POLITICAL LAW PART I

ISSUEs:

DEFINITIONS & CONCEPTS

Whether or not article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was abrogated with the change from
Spanish to American sovereignty

1.
Define: a. Political Lawis that branch of public law which deals with the
organization and operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the HELD:
relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory. (PEOPLE VS. PERFECTO,
43 Phil. 887)

Whether or not Perfecto is guilty of libel

It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous

political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated -- "political" being used to denominate
the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign.

"The important question is here squarely presented of whether article 256 of the Spanish
Penal Code, punishing "Any person who, by . . . writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any
Minister of the Crown or other person in authority . . .," is still in force."
public law: It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the
previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated -- "political" being
used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the
sovereign.

On American occupation of the Philippines, by instructions of the President to the Military

Commander, and by proclamation of Article 256 was enacted by the Government of Spain to protect
Spanish officials who were the representatives of the King. But with the change of sovereignty, a
new government, and a new theory of government, was set up in the Philippines. No longer is

there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the
citizen must speak of him only with bated breath. Said article is contrary to the genius and
fundamental principles of the American character and system of government. It was
crowded out by implication as soon as the United States established its authority in the
Philippine Islands.

FACTS:
This is a case relating to the loss of some documents which constituted the records of
testimony given by witnesses in the Senate investigation of oil companies. The newspaper La Nacion,

"From an entirely different point of view, it must be noted that this article punishes
contempts against executive officials, although its terms are broad enough to cover the

edited by Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, published an article about it to the effect that "the author or

entire official class. Punishment for contempt of non-judicial officers has no place in a

authors of the robbery of the records from the iron safe of the Senate have, perhaps, but followed

government based upon American principles. Our official class is not, as in monarchies, an

the example of certain Senators who secured their election through fraud and robbery."

agent of some authority greater than the people but it is an agent and servant of the

Consequently, the Attorney-General, through a resolution adopted by the Philippine Senate,

filed an information alleging that the editorial constituted a violation of article 256 of the Penal
Code.

people themselves. These officials are only entitled to respect and obedience when they
are acting within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction. The American system of
government is calculated to enforce respect and obedience where such respect and
obedience is due, but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an

The defendant Gregorio Perfecto was found guilty in the municipal court and again in the
Court of First Instance of Manila.

official position by mandate of the people any official halo, which calls for drastic
punishment for contemptuous remarks."

DECISION:
To summarize, the result is, that all the members of the court are of the opinion, although
for different reasons, that the judgment should be reversed and the defendant and
appellant acquitted, with costs de officio. So ordered.

of the century. Political laws are deemed abrogated if there is a change of

sovereignty and unless re-enacted under the new sovereign, the same is without
force and effect.
3. The Supremacy of the Constitution
Read: 1. MUTUC VS. COMELEC, 36 SCRA 228

b. Constitutional Law - is the body of law which defines the relationship of

different entities within a state, namely, the executive, the legislature, and the 2. MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408
judiciary.
c. Constitution - The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the
character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must I.
THE FACTS
conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation,
distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government departments;
Pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government, the GSIS sold in public
and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its sovereign powers.
auction its stake in Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). Only 2 bidders participated: petitioner Manila
Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000

d. Administrative Law - is the body of law that governs the activities of

shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel
administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include
operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid
rulemaking, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda.
of petitioner.

e. Law of Public Officers deals with public office, its creation, modification and
dissolution, as well as the eligibility of public officers, the manner of their election or
appointment and assumption of office, their rights, duties, powers, inhibitions and
liabilities, and the modes of terminating their official relations.

Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court to compel the GSIS to allow it to match the bid
of Renong Berhad. It invoked the Filipino First Policy enshrined in 10, paragraph 2, Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution, which provides that in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions
covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.

f.
g.

Law on Public Corporations

Election Law

II.

