section.
TRUE OR FALSE
The Congress shall enact a general reapportionment law every 3
years: FALSE
MARIANO vs COMELEC
This is the conversion of Makati from Municipality to a City in
1995. There was this law converting Makati from a municipality
to a city. There's a provision of that law which provides for the
creation of 2 legislative districts. Several questions were raised in
this case invalidating the law as unconstitutional for violating
Section 5 of Article 6.
1. You cannot reapportion districts or create districts via a special
law.
– In other words, the theory of the petitioner is that
creation or reapportionment of legislatice districts can only be
done pursuant to a general reapportionment law which happens
within 3 years following the return of every census. So you have
to wait before a new legislative district can be created. And the
Supreme Court said, the reapportionment of legislative districs
may be made through a special law, for example, the charter of
the city. In this case, the city of Makati. As...the constitution did
not preclude...(40:36). So the reapportionment, the creation of
new....can be done through a special law. The reason is that it
would be unjust for a territory to be denied of a representation if
it has to wait for the general reapportionment. Like in this case, It
would be unjust for them to be represented after the general
reapportionment of legislative districts.
2. Makati City, during that time, has a population of only 450,000.
Let's go back to the constitution, “Each city with a population of
at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have
at least one representative.” The theory of the petitioner is: since
the population is only 450,000, it is unconstitutional for Makati to
have 2 legislative districts. According to the petitioner, each
legislative district created must have 250,000 as constituents. So
kung 2 ang legislative districts ng Makati, there must be 500,000
to be entitled 2 legislative districts.
Is he correct?
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
The SC said: Even granting that the population of Makati stood at
450,000, its legislative district may still be increased since it has
met the minimum population requirement of 250,000. The
constitution says “Each city with a population of at least two
hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
representative. In other words, the requirement for a city to be
entitled to a legislative district, initially, is for it to have atleast
250,000. That is the minimum requirement for a city to have a
legislative district or to have atleast 1 representative. In other
words, if the population of the city is just 200,000, can a
legislative district be created? The answer is of course NO.
ALDABA VS COMELEC
Here, there is a projection that the population of Malolos City will
reach 254,030 in 2010. Now what happened in this case? In 2009,
hindi nakapag hintay si Congress or si legislative department. It
created a legislative district out of Malolos City. Since this is just a
projection, when the law was created apportioning a legislative
district in Malolos City, obviously the population was not yet
250,000.
Now even if we consider the projection, can the legislative
district be immediately created?
The SC said, “ a city which does not attain a population of 250,000
is entitled to a legislative district only in the immediately
following election.”
In short, a city must first attain 250,000 population minimum
requirement before it is entitled to a legislative district or a
district representative. So meaning, each city with a population of
at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have
at least one representative. We know in Mariano vs COMELEC
that each city with atleast 250,000 population is entitled to
atleast 1 legislative district. In that case, Makati has 450,000. It's
not unconstitutional for it to have 2 legislative districts. The idea
being, the 250,000 requirement is only required during the initial
qualification of a city to have a district representative (Mariano
vs COMELEC).
So what about the province? We have this case of...
AQUINO vs COMELEC
Aquino III here is now the incumbent president. When he was
still a congressman, he questions, together with Robredo, the
creation of or the apportionment of 5 legislative districts of the
province of Camarines Sur. Originally, that province has 4
legislative districts. A law was enacted increasing the legislative
district from 4 to 5. So what they did was rearrange the
municipalities so that from 4 legislative districts, it has now a
new legislative district. Now, the behind the scene chismis was
that the additional legislative district is created in order to favor
of one of the sons of Gloria Arroyo para maging congressman
siya. So Aquino, with Robredo, questions the creation of that 5 th
legislative district. What was his ground? When the
municipalities were rearranged and reapportioned this was the
result. 4 disctricts had more than 250,000 inhabitants, in fact 2 of
the exceeds 400,000. But the first district had only 176,000.
Is that district with 176,000 population entitled to district
representation? So in other words, is the creation of another
legislative district valid or constitutional?
If we use Mariano vs COMELEC, it is valid. In a city, the
constitution requires that it has 250,000 population first before it
is entitled to representation. But for a province, what is required?
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
You read the provision again. Each city with a population of at
least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at
least one representative.
So the Supreme Court pointed out that there is a clear distinction
between the entitlement of a city to a district and entitlement of
the province to a district. What's the distinction?
For a city, there is a minumum requirement of a population, for a
province, there is no mention of population. Each province shall
be entitled to at least one district representative. In other words,
the 250,000 population is not an issue with regards to the
creation of legislative districts. What the constitution requires is
only proportional representation. So in accordance with the
number of their respective inhabitants and on the basis of a
uniform and prorgressive ratio. So in other words, for a province,
the constitution does not require minimum population to be
entitled to a legislative district.
A newly created province is automatically entitled to one
legislative district. A newly created city...is it automatically
entitled to a legislative district? It depends on the population. But
if you look at the Local Government Code, what's the minimum
population for a creation of a city? I think it's 250,000.
(Difference of a city and a province when it comes to entitlement
of a legislative dstrict). In other words, a province can have as
many legislative district in accordance with the number of its
inhabitants provided that it is proportional.
Because of this rulings, actually, during this time (Arroyo 2010),
legislative districts were created left and right. But the SC is
consistent in saying that for provinces, there is no population
requirement. For cities, 250,000 is only required in the initial
entitlement to legislative district.
Party-list Representatives
There are 2 kinds of congressmen.
Those who are district representatives has a definite
constituency. There's a definite portion of territory which votes
for them. For every particular district, that's 1 constituency.
When the constitution provides for party-list representatives,
automatically this would be the representatives of those with no
definite constituency. They would be elected at large, like the
senators.
Section 5.
1. ...and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected
through a party-list system of registered national, regional,
and sectoral parties or organizations.
2. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including
those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after
the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as
provided by law, by selection or election from the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by
law, except the religious sector.
These are the only provisions in the constitution where you could
find the party-list representation. In other words, the rest is left
with the discretion of the Congress. How to go about the system?
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
What would that system be? How shall we elect the party-list
representatives? Who shall participate in the party-list system?
So the Congress enacted RA 7941 or an act providing for the
election of party-list representatives through the party-list
system, and appropriating funds therefor. Our party-list system is
not the same as the party-list system in other countries. But
what's common is the principle that it is supposed to open up the
system for multi-parties.
Party-list system
- is intended to democratize political power by giving political
parties that cannot win in a legislative district elections a chance
to win seats in the HOR.
For a city, how many constituents is required to be entitled to a
representative? At least 250,000. Now, there are organizations,
groups, or parties, that cannot win in district elections, but if you
look at them in the national level, they have, say, 500,000 loyal
members. So aren't they entitled to a representative? That's the
question. And through the party-list system, the constitution has
mandated that these groups should be represented, not in the
district representation, but in the party-list system.
So easily, it opens up the system to multiple parties. It allows
representation to those with such number of constituencies
although not well defined. What do you mean by well-defined?
Let's say, isang district, when it comes to party-list system, it's
not well defined, they could be anyone in the country. So that's
the idea. How come this territory with 250,000 constituencies is
entitled to 1 representative in the Congress and this group which
has 1 million members is not entitled to a representative? So at
least they should be represented. So that is through the party-list
system.
So in the system, the voters actually has 2 votes. 1 for the choose
of person to represent him in his district. And another for the
person to represent him in his...that he'd be living. So that would
be the party-list system.
POLICY:
The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to
give more law to the great masses of our people who have less in
life, but also to enable them to become veritable lawmakers
themselves, empowered to participate directly in the enactment
of laws designed to benefit them. It intends to make the
marginalized and underrepresented not merely passive
recipients of the State's benevolence, but active participants in
the mainstream of representative democracy.
Since there are more of them, there are more of us, we are
entitled to representation in the Congress, not merely because we
are residents of this particular district, but also because we
believe in such other causes.
Who will participate in the party-list election?
If we look at the cases assigned to you, the decisions of the SC
have evolved from this to this and up to the present on the issue
of who may participate in the party-list election.
Actually all of these cases were interpreting the same section of
the law – Section 2. Going to Section 2, it states there that policy.
What is important to know is that it enables Filipino citizens
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors and
those who lack well defined poilitcal constituencies to be
represented. So that's section 2.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
RA 7941
Section 2. Declaration of part y. The State shall promote
proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the House of Representatives through a
party-list system of registered national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which
will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
under-represented sectors, organizations and parties, and
who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could
contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become
members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end,
the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open
party system in order to attain the broadcast possible
representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the
House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to
compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall
provide the simplest scheme possible.
ANG BAGONG BAYANI vs COMELEC (2001)
But when Ang Bagong Bayani (2001) was decided, the Supreme
Court said that...
the provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional
representation by means of Filipino-style party-list system,
which will enable the election to the HOR of Filipino citizens,
1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties; and
2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
Ultimately, however, the Supreme Court in Ang Bagong Bayani
said, the constitution is clear. It is to give genuine power to the
people not only to those who have less in life but more so by
enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves. It is to
enable the marginalized people, the underrepresented parties to
become part of the HOR. In other words, only those that
represent the economically marginalized and underrepresented
may participate in the partylist election.
In this case, nawala si #2. Ultimately, when the Supreme Court
decided this case on who may participate in the party-list
election, it said that only those who are marginalized and
underrepresented may participate. In other words, Section 5 of
RA7941 mentions the sectors that must be represented because
they are marginalized and underrepresented (labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals.)
The Supreme Court, in this case, said that businessmen and the
rich cannot be represented in the party-list. Why? Are they
marginalized? Yes because they are only very few of them, but
they are, according to the Supreme Court, not underrepresented.
They have this political cloud. They control the politicians. So to
be able to participate in the party-list system, the group has to be
marginalized and underrepresented.
May political parties participate in the party-list elections?
Yes because in fact it is provided in Section 5, Article 6 of the
constitution that representatives may be elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations. So National parties, regional parties may
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
participate in the party-list elections. But according to the
Supreme Court, it is only....because in the end the Supreme Court
said in that case that that political party...does not mean however
that any political party or organization for that matter may do so
(1:08:02). In fact after this decision was made, it was still
prohibited for political parties to participate in the party-list
election. Not any political parties. There are...must be consistent
with the purpose of the party-list system.
So in other words, consistent with the rule of the SC here, to be
entitled to participate as a political party, one must be a
marginalized and underrepresented political party, which in
reality, there's no such thing. How come you are marginalized or
underrepresented? You have a party.
In this case, therefore, the SC ruled in Bagong Bayani that the
political parties, sector, organizations or coalitions must
represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups
identified in Section 5 of 7941.
While even major political parties are expressly allowed by the
RA7941 and the constitution to participate, they must comply
with the declared statutory policy of enabling “Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be
elected in the HOR.” So if you're a political party, according to the
SC, you must belong to the marginalized or underrepresented
sector. There is no such thing. You are not a sector, you are a
party.
BANAT vs COMELEC (2009)
On the issue WON political parties may participate in the
party-list election?
Some said Yes. The framers of the constitution clearly intended
that major political parties to participate in the party-list election
but through their sectorial wings. So for example, liberal party
may have their youth wing. That sectoral wing of the major
political party may participate. Major political parties are allowed
to establish, or form coalitions, with sectoral organizations for
electoral or political purpose. Major political parties can thus
organize, or affiliate with, their chosen sector or sectors. That
was in Banat, but in reality, yun parin. By vote of 8:7 the court
decided to continue the ruling in veterans, reiterated in ang
bagong bayani is allowing major politcal parties from
participating in the party-list elections directly or indirectly.
ATONG PAGLAUM vs COMELEC (2013)
When this case was decided, a lot of those who are interested
immediately formed their own groups. Why? What happened?
With regards to political parties, can they participate? The clear
intent express warning and party-list structure pertained in
Section 5 (1),(2) Article 6 of the 1987 constitution can now be
disputed.
The party-list system is not for sectoral parties only, but also for
non-sectoral parties. So this gives you an idea that pag party-list
system, this is not limited to the marginalized and
underrepresented. The SC clarifies. If you read section 5(1) of
that article, it says that there shall be party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
In other words, there are 3 different groups that may participate
in party-list elections. Who are these groups?
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
1. national parties or organizations – liberal, Nacionalista.
2. Regional parties or organizations – Hugpong Mindanao
3. Sectoral parties or organizations
If we look at the enumeration, sectoral parties are distinguished
from national parties or organizations. In other words, national
and regional parties or organizations need not be organized
along sectoral lines and need not represent a sector. These are
parties or organizations that represent ideologies, not sectors.
Ano yang sectoral lines? By sector –Women, youth, LGBT, etc.
- For example, can hugpong mindanao fill a candidate in
district 1 of Davao City? Yes. But does it think that it will win in
district 1 na kalaban nya LP, UNA, etc.? If it thinks that it cannot
win, can it then participate in the party-list election? YES. Saan
sya kukuha ng votes? Not in the district but in the national level.
The law does not require national or regional parties to represent
the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Who are they
supposed to represent if not the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors? There's already a group that
represents the marginalized and underrepresented. Sino yun?
Sectoral parties or organizations.
What about the national and regional parties? Who are they
supposed to represent? A party as defined in the law is either a
political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties. In other
words, you need not be a sectoral party. Pwede kang political
party to participate.
Political party would refer to “an organized group of citizens
advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for
the general conduct of government” while Sectoral party refers
to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors
enumerated in Section 5 of the RA 7941, whose principal
advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their
sector.
When you are ideology based, you are a political party. When
you are advocating a special interest of a particular group, you
are a sectoral party or organizations. The marginalized and
underrepresented are represented by the sectoral parties or
organizations. Those who have common ideologies, principles
and policies are represented by political parties. In other words,
it is sufficient hat the political party consists of citizens who
actually have the same ideology or platform or the same
governance principles and policies, regardless of their economic
status as citizens. They need not be marginalized and
underrepresented.
Political Parties may participate. That is now a definite ruling.
What about major political parties? Can they participate in party-
list election?
Now who are major political parties? Major political parties are
those that field candidates in the legislative district elections.
Going back, there are 2 kinds of representatives: District and
Party-list. Those who participate in the district representative
election are major political parties. What's common among them?
They have this definite constituency. Yung district. In other
words, automatically, they neither lack well-defined political
constituencies nor could they qualify under marginalized and
underrepresented sector. Meron na silang venue to represent.
What is that? The district.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
So may major political parties participate in party-list
election? Automatically they are disqualified, because you're
already in the legislative district, but consistent with the ruling in
Banat, the major political party may fill their own sectoral wings.
The national or regional parties therefore, under tha party-list
system, are necessarily those that do not belong to major political
parties. This automatically reserves the national and regional
parties to those who lack well-defined political constitutencies
giving them the opportiunity to have members in the HOR. Wala
silang district eh. Diba? Wala silang district
So the Party-list system, therefore, for political parties, are only
reserved for those who lack well-defined political constituencies.
In other words, major political parties are already disqualified
because they have well-defined political constituencies. So they
cannot participate.
Political parties can participate in party-list election provided
that they register under the party-list system and do not field
candidates in legislative district elections. Why? If they field
candidates, meron na silang well-defined political constituency
and therefore considered as major political party.
A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in
legislatice district elections can participate in party-list elections
only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under
the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an
independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party
through a coalition.
What is registered is that sectoral wing, not actually the party by
itself.
Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized
and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political
constituencies.”
Is there a sector that is not marginalized and
underrepresented but may still qualify because it lacks
“well-defined political constituencies”? YES.
For example, professionals. Professionals is a sector, but it is not
necessary marginalized and underrepresented. But it may be
considered as lacking in well-defined political constituencies.
Actually, the SC mentions that the following sectors in this case as
under the second kind, professionals, the women, and the youth
sector because they are not necesarry marginalized or
underrepresented, but they lack well defined political
constituencies so they may still be represented.
Majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must belong
to the “marginalized and underrepresented” sector they
represent.
Kasi there was this instance where the son of Arroyo formed this
sectoral party for security guards, tricycle drivers, in the end the
members and nominees are them. So the rule is, atleast majority
of the member of the sectoral parties or organizations that lack
“well-defined political constituencies” must belong to the sector
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
they represent. So if its the women sector, at least majority of its
members should be women.
The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent
the “marginalized and underrepresented,” or that represent
those who lack well-defined political constituencies,” either must
belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of
advocacy for their respective sectors.
- For example, women's sector may be represented by a man if he
is a member of the group and if he has a track record of advocacy
for that sector.
The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations
must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
ANG LADLAD vs COMELEC
Ang LADLAD is led by a group of professionals, in fact professors
of ADMU, CPAs, Lawyers, they represent the LGBTs. Is it a
political party? No, it does not advocate an ideology in
governance. It is a sectoral party? Yes, because it advances the
interest of a particular group or sector.
Now, they filed for registration in the COMELEC. The COMELEC
denied their registration because according to the COMELEC,
Section 5 of RA7941 does not mention LGBT as among the
sectors that may be represented. So they are not marginalized
and underrepresented as enumerated in section 5. COMELEC is
quoting the bible and koran to deny their registration.
Are they qualified?
So the Supreme Court said the enumeration of marginalized and
underrepresented sectors in section 5 or RA7941 is not exclusive.
So the crucial element is not whether the sector is specifically
enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with
the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.
If I ask you, what does the constitution and RA7941 require
for one to qualify as a sectoral body?
Either you are marginalized or underrepresented or you lack
well-defined political constituencies.
DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE AND PARTY-LIST
REPRESENTATIVE RATIO
Under Article 6 Section 5(2)
The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum
of the total number of representatives including those under the
party list...
We started with 250 members. If there are 250 members in the
Congress, how many seats would be reserved to the party-list?
What's 20 percent? 50. But later on, pursuant to law, we will be
increasing legislative districts. So what is known is the number of
legislative districts, that's a fact. The Congress will not enact a law
saying that the members of a congress shall comprise of 400
congressmen. It will not do that. What it will do is it will add
every now and then to the legislative district. So everytime the
legislative districts are added, we also have to proportionally
increase the seats reserved for the party-list. Usually the figure
that is known is the number of legislative districts. So how will
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
you know how many seats will you reserve for the party-list?
That's when mathematics comes in...ratio and proportion.
If there are 250 legislative districts, how many seats will be
reserved for the party-list representatives?
# of Legislative Districts/ 80% x 20% = # of seats reserved for
the party-list representatives
# of District Representatives/4 = # of party-list representative
For example, if we have 400 district representatives, how many
seats will be reserved for the party-list representatives?
400/4 = 100 seats
How many members in all does the congress have?
400 district representatives + 100 party-list representatives =
500 members in Congress.
HOW THE SEATS ARE TO BE ALOCATED?
The only constitutional rule is that there should be 20% of the
total number of seats in the House of Representatives that should
be reserved for the party-list including the district
representatives. So, how to compute for the 20%... You’ll know
the number of district representatives because the addition of
representative districts is that pursuant to law. Now we will
know the number of portion of district representatives. That
portion now is the number of seats the district representatives.
Our law says that should be reserved for the party-list
representatives which is 20%. Now whatever that number is, that
represents the 80% so its (N/.80). Whatever the dividend will be
multiplied by .20. So that’s how we get the number of party-list
representatives.
As I have made you imagine, it’s as simple as divided by four (4).
Whatever the number is, say of example 208, we have the
dividend 208. As I’ve said, we can cross multiply. So the shortest
way would be 208 divided by 4.
See: 208 = 52
4 Sibak and Banat are all in agreement that in allocating the seats,
So let’s say there are 226 for district representatives, how many
would be reserved for the partylist representatives? So simply
divide it by 4 is 55. But what if I would ask it this way, the total of
congressmen now are 500. How many seats would be served for
the partylist representatives? 100. It is not divided by 4 already
because the given is the total number of members in the House
itself.
So when you’re given only the number of district
representatives, that’s when do that (refer to n/4). But when
you are given the total number of members in the House of
Reresentatives, you divide it by .20. You will get the 20% of that.
What if the question changes, “how many seats for the district
representatives?” .8. So that’s the way. You multiply it by .8
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
HOW TO ALLOCATE PARTY-LIST SEATS
Going back, the Constitution only provides this. Section 5,
paragraph 2 of Article VI provides “20%”. That is the only
constitutional rule that we have that at least 20% of the House of
Representatives would be for the party-list. The rest is left to the
congress to determine. Congress, it is up to you how you are
going to allocate the seats for the party-list representatives. So,
the congress enacted RA 7941. Section 12 of that law provides
as follows,
“In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, (a)
The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from
the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they
garnered during elections; (b) The parties, organizations and
coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes
cast for the partylist system shall be entitled to one seat each:
Provided, that those garnering more that two percent (2%) of the
votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
total number of votes: Provided, finally, that each party,
organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three
(3) seats.”
so these are the provisions of law and the provision of the
Constitution which serve as guides for allocating the partylist
representative seats.
