REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW A.

Definition and Division of Political Law

Social Contract Theory People entrust their rights to the government. The government in return does their part and gives the people what due to them.

Political Law is that branch of public law which deals b. Function with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the (1) Serves as the supreme or fundamental law relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory. (2) Establishes basic framework and underlying principles of a. Constitutional Law government b. Administrative law c. Election Law (3) Defines and allocates to the various organs of government their respective powers and duties. d. Law of Public Officers e. Law on Municipal Corporations c. Classification In case of Macariola vs. Asuncion, the court says ; Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United A Constitution may be written or unwritten, conventional or States and later on from the United States to the cumulative, and rigid or flexible. Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated (i) Written is one which has been given definite because where there is change of sovereignty, the written form at a particular time. political laws of the former sovereign, whether (ii) Unwritten is one which has not been reduced compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are to writing at any specific time but it is the automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly recollective product of a gradual political enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign. development, consisting of unwritten usages Likewise, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce which and customary rules, judicial decisions, and prohibits judges from engaging in commerce is, as legislative enactments of a fundamental heretofore stated, deemed abrogated automatically upon character written but scattered in various the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to America, because records without having any compact form in it is political in nature. writing. (iii) Conventional enacted deliberately and consciously by a constituent body or ruler, at a B. Definition of Constitutional Law certain time and place. (iv) Cumulative is a product of gradual political Constitutional Law may be defined as that branch of Public development. Law which treats of constitution, their nature, formation, (v) Rigid is one which can be amended through a amendment, and interpretation. formal and difficult process. (vi) Flexible is one which can be changed by It refers to the law embodied in the Constitution as ordinary legislation. well as the principles growing out of the interpretation and application made by the courts of the provisions of the Constitution in specific cases. Thus, the Philippine The 1987 Philippine Constitution is a written, conventional Constitution itself is brief but the law of the Constitution lies and rigid Constitution. scattered in thousands of Supreme Court decisions. d. Essential Qualities of a Written Constitution Distinguished Constitutional Law from Political Law Political Law deals specifically with the study of the structure and powers of our government. Constitutional Law is one of the division of Political Law that defines the specific duties and responsibilities of our government together with their privileges and rights and as a fundamental or supreme law of the land, it enumerates the rights of every citizens with their corresponding functions where the sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. C. Constitution (1987 Constitution) a. Definition (i) As to form, a good written constitution should be:  Brief because if a constitution is too detailed, it would lose the advantage of a fundamental law which in a few provisions outlines the government of the whole state and the rights of the citizens.  Broad- because a statement of the powers and functions of government, and of the relations between the governing body and the governed, requires that it be as comprehensive as possible.  Definite- because otherwise the application of its provisions to concrete situations may prove unduly difficult if not impossible. (ii) As to contents, it should contain at least three sets of provisions;  Constitution of Government  Constitution of Liberty  Constitution of Sovereignty

Constitution - define as the supreme law of the land and established by the people which prescribes the permanent framework of the system of government, which establishes e. Parts of a Constitution basic principles upon which the government founded, and which defines and allocates to the various organs of f. Interpretation of the Constitution government their respective powers and duties. Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

In Francisco vs House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, The NOTE: Ejusdem-Generis - Latin: of the same kind. A rule of statutory construction, generally accepted by both state Supreme Court ruled that; and federal courts, "that where general words follow The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our enumerations of particular classes or persons or things, the general words shall be construed as applicable only to system of government. It obtains not through express persons or things of the same general nature or kind as provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of those enumerated matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own IN CUSTODIA LEGIS. In the custody of the law. In sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the general, when things are in custodia legis, they cannot be Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained distrained, nor otherwise interfered with by custodia legis, and independent of each other. The Constitution has they cannot be distrained, nor otherwise interfered with by a provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to private person. secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. And the judiciary in turn, In case of Alih vs Castro; The Supreme Court declared with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively those seized in custodia legis and declared that the checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to operation conducted by Maj. Gen. Castro was ILLEGAL. determine the law, and hence to declare executive and The respondents have all the time to obtain a search legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution. warrant granted that they have about 10 trial courts. The SC also held the protection of the petitioner's human rights as stated in Art IV Sec 3 and 4 of the 1973 Constitution The Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. Instead, it regarding illegal search and seizure. The presumption of innocence of the petitioners should be observed and that provided for certain well-defined limits, or "judicially they cannot be subjected to self-incriminating instances like discoverable standards" for determining the validity of the paraffin tests, photographing and finger printing. exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review. There is indeed a plethora of cases in which this In this case, "The Constitution is a law for rulers and people, Court exercised the power of judicial review over equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its congressional action. Finally, there exists no constitutional protection all classes of men, at all times and under all basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of allowed to defeat another." Both are integral components the great exigencies of government." of the calibrated system of independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government In case of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS; In its plain and act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution. ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage. When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as g. Supremacy of the Constitution the Constitution could have very well used the term natural The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. It other laws must conform and to which all persons, including also refers to Filipinos intelligence in arts, sciences and the highest official of the land, must defer. No act shall be letters. In the present case, Manila Hotel has become a valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the landmark, a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain was restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in Supreme. All must bow to mandate of this law. Expediency 1912, a concourse for the elite, it has since then become must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power the venue of various significant events which have shaped Philippine history. In the granting of economic rights, debase its rectitude. privileges, and concessions, especially on matters involving national patrimony, when a choice has to be made between In case of Mutuc vs COMELEC; a qualified foreigner and a qualified Filipino, the latter shall be chosen over the former. I ssue: Whether the taped jingles fall under the phrase and the like. A provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling Held: Under the well-known principle of ejusdem legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of generis, the general words following any enumeration are which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is selfspecifically referred to. It is quite apparent that what was executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a itself, so that they can be determined by an examination favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its and construction of its terms, and there is no language distribution. The Constitutional Convention Act indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for contemplated the prohibition on the distribution of gadgets action. In self-executing constitutional provisions, the of the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the distribution (distribution of electoral propaganda gadgets, operation of such a provision, prescribe a practice to be mention being made of pens, lighters, fans, flashlights, used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, the protection of the rights secured or the determination matches, and cigarettes, and concluding with the words thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the and the like.). Taped jingles therefore were not prohibited. exercise of the right. The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

render such a provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. The omission from a constitution of any express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be selfexecuting. The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right and make it more available. II. AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE XVII AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) A constitutional convention. Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

