OUTLINE OF NOTES AND CASES IN POLITICAL LAW

AUGUST 2015

DEFINITION AND CONCEPTS

1. Define:
a. Political Law branch in public law which deals with the organization and operations of the
governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its
territory (People v Perfecto 43 Phil 887)
b. Constitutional Law
c. Constitution
d. Administrative Law defines competencies of administrative officers
e. Law of Public Officers deals with the qualification and disqualification.
f. Law of Public Corporation
g. Election Law
h. Distinction between Political Law and Constitutional Law
MACARIOLA VS JUDGE ASUNCION 114 SCRA 77
FACTS: On June 8, 1963, respondent Judge Elias Asuncion of Court of First Instance of Leyte
rendered a decision in Civil Case 3010 final for lack of an appeal. On October 16, 1963, a project of
partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion. The project of partition of lots was not signed by the parties
themselves but only by the respective counsel of plaintiffs and petitioner Bernardita R. Macariola. The
Judge approved it in his order dated October 23, 1963. One of the lots mentioned in the project of
partition was Lot 1184. This lot according to the decision rendered by Judge Asuncion was adjudicated
to the plaintiffs Reyes in equal shares subdividing Lot 1184 into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to
1184-E.On July 31, 1964, Lot 1184-E was sold to Dr. Arcadio Galapon, and was issued Transfer of
Certificate of Title No. 2338 of the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City. And on March 6, 1965, Dr.
Galapon sold a portion of Lot 1184-E to Judge Asuncion and his wife Victoria Asuncion. The
Asuncions and Galapons were also the stockholder of the corporation.Thereafter, on August 31, 1966
spouses Asuncion and Galapon conveyed their respective shares and interests in Lot 1184-E to the
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. wherein Judge Asuncion was the president and his
wife Victoria was the Secretary. Macariola then filed an instant complaint on August 9, 1968 docketed
as Civil Case No. 4234 in the CFI of Leyte against Judge Asuncion with "acts unbecoming a judge"
alleging that Judge Asuncion in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E violated Article 1491
par. 5 of the New Civil Code, Art. 14, pars. 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Sec. 3 par. H of R.A.
3019, Sec. 12 Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
On November 2, 1970, Judge Jose Nepomuceno of the CFI of Leyte rendered a decision dismissing the
complaints against Judge Asuncion. After the investigation, report and recommendation conducted by
Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma of the Court of Appeals, she recommended on her decision dated March
27, 1971 that Judge Asuncion be exonerated.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Elias B. Asuncion violated the mentioned provisions.
HELD:No. The Court held that respondent Judge Asuncion's acts did not violate the mentioned
provisions constituting an "Act Unbecoming of a Judge" but he was reminded to be more discreet in his
private and business activities for next time.
Article 1491, par. 5 of the New Civil Code applies only to the sale or assignment of the property which
is the subject of litigation to the persons disqualified therein. Respondent judge purchased the said lot
after the decision rendered was already final because no party filed for an appeal within the
reglementary period which makes the lot in question no longer the subject to litigation. Furthermore,
Judge Asuncion did not buy the lot 1184-E directly from plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010, rather from
a Dr. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased the lot from 3 of the plaintiffs. And that when the
Asuncion bought the lot on March 6, 1965 from Dr. Galapon after the finality of the decision which he
rendered on June 8, 1963 in Civil Case No 3010 and his two orders dated Ocotber and November,
1963, the said property was no longer subject of litigation.
In the case at bar, Article 14 of Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to
the respondent. Upon the sovereignty from the Spain to the US and to the Republic of the Philippines,
Art. 14 of this Code of Commerce, which sourced from the Spanish Code of Commerce, appears to
have been abrogated because whenever there is a change in the sovereignty, political laws of the former
sovereign are automatically abrogated, unless they are re-enacted by Affirmative Act of the New
Sovereign.

Asuncion cannot also be held liable under the par. H, Sec. 3 of RA 3019, citing that the public officers
cannot partake in any business in connection with this office or intervened or take part in his official
capacity. The Judge and his wife had withdrawn on January 31, 1967 from the corporation and sold
their respective shares to 3rd parties, and it appears that the corporation did not benefit in any case filed
by or against it in court as there was no case filed in the different branches of the Court of First
Instance from the time of the drafting of the Articles of Incorporation of the corporation on March 12,
1966 up to its incorporation on January 9, 1967. The Judge realized early that their interest in the
corporation contravenes against Canon 25.
The provision in the Code of Commerce (made effective in the Philippines in 1887 which
prohibits judge, justices, etc (public officers) from engaging in business within the territorial
jurisdiction of their 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 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

THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION

Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered
into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect . Thus, since the
Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute
and contract.