The interpretation of these sections is left to the Supreme Court.
How do we interpret this is in reality? So the first case to intepret
that is the case of Alcaraz v Akbayan. That was decided in 2000.
Thereafter, that was reiterated in the case of Sibak. Now the most
recent decision, which means that it is now the standing rule is
in...
BANAT vs COMELEC (2009)
That is in you 2009 case. So when you are asked how to allocate,
these are the two relevant cases. Veterans and Banat. Veterans,
there are four (4) inviolable characters based on the provision of
the Constitution and the provision of RA 7941, section 11. To
what are these parameters in providing for the solution? These
are the four (4) parameters that must be observed:
One, that one percent (1%) allocation. So this means that the
compiled number of all parties congressman shall not exceed
20% of total ... Of the House of Representatives and those elected
under the parties. Meaning, that if your solution will yield to an
answer that is more than 20%, that is already a wrong solution.
The 20% allocation already is indispensable.
Next, the 2% threshold. Only those parties garnering a minimum
of 2% of the total values we’ve discussed for the party-list system
is qualified to have exceed in the House of Representatives.
Next, the 3-seat limit. Each qualifying party regardless of the
numbers of votes may may actually obtain his entire in the
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
minimum of 3 seats that is 1 qualifying, and 2 additional seats.
Even if you have, say, more than 50% of the votes cast, the most
seats that you can get is just 3. So there is a limit.
Also, every resolution would be proportional representation. The
additional seats which the qualifying parties are entitled to shall
be computed in proportion to their total number of votes.
Regarding the 20% allocation, the question was asked on WON
it’s mandatory to fill up the entire 20%. As I've said, the first case
to answer this is Veterans v Akbayan...
VETERANS vs AKBAYAN
Is it mandatory to fill up the 20% allocation? Meaning, that
whatever your solution would be, it should always lead to 20%.
But in reality, that’s possible.
The Supreme Court in Veterans said that the 20% allocation in
the Constitution is merely a ceiling. So congress was vested with
the ... in time and prescribed by the candidates of the party-list
system of representation. As reiterated in Banat, is says neither
the constitution nor the law mandates the filling up of the entire
20% allocation of party-list representatives found in the
constitution.
The constitution in section 5 article VI left with the determination
of the number of members of the HOR. So isn’t it already
provided in the constitution that the HOR shall comprise of 250
members unless otherwise fixed by law. Thus, the congress can
fix the number so the 20% is really a guide. That is the ceiling.
Meaning, that the partylist representative cannot be more than
20% of the HOR.
What about the 2% threshold and the 3-seat limit? Question,
is this a limit provided by the Constitution?
The only provision of the constitution is the 20% allocation.
Congress, mandated by the constitution, provide for the system.
Congress enacted the law and congress determines that this
would be our system. There should be 2% threshold and there
should be a limit of... These are statutory limits provided by law.
Is the 2% threshold and the 3-seat limit under RA 7941,
constitutional?
When we vote for the president, is there a percentage
requirement that the candidate must at least have this vote to say
that there is a vote of confidence by the court? Wala, diba? So, if
we hold a national election, and the first ranking candidate only
gets 5% of the total votes cast, can he be declared as a president?
Yes. There is no limit as to the percentage that these kind of
candidates should get to be able to declare. But when we go to
the partylist system, the congress deems necessary that there
should be 2% threshold.
Is the 2% threshold constitutional?
The Supreme Court said in Veterans v Akbayan that yes it is. In
imposing a 2% threshold, the congress wanted to ensure that any
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
of those parties, organizations and coalitions having sufficient
number of constituents reserving representation are actually
representing in congress. Thus, even legislative districts are
portioned according to the number of their respective in
appearance and on the basis of ... progressive relationship to
ensure representation. Otherwise, the result might be that... are
incapable of ... jurisdiction. So, going to district representatives,
the constitution mandates that at least 250,000 population in the
city is entitled to at least one (1) representative. So there must be
a threshold when it comes to party-list system. At least those
with 2% votes of the total number of votes cast should be
represented. So that’s constitutional.
What about the 3-seat limit?
It is also constitutional. It would encourage multi-party system
representation who would prevent any group from dominating
the party-list seats. After all, the 20% provided by the
constitution is mandatory and shall be dealt. The 3-seat limit
therefore is in place to encourage multi-party system. Otherwise,
there will be a few that will dominate the election.
Meaning of the total votes cast for the party
2% of the total votes cast for the party in proportion to the total
votes cast for the partylist. In...
ANG BAGONG BAYANI vs COMELEC (2003)
During the May 2001 election, and this really shows that we were
not prepared for the party-list elections, we were still unsure,
uncertain, on how to implement that system of election. May
2001, partylist elections, there were 152 parties that were
allowed by the comelec to participate. So naturally, we voted
among these parties. The turnout was around 15million votes
cast for these 152 parties. Now later, we realized that most of
them were not qualified. Tapos na ang election. Or at least the
votes were cast. The 152 that were allowed to participate, the
Comelec disqualified 116. Grabe. Hindi tayo sure talaga who will
participate in the partylist. So only 46 were declared to be
qualified. These 46 parties shared among them 6.5 million votes.
Going back, the total number of votes that were cast was around
15 million including the disqualified parties. Now, to exclude that,
the votes cast for the qualifying parties was just 6.5 million. So
how will we determine the 2%? Should it be 2% of 15 million? Or
2% of 6.5 million? Ang bagong bayani gave this term. Those
votes obtained by the disqualified partylist candidates are not to
be counted in determining the total votes cast for the partylist
system. The votes obtained should be deducted from the total of
votes cast during the 2001 elections. The 2% threshold for
victory of the number of seats, the winners entitled to should be
computed based on 6.5 valid votes cast for the qualified party-list
candidates. Given the fact, it’s such an anomaly that more than
50% were disqualified.
Now how to solve for additional seats... Let’s go back to the
provision of law. Section 11 of RA7941.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked
from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they
garnered during elections.
Say, there are 55 seats to be filled out. Do we stop with the
ranking? Those which rank from 1 to 55 already have seats to the
partylist. Is that the proper interpretation? No, because there is
letter B.
(b) The parties, organizations and coalitions receiving at least
two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system
shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, that those garnering
more that two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to
additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes:
Provided, finally, that each party, organization, or coalition shall
be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
In other words, you rank them from highest to lowest, in
accordance with the number of votes they have obtained during
the election.
How do we determine the number of seats the first party is
entitled to?
This was the focus of Veterans v Akbayan. As I’ve said, Veterans is
among the first cases where the SC interpreted section 11 of RA
7941. The focus of Veterans is how do we determine the number
of seats the first party is entitled to? The only basis given by law
is that the party-list is given 2% shall be entitled to one seat. How
do we get the 2% by the way? 2% of the total number of votes
cast. So your total number of votes then divided by the total
number of votes cast. So you get percentage of the votes vis-a-vis
the total number of votes cast. So all those parties which
garnered 2%, at least, are entitled to one (1) vote.
Veterans, however, interpreted paragraph 2 section 11 this
way, “If the first party were to receive twice the number of votes
of the 2nd party, it should be entitled to twice the latter’s number
of seats and so on.
In other words, your seat if you are the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and so
on and so forth on ranking, the number of seats that you are
entitled to will depend on how far you are with the number of
seats of the first party. So your percentage in relation to the first
party so that if the first party has twice more than your
percentage, the first party shall twice more seats than one have.
Veterans provided for a very complicated solution. Total number
of the first party divided by the total number of the 2nd party and
total number of the votes cast. The bottom line is, the rules of the
2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on parties are compared to the votes
obtained by the first party because they have already... received
2% of the total votes shall be entitled to one (1) seat.
BANAT vs COMELEC
Asked for a revisit of that interpretation (see above-mentioned
case). The SC retained its interpretation. But by 2009, in the
issues of Banat, etc., the SC said it was compelled to revisit the
formula of Veterans because it sought for the interpretation of
the term “proportional representation” for the allocation of seats.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Take note that Veterans interprets it in proportion to the total
number of votes to be in proportion to the votes of the first party
of the first partylist organization receiving the highest number of
votes when it should be for the total number of votes cast for the
partylist candidates.
For a while, from 2001 to 2009, the SC finally changed the
computation. Going back to Veterans, the first interpretation was
the total number of votes in proportion to the total number of
votes per party. It should be the total number of votes in
proportion to the total number of votes cast in the election. Sa
Veterans pa, you have to get 2%, 4%, 6%, so on and so forth. So in
determining the allocation of seats for the party representatives
under the law, the court may now grant them.
So in this case, Banat, there were 93 partylist candidates. How
many seats were they vying for? There were only 55 seats
available. There were 93 of them.
How to allocate?
Rank them from highest to lowest then the next sentence of
paragraph 2, section 11 says, those receiving at least 2% of the
total votes cast of the party-list system is entitled to 1 guaranteed
seat.
In other words, you get your percentage, your votes in the total
number of votes cast. Right? Ilan na ang percentage mo? Let’s say,
as rank, Buhay, Bayan Muna, Sibak, Gabrella, etc. Buhay got 1.1
million votes. Now in proportion to the total number of the votes
cast, 1.61 million is 7.33%. Bayan Muna has 979,039 votes. In
proportion to the total number of votes cast, it’s 6.71%.
The law says those with 2% are entitled to one guaranteed seat.
So sumobra ka ng 2%. You are assured of 1 seat. So who of them
have more than 2%? So it’s buhay, etc. There were just 17 of
them. It says 1 guaranteed seat. So ilang seats ang ibibigay natin
sa kanila? Just 1. Now, based on that, 17 seats were allocated.
How many seats are left? 38. How do we now distribute the 38
seats? The prior rule in allocating the additional seats. The
second clause of section 11 provides that those garnering more
than 2% percent of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats
in proportion to their total number of votes.
The SC says in this case that in computing the allocation of
additional seats, the 2nd clause of section 11(b) of RA7941 is
constitutional. Why? In Veterans, this is how it was interpreted.
Those garnering more that two percent (2%) of the votes shall be
entitled to additional seats. The first interpretation is may
guaranteed seats sila. The second interpretation is only they are
entitled to additional seats. Meaning, that in this ranking, there is
no chance for rank number 18 down to get a seat. This is the
Veterans interpretation. Only those ranked 1 to 17 who got more
than 2% only they are entitled to additional seats. That’s the
interpretation of Veterans.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
The SC said the 2nd clause of 11(b) in computing for additional
seats is unconstitutional. Distinguish that section in computing
from guaranteed seats. Anong guaranteed seats? That’s
constitutional. We have no problem with that. But the continuing
operation of the 2% in the allocation now of the additional seats
would frustrate the attainment of permissible ceiling. The 20% of
the members of the house shall consist of party-list
representatives as provided in section 5(2) of the constitution.
What does he SC mean by that? 17 na sila and only they are
entitled to additional seats according to Veterans. Only 17 have
guaranteed seats. What’s the basis of guaranteed seats? 20%.
That same provision was also used to determine the additional
seats. Sabi ng SC, if we continue to use the 2% for the additional
seats, there’s no way we can fill up the entire 55 seats. So 17 lang
sila. Bigyan sila ng additional seats. Sino lang ang entitled? 17? Si
Buhay lang and si Sibak. It does not even reach 50% of the 55
seats. Walang nakakuha. To continue operation therefore of the
2% in allocating the additional seats. Ilan anng additional seats?
38. It has now been declared as unconstitutional because
according to the SC, it will frustrate 20% allocation. It will never
reach even half of the allocated number of seats.
Thus the SC interpreted it this way, those garnering sufficient
number of votes. Hindi na yung 2%. Those garnering sufficient
number of votes shall be entitled to additional seats in
proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional
seats are allocated. In other words, for the additional seats, it is
no longer limited to the 2%. Everyone gets a chance according to
their ranking and in proportion to their number of votes. The 2%
threshold only in relation to the distribution of additional seats
as found in the 2nd clause of 7941. The 2% threshold presents
the unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of section 5,
paragraph 2 of article VI. The constitution prevents the
attainment of the broadest possible representation in the HOR.
Take note, we are interpreting the same provision. Anong
provision yon? 2nd clause. b) The parties, organizations and
coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes
cast for the partylist system shall be entitled to one seat each.
This has been declared as constitutional. Those garnering more
that two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional
seats in proportion to their total number of votes has been
declared by the SC as unconstitutional. 2%, therefore, is relevant
only when getting a guaranteed seat. For the rest of the seats, we
no longer consider the 2%. So the rule is, those garnering
sufficient number of votes according to paragraph 2 shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to the number of votes
until all the additional seats are allocated.
What does the SC mean by this?
Even if the 20% is merely a ceiling, the SC has decided to allocate
all of the seats nonetheless until all of the seats are allocated. The
SC has decided to fill up all the additional seats. Thus, when
under Veterans, the contenders or the seats are only those
ranking 1 to 17 because they rank more than 2%, that’s the
veteran’s interpretation, the new interpretation would be, under
Banat, those with more than 2% will have 1 guaranteed seat (b).
Now we will compute for the additional seats. How do you
solve for the allocation?
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Buhay has 7.33%. What’s 7.33% of 38? Yun ang seat niya sa 38.
Bayan has 6.14%. What’s 6.14% of 38? Kasi mag-shi-share na sila
sa 38 seats diba? So solving that, the additional seat for Buhay is
2.79. So you’ll get the whole because there is no 0.79 seat. Bayan
has 2.33. The SC decided to fill up the available seats. It no longer
bothered to compute anymore. Kapoy. So how many seats does
Buhay have? 1 guaranteed seat tapos percentage pa sa remaining
seat, 2 seats. So Buhay has 3 seats. Bayan has 1 guaranteed seat
plus 2 again doon sa share niya sa 38, so 3 etc.
So the rule here is very simple. First, rank them from highest to
lowest. Next, those with 2% are entitled to 1 seat. Next, for the
remaining seats, you get their proportion of seats in relation to
their percentage and then solve for it. Then, the entire seats
remaining, give their seats according to their rank. So the rule
now is much simpler. You don’t have to be a math wizard. For
those who are interested, their only complication is ilang
members meron tayo. 2% is no longer the mandatory
requirement for one to get the seat. 2% is only relevant for a
guaranteed seat. Ano pa? What other updates in jurisprudence?
The partylist system is no longer limited to the marginalized and
the underrepresented. Diba? That is the ruling of Atong Paglaom.
So you have to be very careful in the application and in the
distinction of the 2%. If I say, for example, that the 2% threshold
had been held as unconstitutional, would you answer true or
false? It is constitutional as long as determining the guaranteed
seats, it’s unconstitutional in determining the additional seats.
If you have observed, walang sumobra ng 4 seats (refer to the
case). If the party gets 4 seats, the SC will remove 1 and give it to
the next. So actually, more or less, our party-list election is now
firm for those who are disqualified for unknown reasons.
Because of this ruling, nagkaroon ng seat si Palparan. In the
original competition, there were several... seats. But because of
this ruling, marami ang naging congressman.
Section 6. Qualifications of a member of the HOR
District Representative
Just like your senator, he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. But unlike a senator, on the day of the election, he
must be at least 25 years of age. Able to read and write, and
except for the partylist representative, a registered voter in the
district where he is elected and a resident thereof for a period of
at least 1 year immediately preceding the day of election.
Party-list member
Not found in the constitution. The constitution in the
determination of the partylist system to the congress. Where can
we find the qualification of partylist representatives? Anong law
‘yon? 7941. No person shall be nominated as partylist
representative unless he is natural-born, registered voter
anywhere in the Philippines, resident of the Philippines for a
period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the election,
able to read and write, bonafide member of the partylist
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
organization he seeks to represent preceding the day of the
election, at least 25 years of age on the day of the election.
The nominee for a youth sector is 55 years old. Is he a qualified
nominee? The nominee of Bantay Bata is Eugenio Lopez, hindi
siya bata. Is he qualified, etc? What is a qualification of a
nominee? Should a nominee also... him? Poverty, destitution and
property. A party who participates in a partylist representation
need not be marginalized or underrepresented. It could be a
sector or a party which lasts in a well-defined constituency.
So, in Banat, the SC said it is not necessary that the partylist
organization’s nominee wallow in poverty, destitution, etc. as to
there is no financial status required by law. Enough that the
nominee of the sectoral party organization belongs to the
marginalized and underrepresented sector at least if the nominee
represents himself as such, he must actually be such. What about
Eugenio Lopez representing the bantay bata? There is a
qualification in this ruling. In Atong Paglaum. They must belong
to the said sector and must be bonafide member of such
organization.
WON you are a district representative or a party representative,
the constitution requires residency. What does residency mean?
Residency is synonymous with domicile. What is required is
permanent resident in which if one is absent, one has the
intention of returning. Not actual, physical residence. As
explained in the case of...
ROMUALDEZ vs MARCOS
Imelda established her domicile in Leyte when she was around 6
years old. She grew up there, she studied there, etc. When she
was grown up, the went to Manila, met Marcos and got married
to him. Wherever Marcos resides, there she went because it’s her
duty as a wife. Now somewhere along the way, the family were
exiled out of the Philippines. And then, she came back. When she
came back to Manila, she ran for congressman, for president,
declaring in her certificate of candidacy her residence in Manila.
Now she went back to Leyte on August 1994. The election would
be in May 1995. What’s the requirement for congressman? 1
year. Is she qualified? Yes. So, going back, what is required is a
residence where one has the actual intent of returning and not
physical presence. The SC said that she has never left Leyte as her
domicile although she had lived in Manila.
Residence is synonymous with domicile. A citizen may leave the
place of his birth to look for greener pasture. Now for
professional or business reasons or for any other reasons, he may
not absent himself from his professional responsibilities.
Even if naka-register ka na sa ibang place, the animous
revertendi is... his domicile or residence of origin is not forsake
therein. While the registration of a voter in a place other than his
residence of origin, has not been deemed insufficient to
constitute abandonment or loss of such confidence. So, Imelda
has registered herself as voter in several parts in Manila. Even
when she ran for president, she declared that her residence is in
Manila, but that declaration or registration will not forsake her
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
domicile of origin or residence of origin because that is animous
revertendi. The intention to go back.
AQUINO vs COMELEC
Butch Aquino. The Aquinos are known residents of Tarlac.
Butch’s domicile is also in Tarlac. Now Makati, as what we have
learned in the case of Mariano v Comelec, was converted into a
highly urbanized city. He leased an apartment in that part of
Makati. So when he filed the certificate of candidacy he declared
that he is a resident of Makati for 1 year and presented as a proof
his contract to lease.
What did the SC say? Is it sufficient? Has he proven that he is a
resident of Makati? In the first place, is it prohibited that you
have a domicile in Tarlac, alam mo may bagong district dito, is it
prohibited to establish a residence in Makati? No. What is
required is only 1 year residency including your physical
residence. Tarlac would be your legal residence or domicile.
But the SC said, the contract of lease shown by Aquino does not
engender the kind of permanency required to abandonment of
his original domicile. The SC required him that he has to abandon
his domicile because it was admitted that he has other residences
in Manila or Quezon City. But actually, abandonment of your
domicile of origin is not required. Also in...
DOMINO vs COMELEC
Domino, as a resident of QC, in fact he has ran in QC and then
after that, during the 1998 election, in preparation for that, he
leased a house in Saranggani because he wanted to run there. He
presented a proof of his residency a contract of lease in January
1997. The election was on May 1998. So, 16 months. More than
enough.
But the SC said that still, in the case of Butch Aquino, did not
engender the kind of permanency required to prove
abandonment of the original domicile. The trade of the contract
of lease cannot reduce in the absence of other circumstances as
the running point of 1 year residency. The contract of lease is not
sufficient. But what confuses me is the attainment that to prove
abandonment of original domicile. It’s not required to abandon
your domicile of origin. And that is explained in the case of...
FERNANDEZ vs HRET
Fernandez filed for candidacy as a representative of the 1st
legisative district of the province of Laguna. He indicated in his
address that he is a resident of Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Prior to that in
the previous elections, when he ran for other positions, he
declared Pagsanjan, Laguna as his residence. Now Pagsanjan
Laguna is in the 4th legislative district. Saan siya gustong
tumakbo? Sa 1st legislative district. So instead of Pagsanjan
Laguna, he declared now that he is a resident of Sta. Rosa. Now,
he presented as evidence a lease contract of his house in Sta.
Rosa. Now using the decisions in Butch Aquino, in Domino, it was
argued that his contract was not sufficient because one of the
arguments is, he should buy a house.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Why lease only when one can afford a house?
The SC said it’s not required that a candidate to prove residency
must own a property in that place. Leasing a house is sufficient
because what is required is residency, not property.
What about Butch Aquino and Domino’s case?
The SC said they were not qualified because the only proof that
they has was a lease contract and no other else. They have not
presented any other proof except for the lease contract. What
does it prove? It proves that their only purpose in leasing that
place is to run. Not really to immerse themselves in the
community. So they remain themselves to be strangers of that
place.
