Constitution Unconstitutional Required Votes (by Justices)

1935 law/treaty 8 out of 11/ 2/3 of all the members

administrative/executive/municipal 6 out of 11/majority vote
ordinance
1973 law/treaty/executive agreement 10 votes
all others 8 votes/en banc
1987

I. The Philippine Constitution

a. 1935 Constitution
Mabanag v Lopez-Vito, 78 Phil 1
-This is a petition to prevent enforcement of the resolution by the House of Representatives to propose an
amendment in the Constitution, as an ordinance, to be appended thereto. The petitioners question the validity
of the said resolution as it runs counter to the Constitution. Accordingly, 3 senators were suspended and 8
representatives were not allowed to sit in the house, shortly after having been proclaimed, due to
irregularities in their election. As a result, thereof, said petitioners were not able to join in the voting of said
proposal nor were they, being a member, included in the computation, which if were, ¾ vote would have
been short.
-Whether or not the ¾ vote by each house are valid, resulting to the passage of the resolution, wherein the
votes of those who were suspended and were not allowed to sit were not reckoned?
-The court deemed it unnecessary to decide whether those whose votes that were not reckoned were
members of the Congress within the meaning as contemplated under the provisions of the 1935 Constitution.
The Court declined to pass upon said issue considering that the matter is of political in character.

It is true that in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito (supra), this Court characterizing the issue submitted
thereto as a political one declined to pass upon the question whether or not a given number of
votes cast in Congress in favor of a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which was being
submitted to the people for ratification — satisfied the three-fourths vote requirement of the
fundamental law. The force of this precedent has been weakened, however, by Suanes v. Chief
Accountant of the Senate (81 Phil. 818), Avelino v. Cuenco, (L-2851, March 4 & 14, 1949), Tañada v.
Cuenco, (L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957) and Macias v. Commission on Elections, (L-18684, Sept. 14, 1961).
In the first we held that the officers and employees of the Senate Electoral Tribunal are under its
supervision and control, not of that of the Senate President, as claimed by the latter; in the second, this
Court proceeded to determine the number of Senators necessary for quorum  in the Senate ; in the
third, we nullified the election, by Senators belonging to the party having the largest number of votes
in said chamber, purporting to act, on behalf of the party having the second largest number of votes
therein of two (2) Senators belonging to the first party, as members, for the second party, of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal; and in the fourth, we declared unconstitutional an act of Congress purporting to
apportion the representatives districts for the House of Representatives, upon the ground that the
apportionment had not been made as may be possible according to the number of inhabitants of each
province. Thus we rejected the theory, advanced in these four (4) cases that the issues therein raised
were political questions the determination of which is beyond judicial review.

b. 1973 Constitution
Imbong v Ferrer, G.R. No. L-32432, September 11, 1970
The Congress acting as legislative body enacted an RA after adopting Resolution No. 2; and later on, enacted
another RA after adopting Resolution Nos. 4 & 2, expressly repealing the first RA. Both laws are for
purposes of proposing to make amendments to the Constitution.
-(from 2 delegates representative district to 320 delegates apportioned among existing representative districts
according to the number of its inhabitant provided that each representative district shall be entitled to atleast
2 delegates)
Petitioners question the constitutionality of RA 6132.
-Whether or not the required ¾ votes, each house, have been complied with for the passage of Resolutions 2
& 4?
-Court held that the Congress acting as Constituent Assembly was able to achieve ¾ votes of each house,
assembled jointly. A requisite provided for under the 1935 Constitution

Tolentino v Comelec, G.R. No. L-342150, October? 16, 1971

-Resolution Nos. 2 & 4 were issued by Congress, in its capacity as constituent assembly, proposing for
Constitutional amendment. The Congress having enacted said resolutions, the 1971 Constitutional
Convention came into being. After the election of delegates, for the purpose of calling a convention to
propose for Constitutional Amendment, the convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 (calling for
amendment to reduce the age of right to exercise suffrage, the same, being a partial amendment shall be
without prejudice to other amendments that will be proposed in the future by the Convention). Petitioners,
however, assail the constitutionality of Organic Resolution No. 1. Among their contentions is one of the
provisions under the Organic Resolution No. 1, indicating therein partial amendment which shall be “without
prejudice to any amendments that may be proposed by the convention in the future”
-Whether or not elections may be had on piecemeal amendments?
-Court held that the language of the constitution regarding proposal for AMENDMENTS which shall be
submitted to the people for ratification or rejection at AN ELECTION is unequivocal. The Congress acting
as a constituent assembly or convention may propose several amendments, it must not be partial so as to give
the voter a fixed framed of reference to apprise him of the nature of amendment. The casting of votes shall
be done in an election and not elections.