R.A. No. 6735 excludes initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Also, while the law provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum and for Local Initiative and Referendum, no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This means that the main thrust of the law is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If R.A. No. 6735 were intended to fully provide for the implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national and local laws. While R.A. No. 6735 specially detailed the process in implementing initiative and referendum on national and local laws, it intentionally did not do so on the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. In case of Lambino vs COMELEC; The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.

Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal The Congress shall provide for the implementation of must be embodied in a petition. the exercise of this right. These essential elements are present only if the full text of Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the petition. The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If electorate the question of calling such a convention. so attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the A. Amendment vs Revision several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before not after Amendment is a change or alteration for the better; an signing. amendment or change within the lines of the original instrument which will bring about improvement Moreover, an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed Revision is the rewriting or overhauling of the entire and failure to do so is deceptive and misleading which instrument. renders the initiative void. B. Proposal is the motion of initiating suggestions or In the case of the Lambino Groups petition, theres not proposals on amendment or revision, which may either be a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the by; proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed (a) Congress, upon vote of of all its members; changes is attached to it. The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral(b) Constitutional Convention Parliamentary system of government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the (c) The people thru initiative proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet. This omission is fatal. In case of Santiago vs COMELEC; R.A. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Under the said law, initiative on the An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The first showing to the people the full text of the proposed people are not accorded the power to "directly propose, amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the a gigantic fraud on the people. Thats why the Constitution Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only requires that an initiative must be directly proposed by the do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions." The people x x x in a petition meaning that the people must use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed approved or rejected, amended or repealed" denotes that amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nations Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed amendments cannot be hidden from the people under a general or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and unelected individuals.

ministerial. The decree making such change stated that the aims of the new government were to struggle for the independence of the Philippines, until all nations including Spain will expressly recognize it, and to prepare the country for the establishment of a real Republic. On September 15, 1898, revolutionary Congress of Filipino representatives met in Malolos, Bulacan at the call of the Revolutionary Government. The Malolos Congress ratified on Sept. 29, 1898 the proclamation of Philippine Independence made by Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo in Kawit, Cavite on June 12,1898 and framed the so-called Malolos Constitution.This Constitution was the first democratic constitution ever promulgated in the whole Asia. It established a free and independent Philippine Republic. However, it was not recognized by the family of nations. It had shortlived.

C. SubmissionIn case of Tolentino vs COMELEC; The Supreme Court held that in Section 1 of Article 15, there should be only one election or plebiscite for the ratification of all amendments the Convention may propose. D. Ratification: Article 17 Section 4, Paragraphs 1 and 2

Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite B. The Organic Laws under the American Period which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment (1) Mckinleys Instructions (April 7, 1990) or revision. Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. E. The position of the Convention in our system of government There are three theories on the relative position of the Constitutional Convention vis--vis the regular department of the government. The first, as announced in Loomis v. Jackson, holds that the constitutional constitution is supreme over the other departments of the government because the powers it exercises are in the nature of sovereign powers. This theory is thus called the Theory of Conventional Sovereignty.

President McKinley's instruction to the Philippine Commission in April 1900 directed that, "... Beginning with the 1st day of September, 1900, the authority to exercise that part of the power of government in the Philippine Islands which is of legislative nature, is to be transferred from the Military Governor to this commission." The instruction also gave the Commission the power to appoint to officers under the judicial, educational, and civil service systems and in the municipal and departmental governments. The instruction charged the Commission, "... In all the forms of government and administrative provisions which they are authorized to proscribe, the Commission should bear in mind that the government which they are establishing is designed not for our satisfaction, or for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace and prosperity of the people of the Philippine islands, and measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of just and effective government."

The second, as announced in Woods Appeal, considers the (2) The Spooner Amendment (1901) constitutional convention inferior to the other departments of the government since it is merely a creation of the The Army Appropriation Act, also known as the Spooner Amendment, is passed by the US Senate. It provides that legislature. the US President governs the Philippines by the authority of Congress and not as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed The third, as announced in Frantz vs Autry, declares that as long as it exists and confines itself within the sphere of its Forces, thereby formally ending the US military regime in jurisdiction, the constitutional convention must be the archipelago. considered independent of and co-equal with the other (3)The Philippine Bill of 1902, or the Cooper Act of July 1, departments of the government. 1902, provided for the retention of executive powers of the The third of these theories, which is the most popular, has Philippine Commission and the establishment of a been observed in our government since the case of bicameral Philippine Legislature. It provided for the creation of the Philippine Assembly, a body that would share Mabanag vs. Vito. legislative powers with the Philippine Commission and would function as the lower chamber of the proposed III. History and Background Philippine Legislature. It also provided for a bill of rights for the Filipinos, and the appointment of two Filipino resident A. The Philippine Revolution and the Malolos commissioners to represent the Philippines in the United Constitution States Congress but without voting rights. On October 16, 1907, the first session of the Philippine assembly opened, On June 29,1898, Gen, Aguinaldo established the with an elected lower house and the Philippine Commission, Revolutionary Government replacing the Dictatorial previously established, as the upper house. Government with himself as the President and a Congress whose function was advisory and (4) The Philippine Autonomy Act or Jones Law Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

