Q.

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

1. Impeachment

 Romulo v. Yñiguez, 141 SCRA 263

Parties
Brief case
Facts  Petitioners, representing more than one-fifth of all members of the
Batasan, filed with the Batasan calling for the impeachment of
President Marcos, then referred to the committee on justice
 The Committee found the complaint not sufficient in form and
substance to warrant its further consideration and dismissed all the
charges contained in the complaint 
 Ramon V. Mitra prayed for the recall from the archives of
disapproved Resolution No. 644 but was disapproved by the Batasan.
 The disapproval of the resolution was voted by majority of the
members, hence it is impossible to obtain a two-thirds vote of all
members of the Batasan to support a judgment of conviction. 
Issue Can the SC order the Batasan to conduct a trial on the charges
contained in said resolution and complaint for impeachment?
Held SC cannot compel the Batasan to conduct the impeachment trial prayed
for by petitioners.

Impeachment power belongs to the Batasan

>the Court cannot by mandamus compel the Batasan to give due course
to the impeachment complaint.

Under the Constitution, Batasan may initiate impeachment by a vote of

at least one-fifth of all its members and that no official shall be
convicted without the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the
members thereof

judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the petition for lack of merit

 In re: Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771

Parties IN RE FIRST INDORSEMET FROM HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ
DATED 16 MARCH 1988 REQUESTING HONORABLE JUSTICE MARCELO
B. FERNAN TO COMMENT ON AN ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT.
Brief case Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez, "Tanodbayan/ Special; Prosecutor"

Facts  1st Indorsement: 1st attachment addressed to Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez referring
to charges for disbarment brought by Mr. Miguel Cuenco against Mr. Justice
Marcelo B. Fernan and asking Mr. Gonzalez "to do something about this.
 The second attachment is a copy of a telegram from Mr. Miguel Cuenco
addressed to Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez, where Mr. Cuenco refers to pleadings he
apparently filed with the Supreme Court in Administrative Case No. 3135,
which, in the opinion of Mr. Cuenco, made improper any "intervention" by Mr.
Raul Gonzalez. Mr. Cuenco, nonetheless, encourages Mr. Gonzalez "to file
responsive pleading Supreme Court en banc to comply with Petition
Concerned Employees Supreme Court asking Tanodbayan's intervention.
 the Court Resolved to dismiss the charges made by complainant Cuenco
against Mr.Justice Fernan for utter lack of merit
Issue WON an SC member may be subject for disbarment case while in service

1
 Held Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution Sec. 2 The President, the Members of the
Supreme Court, and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions shall be
removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of
the Constitution, treason, bribery, other high crimes, or graft and corruption."

A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of the

Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be
removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment
during the incumbency of such public officer. 

Further, such public officer, during his incumbency, cannot be charged criminally
before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offence which carries with it
the penalty of removal from office, or any penalty service of which would amount to
removal from office.

A Member of the Supreme Court must first be removed from office via the constitutional
route of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
Should the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be thus terminated by impeachment, he
may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively (by disbarment
proceedings) for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate
proceedings.

 Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224

Parties Nixon, the Chief Judge of a Federal District Court, US
Brief case
Facts  After petitioner Nixon, the Chief Judge of a Federal District Court, was
convicted of federal crimes and sentenced to prison, the House of
Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against him and
presented them to the Senate.
 Senate voted to convict Nixon, and the presiding officer entered
judgment removing him from his judgeship. 
 He then commenced the present suit for a declaratory judgment and
reinstatement of his judicial salary and privileges, arguing that, because
Senate Rule XI prohibits the whole Senate from taking part in the
evidentiary hearings, it violates the first sentence of the Constitution's
Impeachment Trial Clause, Art. I, § 3, cl. 6, which provides that the
"Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
Issue
Held Nixon's claim that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial
Clause is nonjusticiable.

 Francisco v. House Speaker, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003

Parties
Brief case
Facts 
Issue whether the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr. with the House of Representatives falls within the one year bar provided in the
Constitution, and whether the resolution thereof is a political question
Held ARTICLE XI

Accountability of Public Officers

2
SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times
be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution,
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All
other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but
not by impeachment.