Planas v Comelec, G.R. No. L-35925, January 22, 1973

Congress in its capacity as constituent assembly passed Resolution Nos. 2 & 4, calling for a convention.
Thereafter, said resolutions were enacted and the Constitutional Convention began its function. Former
president Marcos issued PD 1081, placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law; later on, issued PD 73,
submitting to the people, for ratification or rejection, the proposed Constitutional Amendment after having
been approved by the convention; and scheduled the plebiscite. Due to this, petitioner filed his petition and
was followed by several other petitions contesting the submission of the proposed constitutional amendment,
PD 73, being violative of the Constitution. While petitions were pending, former president Marcos issued
suspension of Martial Law as well as the plebiscite. Thereafter, the Court deferred deciding on the matter
since neither the date nor the conditions under the plebiscite were announced. However, on January 15, 1973,
former president Marcos issued Proclamation 1102 announcing the ratification, by a majority votes of the
filipino people, of the proposed 1971 Constitutional Convention. The same was issued while the court is
deliberating on the petitions after petitioners filed their urgent motion considering that the president issued
another presidential decree organizing a Citizen’s Assembly.
-Whether or not PD 73 is valid?
-6 Justices voted that the issue has become moot and academic by the effectivity of the issuance of
Proclamation 1102; while 3 Justices voted to dismiss the cases

Javellana v Executive Secretary, G.R. no. L-36142, March 31, 1973

Shortly after the rendition of decision on the plebiscite cases, Javellana filed his amended petition along with
other similar petitions. Petitioners contend, among others, the manner by which the New Constitution was
ratified. It will be recalled that former president Marcos suspended the plebiscite then later on issued a
proclamation announcing the ratification of the proposed constitutional amendment by a majority of vote of
the people. Before this proclamation, he issued a presidential decree, referring to Citizens’ Assembly so
organized for the purpose of consulting the public. The proclamation ratifying the New Constitution was
based on the majority votes gathered from said Citizens’ Assembly.
-Whether or not the 1973 Constitution was validly ratified in accordance with the 1935 Constitution?
(questions validity of the ratification of PD 1102
-6 Justices voted that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitution has not been validly complied with
in accordance with the provisions provided under the 1935 Constitution; 4 Justices voted that there has been
substantial compliance.
-The Court has laid down the procedures on how a plebiscite should proceed under the 1935 Constitution: 1.)
that amendments may be proposed by either the congress or convention by a ¾ votes of each house
assembled jointly; 2.) that amendments shall be submitted to the people for ratification at an election; and 3.)
that amendments must be approved by a majority of votes cast in an election
-The first requisite has been complied with. 2 nd requisite has not been complied.
-The Revised Bario Charter from which the 18 years old were allowed to cast their vote is contrary to what is
laid down under the 1935 Constitution wherein it states that only 21 years old and above are allowed to vote
-The plebiscite should be held under the supervision of COMELEC as provided for under the 1935
Constitution
-The 3rd requisite is also not complied with. Accordingly, contrary to what is stated on the proclamation that
a majority voted for the New Constitution, data show that 21 years old registered voted is less than the
number proclaimed.
-Court asked the Solicitor General to submit documentation showing proclamation, decree, instructions and
others that would show proof of creating or organizing of any association to the effect that a valid casting of
vote was done resulting to the ratification of the proposed Constitution, but they were not able to do so.
Sanidad v Comelec, G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976 (referendum-plebiscite)
Then President Marcos issued PD 991 calling for a national referendum for the Citizens’ -Assembly to
resolve, among others, some issues regarding Marshall Law.
-(PD 229 was issued, amending the first PD 991, providing for the manner of canvassing of votes in
barangay (Citizens’ Assembly) applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite followed by PD 1031
(submitted for referendum-plebiscite)
Finally, PD 1033 stating questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite wherein it
stated in there the abolishment and replacement of National Assembly thru constitutional amendment due to
continued opposition of the people to convene for an interim NA. Petitioners contends the power of the
incumbent president to propose for amendment without convening for an interim NA.
-8 over 2 Justices voted to dismiss the case. The power to legislate is lodged, constitutionally, to the interim
NA during transition period. However, it is upon the president’s judgment to initially convene for NA. In
foregoing the same, the President only exercised his power to propose in recognizing the people’s
preference. If that is so, the president can validly discharge the function of the NA to propose for
amendment. Knowing that the interim National Assembly would not convene soon and only the Presidency
and the Supreme Court in operation, it is imperative for the President to act for and in behalf of the people
propose for amendments to the constitution, otherwise it would leave a vaccum in the exercise of legislative
powers which would cause paralyzation of the entire governmental machinery.

