1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019

Case Title Topic Facts Issue Ruling Ratio
People v. Perfector MISSING RECORDS FROM This is a case relating to Whether or not article 256 The view of the Chief It is a general principle of
GR No. L-18463 SENATE PUBLISHED IN the loss of some of the Spanish Penal Code Justice is that the accused the public law that on
October 4, 1922 LA NACION NEWSPAPER documents which was abrogated with the should be acquitted for acquisition of territory the
constituted the records of change from Spanish to the reason that the facts previous political relations
testimony given by American sovereignty alleged in the information of the ceded region are
witnesses in the Senate do not constitute a totally abrogated --
• "The important investigation of oil violation of article 256 of "political" being used to
question is here squarely companies. the Penal Code. denominate the laws
presented of whether regulating the relations
article 256 of the Spanish The newspaper La Three members of the sustained by the
Penal Code, punishing Nacion, edited by Mr. court believe that article inhabitants to the
"Any person who, by . . . Gregorio Perfecto, 256 was abrogated sovereign.
writing, shall defame, published an article about completely by the change
abuse, or insult any it to the effect that "the from Spanish to American On American occupation
Minister of the Crown or author or authors of the sovereignty over the of the Philippines, by
other person in authority . robbery of the records Philippines and is instructions of the
. .," is still in force." from the iron safe of the inconsistent with President to the Military
Senate have, perhaps, but democratic principles of Commander, and by
• public law: It is a followed the example of government. proclamation of the latter,
general principle of the certain Senators who the municipal laws of the
public law that on secured their election conquered territory
acquisition of territory the through fraud and affecting private rights of
previous political relations robbery." person and property and
of the ceded region are providing for the
totally abrogated -- Consequently, the punishment of crime (e.g.
"political" being used to Attorney-General, through the Spanish Penal Code)
denominate the laws a resolution adopted by were nominally continued
regulating the relations the Philippine Senate, in force in so far as they
sustained by the filed an information were compatible with the
inhabitants to the alleging that the editorial new order of things.
sovereign. constituted a violation of
article 256 of the Penal Article 256 was enacted
Code. by the Government of
Spain to protect Spanish
The defendant Gregorio officials who were the
Perfecto was found guilty representatives of the
in the municipal court and King. But with the change
again in the Court of First of sovereignty, a new
Instance of Manila. government, and a new
theory of government,
was set up in the
Philippines. No longer is
there a Minister of the
 2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
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.

"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 entire official class.
Punishment for contempt
of non-judicial officers has
no place in a government
based upon American
principles. Our official
class is not, as in
monarchies, an agent of
some authority greater
than the people but it is
an agent and servant of
the 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

Macariola v. Asuncion PARTITION OF Reyes siblings filed a
A.M. No. 133-J PROPERTIES BY complaint for partition
May 31, 1982 SIBLINGS OF 1st and 2nd against Macariola,
MARRIAGE decided by concerning the properties
Judge in Leyte left by their common
father, Francisco Reyes.
Effects of Change in Asuncion was the judge
Sovereignty; Sovereignty; who rendered the
Elements; State decision, which became
final for lack of an appeal.
Although the provisions A project of partition was
are in the Code of submitted to Judge
Commerce which is part Asuncion after the finality
of the commercial laws of of the decision. This
the project of partition was
Philippines, it partakes of only signed by the
the nature of a political counsel of the parties,
law as it who assured the judge
regulates he relationship that they were given
between the government authorization to do so.
and certain
public officers and One of the properties in
employees like justices the project of partition
and judges. was Lot 1184, which was
subdivided into 5 lots.
One of these lots (Lot
1184-D) was sold to
Anota, a stenographer of
the court, while another
(Lot 1184-E) was sold to
Dr. Galapon, who later on
sold a portion of the same
lot to Judge Asuncion and
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
W/N Art. 14 of the Code NO.
of Commerce applies to
Judge Asuncion’s case NEGATIVE. [The Court]
find that there is no merit
in the contention of
complainant that
respondent Judge Elias B.
Asuncion violated Article
1491, paragraph 5, of the
New Civil Code in
acquiring by purchase a
portion of Lot No. 1184-E
which was one of those
properties involved in Civil
Case No. 3010.
The prohibition in the
aforesaid Article applies
only to the sale or
assignment of the
property which is the
subject of litigation to the
persons disqualified
therein. In the case at
bar, when the respondent
Judge purchased on
March 6, 1965 a portion
of Lot 1184-E, the
decision in Civil Case No.
3010 which he rendered
on June 8, 1963 was
already final because
none of the parties
3
where such respect and
obedience is due, but
never does it place
around the individual who
happens to occupy an
official position by
mandate of the people
any official halo, which
calls for drastic
punishment for
contemptuous remarks."
He cannot be held liable
because the Code of
Commerce is the Spanish
Code of Commerce which
was extended to the
Philippines by Royal
Decree. Upon the transfer
of sovereignty from Spain
to US to the Philippines, it
is deemed to have been
abrogated. Where there is
changed in sovereignty,
political laws of former
sovereign are
automatically abrogated
unless reenacted by
affirmative act of new
sovereign.
The Code of Commerce
partakes of the nature of
political law because it
regulates the relationship
between the government
and certain public officers
and employees.
As defined, Political Law is
that branch of public law
which deals
with the organization and
operation of the
governmental organs of