SECTION 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power

to initiate all cases of impeachment.

(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of
Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member
thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and
referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee,
after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House
within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution.
The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days
from receipt thereof.

(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to
affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or
override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.

(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third
of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment,
and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more

than once within a period of one year.

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the
President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-
thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office
and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment
according to law.

(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment  to effectively carry out the
purpose of this section. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Requisites of Judicial Review

 Locus standi

 Ripeness

 Justiciability

 Lis Mota

initiation takes place by the act of filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the
House Committee on Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5)
of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the
foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same official within a one year
period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

3
 the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which was
filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with the
Office of the Secretary General of the House of Representatives on October 23, 2003 is
barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

impeachment proceedings are outside the scope of judicial review,

(1) Impeachable Officers

(2) Grounds for Impeachment
(3) Procedure
(4) Judgment

2. The Sandiganbayan
 Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433
Parties
Brief case
Facts  Petitioner in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding assails the validity of the
Presidential Decree creating the Sandiganbayan
 He was accused before such respondent Court of estafa through falsification of
public and commercial documents committed in connivance with his other co-
accused, all public officials, in several cases. 
 upon being arraigned, he filed a motion to quash on constitutional and
jurisdictional grounds.
Issue
Held WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. 

 Mayor Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 324

Parties
Brief case
Facts  FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ and LENLIE LECAROZ, father and son, were
convicted by the Sandiganbayan of thirteen (13) counts of estafa through
falsification of public documents.   They now seek a review of their conviction
1

as they insist on their innocence.

 Petitioner Francisco M. Lecaroz was the Municipal Mayor of Santa Cruz,
Marinduque, while his son, his co-petitioner Lenlie Lecaroz, was the outgoing
chairman of the Kabataang Barangay (KB) of Barangay Bagong Silang,
Municipality of Santa Cruz, and concurrently a member of its Sangguniang
Bayan (SB) representing the Federation of Kabataang Barangays
 Red filed with the Office of the Ombudsman several criminal complaints
against Mayor Francisco Lecaroz and Lenlie Lecaroz arising from the
refusal of the two officials to let him assume the position of KB sectoral
representative. After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman filed with
the Sandiganbayan thirteen (13) Informations for estafa through
falsification of public documents against petitioners
Issue WON the petitioner is guilty of violating anti-graft and corrupt practices
Held petitioners FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ and LENLIE LECAROZ are ACQUITTED

If what is proven is mere judgmental error on the part of the person

committing the act, no malice or criminal intent can be rightfully imputed
to him. Was criminal intent then demonstrated to justify petitioners’
conviction? It does not so appear in the case at bar. Ordinarily, evil intent
must unite with an unlawful act for a crime to exist. Actus non facit

4
 reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is
wanting. As a general rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular facts,
honest and real, will exempt the doer from felonious responsibility. The
exception of course is neglect in the discharge of a duty or indifference
to consequences, which is equivalent to a criminal intent, for in this
instance, the element of malicious intent is supplied by the element of
negligence and imprudence. In the instant case, there are clear
manifestations of good faith and lack of criminal intent on the part of
petitioners.

3. The Ombudsman
(1) Composition
(2) Qualifications and Appointment
(3) Term
(4) Powers and Functions
(5) Salary
4. The Special Prosecutor