If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim
Assembly, he may validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to
the Constitution,

Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986

c. 1987 Constitution
Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986

In Re: Saturnino Bermudez, G.R. No. 76180, October 24, 1986

This is a declaratory relief filed by the petitioner raising question on the provision under Sec. 5, Art. 8 of the
1986 proposed Constitution, as to who among the incumbents President and Vice President does is refer to?
The Court ruled to dismiss the petition outright. Stating, among others, mutatis mutandis, that the incumbent
President and Vice President referred to in the provision is Pres. Cory Aquino and VP Salvador Laurel, the
same being of public knowledge. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not justiciable as this matter
belongs to the realm of politics wherein the people of the Philippines are the judge and by acceptance of the
people of said government it is not just a de facto government but a de jure government.

Republic v Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003

-Then president Aquino issued and executive order, upon assumption to office, creating PCGG tasked to
recover alleged ill gotten wealth of the Marcoses including his close associates.
AFB Board issued a recommendation to prosecute Maj. Gen. Ramas for graft and corruption and forfeiture
of unlawfully acquired properties. They later on impleaded Dimaano.
By virtue of a search warrant, PC, by recommendation of the PCGG, raided and confiscated equipment,
jewelry, monies and land titles belonging to Major General Ramas and Ms. Dimaano;
-The Sandiganbayan thereafter issued a resolution dismissing the complaint against both accused and
ordering, among others, the return of all confiscated items. The MR filed by the PCGG was denied.
-Thus, PCGG filed a certiorari. Petitioners contend that the it was the revolutionary government that was
operative at the time the confiscation occurred and not the 1973 Constitution. Respondents does not have
exclusionary right so the confiscation is valid and the items confiscated can be used as evidence against
them.
-Whether or not the revolutionary government was bound by the 1973 Bill of rights during the interregnum?;
-Whether or not individuals are accorded with protection under the covenant and declaration of protection of
right during the interregnum period?
-Court dismissed the petition for certiorari
-the 1973 Constitution was not operative at that time. However, the Philippines being a signatory to the
Covenant and Declaration, the protection accorded to individuals remain in effect

De Leon v Esguerra, G.R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987

OIC Governor Esguerra issued Memoranda designating another co-respondent as Barangay Captain and
councilmen replacing the petitioners. Said Memoranda was antedated on December 1, 1986 but the same was
actually signed on February 8, 1987. Thus, petitioners instituted a prohibition case to enjoin respondents
from replacing them in their positions. Respondents contend that under the provisions in the Freedom
Constitution appointed officials may be replaced within 1 year from February 25, 1986.
-Whether or not the designation of the respondents replacing the petitioners where valid considering the
provision under the Provisional Constitution regarding appointment of elective or appointive official?
The Court ruled to grant the petition. The contention of the respondent is unmeritorious.
The Provisional Constitution did provide for elective or appointive officials under the 1973 Constitution to
be replaced within 1 year from February 25, 1986 and that petitioners, by the issuance of the Memoranda
signed on February 8, 1986, were replaced well within the 1 year period.
-By the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, however, on February 2, 1987, it supplanted the Freedom
Constitution.

II. Amendment or Revision of the Constitution

Chapter 18, Philippine Political Law, Isagani A. Cruz

Lambino v Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006

COMELEC issued a resolution denying the Initiative petition, by the petitioners, to change the 1987
Constitution (From Bicameral-Presidential system to Unilateral-Parliament system).
-Amendment to the Constitution may be proposed by the people through initiative by a petition with atleast
12% of the registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by atleast 3% registered voters
-COMELEC denied their petition for lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution
-2 elements must be present: 1.The entire proposal must be authored and signed
2. The proposal must be attached to the petition

Occena v Comelec, G.R. No. 56350, April 2, 1981

3 Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing for Constitutional Amendments