What about Fernandez?
Yes, his only proof is a lease contract as to where he is staying.
But where other circumstances can prove that he has transferred
his residency in Sta. Rosa prior to some 2 years earlier. He has
established businesses in Sta. Rosa. The children were already
going to school in Sta. Rosa. They have actually bought a house in
Sta. Rosa but they were leased to another because they were not
sure WON to actually stay in that house. So they leased a house in
the meantime. The SC therefore say that he has sufficient reasons
to be in Sta. Rosa not only for the purpose of running. He is a
resident of Sta. Rosa. His businesses are there, his children are
going to school there, he has interest in that place unlike in
Aquino and Domino wherein the purpose of leasing is for the
ultimate goal of running and that is not allowed.
TERM OF OFFICE
What is the term of office for the senators? Six years. Staggering.
What about the members of the HOR? For a term of 3 years which
shall begin shall they have the same commencement date. At
noon on the 30th day of June next following their election. No
member of the HOR shall serve more than 3 consecutive terms.
So you have 3 years maximum, 3 terms. Voluntary renunciation
of office for a length of time shall be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for
which he was elected. So, limit only to 3 consecutive terms.
Now there is a difference between “term” and “tenure”.
What is term? Term is the period which an official in entitled to
hold office. Term is determined by law. Tenure, on the other
hand, is the period during which the official actually holds office.
So a term cannot be shortened by law. Why? Because of
constitutional provision. If we shorten that, you are amending the
constitution. Tenure, on the other hand, can be shortened by law
or by acts of the official such as resign, expel because of
administrative sanctions, etc. So, term cannot be shortened while
tenure may be shortened. So the distinction was shortened in the
case of...
DIMAPORO vs MITRA
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
In this case, this involves section 67 of the omnibus election code.
This section provides that those who filed their certificate of
candidacy are automatically considered as ipso facto resigned. So
Dimaporo here was a congressman. Now there will be an
upcoming election. He filed his COC for governor. The law says
that an officer filing his COC is considered ipso facto resigned. So
when the filed the COC, congress de-listed him of the list of
congressmen. So he argued that that law is shortening his term
and is therefore unconstitutional. Is he correct? The term
remains. It’s 3 years. Only his tenure is shortened. In other words,
there is nothing unconstitutional about that provision of law.
How should... repealed? Namatay si congressman so and so.
Section 9. In case of vacancy in the house of senate or
representative, a special election may be called to fill such
vacancy as prescribed by law. The senator or member of HOR
thus elected shall serve for the honest part term.
Is the holding of the special election mandatory? No. Why? Based
on the provision, a special election MAY be called to fill such
vacancy in the manner prescribed by law. If there is no law, even
if they wanted to call such election, they cannot call that election
because it says, a special election MAY be called to fill such
vacancy in the manner prescribed by law.
So do we have a law in filling out the vacancies? Of course. So
we have RA 6645 which was amended by by RA 7166. Based on
these laws, vacancy in congress must arise at least 1 year before
the expiration of the term. For vacancy in the HOR, the special
election shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor...days from the
occurrence of the vacancy. For the senate, special election shall
be held simultaneously in the next succeeding regular election.
Now let’s go to the comelec. When the congress, either the HOS or
the HOR declares a vacancy, comelec is mandated to prepare the
special election. Because the election of the senate must be held
in the next succeeding regular election, the law also mandates
that comelec use notice to the voters that we are also voting for
another seat of senate. So what happened in the case of...
TOLENTINO vs COMELEC
Comelec forgot to give notice that we are supposed to elect a 13th
senator to replace Guingona. What happened to Teofisto? Erap
has resigned and Arroyo replaced him as the president. Now the
office of the vice president is vacant. The president will select
among the senators and the congressmen to select who will be
the vice president. It must be with the approval of the congress.
Now Arroyo chose Guingona so his senate seat has been vacated.
There’s a vacant seat in the senate. What did the law say? Special
election will be held simultaneously with the next regular
election. So there was a time we elected not 12 senators but 13
senators. The problem was, comelec forgot to notify us. Nalaman
na lang natin ang chismis.
Now, will that negligence affect the 13th senator elect? The SC
said, no. The mistake of comelec shall not invalidate the election
of the 13th senator because although comelec is required to give
their notice, the law itself is constructive notice. What law is the
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
SC talking about? The law on special election. That will be held
simultaneously with the next regular election.
Section 10: Salaries. The salaries of the senators and members
of the HOR shall be determined by the legislators. Naturally, there
is that temptation to increase every month. They can do that
because their power is plenary. So the constitution put a limit. At
least a deterrent to that temptation. So the constitution provides,
“no increase in the said compensation shall take effect until after
the expiration of the full term of all the members of the senate
and HOR approving such increase,” What does this 2nd sentence
mean? “until after the expiration of the full term of all the
members of the senate and HOR approving such increase only
then the increase will take effect.” what is the term of
congressmen? 3 years. What’s the term of a senator? 6 years. The
next election was in 2013. By 2016, the term of the members of
the HOR end. In the senate, some senators would have their
terms ended 2016, some 2019. Say, by 2013 August, the first law
that they enacted is for the increase of their compensation. From
1 million to 3.5 million. When will that increase take effect?
PHILCONSA vs MATHAY (1966)
One congressman argued that the increase should take effect on
June 30, 2016. He’s a congressman because his term ended on the
noon of June 30, 2016. So the increase should take effect on the
same date. Is he correct? The constitution says, “until all the
expiration of the full term of all the members of the senate or
HOR. Is he correct? By 2016, there remains thee senators
upholding such increase. In other words, he has to wait for 2019
to enjoy his increase. In other words, he has to wait for the next
election. So that’s the ruling in the case that is under the 1935
constitution containing the same provision. Does that section
require that not only the member of the term of all the members
of the house but also that senators who approve the increase
must be expired before that becomes operative. The SC said that
this term means that the fundamental consideration is the term
of office. All members of the legislature of the national must have
expire before the increase of the compensation can become
operative because they are of one legislature.
LIGOT vs MATHAY (1974)
Mathay was the one who questioned. The ruling was, the term of
all the members should have expired before the increase would
take effect. So it was their...that it’s going to be on December 30,
1969. Here comes Dec. 30, 1969. The last day of his work is Dec.
30, 1969 because the new comers will commence their office.
As ruled by the SC in PHILCONSA v Matay, the increase will take
effect on Dec. 30, 1969. Why was he so interested in getting the
increase? Their annual salary was P7200.00. When they enacted
the law, it’s no longer P7200 but P32,000. It was ruled that Dec.
30, 1969 should be the date of the increase. He said, his
retirement should be based on the salary with the increase as of
December 30, 1969. Is he correct? The SC clarified the increase
would benefit the newly elected. Not to the outgoing but to the
incoming, to support his view, we need to circumvent, subtle
circumvention of the constitutional prohibition.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Section 11: Privileges. A senator or a member of the HOR shall,
in no offenses, not exceed of the 6 year imprisonment shall be
privileged from arrest. Meron pa bang privilege from arrest in the
Philippines? Yes. What about a member of congress? They are
free from arrest while the congress is in session. No member
shall be questioned nor held liable in any of the case of speech...in
the congress or any committee thereof. Second paragraph
provides for 2 treaties. One, privilege from arrest and
parliamentary immunity of speech and debate.
Privileged from arrest. Looking at that provision, take note, that
the privilege is only available if the offense charged is punishable
when not more than 6 years of imprisonment. The congress must
be in session but regardless of WON absenot si congressman. The
idea of the privilege is to prevent harassment, protect the
legislator against harassment within legislative session. There is
no point in extending privilege if the congress is not in session.
What do you mean by “session”? In a day-to-day basis, they will
declare a recess. The session meant here is from the initial
convening until the final element. During that period, the
congressman shall be privileged from such arrest. Take note that
the privilege is ONLY for arrest. Not for conviction.
Section 15: the congress shall convene once every year. So yan
ang section referred to. That convention once every year. It starts
when the President makes his SONA. 4th Monday of July and shall
continue in session for such a number of days and shall
determine for 30 days before the opening of its next regular
session. Excluding of Saturdays and Sundays. So from its initial
convening up to its final adjournment, that’s the session. Where
the congressman is privileged from arrest. Now in the case of...
PEOPLE vs JALOSJOS
Jalosjos is famous for statutory rape in 2 counts and acts of
lasciviousness, 6 counts. He was already convicted and then he
appealed his case. When his appeal was ongoing, he was of
course, detained. Now who filed this motion that he be allowed to
discharge his...as a congressman. When he ran for office, he was
in jail. And only in the Philippines, with the Filipinos’ vote, can a
congressman in jail win. When he ran for office, he ran his
campaign while inside detention. So, we cannot discharge...part of
the motion, he’d be allowed to discharge his duties in the session
hall. Should his motion be granted? Based on the privilege from
arrest, should the session...? Why? Why not? That offense is
actually punishable with more than 6 years of imprisonment so
there was no reason why he would be released. What about his
being a congressman? The law does not distinguish WON you are
a congressman of not. If you are convicted, there is no reason that
will convince the courts that you should be released. At least, in
this case.
TRILLANES vs PIMENTEL
When Trillanes ran for senate, he was in prison because he was
involved in the Coup d'etat against Macapagal-Arroyo. Sen.
Trillanes ran his campaign inside the jail. It is only in the
Philippines where a prisoner can win a national election. Now in
the case of Jalosjos, the SC did not grant his motion. He still filed
his motion this time to be allowed to fully discharge his
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
responsibilities as senator in the session hall. What did he
thinking that he filed his motion? For him, he is still...himself from
Jalosjos. In that Jalosjos was already a convicted prisoner while
he is a prisoner in detention while waiting for his trial. There is
still no conviction. Shall the privilege be extended to him? Again,
the answer would be no. Coup d'etat is punishable by more than
6 years. If a student is detained, they cannot go to school. If a
doctor is detained, he cannot exception his profession. If a
congressman or senator is detained, is he allowed to be set free
or at least go to the session hall? No. The law does not make any
distinction. A detained prisoner WON because of conviction or
awaiting trial, has limited rights. The privilege cannot be
extended to them.
The other privilege is “No member shall be questioned nor held
liable in any of the case of speech...in the congress or any
committee thereof.”
this privilege guarantees the legislator complete freedom of
expression without fear of being made responsible in the crime
or actions for the courts outside the congressional hall. What is
the nature of the speech and...? The expression here which is
immune kahit ano pa ang sabihin niya, refers to utterances made
by the congressman in the performance of their official functions
such as speeches delivered, statements made or votes cast in the
house of congress while the same is in session or not in other acts
performed of the congressmen in the discharge of their duties.
Utterances made in the performance of his official duties or
functions. A congressman is not a congressman. Only during
sessions. So session is irrelevant in the claim of this immunity.
When is session relevant? Privilege from arrest. What is the
purpose of this privilege? To prevent from the harassment of the
legislator during the session and in going back to his home. That’s
why in the case of...
JIMENEZ vs CABANGBANG
In the case, the expression where the congressman published an
open letter to the president of the Philippines about positions of
revenue of the congress. The congress was not in session. The
congress files the letter to be published in newspapers of general
circulation. Does that communication, open-letter published in
several newspapers, enjoy immunity from prosecution? The SC
noted that its was an open-letter to the president with certain
accusations. When he made that open-letter, he was not
performing the function of a congressman. Therefore, the
privilege cannot be tended to him. There is such an element
therefore for the applicability of the privilege has always been
that the action involved be a legislative action. The privilege is
not absolute.
OSMENA vs PENDATUN
Congressman Osmena made a privilege speech. It is a legislative
action, a part of his function as a legislator. He claimed serious
indication of libel against the president. This case was decided in
1960 and the situation is not that different. Can he be made liable
for libel? No. It’s a privilege speech. He was...to disciplinary action
in the congress itself for this behavior. Can it be done? Yes. So,
although exempt from prosecution or inaction from the courts,
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
the members of the congress may b questioned by the congress
itself.
POBRE vs DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
When Miriam learned that the judicial and bar council was not
considering any other applicants for the position of chief justice
of the SC and said only the current members of the SC, Miriam,
during that time filed for her application, got mad. “I will spit on
the face of the chief justice, etc.” She made her speech in a
privilege speech before the senate. Now Miriam is also the
lawyer. In the code of ethics, give due respect to the courts. Can
she be disbarred? No because she privileged. She made that
privileged speech while on the performance of her duty as a
senator in the house of senate. That immunity is available to her.
The SC said, Sen. Santiago should give due respect to the court.
She was not disciplined but was reprimanded. No one can
question the SC. The SC reprimanded her in a subtle way because
the SC cannot discipline her in a disbarment proceeding.
Setion 13: Qualifications. Incompatible office and one that is
forbidden. Those senator or member of the HOR may hold any
other office in the government or any subdivision including the
OCCs or their subsidiaries. This first part is also known as an
incompatible office. This is an office which a member of the
legislature cannot hold unless he forfeits his seat. As you have
observed, the office belongs to other departments. To a
department other than legislative department. The idea being, to
keep the separation of powers. But it is not an incompatible office
if the office is held as an extension of legislative functions. For
example, a congressman may be designated as an ex officio
member on the committee on education where the legislative
takes part in the operations so as they would know what would
be the role of the legislative department in that committee. In this
case, it is merely an extension of legislative function rather than
performance of functions other than legislative, say, executive
function. The other type is which a senator or a member of the
HOR cannot pose on what is known as forbidden office. This is
incorporated in the second sentence which says that neither shall
we be appointed at any office which have been created for
the...during the term for he was elected. In this case, even if he
forfeits his seat voluntarily, he cannot still hold that office. It is a
forbidden office. An office which has been created for
the...increase during his term. What is the idea there? The
objective is, to avoid abuse of power in an office where they can
create. They cannot use their power for their own advantage.
Now what happened in the case of...
LIBAN vs GORDON
We know that Gordon, when he was a senator, was also the
chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross. He even has this
advertisement during his campaign as president when he was
nominated for such. Now the PNRC was created pursuant to law
as part of our obligation under the international agreement. We
have agreed with the other nations that we will have an
independent body of the NRC which will cater to victims of war,
victims of disasters, etc. This is a neutral office. Now, since this
this was created by law, and Gordon was holding this, this is
supposedly not under the legislative department, is the PNRC an
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
incompatible office? Of course, this is not a forbidden office
because this was not created during his term.
Is this an incompatible office? Meaning, an office outside the
legislative department? The SC has to go back and try to
understand the nature of the PNRC and its operation. The SC
found out that the PNRC is not a government-owned or
controlled corporation. It is an independent non-stop, non-profit
organization although it is unique in a way because it was created
pursuant to law. Not pursuant to the general law of corporations.
This was because directly answering to an international
obligation. PNRC does not yield to a government office. In fact, it
will cater to rebels, citizens alike. Even enemies in times of war.
So this is not a public corporation, nor is this a government-
owned corporation but a private, non-stop, non-profit
corporation. Which means that Gordon does not have to forfeit
the seat. In this case, the only issue was the nature of the
existence of PNRC because if this is private, can a congressman or
senator engage in business? Yes. There is no prohibition. So, in
this case, this is a public corporation that does not fall in a
forbidden office or an incompatible office.
Section 14: No senator or members of the HOR may personally
appear as counsel. So, this is a senator or a congressman who is
also a lawyer. So they may not personally appear as counsel
before any court of justice or electoral tribunals or quasi-judicial
or other administrative body. That’s one prohibition. Neither
shall they be directly or indirectly interested financially in
contract with or in any franchise or special privilege granted by
the government or any subdivision agency or instrumental
thereof including...during his term of office. So in the second
sentence, he may be engaged in business, but he cannot be
directly or indirectly interested in any government contracts. He
shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the
government.
This is the issue of Jimboy and Revilla because they were
financially interested. this is an issue on WON they are actually
engaged in these businesses. So this is actually a constitutional
prohibition. Now let’s go to appearance as counsel. It does not say
that the congressman or senator cannot engage in the practice of
law. He can have his own private law firm and he can engage as
counsel by his clients. The only prohibition is personal
appearance because it seems that his presence will affect,
somehow, the actions or decision of that body. Just to prevent
that suspiciousness on his part, so there is that constitutional
prohibition but he may still be engaged in the practice of law. Not
just his actual appearance. Now in the case of...
PUYAT vs DE GUZMAN
This involved Fernandez who was then a member of Batasang
Pambansa. He’s a congressman. There was an internal problem
on who is in control in this particular corporation. Who are the
board members. So there is a conflict. Initially, he appeared
before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) because
that time, the jurisdiction was in SEC. He appeared as counsel for
this particular group against another group vying for the
membership for the board of directors for that corporation. Now,
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
of course, since there is a constitutional prohibition which is also
present under the 1973 constitution, so he was rejected. His
appearance was rejected. So what did he do? What did his group
do? He bought 10 shares of the corporation. So if you buy shares
in the corporation, what will happen to you? You are now a
stockholder. If you are a stockholder, you can represent their
interest for that body. so he bought 10 shares and moved to
intervene as a stockholder. If you removed those other
circumstances, he would have been allowed to participate if he
had been originally a stockholder of that corporation.
But what happened in this case is that the SC sought to prove the
rules. It was merely a scheme for them to divert what was
constitutionally prohibited. The only purpose for buying the
shares, only 10 shares of some thousands of shares that were
available, the purpose was for him to appear as counsel.
Removing such circumstances, he would have been allowed to
participate as a stockholder. One important factor was that he
attempted to appear as counsel and he was rejected. The SC said
that the only purpose why he bought such shares was for him to
represent the group as a counsel and not as a stockholder. In that
case, the SC nonetheless prevented him from appearing as
counsel.
So those are the privileges and prohibitions...
Section 15: These are the constitutionally mandated
requirements for congress to conduct his business.
Sessions. We have already talked about sessions when we talked
about privilege from arrest because WON the congress is in
session is relevant in determining WON a congressman or a
senator can enjoy that privilege. So what is session? Section 15.
The congress shall convene once every year. So there is an annual
session. It commences on the 4th Monday of July for its regular
session unless a different date fixed by law and shall continue to
be subject in such a number of days as you may determine until
30 days before the opening of its next regular session. Ano yung
regular session? 4th Monday of July exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays, and day of holidays. The president, however, may call a
special session at any time. Paragraph 5 of section 16 also
provides that, neither house during the sessions of the congress
shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than 3
days nor to any other place in which two house shall be sitting.
So there such a thing a regular session held annually, once every
year every 4th Monday of July unless it is fixed by law. Mandatory
or compulsory recess is that 30 days before the opening of his
next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, or official
holidays.
Can they adjourn earlier? Yes. It is voluntary recess. However,
when they adjourn earlier for more than 3 days, that means that’s
already the recess for the next session, or any day in between the
regular session, they can only do that with the consent of the
other. The legislative department is just one department. One
house cannot have a recess for more than 3 days without the
consent of the other. Take note of the mandatory and the
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
voluntary recess. A special session may be called by the
president at any time.
Quorum. Section 16 (1), the senate shall elect as president and
the HOR its speaker by the majority vote of its respective
members. The mandatory officers are the senate president and
speaker of the house. So each house shall choose such
officers...necessary. The prerogative to determine who will be the
other officers will be up to the house itself. To each house. So
majority of each house shall constitute a quorum during business.
A house can only conduct business if there is a quorum. What is a
quorum? It is 50% plus 1. If less than that, they cannot conduct
business. What could they do that can enforce the attendance of
the others to the compulsory offices? What is an example of a
compulsory process in order for us to be one? They will be...to the
house to attend the session. Otherwise, they cannot attend the
business. So these are compulsory processes that can be made by
the house to have a quorum so that they can conduct business.
What happened in the case of...
AVELINO vs CUENCO
This happened under the 1935 constitution. Now they have a
senate president. Avelino was the senate president. They were
having a session during that particular day. What were they
planning to do? The majority of the members of the senate are
planning to...Avelino and they would now replace him with
Cuenco. So there is a resolution that they agreed on. A resolution
is pending for (1) the receiving of Avelino and (2) voting of
Cuenco as senate president. When the session started, there was
a quorum but when the supporters of Avelino knew about what
they would do, they walked out. An only 12 were left.
How many senators do we have under the 1935
constitution? 24. Only 12 were left.
Those who remain continued in session and elected Cuenco as
the new senate president.
So here comes Avelino going to the SC questioning the election of
Cuenco as senate president. The first question is, does the court
have jurisdiction to determine who is the rightful senate
president? In other words, can the senate go to the SC and ask the
SC to tell them who is their rightful senate president? Noting
about separation of powers, what will be your answer? Each
department can exercise discretion between its own department
and this is between their discretion. The SC cannot intervene and
tell them who will be their senate president. Who has that
prerogative? It’s the senators themselves. So the SC, during the
1st decision because there was a motion for reconsideration, did
not take cognizance in this case.