 Jardiel v. Comelec, 124 SCRA 650

Parties
Brief case
Facts  A Petition for Certiorari to annul the Resolution of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC), (Second Division)
 petitioner Cesar Jardiel, a Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) candidate
for Mayor seeking re-election, prevailed over private respondent
Benjamin Aves, a Nacionalista Party (NP) candidate but COMELEC
suspended the effects of the proclamation due to alleged rampant
flying voters as reported by COMSAT9 thru telegram
 COMSAT 9- Comelec Special Action Team for Region 9 was the
COMELEC Special Action Team. It was "the deputy and implementing
arm of the Commission" (Resolution No. 1430) "to be sent on orders
of the Chairman of the Commission to areas where the holding of
free, orderly and honest elections is placed in jeopardy due to
terrorism, violence, frauds, votebuying and other analogous causes."
It was given "blanket authority" 
Issue The primary basis of the challenged resolution, a mere telegram from
COMSAT 9
Held the Writ of Certiorari is denied, and the Resolutions, dated December
10, 1980 and October 27, 1981, of the Commission on Elections
annulling the elections held in the Municipality of Penaranda, Nueva
Ecija, and ordering the holding of a special election thereat for the
positions of Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan,
are hereby upheld.

 Orap v. Sandiganbayan, 139 SCRA 252

Parties
Brief case
Facts  Three informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan by Tanodbayan
Special Prosecutor Rodolfo B. Aquino, charging petitioner Vicente S. Orap
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of Mangatarem, Pangasinan, with
violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019
 petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations on the ground that the officer

5
 who signed the same had no authority to do so and that, corollarily, the
Sandiganbayan did not acquire jurisdiction over the offenses charged.
 It is the petitioner's position that the Tanodbayan has no power to conduct
preliminary investigations, file informations and prosecute criminal cases
against judges and their appurtenant judicial staff and that only administrative
acts of agencies of the government, whether or not criminal in character, are
within the powers of said official.
Issue has the Tanodbayan the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of a complaint
charging a municipal judge and his clerk of court with violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act
No. 3019 and, upon a finding of prima facie case, proceed to file the corresponding
information before the Sandiganbayan and prosecute the same?
Held As petitioner is charged with violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
which are within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as defined under Section 4
of P.D. 1606,  the said court validly acquired jurisdiction over the informations in
3

question.

Sections 17 and 19 of P.D. 1607

The Chief Special Prosecutor, the Assistant Chief Special Prosecutor and the
Special Prosecutors shall have the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary
investigation of all cases cognizable, by the Sandiganbayan: to file informations
therefor and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases therein Provided,
however that the Tanodbayan may upon recommendation of the Chief Special
Prosecutor, designate any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government
service to act as Special Prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution
of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan who shall not receive any additional
compensation except such allowances, per diems and travelling expenses as the
Tanodbayan may determine in accordance with existing laws, rules and
regulations.

 Office of the Tanodbayan was purposely created to "give effect to the constitutional right
of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances and to promote higher
standards of integrity and efficiency in the government service." 
1

 Inting v. Tanodbayan, 97 SCRA 494

Parties
Brief case
Facts  Petition for certiorari  and prohibition with preliminary injunction or
restraining order asking this Court: (1) to restrain and/or enjoin
respondent Tanodbayan from further interfering with the proceedings
in Criminal Cases
 petitioner endorsed to the City Fiscal of Davao complaints for perjury
against respondent Angelina S. Salcedo on the ground that in the
latter's sworn Personal Data Sheets she knowingly and falsely
indicated
 After conducting a preliminary investigation, the City Fiscal of Davao,
through Special Counsel Rodrigo R. Duterte, found a prima
facie case for perjury and resolved to file three (3) separate counts
of perjury
 Respondent City Fiscal of Davao City, Tanodbayan Vicente G. Ericta
reversed the resolution of the former in I. S. Nos. 36 and 131 finding
a prima facie case for perjury on three counts against Angelina S.
Salcedo and dismissing the cases of perjury
 Petitioner assailed that respondent Tanodbayan was without
jurisdiction to review and nullify the resolutions of the City Fiscal of
Davao

6
 Issue WON tanodbayan has jurisdiction over the case
Held Presidential Decree No. 1630 provides that "tanodbayan may file and
prosecute civil and administrative cases involving graft and pt practices
and such other offenses committed by public offices and employees,
including those in government-owned or controlled corporations  in
relation to their office."