MUTUC VS COMELEC 36 SCRA 228

FACTS: Petitioner Amelito Motuc is a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention and was
deprived of his right to free speech. The petitioner was prohibited by the COMELEC to use taped
jingle in his mobile units equipped with sound system and loudspeakers, he then seek for writ of
prohibition (is a writ directing a subordinate to stop doing something the law prohibits). The
justification of the respondents for the prohibition was premised on a provision of the Constitutional
Convention Act which made it unlawful for the candidates to purchase, produce, request or distribute
sample ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters, fans (of whatever nature),
flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes, and the like,
whether of domestic or foreign origin. The jingle that was propose to be used by the petitioner
therefore tangible propaganda material.
ISSUE: Whether the prohibition of the use of taped jingles denied the petitioner of his freedom of
speech.
HELD: Yes. The court granted the writ of prohibition filled by the petitioner and the COMELEC is
restrained and prohibited from enforcing or implementing or demanding compliance with its aforesaid
order banning the use of political taped jingles.
The COMELECs contention that a candidates jingle form part of the prohibition, categorized under
the phrase and the like, could not merit the courts approval by principle of Ejusdem Generis (Of
the same kind or nature. A rule of interpretation that where a class of things is followed by general
wording that is not itself expansive, the general wording is usually restricted things of the same type as
the listed items.).

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS GSIS 267 SCRA 408

FACTS: Pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government, the GSIS sold in public
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
shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel
operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of
petitioner. 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.
ISSUES:
1. Whether sec.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;
2. Assuming sec.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;
3. Whether GSIS is included in the term State, hence, mandated to implement sec.10, paragraph 2,
Article XII of the Constitution; and
4. Assuming GSIS is part of the State, whether it should give preference to the petitioner, a Filipino
corporation, over Renong Berhad, a foreign corporation, in the sale of the controlling shares of the
Manila Hotel Corporation.
HELD:
1. YES, sec.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.
2.
YES, the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation form part of our patrimony as a
nation. In its plain and 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 the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural
heritage of the Filipinos.
3. YES, GSIS is included in the term State, hence, it is mandated to implement sec.10, paragraph 2,
Article XII of the Constitution.
4. YES, GSIS should give preference to the petitioner in the sale of the controlling shares of the
Manila Hotel Corporation.It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it is
not yet the winning bidder. The bidding rules expressly provide that the highest bidder shall only be
declared the winning bidder after it has negotiated and executed the necessary contracts, and secured
the requisite approvals. Since the Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution bestows preference
on qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder
will be declared the winning bidder. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to make the award yet, nor
are they under obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder. For in choosing the awardee
respondents are mandated to abide by the dictates of the 1987 Constitution the provisions of which are
presumed to be known to all the bidders and other interested parties.

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 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.
Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their
provisions command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers who
merely establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of the governmental
machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens. A provision which lays
down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not selfexecuting. But a provision, which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of
supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the

right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is selfexecuting if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and
there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action.

PART I
ARTICLE XVII AMENDMENT OR
REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION

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
[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 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.
Section 3. The Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, call a constitutional convention, or
by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a
convention.
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 which shall be held not earlier
than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment 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 later than ninety days after the certification by the
COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition.
NOTE: Amendments to, or revision of the Constitution is VALID only when approved by a
majority of the votes cast during the plebiscite, not by the votes of the Members of Congress.

What are the requisites for the exercise of peoples initiative to amend the Constitution?

It is provided under section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution which provides that 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 voters therein. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

Is there a law which would provide for the mechanism for the people to propose amendments to the
Constitution by peoples initiative?
While the congress had enacted RA 6735 purportedly to provide the mechanisms for the peoples exercise the
power to amend the Constitution by peoples initiative, the Supreme Court in Miriam Defensor-Santiago et al
vs. COMELEC GR no. 127325 GR March 19, 1997 and June 10, 1997, the Supreme Court held that RA 6735 is
incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions in so far as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cure by empowering
the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry the purposes of this act.
In Lambino vs COMELEC, however, the Supreme Court on November 21, 2006, in the minute Resolution of
the petitioners motion for reconsideration held that RA no. 6735 is adequate and complete for the purpose of
proposing amendments to the Constitution through peoples initiative by a vote of 10 members as per Certificate
of the En Bancs Clerk of Court.

May the question, Do you approve the amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution changing
the form of government from Presidential-Bicameral to Parliamentary-Unicameral be allowed to be
submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection as a means of amending the Constitution by peoples
Initiative if the requisite number of signatories 12% nationwide and at least 3% for every legislative district
are met?
No for two (2) reasons.
1.

The said proposal did not indicate which provisions of Article VI and VII are actually being amended
which is a must under Section 2, Art XVII. Otherwise, who shall make the amendments if the people in
a plebiscite approve the same;

2.