Section 16, paragraph 1, the senate shall elect its president and
the HOR, it’s speaker, by majority vote of one’s respective
members. It’s the senate themselves who may elect. Not the SC.
The SC has no business telling them what to do and who to elect.
This power should not be taken by the judiciary. The senate has
the power to reinstate its officers. How do they elect their
president? Majority vote by its members. If majority of all it
members say that they are no longer satisfied with the
performance of their senate president, what can they do? They
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
just have a quorum in a session and have a new senate president.
That is between their discretion.
So the SC is saying, why come to us? You can change your senate
president anytime because that is between your power as
members of the senate. His remedy relies on the session hall and
not in the SC. Whoever files a motion of reconsideration
especially because Avelino’s group is saying that there is no
quorum, so there was no valid election held on that particular
day, the SC took cognizance of that case because the SC was asked
to interpret the meaning of quorum.
Why was there no quorum according to them? Even if there is a
quorum at the beginning of the session, when they elected
Cuenco, he got the votes of those who remained which was
actually 12. What’s the constitution provision? In order to elect
the senate president, it has to be by vote of the majority of all its
members. So since the senate is composed of 24 members, the
vote needed was 13 because quorum is 50% plus 1. Thus, the SC
was asked to determine WON it is correct. The SC said, when the
constitution declares that majority of each house shall constitute
the quorum, the house is in need of all the members even if
majority of the members constitute the house. Now the problems
is the election of the senate president because what it requires is
majority of the members. This is absolute majority. When the
constitution says majority of the members, it is absolute majority.
When the constitution says majority of the house, it does not
mean all the members of the house. It just means majority of
those who are present. So, this is simple majority as
distinguished from absolute majority.
Now, the SC said, replace the majority not on the number of fixed
provided for in the constitution but on the actual members or
incumbents. What happened in this case? Indeed the constitution
needs 24 membership in the HOS but here, one was in the
hospital and one was abroad. Should we consider the 2 who are
absent? The SC said you base the majority not on the number
fixed or provided for in the constitution but on the actual
members or incumbents. This means that it must be limited to
actual members who are not incapacitated to discharge their
duties by reason of death. For example, if 1 is dead, you cannot
involve him in the computation of the quorum. So actual
members incumbent. Reason of death, incapacity, or absents
from the jurisdiction of the house; they cannot ask for the arrest
of one who is in the USA. It’s beyond their jurisdiction but they
can compel the attendance of the one in the hospital.
In other words, the SC said that in this case, the majority of the
members is the majority of 23 members. Minus 1 who is abroad
and beyond the jurisdiction of the senate to compel attendance.
So in this case, the required vote is not 13 but 12. Just to give us
an idea on how to arrive at the necessary votes. Sometimes it is
13, 12 or lesser. Depending on the actual number of incumbents.
So that’s how quorum should be interpreted.
SANTIAGO vs GUINGONA
We are now talking about the power of each house to elect its
own officers. What are the constitutionally mandated position?
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Only the senate president and speaker of the house. In the case of
Santiago v Guingona. Election of majority and minority floor
leader in the senate. In ths case, it was between Fernan and
Tatad. Fernan got 20 votes so he was the senate president. Tatad
has 2 votes. Now other than the senate president, they also
elected the majority floor leader, etc. They are now electing the
minority floor leader. f you look at the composition, 10 members
of the... 7 Lakas MCD, and 7 independent. So it’s difficult to
determine who is the minority party. In this case, they have
decided to represent Lakas MCD which has 7 members in the
minority floor leadership. Now the theory of Santiago and Tatad
is this. Since Fernan got 20 votes, that’s the majority. Since Tatad
got 2 votes, that’s the minority. Si Tatad and Santiago, they’re in
cahoots, kami ang minority.
Is their interpretation correct? Should the SC take
cognizance of that case? And the SC said, since you’re asking us
to interpret what minority and majority is depending on the
constitutional concept, we shall take cognizance of such case. But
here, the SC said, there’s nothing in the constitution which
prescribes the election of the majority and minority floor leader.
The only officer required are the senate president and the
speaker of the house. What does that mean? The election of the
officers of each house is within the powers of each house.
Derivative of its power to elect officers. In other words, the
prerogative is exclusively theirs. The method of choosing
whoever that official is within the prerogative of the senate itself.
It is not in the SC to tell them. The court has no authority here
without violating the doctrine of separation of powers. This only
emphasizes what are the things that the SC or other departments
cannot usurp. Rules and disciple of members are also in the
exclusive prerogative of each department. In this case, you are
talking about legislative department. The constitution also
provides that each house may determine the rule of its
proceedings, to punish its members for its behavior and with the
conference of 2/3 of its members. A penalty of suspension when
imposed, shall not exceed 60 days.
First, each house may determine its own rules. If you go to the SC,
the SC as another independent body, can determine its own rules
and procedure. In the same way, legislative department is
another co-equal department who can determine its own internal
rules. In the cases assigned, those asking WON the SC should
invalidate a congressional action simply because an internal rules
was violated, almost always, the SC will say, we will not
intervene. As to the implementation of the rules of each house,
the court will not intervene. So in matters affecting the internal
operation of the legislature, the legislature’s implementation of
its rules is beyond the reach of courts. It only when private rights
are affected when the courts will come in. And also when
constitutional requirements are violated. Voting, procedure of
enactment of law, etc. It’s only when there are violations that the
SC can intervene. It has no business wherein internal rules are
violated.
ARROYO vs DEVENECIA
They were about to submit the committee report on RA8240. It
was a report of the conference committee. So this was what
happened, “Mr. Speaker, I move that we now approve and ratify
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
the conference committee report.” So the speaker said, “any
objection to the motion?” Arroyo was not listening so apparently
there was no objection. There being no objection, the committee
report has been approved. Arroyo went to the SC, among others,
because it was railroaded. He was not allowed to speak his
objection. So what was that? There was violation of
parliamentary procedure. Procedures to the parliamentary are
merely internal rules. Will that invalidate the law itself? What do
we say on internal rules? These are exclusive prerogative of that
house. The rules would be left for their own determination. So
the internal rules on procedure adopted by deliberative bodies
are subject to modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body.
It has been said the parliamentary rules are merely procedural
and to their observance, the courts have no concern. They may be
waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Consequently,
their non-observance will not affect the validity of the law.
Let’s just say, that there is violation of the internal rules. Sila lang
ang nagsabot-sabot what the rules would be. There is a violation.
The SC would not come in. Why? If indeed, there was a violation
of internal rules and that is not the law that the body intended to
pass, what would be the remedy? If the body agreed that that is
not the law that they intended to pass, what would be the
remedy?
The SC could not say that “ah, that is not the law. This should be
the law” the SC cannot be a legislative body. If the body is in
agreement that that is not the law that they intended to pass, they
can always amend the law. The remedy is within their own
houses. The SC has no interest in dealing with the internal rules.
The SC is only interested with the constitution-mandated
requirements. Again, what are these, quorum, voting
requirement, the constitutional procedure and the enactments of
law, when private rights are affected. Internal rules, that’s within
their own, exclusive prerogative.
DE LA PAZ vs SENATE COMMITTEE (2009)
During the time of Arroyo. She was feeding the generals lots and
lots of cash. The generals agreed to meet in Europe and one
would be bringing the cash. Now normally, there is a limit with
the amount of money that you are allowed to bring in and take
out of the country. Now this general, in the past, was arrested in
the customs area for bringing with him 105,000 euros. Usually,
10,000 lang ang allowed, diba? So approximately, 6.5 million. In
his possession, he has 45 euros. So he was apprehended. This was
a blow in the face of the administration because it was publicly
known then that the generals were receiving that much money
from Arroyo. There was a senate inquiry. The generals were
summoned on the senate. It was before the senate committee on
foreign relations (SCFR).
Now de la Paz questioned the summon because according to him,
what happened in Russia is not foreign relations matter. So the
SCFR has no business to conduct legislative. What he’s
questioning is an internal rule. Again, part of separation of
powers, the SC cannot dictate upon the senate. If that committee
thinks that that inquiry involves foreign relations, that is not for
the SC to say otherwise. Pursuant to this constitutional ground,
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
the senate has the liberty to modify these rules accordingly to
what they see fit.
SANTIAGO vs SANDIGANBAYAN
Before Santiago became a senator, she was a commissioner on
immigration and deportation. There were several aliens who
were involved in the legal battle against the commission. So
apparently, they were ordered by Santiago so there was an
allegation against graft and corruption. Now she was sitting as
senator when the case of graft and corruption was filed against
her. Now after that law, 3019, there is a provision on preventive
suspension once the case is filed for graft and corruption. Again,
the authority comes from the law. The law says, if a case for graft
and corruption has been filed against a public officer, there are
instances wherein preventive suspension is mandated. So she
was preventively suspended.
She questions the preventive suspension on the ground that
according to her, she’s a senator. Only the senate can punish or
discipline her and impose the suspension.
Is she correct?
One mistake would be that being a senator or member of the
legislature does not exclude one from the effects of law. A
congressman or senator does not enjoy immunity just because he
is a congressman or a senator. She is not beyond the coverage of
the law. The authority here are mistaken from the law. RA 3019.
The suspension of a senator by the senate itself is a punishment
for disorderly behavior. But the preventive suspension
prescribed by RA 3019 is imposed by a law for which she is not
being punished. She is merely preventive in nature. So the
doctrine of separation of powers, by itself, cannot be deemed to
have effectively excluded members of congress from RA 3019,
nor from public sanctions, nor from any law. They can still be
criminally charged. So RA 3019 does not exclude its coverage the
members of congress.
Section 16, paragraph 4. Each house shall keep a journal of its
proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, exempting
such parts as may, in its judgment, affect affect national security;
and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of 1/5
of the members present, be entered in the journal. Each house
shall keep a record of its proceedings. So there are two kinds of
official records.
One, is called the journal. It is a record of what is done and passed
in the legislative assembly. They are useful not only for
authenticating the proceedings but also for the interpretation of
laws through a study of the debates held thereon and for
informing the people of the office conduct of their respective
legislators.
Now when you are reading cases, sometimes, the SC will quote
the deliberation that transpired in the congress to interpret
particular provision or to determine the intent of congress. Now
these parts are quoted from the journal. These are the records of
what it is done.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
The record, on the other hand, contains a word for word
transcript of the deliberations of congress. So again, the purpose
is to (1) insure publicity of the proceedings of the legislature, and
a corresponding responsibility of the members of their respective
constituents, and (2) are published and to provide proof on what
actually transpired in the legislature. So its purpose is we will
know WON our congressman is actually doing his job and what
was his stand on a particular issue. Now what is the evidenciary
weight of a journal. How important is the journal? In...
US vs PONS
The respondent here is being charged of a law and he is
questioning the validity of that law because according to him, the
law was passed when the congress was already in recess. The
session has already ended. So according to him, the law was
passed when the congress was no longer in session? So what was
his proof? According to him, he can present witnesses who said
that it was ordered actually beyond midnight. Nag-end na ang
session ng congress. It was already beyond midnight when the
law was actually voted on. So it’s beyond the session period.
Again, what is his evidence? Testaments of witnesses.
Testamentary evidence.
Now on the part of the congress to prove that that law was
passed within the session, what would be his evidence?
You will only have to look in the journal. So we have now journal
versus testamentary evidence of witnesses. Which has more
weight or which is given more credit by the SC? The SC said,
legislative journals are the acts of the government or the
sovereign itself. The records in the legislature are as important as
the records in the judiciary.
Between oral testaments and the journal, the latter is given merit
or credit in evidence. Why? Simply because a journal is a official
act of the congress itself. You cannot actually compete with the
journal if what you have is only testamentary evidence which is
dependent of man. And memory is almost always fragile.
Kahapon love mo pa siya, ngayon hindi na. Kahapon galit ka sa
kanya, ngayon di mo na alam kung bakit #hugot. So memory is
among the evidence that has the least credit if it is against a
documentary evidence.
Now, there is a thing as an enrolled bill. So what is an enrolled
bill? After both houses have agreed on what the law would be,
they would submit it to the president for signature. Now how will
the president know that that is the version of the law that the
body has decided to pass? So it has to be a bill that is enrolled.
What do you mean by enrolled?
It is the official copy of approved legislation and is enrolled
because it bears the certification of the presiding officer of the
legislative body. It has the certification of both the speaker of the
house and the senate president. They have their signatures there
which signifies that that is the law that they passed as one of the
legislative body. If it is an enrolled bill, you may no longer
question WON the contents are correct. WON there is a mistake
in the words as written. WON it was duly passed.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
So this is the enrolled bill doctrine?
The respect due all equal department requires the courts to
accept the certification of the presiding officer of the legislative
body as conclusive assurance that the bill so certified is authentic.
If it’s already certified, it’s already an enrolled bill, that doctrine
says it is already proof of its due enactment and proof of its
contents. Example...
CASCO vs GIMENEZ
This is about taxation of euria and formaldehyde, and euria
formaldehyde. The question set forth was that according to the
one who asked, while the law says “euria formaldehyde should be
taxed”, according to him, the real intention was not euria
formaldehyde but euria and formaldehyde. How did i know?
Because there was a deliberation. The journal says that during
the deliberation, the intention was to tax euria and formaldehyde
but what turned out in the final version of the law that what was
taxed is yung combination na, euria formaldehyde, which is the
finished product.
So, can he question now the validity of taxing euria
formaldehyde on the ground that according to him, during
the deliberation, it should have been the two components?
Their question is very easy to answer. Is the law as submitted the
correct version? Enrolled bill doctrine. You can no longer
question the correctness that governs in that law because the
doctrine says that once it is enrolled, it bears the certification of
both the leadership in the houses that it is already proof of its due
enactment.
Even if we say that the intent is euria and formaldehyde, and it
turned out to be euria formaldehyde, the latter would be the
correct version because there is already a certification by both
the senate president and the speaker of the house. That is the
provision of the law which they are passing.
Again, if indeed, the intention was to pass euria and
formaldehyde independently, what would be the remedy?
We cannot ask the court to amend the law. If you look at it in a
more intelligent way and based on the provisions of the
constitution, what is being asked is for the SC to amend the law.
He is asking for judicial legislation which the court cannot do.
What is his remedy? Amend the law if in case he was right that
that was not the intention of the congress. See Arroyo v De
Venecia
ASTORGA vs VILLEGAS
Having the enrolled bill, as to the charter of the city of Manila, the
senate president realized that the final version was not what they
agreed during the deliberations. So he withdrew his signature.
Now when the president realized the senate president withdrew
his signature, the president also withdrew his signature.
The question is, how do we determine WON the law is valid?
Is the law valid after the signatures were withdrawn? Again, the
enrolled bill doctrine will not apply in this case. In reality, there is
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
no bill that was enrolled when the senate president withdrew his
signature. So he can go back to the journal.
TOLENTINO vs SECRETARY
They were also questioning the validity of VAT. Among the
questions were the laws. There were several internal rules that
were violated. The same as ...v Executive Secretary. There were
irregularities in its passage. The provisions were selectively
inserted. We did not discuss that. The copies were not given.
Again, they questioned the validity of the law when in reality, the
congress committee did not meet or were not given copies or the
time to study the law.
Will this invalidate the law?
No. One, internal rules are just parliamentary procedures. They
can be revoked, amended, disregarded in the end. Why? Enrolled
bill doctrine. So we apply the enrolled bill doctrine. And finally,
the separation of powers. The legislative body, the one making
the laws, is the legislative department. Not the SC. Now again, we
are discussing about the exclusive prerogatives of the legislative
body of each house. It has its own prerogative rule and
established its own internal rules to discipline its own members
and we go to the journal.
The constitution is vested with congress functions that are not
legislative. So these are sections 17 and 18. So we have
independent constitutional bodies within the legislative
departments. Meaning, your electoral tribunals and commission
on appointments. If you have observed, the function of these
bodies are not legislative in nature but are otherwise vested with
congress to perform.
What involves the function of an electoral tribunal?
There are 2 electoral tribunals in the congress. One for each
house. They function as full pledge of our elective congress to the
foreign nations, elections and return to the member of that
prospective house.
In other words, what the issue is about, the qualification, the
issue, the return affecting the member of the house, the
jurisdiction is with the corresponding electoral tribunal. You
have two representatives in electoral tribunal and the senate
electoral tribunal.
Now the question is, so judge of an election congress. It means it
excludes all other jurisdictions. If it comes in and takes
jurisdiction over that election content, it means that the SC, the
comelec, etc. loses or has no jurisdiction over that subject matter.
The question is, when does its jurisdiction begin?
Now in the cases that prepared, what did you observe? When
does jurisdiction in the electoral tribunals begin? Once the
candidate has been proclaimed. Once he has taken oath into
office. This means that he is no longer a candidate but already a
member. So once he becomes a member of that house, any
question or election in congress or increase in qualification and
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
the returns since election is within the sole jurisdiction of the
electoral tribunal.
Now as you have observed in the cases of Barbers v Comelec, the
SC held that the jurisdiction involving senator Biazon is with the
senate electoral tribunal and not the SC. While in Tolentino v
Comelec, the jurisdiction involving Honasan is with the SC and
not with the senate electoral tribunal.
What is the distinction in the 2 cases?
Both cases involve senators. But in one case, the SC said, the
jurisdiction is not with the SC but with the SET while in the other
case, the jurisdiction is with the SC and not with the SET. In the
case of Barbers v Comelec, the petition was for annulment of
proclamation of senator Biazon. Instantly, you have an idea that
there was already a proclamation. Thus, to annul a proclamation
means to disqualify a member. Jurisdiction therefore is no longer
with the comelec, SC. The moment that the candidate is
proclaimed, jurisdiction is already with the electoral tribunal.
PIMENTEL vs COMELEC
Pimentel strived so hard to stop the proclamation so he asked for
a TRO with the SC. Is the petition correct? Petition to restrain the
proclamation of Zubiri. Is that correct? To restraint the
proclamation yet, he wanted it stopped. So was it properly filed
with the SC and not with the electoral tribunal? Yes. But what
happened in this case? No TRO was issued by the SC. Thus, the
proclamation proceeded. What happens to the jurisdiction of the
SC in that case? The jurisdiction is referred to the electoral
tribunal because there was already a proclamation.
So in both cases, when there is already a proclamation, whatever
court, tribunal or body is taking cognizance of the case loses it
immediately because jurisdiction is now in the electoral tribunal.
This is what it means in being the sole judge through the
exclusive judge of cases questioning the election of the members
of the house.
But what happened in the case of Tolentino v Comelec? Why did
the SC say this time that jurisdiction is properly with the SC?
TOLENTINO vs COMELEC
The petition is for invalidating the special election for the 13th
senator. The petition is grounded on procedural law or an error
on procedure committed by comelec. So it was Honasan who was
elected as the 13th senator. The petition was filed with the SC. Is
it with the electoral tribunal or with the SC? It’s with the SC. The
question does not refer to the proclamation election return but in
the validity of the special election.
Now WON the special election is valid will naturally affect the
election of Honasan. But that effect is only collateral. So in that
case, the petition is focused on the validity of special elections
rather than the right of Honasan to hold the office as senator. So
this time, it is not with the electoral tribunal but with the SC. The
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
SC was consistent in saying that the moment there was
proclamation, those courts, tribunals, already lose jurisdiction.
VINZONS vs COMELEC
The electorate returns were questioned as early as the
proceedings before the municipal board of canvassers. It was
during the canvassing when the question was raised. The
jurisdiction must be the municipal board of canvassers. In the
natural, normal course proceedings, it will ripen to belong to the
comelec. But what happened in this case was, there was a
proclamation and so that municipal board in the comelec loses its
jurisdiction. Now even in the case of...
GUERRERO vs COMELEC
The question is about the validity of COC. When do you file
petitions questioning the validity of COC? After the filing of
certificates of candidacy before the election. But it took them so
long to resolve the case. So long that population happened.
So what happens to that petition? When the candidate was
proclaimed the winner, he becomes a member of the house, it’s
already with the electoral tribunal. That’s just the basic principle
regarding jurisdiction. Now when the constitution says, sole
jurisdiction, the electoral tribunal is even independent from the
congress itself. The congress cannot make an action such as
making organizations in the guise of changes in political
affiliations but with the political goal of affecting the decision of
the tribunal. So in the case of...
BONDOC vs PINEDA
The office member of the HOR electoral tribunal, he was a
member of that house as representative of a party, LDP. Now they
were deciding a case involving a candidate of the LDP and
another candidate. Now they had agreed that it was actually the
other candidate who had actually won. And so, the HOR made the
organization in the guise of party disloyalty to remove Mr.
Bondoc. Sino ba yung member ng LDP? Si Bondoc. To remove
Bondoc as a member of the party as if there was no represented
in the tribunal.
So the SC said, even this representatives in the tribunal enjoy the
security of tenure. They cannot be removed except in valid
process. If it is a party disloyalty, it does not mean that you decide
against and become in favor of the other party, that is not party
disloyalty. They enjoy security of tenure. They enjoy
independence. Independence means from the entire congress
itself.
