Consti Cases

 Pamatong v COMELEC, GR No. 161872, April 13, 2004

Facts :

- Pamatong filed COC to COMELEC but was declared as nuisance together with 35
other applicants.
- Pamatong justified that he is the most qualified and capable of waging a national
campaign
- Pamatong filed a petition for writ to the supreme court stating that comelec violated his
right of “equal access to opportunities for public service”

Issue : W/N the petitioner’s right of equal opportunity to hold for public office is violated?

Ruling : No. The provision in the constitution is considered  not self-executing and there is
no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the “equal access” provision.
Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II the provision does not contain
any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for
legislative or executive action.

It was not the intention of the framers for the state to accommodate as many people
as possible in public office. The equal access may be subjected to limitations. It is the
power of the COMELEC to enforce the law through the Omnibus Election Code on
Nuisance Candidates.

 CoTesCUP vs. Secretary of Education, October 9, 2018

Facts :

- Council of Teachers and staff of Colleges and Universities of the PH filed a petition
assailing the constitutionality of RA 10533 of K-12 Law and other related issuances of
DepEd, CHED, DOLE, TESDA implementing the K-12 Basic Education program
mandating the compulsory of basic education from 10 years to 13 years. It violated the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Issue: W/N the K-12 Law is unconstitutional.

Ruling: No. there is nothing in the Article 26 that would show that the state is prohibited from
making the kinder and HS compulsory. CMO 20 s. 2013 TOR is lifted.

 Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993

Facts:
 - The plaintiffs are minors represented by their parents filed a complaint (as taxpayer’s
class suit) to Branch 66 Makati RTC claiming that under the Sec. 16 of Art. II of the
Constitution, they are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural
resource treasure—virgin tropical forest. Deforestation have distorted and disturbed the
ecological balance and environmental tragedies. Prayed to cancel all existing Timber
License Agreement and cease and desist from processing of TLA.
- Respondent motioned to dismiss because no cause of action and raises a political
question.
- RTC sustained the motion to dismiss citing it would result in impairment of contracts
which is prohibited by the Consti.

Issue: W/N the plaintiffs cause of action is valid

Ruling: Yes. The complaint focuses on the fundamental legal right—to a balance and
healthful ecology.

8. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

 Chavez v Judicial and Bar Council, GR No. 202242, April 16, 2013

Facts:

- Petitioner questioned the The Judicial and Bar Council’s composition in 1994 where they
added an 8th member from both the chambers of the congress having ½ voting right.
- Petitioner cited that under the 1st Paragraph of Section 8, Art. 8 of the Consti, the JBC
shall only be composed of 7 members: 3 ex-officio member, 1 Sec. of Justice, 1 IBP, 1
private sector, 1 from Congress

Issue: W/N the composition of JBC as to having 8 members is valid and constitutional.

Ruling: No. The words in Constitution must be interpreted as verba legis of in its
ordinary meaning and ratio legis est anima or the intent of the framers.

 Social Justice Society v Dangerous Drugs Board, GR No. 157870, November 3, 2008

Facts:

- SJS seeks to prohibit the Dangerous drug act (RA 9165) paragraph c,d,f,g, section 36 on
the grounds that they are unconstitutional.

A.)The school and employers shall determine the manner of drug testing and
B.) it could harass a student deemed undesirable
C.)breach of their right against undesirable searches

Issue: W/N the provisions under the RA 9165 is unconstitutional

Ruling: No. The need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial
to override the individual’s privacy interest under the premises. To prevent end deter
drug use among employees.
 -It is in accordance to the student handbook which relates to the academic freedom on the
institution.

9. Amendments and Revisions in the Constitution

• Lambino v COMELEC, GR No. 174153, October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160 (2006)

Facts:

- In 2006, Lambino filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify
their petition to modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and
Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled
“Transitory Provisions.” These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-
Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
- Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act
- Thy alleged that their group had support of 6.3M individuals constituting 12% of
registered voters, 3% each of registered voters in the legislative district,.
-
- COMELEC denied their petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA 6735 as
inadequate

Issue: W/N the initiative of the petitioner is copliant to Sec 2 Art. 17 f Consti o amendments of
the consti through people’s initiative.

Ruling. No. It must 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

-The framers of the Constitution intended that the “draft of the proposed constitutional
amendment” should be “ready and shown” to the people “before” they sign such
proposal. The framers plainly stated that “before they sign there is already a draft shown
to them.” The framers also “envisioned” that the people should sign on the proposal itself
because the proponents must “prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature.”

 Imbong v COMELEC, 35 SCRA 28

-interest in running for candidates for delegates of ConCon, questioning the constitutionality of
RA 6132 claiming it prejudices their rights as candidates

Issues:
1. W/N Sections 2, 4, 5 and par. 1 of 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 are valid provisions?
2. W/N the Congress has the authority to call for a constitutional convention?
3. W/N it has the power to enact the implementing rules while acting as legislative body?

Ruling:

1. Yes.
2. Yes. Pursuant to Art. 15 as acting Con Ass. ¾ votes on each chamber of the congress.
 3. Yes as it is with the competence and power of the congress. As long as the IRR does not
violate any provision of the constitution.

 Occena v COMELEC, 104 SCRA 1

Facts: Petitioners, Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales, suing as taxpayers, petitioned
for the prohibition against the validity of the three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions
proposing constitutional amendments, which goes further than merely assailing their
alleged constitutional infirmity.

Issue: W/N the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose amendments?

Ruling: It was vested by the provisions of the 1976 amendments, having same function
with National Assembly, which one is to propose amendments, and of the 1973
Constitution, in its transitory provisions, upon special call by the Prime Minister. 

 Three theories on position of constitutional convention v regular

departments of government (Mabanag v Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1)

Facts: This is a petitioner for prohibition to prevent the congressional resolution proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to be appended as an ordinance
thereto. Petitioners are 8 senators, 17 representatives, and the presidents of the
Democratic Alliance, the Popular Front and the Philippine Youth Party. Petitioners allege
that the resolution is contrary to the Constitution.

They were not considered in determining the required ¾ vote in order to pass the
resolution proposing the amendments of the constitution.

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, although they had not been formally suspended. 

Issue: W/N the Court can take cognizance of the issue

W/N the resolution was duly enacted by the Congress.

Ruling:

-Yes.

-No.

 Judicial Review of Amendments (Sanidad v Comelec, 78 SCRA 333)

  READ: Gatmaytan-Magno, D. “Changing Constitutions: Judicial

Review and Redemption in the Philippines” UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal (2007)

Classification of a Constitution
As to form
As to enactment
As to manner of making changes-

Good Qualities of a consti

1. Broad- cover past and cover all contingency, anticipate the future
2. Brief- brief but not too long
3. Defenite- terms used are not ambigous

Constitution of
Liberty
Government- provide governmental organs- legis, exec, lgus,
Sovereignty-