Statute announcing the intention of the United States government to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands as soon as a stable government can be established therein. The U.S. had acquired the Philippines in 1898 as a result of the SpanishAmerican War; and from 1901 legislative power in the islands had been exercised through a Philippine Commission effectively dominated by Americans. One of the most significant sections of the Jones Act replaced the Commission with an elective Senate and, with minimum property qualifications, extended the franchise to all literate Filipino males. The law also incorporated a bill of rights. C. Japanese Occupation (1) The Philippine Executive Commission- a civil government composed of Filipinos was organized by the military forced of occupation. The commission exercised both the executive and legislative powers. The laws enacted were, however, subject to the approval of the Commanderin-chief of the Japanese Forces. (2) The Japanese-sponsored Republic of the Philippines was inaugurated with Jose Laurel as the President. The same as the Philippine Executive Commission. The ultimate source of its authority was the Japanese military authority and government. D. The 1935 Constitution The original 1935 Constitution provided for unicameral National Assembly and the President was elected to a sixyear term without re-election. It was amended in 1940 to have a bicameral Congress composed of a Senate and House of Representatives, as well the creation of an independent electoral commission. The Constitution now granted the President a four-year term with a maximum of two consecutive terms in office. A Constitutional Convention was held in 1971 to rewrite the 1935 Constitution. The convention was stained with manifest bribery and corruption. Possibly the most controversial issue was removing the presidential term limit so that Ferdinand E. Marcos could seek election for a third term, which many felt was the true reason for which the convention was called. In any case, the 1935 Constitution was suspended in 1972 with Marcos' proclamation of martial law, the rampant corruption of the constitutional process providing him with one of his major premises for doing so. In case of Mabanag vs Vito, the Court held; It is a doctrine too well established to need citation of authorities that 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 provision. This doctrine is predicated on the principle of the separation of powers, a principle also too well known to require elucidation or citation of authorities. If a political question conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the political departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds the judges under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that respect. If ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has to be a political question. The two steps complement each other in a scheme intended to achieve a single objective. It is to be noted that the amendatory process as provided in section I of Article XV of the Philippine Constitution "consists of (only) two distinct parts: proposal and ratification." There is no Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

logic in attaching political character to one and withholding that character from the other. Proposal to amend the Constitution is a highly political function performed by the Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. The exercise of this power is even in dependent of any intervention by the Chief Executive. If on grounds of expediency scrupulous attention of the judiciary be needed to safeguard public interest, there is less reason for judicial inquiry into the validity of a proposal then into that of a ratification.

E. The 1973 Constitution The 1973 Constitution, composed of a preamble and 17 articles, provides for the shift from presidential to parliamentary system of government. The Constitution vests the legislative power in the National Assembly. A Prime Minister is elected from among the members of the National Assembly and serves as the head of government and commander-in-chief of the Philippine Armed Forces. A President is elected from among the members of the National Assembly and serves as the symbolic head of state with a six-year term. The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Justices. The National Assembly exercises the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the lower courts. All justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts are appointed by the Prime Minister. This Constitution retains the independence of the Commission on Elections and establishes two independent Constitution al bodies [Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit] as well as the National Economic Development Authority [NEDA]. On 24 August 1970, Congress enacted RA No. 6132, otherwise known as the Constitution al Convention Act, for the purpose of convening a Constitution al Convention. The 320 delegates met from June 1971 until 30 November 1972, when they approved the draft of the new Charter. While in the process of drafting a new Constitution , President Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law on 21 September 1972. The draft Constitution was submitted to the Citizen's Assemblies from January 10 to 17, 1973 for ratification. On 17 January 1973 , President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. The above constitution was amended in 1976, 1980 and in 1981. There were minor amendments done in 1984. In case of Sanidad vs COMELEC; The Constitutional Convention intended to leave to the President the determination of the time when he shall initially convene the interim National Assembly, consistent with the prevailing conditions of peace and order in the country. When the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention voted on the Transitory Provisions, they were aware of the fact that under the same, the incumbent President was given the discretion as to when he could convene the interim National Assembly. In sensu striciore, when the legislative arm of the state undertakes the proposals of amendment to a Constitution, that body is not in the usual function of lawmaking. It is not legislating when engaged in the amending process. Rather, it is exercising a peculiar power bestowed upon it by the fundamental charter itself. In the Philippines, that power is provided for in Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution (for the regular National

Assembly) or in Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions (for the interim National Assembly). While ordinarily it is the business of the legislating body to legislate for the nation by virtue of constitutional conferment, amending of the Constitution is not legislative in character. In political science a distinction is made between constitutional content of an organic character and that of a legislative character. The distinction, however, is one of policy, not of law. Such being the case, approval of the President of any proposed amendment is a misnomer. The prerogative of the President to approve or disapprove applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation. The President has nothing to do with proposition or adoption of amendments to the Constitution. F. The 1986 Provisional Constitution

Proclamation No. 3 issued on March 25, 1986 which promulgated the Freedom Constitution through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people. (2) Proclamation No. 58 (Feb. 11, 1987) (3) When Considered ratified? Article 18 Section 27 (1987 Constitution) This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.