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

Atty. Delfin filed a petition to the COMELEC to amend the constitution, specifically to lift the limits of
terms of elective officials. Petitioners filed prohibition of the same on the following arguments: 1. No such
law has been passed yet (constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend constitution can only be
implemented by law to be passed by congress); 2. No subtitle under the mode of initiative on constitution;
3. RA 6375 provides for effectivity of laws after publication whereas constitutional amendments take effect
upon ratification; 4. ; 5. Extending term limits is a revision (people’s initiative refers only to amendments); 6.
Congress has not appropriated funds yet and so as other agencies

Gonzales v Comelec, G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967

The Congress’ proposed resolutions (1. Increase the numbers of the house of representatives; 2. To hold a
convention to propose for constitutional amendments, the convention to be composed of 2 elective delegates
from each representative district; 3. Constitutional amendment as to authorize senators and members of the
house to be elected as delegates, without forfeiting their seats, to become member of the convention) which
subsequently was enacted into law were being assailed by the petitioners. They contend (prevent the holding
of a plebiscite and ratification by the people of said law) that the persons who proposed the resolution were
de facto congressmen; that they could not, at the same time, propose for amendment and call for a
convention; ;and that the proposal for constitutional amendment for ratification of the people must be held by
a special election and NOT a general election.

Tolentino v Comelec, G.R. No. L-342150, October 16, 1971

Petitioners contend the proposed Constitutional amendment by the 1971 Constitutional Convention calling
for plebiscite and for ratification or rejection of the people of Organic Resolution No. 1. Said resolution
contains amendments which not stated yet in the sense that they are of future amendments for ratification in
another election. One of the provisions of the resolution, accordingly, is without prejudice to any
amendments which the 1971 ConCon might come up with or propose in the future.

Sanidad v Comelec, G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976

 SEC. 4 Who shall participate.-Every Filipino citizen, literate or not, fifteen years of age or over who has
resided in the barangay for at least six months shall participate in the consultation in his barangay.
Provided, however, That any person who may not be able to participate in the consultations of his
barangay may do so in any barangay member shall participate in more than one barangay consultation.

Javellana v Executive Secretary, G.R. no. L-36142, March 31, 1973

III. Power of Judicial Review

Chapter 18, Philippine Political Law, Isagani A. Cruz

Amendment -is isolated and piecemeal change

Ratification -revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument

-mere amendment or change in particular provisions only is better proposed by directly legislative action
-if it’s for the revamp of the entire Constitution, a constitutional convention is better

Amendment Revision Required vote

Congress Congress ¾
Constitutional Convention Constitutional Convention 2/3
Peoples’ initiative 12% of the total registered
voter of each legislative
district represented by atleast
3% of registered voter therein
Angara v Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139
-Ynsua filed for an election protest before the Electoral Commission. The protest was filed after the passage
of a resolution stating therein the period during which a protest against election of members may be filed
-Angara also filed his motion to dismiss the protest, however, the Commission dismissed it
-Thus, Angara instituted an action against respondent to restrain Electoral Commission from taking
cognizance of Ynsua’s petition. His contention, mainly, is that the Commission does not have jurisdiction
over electoral protest
-The court dismissed the petition and in part discussed the role of the judiciary in its judicial supremacys
-the court could not overlook the broader aspect of the issue and leave it undecided
-each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its sphere
-the Constitution has set up and elaborate checks and balances to ascertain coordination between the various
acts of the branches of the government
-Electoral Commission is conferred by the Constitution, as independent body, to deal with election protest.
Thus, said Commission acted within legitimate authority in taking cognizance of the case

Role of the judiciary -ascertains that the constitutional powers among the branches of the state
are respected and observed such that if the Judiciary invalidates certain
acts of the legislative or the executive or any of its instrumentality it does
not connote that Judiciary is supreme over the legislative or executive. It
only implies supremacy of the constitution
Judicial supremacy -power of judicial review under the Constitution
Judicial review -power of the courts to test the validity of the acts of the legislative and
executive if they well within bounds/sphere of the Constitution (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)
“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of Government”
-it is limited to actual cases and controversies after full opportunity to argue is
given to the parties
-limited to the question raised or the very lis mota presented