Which body can determine questions on qualifications of
partylist nominees? Is it the partylist organization or the HRET?
You have the case of Bayan v HRET, Palparan v HRET.
PALPARAN vs HRET
In this case, they are questioning the qualification of disparity
...and the party of Palparan because they do not represent victims
of ...rebels, cafgo’s and security guards. So they do not represent
the marginalized and the underrepresented.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
WON that party is qualified to represent in the partylist election?
Other than that, the qualification of the nominees themselves are
also questioned. For example, Palparan, was the berdugo of
Arroyo but according to him, he represents the security guards,
rebels, cafgo’s, etc. But according to the petitioner, he was the
executioner of these former rebels so he’s not qualified. So
Palparan, and the other representative, yung housewife, died. So
the wife, according to the petitioner is not marginalizd herself.
Mayaman siya. She is not qualified to represent the party of the
nominee.
So the question is the qualification of the nominee who sits
in the HOR though they argued that it is the party which
nominates and therefore determines the qualification of its
nominees? Is he correct?
Initially, yes. Initially, it is the party who determines who are its
nominees, and therefore they know who are qualified to
represent them. But the moment that they have a seat in the
house and these nominees have a seat in the HOR, they also
become members of the HOR.
In the words of the SC, it says, in the eyes of the constitution, it is
the nominee or the partylist representative which is elected into
office. Although in a partylist system. Although the system says
that we should vote for a party, automatically, it is the nominee
who sits in the HOR. The moment that he takes his office, he
enjoys the same privileges and he performs the same functions of
the legislative district representative. He is also a congressman.
Therefore, one of the initial determination of qualification is with
the party. Once that nominee is proclaimed, he is therefore
considered member and therefore the determination of his
election is with the electoral tribunal.
What is the difference in the case of Lokin v Comelec?
LOKIN vs COMELEC
This case involved Sibak. Sibak won 3 seats. The problem was,
prior to winning the seats, they already have 4 nominees. Even
prior to election, within the party itself, they changed the
nominees. Pinalitan si Lokin et. al. So when they won seats in the
house, Lokin was not among those who became a congressman.
So he questions now the validity of the replacements.
So where should he file the question?
Actually, he was asking for the annulment of the comelec
resolution including the change of nominees, he filed it with the
SC. Is it properly filed with the SC? Or is the jurisdiction with the
electoral tribunal? It is not a party questioning the right of the
other party to sit in the house. It is a nominee questioning the
right of another nominee of the same party. So it is inter-party
problem. It’s not actually questioning qualification of the
nominee itself. So the SC said the jurisdiction is properly with the
SC and not with the electoral tribunal.
What’s now the other independent constitutional body
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Commission on appointments under section 18. What’s the
function of the commission on appointments? They act upon
appointments submitted to it within 30 days from submission. So
there are appointments which the constitution requires to be
submitted to the commission on appointments.
Let’s go to the composition...
What is the composition of the electoral tribunal?
First, we must know that there are 2 electoral tribunal. One for
each house. What is its composition? How many members does it
have? Each tribunal will have 9 members. 3 coming from the SC
and the rest, 6 will come from members of the house. Now how
are they to choose who will sit in the electoral tribunal? It will be
based on proportional representation of the parties or
organization represented in the house. So you have that case of...
ABBAS vs SET
This is a very peculiar case. Why? When a senator member of the
SET is the subject of the election contest, will you feel okay that
you will be deciding his case? No. So what do you do? You file a
motion for him to inhibit. That’s proper. That’s natural.
The problem in this case is that 22 of them are subject of election
protest. So if he inhibits, who will replace him? The proposition
was that, at least ultimately it was proposed that the 3 justices
will just decide the case. The 6 senators, there will be no senators
because all of them should inhibit.
The question was, is that proposition constitutional?
The SC said, what is onerous in the composition in the electoral
tribunal, 1 part is the SC justice, 2 parts are legislators. You
cannot take away the 6 members of the house without violating
the composition required by the constitution. What is the intent
of the composition is that there should be a representative from
the peers and representative from the SC.
So what happens now if all the senators are subject to the
election protest? What would be the remedy that would also
be constitutional?
The SC said that we have no choice but to trust in the justness of
the senators involved because we have no other constitutional
remedy in that case. Otherwise, it would be a violation of the
composition required by the constitution.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
Who are the members of commission on appointments? How
many commission on appointments in the congress? One. How
many members? 12 coming from the upper house, 12 coming
from the lower house and the senate president sitting as the
chairman. So how many? 25. So there’s just one commission on
appointments with the composition coming from both houses
and the senate president sitting as chairman. His function is to act
on all appointments submitted to him within 30 days from
submission.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Proportional representation. The question was raised in Cunanan
v Tan and Daza v Singson. What’s the issue in these cases?
In other words, it is acceptable to reorganize every now and
then if there is a change of proportional representation in
the parties? When is it proper to reorganize?
In Cunanan v Tan, the SC said that since the composition of the
commission on appointment is proportional to the size of
political parties involved in congress, ...may be necessary to
reflect changes in proportion to that bill in the congress. But here,
there were several members of this party who affiliated with the
member of another party.
Is it a necessity the change of organization?
In Cunanan v Tan, the SC said, no because what happened here is
merely temporary alliance. Observe that none of them resigned
from their parties to transfer to another party. As an alliance,
they are not entitled to representation either to the commission
on appointments or in the electoral tribunal. This is different in
the case of Daza v Singson because there was actual transfer of
membership of these parties. During this time, doon sila sa sikat
na party. Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino which is the party of
president Aquino. So there was actual transfer of membership. So
in this case, the SC said, the reorganization was proper.
Proportional representation also mean that there is no
fractional representation rounded to 1. In mathematical
computation, the result should be 7.5 for this party, 2.5 for this,
1.5 for that, 0.5 for one, rounding off of this 0.5 would result to
the increase of one representation of the other party and
corresponding reduction in another party. So in this 0.5, we
cannot round it up to 1. Otherwise, it would affect the
proportional representation required by the constitution. Now
they are asking the SC. It says that we must have 12 senators, 12
members of the HOR in the commission on appointments. If we
say, 7.5 cannot be rounded up to 8, 2.5 cannot be rounded up to
2, and 1.5 cannot be rounded back to 1. We cannot reach 12. And
the SC said, between that number 12 and the mandate on
proportional representation, the other is a primordial concern of
the constitution. The 12 is merely a ceiling. Meaning that is a
maximum number or members that will be sitting in the
commission on appointments.
What must be maintained is the mandate of proportional
representation. In other words, there cannot be any rounding up.
Otherwise, and increase in the member in one party and a
corresponding reduction in another party. There’s a change in
the proportion. Read also the motion for reconsideration in that
case. That is the case of Guingona v Gonzales because they were
pointing out several instances in our history wherein there was
rounding off fractional representation. The SC said, practice, no
matter how long it is, without judicial.., cannot ripen into a
doctrine of practical construction and the fundamental law.
There must be a judicial confirmation that it is constitutional.
PIMENTEL vs HRET
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
They were questioning the fact that how come there’s no
representative in either the commission on appointments or the
electoral tribunal coming from the partylist. I
n this case, the SC said that there are no representatives coming
from the partylist because they did not submit their own
nominees to sit on the electoral tribunal. That’s just lip service. In
reality, each party in the partylist have only at most 3 seats in a
house of 200+ membership. Is it possible for you to have a seat in
the electoral tribunal or commission on appointment? No.
Because there is a minimum number of membership to have a
seat in the electoral tribunal or the commission on appointment.
Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on
Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after
the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been
organized with the election of the President and the Speaker.
The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the
Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a
majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and
functions as are herein conferred upon it.
That would be relevant when we discuss appointments for the
executive.
Section 20. The records and books of accounts of the
Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in
accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the
Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an
itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses for each
Member.
LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES AND QUESTION HOUR
Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or
any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules
of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected
by, such inquiries shall be respected.
Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own
initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the
request of either House, as the rules of each House shall
provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any
matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions
shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days
before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not
be limited to written questions, but may cover matters
related thereto. When the security of the State or the public
interest so requires and the President so states in writing,
the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.
Legislative functions. One of which is the power to conduct
legislative inquiries. So section 21 talks about legislative
inquiries.
Under the constitution, it has been now vested explicitly that the
congress shall have no power to conduct legislative inquiry. This
is the most observable among all the powers of the congress.
Why? Sometimes, we have the impression na lahat na lang ng
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
bawal, ginagawa nila. This is the shortest to... Just make a grand
standing, make your arguments, then you’ll get famous.
What is the power of legislative inquiry?
This power is actually inherent, essential, and appropriate
auxiliary of legislative function. What do you mean by that? In
order to enact a law, you need the necessary information. Usually,
the information is not available to the congress. Usually, a
legislator is not informed enough about a proposed law. Now
when information is requested, usually, it is not given. In other
words, if the congress cannot make inquiries, it will have no
information to make the laws. No inquiry means no legislation.
They go together.
Appearance of the legislative body, therefore, whether the house
or the committee, is mandatory. One cannot refuse to appear
before a legislative inquiry because it is inherent or necessary to
legislation. It is an essential auxiliary to a legislative function that
the congress cannot legislate without it. Appearance before the
legislative body is mandatory. Other than what I said earlier, it
also means that if one refuses to appear, he be compelled to
appear such as be cited from contempt, he can be arrested. So
you have the case of...
Limitations on the power of legislative investigation:
It must be “in aid of legislation”
It must be in accordance with its duty, published rules or
procedures
Rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall
be respected.
ARNAULT vs NAZARENO
WON the senate is a continuing body under the 1935
constitution. What happened in this case? Nazareno was cited for
contempt. Not because he did not appear for the legislative
hearing but he refused to answer the question. The SC equated
the power to compel, the power to appear and to answer, to self-
preservation. If the congress or committee does not have that
power, what they have therefore, if you invite him and he does
not have any information, ano? You just go to the SC to ask for his
help so that he will answer? No. An independent body. You have
that power to cite him for contempt or to compel him to answer
because that is within your power. That is necessary for self
preservation. There will be no congress if it cannot get the
information that it wants.
The power therefore to punish is founded on reason and policy,
both because of insult. Because of that immense power, the
constitution also placed certain limitation on the exercise of
power. In the Co case, to the ordinary mortal, the issue is private.
For the congress, they were the one sitting to perhaps enact a law
that would protect private rights, particularly the acts involved in
such case. They were private persons involved in a private issue
but they were called in the legislative committee. Can they refuse
to appear? The answer is almost always, no.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
But there are limitations.
First, The inquiry must be made of legislation because the power
is granted in the congress for it to legislate.
Next, it must be in accordance to be published rules of procedure.
The rights of the person appearing in or affected by such
inquiries shall be respected (section 25).
The thing is, if the congress would say the inquiry is in aid of
legislation, it can always get away with it . It is not required that
in the end of inquiry, there is a legislation for there may be an
instance where they will be able to determine that no legislation
is needed after the inquiry.
What is required only is that it is in aid of legislation. Again, there
is no requirement that there must be a product legislation.
In Arnault v Nazarono, he refused to answer. This involved the
selling of properties of the government involving some graft and
corruption. But they were in aid of legislation on how to address
the problem on corruption. So in this case, there was one
question that was asked which Arnault refused to answer. “To
whom did you give the money?” He refused to answer and was
cited for contempt and was sent to bilibid prison because of that
one question. His argument to that was the question was
irrelevant to the proposed legislation. Is it necessary to whom I
gave the money to? That was his argument.
Was it the proper argument?
The SC said, in its entirety, the inquiry is about or has a relation
to the operation of the government. It’s a proper subject for
investigation. It is not necessary for the legislative body to show
that every question propounded is material to any proposed
legislation. What is required is that be pertinent to the matter
under question. It is not necessary that you be questioned for the
proposed legislation. If the subject matter be giving of money to
another without authority and the question remains to the
subject matter, then that is part of the proper question in aid of
the legislation.
Currently in the congress, they are conducting a legislative
investigation and there are witnesses would refuse to answer
questions because it is not related to a proposed legislation.
Actually, they can ask questions as long as it is related to the
subject matter.
BENGZON vs SENATE
Legislative inquiry was conducted by the senate blue ribbon
committee to determine WON the relatives of Corazon Aquino
committed a graft and corruption in the zeal of certain
corporations. What the purpose of legislative inquiry? To
determine WON the relatives of Aquino committed graft and
corruption in the zeal of certain corporations in the government.
Whose function is it to determine WON graft and corruption was
committed? Or the laws were violated? It’s either the courts or
the prosecutor under the DOJ. What’s the function of the
congress? To legislate.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
In this case, it is the admittance that inquiry is in aid of
legislation. As born out of the records, it was there discovered
that the ultimate purpose of the inquiry is to determine WON
there was violation of the law.
The SC said, the contemplated inquiry by the respondent
committee is not really “in aid of legislation” because it is not
related to purpose within the jurisdiction of the congress, since
the aim of the investigation is not to find out WON the relatives of
the president or Mr Ricardo Lopa had violated section 5 RA No.
3019 the “anti-graft and corrupt practices act”, a matter that
appears more within the province of the courts rather that the
legislature.
Here, we have and example that the inquiry in invalid because it
is not in need of legislation. Because of this, almost always, the
resolution calling for an inquiry will have the place of in need of
legislation.
May a legislative inquiry proceed simultaneously with the
other cases involving the same subject of inquiry?
In the case of Bengzon, there was already a case for graft and
corruption filed in the sandiganbayan.
Can the inquiry proceed simultaneously with the court case?
The SC said, for the respondent to prove would be an
encroachment in the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that
had much earlier set in. But don’t misunderstand this ruling. It
says that the investigation WON a crime was committed is
already with the courts and therefore the state investigation
cannot be held simultaneously in the committee within the
congress. It is not part of its jurisdiction. To make this clearer, we
also have the case of...
SENATE BLUE COMMITTE vs MAJADUCON
Majaducon is an RTC judge in Mindanao, Gensan. The judge
issues a TRO and a preliminary injunction against the SBC. What
he implies is that it is preventing, by order of the court, the SBC to
continue with the investigative inquiry because according to him,
the subject matter is already pending with the RTC.
It’s also about graft and corruption involving the sale of lands
with the use of funds of the armed forces retirement and
separation of (delatives) system. So we have here a case of graft
and corruption already pending in the courts and then the senate
wanted to conduct and inquiry in aid of legislation SBC involving
the same transaction.
Can we proceed simultaneously?
Yes, because of the principle of separation of powers. Whose
function is it to legislate? Congress. What’s the purpose of the
court’s cases? To determine violations of law.
In Bengzon, the focus there was WON there was violation of law.
It was not in aid of legislation. When the subject of inquiry WON
there was violation of law, it’s not the function of the congress.
But if it is in aid of legislation, that would be the function of the
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
legislative department. In Bengzon, there were already separate,
several criminal cases already filed against them. They also asked
that the senate cease from conducting the inquiry aid of
legislation.
So the SC reiterated his ruling in Majaducon that the mere filing
of criminal where there should be a complaint of court or quasi-
judicial body should not automatically bar the...of legislative
legislation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert an
independent inquiry of congress to the convenient ploy. Indeed,
the mere filing of a criminal or administrative complaint before a
court or quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the
conduct of legislative investigation.
One of the main concerns of the witnesses which is, in reality,
actually is in need of a concern is the presentation of evidence or
documents which will be used against them in the court
proceedings. Even with that argument, they can simply invoke
right against self incrimination but they cannot still refuse to
appear before a legislative inquiry. And so, it is explained...
ROMERO vs SEN. JINGGOY
Just to appease us that we can go simultaneously. They have
different purposes. A legislative investigation in aid of legislation
and...proceedings have different purposes. On one hand, forced-
conduct hearings or juridicative procedures to settle actual
controversy arising between the first parties and involving the
mandatory rights because there is a judgment. On the other,
inquiries in need of legislation are... Otherwise, the inquiry will
not result in any potential legislation.
According to the SC, ongoing judicial proceedings do not preclude
congressional hearings in aid of the legislation. So usually, we see
this in tv that the witness will write to the committee that they
will not attend because their cases are already pending. You
cannot talk about it outside of courts. Ethical obligation of the
lawyers. But it does not follow before judicial inquiries.
Is there anyone who is exempted to appear before the
legislative inquiry?
Members of the SC and executive. The principle of separation of
powers. They are co-equal bodies. Therefore, they cannot require
them to appear before them. The judiciary cannot also take
cognizance of cases wherein the party involved is a sergeant
because the president also enjoys immunity. So exempted from
this are the co-equal bodies. This is absolute.
The president, in order to prevent undersecretaries, general of
the commission under her, in order from preventing them from
attending, issue the EO 464 which is actually a gag order for her
officers. They cannot attend without her consent because of
executive privilege. This is about the power of the government to
withhold information from the public, the courts, and the
congress. This is a required constitutional power of the
government... At least there are 3 distinctions that may be
asserted as part of privilege.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
One would be state secrets privilege. This would involve crucial,
military matters or diplomatic matters because the divulging
information would affect the case. Informer’s privilege. In reality,
the informants are discriminated here.
Also, Direct privilege for internal deliberations. The principle is
this, where the executive privilege is exerted, whether it is
asserted in the congress reports or the public, this is recognized
only in relations to section 5 of information.
When you say executive privilege, this relates to a type of
information that is...in character. The executive privilege, what
the constitution call, may be varied or not depending on the
ground invoked to justify it and the contents therein.
In the case of Valdez claimed executive privilege because it is
related to information. It is recognized in relation to a certain
types of information. How can you there claim exemption based
on executive privilege? Can you say that I am a executive
secretary therefor I am given the executive privilege? In order to
make a valid waiver for executive privilege, a ground would be
what’s the part of its provision. So it relates to certain types of
information.
SENATE vs ERMITA INSERT SECTION 3 ERMITA
This is about election fraud involving the president. Section 3 is
claiming on executive privilege. Now who is claiming executive
privilege? And who is covered by this claim? The president is
claiming executive privilege and she is also covering not only
herself but also all the public officials enumerated in section 2.
Who can claim executive privilege? Is this a valid provision?
Executive privilege relates to type of information and not to
person. The SC held that executive privilege is properly invoked
in relation to specific categories of information and not to
inquiries of persons.
Attain of privilege, being attain of exception, mut therefore...
ascertain. Congress must know why the executive considers the
question or information of privilege. There must be, therefore, a
formative privilege. Formal and proper claim of privilege
requires designation and description of the documents within its
scope. Does it require that you tell them “anong secret?” Hindi na.
Hindi na yun secret kapag sinabi mo. What is required is merely a
discription that it is in the nature of something that involves
diplomatic interest from military secrets and that would suffice.
NERI vs SENATE
According to him, he cannot answer the question. The question
was, did the president ask him to approve this bill? Did the
president follow up with this bill? The answer dwells on the
impact of bribery, scandal, etc.
The SC said, we find the grounds you lied to the executive
secretary specific enough so as not fully responsive committees
in the dark on how they requested the information to be
classified as privileged. In the case of Senate v Ermita only
requires that the allegation remain when the information
demanded involves military, those cabinet meetings, etc. In order
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
to claim a privilege, you are not required to divulge a secret. It
will be useless to claim executive privilege.
GUDANI vs SENGA
Involves military officers called before the legislative inquiry.
Again, involving Arroyo. There was election fraud wherein the
military was used to facilitate fraud. Particularly, in the ARMM
area. This is the election between Arroyo and Fernando Poe
wherein PFJ got 0 in certain areas that is statistically impossible.
So a legislative inquiry was held. Subpoena before the body are
members of military. Are military officers, the president
explicitly prohibited them from attending. They attended
nonetheless and they were subjected to disciplinary action.
Can the president prevent military officials from attending
legislative inquiries?
Yes. The president can do so not on the grounds of executive
privilege but in her power as commander-in-chief.
Take note that crucial to military discipline is different from civil
discipline. They are subjected to disciplinary procedures
pursuant to articles of war and not pursuant to civil laws.
What is crucial to military discipline?
We follow orders without questioning. You do not break that
chain of commands. So crucial to military discipline is obedience
to superior without question. Therefore, the chain of command,
the commander-in-chief is the highest and that is the president.
The SC recognize that the president has the constitutional
authority to prevent them from...by virtue of her power as
commander in chief and by consequence as military officer to to
revise such injunction liable under military service. On the other
hand, they also recognize the power of the congress to conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation. The SC recognize that the legislative
body has the power to compel attendance and the president has
the power to prevent attendance so there is an impasse.
The relief is with the courts because in the constitutional
structure, if there is issue with the constitutional interpretation,
who has which power, it is the judiciary which determines that
question. In as much as it is ill-advised for congress to interfere
with the president’s power, it is not mean that...for the president
to appear, when the congress has tried to conduct legislative
inquiries. Therefore, if there is such an impasse, you leave the
determination to the courts to ask for judicial review.