the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. chanro

 Zaldivar v. Gonzales, 160 SCRA 843

Parties
Brief case
Facts  Zaldivar was the governor of Antique and was charged before the
Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
 Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the
case.
 Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of
the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the
1987 Constitution. 
 The Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and
Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily
restrain from investigating and filing informations against
Zaldivar.
 Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he
filed criminal informations against Zaldivar. 
Issue Does the Tanodbayan (Special Prosecuter) have the authority
to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing
of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan?
Held No. Under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman (as distinguished from the
incumbent Tanodbayan) is charged with the duty to:

Under the present Constitution, the Special Prosecutor (Raul Gonzalez) is a mere

subordinate of the Tanodbayan Ombudsman) and can investigate and prosecute
cases only upon the latter's authority or orders. The Special Prosecutor cannot
initiate the prosecution of cases but can only conduct the same if instructed to do
so by the Ombudsman.

ORDER respondent Raul Gonzalez to cease and desist from conducting

investigations and filing criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan or otherwise
exercising the powers and function of the Ombudsman.

 BIR v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 115103, April 11, 2002

Parties
Brief case
Facts  (OMBUDSMAN, for brevity) received information from an "informer-for-reward"
regarding allegedly anomalous grant of tax refunds to Distillera Limtuaco &
Co., Inc. (Limtuaco, for brevity) and La Tondeña Distilleries, Inc. 
  Ombudsman issued a subpoena duces tecum to Atty. Millard Mansequiao of
the Legal Department of BIR ordering him to appear before the Ombudsman
and to bring the complete original case dockets of the refunds granted to
Limtuaco and La Tondeña.
 Assistant Commissioner asked that it be excused from complying with the

7
 subpoena duces tecum because (a) the Limtuaco case was pending
investigation by Graft Investigation Officer II Napoleon S. Baldrias; and (b) the
investigation thereof and that of La Tondeña was mooted when the
Sandiganbayan ruled in People v. Larin that "the legal issue was no longer in
4 

question since the BIR had ruled that the ad valorem taxes were erroneously
paid and could therefore be the proper subject of a claim for tax credit
 The Ombudsman denied the Motion to Vacate the Subpoena Duces Tecum
10 

 The BIR averred it had the exclusive authority whether to grant a tax credit and
that the jurisdiction to review the same was lodged with the Court of Tax
Appeals and not with the Ombudsman.
Issue 1. Whether or not the actions of the Ombudsman are valid.
Held  Yes. In the 1987 Constitution enjoins that the “Ombudsman and his Deputies, as
protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or
manner against public officials or employees of the government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and shall, in appropriate case, notify the complainants of the action
taken and the result thereof.”
No requirement of a pending action before the Ombudsman could wield its
investigative power.  The Ombudsman could resort to its investigative prerogative on
its own or upon a complaint filed in any form or manner.  Even when the complaint is
verbal or written, unsigned or unverified, the Ombudsman could, on its own, initiate
the investigation.
But ombudsman violated due process when he didn’t require to submit a written
answer within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof.

The respondent Office of the Ombudsman is prohibited and ordered to desist from
proceeding with Case

 Laurel v. Desierto, G.R. No. 145368, April 12, 2002

Parties
Brief case
Facts  Petitioner Vice-President Salvador Laurel was appointed as the head of the
National Centennial Commission
 He was subsequently appointed as the Chairman of ExpoCorp., and was one
of the nine (9) incorporators.
 A controversy erupted on the alleged anomalies with the bidding contracts to
some entities and the petitioner was implicated.
 By virtue of an investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, the
petitioner was indicted for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (RA 3019). The petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss questioning
the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman, which was denied. He further
filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied, hence this petition
for certiorari.
 The petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and contended that
he is not a public officer since ExpoCorp is a private corporation.
Issue WON ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case
Held Yes, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner since he is a
public officer. The NCC is an office performing executive functions since one of its
mandate is to implement national policies. Moreover, the said office was
established by virtue of an executive order. It is clear that the NCC performs
sovereign functions, hence it is a public office. Since petitioner is chair of the NCC,
he is therefore a public officer. The fact that the NCC was characterized by EO 128
as an 'ad-hoc body' make it less of a public office. Finally, the fact that the
petitioner did not receive any compensation during his tenure is of no consequence

8
 since such is merely an incidence and forms no part of the office.

the petition is DISMISSED. The preliminary injunction issued in the Court’s Resolution
dated September 24, 2001 is hereby LIFTED.