The 1986 Provisional Constitution, popularly known as The foregoing proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was approved by the Constitutional the Freedom Constitution, promulgated by President Commission of 1986 on October 12, 1986 and Corazon C. Aquino on March 25, 1986, was a provisional accordingly signed on October 15, 1986 at the Plenary constitution after a successful People Power Revolution. Under the Freedom Constitution, executive and legislative Hall, National Government Center, Quezon City, by the Commissioners whose signatures are hereunder powers are exercised by the President, and shall continue affixed/ to exercise legislative powers until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution. Furthermore, the President is mandated to convene a Constitutional IV. JUDICIAL REVIEW Commission tasked to draft a new charter. A. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review (1) Snap Election In case of Angara vs Electoral Commission, the Court In the Philippines, the term "snap election" usually held that; refers to the 1986 presidential election, where President Ferdinand Marcos called elections earlier than In case of conflict, the judicial department is the only scheduled, in response to growing social unrest. constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine Marcos was declared official winner of the election but the proper allocation of powers between the several was eventually ousted when it was alleged that he departments and among the integral or constituent thereof. cheated in the elections. In case of Francisco vs House of Representatives, the In the current constitution, a snap election will be held court ruled that; for the positions of president and vice president on the condition that both positions are vacant, and outside the The judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final 90-day range of the next scheduled presidential arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the election. exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the (2) The February 1986 Revolution Constitution. (3) Proclamation No.1 , Feb. 25, 1986 B. Requisites of Judicial Review Pres. Aquino declared that she and her vicepresident were taking power in the name and by  There must be an actual case or the will of the Filipino People on the basis of the controversy clear sovereign will of the people expressed in the  The question of constitutionality must be election of Feb. 7, 1986. In her oath, she swore to raised by the proper party. preserve and defend the fundamental law (not the  The constitutional question must be raised Constitution) and execute just laws ( instead of at the earliest possible opportunity. its laws).  The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of (4) Proclamation No. 3, March 25, 1986 the case itself. That the provisional government established Article 8 Sec.5, paragraph (2) thereunder was revolutionary in character having been installed by direct action of the people or by (1) Actual Case or Controversy- involves a conflict of people power, deriving its existence and authority legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims directly from the people themselves and not from susceptible of judicial resolution. A controversy the then operating 1973 Constitution. must be the one that is appropriate for judicial determination. It must be definite and concrete, G. The 1987 Philippine Constitution touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. (1) The Constitutional Commission of 1986  Prematurity The 1987 Constitution was drafted by a Constitutional Commission created under Article V of Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

In the case of PACU vs. Secretary of Education the petition contesting the validity of a regulation issued by the Secretary of Education requiring private schools to secure a permit to operate was dismissed on the ground that all the petitioners have permits and are actually operating under the same. The petitioners questioned the regulation because of the possibility that the permit might be denied them in the future. This Court held that there was no justiciable controversy because the petitioners suffered no wrong by the implementation of the questioned regulation and therefore, they are not entitled to relief. A mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education will withdraw the permit does not amount to a justiciable controversy. The questioned regulation in the PACU case may be questioned by a private school whose permit to operate has been revoked or one whose application therefor has been denied.

because that would be in the nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress. The power of judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo.22 The second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states "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."

Thus, there can be no justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill. The Court can exercise its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not NOTE: Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic before. questions. Courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a law upon the complaint of one who fails to show that he is  Mootness injured by its operation. In case of Mariano vs COMELEC held that the petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent events, i.e., that Mayor Binay will run again in this coming mayoralty elections; that he would be re-elected in said elections; and that he would seek re-election for the same position in the 1998 elections. Considering that these contingencies may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise this abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has no jurisdiction. The decided case of Cutaran vs DENR the court defined the word justiciable controversy Court cannot rule on the basis of petitioners' speculation that the DENR will approve the application of the heirs of Carantes. There must be an actual governmental act which directly causes or will imminently cause injury to the alleged right of the petitioner to possess the land before the jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked. There is no showing that the petitioners were being evicted from the land by the heirs of Carantes under orders from the DENR; A justiciable controversy has been defined as, "a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interest which may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a law. Courts have no judicial power to review cases involving political questions and as a rule, will desist from taking cognizance of speculative or hypothetical cases, advisory opinions and in cases that has become moot. Subject to certain well-defined exceptions courts will not touch an issue involving the validity of a law unless there has been a governmental act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of the person contesting its validity. In the instant case of Montecarlos vs COMELEC, there is no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of judicial review. Petitioners' prayer to prevent Congress from enacting into law a proposed bill lowering the membership age in the SK does not present an actual justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed bill creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty. The Court has no power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising In case of Gonzales vs Narvasa, that, with respect to the PCCR, this case has become moot and academic. An action is considered moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead. The PCCR submitted its recommendations to the President on December 20, 1999 and was dissolved by the President on the same day. It had likewise spent the funds allotted to it. Thus, the PCCR has ceased to exist, having lost its raison detre. Subsequent events have overtaken the petition and the Court has nothing left to resolve. The staleness of the issue before us is made more manifest by the impossibility of granting the relief prayed for by petitioner. Basically, petitioner asks this Court to enjoin the PCCR from acting as such. Clearly, prohibition is an inappropriate remedy since the body sought to be enjoined no longer exists. It is well established that prohibition is a preventive remedy and does not lie to restrain an act that is already fait accompli. At this point, any ruling regarding the PCCR would simply be in the nature of an advisory opinion, which is definitely beyond the permissible scope of judicial power. In case of Defunis vs Odegaard; DeFunis did not cast his suit as a class action, and the only remedy he requested was an injunction commanding his admission to the Law School. He was not only accorded that remedy, but he now has also been irrevocably admitted to the final term of the final year of the Law School course. The controversy between the parties has thus clearly ceased to be "definite and concrete" and no longer "touches the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests." There is a line of decisions in this Court standing for the proposition that the "voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i. e., does not make the case moot." These decisions and the doctrine they reflect would be quite relevant if the question of mootness here had arisen by reason of a unilateral change in the admissions procedures of the Law School. For it was the admissions procedures that were the target of this litigation, and a voluntary cessation of the admissions practices complained of could make this case moot only if it could be said with assurance "that `there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.'" Otherwise,