IN RE: SABIO
Can the law be enacted to exempt certain persons from
legislative inquiries?
The general concept is one can be compelled. The exception is
only with the president, the members of the judiciary.
So can the law be enacted exempting a person?
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
One, creating the PCGG. This was the time when we were just
starting to enjoy democracy under the Marcos’ rule. EO1 is issued
by president Aquino, forming the PCGG to look for, secure and
confiscate ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos’. It is here that
members of the PCGG are exempted from attending legislative
inquiries.
Is this a valid provision of law?
No. Because no constitutional basis. If it is allowed, then it will
amend the constitution which allowed the department the power
to conduct legislation in the aid of investigation and the power to
compel attendance. So there can be no exception unless there is
constitutional basis for the exception.
Only the president and the judiciary members are not exempted.
A mere provision of law cannot pose an limitation to the powers
of congress in the absence of constitutional basis. You are limiting
the power of congress. Therefore amending the constitution
unless there is a constitutional basis for limiting this one. Letter A
is limiting powers in the exercise of the power to conduct
legislative inquiry. The first limitation must be in need of
legislation. The second limitation is it must be in accordance with
rules of procedure.
Section 4 (b) of EO No. 1 provides that: “No member or staff of
the Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence
in any judicia, legislative or administrative proceeding
concerning matters within its official cognizance.”
GARCILLANO vs HOUSE
In the case, there was a new set of senator after election but prior
to that, the inquiry involving the Garcillano tape has already
commenced. When the new set of senators came in, the question
is,
do they have to duly publish the rules on procedure
involving the legislative inquiries? The “duly published rules
of procedure” requires the senate and the congress already
published its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of
legislation because every senate is distinct from the one before it
or after it.
In relation to that, the senate under the 1987 constitution is no
longer a continuing body because every 3 years, we hold
senatorial election and in every election, 1/2 of the senates
membership is changed. There is no majority. That is in the case
of Arnault v Senate. Why is it necessary to be published in the
rules of procedure? Because the inquiry affects private rights.
Publication is a part of requirement of due process that became
the requirement of notice.
LAST LIMITATION
What rights can you waive or invoke?
If you are involving public officers or members of the board of
public corporation, when they are called to attend legislative
inquiries, they invoke the right to privacy and they would intend
to refuse to attend by invoking this right.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Right to privacy cannot be invoked if there is the reasonable
expectation of privacy. If you are a private person, it may be, the
right to privacy, may be. But in this case, they invoked it because
they have no reasonable expectation for the right of privacy they
being officers of public corporations and the subject of their
inquiry remiss to their official functions which is a matter of
public concern. So they cannot have the right to participate.
They also claim the right against self-incrimination. Can they
invoke that? In ordinary cases, when only one can invoke their
right against self-incrimination, only after the incriminating
question is asked. You cannot all together refuse to appear by
invoking this right because prior to that, you have no idea WON
the question is incriminating. Again, invoking this right can be a
ground to refuse to appear but it can be a ground to refuse to
answer an incriminating question. Therefore, to invoke this right,
the incriminating question must be asked to know that you can
invoke that right.
What’s the difference between section 21 and 22?
Section 21 is inquiry made... Section 22 is question about power.
Section 21 specifically relates to conduct inquiries made to
conduct legislation to obtain information for the comfortable for
the legislation. Section 22, on the other hand, is the power to
conduct question and the objection of which is to obtain
information for congress to oversight functions. Here, the
congress seeks to inform on how the department heads are
implementing the rules which it has issued. It’s merely
consultation.
In Section 21, legislative inquiry, appearance is mandatory
because it is in need of legislation. In the question hour, it’s only
permissive. The congress may only request their appearance. In
fact, they can go the other way around. The department heads
may request, on the consent of the president, to appear before
the congress. It may be upon the initiative of the congress or
upon the initiative of the department heads. In section 21, to any
persons while Section 22 involves only department heads.
Sec. 21 Sec. 22
Specifically relates to the power Pertains to the power to
to conduct inquiries in aid of conduct a question hour, the
legislation, the aim of which is objective of which is to obtain
to elicit information what may information in pursuit of
be used for legislation. congress’ oversight function--
congress merely seeks to be
iinformed in how department
heads are implementing the
statues which it has issued
Appearance is mandatory Permissive--congress may only
request their appearance
Applies to any persons Applies to head of departments
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Going back to Senate v Ermita, in the discussion, what was
questioned was section 3. WON it was valid because section 3
claims exemption on legislative inquiry based on his initiation is
an executive privilege. Also questioned was Section 1
“Appearance by Heads of Departments Befre Congress. In
accordance with Article VI, section 22 of the constitution and to
implement constitutional provisions on the separation of powers
between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of
departments of the executive branch of the government shall
secure the consent of the president prior to appearing before
either House of Congress”.

Is it valid? Is it valid in accordance with article section 22?

The SC said, for so long as this section is limited only to question
hour under section 22, the provision that requires them to seek
consent from the president before appearing is invalid. The
department heads may appear with the consent of the president.
Not before congress. Insofar as it applies only to the question
hour, there is no constitutional bar to the requirement of seeking
appearing before either house of congress.

Devilleres, Elden Claire A. I - Sanchez Roman

Lumanag, Jonah Rose G. 2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
There's one general function of the legislative department which
is to legislate. When we say that legislative power has the power
to legislate, we go back to the principle that there power is
plenary.
Under Sections 24, 26, and 27, there are certain formal and
procedural requirements to have a valid legislation.
Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in
the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments.
We call them the lower house and the upper house but it does not
mean that one is superior than the other. There are still both co-
equal bodies. This means that any legislation should always begin
in the lower house (HOR).
The General Rule is: Either house could initiate bills. It will start
with the Senate or it will start with the HOR.
But there are just certain kinds of bills which the constitution
requires to originate with the House of Representatives, like for
example your money bills, your appropriation bills.
Appropriation bills are those that set aside certain amount for a
certain purpose. There are bills, however, which are for some
other purposes while incidentally it also sets aside money. That's
not an appropriation bill. An appropriation bill is that the
purpose for the enactment is to set aside amounts for certain
purposes. Revenue and Tariff bills would be the bills which
would increase your revenue, your tax bills, bills authorizing the
increase of public debts. Bills of local application is limited to
specific localities. For example, a bill converting municipalities to
cities. Private bills would be those that affect private individual
(Citizenship).
All these bills are just a portion of what other bills the Congress
would enact. But the Constitution mandates that for these and
only these kinds of bills, they must originate to the HOR.
TRUE OR FALSE. Bills must originate in the HOR? FALSE because
either house could initiate or enact bills.
But the 2nd sentence says that the Senate may proprose
amendments or concur with amendments. What does that mean?
How far can the Senate change the bills that are being initiated by
the HOR? So in...
TOLENTINO vs SECRETARY OF FINANCE
We have here the VAT Law. There are several challenges to that
law one of which is that according to Tolentino, it is the Senate
version that was adopted by the Conference Committee. The HOR
proposed a bill for VAT and then after that it passes it to the
Senate. So the Senate also has its own version. Now when there
have been many versions and of course you can't expect that they
are the same versions. When there are conflicting versions,
usually they would refer it to the Conference Committee to
reoncile the differences.
Now the output of that it turned out that most of the proposals of
the Senate were adopted by the Conference Committee so that
the final version turned out to be mostly the Senate version. So
Tolentino questioned the validity of that law because for him,
according to Section 24, it must originate from the House of
Representatives.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
So what's his theory? It must be the version of the HOR that must
be carried out to become a law. Is this theory correct? The SC said
that it is not the law but the bill which is required by the
constitution to originate exclusively in the HOR. Meaning, the
inititation of the bill must come from the HOR if, for example, for
this Congress the HOR did not think of enacting a bill on VAT, the
result would be no law on tax would be enacted because the
inititation must come from the HOR. They cannot do anything.
They cannot force the house to say “let's enact a bill”. What this
means, it is only the HOR which will determine WON to enact a
bill regarding this subject matters.
If we insist that it should be the version of the HOR that must be
carried out to the end to become a law, would be to deny the
Senate's power, not only to concur to make amendments, but also
to propose amendments.
In other words, once a bill is intiated by the house, the Senate can
put in as many provisions as it wants, to the point that even if the
final law will be that primarily of the Senate's version, there will
be no violation of section 24. Otherwise, it will be to deny them
the power to concur or even to propose amendments. It will be to
violate the co-equality of the legislative power of the 2 houses of
the Congress. As I've said earlier, neither house is superior to the
other.
It means that for these kinds of bills, they must be initiated by the
HOR. If for example the Senate proposes a bill on taxation, it
would just sit there. Nothing will happen. Even if it passes it to
the HOR, let's say the HOR acted upon that bill, it is still
unconstitutional. So you can question the validity of that law. But
take note that this is only limited to certain kinds of bills., not to
all kinds of bills. Either house can initiate a bill.
ABAKADA vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
The HOR propose amendments on the VAT. We have the national
revenue code. Yung code natin on taxation. The HOR propose
only to amend the chapter on VAT. They initiated it and then they
forwarded it to the senate for Conference for amendments. Now,
when the senate acted on that bill, they included amendments
not only on the chapter on VAT but those on other taxes which
leaves us the question...
What is the extent that the senate can propose in a bill? Kasi
on this case, the HOR only focused on the VAT. Pag abot ng
senate, sinali na nila ang personal income, income taxes, and
other kinds of taxes other than that.
Is that proper? Does this violate section 24?
Once the bill is initiated, the Senate can propose as many
amendments as it wants. Section 24 does not contain any
prohibition or limitation on the extent of amendments that may
be introduced by the Senate to the House of Representative's bill.
They were amending in fact the national revenue code. Yung tax
natin. So once it is initiated, the Senate is free to explore any
other amendments it may want in the revenue code.
ALVAREZ vs GUINGONA
Here, the HOR filed this bill about the conversion of municipality
into a city. The bill was filed on April 18, 1993. It was transmitted
to the Senate on January 28, 1994. Now, the Senate even before it
received the HOR's version, May 19 pa lang 1993 filed a bill
converting that municipality into a city.
Eto na nangyari. This month, the HOR filed a bill. The following
month, without having received that version of the bill of the
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
HOR, nag una-una si Senate. They filed their own version, but
then Public hearing was conducted only after the senate received
the copy on February 23, 1994.
Is there a violation because the Senate apparently did not
wait to receive the copy of the version of the HOR and
initiated its own version?
The SC said the HB No. 8817 which was filed by the HOR was the
bill that initiated the legislative process that culminated the
enactment of 7720. There was, therefore, no violation of Section
24 under the circumstances.
What do we take from this? As long as or the moment that the
HOR initiates the filing even if the house has not received a copy
of it, it can make its own version and then reconcile it later. It
would be different if the Senate filed it ahead of the HOR. Even if
without having received a copy of that, the Senate can do its
version as long as it's already initiated.
The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its
receipt of the bill from the House, does not contravene the
constitutional requirement that a bill of local application should
originate in the House of Representatives, for as long as the
Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.
So what happened in this case?
Although it had its own version, it waited for the “re...” before it
conducted a public hearing to finalize its own draft.
So let's go back, public hearing was conducted February 23, 1994.
When they filed their own version on May 1993, what happened
after? The bill sat in the corner waiting for the motion of the
House. What's important is that it was already initiated by the
HOR.
Section 26.
1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
“ONE SUBJECT ONE TITLE RULE”
What does it mean? For every bill or law that is enacted, it shall
encompass only 1 subject. Hindi yung saksak sinagol. Otherwise,
it will lead to confusion. That 1 subject must also be expressed in
the title itself so that the moment we read the title, we already
know what would be the possible content of that law, WON we
will be affected by that law. So this is the prohibition on omnibus
bills. What is omnibus bill? Omnibus is anything that you can put
in.
Like section 24, this is also mandatory. Compliance is compulsory
and non-compliance would lead to the invalidation of the law.
Purpose: To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation.
Hodge-podge – jumbled, disorderly mess
log-rolling legislation – trading of favors. In order for me to get
your vote, i'm proposing this kind of law, I will insert their those
matters that you like.
Again, either way, this will lead to confusion not only in the
lawmakers themselves but also to the public. So the subject
matter must be in the title itself.
When we say “ONE SUBJECT ONE TITLE RULE”, there must be
one subject expressed in the title. This must be given a practical
rather than technical construction.
Have you read titles of laws? An act providing for the bla bla bla.
You have a one paragraph title. Now why are they doing that? In
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
order to avoid violating Section 26 (1). In order to show na nasa
title na to, they put in everything. But actually, according to the
SC, it must be given a practical and not technical construction.
The title need not be an index of all the provisions of that law.
Hindi mo kailangan i-enumerate kung ano nandoon. So if the title
says, an act creating a Philippine postal corporation, I think that
would suffice.
It has been held that as long as you state the general subject of
the law, then that is okay. Meron pa diyan “...and providng funds
therefor”. You mean to say that if we do not put that in the title,
and there's a provision providing funds for the creation of that,
the provision is already not part of that law or invalid? No, that's
wrong because providing funds is related to the subject matter.
What is important is the general subject matter is there, and all
the provisions are germane to that general subject matter or has
a relation to that general subject matter. It is not calculated to
mislead the legislature or the people. As long as the title
expresses the general subject and all the provisions of the statute
are germane to that general subject then this is a specific or at
least already a substantial compliance. There is no need that the
title is an index of all the provisions of the law.
GUZMAN vs COMELEC
Here, the title “An act providing for a general registration of
voters, adopting a system of continuing registration, prescribing
the procedures thereof, and authorizing the appropriation of
funds therefor”. Actually that is a valid title, but for me, that is
very long. Maybe there's a way that we can shorten the title. “An
act providing a general system of continuing registration.” Of
course when we say system of continuing registration, you must
prescribe the procedures. But the issue is not on the title, ang sa
akin lang, masyadong mahaba.
Anyway, there's a provision in this law which provides for
reassignment of the election officers. If you look at the title,
what's the general subject matter? System of registration. The
question, which is the issue in this case, kasi sila mga election
officers affected by this. They were reassigned because it says
that every 4 years, election officers will be reassigned to another
jurisdiction. So they said that this is an insertion. It is not
something in the title. It violates the 1 subject 1 title rule.
Is the argument correct?
Now the Supreme Court said, as long as the provision is related to
or germane to the main subject, then that would suffice. Section
44 which provides for the reassignment of election officers is
relevant to the subject matter of registration. Sino ba ang magre-
register? It's the election officers, so they are part of the system.
So if there's a provision for their regular reassignment, then that
is not a violation of Section 26(1). That provision is not an alien
provision but one which is related to the conduct and procedure
of the Philippine registration of voters.
Take note of this: When there's a question in the
constitutionality of the law, the presumption is always for
the constitutionality. So you have to overcome that
presumption. Usually, when there's a question on
unconstitutionality of a provision, the SC will find a way to
declare it as constitutional. Which leads us to, when applying
that, if the provision is in any way related to the main subject
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
matter, then it is not unconstitutional, it is valid. In this case it is
related. It is very related, in fact.
But I will show you something that is hardly related but the
Supreme Court still said may relation naman eh and it is still
constitutional.
FARINAS vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Here, the law is the fair elections act or “An act to enhance the
holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections
through fair election practices.” Now when you look at the
provisions of the law, the general impression is that it's about
lifting the ban on media campaign. So it's about fair election
processes.
Now, there's a provision in that law which repealed the provision
on Omnibus election code about the status of an elective official
who files his certificate of candidacy. Under the primary law, the
moment that an elective official, example a mayor, files his
certificate of candidacy for another office, for example governor,
is considered ipso facto resigned. So mawawalan na siya ng
trabaho.
Now there's also a provision there which says that if you are an
appointed official, say secretary of national defense, and you file
your certificate of candidacy, the same effect. You are considered
ipso facto resigned.
Now in this law, it repealed only the latter. Ano yun? For elective
officials who file their certificate of candidacy, they are no longer
considered resigned. They continue to enjoy their work. But for
appointed officials, the moment you file your certificate of
candidacy, you remain to be ipso facto resigned.
For example, Mar Roxas if he has not resigned, as our DILG
secretary the moment that he file his certificate of candidacy, he
will be considered as resigned. So there's a distinction and it is in
this law.
Is that provision germane to this law, the fair elections act?
Or is it unconstitutional violating the 1 subject 1 title rule? Is
it part of the subject?
Ito na yung sinasabi ko. The presumption is always on the
constitutionality. Separation of powers. There is due regard to
the other departments. The presumption is hindi bobo ang other
departments and hindi pinaka bright ang supreme court. So there
is due respect to other departments that before they enact a law,
they have duly studied it, they have considered the
constitutionality of that law. So if there is a way of validating that,
then the Supreme Court would do so.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
The Supreme Court said, in this case, it is still germane to the
main subject matter. In this case, the SC said that there is no
violation.
This court has held that an act having a single subject, indicated
in the title, may contain any number of provisions no matter how
diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or
foreign to the general subject, and may be considered in
furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and
means of carrying out the general subject.
So the legislators considered Section 67 of the Omnibus Election
Code as a form of harassment or discrimination against public
officials, so nakapasok siya sa fair elections act, that had to be
done away with and repealed.
GARCIA vs MATA
The law is the General Appropriations Act. Ano yun? This is our
budget for the year. Now there's a provision in that law that says:
“After the approval of this Act, and when there is no emergency,
no reserve office of the Armed Forces of the Philippines may be
called to a tour of active duty for more than two years during any
period of five consecutive years.”
You tell me, is this germane to the law?
It has no relation to the budget. This is an appropriations act, so
this provision is very foreign or alien to the main subject of the
law. So in this case, the Supreme Court said that we have no
choice but to declare it as unconstitutional.
If you are an AFP member, you would have no idea that magiging
inactive ka na pala because you have no interest in the
appropriations act. This is one way of testing WON it violates the
constitution. WON the title is misleading.
LIDASAN vs COMELEC
It's supposed to be “An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton
in the Province of Lanao del Sur”, kung taga Lanao ka, of course
you are interested. Now what happened in this case is that
without stating it in the title, it included pala barrios located in
another province, in the province of Cotabato. Automatically
there is a violation. It misleads. So in this case, when the title says
that and it would include another province, then that is already a
violation of Section 26(1).
So how can we validate that law? You express it in the title. That
is what Section 26(1) means. There's just one subject matter
actually but it has to be expressed in the title itself in order to
avoid misleading the public or the lawmakers. So here, there's an
impression that it is only the province of Lanao del Sur that
would be affected. It makes the title misleading and deceptive.
The test is: WON it is misleading or deceptive.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
2. No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it
has passed three readings on separate days, and printed
copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its
Members three days before its passage, except when the
President certifies to the necessity of its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the
last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed,
and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter,
and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
Section 26(2) has this procedural requirements for the validity of
the law.
- 3 readings
- must be on separate days. So you cannot read twice today and
then the third reading tomorrow. It must be on separate days.
- the printed copies of the bill in its final form should be
distributed to its member 3 days before its passage.
What usually happens is that on the first reading, it is usually the
reading of the title. That's why section 26(1) is relevant because
upon hearing the title, if you are interested, then you attend. The
second would be the reading of its provisions and the third is the
getting of the votes after reading the final form, and usually they
don't read it out loud in session.
The exception is, when the President certifies to the necessity of
its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.
Now, the grounds would be: when there's a public calamit or
emergency.
Now, what requirements can you dispense with?
TOLENTINO vs SECRETARY OF FINANCE
Ramos certified the urgency of the VAT. The certification
dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also of
reading the bill in 3 separate days. So what does this mean? The
bill should be read 3 times but you can read it on one day because
of its urgency and printed copies may also be dispensed with.
So what cannot we dispensed with? The 3 readings on separate
days.
Under the constitution, what are the grounds for certifying
the bill as urgent? As I've said public calamity or emergency.
If the president certifies that, can we question the
certification of the president, let's say there is no in fact
public calamity or emergency?
Again, this certification or determination is an exclusive
prerogative of the president. Based on the principle of separation
of powers, you cannot question that. The SC cannot tell the
President that it's not an emergency. What is relevant is that the
Senate concurred with this determination by acting on it.
So what is the remedy in case of disagreement of the two Houses?
If it diagramed the enactment of law, what does it do? Let's say na
initiate sa House of Representatives, 1 st reading, 2nd reading, 3rd
reading. And then it passes it to the Senate. 1 st reading, 2nd, 3rd. Do
you think that their versions would always be the same? NO. In
fact, you pass it to the other house for them to propose other
amendments. But almost always, their version would be
different.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
What happens if there is a disagreement?
If you look at section 26, there is no remedy. It just says that no
bill passed by either house shall become a law unless it has
passed 3 readings. That reality that almost always they have
different versions. But the constitution has not prescribed
anything.
So what is the remedy?