THE ISSUES

1. Whether 10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision and
does not need implementing legislation to carry it into effect;

h. Distinction between Political Law and Constitutional Law

2. Read: MACARIOLA VS. JUDGE ASUNCION, 114 SCRA 77

2.

Assuming 10, paragraph 2, Article XII is self-executing, whether the controlling shares of the

Manila Hotel Corporation form part of our patrimony as a nation;

The provision in the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges, justices, etc., 3. Whether GSIS is included in the term State, hence, mandated to implement 10, paragraph 2,
(public officers) from engaging in business within the territorial jurisdiction of their
Article XII of the Constitution; and
courts is political in nature and therefore, said provision was deemed abrogated
when there was a change of sovereignty from Spain to the United States at the turn

4.

Assuming GSIS is part of the State, whether it should give preference to the petitioner, a

Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural heritage

Filipino corporation, over Renong Berhad, a foreign corporation, in the sale of the controlling shares

of the Filipinos.

of the Manila Hotel Corporation.

For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to the triumphs and failures,

III. THE RULING

loves and frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with public interest; its own

[The Court, voting 11-4, DISMISSED the petition.]

historicity associated with our struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood. Verily, Manila

1.

Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. For sure, 51% of the equity of the

YES, 10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision and

does not need implementing legislation to carry it into effect.

MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and

Sec. 10, second par., of Art XII is couched in such a way as not to make it appear that it is non-self-

controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual control and

executing but simply for purposes of style. But, certainly, the legislature is not precluded from

management of the hotel. In this instance, 51% of the MHC cannot be disassociated from the hotel

enacting further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so long as the contemplated statute

and the land on which the hotel edifice stands. Consequently, we cannot sustain respondents claim

squares with the Constitution. Minor details may be left to the legislature without impairing the

that the Filipino First Policy provision is not applicable since what is being sold is only 51% of the

self-executing nature of constitutional provisions.

outstanding shares of the corporation, not the Hotel building nor the land upon which the building

Respondents . . . argue that the non-self-executing nature of Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is

stands.

implied from the tenor of the first and third paragraphs of the same section which undoubtedly are

3.

not self-executing. The argument is flawed. If the first and third paragraphs are not self-executing

Article XII of the Constitution.

because Congress is still to enact measures to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises

It is undisputed that the sale of 51% of the MHC could only be carried out with the prior approval of

fully owned by Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State still needs legislation to regulate and

the State acting through respondent Committee on Privatization. [T]his fact alone makes the sale of

exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction, as in the third paragraph,

the assets of respondents GSIS and MHC a state action. In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts

then a fortiori, by the same logic, the second paragraph can only be self-executing as it does not by

of persons distinct from the government are considered state action covered by the Constitution

its language require any legislation in order to give preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of

(1) when the activity it engages in is a public function; (2) when the government is so significantly

rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony.

involved with the private actor as to make the government responsible for his action; and, (3) when

A constitutional

YES, GSIS is included in the term State, hence, it is mandated to implement 10, paragraph 2,

provision may be self-executing in one part and non-self-executing in another.

the government has approved or authorized the action. It is evident that the act of respondent

xxx. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which

GSIS in selling 51% of its share in respondent MHC comes under the second and third categories of

is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its

state action. Without doubt therefore the transaction, although entered into by respondent GSIS,

enforcement.

is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore subject to the constitutional command.

From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in

operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When our Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant of

When the Constitution addresses the State it refers not only to the people but also to the

rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall give

government as elements of the State. After all, government is composed of three (3) divisions of

preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that - qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when

power - legislative, executive and judicial. Accordingly, a constitutional mandate directed to the

our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an action may be

State is correspondingly directed to the three (3) branches of government. It is undeniable that in

maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject;

this case the subject constitutional injunction is addressed among others to the Executive

consequently, if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such

Department and respondent GSIS, a government instrumentality deriving its authority from the

right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, and from which all legislations must

State.

take their bearings. Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium.

4.

2.

Manila Hotel Corporation.