political question -refers to questions, which under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the state
-matters affecting wisdom, efficacy and practicability of law are lodged exclusively with the
legislative
Bondoc v Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, September 25, 1991
-There was a controversy between the members of a partylist wherein the House of Representatives issued a
resolution to remove a member of the Tribunal and also rescind his vote
-which stemmed from a protest filed before Electoral Tribunal
-Pineda won over Bondoc in a congressional election. Bondoc filed a protest in the Electoral Tribunal. The
2nd re-examination and re-appreciation of votes (which the party of Pineda insists after Bondoc appeared to
be on the lead). Before promulgation of decision, one of the members of the Electoral Tribunal, Camasura,
who is also in the same partylist with Pineda, revealed that he voted for Bondoc
-This led to the expulsion Camasura from the partylist, his nomination being withdrawn and his seat at the
Electoral Tribunal being rescinded
-With this development, the promulgation of decision of the protest filed was cancelled
-Thus, Bondoc filed a petition to the court to act on the issue
-Thereafter, Pineda, moved to dismiss the petition stating, mainly, that the issue is political in character,
hence, not subject for judicial review (the decision to expel Camasura from being a member of the Electoral
Tribunal, being a party affair, is the sole prerogative of the House)
-Whether or not the Supreme Court may review and annul the action of the House?
-Court ruled in the affirmative. Under the 1987 Constitution, judicial power is vested in courts such that it
has the authority and duty to settle actual case of controversies where rights are legally demandable and
enforceable and to determine whether or not grave abuse of discretion has been employed amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. This does not mean,
however, that the Court is supreme over the executive or legislative. It only confers that the judiciary may
inquire into the constitutionality or legality of the actions made by the legislative or executive especially
when a controversy is brought before the court by someone who has been aggrieved or prejudiced because of
such action

1987 Constitution –constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, law shall be

heard by the SC en banc
-constitutionality of application or operation of PDs, proclamations, orders,
ordinances, regulations shall be decided by a concurrence of the majority of
the members who actually took part in the deliberation (Sec. 4 (2), Art. 8)

lower courts -also has the power to decide on question involving constitutionality of laws,
treaty or other international agreements (Sec. 5 (2), Art. 8)

Ynot v Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. no. 74457, March 10, 1987
-This was a petition from the adverse ruling of the lower court and IAC which stemmed from a civil suit
instituted by the petitioner on the recovery of the carabaos confiscated from him in view of an EO. One of
the contentions of the petitioner is the constitutionality of the EO (because of the confiscation of his carabaos
without due process of law -he was not accorded with the right to be heard before competent court) which
the lower court and IAC declined to pass upon (accordingly, due to lack of authority and the presumed
validity of the EO)
-Whether or not the lower courts may resolve questions of constitutionality?
-lower courts may observe modesty in taking on questions of constitutionality but must not shy away from
issuing a resolution at the first instance
-Court ruled that lower courts are not prevented from resolving issues regarding questions of constitutionality
at the first instance. They should, however, observe modesty in resolving the same

CIR v CTA, G.R. No. L-44007, March 20, 1991

-The issue stemmed from a petition to review a tax assessment filed by the private respondent before the
CTA
-CIR came up with an assessment as tax deficiency of a telecommunication corporation (organized under
the existing laws of Great Britain); Said corporation was granted, by an enacted law, franchise to construct
and operate in the Philippines and further granted tax exemption except for a 5% franchise tax and real
property tax; the enacted law was later on amended granting broader scope for the corporation).
-Private respondent contends that the tax assessment has no basis.
-CTA, among other things, declared the franchise is unconstitutional. Thus, public respondent raised the
issue to the Court for review.
-Whether or not the public respondent (CTA) may pass upon the constitutionality of the legislative franchise
when it was not even raised?
-Court held that, although the parties did raise the constitutionality of the law, it is not sufficient for the Court
to resolve a certain issue on its constitutionality or unconstitutionality; that the court must approach such
issues with due care and caution.
-SC laid down requisites for judicial inquiry regarding constitutional question:
(1) the existence of an appropriate case;
(2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea
that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and
(4) the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case"
-The last requisite is not present. The case can be resolved by other available remedies
-(the public petitioner’s argument is that the private respondent (Corporation) could not avail the tax
exemption since the latter has failed to comply with the provisions required under the Constitution;
the law enacting grant of franchise is valid)