The Congress has provided their remedy in its internal rules, that
is the creation of Conference Committee. Bicameral Conference
Committee, there is a member coming from the Senate, and
there is also a member coming from HOR and naging Committee
sila. What is their mandate? To reconcile or settle any differences.
Take note: This is an internal rule. They did this in order to
reconcile differences, which is otherwise the procedure is not
prescribed or provided in the constitution.
So what is the extent of the power of the Conference Committee?
How far can they add, delete, etc. to the provisions of both
houses?
For example, in...
TOLENTINO vs SECRETARY OF FINANCE
It is still about VAT Law. It is contended that the ...which became
the VAT law is the bill which the conference committee prepare
by consolidating HB No. 1197 and SB No. 1830. The conference
committee report included provisions not found in either house
bill or senate bill and that this provisions were inserted by the
Conference Committee. Much is made by the fact that in the last 2
days of its session, the committee met behind close doors.
What is the extent of the power of the Conference
Committee?
The final law pala, there are several provision which did not
come from the HOR and HOS, but came from the Conference
Committee. Marami silang dinagdag. There were several
provisions that were inserted and they met behind close doors.
Though under the internal rules it says that the meeting should
be open. So there's a violation of the internal rules.
ABAKADA vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
The petitioner asked the court to define the power of the
Bicameral Conference Committee. The petitioners, here, allege
irregularities committed by the conference committee in
introducing changes or deleting provisions in the House and
Senate bills. (For example, creation of two sets of bicameral
conference committee.) Ano to? House Version, Senate version,
bicameral committee, submitted to there, hindi sila nag agree,
kuha na naman ng bicameral committee twice. (the lack of
records of said committees' proceedings, the alleged violation of
said committee of the rules of bouth houses, and the
disappearance or deletion of one of the provisions in the
compromise bill submitted by the bicameral conference
committee.)
PJA vs PRADO
Section 35 of the law creating the postal corporations, removing
the franking privileges of certain people. Section 35 was actually
not included in the original version of the Senate Bill and House
Bill. Iba ang pinag-usapan to reconcile and they added another
section which neither house has any disagreement of. They did
not even talked about it but then it was added in the final
committee report. It was never subject of any disagreement and
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
nd
so the 2 paragraph could not have been validly added as an
amendment.
So going back to the question, What is the extent of the
power of the Conference Committee? To what extent can
they add, delete and reconcile?
In all of these cases, the Supreme Court is consistent with its
ruling.
Can the Conference Committee include in its report an entirely
new provision not found in the version of either House?
To reconcile or harmonize disagreeing provisions, the Bicameral
Conference Committee may:
1. They may adopt the specific provisions of either house – the
HB or SB.
2. They may decide that neither provisions in the HB or SB would
be carried into final form of the bill. But i-amend mo, i-delete mo,
by doing that, some provisions would also be affected since they
are all related.
3. Try to arrive at a compromise between the disagreeing
provisions so that the final result would be an entirely different
version. That is inescapable. That is the natural and logical
consequence if you're trying to reconcile differences because to
reconcile meaning you make another provision that is entirely
different from your proposed solutions. Their version naturally
would be altogether different. Otherwise, how would you
reconcile? The result would of course be a third version, which is
considered an “amendment in the nature of a substitute”, the only
requirement which being that the 3 rd version be germane to the
subject of the Hoise and Senate bill. The solution to reconcile the
difference may be another provision. Other than reconciling kung
hindi talaga ma reconcile.
So as to the question of WON the Conference Committee can
insert, amend, add, delete its own version? The answer has to
be YES. This court has recently held that it is within the power of
a Conference Committee to include in its report an entirely new
provision that is not found either in the HB or in the SB.
And this is the relevant part, after all, its report was not final. But
needed the approval of both houses of Congress to become valid
as an act of legislative department. The charge that in this case
the conference committee, as the third legislative chamber, is
thus without basis. Why? It's not a third legislative chamber
because it cannot act on its own without the approval of either
house. So kahit ano pang I add nila doon, it's always subject to the
approval of either house or both houses.
So there's no limit as to what they can add, delete, or amend. Just
for the purpose of reconciling the different motions.
It has been held in...
PJA vs PRADO
While it is true that a conference committee is the mechanism for
compormising differences between the Senate and the House, it
is not limited in its jursidiction to this question. Its broader
function is described thus:
“A conference committee may, deal generally which the subject
matter or it may be limited to resolving the precise differences
between the two houses. Even where the conference committee
is not by rule limited in its jursidiction, legislative custom
severely limits the freedom with which new subject matter can
be inserted into the conference bill.”
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
More often than not, it has been practiced that they can do that
because the reality is even if we provide it in the rule that they
cannot add, delete, amend, the reality is you...do that. It's not
practical. So it has become a legislative custom to allow freedom
which new subject matter can be inserted.
“But occasionally a conference committee produces unexpected
results, results beyond its mandate. These excursions occur even
where the rules impose strict limitations on conference
committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of the authoritarian
power of conference committee.”
But there is nothing in the constitution about that? Why? The
report is still subject to the approval of both houses. So to be
sure, nothing in the rules limits the Conference Committee to
consideration of conflicting provisions. So it has become a
practice that the conference committee reports include new
matters, which though germane have not been committed...if a
change is desired...
If they do not like that, the remedy is within the congress itself
since the question is not covered by any constitutional provision,
it is only in the internal rule of each house. In fact reviewing
section 16 (3) of Article 6, it is there provided that each house
may determine the rules of its proceedings. Internal rules are
merely parliamentary proceedings which can be amended,
revoked, ignored by the body themselves. If they do not like that,
the change in this, the remedy is with them. In...
ABAKADA vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
The Supreme Court reiterated this ruling that the court
recognized the long standing legislative practice of giving said
conference committee ample latitude for compromising
differences between the Senate and the House.
Going back to the main question if the version which became
the law is not the desired law of the legislative body. Ano
yung remedy? They can always repeal a law. So they cannot go
to the SC like cry babies. There is nothing unconstitutional about
that practice.
Let's say there's violation of internal rules, say the rules said
there's only 1 bicameral committee pero the report is not
satisfactory to both houses, they created another bicameral
committee and another bicameral committee and another.
Violation of their own rules. Should the law be invalidated?
Finally sa 5th committee nagka intindihan sila, should the law be
invalidated because of the violation of their internal rule? In fact
internal rules are just prerogative of that body. Separation of
Powers. The Supreme Court cannot dictate upon that body what
should be their rules. And their violations, the violation is in...the
remedy is internal.
Should a law be invalidated when the Conference Committee
commits violation of the Congress internal rules re:
Conference committees?
Going back to the power of the Congress, the Congress has the
power to formulate rules for its proceedings and the discipline of
its members. In other words, if there is violation by the
conference committee, they are the sole judge of the disciplinary
matters. They can discipline their peers through their power
under Section 16. So the Congress is the best judge how it should
conduct its own business expeditiously and in the most orderly
manner. It is also the sole concern of Congress to instill discipline
among the members of its conference committee if it believes
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
that said members violated any of its rules of proceedings – they
met behind close doors, the SC cannot invalidate the law just
because the Conference Committee met behind close doors.
Why can't the SC invalidate the law because of this some
problems?
Not only Separation of powers but in relation to that the doctrine
of enrolled bill.
Where there is already a certification by the senate president and
the house of representatives that is the bill will be for the
president's apporval. It's already conclusive on the due
enactment of the law. And conclusive also on the provisions of
the law. So there is already certification by the senate president.
It has been duly enacted. There is certification by the speaker of
the house, it has been duly enacted. Who are you Congressmen to
say that the Conference Committee violated the rules? Punta ka
sa Senate president and sa speaker of the House.
The enrolled bill rule is a principle of judicial interpretation of
rules of procedure in legislative bodies. Under the doctrine, once
a bill passes a legislative body and is signed into law, the courts
assume that all rules of procedure in the enactment process were
properly followed.
NO AMENDMENT RULE
Section 26 (2)
“...Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall
be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately
thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.”
How is a bill passed?
Passed by either house shall not become law unless it has passed
3 readings. HOR = 1st reading, 2nd reading, 3rd reading. Last
sentence “upon the last reading of the bill, no amendment thereto
shall be allowed...” If nanalo si yes, forward niya lang kay Senate,
1st reading, 2nd reading, 3rd reading. No amendments! If nanalo si
yes, okay ang bill.
The problem is. This bill is different from this bill. So how to
reconcile? Conference Committee. Does this violate the no
amendment rule? Because after the conference committee, it is
sent back to either house for approval, so may amendment.
Does this violate the no amendment rule?
Petitioners argue that the practice where a bicameral conference
committee is allowed to add or delete provisions in the House bill
and the Senate bill after these had passed 3 readings is in effect a
circumvention of the “no amendment rule” (Sec. 26(2))
If you are arguing that, the practice where bicameral conference
committee is allowed to add or delete provisions in the HOR and
HOS is a circumvention of the no amendment rule.
If you are proposing that, in reality what are you proposing? Do
not touch the version of the house, do not touch the version of the
Senate. What are you proposing then? Ilagay mo sa final bill both
versions. So in reality, what are you proposing? Something that is
impractical. Stupid even. So the Supreme Court said,
1st requirement: there must be 3 readings. So pagbalik sa HOR, 3
readings na naman. Pagbalik sa senate, 3 readings na naman. The
result would be, naturally, hindi yan sila magkasundo. So ibalik
nanaman sa conference Committee.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
So the SC said, (1) there is no requirement that the report must
have undergone 3 readings in each of the 2 houses because if that
would be the case, there would be no end to negotiations since
each house may seek modification of the compromise bill. What
the SC is saying is that the moment it is returned to either house,
it is just a take it or leave it scenario. Approve or disapprove.
What about the amendments it produced?
Section 26(2), the 3 readings and the no amendment rule, must
be construed as referring only to bills introduced for the first
time in either House of Congress and not to the Conference
Committee report.
So it is reiterated in...
ABAKADA vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
The no amendment rule refers only to the procedure to be
followed by each house with regard to bills initiated by said
respective houses before said bill is transimmited to the other
house for its concurrence or amendment. To construe that said
provision in a way to proscribe and any changes after 1 house
acted on it, would lead to absurdity. Wala tayong law na
magagawa. As this would mean that the other house of Congress
would be deprived of its constitutional prower to amend or
introduce changes in said bill.
Section 26(2) cannot be taken to mean that the introduction of
amendments and modifications by the bicameral conference
committee is prohibited.
That is the only remedy that we have in order to come up with a
law. Because kung stick tayo sa section 26, 3 readings, no
amendments, it would mean that the other house would have the
last say kung ano yung law, kung ano yung version nila. It would
be more the versions of the other house. So the conference
committee is valid. And it does not have to undergo 3 readings
and it does not violate the no amendment rule.
So bills initiated in each respective house is transmitted to
another house for amendment.
HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW
Section 27 (1)
Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a
law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same
he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the
same with his objections to the House where it originated,
which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-
thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass
the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the
other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and
if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it
shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House
shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the
Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal.
The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the
House where it originated within thirty days after the date of
receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had
signed it.
For the first sentence, although there's separation of power, there
is also interdependence.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Actually there are 3 ways in which a bill becomes a law under
this provision. This will just show you how independence and
interdependece works.
HOW DOES A BILL BECOMES A LAW?
- approved by both Houses, and approved by the President
- approved by both Houses, inaction by the President after 30
days from receipt of the bill
- approved by both Houses, vetoed by the President. Veto
overridden by both Houses
There are several laws which became a law without the
president's approval. Usually, the reason is political. You know
that the law is needed but maraming ayaw, so yun.
What if the President vetoes it? Is it the end?
No. The Congress can overrride the veto by 2/3 votes of all the
members of the House. Those who actually participated,
excluding yung mga nag absent. This is absolute 2/3 votes. This
can only be done if the Congress really feels if the law is really
necessary and the President is not doing his job.
MILLER vs MARDO
Nag enact ng law si Congress. It says okay president you create
reorganization committee, you propose to us how we are going to
reorganize the government, kayo mag reaorganize, sabihin niyo
sa amin so we will enact that law. If we do not act on it within this
much number of days, it will become a law. That's the provision
on the law. Ano nangyari dito? Is the Congress now not fulfilling
its duty to enact a law but rather giving the obligation to the
executive department and then subject to their approval? Is that
a correct proceeding? Of course Not! What's the correct
proceeding? Legislation is with the Congress, it's the President
which approves.
Ano nangyari dito? The president proposes a law, the Congress
approves.
In a sense, the section, if given the effect suggested in counsel's
argument, would be a reversal of the democratic processes
required by the Constitution, for under it, the President would
propose the legislative action by action taken by Congress. Such a
procedure would constitute a very dangerous precedent opening
the way, if Congress is so disposed, because of weakness or
indifference, to eventual abdication of its legislative prerogatives
to the Executive who, under our Constitution, is already one of
the strongest among constitutional heads of state.
What principle is also violated in this case?
Invalid delegation of legislative authority. Only the legislative
department can legislate. They cannot delegate it. Ano ba ma
delegate ng legislative department? Implementing Rules and
Regulations. The law must be sufficient and complete. Then they
can delegate to the administrative bodies only for implementing
rules.
TANADA vs TUVERA
Effectivity of Laws. Indispensable ang publication. Requirement
of due process.
Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless
it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year
after such publication.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
VETO POWER
Section 27 (1)
Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a
law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same
he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the
same with his objections to the House where it originated
So here, we can already see that the President has the veto
power. If he does not like it, stating his reasons, then he can veto
it.
Section 27 (2)
The President shall have the power to veto any particular
item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but
the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does
not object.
Here, it is very particular. Bakit may provision na ganito? What is
the general rule on veto?
Who legislates? Congress. The president, to that extent, can only
veto. What does this mean? The president cannot legislate. So
approve or disapprove only.
As a General Rule: The President should veto the ENTIRE
BILL or not at all. (He cannot veto by provision. That's his only
participation in the enactment of law. He cannot delete or add
another provision. That's legislating.)
The second paragraph thereof is an exception to this rule. Ano
yun? ITEM VETO. The President shall have the power to veto any
particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tarriff
bill. The veto should not affect the item or the items to which he
does not object.
He can veto an item. Bakit? Appropriation bill is budget. If the
General Rule will be applied, veto all or not at all, ano mangyayari
sa operation ng Government? The entire operation would be
affected.
Can he veto a certain part in the Appropriation bill? YES. That
part is an item. Revenue also talks about money. These are
needed in the operation of the government. Tarriff bill.
The president can make item vetoes in:
Appropriation bill, Revenue Bill, and Tarriff Bill.
Appropriation Bill – one whose purpose is to set apart a certain
sum from the public revenue for specified purpose. This applies
to any appropriation bill and not just the general appropriations
bill.
Revenue Bills – are those intended to levy taxes in the strict sence
of the word, and do not include bills for other purposes which
incidentally create revenue
Tariff Bill – is one which imposes duties to impose whether for
revenue or for regulation. (Balikbayan Box)
Pero kung it's an appropriation bill, syempre may provision dun
on how to spend the money, can he veto that provision? NO, he
cannot. That's not an item. That's a condition on how to spend the
money.
Pero who dictates how to spend that? No public money can be
spend for public purposes without law.
ITEM vs PROVISION
You know what a provision is but an item...
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
ITEM – an item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, the
distinct and severable parts...of the bill.
- it is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose
- an “item” of an appropriation bill obviously means an item
which in iteslf is a specific appropriation of money, not some
general provision of law, which happens to be put into an
appropriation bill.
BENGZON vs DRILON
This is an appropriation bill. For the SC of the Philippines, nag set
aside sila ng 2.1 million. So there's a provision that “any payment
with bla bla bla”. So vineto ng president yung entire line na yan.
Now tell me, is he veto-ing a provision or an item? What can he
veto? An item. What's an item? A specific some of money for
specific purpose. What is he veto-ing there? A provision. So this is
an invalid veto because under the constitution, he may veto item,
not provisions. Why? If the President wouldveto the provisions,
he would then be allowed to legislate.
BOLINAO vs VALENCIA
Philippine Boradcasting Service General Fund. Appropriation Bill
din siya. Budget ng PBSGF.
“For contribution to the operation of the Philippine Boradcasting
Service, including promotion, programming, operations and
general administration; Provided, That no portion of this
appropriation shall be used for the operation of televesion
stations in Luzon or any part of the Philippines where there are
television stations --- 300,000”
In other words, may 300k para mag pick up tayo ng TV stations.
But this 300k cannot be used in Luzon. The President vetoed that
portion, “provided that no portion of this appropriation shall be
used for the operation of...TV stations.” Yan lang na line. Okay sya
sa 300 pero vineto nya yung “provided bla bla bla”. What
happened? They used the money in part of the PH na may TV
station na. Is that valid? According to them, there's no prohibition
because that was already vetoed by the President. So they can
validly use that money.
Is the veto valid?
It's not an item veto. It's a veto on a certain provision. If you say
item veto, what should the President have vetoed? The entire
item! Not just the condition on how to spend.
A proper item veto would be the entire item itself, and not just a
provision.
So what happened? They spend the money somewhere na may
TV na. That is also invalid.
PCA vs ENRIQUEZ (Doctrine on Inappropriate Provisions)
Appropriation Bill again. “...shall be used for payment of
intrinsical and interest of foreign or domestic entitlements,
provided that any payment in excess of the amount herein
provided shall be subject to the approval of the President...” The
president vetoed the line “any payment in excess of the amount
herein provided”. The president vetoed that line and the SC said
that the veto is valid. Why? This is an appropriation bill. The
purpose is to set aside amounts for certain purpose. So ano
sinasabi ng “any payment in excess of the amount herein
provided”? Ibig sabihin hindi siya na appropriate. So what does it
say? The president can take amount that is not appropriated?
This is in fact unconstitutional. Because the constitution states
that no public money shall be spend without appropriation law.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
Eto na sinasabi ng supreme court.
Exception to the Exception: Doctrine of Inappropriate
provision.
- a provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an
appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is not an
appropriation or revenue “item”.
If the president thus veto it, then that would be valid. Otherwise,
kung naging law din siya, eventually the SC would invalidate that
provision for being unconstitutional.
Pag may nakita si president na unconstitutional, he can veto that.
Example, yung appropriation bill pero may provision on AFP
inactivation. Kung nakita ni President yun and he will invalidate
that, the SC would validate that veto because it is an
inappropriate provision.
PCA vs ENRIQUEZ
Deactivation ng CAFGU ay nasa appropriation bill. Inapporpriate
provision which the President can veto.
The following are considered as inappropriate provisions:
- provision that does not relate to any particular item (insertion
not germane to the provison of law)
- provisions which extend its operation beyond an item in an
appropriation
- unconstitutional provisions
- provision which are intended to amend other laws
ABAKADA vs PURISIMA
The law says that after the enactment of this law, the exercise of
legislative oversight powers. Executive department, you report to
us how the law has been implemented. And in this case, ano sagot
ng congress? You submit the implementing rules and regulations
of this law for approval. If disapprove, veto na yun.
Is LEGISLATIVE VETO constitutionally proper? Can the
Congress mandate it through a law that the IRR to be crafted
in the executive department be submitted to it for approval?
IRR is for the implementation – Executive. Does the congress
have any say on how the executive implements the law? No.
Whose to tell us the proper interpretation of the law, na ginawa
ni Congress? Si SC. So separation of powers again.
LEGISLATIVE VETO is a statutory provision requiring the
President or an administrative agency to present the proposed
implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress which,
by itself or through a committee formed by it, retains a “right” or
“power” to approve or disapprove such regulations before they
take effect.
Actually this is unconstitutional. The administratice regulations
enacted by administrative agencies to implement the law...are
entitled to respect.
So congress cannot pass upon their legality by subjecting it to its
tack of approval without disturbing the calculated balance of
power established in the constitution. There is no such thing as
Legislative veto. Otherwise, mas supreme na si Congress over the
president.
PROHIBITED MEASURES
The Congress' power to legislate is PLENARY. There are also
measures which are prohibited by the constitution. What they
cannot legislate on.
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
- What does this mean? The appelate jurisdiction of the SC is
already provided for in the constitution. They are already
enumerated. Can these be increased by the Congress? YES, but it
can only do so if there is an advice and concurrence from the
Supreme Court.
FABIAN vs DESIERTO
- Cases decided by the Ombudsman are immediately appealable
to the SC. Ngayon ombudsman, independent body. In that law, the
decisions of the ombudsman is appealable to the SC. And the SC
said ooops binigyan niyo kami ng bagong trabaho. It is not in our
jurisdiction as enumerated in the constitution. Based on Section
30, that provision is unconstitutional. So where can you appeal
decisions of the ombudsman? Doon muna tayo sa CA.
Section 31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall
be enacted.
– because walang prince dito. It is a democratic and
representative Government. Officers are public servant.
They can serve only as long as they enjoy the trust and
confidence of people.