YES, the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation form part of our patrimony as a

YES, GSIS should give preference to the petitioner in the sale of the controlling shares of the

nation.

It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it is not yet the winning

In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage. When the Constitution

bidder.

speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the

winning bidder after it has negotiated and executed the necessary contracts, and secured the

The bidding rules expressly provide that the highest bidder shall only be declared the

requisite approvals. Since the Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution bestows preference

Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their provisions

on qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder

command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers who merely

will be declared the winning bidder. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to make the award yet,

establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of the governmental

nor are they under obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder. For in choosing the awardee

machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens. A provision which lays

respondents are mandated to abide by the dictates of the 1987 Constitution the provisions of which

down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-

are presumed to be known to all the bidders and other interested parties.

executing. But a provision, which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of

Paragraph V. J. 1 of the bidding rules provides that [i]f for any reason the Highest Bidder cannot be

supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the

awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to other Qualified Bidders that have validly

right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-

submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms

executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the

of price per share. Certainly, the constitutional mandate itself is reason enough not to award the

constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms,

block of shares immediately to the foreign bidder notwithstanding its submission of a higher, or even

and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action.

the highest, bid. In fact, we cannot conceive of a stronger reason than the constitutional injunction
itself.

4. Kinds of Constitution

In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits the highest bid in a public bidding concerning the

a) Written - constitution is one whose precepts are embodied in one document or

set of documents;

grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, thereby
exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino will have to be allowed to match
the bid of the foreign entity. And if the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign firm the award should
go to the Filipino.

It must be so if we are to give life and meaning to the Filipino First Policy

provision of the 1987 Constitution. For, while this may neither be expressly stated nor contemplated
in the bidding rules, the constitutional fiat is omnipresent to be simply disregarded. To ignore it

Unwritten constitution consists of rules which have not been integrated into a
single, concrete form but are scattered in various sources, such as statutes of a
fundamental character, judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs and
traditions, and certain common law principles.

would be to sanction a perilous skirting of the basic law.

A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It
is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates. It
has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes the permanent
framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments their respective powers
and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is founded. The fundamental

b) Enacted (Conventional) or is enacted, formally struck off at a definite time and

place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler;
Evolved (Cumulative) is the result of political evolution, not inaugurated at any
specific time but changing by accretion rather than by any systematic method.

conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in
accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered.

c) Rigid Constitution is one that can be amended only by a formal and usually
constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch difficult process; flexible Constitution is one that can be changed by ordinary
or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and legislation [Cruz, ibid., p. 5].
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the

effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it
is deemed written in every statute and contract.

5. AMENDMENT OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION (Art. XVII)

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
[1] The Congress upon a vote of of all its Members; or

Facts:

[2] A constitutional Convention.

Petitioners filed a Petition for Initiative and Referendum with the COMELEC to amend the 1987

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by

the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least
3% of the registered voter therein. No amendment under this Section shall be
authorized within five (5) years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

Philippine Constitution, particularly Articles VI and VII to replace the present Presidential-Bicameral
system of government to Parliamentary-Unicameral system using Section 2, Art. XVII of the
Constitution. Petitioners claim that their petition was signed by 6,327,952 million voters all over the
country and the same constitutes over 12% of all the registered voters in the entire country and
that more than 3% of the registered voters in every legislative district signed the same in
accordance with Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. The petition to change the Constitution
involves sections 1-7 of Article VI; Sections 1-4 of Article VII and an Article XVII entitled
Transitory Provisions. The petitioners prayed with the COMELEC that after due publication of
their Petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters

Section 3. The Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, called a constitutional ratification:
convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the
DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION,
question of calling such a convention.
CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL BICAMERAL TO A

Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY
hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?
which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the
approval of such amendment or revision.
The COMELEC dismissed the petition citing SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 where it was
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 later than ninety days after the
certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition.

held that:
RA 6735 intended to include the System of Initiative on Amendments to the Constitution, but is,
unfortunately, Inadequate to cover that system under Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. x x x

NOTE: Amendments to, or revision of the Constitution is VALID only when approved
The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in
by a majority of the votes cast during the plebiscite, not by the votes of the
essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
Members of Congress.
Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by empowering the COMELEC

2. Read: R.A. 6735

to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry the purposes of this act.