"the defendant is free to return to his old ways," and this fact would be enough to prevent mootness because of the "public interest in having the legality of the practices settled." But mootness in the present case depends not at all upon a "voluntary cessation" of the admissions practices that were the subject of this litigation. It depends, instead, upon the simple fact that DeFunis is now in the final quarter of the final year of his course of study, and the settled and unchallenged policy of the Law School to permit him to complete the term for which he is now enrolled.  Exceptions to Mootness In case of Acop vs. Guingona, the court sayd that its necessary to resolve the merits of the principal issue raised for a proper disposition of prayer c) and for future guidance of both bench and bar as to the application of Sections 3(d) and 4 of R.A. No. 6981. As we have ruled in Alunan III vs. Mirasol, and Viola vs. Alunan III, "courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.'" In case of Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary; The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of Proclamation No. 435, declaring that the state of rebellion has ceased to exist, has rendered the case moot. As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of "actual controversies." Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is "capable of repetition yet evading review." The case at bar is one such case. The same as in the case of Pimentel vs Ermita, the court held that as a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin acts already done. However, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. In the present case, the mootness of the petition does not bar its resolution. The question of the constitutionality of the Presidents appointment of department secretaries in an acting capacity while Congress is in session will arise in every such appointment. 2. Proper Party In case of Joya vs PCGG , THE COURT HELD THAT ONE HAVING NO RIGHT OR INTEREST TO PROTECT CANNOT INVOKE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AS PART-PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION. THIS IS PREMISED ON SEC. 2, RULE 3, OF THE RULES AND W/C PROVIDES THAT EVERY ACTION MUST BE PROSECUTED AND DEFENDED IN THE NAME OF THE REAL PARTY INTEREST AND THAT ALL PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTION AND IN OBTAINING RELIEF AND SHALL BE JOINED AS PLAINTIFFS. THE COURT WILL EXERCISE ITS POWER OF JUDICAL REVIEW ONLY IF THE CASE THAT A PARTY WHO HAS THE LEGAL STANDING TO RAISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL QUESTION. ANY CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT IN THEIR ACQUISITION AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT DISPOSITION MUST BE RAISED ONLY BY THE PROPER PARTIES TRUE OWNERS THEREOF WHOSE AUTHORITY TO RECOVER EMANATES FROM THEIR PROPRIETY RIGHTS. HAVING FAILED TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE ARTWORK THAT THE Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

VALUED PISCES HAVE BECOME PULICLY OWNED, PETITIONERS DO NOT POSSESS ANY CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT TO QUESTION THEIR ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSITION. In case of CHR Employees Assoc. vs CHR, the court held that; On petitioner's personality to bring this suit, which held in a multitude of cases that a proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of  Citizen Standing In Taada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real parties in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is a citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result of the action. In Chavez vs PEA, the Court ruled that since the instant petition, brought by a citizen, involves the enforcement of constitutional rights - to information and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources - matters of transcendental public importance, the petitioner has the requisite locus standi.  Associational Standing In KMU Labor Center vs Garcia, the court held that; In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of planters, and non-profit civic organizations were allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before this court to question the constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities. Court is ready to brush aside this barren procedural infirmity and recognize the legal standing of the petitioner in view of the transcendental importance of the issues raised. And this act of liberality is not without judicial precedent. As early as the Emergency Powers Cases, this Court had exercised its discretion and waived the requirement of proper party. In John Hay vs Lim, The court says; The grant by the law on local government units of the right of concurrence on the bases' conversion is equivalent to vesting a legal standing on them, for it is in effect a recognition of the real interests that communities nearby or surrounding a particular base area have in its utilization. Thus, the interest of petitioners, being inhabitants of Baguio, in assailing the legality of Proclamation 420, is personal and substantial such that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the government act being challenged." Theirs is a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the proclamation and not merely an interest in the question involved or an incidental interest," for what is at stake in the enforcement of Proclamation 420 is the very economic and social existence of the people of Baguio City.

In the case of Kilosbayan, Inc., et al. v. Teofisto Guingona, Jr., et al., ruled in the same lines and enumerated some of the cases where the same policy was adopted, viz: . . . A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. In the landmark Emergency Powers Cases, this Court brushed aside this technicality because "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure." Insofar as taxpayers' suits are concerned, this Court had declared that it "is not devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained," or that it "enjoys an open discretion to entertain the same or not.  Taxpayers Standing In ITF vs COMELEC, the court held that;The issues central to the case are "of transcendental importance and of national interest." As alleged, Comelecs flawed bidding and questionable award of the Contract to an unqualified entity would impact directly on the success or the failure of the electoral process. Any taint on the sanctity of the ballot as the expression of the will of the people would inevitably affect their faith in the democratic system of government. Further, the award of any contract for automation involves disbursement of public funds are in gargantuan amounts; therefore, public interest requires that the laws governing the transaction must be followed strictly. Truly, our nations political and economic future virtually hangs in the balance, pending the outcome of the 2004 elections. Hence, there can be no serious doubt that the subject matter of the case is "a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest"; in other words, it is of "paramount public interest" and "transcendental importance." This fact alone would justify relaxing the rule on legal standing, following the liberal policy of the Court whenever a case involves "an issue of overarching significance to our society." ITF, et. al.s legal standing should therefore be recognized and upheld. Moreover, the Court has held that taxpayers are allowed to sue when there is a claim of "illegal disbursement of public funds," or if public money is being "deflected to any improper purpose"; or when petitioner(s) seek to restrain respondent(s) from "wasting public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law." In Jumamil vs Caf, The court defined the word locus standi and interest; Legal standing or locus standi is a partys personal and substantial interest in a case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged. It calls for more than just a generalized grievance. The term interest means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Unless a persons constitutional rights are adversely affected by the statute or ordinance, he has no legal standing.  Voters Standing In TOLENTINO VS COMELEC Court Ruling: Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