Changing the form of government from presidential to parliamentary is an act of REVISING the
Constitution which is not allowed under Art. XVII, Section 2. Peoples Initiative may only be allowed
to propose amendments to the Constitution and not Revision.

What are the requisites before an amendment to the Constitution by peoples initiative is sufficient in form
and in substance?
In the case of RAUL LAMBINO AND ERICO AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6, 327, 952 registered
voters vs the commission of elections, GR no. 174153, October 25, 2006, 506 SCRA 160, the following
requisites must be present:
1.

The people must author and must sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign for or on
their behalf

2.

As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.

These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to
the people who will express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an
amendment is directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition only if the people
sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.

RA 6735: The Initiative and Referendum Act

Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly
propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed
by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and
guaranteed.
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean:
(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitutions or to propose and enact
legislations
through
an
election
called
for
the
purpose.
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:
a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution;
a.2 Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation; and
a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city,
municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
(b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the
local legislative body for action.
(c) "Referendum" is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for
the purpose. It may be of two classes, namely:
c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed
by Congress; and
c.2. Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance
enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.
(d) "Proposition" is the measure proposed by the voters.
(e) "Plebiscite" is the electoral process by which an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected by the
people.
(f) "Petition" is the written instrument containing the proposition and the required number of signatories. It
shall be in a form to be determined by and submitted to the Commission on Elections, hereinafter referred to as
the Commission.
(g) "Local government units" refers to provinces , cities, municipalities and barangays.
(h) "Local legislative bodies" refers to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod,
Sangguniang Bayan, and Sangguniang Nayon.
(i) "Local executives" refers to the Provincial Governors, City or Municipal Mayors and Punong Barangay, as
the case may be.
Sec. 4. Who may exercise. The power of initiative and referendum may be exercised by all registered voters of
the country, autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.
Sec. 5. Requirements. (a) To exercise the power of initiative or referendum, at least ten per centum (10%) of
the total number of the registered voters, of which every legislative district is represented by at least three per
centum (3%) of the registered voters thereof, shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the same with the
Commission.
(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the
total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at
least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the Constitution may be exercised
only after five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years
thereafter.
(c) The petition shall state the following:
c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as
the case may be;
c.2. the proposition;
c.3. the reason or reasons therefor;

c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;

c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred (100) words which shall be legibly written or
printed at the top of every page of the petition.
(d) A referendum or initiative affecting a law, resolution or ordinance passed by the legislative assembly of an
autonomous region, province or city is deemed validly initiated if the petition thereof is signed by at least ten
per centum (10%) of the registered voters in the province or city, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein; Provided, however, That if the
province or city is composed only of one (1) legislative district, then at least each municipality in a province or
each barangay in a city should be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.
(e) A referendum of initiative on an ordinance passed in a municipality shall be deemed validly initiated if the
petition therefor is signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of the registered voters in the municipality, of which
every barangay is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.
(f) A referendum or initiative on a barangay resolution or ordinance is deemed validly initiated if signed by at
least ten per centum (10%) of the registered voters in said barangay.
Sec. 6. Special Registration. The Commission on Election shall set a special registration day at least three (3)
weeks before a scheduled initiative or referendum.
Sec. 7. Verification of Signatures. The Election Registrar shall verify the signatures on the basis of the registry
list of voters, voters' affidavits and voters identification cards used in the immediately preceding election.
II. National Initiative and Referendum
Sec. 8. Conduct and Date of Initiative or Referendum. The Commission shall call and supervise the conduct
of initiative or referendum.
Within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, the Commission shall, upon determining the
sufficiency of the petition, publish the same in Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and
local circulation and set the date of the initiative or referendum which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45)
days but not later than ninety (90) days from the determination by the Commission of the sufficiency of the
petition.
Sec. 9. Effectivity of Initiative or Referendum Proposition. (a) the Proposition of the enactment, approval,
amendment or rejection of a national law shall be submitted to and approved by a majority of the votes cast by
all the registered voters of the Philippines.
If, as certified to by the Commission, the proposition is approved by a majority of the votes cast, the national
law proposed for enactment, approval, or amendment shall become effective fifteen (15) days following
completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
If, as certified by the Commission, the proposition to reject a national law is approved by a majority of the votes
cast, the said national law shall be deemed repealed and the repeal shall become effective fifteen (15) days
following the completion of publication of the proposition and the certification by the Commission in the
Official Gazette or in newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
However, if the majority vote is not obtained, the national law sought to be rejected or amended shall remain in
full force and effect.
(b) The proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite
shall become effective as to the day of the plebiscite.
(c) A national or local initiative propositions approved by majority of the votes cast in an election called for the
purpose shall become effective fifteen (15) days after certification and proclamation by the Commission.
Sec. 10. Prohibited Measures. The following cannot be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition:
(a) No petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be submitted to the electorate; and
(b) Statutes involving emergency measures, the enactment of which are specifically vested in Congress by the
Constitution, cannot be subject to referendum until ninety (90) days after its effectivity.
Sec. 11. Indirect Initiative. Any duly accredited people's organization, as defined by law, may file a petition for
indirect initiative with the House of Representatives, and other legislative bodies. The petition shall contain a
summary of the chief purposes and contents of the bill that the organization proposes to be enacted into law by
the legislature.
The procedure to be followed on the initiative bill shall be the same as the enactment of any legislative measure
before the House of Representative except that the said initiative bill shall have precedence over the pending
legislative measures on the committee.
Sec. 12. Appeal. The decision of the Commission on the findings of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
petition for initiative or referendum may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from notice
thereof.
III. Local initiative and Referendum