Requisites for a valid peoples initiative to amend the Constitution; distinctions Considering the said dismissal, petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on Certiorari
and Mandamus alleging rave abuse of discretion and to set aside the COMELEC Decision and to
between amendment and revision.
compel the latter to give due course to their initiative petition.

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO , together with 6,327,952

registered voters vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 174153,
October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160

The Issues:

1.

WHETHER THE LAMBINO GROUPS PETITION COMPLIES WITH SECTION 2, ARTICLE

XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH

MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and shown to them before they
sign? Now, who prepares the draft?

PEOPLES INITIATIVE;
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam PresidentAs it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare
2.

WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD REVISIT ITS RULING IN DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS.

that proposal and pass it around for signature.

COMELEC, DECLARING THAT RA NO. 6735 INCOMPLETE, INADEQUATE OR WANTING IN

ESSENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE INITIATIVE CLAUSE ON

Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the draft of the proposed constitutional

PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION; and

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

3.

WHETHER THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING

also envisioned that the people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must

DUE COURSE TO THE LAMBINO GROUPS PETITION.

prepare the proposal and pass it around for signature.

H E L D:

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 (2)

There is no merit to the petition.

essential elements must be present:

The Lambino group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for

1.

conducting a peoples initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present

sign for and on their behalf;

The people must author and must sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can

petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Groups glaring failure to comply with the
basic requirements of the Constitution. As such, there is likewise no grave abuse of discretion on the

2.

As an initiative upon a petition, THE PROPOSAL MUST BE EMBODIED IN A PETITION.

part of the COMELEC.

These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a

to the people who will express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an

peoples initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This Section provides:

amendment is DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETIITON

ONLY IF THE PEOPLE SIGN ON A PETITION THAT OCNTAINS THE FULL TEXT OF THE

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of
registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per

The petitioners bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements

centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.

in gathering the signaturesthat the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full
text of the proposed amendments.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention vividly explain the meaning of the amendment
directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition. Thus:

The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition a copy of the document containing the
proposed amendments and as such, the people signed

initiative petition without knowing the actual

MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a constitutional

amendments proposed in the said initiative. Instead , the alleged 6.3 million people who signed the

amendment. IS THE DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT READY TO BE

petition had to rely the representations of Atty. Lambino. Clearly, Atty. Lambino and his group

SHOWN TO THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE ASKED TO SIGN?

deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation.

MR. SUAREZ. That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.

2. A peoples initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution

Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 raising the following

and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress and a Constitutional Convention can propose both

arguments, among others:

amendments and revisions to the Constitution. This is clear under Section 1 of Art. XVII of the
1.) That the Constitution can only be amended by peoples initiative if there is an enabling law passed

Constitution.

by Congress, to which no such law has yet been passed; and

2.) That R.A. 6735 does not suffice as an enabling law on peoples initiative on the Constitution, unlike
Where the intent and language of the Constitution under Section 2 of Art. XVIII clearly withhold

in the other modes of initiative.

from the people the power to propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose
revisions even as they are empowered to propose amendments. The two are distinguished as follows:

ISSUE:
WON R.A. No. 6735 sufficient to enable amendment of the Constitution by peoples initiative.

Revision is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document [Constitution]. It may
result in the rewriting whether the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps some

WON RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and if so WON

of its important provisions. But whatever results the revision may produce, the factor that

the Act as worded adequately covers such initiative.

characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out.
That intention and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution to

WON COMELEC Res. No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the constitution

determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be

is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative?

replaced with an entirely new one.