Jesus Garcia v Hon. Ray Alan Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
-the case stemmed from a case filed by a private respondent before RTC praying for the issuance of TPO
pursuant to R.A. 9262
-(accordingly, private respondent informed the management of Robinson’s Bank that she will file charges
against the paramour of her husband which led to the petitioner leaving their conjugal dwelling; petitioner is
a businessman and is the President of 3 corporations; private respondent asked for an accounting of the
family corporation but was refused)
-Subsequently, the RTC issued TPO and renewed the same after each expiration
-Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition, contending among others, the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 before
CA which was dismissed
-Court affirmed the dismissal of petition. Any question of constitutionality must be brought at the earliest
opportunity because the court anticipate constitutional question
-at the SC, he contends that the reason for not being able to bring up the matter of constitutionality is that the
RTC has limited authority to tackle the complexities of constitutionality
-lower courts -also has the power to decide on question involving constitutionality of laws,
treaty or other international agreements (Sec. 5 (2), Art. 8)

Mirasol v CA, G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001

-Petitioners, who are sugarland owners and planters, instituted a civil suit against PNB and PHILEX
-(Accordingly, the petitioners obtained huge amount of loan from PNB. The latter financed the former thru
loan schemes. With the issuance of a presidential decree, it authorized: 1.) PHILEX to purchase sugar
allocated for export; 2.) PNB to finance PHILEX with its purchases; 3.) to apply the proceeds to the special
fund of the national government)
-The RTC, rendered its decision, declaring among others, the unconstitutionality of presidential decree
authorizing: 1.) PHILEX to purchase sugar allocated for export; 2.) PNB to finance PHILEX with its
purchases; 3.) to apply the proceeds to the special fund of the national government
-the petitioners, however, still elevated the matter to CA regarding the failure of the RTC to nullify the
dacion en pago, mortgage contracts and foreclosure of their properties
-CA reversed the RTC’s decision and even denied their MR
-Thus, the instant case. Petitioners contend, among others, that the rule, from which the RTC has failed
comply, regarding notice to the SolGen in cases of questions of constitutionality, only applies to declaratory
relief
-Whether or not it is proper for the trial court to declare a statute unconstitutional without notifying the
Solicitor General?
-the Court ruled in the negative. The rule under the Rules of Court provides that the SolGen shall be notified
and shall be heard of on any actions which involves questions of validity of a statute, executive orders or
regulations. The court emphasized the word “shall” which means that notice to the SolGen is mandatory. The
court also emphasized on the word “any actions” which means that it’s not only limited to declaratory relief
-the court also touched on the matter of the authority of the RTCs to rule on the conformity of laws or
treaties with the Constitution in accordance with BP 129

Salonga v Pano, G.R. No. L-59524, February 18, 1985

-the petition stemmed from a series of bombing incidents in Metro Manila wherein a certain Victor Lovely
was apprehended following another incident of explosion which occurred in his residence. Lovely offered to
become a state witness and later on named persons to have been involved in the destabilization of the
government and one of them is Mr. Jovito Salonga which also led to his arrest. Several months of have
passed before Mr. Salonga was given a copy of the complaint (he was arrested while at the hospital without
even formally informing him of the charge against him; he was even isolated and was prevented to speak to
his counsel). His counsel filed a motion to dismiss but the Judge denied the same and finally issued a
resolution for the issuance of Information indicting Mr. Salonga for subversion
-Thus, Mr. Salonga filed for a petition before SC invoking his right to life and liberty as guaranteed under the
provisions of the Constitution
-respondents contend, among others, that the motion to dismiss, being interlocutory in character, cannot be
questioned by certiorari
-while the petition is pending before the SC, the public prosecutor filed a motion to drop the subversion case
against Mr. Salonga which the trial court granted
-by the action of the prosecution, SC rendered the decision moot and academic
-The court’s totality of function is not limited to setting aside or declaring void, in appropriate cases, the
encroachment of the state to the individual’s rights as guaranteed under the Constitution.
-The setting aside or declaring void, in proper cases, of intrusions of State authority into areas reserved by the Bill of
Rights for the individual as constitutionally protected spheres where even the awesome powers of Government may not
enter at will is not the totality of the Court's functions.
-The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules.
It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.