5. Ill-gotten Wealth
6. Loans
7. Assets and Liabilities
8. Change of Citizenship

R. AMENDMENT OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. Kinds of Constitution
2. Permanence of the Constitution
3. Amendment and Revision
4. Procedure
(1) Proposal
 Imbong v. Comelec, 35 SCRA 28
Parties Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales, both members of the Bar, taxpayers and
interested in running as candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention
Brief case
Facts  Petitioners filed separate petitions for declaratory relief, impugning
the constitutionality of RA 6132, claiming that it prejudices their
rights as candidates.
 On March 16, 1967, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly
pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, passed Resolution No. 2
which among others called for a Constitutional Convention to
propose constitutional amendments to be composed of two
delegates from each representative district who shall have the same
qualifications as those of Congressmen.
 On June 17, 1969, Congress, also acting as a Constituent Assembly,
passed Resolution No. 4 amending the aforesaid Resolution No. 2 of
March 16, 1967 by providing that the convention "shall be composed
of 320 delegates apportioned among the existing representative
districts according to the number of their respective inhabitants:
Provided, that a representative district shall be entitled to at least two
delegates, who shall have the same qualifications as those required
of members of the House of Representatives."
 Petitioner Raul M. Gonzales assails the validity of the entire law as
well as the particular provisions embodied in Sections 2, 4, 5, and
par. 1 of 8(a). Petitioner Manuel B. Imbong impugns the
constitutionality of only par. I of Sec. 8(a) of said R.A. No. 6132
practically on the same grounds advanced by petitioner Gonzales.
Issue W/N the Congress has the authority to call for a constitutional
convention?
W/N it has the power to enact the implementing rules while acting as
legislative body?
Held  Yes. Congress, when acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. XV of the
Constitution, has full and plenary authority to propose Constitutional amendments

9
 or to call a convention for the purpose, by a three-fourths vote of each House in
joint session assembled but voting separately.

Yes. Implementing details are matters within the competence of Congress in the
exercise of its comprehensive legislative power, which power encompasses all
matters not expressly or by necessary implication withdrawn or removed by the
Constitution from the ambit of legislative action. And as lone as such statutory
details do not clash with any specific provision of the constitution, they are valid.

the prayers in both petitions are hereby denied and R.A. No. 6132 including Secs. 2, 4, 5,
and 8(a), paragraph 1, thereof, cannot be declared unconstitutional. 

A. Position of the Constitutional Convention

 Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1
Parties
Brief case petition for prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a congressional
resolution designated "Resolution of both houses proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to be appended as an
ordinance thereto.
Facts  The 3 petitioner senators and 8 representatives have been
proclaimed by a majority vote of the Comelec as having been elected
senators and representatives in the elections held
 The 3 senators were suspended by the Senate shortly after the
opening of the first session of Congress due to alleged irregularities
in their election.
 The 8 representatives since their election had not been allowed to
sit in the lower House, except to take part in the election of the
Speaker,
 Consequently, the 3 senators and 8 representatives did not take part
in the passage of the questioned resolution, nor was their
membership reckoned within the computation of the necessary ¾
vote which is required in proposing an amendment to the
Constitution.
 If the petitioners had been counted, the affirmative votes in favor of
the proposed amendment would have been short of the necessary ¾
vote in either House of Congress.
 Respondents argue that the Court has jurisdiction, relying on the
conclusiveness on the courts of the enrolled bill/resolution.
Issue WON the Court can take cognizance of the issue. No
WON the resolution was duly enacted by Congress. Yes
Held No. Political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the
extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts
by express constitutional or statutory provisions.