READ THE CASE OF LADICAN v OCHOA!!!
WON pdaf is constitutional, principles of return, and can the
legislative department exercise its powers under article 6?
The legislative department has that power to purse in any
operations whether in the house, corporate setting and
government setup or sector. One who holds the power to purse
yields tremendous powers because they can determine WON
whether certain entities are allowed.
They not only authorized the power or spending but also the
power to raise revenue. So this includes the power of
appropriation and the power of taxation.
When you say, which among the departments holds the power to
tax? The power to operate is solely and exclusively to the
congress. They are given the power of appropriation and
taxation.
Power of Appropriation
Article VI (25). The basic rule:
“No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” (Sec 29[1]).
No public money can be spent unless it is authorized by law. It is
the congress who authorizes spending of money. Otherwise, that
would be invalid and unconstitutional. That is one way of
protecting our public funds.
BRILLANTES v COMELEC
It imposed the budget of the Comelec under the allotted budget
for the automation of the elections but which they have spent
in...by the SC. So they spent millions and millions of pesos in an
invalid contract. So they spent away public money. So what they
did is, since Comelec has no funds left, they tried to show to the
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
people that they are trying to authorize unofficial recount for the
election have been already allocated. So unofficial recount. The
SC invalidated that because the appropriation is for the
automation election and not for unofficial recount. Unofficial
means it has no bearing in the election so it is unauthorized
spending, not authorized by law and there is no appropriation for
that purpose.
So that’s one example where spending can be invalidated because
there is no law supporting it. If you have a great power, you have
the perks.
So, as what we have discussed last Saturday, there are bills that
need to be initiated with the lower house. So this is an
appropriation bill under section 24...
Limitations on the Power of Appropriation
All appropriations bill shall originate exclusively in the HOR,
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
(Sec. 24).
Section 25(1). The Congress may not increase the
appropriations recommended by the President for the
operation of the Government ass specified in the budget. The
form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall
be prescribed by law.
Once we study Executive departments, it is there provided that it
is the President which prepares the budget because the President
knows all the operational needs of the Government but it needs
the authorization of the congress through the enactment of law.
Whatever the President prepares in his budget, the rule by
practice is that the congress cannot be...but it can be pleased
upon the...of president... The idea is, the President has already
studied the budget of the country for that fiscal year. Any
increase may result to the budget deficit.
Section 25(2). No provision or enactment shall be embraced
in the general appropriations bill unless it relates
specifically to some particular appropriation therein.
This is related to your “one subject, one title” rule (Sec.26[1]).
This is to avoid riders.
GARCIA vs MATA
There is an appropriations law where there is a provision on the
reversion the reserved officers into active duty. So, reactivation
of their reserved officers of the military. It was inserted in the
Appropriations Act of 1956-57. We will see there that that
passed-law relation to the general subject of the law is the
budget. So this is the proper provision in another law and not in
an Appropriations Law. This is an insertion under Any such
provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to
the appropriation to which it relates.
PCA vs ENRIQUEZ
In the General Appropriation Bill of 1994, the Congress
appropriated P86 Billion for debt service, and attached a Special
Provision which treats of “any payment in excess of the amount
herein appropriated shall be subject to the approval of the
President of the Philippines with the concurrence of the Congress
Use of Fund.
In excess of the amount herein appropriated. It does not refer
to an appropriation because it refers to an amount in excess of an
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
appropriation. It is an amount outside of the appropriations law.
There is no law authorizing that excess of payment. It’s an
insertion in the appropriations law that is not allowed.
Section 25(3). The procedure in approving appropriations
for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for
approving appropriations for other departments and
agencies.
So there should be no special treatment with regard to approving
the budget of the congress vis-a-vis approving of the budget by
the president. This emphasizes that there should be no special
treatment just because they control the legislation.
Section 25(4). A special appropriations bill shall specify the
purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by
funds actually available as certified by the National
Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue
proposal therein.
So this happens when certain items or process are not included
in the appropriations of law cited earlier. Can the congress enact
special appropriations law? Yes. Provided that there are funds
available vis-a-vis using that funds for the revenue proposal.
When we already have the budget. Transferring of budget
allocation from 1 item to another is prohibited by law -technical
malversation.
General Rule:
Congress has limited discretion to authorize transfer of
funds (Section 25[5]).
No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the president, president of the
senate, the speaker of the house, the speaker of the HOR, the
chief justice of the SC, and the heads of the constitutional
commission may, by law, be authorized to augment any item
in the general appropriations law for their respective offices
from saving in other items of their respective
appropriations.
There’s not gonna be any transferring of funds. If you have this
budget, you use it for a particular item. But the exemption is,
authorization may be granted to the heads of the departments
and the constitutional commission. Heads of the departments are
The President for the Executive, Chief Justice for the Judiciary, the
Senate President and Speaker of the House for the Congress, and
the Constitutional Chairman for the Constitutional Commission.
They are given leeway to transfer funds within their budget.
Limitations:
1. It must be an authorization in a law.
2. They can only augment an item that is already there.
3. You take the money from the savings.
The persons who may be authorized by the law are exclusive.
PCA vs ENRIQUEZ
There are provisions in the General Appropriations Bill which
states:
“With alignment of allocation of operational expense. A member of
realign his allocation or operational expenses to any other expense
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
categories provided their total of set allocation is no exceeded’’.
What’s wrong with this provision? It says, a member of congress
may realign his allocation...by law. Is the law constitutional? No.
Why? It authorizes the member of congress.
We said earlier that the persons to realign funds are exclusively
the said in Section 25(5). It’s not any member of the congress but
just the speaker of the house.
DEMETRIA vs ALBA
“The president shall have the authority to transfer any fund
appropriated for the different departments, bureaus, offices and
agencies of the executive department which are included in the
General Appropriations Act or proved upon its enactment.” What’s
wrong with that provision? The chairman in authority may
transfer funds.
What did we say about the limitation here? It must just come
from the saving and the purpose is only to augment an article
that is already existing. Take note of the limitations.
Section 25(6). Discretionary funds appropriated for particular
officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be
supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines may be prescribed by law.
Section 25(7) is important in the continued relation of the
government. What if the congress mandated and Act of
Appropriations Law every year? Because every year, we have a
budget for the government’s operations expenses. But what if the
congress created a deadline or did not enact such law? This is
what happens in the local setting. The mayor is not in good terms
of the council. What does the council do? They will not enact the
budget so the mere separation is revoked. That is also in the
national setting. So what is our safety net? Under...
Section 25 (7). If, by the end of any fiscal year, the congress
shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for
the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for
the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted.
So the budget for the last year will be the budget to be followed
again this year.
And shall remain in force and effect until the General
Appropriations Bill is passed by the congress.
Section 29(2) prohibits the expenditure of public money or
property for religious purposes.
Why? We observe the principle of separation of church and state.
So public money cannot be used for the...even public property
cannot be used for the...
“No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied,
paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit,
or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher,
minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except
when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or
government orphanage or leprosarium.”
AGLIPAY vs RUIZ
It happened to be the International ... Congress. This is an activity
of the Catholic church. Now this is an international convention
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
but the venue is in the Philippines. Now if you are the Philippines,
that is good news because that happened in the Philippines and
held by the Catholic church. What the government did was to
allot the budget for stamps which will increase revenue. In the
stamps, it advertises the activity.
They are questioning that appropriation because they are using
public money to support the Catholic activity. Is the contention
correct?
The SC said, the focus of the allotment for the stamp is to raise
revenue than to support the Catholic activity. The stamp shows
the map of the Philippines with the activity. Originally, the design
was supposed to be a simple signature but it was cropped up. It’s
only the map of the Philippines. So there is nothing religious in
that setting of public funds. This was not a propaganda for the
catholic church so it does not validate the provision of spending
public funds for religious purposes.
GARCES vs ESTENZO
This is an issue on who has better possessory rights over a statue
of a saint. The Sc said why did it reach the SC. The amount of the
statue is around 100 pesos. This happened in 1981.
There was a barangay fiesta. So naturally the people met and
through their leaders, the councilmen, issued a resolution
authorizing the purchase of the religious icon. So during fiesta’s,
bahay bahay siya. On the last day, it was paved in the church.
Now after the mass, the priest refused to release the statues. So
the statue was detained. There was a civil case filed to get
possessory rights over the statue. The priest said there was
violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
The SC said, they’re path hole of the certain issue. You are the
beneficiary of the principle which you violated. The SC observed
that the money used in that case was from private subsidation.
Nag amot-amot sila sa barangay. There was no spending of public
money. But then again, the SC easily evaded that issue because
the money used to spend here was from private elucidation.
Power of Taxation
Article VI(28).
The power of taxation is exclusively vested in the legislative
department. It is one of the fundamental powers of the state. The
power of the state is launched with the congress.
Section 28(1). The rule of taxation shall be uniform and
equitable. The congress shall evolve a progressive system of
taxation.
Section 29 (2). The congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such
limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates,
import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the government.
Take note that we discussed earlier that the power to legislate
cannot be delegated. Can the power of tax be delegated?
Generally no because of the power of taxation is solely with the
congress. The power to exercise must be pursuant to law.
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
There are persimissible delegations. The permission comes from
the constitution and not from the whims of the congress (Section
28[2]). “The congress may, by law” so there must be a law
authorizing the President to fix tariff rates, import effects per
quotas, balik-bayan boxes and other dues.
Delegated Authority to Fix Tariff Rates, etc.
In other words, it is permissible for the President to fix this rates.
But as reminded by the SC in Southern v Cement:
1. It is Congress which authorizes the President to impose
tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage
dues, and other duties or imposts.
The authority cannot come from the department of finance or
department of foreign affairs. It must be in the congress.
2. The authorization granted to the President must be
embodies in a law.
3. The authorization to the President can be exercised only
within the specified limits set in the law and is further
subject to limitations and restriction which congress may
impose.
Like for example in this case, as cited by the SC, “congress may
specify that the tariff rates should not exceed that amount, etc.” if
there is an authorization provided by law, the congress can limit
as it may desire. The president is confined with that authority
provided by law.
Fundamental principle:
These impositions under Section 28(2), Article VI fall within
the reals of the power of taxation, a power which is within
the sole province of the legislature under the constitution.
Without Section 28(2), Article VI, the executive branch has
no authority to impose tariffs and other similar tax levies
involving the importation of foreign goods.
Tax Exemptions
Tax is the lifeblood of the country. If there is tax exemption, it
should be taken likely.
CHAVEZ v PCGG
PCGG was concluding a settlement agreement of the Marcos’.
There were several conceptions that was a delay in settlements...
1. They will divide the ill-gotten wealth. 50-50.
One of the contentions was that one that will be...will be accepted.
Can they validly provide what part of the stipulation of the
settlement agreement? No. It’s a tax exception. Under the
constitution, it can only be determined by the congress. Not only
by the convenience of a resolution of the vote required by law.
The votes required is not simple majority but absolute majority.
So that is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional stipulation of the
settlement agreement.
Exempt from taxation
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
(3) Charitable institutions, churches, and personages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvement, actually, directly and exclusively
used for religious, charitable, or educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
The exemption is only as to property taxes. That’s the real
property tax that you pay annually. It covers property taxes only.
The institution, itself, are not exempted. “Those exempted from
property taxes are lands, buildings, and improvements actually,
directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes”. So what do you mean by that?
LUNG CENTER vs QUEZON CITY
LC is a hospital. It’s a charitable institution. Non-stop non-profit
institution. Why is it charitable? It caters to patients. But a part of
its building is rented out for its doctor’s clinics, canteens, etc. Part
of its very large land is rented out by a private business. They
wee assessed real property tax already amounting 4,554,860
pesos. They argued that it is a charitable institution despite the
fact that they are receiving payment from patients for the
services and medicines does not take away the fact of its
charitable institution and that it be exempted from real property
tax.
The SC said, under the constitution, what should be exempted
only is the land or the property which is actually, directly and
exclusively used for charitable purposes.
Actual, direct and exclusive use of the property for charitable
purposes--is the direct and immediate and actual application of
the property itself to the purposes for which the charitable
institution is organized. It is not the use of the income from the
real property that is determinative of whether the property is
used for tax-exempt purposes.
For example, Ateneo is a non-stop non-profit institution but a
portion of its building is being rented out to business activities. Is
that tax exempt under the constitution? It should not be.
The portions which are leased out to private individuals for
purposes other than charitable or education, in that case, are not
tax exempt.
Why are some institutions exempted? Because they are helping
the state, then they are exempted. When there are exemptions, it
should be pursuant to law and should be in conference within the
members of the congress.
WAR POWERS
It is the congress, which, yields the war power.
Section 23.
The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses
in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall
have the sole power to declare the existence of a
state of war.
In reality, when there is enemy, the enemy are already on its way
to attack us, who will call the armed forces to defend us? If course
it's the President. In reality, of course, the President has the
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
power of the sword. The President cannot initiate offensive war
under the principle “The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy...”
When the Congress declares a state of war, all resources would
be born into it. So they coud release money, they can allow the
use of funds, they can enact whatever law is necessary to engage
successfully when you are in war. So that's what it means by
having the power to declare the existence of a state of war.
In times of war or other national emergency, the
Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a
limited period and subject to such restrictions as it
may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and
proper to carry out a declared national policy.
Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.
Paragraph 2 is emergency powers. Emergency powers may be
granted to the President in times of war or other national
emergency. So when there is an emergency and the Congress
grants the President emergency powers, what can the President
do with that power? It says here, “subject to such restrictions as it
may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to
carryout a declared national policy.” This means that the
President can even legislate, but there are of course,
constitutional limits or safety nets:
1. It must be upon authorization by law
2. subject to restrictions by law (Congress can also limit that
power)
3. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of Congress (meaning
it can be withdrawn anytime. In withdrawal, only a resolution is
needed)
4. Unless sooner withdrawn, such powers shall cease upon the
next adjournment thereof (There is automatic termination of that
power)
DAVID vs Macapagal
Macapagal Arroyo declared a state of national emergency.
Can President declare a state of emergency?
The SC said that when a President does that, she is merely
providing a state or condition of a country that there is an
emergency. But it does not have any constitutional effect.
Meaning regardless of the declaration of state of emergency, the
President still cannot exercise emergency power. Why? It is only
the congress which can delegate this power to the President.
Decalartion is different.
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Section 32. The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide
for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions
therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and
enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof
passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the
registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten per
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
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 thereof.
Now, what is Intiative?
It is the power of the people to propose amendments to the
constitution or to propose and enact legislation through an
election called for the purpose.
The “power of the people to propose bills and laws, and to enact
or reject them at the polls independent of the legislative
assembly.”
So if your local council is so lazy in acting a law, then the people
can in fact enact a law throiugh initiative.
GARCIA vs COMELEC
The subject here is resoultion. Can the people repeal a resolution
through initiave? The SC said, under section 23, the people can
directly propose law and enact laws, approve or reject any act or
law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative
body.
In other words, there are 3 kinds of initiative:
1. Intiative of the Constitution (Now you can propose
amendments to the constitution)
2. Initiative on National Laws
3. Initiative on Local Laws
Now, when the constitution says “acts or laws”, it also covers not
only ordinances, but also resolutions.
So in the case of Garcia vs COMELEC, resolutions are legislative
acts, although not ordinance, can be subject of inititative.
Referendum, on the other hand, is the power of the electorate to
approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the
purpose.
In this case of referendum, there is already a legislation. Who
enacts the law? Congress and it submitted to the people for
approval or rejection.
Initiative, on the other hand, the proposal comes from the
people and they revolved on WON to approve or not. So here,
there is no participation by the legislative body. It is solely and
activity of the people. They propose the law, they approve or
reject it.
In Referendum, there is already a law, what the people does is
already to approve or reject that.
It is the right reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act or
measure which has been passed by a legislative body and which
in most cases would without action on the part of electors
become a law.
The distinctiion was made relevant in the case of...
Devilleres, Elden Claire A.
Lumanag, Jonah Rose G.
SBMA vs COMELEC
Here, the people proposed a resolution calling for the annulment
and proposing new terms and conditions for the inclusion of that
municipality to the exclusive economic special zone. They also
proposed certain conditions.
Now, the distinction was made relevant, because in that case,p
the COMELEC, prepared for a referendum. Which according to
the SC, initiative is more complex than referendum. So the
COMELEC here prepared for referendum which is only to
approve or reject the proposition. The SC said that is wrong
preparation. You should have prepared for initiative becase the
initiative calls for the per-analyzation of the petition because it is
the people themselves who proposed that legislation.
The Supreme Court said that the act of the COMELEC is invalid, it
should have been preparation for initiative. It is not merely
approval or rejection but also to carefully study. You have to
determine the 10% of the total registered voters, etc.
Article 17. AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution may be proposed by:
1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
Members; or
2. A constitutional convention.
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. 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.
Going back to the parts of the constitution, what part would that
be? SOVEREIGNTY. Here, to be a good constitution, there must be
provision for revising or amending the constitution. That is an
exercise of the sovereign power of the people. So we are
exercising CONSTITUENT power.
Constituent Power – is the power to formulate a Constitution or
to propose amendments to or revision of the Constitution and to
ratify such proposal.
Who may exercise constituent powers?
1. Congress, as constituent assembly
- upon a vote of ¾ of all its members. (Absolute ¾)
2. Constitutional Convention
(experts of the Constitution. Experts of certain topics.
Representatives also of the people. Debates on which provisions
will be proper)
- may be called by congress by a vote of 2/3 of all its Members
- the call of which may be submitted to the people upon a
majority vote of the Congress
I - Sanchez Roman
2015-2016
 Constitutional Law 1
Atty. Jumao-as Transcription
2015-2016
(requires majority vote of the congress. The people, will actually issue, and there's only one signatory. They asked the COMELEC to
vote as members of the ConCon) schedule the date or petition the date. Signature gathering.
3. People through initiative So actually when we say it's a petition to propose a change to the
So these are the only group that can exercise constituent powers. Constitution, the petition must be supported by the signatures
already, instead of asking the COMELEC to gather signatures. It
must already be in the petition, that's not due to the COMELEC to
PROVINCE OF COTABATO vs GRP facilitate. What's funny(?) in this case is that the COMELEC
Where the SC invalidated the MOA between the government and facilitated in the signature gathering. The COMELEC's duty is to
the MILF. There are provisions there which the executive will verify the signatures and the petition to be valid must already
guarantee that whatever stipulations in that MOA is not in accord have the 12% and the 3%.
with our constitution will be given e...There is actually a
guarantee that the executive will change the charter or the
LAMBINO vs COMELEC
constitution.
They filed a petition. “Your honor we will propose changes to the
And the SC said that only the district roots can propose changes
Constitution.” That proposal is not in the petition.
and amendments to the constitution. The executive cannot
guarantee changes in the contitution because only those 3 groups The SC said that the proposal should already been in the petition.
have the power to amend or revise the constitution. In that case, it must be accord by the people and the proposal
must embody in the petition itself.
But if you observe, section 1 says “ Any amendment to, or
revision of”, But in section 2 it says “amendments to this We can only exercise the power of initiative pursuant to law and
constitution” although we alreadyhave a law on initiative, it appeared that that
law does not cover initiative of the constitution only initiative on
AMENDMENT – enviages an alteration of one or a few specific
laws on bla bla bla.
and separable provisions; refers to isolated or piece meal change
only 1987 up to now, we still cannot exercise this power.
REVISION – revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument RATIFICATION
So there's a distinction pala. When it comes to the people, the
people can only propose just amendments, not provisions. So Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this
there is a distinction between provisions and amendments. Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when
Which is simplier? Actually amendment is much simplier. Gusto ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which
mo lang i-change. But in reality they cannot do revisions. What is shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety
that? Overhauling of the entire constitution. We change the days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
principles of the government. So that cannot be given to the Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when
people. This can only be done by the CONASS or CONCON. ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which
shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety
LAMBINO vs COMELEC days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of
the sufficiency of the petition.
The petition is actually by the people. Initiative daw. What would
be the proposal? Change the form of government from
presidential to parliamentary. So jinoin ang executive and
legislative branch. Naging 1 article nalang siya. What else? From
bilateral to unicameral legislative department.
According to them, it is merely an amendment kasi per section
lang man. But the Supreme Court said once you change the basic
principles like form of government, separation of powers, checks
and balances, you are already overhauling the entire constitution.
The SC said even if you a little portion, it affects 100+ provisions.
And qualitatively, it changes the form of government. So it is not
an amendment but a revision which the people cannot do. So this
has been validated.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE

When you say initiative on local legislation or laws, 10%
required. When we say initiative on the constitution, 12%.

SANTIAGO vs COMELEC
Ano ginawa nila? They have proposal to change the term limit.
It's an amendment. But what happened in the case is that in the

Devilleres, Elden Claire A. I - Sanchez Roman

Lumanag, Jonah Rose G. 2015-2016