The Court can still decide cases otherwise moot and academic if:
(a) there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
(b) there is an exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest is involved;
(c) the constitutional issues raised require formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench,
the bar and the public; and
(d) the case is capable of repetition yet evasive of review

Moot and academic -one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy due to supervening
events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use
or value

Tañada v Cuenco, 100 Phil 110

Macapagal was one of the official candidates for Senator (he was a member of the partylist wherein Tanada
was the president)-contested the election of the senators
-Petitioner Tanada was chosen as member of the Electoral Tribunal; The Senate also chose Cuenco and
another one despite objection of Tanada
-Petitioners contend that the respondents acted without power or authority when the Committee on Rules of
Senate nominated Tanada and it is a clear violation of the Constitution
-respondents assail jurisdiction of the Court
-SET is part neither of the Congress nor of the Senate
-The courts are called upon to determine whether the powers vested have been validly exercised
-Although, under the Constitution, the power to choose 6 Senators to become members of the SET is conferred
exclusively to the Senate, the courts are called upon to ascertain to whom powers shall be exercised and if such
powers have been have been exercised validly
this Court endeavored to define political question. And we said that "it refers to 'those questions
which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in
regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch
of the government.' It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not [the] legality, of a
particular measure."; The Court ruled that the validity of the selection of members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal by the senators was not a political question. The choice of these members did not
depend on the Senate's "full discretionary authority," but was subject to mandatory constitutional
limitations.   Thus, the Court held that not only was it clearly within its jurisdiction to pass upon the
20

validity of the selection proceedings, but it was also its duty to consider and determine the issue

Defensor-Santiago v Guingona, G.R. No. 134577, November 16, 1998

-The case was a fight over the position of the minority floor leader wherein Tatad presumes position of the
same since it was him and Sen. Fernan who were nominated to the position of Senate President -Sen. Drilon,
representing the majority while Sen. Tatad, representing the minority.
-The Senate actually deliberated on the matter but have not arrived at a consensus.
-Later on, Sen. Fernan formally recognized Sen. Guingona as the minority floor leader as per letter received
by a certain partylist (with the 2nd most number of votes)
-Thus, Santiago and Tatad filed a quo warranto to the SC. Accordingly, there is a need for the interpretation
and application of the Constitution.
-Respondents argue that the matter on the lawful minority leader is internal and within the domain of the
legislative. The Court cannot encroach over the issue without transgressing the separation of powers laid
down under the Constitution
-With Sen. Drillon being elected as Senate President, Tatad, automatically assumes position as minority floor
leader.
-Respondents contend, other than the court having no jurisdiction over the issue since there is no
constitutional question and also since even the constitution does not provide for the minority office and the
same being within the sphere of the legislature, that there is no need for application and interpretation of the
law. There is not even a violation of the fundamental law since the election of minority leader is not
indicated therein
-Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction?
Court, held, that judicial review is not only confined in questions of application or interpretation of the
Constitution of the law but also rules of either house. Any questions regarding the validity or legality of
legislative or executive acts that are political in nature.
-Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government.

-RTC and SC -generally have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and decide quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus
-exception, petitions for quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
assailing acts of legislative officers (e.g. Senate President, speaker of the House)

political question -refers to questions, which under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which jurisdiction or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the state
-matters affecting wisdom, efficacy and practicability of law are lodged exclusively with the
legislative

Vinuya v Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010

-This was a MR and SMR on the adverse decision of the court on the petition filed by the petitioners
-One of the prayers to reconsider is to declare that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary
committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to espouse the claims Filipina comfort women
-Whether or not the court may judicially review the alleged acts of grave abuse of discretion of the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs and Executive Secretary?
-Court ruled that the foreign relations of the Philippines is entrusted to the Executive Department under the
Constitution. Whether or not said branch espouse the claims of filipina comfort women against the government of
Japan is left to its exclusive determination and judgment. The Court cannot interfere or question the conduct of
the Executive Department in dealing with the foreign affairs of the government.

Belgica v Executive Secretary, G.R. no. 208566, November 19, 2013

-Several petitions were filed praying for the declaration of PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund -
under the GAA 2013) unconstitutional as well as to restrain public officers from further enacting legislation
pertaining to appropriating funds therefor and others acts of releasing funds therefor
-this was following the release of COA reports
-Accordingly, as per investigation conducted by the NBI (spawned by 6 whistleblowers), the government has
been defrauded by billions of moneys over the past decade
-the whistle blowers disclosed JLN Corp. (Janet Lim Napoles Corp) -dummy NGOs were used as recipients
of PDAF
-Whether or not the issues raised are matters of policy not subject for judicial review?
-The issues raised before the court is not one of political character but a legal one of which the Constitution
has delegated the judiciary to examine. The question raised on the constitutionality of the “pork barrel
system” is not dependent upon political wisdom but one where under the Constitution the court is called to
act upon. The duty to scrutinize the contours of the system along constitutional lines is delegated to the
judiciary and not to political branches