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
his wife. A year after,
spouses Asuncion and Dr.
Galapon sold their
respective shares over the
lot to Traders
Manufacturing and Fishing
Industries. At the time of
the sale, Judge Asuncion
and his wife were both
stockholders, with Judge
Asuncion as President and
his wife as secretary of
said company.
A year after the
company’s registration
with the SEC, Macariola
filed a complaint against
Judge Asuncion alleging:
• that he violated Art.
1491 (5) of the Civil Code
in acquiring a portion of
the lot, which was one of
those properties involved
in the partition case; and
• that he violated Art 14
(1 and 5) of the Code of
Commerce, Sec 3 (H) of
RA 3019, Sec 12, Rule
XVIII of the Civil Service
Rules, and Canon 25 of
the Canons of Judicial
Ethics by associating
himself with a private
company while he was a
judge of the CFI of Leyte.
This case was referred to
Justice Palma of the CA
for investigation, report
and recommendation.
After hearing, the said
Investigating Justice
recommended that Judge
4
therein filed an appeal; the State and defined the
hence, the lot in question relations of the State with
was no longer subject of the inhabitants
the litigation. of its territory.
Upon the transfer of
sovereignty from Spain to
the United States and
later on from the United
States to the Republic of
the Philippines, Article 14
of this Code of Commerce
must be deemed to have
been abrogated because
where there is change of
sovereignty, the political
laws of the former
sovereign, whether
compatible or not with
those of the new
sovereign, are
automatically abrogated,
unless they are expressly
re-enacted by affirmative
act of the new sovereign.
Likewise, in People vs.
Perfecto (43 Phil. 887,
897 [1922]), this Court
stated that: “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. ”
There appears no
enabling or affirmative act
that continued the
effectivity of the
aforestated provision of
the Code of Commerce
after the change of
 5
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Asuncion should be sovereignty from Spain to
reprimanded or warned in the United States and
connection with the then to the Republic of
complaints filed against the Philippines.
him. Consequently, Article 14
of the Code of Commerce
has no legal and binding
effect and cannot apply to
the respondent, then
Judge of the Court of First
Instance, now Associate
Justice of the Court of
Appeals.
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito Amendment of Three of the plaintiff Whether the Court may Wherefore the petition is It is a doctrine too well
G.R. L-1123 Constitution by Congress, senators and eight inquire upon the dismissed. established to need
March 5, 1947 3 senators and 8 representatives had been irregularities in the citation of authorities that
representatives proclaimed by a majority approval of the resolution No, the Court cannot political questions are not
vote of the Commission proposing an amendment inquire upon the within the province of the
A proposal to amend the on Elections as having to the Constitution. irregularities in the judiciary, except to the
Constitution is a highly been elected senators and approval of the resolution extent that power to deal
political function representatives. The three proposing an amendment with such questions has
performed by Congress in senators were suspended to the Constitution. been conferred upon the
its sovereign legislative by the Senate on account courts by express
capacity of alleged irregularities in constitutional or statutory
their election. provision.
Adoption of the Enrolled
Bill Theory The eight representatives This doctrine is predicated
since their election had on the principle of the
not been allowed to sit in separation of powers, a
the lower House for the principle also too well
same reason, although known to require
they had not been elucidation or citation of
formally suspended. As a authorities. The difficulty
consequence these three lies in determining what
senators and eight matters fall within the
representatives did not meaning of political
take part in the passage question. The term is not
of the congressional susceptible of exact
resolution, designated definition, and precedents
"Resolution of both and authorities are not
houses proposing an always in full harmony as
amendment to the to the scope of the
Constitution of the restrictions, on this
Philippines to be ground, on the courts to
 6
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
appended as an ordinance meddle with the actions of
thereto," nor was their the political departments
membership reckoned of the government. If a
within the computation of political question
the necessary three- conclusively binds the
fourths vote which is judges out of respect to
required in proposing an the political departments,
amendment to the a duly certified law or
Constitution. If these resolution also binds the
members of Congress had judges under the
been counted, the "enrolled bill rule" born of
affirmative votes in favor that respect.
of the proposed
amendment would have If ratification of an
been short of the amendment is a political
necessary three-fourths question, a proposal
vote in either branch of which leads to ratification
Congress. has to be a political
question. The two steps
The petition for complement each other in
prohibition sought to a scheme intended to
prevent the enforcement achieve a single objective.
of said congressional It is to be noted that the
resolution, as it is amendatory process as
allegedly contrary to the provided in section I of
Constitution. The Article XV of the Philippine
respondents deny that Constitution "consists of
this court has jurisdiction, (only) two distinct parts:
relying on the proposal and ratification."
conclusiveness on the
courts of an enrolled bill There is no logic in
or resolution. attaching political
character to one and
withholding that character
from the other. Proposal
to amend the Constitution
is a highly political
function performed by the
Congress in its sovereign
legislative capacity and
committed to its charge
by the Constitution itself.
The exercise of this power
is even in dependent of

Aquino v. Enrile 1935 Constitution
GR No. L-35546 Declaration of Martial
September 17, 1974 Law
Courts Inquiry as to
validity of declaration
The Court upheld the
President’s declaration of
martial law. On whether
the validity of the
imposition of martial law
was a political or
justiciable question, the
Court was almost evenly
divided.
7
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
any intervention by the
Chief Executive. If on
grounds of expediency
scrupulous attention of
the judiciary be needed to
safeguard public interest,
there is less reason for
judicial inquiry into the
validity of a proposal then
into that of ratification.
September 21, 1972, 1. WON the Court has All petitions dismissed The judicial department
President Ferdinand E. jurisdiction to inquire into except those which have can determine the
Marcos signed the constitutional been previously existence of conditions for
Proclamation No. 1081, sufficiency of the withdrawn by the the exercise of the
proclaiming a state of proclamation of martial respective petitioners with President’s powers and is
Martial Law in the law the approval of this Court. not bound by the recitals
Philippines of his proclamation. But
2. WON Proclamation No. The Constitution provides whether in the
September 22, 1972, 1081 is valid given then that in case of invasion, circumstances obtaining
General Order No. 2 was the circumstances insurrection or rebellion, public safety requires the
signed by the President required by the or imminent danger suspension of the
which provided an order Constitution for the against the state, when privilege of the writ of
to the Secretary of proclamation of a state of public safety requires it, habeas corpus or the
National Defense to arrest martial law the President may proclamation of martial
and take into custody the suspend the privilege of law is initially for the
individuals named in the the writ of habeas corpus President to decide. The
list for being participants or place the Philippines or President’s findings as to
in the conspiracy to seize any part therein under necessity are persuasive
political and state power Martial Law. In the case upon the courts.
in the country and to take at bar, the SC ruled that
over the government by the state of rebellion Xxxx
force plaguing the country has
not yet disappeared, "it has the authority to
Secretary of National therefore, there is a clear inquire into the existence
Defense, Juan Ponce and imminent danger of said factual bases
Enrile, immediately against the state. The [stated in the
effected the arrest of the arrest is then a valid proclamation suspending
herein petitioners exercise pursuant to the the privilege of the writ of
President’s order. habeas corpus or placing
Petitioners sought relief the country under martial
from Court, filing petitions law as the case may be,
for habeas corpus since the requirements for
the exercise of these
powers are the same and