Sec. 13. Procedure in Local Initiative. (a) Not less than two thousand (2,000) registered voters in case of
autonomous regions, one thousand (1,000) in case of provinces and cities, one hundred (100) in case of
municipalities, and fifty (50) in case of barangays, may file a petition with the Regional Assembly or local
legislative body, respectively, proposing the adoption, enactment, repeal, or amendment, of any law, ordinance
or resolution.
(b) If no favorable action thereon is made by local legislative body within (30) days from its presentation, the
proponents through their duly authorized and registered representative may invoke their power of initiative,
giving notice thereof to the local legislative body concerned.
(c) The proposition shall be numbered serially starting from one (1). The Secretary of Local Government or his
designated representative shall extend assistance in the formulation of the proposition.
(d) Two or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative.
(e) Proponents shall have one hundred twenty (120) days in case of autonomous regions, ninety (90) days in
case of provinces and cities, sixty (60) days in case of municipalities, and thirty (30) days in case of barangays,
from notice mentioned in subsection (b) hereof to collect the required number of signatures.
(f) The petition shall be signed before the Election Registrar, or his designated representative, in the presence
of a representative of the proponent, and a representative of the regional assemblies and local legislative bodies
concerned in a public place in the autonomous region or local government unit, as the case may be. Signature
stations may be established in as many places as may be warranted.
(g) Upon the lapse of the period herein provided, the Commission on Elections, through its office in the local
government unit concerned shall certify as to whether or not the required number of signatures has been
obtained. Failure to obtain the required number is a defeat of the proposition.
(h) If the required number of the signatures is obtained, the Commission shall then set a date for the initiative
at which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in the local government unit concerned for
their approval within ninety (90) days from the date of certification by the Commission, as provided in
subsection (g) hereof, in case of autonomous regions, sixty (60) days in case of the provinces and cities, fortyfive (45) days in case of municipalities, and thirty (30) days in case of barangays. The initiative shall then be
held on the date set, after which the results thereof shall be certified and proclaimed by the Commission on
Elections.
Sec. 14. Effectivity of Local Propositions. If the proposition is approved by a majority of the votes cast, it shall
take effect fifteen (15) days after certification by the Commission as if affirmative action thereon had been made
by the local legislative body and local executive concerned. If it fails to obtain said number of votes, the
proposition is considered defeated.
Sec. 15. Limitations on Local Initiatives. (a) The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than
once a year.
(b) Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the local legislative
bodies to enact.
(c) If at any time before the initiative is held, the local legislative body shall adopt in toto the proposition
presented, the initiative shall be canceled. However, those against such action may, if they so desire, apply for
initiative in the manner herein provided.
Sec. 16. Limitations Upon Local Legislative Bodies. Any proposition or ordinance or resolution approved
through the system of initiative and referendum as herein provided shall not be repealed, modified or amended,
by the local legislative body concerned within six (6) months from the date therefrom, and may be amended,
modified or repealed by the local legislative body within (3/4) of all its members: Provided, however, that in
case of barangays, the period shall be in (1) year after the expiration of the first six (6) months.
Sec. 17. Local Referendum. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4 hereof, any local legislative body may
submit to the registered voters of autonomous region, provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays for the
approval or rejection, any ordinance or resolution duly enacted or approved.
Said referendum shall be held under the control and direction of the Commission within sixty (60) days in case
of provinces and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities and thirty (30) days in case of barangays.
The Commission shall certify and proclaim the results of the said referendum.
Sec. 18. Authority of Courts. Nothing in this Act shall prevent or preclude the proper courts from declaring
null and void any proposition approved pursuant to this Act for violation of the Constitution or want of capacity
of the local legislative body to enact the said measure.

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
FACTS: Petitioners filed a Petition for Initiative and Referendum with the COMELEC to amend the
1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly Articles VI and VII to replace the present PresidentialBicameral 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 ratification:
DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL
BICAMERAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE
XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO
THE OTHER?
The COMELEC dismissed the petition citing SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 where it
was 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 .
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.
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 compel
the latter to give due course to their initiative petition.
ISSUES:
1.