"Legal standing" or locus standi refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged governmental act. The requirement of standing, which necessarily "sharpens the presentation of issues," relates to the constitutional mandate that this Court settle only actual cases or controversies Thus, generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. In questioning, in their capacity as voters, the validity of the special election on 14 May 2001, petitioners assert a harm classified as a "generalized grievance." This generalized grievance is shared in substantially equal measure by a large class of voters, if not all the voters, who voted in that election. On the other hand, we have relaxed the requirement on standing and exercised our discretion to give due course to voters' suits involving the right of suffrage We accord the same treatment to petitioners in the instant case in their capacity as voters since they raise important issues involving their right of suffrage, considering that the issue raised in this petition is likely to arise again.  Legislative Standing In Ople vs Torres RULING: Petitioner Ople is a distinguished member of our Senate. As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A.O. No. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. As taxpayer and member of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the legality of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to implement A.O. No. 308.  The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not affected by the fact that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. Petitioner Ople assails A.O. No. 308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face. His action is not premature for the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects.  All signals from the respondents show their unswerving will to implement A.O. No. 308 and we need not wait for the formality of the rules to pass judgment on its constitutionality. In this light, the dissenters insistence that we tighten the rule on standing is not a commendable stance as its result would be to throttle an important constitutional principle and a fundamental right.

 GOVERNMENTAL STANDING: In People vs Vera; HELD: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila, is a proper party in the present proceedings. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act 4221 really violates the constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.  Facial Challenge

or argumentative. The Court examined the contentions of Arceta and Dy carefully; but they still have to persuade us that BP 22 by itself or in its implementation transgressed a provision of the Constitution. Even the thesis of Dy that the present economic and financial crisis should be a basis to declare the Bouncing Checks Law constitutionally infirm deserves but scant consideration. As stressed in Lozano, it is precisely during trying times that there exists a most compelling reason to strengthen faith and confidence in the financial system and any practice tending to destroy confidence in checks as currency substitutes should be deterred, to prevent havoc in the trading and financial communities. Further, while indeed the metropolitan trial courts may be burdened immensely by bouncing checks cases now, that fact is immaterial to the alleged invalidity of the law being assailed. The solution to the clogging of dockets in lower courts lies elsewhere.  Mandatory Notice In case of Mirasol vs. C.A, the court held that;

In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the court defined the face (Notice to Solicitor General) of the Rules of Court provides that "in any action which involves the validity of a statute, or challenge; executive order or regulation, the Solicitor General shall be notified by the party attacking the statute, executive order, A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague or regulation, and shall be entitled to be heard upon such statute and to one which is overbroad because of question." The purpose of the mandatory notice in Rule 64, possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The Section 3 is to enable the Solicitor General to decide theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech whether or not his intervention in the action assailing the and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a validity of a law or treaty is necessary. To deny the Solicitor vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, General such notice would be tantamount to depriving him the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally of his day in court. The mandatory notice requirement is not protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks limited to actions involving declaratory relief and similar on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the remedies. The rule itself provides that such notice is person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct required in "any action" and not just actions involving could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow declaratory relief. Where there is no ambiguity in the words specificity." The possible harm to society in permitting some used in the rule, there is no room for construction. In all unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the actions assailing the validity of a statute, treaty, presidential possibility that the protected speech of others may be decree, order, or proclamation, notice to the Solicitor deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of General is mandatory. possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. C. FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW In case of Salonga vs Cruz-Pano, the court enumerates their functions for the judicial review; 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.

For this reason, it has been held that "a facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." As for the vagueness doctrine, it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all its possible applications. "A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the The fact that the petition was moot and academic did not prevent the Court in the exercise of its symbolic function conduct of others." from promulgating one of the most voluminous decisions ever printed in the Reports. Herein, the prosecution 3. Earliest Opportunity evidence miserably fails to establish a prima facie case against Salonga, either as a co-conspirator of a 4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions destabilization plan to overthrow the government or as an officer or leader of any subversive organization. The In case of Arceta vs Mangrobang, the court held that; respondents have taken the initiative of dropping the Every law has in its favor the presumption of charges against Salonga. The Court reiterates the rule, constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there however, that the Court will not validate the filing of an must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the information based on the kind of evidence against Salonga Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative found in the records. Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

D. The Exercise of Judicial Review In case of Ynot vs IAC, Under the provision granting the SC jurisdiction to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may provide final judgments of lower courts" in all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures, lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first instance. E. Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality New Civil Code, Article 7 Laws are repealed only by the subsequent ones, and their violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. In case of Serrano de Agbayani vs PNB, The decision reflects the orthodox view that an unconstitutional act, for that matter an executive order or a municipal ordinance likewise suffering from that infirmity, cannot be the source of any legal rights or duties. Nor can it justify any official act taken under it. Its repugnancy to the fundamental law once judicially declared results in its being to all intents and purposes a mere scrap of paper. As the new Civil Code puts it: "When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws of the Constitution. It is understandable why it should be so, the Constitution being supreme and paramount. Any legislative or executive act contrary to its terms cannot survive. Such a view has support in logic and possesses the merit of simplicity. It may not however be sufficiently realistic. It does not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative or executive act must have been in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and respect. Parties may have acted under it and may have changed their positions. What could be more fitting than that in a subsequent litigation regard be had to what has been done while such legislative or executive act was in operation and presumed to be valid in all respects. It is now accepted as a doctrine that prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with. This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmental organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication. F. Partial Unconstitutionality In case Salazar vs Achacoso, Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