WON the lifting of term limits of elective national and local official, as proposed in the draft
petition would constitute a revision of , or an amendment of the constitution.

Amendment of the Constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change or only a few specific
provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire

WON the COMELEC can take cognizance of or has jurisdiction over the petition.

constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to improve specific parts of
the existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions

WON it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition when there is a pending

or to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect.

case before the COMELEC.

MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO,
March 19, 1997 & June 10, 1997

et al. Vs. COMELEC,

G.R. No. 127325, HELD:

FACTS:

NO. R.A. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
Under the said law, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people
are not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the

On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, founding member of the Movement for People's

Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances,

Initiative, filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of

or resolutions." The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, approved or rejected,

Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" citing Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Acting

amended or repealed" denotes that R.A. No. 6735 excludes initiative on amendments to the

on the petition, the COMELEC set the case for hearing and directed Delfin to have the petition

Constitution.

published. After the hearing the arguments between petitioners and opposing parties, the COMELEC
directed Delfin and the oppositors to file their "memoranda and/or oppositions/memoranda" within

Also, while the law provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum and for Local Initiative

five days. On December 18, 1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria

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.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is hereby declared void and orders the respondent to forthwith
dismiss the Delfin Petition . TRO issued on 18 December 1996 is

made permanent.

WHEREFORE, petition is GRANTED.

RA 6735 intended to include the System of Initiative on Amendments to the

Constitution, but is, unfortunately, Inadequate to cover that system. Section 2 Art.
XVII is not self-executory and unless Congress provides for its implementation , it
would remain in the cold niche of the Constitution. RA 6735 in all its 23 sections
mentions the word Constitution only in section 2 and Section 3 as compared to the
initiative on statutes and local legislation. The foregoing brings us to the
conclusion that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its
lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by empowering
the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to
carry the purposes of this act.

to determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole

document should be replaced with an entirely new one.
Amendment of the Constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change or only a
few specific provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to consider the
advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering that possibility. The
intention rather is to improve specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it
provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to suppress
portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect. (SINCO,
Vicente, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW)
4. Read: a) MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO, 78 Phil. 1
Petitioners include 3 senators and 8 representatives. The three senators were suspended by senate
due to election irregularities. The 8 representatives were not allowed to take their seat in the lower
House except in the election of the House Speaker. They argued that some senators and House Reps
were not considered in determining the required vote (of each house) in order to pass the
Resolution (proposing amendments to the Constitution) which has been considered as an enrolled bill
by then. At the same time, the votes were already entered into the Journals of the respective
House. As a result, the Resolution was passed but it could have been otherwise were they allowed to
vote. If these members of Congress had been counted, the affirmative votes in favor of the
proposed amendment would have been short of the necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of
Congress. Petitioners filed or the prohibition of the furtherance of the said resolution amending the
constitution. Respondents argued that the SC cannot take cognizance of the case because the Court
is bound by the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill or resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court can take cognizance of the issue at bar. Whether or not the said

Enumerate the steps to be followed and the requisites to be met in order that the resolution was duly enacted by Congress.
people may proposed the amendments, repeal, amend or enact a law or provision HELD: As far as looking into the Journals is concerned, even if both the journals from each House
of the Constitution.
and an authenticated copy of the Act had been presented, the disposal of the issue by the Court on
the basis of the journals does not imply rejection of the enrollment theory, for, as already stated,

3. What are the different modes of amending the constitution? Distinguish Revision
the due enactment of a law may be proved in either of the two ways specified in section 313 of Act
from amendment of the Constitution.
No. 190 as amended. The SC found in the journals no signs of irregularity in the passage of the law

Revision is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document

[Constitution]. It may result in the rewriting whether the whole constitution, or the
greater portion of it, or perhaps some of its important provisions. But whatever
results the revision may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of
revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention
and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution

and did not bother itself with considering the effects of an authenticated copy if one had been
introduced. It did not do what the opponents of the rule of conclusiveness advocate, namely, look into
the journals behind the enrolled copy in order to determine the correctness of the latter, and rule
such copy out if the two, the journals and the copy, be found in conflict with each other. No
discrepancy appears to have been noted between the two documents and the court did not say or so
much as give to understand that if discrepancy existed it would give greater weight to the journals,

disregarding the explicit provision that duly certified copies shall be conclusive proof of the

Held: In as much as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor of declaring Republic Act 4913 and R.

provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.