Whether the Lambino groups petition complies with section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through the peoples initiative

2.

Whether the court should revisit its ruling in Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC declaring that
RA 6735 is Incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions to
implement the initiative clause on roposals to amend the Constitution

3.

Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the
Lambino groups petition.

H E L D: There is no merit to the petition.

The Lambino group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for
conducting a peoples initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present 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 part of
the COMELEC.
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a
peoples initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This Section provides:
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 (12%) of the total number of
registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum
(3%) of the registered voters therein.
The framers plainly stated that before they sign there is already a draft shown to them. The framers
also envisioned that the people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must
prepare the proposal and pass it around for signature.
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) essential elements must be present:
1.
The people must author and must sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign
for and on their behalf;
2.

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

These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to
the people who will express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an
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 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
The petitioners bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in
gathering the signaturesthat the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the
proposed amendments.
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
amendments proposed in the said initiative. Instead , the alleged 6.3 million people who signed the
petition had to rely the representations of Atty. Lambino. Clearly, Atty. Lambino and his group
deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation.
2. A peoples initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution
and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress and a Constitutional Convention can propose both
amendments and revisions to the Constitution. This is clear under Section 1 of Art. XVII of the
Constitution.
Where the intent and language of the Constitution under Section 2 of Art. XVIII clearly withhold from
the people the power to propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions even
as they are empowered to propose amendments.

SC RESOLUTION ON LAMBINOS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, NOVEMBER 20,

2006 WHICH HELD BY A VOTE OF 10 JUSTICES THAT RA NO 6735 IS COMPLETE AND
ADEQUATE FOR PEOPLES INITIATIVE

MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, et al. Vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
& June 10, 1997
FACTS: On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, founding member of the Movement for People's
Initiative, filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of
Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" citing Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Acting on
the petition, the COMELEC set the case for hearing and directed Delfin to have the petition 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 five days.
On December 18, 1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel
Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 raising the following arguments,
among others:
1.) That the Constitution can only be amended by peoples initiative if there is an enabling law passed
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
in the other modes of initiative.
ISSUES: Whether or not (1). R.A. No. 6735 is sufficient to enable amendment of the Constitution by
peoples initiative; (2). RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the
constitution and if so whether the act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative; (3). 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.
RESOLUTION:
1. 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
Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or
resolutions." The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended
or repealed" denotes that R.A. No. 6735 excludes initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
2. RA 6735 is intended to include the system of initiative on amendments to the constitution but is
unfortunately inadequate to cover that system. Sec 2 of Article 17 of the Constitution provides:
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 there per centum of the registered voters therein. . .
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right This provision is
obviously not self-executory as it needs an enabling law to be passed by Congress. Joaquin Bernas, a
member of the 1986 Con-Con stated without implementing legislation Section 2, Art 17 cannot
operate. Thus, although this mode of amending the constitution is a mode of amendment which
bypasses Congressional action in the last analysis is still dependent on Congressional action. Bluntly
stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of
inititative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the constitution until Congress provides for its

implementation. The people cannot exercise such right, though constitutionally guaranteed, if Congress
for whatever reason does not provide for its implementation.
3. The lifting of term limits of elective national and local official, as proposed in the draft petition does
not involve a mere amendment to, but a revision of, the Constitution. In the words of Fr. Joaquin
Bernas, SJ., it would involve a change from a political philosophy that rejects unlimited tenure to one
that accepts unlimited tenure; and although the change might appear to be an isolated one, it can affect
other provisions, such as, on synchronization of elections and on the State policy of guaranteeing equal
access to opportunities for public service and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision cannot be done
by initiative which, by express provision of Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution, is limited to
amendments. The prohibition against reelection of the President and the limits provided for all other
national and local elective officials are based on the philosophy of governance, to open up the political
arena to as many as there are Filipinos qualified to handle the demands of leadership, to break the
concentration of political and economic powers in the hands of a few, and to promote effective proper
empowerment for participation in policy and decision-making for the common good; hence, to
remove the term limits is to negate and nullify the noble vision of the 1987 Constitution.

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.

3. What are the different modes of amending the constitution? Distinguish Revision from amendment
of the Constitution.
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 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)

MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO, 78 Phil. 1

FACTS: A petition is submitted for prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a congressional
resolution. The resolution of both houses proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines.