Chief Justice Renato Corona v  Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
-Then Chief Justice Corona filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Senate following the
impeachment complaint filed by the latter against the former
-the main imputation of the petitioner is that the Impeachment Court has committed grave abuse of discretion
(complaint against him constitutionally infirmed as it lacks probable cause; the facts stated are based mainly on
suspicion and hearsay)
-Respondent SolGen manifested that the court has no jurisdiction over the case since its political in character the
same shall be resolved by the Senate and HOR
-Whether the court may take cognizance of a case incident to impeachment complaint?
-If the acts of the branches of the government or its instrumentality are tainted with grave abuse of discretion the
Court may properly subject it to judicial review
-(However, while the case is pending before the SC, the impeachment against the petitioner proceeded and
convicted the petitioner. Considering the supervening acts and his own acts (when he vacated his office) the court
deemed it moot and academic)
-an issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that any declaration
thereon would render it of no practical use or value

Requisites of Power of Judicial Review 

Actual Case or Controversy

John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition vs. Lim GR No. 119775, October 24, 2003
-Former President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 420, pursuant to an enacted law, establishing SEZ in some
portions of John Hay Camp
-Petitioner contends the validity of said proclamation, specifically among others the granting tax exemptions
-Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the petitioner lacks ‘locus standi’ to bring the present suit and that
there is absence of actual case or controversy to bring the court to exercise its power of judicial review
-Court held that, generally, it will not entertain direct resort except when the redress sought cannot be obtained in
the proper courts
-also when exceptional and compelling reasons warrant the remedy by calling the jurisdiction of the Court (Court
does not have original jurisdiction over declaratory relief which is partly the prayer of the petitioner)
-Also, under the provisions laid down in the provisions of the enacted law, governing the proclamation converting
military bases into other productive uses, only the SC has the power enjoin implementation of the projects
-Court, thus, may take cognizance of the case

Imbong v. Ochoa, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014

-These are petitions filed assailing the constitutionality of RH Law
-Respondents pray for the dismissal of the petitions contending, among others, lack of actual case or controversy
warranting judicial determination since it is yet to be implemented and no one has been sanctioned for violating
said law
-Whether or not the petitions brought before the courts have actual case or controversy that would warrant judicial
inquiry?
-The Court may pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the legislative and the executive branches, since its
duty is not to review their collective wisdom but, rather, to make sure that they have acted in consonance
with their respective authorities and rights as mandated of them by the Constitution.
-The same is in accordance with the provisions laid down under the Constitution

Actual case or controversy -means existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not
conjectural or anticipatory otherwise the decision of the court would turn out to only be an advisory opinion
-must be justiciable-concrete and definite, touching on the legal relations of the
parties having adverse legal interest

Belgica v. Ochoa, GR No. 208566, November 19, 2013

Dumlao vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392

a. Province of Batangas vs. Romulo, G.R No. 152774, May 27, 2004
b. Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 128 S. Ct. 2759 (2008)
c. Royal Cargo Corporation vs. Civil Aeronautics Board, G.R. No. 103055-56, January 26, 2004
d. Lacson vs. Perez, G.R No. 147780, GR. No. 147780, May 10, 2001 
e. Enrile vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal and Pimentel, GR No. 132986, May 10, 2001
f. Gonzales vs. Narvasa, Gr. No. 140835, August 14, 2000
g. Atlas Fertilizer vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R No. 93100
h. Republic (Anti-Money Laundering Council) v. Manalo, GR No. 192302, June 4, 2014
i. David Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No. 171396, May 3, 2006 l
j. Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R No. 159085, February 3, 2004
k. Alunan III vs. Mirasol, G.R No. 108399, July 31, 1997
l. Salonga vs. Pano, 134 SCRA 438
m. Acop vs. Guingona, G.R No. 134855, July 2, 2002
n. Dennis Funa v. Chairman, Civil Service Commission GR No. 191672, November 25, 2014
o. Maria Carolina Araullo vs. Benigno Aquino III, GR NO. 209287, July 1, 2014
p. Tanada vs. Angara, 272, SCRA 18
q. Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141
r. Montesclaros vs. COMELEC, G.R No. 152295, July 9, 2002
s. Mariano vs. Comelec, 242 SCRA 211
t. Fernandez vs. Torres, 215 SCRA 489
u. Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272
v. Macasiano v. National Housing Authority, 224 SCRA 236
w. Board of Optometry v. Colet, 260 SCRA 88