B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid, the petitions in these two (2) cases must be, as they

**Enrolled Bill that which has been duly introduced, finally passed by both houses, signed by the

are hereby, dismiss and the writs therein prayed for denied, without special pronouncement as to

proper officers of each, approved by the president and filed by the secretary of state.

costs. It is so ordered.

Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act 190), as amended by Act No. 2210, provides:

As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed collaterally. It may not be

Official documents may be proved as follows: . . . (2) the proceedings of the Philippine Commission,

contested except directly, by quo warranto proceedings. Neither may the validity of his acts be

or of any legislatives body that may be provided for in the Philippine Islands, or of Congress, by the

questioned upon the ground that he is merely a de facto officer. And the reasons are obvious:

journals of those bodies or of either house thereof, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by

copies certified by the clerk of secretary, or printed by their order; Provided, That in the case of

(1) it would be an indirect inquiry into the title to the office; and (2) the acts of a de facto officer,

Acts of the Philippine Commission or the Philippine Legislature, when there is an existence of a copy

if within the competence of his office, are valid, insofar as the public is concerned.

signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, it shall be conclusive proof of the

"The judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the

provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.

proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent

The SC is bound by the contents of a duly authenticated resolution (enrolled bill) by the legislature.

units thereof."

In case of conflict, the contents of an enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the journals.

Article XV of the Constitution provides: . . . The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of
three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting

b) GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774

separately, may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a contention for that purpose. Such
amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast

Facts: The case is an original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction.

at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification.

The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives

From our viewpoint, the provisions of Article XV of the Constitution are satisfied so long as the

passed the following resolutions:

electorate knows that R. B. H. No. 3 permits Congressmen to retain their seats as legislators, even if

1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, - proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the

they should run for and assume the functions of delegates to the Convention.

Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to increase the membership of the House of

Representatives from a maximum of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum of
180, to be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of
their respective inhabitants, although each province shall have, at least, one (1) member;
2. R. B. H. No. 2, - calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the convention to
be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district, to be "elected in the
general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of November, 1971;" and
3. R. B. H. No. 3, -proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of the same Constitution, be amended so as
to authorize Senators and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the
aforementioned constitutional convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on June 17, 1967,
became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the
aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general
elections which shall be held on November 14, 1967.
Issue: Whether or Not a Resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, violates the
Constitution.

There is no prohibition for Congress to propose amendments to the

Constitution and at the same time call for the convening of a Constitutional
Convention to amend the Constitution. The word or in the provision Congress,
upon a vote of of all its members; OR [2] A constitutional Convention under
Section 1, Art. XVII also means AND.

Resolutions thatproclaim the Senatorial candidate who obtained the 13 th highest # of votes as a duly
elected be declared NULL&VOID
Issue/s
Procedural Issues

c) TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702

Parties Petitioners: Arturo Tolentino, Arturo Mojica- Respondents: COMELEC, Ralph Recto, Gregorio

: 1) WON the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter bec respondents say it is a

Honasan- Ponente: Carpio

quowarranto proceeding

Background

(a proceeding wc determines the right of a public officer in the exercise of his office & to ousthim

This is a petition for prohibition to set aside the COMELECs Resolutions which proclaimed official
and final the 13candidates elected as Senators in the May 14 2001 elections.

judge.2) WON the petition is MOOT3) WON the petitioner have locus standi
Substantive Issue

Facts of the Case

In Feb 2001, a Senate seat for a term expiring on June 30 2004 was vacated w/ the appointment of
then Sen.Guingona as VP of the PI.The Senate then adopted Resolution #84 wc: 1) certified the
existence of a vacancy in the Senate & 2) called theCOMELEC to fill up the said vacancy through a
special election to be held simultaneously w/ the regular election onMay 14 2001, and 3) declared the
senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall serve only for the
unexpired term of former

from it if his claim is not well-founded), where only the Senate Electoral Tribunal can serve as

Sen. Guingona.