Petitioners of the resolution include 3 senators and 8 representatives. The 3 senators were suspended
and the 8 representatives were not allowed to seat in the lower house because of alleged election
irregularities. They argued that these senators and house representatives were not considered in
determining the required vote of each house to pass the resolution. The votes were already entered
into the Journals of the respective House. The Resolution was passed, however it could have been
otherwise if the 3 senators and 8 representatives were allowed to vote. The affirmative votes in favor of
the proposed amendment would have been short of the required three-fourths vote if the house
members in either branch of Congress were counted. Petitioners filed the prohibition of the continuance
of the said resolution amending the constitution. Respondents argued that the Supreme Court 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 has cognizance on the issue regarding how the Congress passed the
resolution.
HELD: Examining section 313 of the Code of Civil procedure as amended by Act No. 2210, t he
Journals of each House and an authenticated copy of the Act had been presented, however the disposal
of the issue by the Court on the basis of the journals does not imply rejection of the enrollment theory,
for the due enactment of a law may be proved in either of the two ways specified as stated in section
313 of Act No. 190 as amended. The SC found in the journals no signs of irregularity in the passage of
the law 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 provisions of such Acts
and of the due enactment thereof.
The Supreme Court is bound by the contents of a duly authenticated resolution or an enrolled
bill by the legislature. In case of conflict, the contents of an enrolled bill shall prevail over those of
the journals.

GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774

1.
2.
3.

FACTS: On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following
resolutions (Resolutions of Both Houses/RBH):
RBH No. 1: proposing that Sec. 5, Art. VI of the Constitution be amended 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;
RBH No. 2: calling for a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the convention to be
composed of two elective delegates from each representative district, to be elected in the general
elections to be held on the second Tuesday on November 1971; and
RBH No. 3: proposing that Sec. 16, Art. VI of the Constitution be amended 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, Republic Act No. 4913 was enacted on June 17, 1967. The said law provided
that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in RHB Nos. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by
the people, at the general elections which shall be held on November 14, 1967.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution and call for a convention to
propose amendments at the same time

2. Whether or not constitutional amendments may be submitted for ratification in a general election
HELD:
1. YES. 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
separately, may propose amendments to this Constitution OR call a convention for the
purpose...
2. YES. Article XV of the Constitution further states that:Such amendments shall be valid as part of
this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments
are submitted to the people for their ratification."
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.

TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702

FACTS: The Constitutional Convention of 1971 scheduled an advance plebiscite concerning only the
proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. This was even before the rest of the draft of the
Constitution (then under revision) had been approved. Arturo Tolentino then filed a motion to prohibit
such plebiscite.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition will prosper.
HELD: Yes. If the advance plebiscite will be allowed, there will be an improper submission to the
people. Such is not allowed. The proposed amendments shall be approved by a majority of the votes
cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for ratification. Election here is
singular which meant that the entire constitution must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite
only. Furthermore, the people were not given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision
because they had at the time no idea yet of what the rest of the revised Constitution would ultimately be
and therefore would be unable to assess the proposed amendment in the light of the entire document.

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.

SANIDAD vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333

FACTS: On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991
calling for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to
resolve, among other things, the issues of martial law, the assembly, its replacement, the powers of such
replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for tile exercise by the President of his
present powers. Twenty days after or on September 22, 1976, the President issued another related
decree, Presidential Decree No. 1031, amending the previous Presidential Decree No. 991, by declaring
the provisions of presidential Decree No. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes
in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of October 16,
1976. Quite relevantly, Presidential Decree No. 1031 repealed Section 4, of Presidential Decree No.

991, the full text of which (Section 4) is quoted in the footnote below. On the same date of September
22, 1976, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 1033, stating the questions to be submitted to
the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16, 1976. The Decree recites in its "whereas"
clauses that the people's continued opposition to the convening of the National Assembly evinces their
desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a
legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October
16.
In response, on September 27, 1976, PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD,
father and son, commenced L-44640 for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the
Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to
declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose
amendments to the Constitution, as well as Presidential Decree No. 1031, insofar as it directs the
Commission on Elections to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled
on October 16, 1976.
Petitioners contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant to the
incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution.
As a consequence, the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis.
ISSUE: Whether the President has the authority to propose amendments to the present Constitution in
the absence of an interim National Assembly which has not been convened.
HELD: Yes, the president has the authority to propose amendments to the present Constitution in the
absence of an interim National Assembly. There are two periods contemplated in the constitutional life
of the nation, (1) period of normalcy, and (2) period of transition. In this case, the interim National
Assembly instituted in the Transitory Provisions is conferred with that amending power. However, in a
period of transition, the interim National Assembly may only be instituted upon special call by the
interim Prime Minister. Therefore, it is solely in the hand of the prime minister to call upon the aid of
the interim National Assembly in times of turmoil. Given this, we can deduce that the president has the
authority to propose amendments as the governmental powers are generally concentrated to the
president in times of crisis

ALMARIO vs. ALBA, 127 SCRA 69

1.
2.
1.

2.