Proposal to amend the Constitution is a highly political function performed by

Congress.

The petition is dismissed without costs.

10
 (2) Ratification
 Gonzales v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774
Parties
Brief case
Facts  The Congress passed 3 resolutions simultaneously.
 The first, proposing amendments to the Constitution so as to
increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a
maximum of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a
maximum of 180.
 The second, calling a convention to propose amendments to said
Constitution, the convention to be composed of two (2) elective
delegates from each representative district, to be elected in the
general elections.
 In addition, the third, proposing that the same Constitution be
amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of
Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned
constitutional convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in
Congress.
 Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the
President, became Republic Act No. 4913 providing that the
amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned
resolutions be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general
elections.
 The petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said law contending
that the Congress cannot simultaneously propose amendments to
the Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional
convention.
Issue Is Republic Act No. 4913 constitutional? YES
WON Congress can simultaneously propose amendments to the
Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional convention? YES
Held The constituent power or the power to amend or revise the Constitution,
is different from the law-making power of Congress. Congress can
directly propose amendments to the Constitution and at the same time
call for a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments.

Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and Members
of the House of Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but
as component elements of a constituent assembly. When acting as
such, the members of Congress derive their authority from the
Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function, for
their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they are the
very source of all powers of government, including the Constitution
itself.

11
 the petitions in these two (2) cases must be, as they are hereby, dismiss and the writs
therein prayed for denied

 Occeña v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 755

Parties Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales, both members of
the Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional
Convention that framed the present Constitution, are suing as taxpayers.
Brief case two prohibition proceedings against the validity of three Batasang
Pambansa Resolutions 1 proposing constitutional amendments
Facts  The challenge in these two prohibition proceedings against the
validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing
constitutional amendments goes further than merely assailing their
alleged constitutional infirmity.
 The rather unorthodox aspect of these petitions is the assertion that
the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law.
 The three Resolutions were:
 1) Resolution No. 1 proposing an amendment allowing a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines naturalized in a foreign country to own a
limited area of land for residential purposes
 2) Resolution No. 2 dealing with the Presidency, the Prime Minister
and the Cabinet, and the National Assembly; and
 3) Resolution No. 3 on the amendment to the Article on the
Commission on Elections.
Issue Whether or not the 1973 Constitution is a fundamental law.
Whether or not the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to
propose amendments.
Held Yes, the Interim BatasangPambansa has the power and privilege to propose
amendments. On January 17, 1973, the present Constitution came into force and
effect. With such a pronouncement by the Supreme Court and with the recognition
of the cardinal postulate that what the Supreme Court says is not only entitled to
respect but must also be obeyed, a factor for instability was removed. Thereafter,
as a matter of law, all doubts were resolved. The 1973 Constitution is the
fundamental law.

The existence of this power is indubitable as the applicable provision in the 1976
Amendments is quite explicit.The Interim BatasangPambansa, sitting as a
constituent body, can propose amendments. In that capacity, only a majority vote
is needed. It would be an indefensible proposition to assert that the three-fourth
votes required when it sits as a legislative body applies as well when it has been
convened as the agency through which amendments could be proposed. That is
not a requirement as far as a constitutional convention is concerned. It is not a
requirement either when, as in this case, the Interim BatasangPambansa exercises
its constituent power to propose amendments. Resolution No. 1 proposing an
amendment allowing a natural-born citizen of the Philippines naturalized in a
foreign country to own a limited area of land for residential purposes was approved
by the vote of 122 to 5; Resolution No. 2 dealing with the Presidency, the Prime
Minister and the Cabinet, and the National Assembly by a vote of 147 to 5 with 1
abstention; and Resolution No. 3 on the amendment to the Article on the
Commission on Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with 1 abstentionThe three
resolutions were approved by the InterimBatasangPambansa sitting as a
constituent assembly on February 5 and 27, 1981, thus making them valid.