Accdg to the

Senate, this Resolutn is for

the guidance &implementatn of the COMELEC, &that it had NO discretion to alter the said
procedure.Nobody filed a certificate of candidacy to fill the position of senator to serve the
unexpired 3yr term in the specialelectn. All the senatorial candidates filed the certificates of
candidacy for the 12 regular Senate seats w/ a 6yr termeach. COMELEC distributed nationwide
official documents (eg Voter Info Sheet, List of Candidates, Sample Ballot).The List of Candidates
DID NOT provide 2 different categories of Senate seats to be voted, namely the 12 regular 6-year
term seats & the single 3-year term seat. Nor did the ballots provide a separate space for the
candidate to bevoted in the special election & instead provided 13 spaces for 13 senatorial
seats.Without any COMELEC resolution/notice on the time, place & manner of the special election,
the special election washeld on the scheduled May 14 2001 regular elections.A single canvassing of
votes for a single list of senatorial candidates was also done.Petitioners assailed the manner by which
the special election was conducted for violating the precedents set by the1951 & 1955 special
elections, both of wc were held simultaneously & yet distinctly w/ the regular general elections.Thus,
they pray that the Court declare that 1) NO special elections were held & that 2) Comelecs

: WON a special election to fill a vacant 3-yr term Senate seat was validly held on May14 2001,
despite the lack of a call for such an election & for lack of notice from COMELEC
Ratio Decidendi
The petition HAS NO MERIT.
Procedural Issues
: 1) YES, the Court can properly exercise jurisdiction bec what the petitioners are questioninghere is
the validity of the special election in wc Honasan was elected, NOT his right in the exercise of his
office asSenator. His election is merely incidental to the petitioners case of action.2) Although the
petition may be moot, it is no bar for the Court to decide on its resolution bec the question of
thevalidity of a special election is likely to be repeated3) YES, the Court shall be liberal in applying
its rule of locus standi bec the issues raised are of transcendentalsignificance & paramount
importance to the people, for it involves the peoples right for suffrage

Doctrine of Proper Submission means all the proposed amendments to the

Constitution shall be presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at the
same time, not piecemeal.

HELD:
The issue of whether the President can assume the power of a constituent assembly is a justiciable

d) SANIDAD vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333

question since it is not the wisdom but the constitutional authority of the president to perform such
act is in question. The president has the authority to propose amendments as the governmental

FACTS:
On September 27, 1976, Pablo Sanidad and Pablito Sanidad petitioned for prohibition with
preliminary injunction to enjoin COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on
October 16; to declare without force and effect PD Nos. 991 and 1033, as well as PD. 1031.

powers are generally concentrated to the president in times of crisis. The time for deliberation of
the referendum-plebiscite questions, 3 weeks, is not too short especially since the questions are
issues of the day and the people have been living with them since the proclamation of martial law.

Petitioners contend that the president has no power to propose amendments to the new constitution,
as such, the referendum plebiscite has no legal basis.

e) ALMARIO vs. ALBA, 127 SCRA 69

If the question regarding the proposed amendment to the Constitution deals with its

ISSUE:
1.
2.
3.

necessity, expediency or wisdom, the same is political in nature and beyond the power of the courts

Is the case at bar justiciable?

Does

the

president

have

to decide.
authority

to

propose

amendments

to

the

Constitution?

Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed

sufficient and proper submission?