FACTS: Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 provide that the Filipino electorate will go to polls on January
27,1984 to either approve or reject amendments to the Constitution proposed by Resolution Nos. 104,
105, 110, 111, 112 and 113 of the Batasang Pambansa. The proposed amendments are embodied in four
separate questions to be answered by YES or NO. The petitioners seek to enjoin the submission of
question Nos. 3, which states that grant will be an additional mode of acquiring lands belonging to
the public domain, and 4, which states the undertaking by the government of a land reform program
and a social reform program. The petitioners submit that there has been no fair and proper submission
following the doctrine laid down in Tolentino v. COMELEC and they seek to have more time for the
people to study the meaning and implications of Resolutions Nos. 105 and 113.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the electorate can comprehend the idea presented by the questions regarding grants,
land reform programs and social reform programs.
Whether or not the electorate need more time to study the proposed amendments.
HELD:
The electorate is deemed to have understood the concepts presented by the questions.
The Filipino people have long been since familiar with the topics of urban land reform and social
housing, beginning perhaps with the countrys first zoning laws and through all these years. Moreover,
BP Blg. 643 directed the COMELEC to publish the amendments, which the latter assured that such
publication, was done in all provinces and cities, except a few where there were no local newspapers.
In lieu of publication, community gatherings were held for this purpose.
The electorate do not need more time to study the proposed amendments.
The respondents submit that Resolution No. 105 will have been submitted for sixty seven (67) days to
the people on Plebiscite Day while Resolution No. 113 will have been submitted for forty two (42)
days. This timeline was even longer than the submission for ratification of the entire 1935 Constitution,
which was 36 days after approval of act 4200 and the 1976 amendments which was presented to the
people for only 3 weeks. The court is of the view that the question is political and therefor beyond the

competence and cognizance of this court. There is also no fair and proper submission with sufficient
information and time to assure intelligent consent or rejection under the standards set by this Court in
the controlling case Tolentino v. COMELEC (41 SCRA 702)."

If the question regarding the proposed amendment to the Constitution deals with its necessity,
expediency or wisdom, the same is political in nature and beyond the power of the courts to decide.

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 ACRA 106

PART II
PREAMBLE

PREAMBLE

WE, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just
and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations,
promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and
our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime
of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

Purpose and Effect of a Preamble.

-

Sets down the origin, scope and purpose of the constitution, it is useful as an aid in ascertaining the
meaning of ambiguous provisions in the body of the constitution

Bears witness to the fact that the Constitution is the manifestation of the sovereign will of the
Filipino people

The document is not just the work of representatives of the people but of the people themselves
who put their mark of approval by ratifying it in a plebiscite.

AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ, 64 Phil. 201

FACTS: The 33rd international Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church, was
held in Manila somewhere in 1936 and in commemoration thereof, then Director of Posts, Juan Ruiz,
initiated the production of certain stamps that has a certain design of a chalice in the middle and grape
vine and stalks or wheat in the boarders. Eventually the said stamps were later on sold pursuant to Act
No. 4052, which provides for the appropriation of 60000 pesos for the plate and printing of the stamps
and giving the Director of posts the discretion to utilize such funds in any manner deemed
advantageous to the Government.
Respondent, Gregorio Aglipay, the head of the Philippine Independent Church, assailed that
the production and sale of such stamps, by petitioning for a 'Writ of Prohibition'. Aglipay contented that
the funding of such stamps commemorative of a particular event of a certain religious sect, is a
violation of Sec. 13 Art. 6 of the Philippine Constitution, which prohibits the appropriation or usage of
public money for the use or benefit of any church or denomination.
ISSUE: Whether the production of said stamps violated Sec. 13, Art. 6 of the Philippine Constitution.
HELD: No. The sale of the said stamps is not a violation of the Constitution. In fact, what was
emphasized on the stamps waS the City of Manila as the seat of the event to attract tourists, not the
religious sect who organized such event. Act. No. 4052 on the other hand, did not appropriate any
public funds to any religious sect nor was the profit given to any denomination, it merely authorizes the

Director of Posts, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communication, to dispose
of the said amount appropriated in the manner indicated and "as often as may be deemed advantageous
to the Government."

It is almost trite to say now that in this country we enjoy both religious and civil freedom. All the
officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, in taking their oath to support and defend the
constitution, bind themselves to recognize and respect the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, with its
inherent limitations and recognized implications. It should be stated that what is guaranteed by our
Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious toleration.
Religious freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power
that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And, in so far as it instills into the minds the purest
principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. When the Filipino people, in the
preamble of their Constitution, implored the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a government that
shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the general welfare, and
secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of justice, liberty and
democracy, they thereby manifested reliance upon Him who guides the destinies of men and nations. The
elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized here as elsewhere. In fact, certain general
concessions are indiscriminately accorded to religious sects and denominations.

PART III
ARTICLE I- THE NATIONAL
TERRITORY

Section 1. 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.

1. What is the most significant change in this Article, compared with those of the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions?

2. What is the archipelago theory or archipelagic doctrine?

It is the 2nd sentence of Sec 1, Art. I of the Constitution which states that 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.