12
 the petitions are dismissed for lack of merit

 Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702

Parties
Brief case
Facts  After the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention held
on November 10, 1970, the convention held its inaugural session on
June 1, 1971. On the early morning of September 28, 1971, the
Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 which seeks to
amend Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution, lowering the voting
age to 18. "A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE V OF
THE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE TO 18."
 On September 30, 1971, COMELEC resolved to inform the
Constitutional Convention that it will hold the plebiscite together with
the senatorial elections on November 8, 1971.
 Petitioner, Arturo Tolentino, filed a petition for prohibition, its main
thrust being that Organic Resolution No. 1 and the necessary
implementing resolutions subsequently approved have no force and
effect as laws in so far as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite
co-incident with the senatorial elections, on the ground that the
calling and holding of such a plebiscite is, by the Constitution, a
power lodged exclusively in Congress as a legislative body and may
not be exercised by the Convention, and that, under Article XV
Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, the proposed amendment in
question cannot be presented to the people for ratification separately
from each and all other amendments to be drafted and proposed by
the Constitution.
Issue 1. Does the court have jurisdiction over the case? Yes
2. Is the Organic Resolution No. 1 constitutional? No
Held 1. The case at bar is justiciable. As held in Gonzales vs. Comelec, the
issue of whether or not a resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent
assembly, violates the constitution is a justiciable one and thus subject
to judicial review. The jurisdiction is not because the Court is superior to
the Convention but they are both subject to the Constitution.

2. The act of the Convention calling for a plebiscite on a single

amendment in Organic Resolution No. 1 violated Sec. 1 of Article XV of
the Constitution which states that all amendments must be submitted to
the people in a single election or plebiscite. Moreover, the voter must be
provided sufficient time and ample basis to assess the amendment in
relation to the other parts of the Constitution, not separately but
together.

the petition herein is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of

13
 1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention, insofar as they provide
for the holding of a plebiscite on November 8, 1971, as well as the resolution of the
respondent Comelec complying therewith (RR Resolution No. 695) are hereby declared
null and void. 

 Almario v. Alba, 127 SCRA 69

Parties
Brief case
Facts  As provided for in Batas Pambansa Blg. 643, the Filipino electorate
will go to the polls on January 27, 1984 to either approve or reject
amendments to the Constitution proposed by Resolution Nos. 104,
105, 110, 111, 112, and 113 of the Batasang Pambansa.
 The proposed amendments are embodied in four (4) separate
questions to be answered by simple YES or NO answers. Petitioners
herein seek to enjoin the submission on January 27, 1984 of
Question Nos. 3 (“grant” as an additional mode of acquiring lands
belonging to the public domain) and 4 (the undertaking by the
government of a land reform program and a socialreform program),
which cover Resolution Nos. 105 and 113, to the people for
ratification or rejection on the ground that there has been no fair and
proper submission following the doctrine laid down in Tolentino v.
COMELEC.
 The petitioners do not seek to prohibit the holding of the plebiscite
but only ask for more time for the people to study the meaning and
implications of Resolution Nos. 105 and 113 until the nature and
effect of the proposals are fairly and properly submitted to the
electorate.
Issue Whether or not Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people on a later
date.
Held The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments
are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate. Precisely, whether or
not “grant” of public land and “urban land reform” are unwise or
improvident or whether or not theproposed amendments are
unnecessary is a matter which only the people can decide. The
questions are presented for their determination. Assuming that a
member or some members of this Court may find undesirable any
additional mode of disposing of public land or an urban land reform
program, the remedy is to vote “NO” in the plebiscite but not to
substitute his or their aversion to the proposed amendments by denying
to the millions of voters an opportunity to express their own likes or
dislikes.

the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

5. Judicial Review of Amendments

 Tañada v. Cuenco, 100 Phil. 1101

14
 Parties
Brief case
Facts 
Issue
Held

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that, respondents

Senators Mariano Jesus Cuenco and Francisco A. Delgado have not
been duly elected as Members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
the petition is dismissed, as regards respondents Alfredo Cruz, Catalina
Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes.

 Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333

Parties
Brief case
Facts  President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991
calling for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens
Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve, among other things, the issues
of martial law
 President issued another related decree, Presidential Decree No.
1031, amending the previous Presidential Decree No. 991, by
declaring the provisions of presidential Decree No. 229 providing for
the manner of voting and canvass of votes in "barangays"
 Petitoners filed for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to
enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the
Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without force and
effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they
propose amendments to the Constitution, as well as Presidential
Decree No. 1031, insofar as it directs the Commission on Elections to
supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite
scheduled on October 16, 1976.
 Petitioners contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there
is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent
power to propose amendments to the new Constitution asserting that
the poweris expressly conferred on the interim National Assembly under
Section 16, Article XVII of the Constitution.

Issue WON President of the Philippines may propose amendments to the present Constitution in
the absence of the interim National Assembly which has not been convened.
Held Justiciability of question raised.

ACCORDINGLY, the vote being 8 to 2 to dismiss, the said petitions are hereby dismissed.
This decision is immediately executory.

 Santiago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997

Parties

15
Brief case
Facts 
Issue
Held

 PIRMA v. Comelec, G.R. No. 129745, Sept. 23, 1997

Parties
Brief case
Facts 
Issue
Held

S. TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
1. Elections
2. Existing Laws and Treaties
3. Reserved Executive Powers
 Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines v. Sec. of Agrarian
Reform, 175 SCRA 343
Parties
Brief case
Facts 
Issue
Held

4. Court and Judges

5. Constitutional Commissions
6. Career Civil Service
7. Priority Measures
8. Sequestration
 Cojuangco v. Roxas, G.R. No. 91925, April 16, 1991
Parties Petitioners are stockholders of record of SMC 

Brief case
Facts  annual meeting of shareholders of SMC was held. Among the matters taken up
was the election of fifteen (15) members of the board of directors for the
ensuing year. Petitioners were among the twenty four (24) nominees to the
board
 On the date of the annual meeting, there were 140,849,970 shares
outstanding, of which 133,224,130 shares, or 94.58%, were present at the
meeting, either in person or by proxy. Because of PCGG's claim that the
shares of stock were under sequestration, PCGG was allowed to represent and
vote the shares of stocks of "corporate shares"
 Representatives of the corporate shares present at the meeting claimed that
the shares are not under sequestration; or that if they are under sequestration,
the PCGG had no right to vote the same.  They were overruled.
 The PCGG claimed it represented 85,756,279 shares at the meeting including
the corporate shares which corresponded to 1,286,744,185 votes which in turn
were distributed equally among the fifteen (15) candidates who were declared
elected.
 Petitioners allege that the 27,211,770 shares or a total of 408,176,550 votes
representing the corporate shares, were illegally cast by PCGG and should be
counted in favor of petitioners 

16
 Issue whether or not the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) may
vote the sequestered shares of stock of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and elect
its members of the board of directors.
Held PCGG cannot exercise acts of dominion over property sequestered. It may not
vote sequestered shares of stock or elect the members of the board of directors of
the corporation concerned because PCGG cannot own
PCGG Has Only Powers of Administration

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. Private
respondents Adolfo Azcuna, Edison Coseteng and Patricio Pineda are hereby DIRECTED
to vacate their respective offices as members of the Board of Directors of the SMC as soon
as this decision is implemented. Contemporaneously with the installation of the safeguards
above-required to enable the PCGG to perform its statutory role as conservator of the
sequestered shares of stock or assets, the respondent SMC is hereby ORDERED to allow
the petitioners to vote their shares in person or by proxy and to be voted for as members of
the Board of Directors of the SMC and otherwise to enjoy the rights and privileges of
shareholders; and the PCGG is hereby ENJOINED from voting the sequestered shares of
stock except as otherwise authorized in the safeguards above-required. The questioned
order of the Sandiganbayan dated 16 November 1989 is hereby SET ASIDE; however, the
implementation of this decision shall be carried out under the supervision and control of the
Sandiganbayan.

9. Salaries

Parties
Brief case
Facts 
Held

17