The decrees in question stand as the dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its twilight moments. Under the new Constitution, "no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. It is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest." Mayors may not exercise this power. Neither may it be done by a mere prosecuting body. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. To that extent, the Court declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect. For the guidance of the bench and the bar, the COurt reaffirmed the principles that (1) Under Article III, Section 2 , of the 1987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no other, who may issue warrants of arrest and search; and (2) The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation. Thus, the Court herein granted the petition, declaring Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code unconstitutional and null and void, and thus ordering the POEA to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order 1205. V. THE STATE A. Concept and Definition State- is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed territory, and possessed of an independent government organized for political ends to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. NOTE: State is a legal concept, while the nation is only a racial or ethnic concept. In case CIR vs Campos Rueda, the court held that; : If a foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is required in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime of law. It is thus a sovereign person with the people composing it viewed as an organized corporate society under a government with the legal competence to exact obedience to its commands. It has been referred to as a body-politic organized by common consent for mutual defense and mutual safety and to promote the general welfare. B. Territory Definition: Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the State. Components: land, mass, otherwise known as the terrestrial domain, the inland and external waters, which make up the maritime and fluvial domain, and the air space above the land and waters, which is called the aerial domain. The Philippine Archipelago ARTICLE I

NATIONAL TERRITORY . The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. C. People Definition: refers simply to the inhabitants of the State. (a) As inhabitants ARTICLE III

Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May. The returns of every election for President and VicePresident, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes. The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing property without due process of law, nor shall any person of the certificates. be denied the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. ARTICLE XVI GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, ARTICLE II history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national health of the people and instill health consciousness among referendum. them. Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. ARTICLE XVIII b. As Electors TRANSITORY PROVISIONS ARTICLE VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any C. As citizens time.

ARTICLE II No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was PRINCIPLES elected. Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican charity, and regulation of trade and industry. These State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government functions are merely optional. authority emanates from them. In case of ACCFA vs CUGCO;the court held; Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the The ACA is a government office or agency engaged in people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all governmental, not proprietary functions. These functions citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, may not be strictly what President Wilson described as to render personal, military or civil service. "constituent" (as distinguished from "ministrant"), such as those relating to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of crime, those regulating property and property ARTICLE III rights, those relating to the administration of justice and the determination of political duties of citizens, and those BILL OF RIGHTS relating to national defense and foreign relations. Under this traditional classification, such constituent functions are Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty, and not of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official merely to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official the people these latter functions being ministrant, the acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government exercise of which is optional on the part of the government. research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may PARENS PATRIAE be provided by law. D. Government Definition: Guardian of the rights of the people.

Definition: is the agency or instrumentality through which In case of Government of the Phil. Vs. Monte de Piedad, the court held the right of the government to file the case for the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized. the State as parens patriae in representation of the legitimate claimants. Government of the Republic of the Philippines : In case of People vs. Sandiganbayan; the law provides that the contribution by military officers and enlisted personnel to the System shall be compulsory. Its enabling law further mandates that the System shall be administered by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines through an agency, group, committee or board, which may be created and organized by him and subject to such rules and regulations governing the same as he may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of National Defense, promulgate from time to time. Moreover, the investment of funds of the System shall be decided by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the approval of the Secretary of National Defense. Constituent vs Ministrant Functions In Cabanas v Pilapil, the Supreme Court said; the judiciary as the agency of the State acting as parens patriae, is called upon whenever a pending suit or litigation affects one who is a minor to accord priority to his best interests. It may happen as it did in this case, that family relations may press their respective claims. It would be more in consonance not only with the natural order of things but the tradition of the country for a parent to be preferred. DE JURE GOVERNMENT/ CRITERIA FOR LEGITIMACY A de jure government has rightful title but no power or control, either because this has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually entered into exercises thereof.

Constituent functions constitute the very bonds of society and are therefore compulsory. Among the constituent DE FACTO GOVERNMENT functions are the following; A de facto government is a government of fact, that is, it 1. The keeping of order and providing for the actually exercises power or control but without legal title. protection of persons and property from violence and robbery; KINDS of de facto government; 2. The fixing of the legal relations between husband and wife and between parents and children. 1. The government that gets possession and control 3. The regulation of the holding, transmission and of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the interchange of property, and the determination of its majority, the rightful legal government and liabilities for debt or crime; maintains itself against the will of the latter, such as 4. The determination of contractual rights between the government of England under the individuals; Commonwealth, first by Parliamentary and later by 5. The definition and punishment of crimes; Cromwell as Protector. 6. The administration of justice in civil cases; 2. That established as an independent government by 7. The administration of political duties, privileges and the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection relations of citizens; and against the parent state, such as the government of 8. The dealings of the State with foreign powers; the the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the preservation of the State from external danger or Union during the war of secession in the United encroachment and the advancement of its States. international interests. 3. That which is established and maintained by Ministerial functions are those undertaken to advance the general interests of society, such as public works, public Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated as a government of paramount force,