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Respondents filed their
“Return to Writ and
Answer to the Petition”
and prayed that the
petition be dismissed
Pending resolution of
these Petitions,
petitioners, except for two
(Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr.
and Sen. Jose Diokno),
were released from
custody on different dates
under a “Conditional
Release”
December 28, 1973,
Diokno filed a Motion to
Withdraw Petition,
imputing delay in the
disposition of his case,
and asseverating that
because of the decision of
the Court in the
Ratification Cases and the
action of the Members of
the Court in taking an
oath to support the New
Constitution, he cannot
“reasonably expect to get
justice in this case”
The respondents opposed
the motion on the
grounds that there is a
public interest in the
decision of these cases
and that the reasons
given for the motion to
withdraw are untrue,
unfair and contemptuous.
The Court denied Diokno’s
motion
Xxxx
Opinions
The right of a government
to maintain its existence
is the most pervasive
aspect of sovereignty. To
protect the nation's
continued existence, from
external as well as
internal threats, the
government "is invested
with all those inherent
and implied powers
which, at the time of
adopting the Constitution,
were generally considered
to belong to every
government as such, and
as being essential to the
exercise of its functions"
- These powers which are
to be exercised for the
nation's protection and
security have been lodged
by the Constitution under
Article VII, Section 10 (2)
thereof, on the President
of the Philippines, who is
clothed with exclusive
authority to determine the
occasion on which the
powers shall be called
forth.
8
are provided in the very
same clause] in order to
determine the
constitutional sufficiency
thereof."32 The Court
stressed therein that
"indeed, the grant of
power to suspend the
privilege is neither
absolute nor unqualified.
The authority conferred
upon by the Constitution,
both under the Bill of
Rights and under the
Executive Department, is
limited and conditional.
The precept in the Bill of
Rights establishes a
general rule, as well as an
exception thereto. What is
more, it postulates the
former in the negative,
evidently to stress its
importance, by providing
that '(t)he privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus
shall not be suspended x
x x.' It is only by way of
exception that it permits
the suspension of the
privilege 'in cases of
invasion, insurrection, or
rebellion'-or under Art. VII
of the Constitution,
'imminent danger
thereof-'when the public
safety requires it, in any
of which events the same
may be suspended
wherever during such
period the necessity for
such suspension shall
exist.' Far from being full
and plenary, the authority
 9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
to suspend the privilege
of the writ is thus
circumscribed, confined
and restricted, not only by
the prescribed setting or
the conditions essential to
its existence, but also, as
regards the time when
and the place where it
may be exercised. These
factors and the
aforementioned setting or
conditions mark, establish
and define the extent, the
confines and the limits of
said power, beyond which
it does not exist. And, like
the limitations and
restrictions imposed by
the Fundamental Law
upon the legislative
department, adherence
thereto and compliance
therewith may, within
proper bounds, be
inquired into by the courts
of justice. Otherwise, the
explicit constitutional
provisions thereon would
be meaningless. Surely,
the frames of our
Constitution could not
have intended to engage
in such a wasteful
exercise in futility."

Planas v. Comelec Court refrained from March 16, 1967: Congress 1. Is the issuance of PD 1. The issue has become As regards to the
GR No. L-35925 reviewing the passed Resolution No. 2 No. 73 by the President moot and academic. Since authority of the President
January 22, 1973 constitutional validity of (Res. 2) calling for a valid given that such the plebiscite in question to issue PD No. 73, the
Presidential proclamation Convention for the power is exclusive of has been postponed, the court finds it unnecessary
calling for a plebiscite to purpose of proposing Congress? court finds it unnecessary to pass upon such
ratify proposed amendments to the 1935 to pass upon the question question because the
constitutional Constitution. of the validity of PD No. plebiscite ordained in said

mendments in relation to
the postponement of the
aforementioned plebiscite.
Charito Planas filed a
petition to the Supreme
Court in order to prohibit
the implementation of
Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 73 scheduling a
plebiscite to ratify or
reject the proposed
Constitutional
amendments submitted
by the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, citing
constitutional provisions.
Other
identical actions were
filed including a While 1971 CC was in
supplemental urgent
motion for issuance of
restraining order
and writ of preliminary
injunction from
implementing PD No. 73
and any other similar
proclamations
related to such. The
Supreme Court justices
decided on a vote of 6 to
3 to dismiss all petitions
finding
it unnecessary to pass
upon the question given
the postponement of the
said plebiscite to an
indefinite
time in the future, until
further notice.
10
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
• June 17, 1969: 2. Did the 1971 CC 73. If the plebiscite is Decree has been
Congress adopted exceed their authority in schedules, the parties postponed. In any event,
Resolution No. 4 (Res. 4) approving the may file such actions as should the plebiscite be
amending Res. 2 aforementioned sections justified by the given scheduled to be held at
• August 24, 1970: in the Proposed Consti? circumstances. any time later, the proper
Republic Act 6132 was parties may then file such
approved implementing 3. Does Martial Law affect 2. No. The 1971 CC was action as the
Res. 2 as amended the validity of the “proper legally free to propose circumstances may justify.
• November 10, 1970: submission of the any amendment it deems
Delegates to the Proposed Consti to the fit unless inconsistent On the question whether
Constitutional Convention people for ratification” with the international the proclamation of
were elected given that there is no doctrine of Jus Cogens Martial Law affected the
• June 1, 1971: freedom of speech, press since it exercised its proper submission of the
Constitutional Convention and assembly? sovereign powers as Proposed Consti to a
began performing thus delegated to it by the plebiscite, insofar as the
named, the 1971 4. Is Proc No. 1102 valid people. Also, because freedom essential therefor
Constitutional Convention and in conformity with the proposals for is concerned, the issue
(1971 CC) requirements for amendments cannot be a involves a question of fact
• September 21, 1972: ratification stated in the part of Fundamental Law which cannot be
1935 Constitution unless approved by a predetermined, and
session, President majority of votes cast at Martial Law per se does
Ferdinand Marcos issued an election not necessarily preclude
Proclamation No. 1081 where the propos ls were the factual possibility of
(Proc. No. 1081) placing submitted to the people adequate freedom for the
the entire Philippines for ratification. (Sec. 1, purposes contemplated.
under Martial Law Art XV 1935
• November 29, 1972: Constitution) The question of the
1971 CC approved the validity of Proc. No. 1102
Proposed Constitution of 3. The issue is a question has not been explicitly
the Republic of the of fact and cannot be raised and adequately
Philippines (Proposed predetermined. As seen in argued by the parties in
Consti) the temporary suspension any of these cases and it
• November 30, 1972: of Proc No. 1081, Martial would not be proper to
President issued PD No. Law does not necessarily resolve such a
73 “submitting the mean that freedom of transcendental question
Proposed Constitution to speech and discussion of without the most
the People of the the Proposed Consti. is thorough discussion
Philippines for ratification curtailed. Since the said possible under the
or rejection”. A plebiscite plebiscite has been circumstances.
for the said ratification postponed, the issue
was scheduled on January remains to be a question
15, 1973 and funds were of fact.
appropriated for such

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
• December 7, 1972:
Charito Planas filed
petition GR No. L-35925
to nullify PD No. 73 on
grounds that (1) the
power to call for such
plebiscite, by Constitution,
is held exclusively by the
Congress, and (2) there is
no proper submission of
the proposed constitution
there being no freedom of
discussion under Martial
Law and lack of adequate
time to inform the people
of the contents of the
Proposed Consti (Nov. 30,
1972 – Jan. 15, 1973)
• December 8 – 16, 1972:
Similar actions were filed
accordingly
• December 17, 1972:
President issued an order
to temporarily suspend
the effects of Proc. No.
1081 (Martial Law) for the
purpose of free and open
debate on the Proposed
Consti.
• January 1, 1973:
President issued
Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 86 organizing
Citizen's
Assemblies to be
consulted on certain
public questions. The
voting for such questions
is to take place on
January 10 – 15, 1973.
• January 5, 1973:
President issued PD No.
86-A which submitted
new questions to PD No.
11
4. The Court finds it
unnecessary to pass upon
such question. The issue
on the validity
of Proc No. 1102 has not
been properly raised and
adequately argued on by
the parties in
Court.
Recapitulating the views
expressed by the
Members of the Court,
the result is this:
(1) There is unanimity on
the justiciable nature of
the issue on the legality
of Presidential Decree 73.
(2) On the validity of the
decree itself, Justices
Makalintal, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee,
Esguerra and Concepcion,
or 6 Members of the
Court, are of the opinion
that the issue has become
moot and academic,
whereas Justices Barredo,
Makasiar and Antonio
voted to uphold the
validity of said Decree.
(3) On the authority of
the 1971 Constitutional
Convention to pass the
proposed Constitution or
to incorporate therein the
provisions contested by
the petitioners in L-
35948, Justice Makalintal,
Castro, Teehankee and

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
86 with emphasis on
questions:
(1) Do you approve of the
new Constitution?, and
(2) Do you still want a
plebiscite to be called to
ratify the new
Constitution?
• January 7, 1973:
President issued General
Order No. 20 (GO No. 20)
which postponed the
scheduled plebiscite to an
indefinite time in the
future, until further
notice. This also
suspended the effect of
the order issued on
December 17, 1972.
• January 12, 1973:
Petitioners of case GR No.
L-35948 filed an “Urgent
Motion for Early Decision”
praying that the case be
decided as soon as
possible and not later
than January 15, 1973. It
sees that PD No. 86 and
PD No. 86-A as a means
to by-pass and short
circuit the powers of the
Court to decide on the
pending petitions if
implemented
• January 15, 1973: Same
petitioners filed a Constitution
“Supplemental Motion for
Issuance of Restraining
Order and Inclusion of
Additional Respondents”
from “collecting,
certifying, announcing,
and reporting” the results
of the so-called Citizen's
12
Esguerra opine that the
issue has become moot
and academic. Justice
Fernando, Barredo,
Makasiar, Antonio and
Concepcion have voted to
uphold the authority of
the Convention.
(4) Justice Fernando,
likewise, expressed the
view that the 1971
Constitutional Convention
had authority to continue
in the performance of its
functions despite the
proclamation of Martial
Law. In effect, Justices
Barredo, Makasiar and
Antonio hold the same
view.
(5) On the question
whether the proclamation
of Martial Law affected
the proper submission of
the proposed Constitution
to a plebiscite, insofar as
the freedom essential
therefor is concerned,
Justice Fernando is of the
opinion that there is a
repugnancy between the
election contemplated
under Art. XV of the 1935
and the
existence of Martial Law,
and would, therefore,
grant the petitions were
they not moot and
academic.
 13
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Assemblies. They also
called for the issuance of
a writ of preliminary
injunction to prevent the
implementation of PD No.
73 and other similar
proclamations, decrees or
orders related to the
plebiscite scheduled on
January 15, 1973.
• January 17, 1973: While
said cases where being
heard in court, the
Secretary of Justice
delivered to Chief Justi e
(CJ) Concepcion a copy of
Proclamation No. 1102
(Proc No. 1102) signed by
the President that very
morning.
• The proclamation
certified the ratification of
the Proposed Consti by an
overwhelming majority as
determined by the votes
gathered from the
Citizen's Assemblies. It
was read in court by CJ
Concepcion for the
petitioners to hear.
• After extensive
discussion, it was deemed
necessary that the
Members of the Court
write their own views and
the CJ would state the
result of the votes cast on
the points of issue.
Javellana v. Executive RATIFICATION The Plebiscite Case 1. Is the issue of the The court was severely 1. Is the issue of the
Secretary On March 16, 1967, validity of Proclamation divided on the following validity of Proclamation
GR No.L-36142 While a majority of the Congress of the No. 1102 a justiciable, or issues raised in the No. 1102 a justiciable, or
March 31, 1973 Court held that the issue Philippines passed political and therefore petition: but when the political and therefore
of whether or not the Resolution No. 2, as non-justiciable, question? crucial question of non-justiciable, question?
1973 Constitution was amended by Resolution whether the petitioners

justiciable, a majority also
ruled that the decisive
issue of whether the 1973
Constitution had come
into force and effect, with
or without constitutional
ratification, was a political
question
No. 4, calling for a
Constitutional Convention
to propose amendments
to the Philippine
Constitution. Said
Resolution was
implemented by Republic
Act No. 6132, for the
election of delegates of
the said Convention.
Hence, the 1971
Constitutional Convention
began to perform its
functions on June 1,
1971. While the
Convention was in session
on September 21, 1972,
the President issued
Proclamation No. 1081
placing the entire
Philippines under Martial
Law.
On November 29, 1972,
the Convention approved
its Proposed Constitution
of the Republic of the
Philippines. The next day,
November 30, 1972, the
President of the
Philippines issued
Presidential Decree No.
73, which is an order for
setting and appropriating
of funds for a plebiscite
for the ratification or
rejection of the proposed
Constitution as drafted by
the 1971 Constitutional
Convention.
On December 7, 1972,
Charito Planas filed a case
against the Commission
14
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
2. Has the Constitution are entitled to relief, six On the first issue
proposed by the 1971 members of the court involving the political-
Constitutional Convention (Justices Makalintal, question doctrine Justices
been ratified validly (with Castro, Barredo, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
substantial, if not strict, Makasiar, Antonio and Castro, Fernando,
compliance) conformably Esguerra) voted to Teehankee and myself, or
to the applicable dismiss the petition. six (6) members of the
constitutional and Concepcion, together Court, hold that the issue
statutory provisions? Justices Zaldivar, of the validity of
Fernando and Teehankee, Proclamation No. 1102
3. Has the voted to grant the relief presents a justiciable and
aforementioned proposed being sought, thus non-political question.
Constitution acquiesced in upholding the 1973 Justices Makalintal and
(with or without valid Constitution. Castro did not vote
ratification) by the squarely on this question,
people? (acquiesced - ACCORDINGLY, by virtue but, only inferentially, in
"permission" given by of the majority of six (6) their discussion of the
silence or passiveness. votes of Justices second question. Justice
Acceptance or agreement Makalintal, Castro, Barredo qualified his vote,
by keeping quiet or by not Barredo, Makasiar, stating that "inasmuch as
making objections.) Antonio and Esguerra it is claimed there has
with the four (4) been approval by the
4. Is the aforementioned dissenting votes of the people, the Court may
proposed Constitution in Chief Justice and Justices inquire into the question
force? Zaldivar, Fernando and of whether or not there
Teehankee, all the has actually been such an
aforementioned cases are approval, and, in the
hereby dismissed. This affirmative, the Court
being the vote of the should keep hands-off out
majority, there is no of respect to the people's
further judicial obstacle to will, but, in negative, the
the new Constitution Court may determine from
being considered in force both factual and legal
and effect. It is so angles whether or not
ordered. Article XV of the 1935
Constitution been
complied with." Justices
Makasiar, Antonio,
Esguerra, or three (3)
members of the Court
hold that the issue is
political and "beyond the
ambit of judicial inquiry."
 15
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
on Elections, the 2. Has the Constitution
Treasurer of the proposed by the 1971
Philippines and the Constitutional Convention
Auditor General, to enjoin been ratified validly (with
said respondents or their substantial, if not strict,
agents from implementing compliance) conformably
Presidential Decree No. to the applicable
73, on the grounds that constitutional and
the President does not statutory provisions?
have the legislative
authority to call a On the second question of
plebiscite and the validity of the ratification,
appropriation of public Justices Makalintal,
funds for the purpose are Zaldivar, Castro,
lodged exclusively by the Fernando, Teehankee and
Constitution in Congress myself, or six (6)
and there is no proper members of the Court
submission to the people also hold that the
of said Proposed Constitution proposed by
Constitution set for the 1971 Constitutional
January 15, 1973, there Convention was not
being no freedom of validly ratified in
speech, press and accordance with Article
assembly, and there being XV, section 1 of the 1935
no sufficient time to Constitution, which
inform the people of the provides only one way for
contents thereof. ratification, i.e., "in an
election or plebiscite held
On December 23, 1972, in accordance with law
the President announced and participated in only
the postponement of the by qualified and duly
plebiscite for the registered voters.
ratification or rejection of
the Proposed Justice Barredo qualified
Constitution. The Court his vote, stating that "(A)s
deemed it fit to refrain, to whether or not the
for the time being, from 1973 Constitution has
deciding the been validly ratified
aforementioned case. pursuant to Article XV, I
still maintain that in the
In the afternoon of light of traditional
January 12, 1973, the concepts regarding the
petitioners in Case G.R. meaning and intent of
No. L-35948 filed an said Article, the
 16
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
"urgent motion," praying referendum in the
that said case be decided Citizens' Assemblies,
"as soon as possible, specially in the manner
preferably not later than the votes therein were
January 15, 1973." The cast, reported and
next day, January 13, canvassed, falls short of
1973, the Court issued a the requirements thereof.
resolution requiring the In view, however, of the
respondents to comment fact that I have no means
and file an answer to the of refusing to recognize as
said "urgent motion" not a judge that factually
later than Tuesday noon, there was voting and that
January 16, 1973." When the majority of the votes
the case was being heard, were for considering as
the Secretary of Justice approved the 1973
called on and said that, Constitution without the
“upon instructions of the necessity of the usual
President, he is delivering form of plebiscite followed
a copy of Proclamation in past ratifications, I am
No. 1102, which had just constrained to hold that,
been signed by the in the political sense, if
President earlier that not in the orthodox legal
morning.” sense, the people may be
deemed to have cast their
Proclamation No. 1102, favorable votes in the
declares that Citizen belief that in doing so
Assemblies referendum they did the part required
was conducted, and that of them by Article XV,
the result shows that hence, it may be said that
more than 95% of the in its political aspect,
members of the Citizens which is what counts
Assemblies are in favor of most, after all, said Article
the new Constitution and has been substantially
majority also answered complied with, and, in
that there was no need effect, the 1973
for a plebiscite and that Constitution has been
the vote of the Citizens constitutionally ratified."
Assemblies should be Justices Makasiar, Antonio
considered as a vote in a and Esguerra, or three (3)
plebiscite. The then members of the Court
President of the hold that under their view
Philippines, Marcos, there has been in effect
hereby certify and substantial compliance
proclaim that the with the constitutional
 17
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Constitution proposed by requirements for valid
the 1971 Constitutional ratification.
Convention has been
ratified by an 3. Has the
overwhelming majority of aforementioned proposed
all of the votes cast by Constitution acquiesced in
the members of the (with or without valid
Citizens Assemblies ratification) by the
throughout the people?
Philippines, and has
thereby come into effect. On the third question of
acquiescence by the
The Ratification Case Filipino people in the
On January 20, 1973, aforementioned proposed
Josue Javellana filed case Constitution, no majority
against the Executive vote has been reached by
Secretary and the the Court.
Secretaries of National Four (4) of its members,
Defense, Justice and namely, Justices Barredo,
Finance, to restrain said Makasiar, Antonio and
respondents "and their Esguerra hold that "the
subordinates or agents people have already
from implementing any of accepted the 1973
the provisions of the Constitution."
propose Constitution not Two (2) members of the
found in the present Court, namely, Justice
Constitution" referring to Zaldivar and myself hold
that of 1935. that there can be no free
expression, and there has
Javellana alleged that the even been no expression,
President had announced by the people qualified to
"the immediate vote all over the
implementation of the Philippines, of their
New Constitution, thru his acceptance or repudiation
Cabinet, respondents of the proposed
including," and that the Constitution under Martial
latter "are acting without, Law. Justice Fernando
or in excess of jurisdiction states that "(I)f it is
in implementing the said conceded that the
proposed Constitution" doctrine stated in some
upon the ground: "that American decisions to the
the President, as effect that independently
Commander-in-Chief of of the validity of the
the Armed Forces of the ratification, a new
 18
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Philippines, is without Constitution once
authority to create the accepted acquiesced in by
Citizens Assemblies"; that the people must be
the same "are without accorded recognition by
power to approve the the Court, I am not at this
proposed Constitution ..."; stage prepared to state
"that the President is that such doctrine calls for
without power to proclaim application in view of the
the ratification by the shortness of time that has
Filipino people of the elapsed and the difficulty
proposed Constitution"; of ascertaining what is the
and "that the election mind of the people in the
held to ratify the absence of the freedom of
proposed Constitution debate that is a
was not a free election, concomitant feature of
hence null and void." martial law." 88
Three (3) members of the
Court express their lack of
knowledge and/or
competence to rule on the
question. Justices
Makalintal and Castro are
joined by Justice
Teehankee in their
statement that "Under a
regime of martial law,
with the free expression
of opinions through the
usual media vehicle
restricted, (they) have no
means of knowing, to the
point of judicial certainty,
whether the people have
accepted the
Constitution."

5. Is the aforementioned
proposed Constitution in
force?

On the fifth question of

whether the new
Constitution of 1973 is in
force:
 19
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Four (4) members of the
Court, namely, Justices
Barredo, Makasiar,
Antonio and Esguerra hold
that it is in force by virtue
of the people's
acceptance thereof;
Four (4) members of the
Court, namely, Justices
Makalintal, Castro,
Fernando and Teehankee
cast no vote thereon on
the premise stated in their
votes on the third
question that they could
not state with judicial
certainty whether the
people have accepted or
not accepted the
Constitution; and
Two (2) members of the
Court, namely, Justice
Zaldivar and myself voted
that the Constitution
proposed by the 1971
Constitutional Convention
is not in force; with the
result that there are not
enough votes to declare
that the new Constitution
is not in force.

This being the vote of the

majority, there is no
further judicial obstacle to
the new Constitution
being considered in force
and effect.
In Re Saturnino DE FACTO GOVERNMENT In a petition for Does Section 5, Art. XVIII Petition has no merit and Petitions for declaratory
Bermudez declaratory relief with no of the proposed 1986 should be dismissed relief do not fall within the
Gr No. 76180 Extending the term of the respondents, petitioner Constitution pertain to outright jurisdiction of the SC;
October 24, 1986 President to 1992 (Cory asked the court if the incumbent President
Aquino) provision of the Section 5 Corazon Aquino and Vice- It is elementary that this
Article XVIII of the 1986 President Salvador Laurel Court assumes no
 20
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
[T]he legitimacy of the Constitution, to wit: “The or to elected President jurisdiction over petitions
Aquino government is not six-year term of the Ferdinand Marcos and for declaratory relief.
a justiciable matter. It incumbent President and Vice-President Arturo (Note: ROC provides that
belongs to the realm of Vice-President elected in Tolentino? the jurisdiction for
politics where only the the February 7, 1986 petitions for declaratory
people of the Philippines election is, for purposes relief is with the RTC )
are the judge. of synchronization of
elections, hereby Petitioner does not have
And the people have extended to noon of June the legal standing to sue;
made the judgment; they 30, 1992,” refers to the although no respondent is
have accepted the then-incumbent President impleaded, the instant
government of President Corazon Aquino and Vice- petition amounts to a suit
Aquino which is in President Salvador Laurel against incumbent
effective control of the or the previously-elected President Corazon Aquino,
entire country so that it is President Ferdinand E. who is immune from suits
not merely a de facto Marcos and Vice-President during her incumbency;
government but in fact Arturo M. Tolentino. it should be fairly obvious
and law a de jure -- mutatis mutandis, there
government. Moreover, After the election of should be no question --
the community of nations February 7, 1986 where that the aforecited
has recognized the Marcos and Tolentino provision pertains to
legitimacy of the present were declared the incumbent President
government. All the winners, Aquino and Corazon Aquino and Vice-
eleven members of this Laurel were installed into President Salvador Laurel.
Court as reorganized, the position last February
have sworn to uphold the 25, 1986 after the The Aquino administration
fundamental law of the infamous People Power is legitimately recognized
Republic under her Revolution. The next by other nations, and all
government. regular election for the eleven members of the SC
President and Vice- have sworn to uphold the
President was held last fundamental law of the
May 2, 1992. land under her
government; and the
people of the Philippines
have accepted her
government as the one in
effective control of the
country, such that it is not
merely a de facto
government but in fact
and law a de jure
government.
___

De Leon v. Esguerra Effectivity of the 1987
GR No. 78059 Constitution
August 31, 1987
“The act of ratification is
the act of voting [in the
plebiscite] by the people.
So that is the date of the
ratification.”
Appointed Brgy Chairman
De Leon was the
incumbent Brgy. Captain
of Brgy. Dolores,
Tagaytay, Rizal whose
term was to end in 1988
under the Brgy. Election
Act of 1982.
In memoranda signed on
February 8, 1987, OIC
Gov. Esguerra designated
respondents as Brgy.
Chairman and members
of the Brgy. Council in
place of De Leon et al.
Esguerra relied on the
Provisional Constitution
which provided that “all
elective officials xxx under
the 1973 Constitution
shall continue in office
until designation xxx of
their successors if such
appointment is made
within one year from
February 25, 1986.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Was the designation of
respondents to replace
petitioners validly made
within the one year period
contemplated in the
Provisional Constitution?
21
De facto means "actual"
or "in reality." Therefore,
a de facto government is
one that exercises power
as if legally constituted
even though it is not
formally recognized. De
jure means "by right" or
something that is based
on laws or actions of the
State.
No. Article XVIII, Sec 27 of
the 1987 Constitution
Wherefore, the reads: “This Constitution
designation by the OIC shall take effect
Governor of new immediately upon its
Barangay Officials was ratification by a majority
declared NO LEGAL of votes cast in a
FORCE AND EFFECT and plebiscite held for the
the Writ for Prohibition is purpose and shall
GRANTED enjoining supersede all previous
respondents perpetually Constitutions.” The 1987
from ouster/take-over of Constitution was ratified
petitioners’ position in a plebiscite on February
subject of this petition. 2, 1987. By that date,
therefore, the Provisional
Constitution must have
been superseded already.
Having been rendered
inoperative, Esguerra
could no longer correctly
rely on it when he
designated the
respondents on February
8, 1987
The affectivity of the
Memorandum should be
based on the date when it
was signed, February 8,
1987. By that time, the
1987 Constitution was
already in effect, thus
superseding all previous
 22
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
constitution as provided in
Section 27 of its
Transitory Provisions.
Respondent OIC Governor
could no longer rely on
Section 2, Article III of
the Provisional
Constitution to designate
respondents to the
elective positions
occupied by petitioners.

Barangay Election Act of

1982 should still govern
since it is not inconsistent
with the 1987
Constitution.
Nitafan v. Comm. Of Payment of income tax by Petitioners, the duly Whether or not No. (Petition is Dismissed) The primary task in
Internal Revenue judges does not fall within appointed and qualified members of the constitutional construction
GR No. 78780 the constitutional Judges presiding over The salaries of members is to ascertain and
Judiciary are exempt
July 23, 1987 protection against Branches 52, 19 and 53, of the Judiciary are thereafter assure the
decrease of their salaries. respectively, of the from income taxes. subject to the general realization of the purpose
Regional Trial Court, income tax applied to all of the framers and of the
CONSTITUTIONAL National Capital Judicial taxpayers. Although such people in the adoption of
CONSTRUCTION Region, all with stations in intent was somehow and the Constitution. It may
Manila, seek to prohibit inadvertently not clearly also be safely assumed
and/or perpetually enjoin set forth in the final text that the people in
respondents, the of the 1987 Constitution, ratifying the Constitution
Commissioner of Internal the deliberations of the were guided mainly by
Revenue and the Financial 1986 Constitutional the explanation offered by
Officer of the Supreme Commission regarding the the framers.
Court, from making any constitutional provision in
deduction of withholding question until it was The ruling that "the
taxes from their salaries. finally approved by the imposition of income tax
Commission disclosed that upon the salary of judges
They submit that "any tax the true intent of the is a dimunition thereof,
withheld from their framers was to make the and so violates the
emoluments or salaries of members of Constitution", in Perfecto
compensation as judicial the Judiciary taxable. The vs. Meer, as affirmed in
officers constitutes a ascertainment of that Endencia vs. David must
decrease or diminution of intent is but in keeping be declared discarded.
their salaries, contrary to with the fundamental The framers of the
the provision of Section principle of constitutional fundamental law, as the
10, Article VIII of the construction that the alter ego of the people,

1987 Constitution
mandating that during
their continuance in
office, their salary shall
not be decreased," even
as it is anathema to the
Ideal of an independent
judiciary envisioned in
and by said Constitution."
It may be pointed out
that, early on, the Court
had dealt with the matter
administratively in
response to
representations that the
Court shall direct its
Finance Officer to
discontinue the
withholding of taxes from
salaries of members of
the Bench. Thus, on June
4, 1987, it was reaffirmed
by the Court en banc.
Manila Prince Hotel v. SELF EXECUTING Respondent GSIS,
GSIS PROVISIONS pursuant to the
GR No. 122156 privatization program of
February 3, 1997 the Philippine Government
under Proclamation No.
50 dated 8 December
1986, decided to sell
through public bidding
30% to 51% of the issued
and outstanding shares of
respondent MHC which
owns the historic Manila
Hotel.
In a closed bidding held
on 18 September 1995
only two (2) bidders
participated: petitioner
Manila Prince Hotel
Corporation, a Filipino
23
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
intent of the framers of have expressed in clear
the organic law and of the and unmistakable terms
people adopting it should the meaning and import
be given effect. of Section 10, Article VIII,
of the 1987 Constitution
that they have adopted
Stated otherwise, we
accord due respect to the
intent of the people,
through the discussions
and deliberations of their
representatives, in the
spirit that all citizens
should bear their aliquot
part of the cost of
maintaining the
government and should
share the burden of
general income taxation
equitably.
Whether the provisions of Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of A provision which lays
the Constitution, the 1987 Constitution is a down a general principle,
particularly Article XII self-executing provision. such as those found in
Section 10, are self- Article II of the 1987
executing Constitution, is usually not
self-executing. 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.
Hence, unless it is
 24
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
corporation, which offered expressly provided that a
to buy 51 % of the MHC legislative act is necessary
or 15,300,000 shares at to enforce a constitutional
P41.58 per share, and mandate, the presumption
Renong Berhad, a now is that all provisions
Malaysian firm, with ITT of the constitution are
Sheraton as its hotel self-executing. If the
operator, which bid for constitutional provisions
the same number of are treated as requiring
shares at P44.00 per legislation instead of self-
share, or P2.42 more than executing, the legislature
the bid of petitioner. would have the power to
ignore and practically
Pending the declaration of nullify the mandate of the
Renong Berhard as the fundamental law.
winning bidder and the
execution of the In fine, Section 10,
necessary contracts, second paragraph, Art.
petitioner in a letter to XII of the 1987
respondent GSIS dated 28 Constitution is a
September 1995 matched mandatory, positive
the bid price of P44.00 command which is
per share tendered by complete in itself and
Renong Berhad. In a which needs no further
subsequent letter dated guidelines or
10 October 1995 implementing laws or
petitioner sent a rules for its enforcement.
manager's check issued From its very words the
by Philtrust Bank for provision does not require
Thirty-three Million Pesos any legislation to put it in
(P33-000,000.00) as Bid operation.
Security to match the bid
of the Malaysian Group,
Messrs. Renong Berhad
which respondent GSIS
refused to accept.

On 17 October 1995,
perhaps apprehensive
that respondent GSIS has
disregarded the tender of
the matching bid and that
the sale of 51% of the
MHC may be hastened by
 25
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
respondent GSIS and
consummated with
Renong Berhad, petitioner
came to this Court on
prohibition and
mandamus. On 18
October 1995 the Court
issued a temporary
restraining order
enjoining respondents
from perfecting and
consummating the sale to
the Malaysian firm.

On 10 September 1996
the instant case was
accepted by the Court En
Banc after it was referred
to it by the First Division.

Petitioner invokes Sec. 10,

second par., Art. XII, of
the 1987 Constitution and
submits that the Manila
Hotel has been identified
with the Filipino nation
and has practically
become a historical
monument which reflects
the vibrancy of Philippine
heritage and culture.

Respondents assert that

Sec. 10, second par., Art.
XII, of the 1987
Constitution is merely a
statement of principle and
policy since it is not a
self-executing provision
and requires
implementing
legislation(s).

Valmonte v Belmonte The information as to the Petitioner Valmonte wrote (1) Is the information Yes. The public nature of The cornerstone of the

GR No. 74930 truth of reports that some
February 13, 1989 opposition members of
Congress were granted
“clean loans” by the GSIS
through the intercession
of
Imelda Marcos is a matter
of public concern.
Right to public
information entitles one to
access to official records
but not
to compel its custodians
to prepare lists,
summaries, etc. thereof.
respondent GSIS General
Manager Belmonte
requesting him to be
furnished with the list of
names of the opposition
members (members of
UNIDO and PDP-Laban)
of the Batasang
Pambansa who were able
to secure a clean loan of
P2 million each on
guaranty of Mrs. Imelda
Marcos. In reply to the
letter, GSIS Dep. General
Counsel said that GSIS
cannot furnish Valmonte
the list of names because
of the confidential
relationship that exists
between GSIS and all
those who borrow from it.
Valmonte et al. now seek
to compel Belmonte to
release the information,
invoking his right to
information. Valmonte et
al.
. Petitioner Valmonte filed
a special civil action for
mandamus with
preliminary injunction,
praying that respondent
Belmonte, in his capacity
as GSIS General Manager,
be directed to:
1. Furnish petitioners with
a list of the names of the
members of the defunct
Batasang Pambansa who
were able to secure
“clean” loans from the
GSIS immediately prior to
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
sought a matter of public the loanable funds of the
interest and concern so as GSIS and the public office
to come within the policy held by the alleged
of full public disclosure? borrowers make the
information sought
(2) Supposing the clearly a matter of public
information sought comes interest and concern.49
within the policy of full Wherefore, petitioners are
public disclosure, may entitled to access to the
GSIS be compelled to documents evidencing
prepare lists of names of loans granted by the
opposition members GSIS, subject to
requested? reasonable regulations it
may promulgate relating
to the manner and hours
of examination, to the
end that damage to or
loss of the records may
be avoided, that undue
interference with the
duties of the custodian of
the records may be
prevented and that the
right of other persons
entitled to inspect the
records may be insured.
2. No. Although citizens
are afforded the right to
information and, pursuant
thereto, are entitled to
“access to official
records,” the Constitution
does not accord them a
right to compel custodians
of official records to
prepare lists, abstracts,
summaries and the like in
their desire to acquire
information on matters of
public concern.
26
republican system of govt
is the delegation of power
by the people. In this
system, governmental
agencies and institutions
operate w/in the limits of
the authority conferred by
the people. Denied access
to information on the
inner workings of govt,
the citizenry can become
prey to the whims and
caprices of those to whom
the power had been
delegated. The postulate
of public office as a public
trust, institutionalized in
the Constitution to protect
the people from abuse of
governmental power,
would certainly be merely
empty words if access to
such information of public
concern is denied, except
under limitations
prescribed by
implementing legislation
adopted pursuant to the
Constitution.
The right to information is
not merely an adjunct of
and therefore restricted in
application by the exercise
of the freedom of
speech and of the press.
Far from it. The right to
information goes hand in
hand w/ the constitutional
policies of full public
disclosure and honesty in
the public service. It is
meant to enhance the
widening role of the
 27
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
the February 7, 1986 citizenry in governmental
elections through the decision-making as well as
intercession of then-First in checking abuse in govt.
Lady Imelda Marcos.
The right to information is
2. Furnish petitioners with not absolute. It is limited
certified true copies of the to "matters of public
documents evidencing concern," and is further
said loans. "subject to such
limitations as may be
3. Allow petitioners access provided by law." (Legaspi
to public records for the v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530.)
subject information.
Similarly, the State's
policy of full disclosure is
limited to "transactions
involving public interest,"
and is "subject to
reasonable conditions
prescribed by law." The
GSIS is a trustee of
contributions from the
govt and its employees
and the administrator of
various insurance
programs for the benefit
of the latter. Undeniably,
its funds assume a public
character.

xxx. Considering the

nature of its funds, the
GSIS is expected to
manage its resources w/
utmost prudence and in
strict compliance w/ the
pertinent laws or rules
and regulations. In sum,
the public nature of the
loanable funds of the
GSIS and the public office
held by the alleged
borrowers make the
information sought clearly
 28
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
a matter of public interest
and concern.

Gov’t of Philippine
Islands V. Monte De
Piedad
GR No. L-9959
December 13, 1916