3. Methods used in fixing the baseline from which the territorial belt is measured:
a. The normal baseline method

b. The straight baseline method

4. Read:
a. The Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Act of 2009, RA no. 9522
- new baselines to enclose main archipelago. KIG and Scarborough as regime of islands
b. RA no. 5446
- to amend RA 3046. Sabah as part of the Philippine territory
c. PD no 1596
- Making the Kalayaan Island Group as part of the Philippine territory
d. PD no 1599
- declaring the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Philippines which is 200 nautical miles from its
baseline. In case of overlapping, it is resolved through diplomatic means,

THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF

THE PHILIPPINES GR NO. 183591 October 14, 2008.
FACTS: The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) brought about by the
Government of the republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as
an aspect of Tripoli Agreement of Peace in 2001 is scheduled to be signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
This agreement was petitioned by the Province of North Cotabato for Mandamus and Prohibition with
Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. The
agreement mentions Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) to which it grants the authority and
jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro; authority and
jurisdiction over all natural resources within internal waters. The agreement is composed of two local
statutes: the organic act for autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao and the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act (IPRA).

ISSUE: Whether or not the GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public
consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and Whether
or not the MOA-AD brought by the GRP and MILF is constitutional
HELD:GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to
information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and it are unconstitutional because it is
contrary to law and the provisions of the constitution thereof.
REASONING: The GRP is required by this law to carry out public consultations on both national and
local levels to build consensus for peace agenda and process and the mobilization and facilitation of
peoples participation in the peace process.
PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE RISA
HONTIVEROS, PROF HARRY C ROQUE, THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
STUDENTS VS HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY ET AL. GR NO. 187167 AUGUST 16, 2011
FACTS: In March 2009, Republic Act 9522, an act defining the archipelagic baselines of the
Philippines was enacted the law is also known as the Baselines Law. This law was meant to comply
with the terms of the third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), ratified by
the Philippines in February 1984.
Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity of RA 9522 as they contend, among
others, that the law decreased the national territory of the Philippines hence the law is unconstitutional.
Some of their particular arguments are as follows:
a. the law abandoned the demarcation set by the Treaty of Paris and other ancillary treaties this also
resulted to the exclusion of our claim over Sabah;
b. the law, as well as UNCLOS itself, describes the Philippine waters as archipelagic waters which,
in international law, opens our waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels
(innocent passage) and aircrafts (overflight), undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security,
contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant
constitutional provisions;
c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), as well as the Scarborough Shoal ( bajo de
masinloc), as a regime of islands pursuant to UNCLOS results in the loss of a large maritime area but
also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions of Magallona et al are tenable.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or UNCLOS, itself is not a means to
acquire, or lose, territory. The treaty and the baseline law has nothing to do with the acquisition,
enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine territory. What controls when it comes to acquisition or
loss of territory is the international law principle on occupation, accretion, cession and prescription and
NOT the execution of multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to
comply with the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.
The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In fact it increased it. Under
the old law amended by RA 9522 (RA 3046), we adhered with the rectangular lines enclosing the
Philippines. The area that it covered was 440,994 square nautical miles (sq. na. mi.). But under 9522,
and with the inclusion of the exclusive economic zone, the extent of our maritime was increased to

586,210 sq. na. mi. If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international community of the scope of
the maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights.
Anent their particular contentions:
a. The law did not abandon the Sabah claim. This is evident on the provision of Section 2 of RA 9522:
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this
Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah,
situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.
b. UNCLOS may term our waters as archipelagic waters and that we may term it as our internal waters, but
the bottom line is that our country exercises sovereignty over these waters and UNCLOS itself recognizes that.
However, due to our observance of international law, we allow the exercise of others of their right of innocent
passage. No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is
exercised in accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory measures from the
international community.
c. The classification of the KIG (or the Spratlys), as well as the Scarborough Shoal, as a regime of islands did
not diminish our maritime area. Under UNCLOS and under the baselines law, since they are regimes of islands,
they generate their own maritime zones in short, they are not to be enclosed within the baselines of the main
archipelago (which is the Philippine Island group). This is because if we do that, then we will be enclosing a
larger area which would already depart from the provisions of UNCLOS that the demarcation should follow
the natural contour of the archipelago.Nevertheless, we still continue to lay claim over the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal through effective occupation.
Under UNCLOS and the baselines law, we have three levels of maritime zones where we exercise treaty-based
rights:
a. territorial waters 12 nautical miles from the baselines; where we exercise sovereignty
b. contiguous zone 24 nautical miles from the baselines; jurisdiction where we can enforce customs, fiscal,
immigration, and sanitation laws (CFIS).
c. exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles from the baselines; where we have the right to exploit the living
and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone
Note: a fourth zone may be added which is the continental shelf this is covered by Article 77 of the UNCLOS.