States and later on from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is a change of sovereignty , the political laws of the former sovereign , whether compatible or not with those of the new In case Co Kim Cham vs Valdez, the court define the kinds sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are of de facto governments; expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new There are several kinds of de facto governments. The first, sovereign. or government de facto in a proper legal sense, is that government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, Acts of State by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter. In case of Harvey vs. Commissioner, the court held that; The second is that which is established and maintained by Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a proper for its self-preservation or public interest. The power government of paramount force. And the third is that to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or under established as an independent government. the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the By contrast, the Supreme Court unanimously held in country is found to be injurious to the public good and the Lawyers League for a better Philippines v Aquino that the domestic tranquility of the people. Particularly so in this people have made the judgment; they have accepted the case, where the State has expressly committed itself to government of Pres. Aquino which is in effective control of defend the tight of children to assistance and special the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, government but in fact and law a de jure government. exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the development (Article XV, Section 3[2]). Respondent Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation, in instituting legitimacy of the present government. deportation proceedings against petitioners, acted in the interests of the State. Government distinguished from Administration Government must be distinguished from administration, VI. CITIZENSHIP which is the group of persons in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being. The administration runs Citizenship- is membership in a political community which is personal and more or less permanent in character. the government as a machinist operates his machine. Administration is transitional whereas the government is Nationality- is membership in any class or form of political community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if member of a permanent. democratic community] or subjects [if members of a monarchial community]. It does not necessarily include the OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF GOVERNMENTS right or privilege of exercising political and civil rights. a. Based on accountability to the people b. Presidential vs Parliamentary Modes of Acquiring Citizenship c. National. Local, federal E. Sovereignty Definition: is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is governed. Kinds:  Jus Soli acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth.  Jus sanguinis- acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship.  Naturalization- the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of native-born citizen.  Marriage

such as the cases of Castine in Maine, which was reduced to a British possession in the war of 1812, and of Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the war with Mexico by the troops of the United States.

1. Legal Sovereignty is the authority which has the power to issue final commands. A. Who are Philippine Citizens; 2. Political Sovereignty is the power behind the legal sovereign or the sum of the influences that operate Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: upon it. 3. Internal Sovereignty refers to the power of the [1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the State to control its domestic affairs. time of the adoption of this Constitution; 4. External Sovereignty power of the State to direct its relations with other States is also known as [2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of independence. the Philippines; Sovereign is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and imprescriptible. Effects of Change of Sovereignty In case of Macariola vs Asuncion, the court held that ; Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising [3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and [4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents either by 1. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed neglecting to support them or by transferring them to and sworn to by the party concerned before any another school; official authorized to administer oaths. 5. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy; 2. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to the Effects of Denaturalization: Constitution and the Government of the Philippines. 1. If the ground affects the intrinsic validity of the proceedings, denaturalization shall divest the wife and [Sec. 1, CA 625]. children of their derivative naturalization; Naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino 2. If the ground was personal to the denaturalized person, citizens through naturalization, generally under CA No. 473, his wife and children shall retain their Philippine citizenship. otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any by RA 530. act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with possesses all the qualifications and none of the paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed naturaldisqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino born citizens. citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executor only after 2 years from its promulgation Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired when the court is satisfied that during the intervening in the manner provided by law. period, the applicant: 1. Has not left the Philippines; 2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession; 3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated rules; or 4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530] Naturalization -mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of citizenship -governed by CA 473 (for acquisition) and CA 63 (for reacquisition) -consists a lengthy process Modes of Naturalization: 1. DIRECT- through: a. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139 The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000grants Philippine citizenship to aliens born and residing in the Philippines b. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made an outstanding contribution to the country c. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation or subjugation d. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State where they are born 2. DERIVATIVE-Citizenship conferred on: a. Wife of naturalized husband; b. Minor children of naturalized person; c. Alien woman upon marriage to a national. Denaturalization Grounds: Loss of citizenship: 1. By naturalization in a foreign country - However, this was modified by RA 9225An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent September 15, 2003 which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.  They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance  Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country, may reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance  Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of RA 9225 shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.  Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions: Meet the requirements of RA 9189, The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, and other existing laws For those seeking elective public office and appointive office, meet the qualifications, make personal and sworn renunciation, subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the RP For those intending to practice their profession, apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice

Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship

1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or 2. By express renunciation of citizenship illegally; 2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to  Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation some foreign country and establishes residence there;  Express renunciation means a renunciation made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to Prima Facie evidence of intent to take up residence: inference or implication. a. Native country- 1-year stay b. Foreign country- 2-year stay 3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intent; Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

 Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of foreign passport do not constitute Dual Citizenship - arises as a result of the concurrent application of effective renunciation.  In Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, obtaining a the different laws of 2 or more states, a person is simultaneously Portuguese passport and signing commercial considered as a national of said states documents as a Portuguese were construed as - involuntary renunciation of Philippine citizenship. 3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Dual Allegiance - refers to a situation in which a person Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining the simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this manner while RP is to 2 or more states at war with any country. an application of the principle of - voluntary Indelible Allegiance.by virtue of RA 9225 Instances when a citizen of the Philippines may 4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in possess dual citizenship: the armed forces of a foreign country EXCEPT:  If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of 1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli; alliance with the said foreign country; and  The said foreign country maintains armed forces in 2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers country such Philippine territory with the consent of RP children are citizens of that country; 5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization 3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are considered citizens, unless by their 6. By having been declared by competent authority a act or omission they are deemed to have renounced deserter of the pardon or amnesty has been granted. Philippine citizenship. Reacquisition of citizenship: 1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance 2. By naturalization 3. By repatriation 4. By direct act of Congress Repatriation -mode for reacquisition for those who lost their citizenship -governed by various statutes -consists of taking of an oath of allegiance to the RP and registering said oath in the LCR of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided Effect of repatriation: It allows the person to recover or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, the respondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the US Marine Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural-born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship through repatriation. The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a) Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity. Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE: an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality even if he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second State whose nationality he has acquired. Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising