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 the Whether or not article 256 The view of the Chief It is a general principle of
GR No. L-18463 SENATE PUBLISHED IN LA loss of some documents of the Spanish Penal Code Justice is that the accused the public law that on
October 4, 1922 NACION NEWSPAPER which constituted the was abrogated with the should be acquitted for acquisition of territory the
records of testimony given change from Spanish to the reason that the facts previous political relations
EFFECTS OF CHANGE IN by witnesses in the Senate American sovereignty alleged in the information of the ceded region are
SOVEREIGNTY investigation of oil do not constitute a violation totally abrogated --
• "The important companies. of article 256 of the Penal "political" being used to
question is here squarely Code. denominate the laws
presented of whether article The newspaper La Nacion, regulating the relations
256 of the Spanish Penal edited by Mr. Gregorio Three members of the court sustained by the inhabitants
Code, punishing "Any Perfecto, published an believe that article 256 was to the sovereign.
person who, by . . . writing, article about it to the effect abrogated completely by
shall defame, abuse, or that "the author or authors the change from Spanish to On American occupation of
insult any Minister of the of the robbery of the American sovereignty over the Philippines, by
Crown or other person in records from the iron safe the Philippines and is instructions of the President
authority . . .," is still in of the Senate have, inconsistent with democratic to the Military Commander,
force." perhaps, but followed the principles of government. and by proclamation of the
example of certain Senators latter, the municipal laws of
• public law: It is a who secured their election the conquered territory
general principle of the through fraud and robbery." affecting private rights of
public law that on person and property and
acquisition of territory the Consequently, the Attorney- providing for the
previous political relations General, through a punishment of crime (e.g.
of the ceded region are resolution adopted by the the Spanish Penal Code)
totally abrogated -- Philippine Senate, filed an were nominally continued in
"political" being used to information alleging that the force in so far as they were
denominate the laws editorial constituted a compatible with the new
regulating the relations violation of article 256 of order of things.
sustained by the inhabitants the Penal Code.
to the sovereign. Article 256 was enacted by
The defendant Gregorio the Government of Spain to
Perfecto was found guilty in protect Spanish officials
the municipal court and who were the
again in the Court of First representatives of the King.
Instance of Manila. But with the change of
sovereignty, a new
government, and a new
theory of government, was
set up in the Philippines. No
longer is there a Minister of
the Crown or a person in
authority of such exalted
position that the citizen
2 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
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
where such respect and
obedience is due, but never
does it place around the
individual who happens to
occupy an official position
3 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
Macariola v. Asuncion PARTITION OF
A.M. No. 133-J PROPERTIES BY SIBLINGS
May 31, 1982 OF 1st and 2nd MARRIAGE
decided by Judge in Leyte
EFFECTS OF CHANGE IN
SOVEREIGNTY Effects of Change in
Sovereignty; Sovereignty;
Elements; State
Although the provisions are
in the Code of
Commerce which is part of
the commercial laws of the
Philippines, it partakes of
the nature of a political law
as it
regulates he relationship
between the government
and certain
public officers and
employees like justices and
judges.
Reyes siblings filed a
complaint for partition
against Macariola,
concerning the properties
left by their common father,
Francisco Reyes. Asuncion
was the judge who
rendered the decision,
which became final for lack
of an appeal. A project of
partition was submitted to
Judge Asuncion after the
finality of the decision. This
project of partition was only
signed by the counsel of the
parties, who assured the
judge that they were given
authorization to do so.
One of the properties in the
project of partition 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 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
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
W/N Art. 14 of the Code of NO.
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 therein filed
an appeal; hence, the lot in
question was no longer
subject of the litigation.
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
the State and defined the
relations of the State with
the inhabitants
of its territory.
Upon the transfer of
sovereignty from Spain to
the United States and later
4 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
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
Asuncion should be
reprimanded or warned in
connection with the
complaints filed against
him.
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
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 sovereignty
from Spain to the United
States and then to the
Republic of the Philippines.
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,
5 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito Amendment of Constitution
G.R. L-1123 by Congress, 3 senators and
March 5, 1947 8 representatives
The 1935 constitution A proposal to amend the
Constitution is a highly
political function performed
by Congress in its sovereign
legislative capacity
Adoption of the Enrolled Bill
Theory
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
now Associate Justice of the
Court of Appeals.
Three of the plaintiff Whether the Court may Wherefore the petition is It is a doctrine too well
senators and eight inquire upon the dismissed. established to need citation
representatives had been irregularities in the approval of authorities that political
proclaimed by a majority of the resolution proposing No, the Court cannot questions are not within the
vote of the Commission on an amendment to the inquire upon the province of the judiciary,
Elections as having been Constitution. irregularities in the approval except to the extent that
elected senators and of the resolution proposing power to deal with such
representatives. The three an amendment to the questions has been
senators were suspended Constitution. conferred upon the courts
by the Senate on account of by express constitutional or
alleged irregularities in their statutory provision.
election.
This doctrine is predicated
The eight representatives on the principle of the
since their election had not separation of powers, a
been allowed to sit in the principle also too well
lower House for the same known to require
reason, although they had elucidation or citation of
not been formally authorities. The difficulty
suspended. As a lies in determining what
consequence these three matters fall within the
senators and eight meaning of political
representatives did not take question. The term is not
part in the passage of the susceptible of exact
congressional resolution, definition, and precedents
designated "Resolution of and authorities are not
both houses proposing an always in full harmony as to
amendment to the the scope of the
Constitution of the restrictions, on this ground,
Philippines to be appended on the courts to meddle
as an ordinance thereto," with the actions of the
nor was their membership political departments of the
reckoned within the government. If a political
computation of the question conclusively binds
necessary three-fourths the judges out of respect to
vote which is required in the political departments, a
proposing an amendment to duly certified law or
the Constitution. If these resolution also binds the
members of Congress had judges under the "enrolled
been counted, the bill rule" born of that
affirmative votes in favor of respect.
the proposed amendment
6 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
would have been short of If ratification of an
the necessary three-fourths amendment is a political
vote in either branch of question, a proposal which
Congress. leads to ratification has to
be a political question. The
The petition for prohibition two steps complement each
sought to prevent the other in a scheme intended
enforcement of said to achieve a single
congressional resolution, as objective. It is to be noted
it is allegedly contrary to that the amendatory
the Constitution. The process as provided in
respondents deny that this section I of Article XV of the
court has jurisdiction, Philippine Constitution
relying on the "consists of (only) two
conclusiveness on the distinct parts: proposal and
courts of an enrolled bill or ratification."
resolution.
There is no logic in
attaching political character
to one and withholding that
character from the other.
Proposal to amend the
Constitution is a highly
political function performed
by the Congress in its
sovereign legislative
capacity and committed to
its charge by the
Constitution itself. The
exercise of this power is
even in dependent of any
intervention by the Chief
Executive. If on grounds of
expediency scrupulous
attention of the judiciary be
needed to safeguard public
interest, there is less reason
for judicial inquiry into the
validity of a proposal then
into that of ratification.
Aquino v. Enrile 1935 Constitution September 21, 1972, 1. WON the Court has All petitions dismissed The judicial department can
GR No. L-35546 Declaration of Martial Law President Ferdinand E. jurisdiction to inquire into except those which have determine the existence of
September 17, 1974 Marcos signed Proclamation the constitutional sufficiency been previously withdrawn conditions for the exercise
Courts Inquiry as to validity No. 1081, proclaiming a of the proclamation of by the respective petitioners of the President’s powers
7 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
MILITARY POWER of declaration
POWERS AS The Court upheld the
COMMANDER IN CHIEF 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.
state of Martial Law in the
Philippines
September 22, 1972,
General Order No. 2 was
signed by the President
which provided an order to
the Secretary of National
Defense to arrest and take
into custody the individuals
named in the list for being
participants in the
conspiracy to seize political
and state power in the
country and to take over
the government by force
Secretary of National
Defense, Juan Ponce Enrile,
immediately effected the
arrest of the herein
petitioners
Petitioners sought relief
from Court, filing petitions
for habeas corpus
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
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
martial law
2. WON Proclamation No.
1081 is valid given then the
circumstances required by
the Constitution for the
proclamation of a state of
martial law
with the approval of this
Court.
The Constitution provides
that in case of invasion,
insurrection or rebellion, or
imminent danger against
the state, when public
safety requires it, the
President may suspend the
privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part
therein under Martial Law.
In the case at bar, the SC
ruled that the state of
rebellion plaguing the
country has not yet
disappeared, therefore,
there is a clear and
imminent danger against
the state. The arrest is then
a valid exercise pursuant to
the President’s order.
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
and is not bound by the
recitals of his proclamation.
But whether in the
circumstances obtaining
public safety requires the
suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus
or the proclamation of
martial law is initially for the
President to decide. The
President’s findings as to
necessity are persuasive
upon the courts.
Xxxx
"it has the authority to
inquire into the existence of
said factual bases [stated in
the proclamation
suspending the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus or
placing the country under
martial law as the case may
be, since the requirements
for the exercise of these
powers are the same and
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
8 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
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
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
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.
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 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
9 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
Planas v. Comelec Court refrained from
GR No. L-35925 reviewing the constitutional
January 22, 1973 validity of Presidential
proclamation calling for a
plebiscite to ratify proposed
The 1973 Constitution constitutional 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 Constitutional
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 supplemental
urgent motion for issuance
of restraining order
and writ of preliminary
injunction from
implementing PD No. 73
and any other similar
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
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."
March 16, 1967: Congress 1. Is the issuance of PD No. 1. The issue has become As regards to the authority
passed Resolution No. 2 73 by the President valid moot and academic. Since of the President to issue PD
(Res. 2) calling for a given that such power is the plebiscite in question No. 73, the court finds it
Convention for the purpose exclusive of has been postponed, the unnecessary to pass upon
of proposing amendments Congress? court finds it unnecessary to such question because the
to the 1935 Constitution. pass upon the question of plebiscite ordained in said
• June 17, 1969: Congress the validity of PD No. 73. If Decree has been
adopted Resolution No. 4 2. Did the 1971 CC exceed the plebiscite is schedules, postponed. In any event,
(Res. 4) amending Res. 2 their authority in approving the parties may file such should the plebiscite be
• August 24, 1970: Republic the aforementioned sections actions as justified by the scheduled to be held at any
Act 6132 was approved in the Proposed Consti? given circumstances. time later, the proper
implementing Res. 2 as parties may then file such
amended 3. Does Martial Law affect 2. No. The 1971 CC was action as the circumstances
• November 10, 1970: the validity of the “proper legally free to propose any may justify.
Delegates to the submission of the Proposed amendment it deems fit
Convention Consti to the people for unless inconsistent with the On the question whether
were elected ratification” given that there international doctrine of Jus the proclamation of Martial
• June 1, 1971: is no freedom of speech, Cogens since it exercised its Law affected the proper
Constitutional Convention press and assembly? sovereign powers as submission of the
began performing thus delegated to it by the Proposed Consti to a
named, the 1971 4. Is Proc No. 1102 valid people. Also, because plebiscite, insofar as the
Constitutional Convention and in conformity with the proposals for amendments freedom essential therefor
(1971 CC) requirements for ratification cannot be a part of is concerned, the issue
• September 21, 1972: stated in the 1935 Fundamental Law unless involves a question of fact
While 1971 CC was in Constitution approved by a majority of which cannot be
session, President votes cast at an election predetermined, and Martial
Ferdinand Marcos issued where the propos ls were Law per se does not
Proclamation No. 1081 submitted to the people for necessarily preclude the
(Proc. No. 1081) placing the ratification. (Sec. 1, Art XV factual possibility of
entire Philippines under 1935 adequate freedom for the
Martial Law Constitution) purposes contemplated.
10 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
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.
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
• November 29, 1972: 1971
CC approved the Proposed 3. The issue is a question of
Constitution of the Republic fact and cannot be
of the predetermined. As seen in
Philippines (Proposed the temporary suspension
Consti) of Proc No. 1081, Martial
• November 30, 1972: Law does not necessarily
President issued PD No. 73 mean that freedom of
“submitting the Proposed speech and discussion of
Constitution to the People the Proposed Consti. is
of the Philippines for curtailed. Since the said
ratification or rejection”. A plebiscite has been
plebiscite for the said postponed, the issue
ratification was scheduled remains to be a question of
on January 15, 1973 and fact.
funds were appropriated for
such
The question of the validity
of Proc. No. 1102 has not
been explicitly raised and
adequately argued by the
parties in any of these
cases and it would not be
proper to resolve such a
transcendental question
without the most thorough
discussion possible under
the circumstances.

• December 7, 1972: 4. The Court finds it

Charito Planas filed petition unnecessary to pass upon
GR No. L-35925 to nullify such question. The issue on
PD No. 73 on the validity
grounds that (1) the power of Proc No. 1102 has not
to call for such plebiscite, been properly raised and
by Constitution, is held adequately argued on by
exclusively by the the parties in
Congress, and (2) there is Court.
no proper submission of the
proposed constitution there
being no freedom of Recapitulating the views
discussion under Martial expressed by the Members
Law and lack of adequate of the Court, the result is
time to inform the people of this:
the contents of the (1) There is unanimity on
Proposed Consti (Nov. 30, the justiciable nature of the
1972 – Jan. 15, 1973) issue on the legality of
• December 8 – 16, 1972: Presidential Decree 73.
Similar actions were filed
accordingly (2) On the validity of the
• December 17, 1972: decree itself, Justices
President issued an order to Makalintal, Castro,
temporarily suspend the Fernando, Teehankee,
effects of Proc. No. Esguerra and Concepcion,
1081 (Martial Law) for the or 6 Members of the Court,
11 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
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. 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
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
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 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
12 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
pending petitions if that there is a repugnancy
implemented between the election
• January 15, 1973: Same contemplated under Art. XV
petitioners filed a of the 1935 Constitution
“Supplemental Motion for and the existence of Martial
Issuance of Restraining Law, and would, therefore,
Order and Inclusion of grant the petitions were
Additional Respondents” they not moot and
from “collecting, certifying, academic.
announcing, and reporting”
the results of the so-called
Citizen's 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
13 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
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
Secretary On March 16, 1967,
GR No.L-36142 While a majority of the Congress of the Philippines
March 31, 1973 Court held that the issue of passed Resolution No. 2, as
whether or not the 1973 amended by Resolution No.
The 1973 Constitution Constitution was justiciable, 4, calling for a petitioners are entitled to
Judicial Review of a majority also ruled that Constitutional Convention to
Amendments the decisive issue of propose amendments to the
whether the 1973 Philippine Constitution. Said
Constitution had come into Resolution was
force and effect, with or implemented by Republic
without constitutional Act No. 6132, for the
ratification, was a political election of delegates of the
question 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
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
1. Is the issue of the validity
of Proclamation No. 1102 a
justiciable, or political and
therefore non-justiciable,
question?
2. Has the Constitution
proposed by the 1971
Constitutional Convention
been ratified validly (with
substantial, if not strict,
compliance) conformably to
the applicable constitutional
and statutory provisions?
3. Has the aforementioned
proposed Constitution
acquiesced in (with or
without valid ratification) by
the people? (acquiesced -
"permission" given by
silence or passiveness.
Acceptance or agreement
by keeping quiet or by not
making objections.)
4. Is the aforementioned
proposed Constitution in
force?
The court was severely
divided on the following
issues raised in the petition:
but when the crucial
question of whether the
relief, six members of the
court (Justices Makalintal,
Castro, Barredo, Makasiar,
Antonio and Esguerra)
voted to dismiss the
petition. Concepcion,
together Justices Zaldivar,
Fernando and Teehankee,
voted to grant the relief
being sought, thus
upholding the 1973
Constitution.
ACCORDINGLY, by virtue of
the majority of six (6) votes
of Justices Makalintal,
Castro, Barredo, Makasiar,
Antonio and Esguerra with
the four (4) dissenting votes
of the Chief Justice and
Justices Zaldivar, Fernando
and Teehankee, all the
aforementioned cases are
hereby dismissed. This
being the vote of the
majority, there is no further
judicial obstacle to the new
Constitution being
considered in force and
effect. It is so ordered.
1. Is the issue of the validity
of Proclamation No. 1102 a
justiciable, or political and
therefore non-justiciable,
question?
On the first issue involving
the political-question
doctrine Justices Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando,
Teehankee and myself, or
six (6) members of the
Court, hold that the issue of
the validity of Proclamation
No. 1102 presents a
justiciable and non-political
question. Justices Makalintal
and Castro did not vote
squarely on this question,
but, only inferentially, in
their discussion of the
second question. Justice
Barredo qualified his vote,
stating that "inasmuch as it
is claimed there has been
approval by the people, the
Court may inquire into the
question of whether or not
there has actually been
such an approval, and, in
the affirmative, the Court
should keep hands-off out
of respect to the people's
will, but, in negative, the
Court may determine from
both factual and legal
angles whether or not
Article XV of the 1935
Constitution been complied
with." Justices Makasiar,
14 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
Constitutional Convention.
On December 7, 1972,
Charito Planas filed a case
against the Commission on
Elections, the Treasurer of
the Philippines and the
Auditor General, to enjoin
said respondents or their
agents from implementing
Presidential Decree No. 73,
on the grounds that the
President does not have the
legislative authority to call a
plebiscite and the
appropriation of public
funds for the purpose are
lodged exclusively by the
Constitution in Congress
and there is no proper
submission to the people of
said Proposed Constitution
set for January 15, 1973,
there being no freedom of
speech, press and
assembly, and there being
no sufficient time to inform
the people of the contents
thereof.
On December 23, 1972, the
President announced the
postponement of the
plebiscite for the ratification
or rejection of the Proposed
Constitution. The Court
deemed it fit to refrain, for
the time being, from
deciding the
aforementioned case.
In the afternoon of January
12, 1973, the petitioners in
Case G.R. No. L-35948 filed
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Antonio, Esguerra, or three
(3) members of the Court
hold that the issue is
political and "beyond the
ambit of judicial inquiry."
2. Has the Constitution
proposed by the 1971
Constitutional Convention
been ratified validly (with
substantial, if not strict,
compliance) conformably to
the applicable constitutional
and statutory provisions?
On the second question of
validity of the ratification,
Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Castro, Fernando,
Teehankee and myself, or
six (6) members of the
Court also hold that the
Constitution proposed by
the 1971 Constitutional
Convention was not validly
ratified in accordance with
Article XV, section 1 of the
1935 Constitution, which
provides only one way for
ratification, i.e., "in an
election or plebiscite held in
accordance with law and
participated in only by
qualified and duly registered
voters.
Justice Barredo qualified his
vote, stating that "(A)s to
whether or not the 1973
Constitution has been
validly ratified pursuant to
Article XV, I still maintain
that in the light of
traditional concepts
15 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
an "urgent motion," praying
that said case be decided
"as soon as possible,
preferably not later than
January 15, 1973." The next
day, January 13, 1973, the
Court issued a resolution
requiring the respondents to
comment and file an answer
to the said "urgent motion"
not later than Tuesday
noon, January 16, 1973."
When the case was being
heard, the Secretary of
Justice called on and said
that, “upon instructions of
the President, he is
delivering a copy of
Proclamation No. 1102,
which had just been signed
by the President earlier that
morning.”
Proclamation No. 1102,
declares that Citizen
Assemblies referendum was
conducted, and that the
result shows that more than
95% of the members of the
Citizens Assemblies are in
favor of the new
Constitution and majority
also answered that there
was no need for a plebiscite
and that the vote of the
Citizens Assemblies should
be considered as a vote in a
plebiscite. The then
President of the Philippines,
Marcos, hereby certify and
proclaim that the
Constitution proposed by
the 1971 Constitutional
Convention has been
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
regarding the meaning and
intent of said Article, the
referendum in the Citizens'
Assemblies, specially in the
manner the votes therein
were cast, reported and
canvassed, falls short of the
requirements thereof. In
view, however, of the fact
that I have no means of
refusing to recognize as a
judge that factually there
was voting and that the
majority of the votes were
for considering as approved
the 1973 Constitution
without the necessity of the
usual form of plebiscite
followed in past
ratifications, I am
constrained to hold that, in
the political sense, if not in
the orthodox legal sense,
the people may be deemed
to have cast their favorable
votes in the belief that in
doing so they did the part
required of them by Article
XV, hence, it may be said
that in its political aspect,
which is what counts most,
after all, said Article has
been substantially complied
with, and, in effect, the
1973 Constitution has been
constitutionally ratified."
Justices Makasiar, Antonio
and Esguerra, or three (3)
members of the Court hold
that under their view there
has been in effect
substantial compliance with
the constitutional
requirements for valid
16 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
ratified by an overwhelming ratification.
majority of all of the votes
cast by the members of the 3. Has the aforementioned
Citizens Assemblies proposed Constitution
throughout the Philippines, acquiesced in (with or
and has thereby come into without valid ratification) by
effect. the people?

The Ratification Case On the third question of

On January 20, 1973, Josue acquiescence by the Filipino
Javellana filed case against people in the
the Executive Secretary and aforementioned proposed
the Secretaries of National Constitution, no majority
Defense, Justice and vote has been reached by
Finance, to restrain said the Court.
respondents "and their Four (4) of its members,
subordinates or agents from namely, Justices Barredo,
implementing any of the Makasiar, Antonio and
provisions of the propose Esguerra hold that "the
Constitution not found in people have already
the present Constitution" accepted the 1973
referring to that of 1935. Constitution."
Two (2) members of the
Javellana alleged that the Court, namely, Justice
President had announced Zaldivar and myself hold
"the immediate that there can be no free
implementation of the New expression, and there has
Constitution, thru his even been no expression,
Cabinet, respondents by the people qualified to
including," and that the vote all over the Philippines,
latter "are acting without, or of their acceptance or
in excess of jurisdiction in repudiation of the proposed
implementing the said Constitution under Martial
proposed Constitution" Law. Justice Fernando
upon the ground: "that the states that "(I)f it is
President, as Commander- conceded that the doctrine
in-Chief of the Armed stated in some American
Forces of the Philippines, is decisions to the effect that
without authority to create independently of the validity
the Citizens Assemblies"; of the ratification, a new
that the same "are without Constitution once accepted
power to approve the acquiesced in by the people
proposed Constitution ..."; must be accorded
"that the President is recognition by the Court, I
17 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
without power to proclaim
the ratification by the
Filipino people of the
proposed Constitution"; and
"that the election held to
ratify the proposed
Constitution was not a free
election, hence null and
void."
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
am not at this stage
prepared to state that such
doctrine calls for application
in view of the shortness of
time that has elapsed and
the difficulty of ascertaining
what is the mind of the
people in the absence of
the freedom of debate that
is a concomitant feature of
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:
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;
18 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
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 declaratory Does Section 5, Art. XVIII Petition has no merit and Petitions for declaratory
Bermudez relief with no respondents, of the proposed 1986 should be dismissed relief do not fall within the
Gr No. 76180 Extending the term of the petitioner asked the court if Constitution pertain to outright jurisdiction of the SC;
October 24, 1986 President to 1992 (Cory the provision of the Section incumbent President
Aquino) 5 Article XVIII of the 1986 Corazon Aquino and Vice- It is elementary that this
CONSTITUTIONAL Constitution, to wit: “The President Salvador Laurel or Court assumes no
HISTORY: The 1986 [T]he legitimacy of the six-year term of the to elected President jurisdiction over petitions
Provisional Constitution Aquino government is not a incumbent President and Ferdinand Marcos and Vice- for declaratory relief.
People Power Revolt justiciable matter. It Vice-President elected in the President Arturo Tolentino? (Note: ROC provides that
Proclamation No. 1, belongs to the realm of February 7, 1986 election the jurisdiction for petitions
Feb. 25, 1986 politics where only the is, for purposes of for declaratory relief is with
Proc. No. 3, Mar. 25, people of the Philippines are synchronization of elections, the RTC )
1986 the judge. hereby extended to noon of
June 30, 1992,” refers to Petitioner does not have the
19 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
And the people have made the then-incumbent
the judgment; they have President Corazon Aquino
accepted the government of and Vice-President Salvador
President Aquino which is in Laurel or the previously-
effective control of the elected President Ferdinand
entire country so that it is E. Marcos and Vice-
not merely a de facto President Arturo M.
government but in fact and Tolentino.
law a de jure government.
Moreover, the community of After the election of
nations has recognized the February 7, 1986 where
legitimacy of the present Marcos and Tolentino were
government. All the eleven declared the winners,
members of this Court as Aquino and Laurel were
reorganized, have sworn to installed into the position
uphold the fundamental law last February 25, 1986 after
of the Republic under her the infamous People Power
government. Revolution. The next
regular election for the
President and Vice-
President was held last May
2, 1992.
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
legal standing to sue;
although no respondent is
impleaded, the instant
petition amounts to a suit
against incumbent
President Corazon Aquino,
who is immune from suits
during her incumbency;
it should be fairly obvious --
mutatis mutandis, there
should be no question --
that the aforecited provision
pertains to incumbent
President Corazon Aquino
and Vice-President Salvador
Laurel.
The Aquino administration
is legitimately recognized by
other nations, and all eleven
members of the SC have
sworn to uphold the
fundamental law of the 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 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.
20 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
De Leon v. Esguerra Effectivity of the 1987
GR No. 78059 Constitution
August 31, 1987
“The act of ratification is the
Effectivity of the 1987 act of voting [in the
Constitution 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.
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Was the designation of No. Article XVIII, Sec 27 of the
respondents to replace 1987 Constitution reads:
petitioners validly made Wherefore, the designation “This Constitution shall take
within the one year period by the OIC Governor of new effect immediately upon its
contemplated in the Barangay Officials was ratification by a majority of
Provisional Constitution? declared NO LEGAL FORCE votes cast in a plebiscite
AND EFFECT and the Writ held for the purpose and
for Prohibition is GRANTED shall supersede all previous
enjoining respondents Constitutions.” The 1987
perpetually from Constitution was ratified
ouster/take-over of in a plebiscite on February
petitioners’ position subject 2, 1987. By that date,
of this petition. 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
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
21 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
Nitafan v. Comm. Of Payment of income tax by Petitioners, the duly
Internal Revenue judges does not fall within appointed and qualified
GR No. 78780 the constitutional protection Judges presiding over
July 23, 1987 against decrease of their Branches 52, 19 and 53,
salaries. respectively, of the Regional
Salaries Trial Court, National Capital
CONSTITUTIONAL Judicial Region, all with
Constitutional CONSTRUCTION stations in Manila, seek to
construction prohibit and/or perpetually
enjoin respondents, the
Commissioner of Internal
Revenue and the Financial
Officer of the Supreme
Court, from making any
deduction of withholding
taxes from their salaries.
They submit that "any tax
withheld from their
emoluments or
compensation as judicial
officers constitutes a ascertainment of that intent
decrease or diminution of
their salaries, contrary to
the provision of Section 10,
Article VIII of the 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
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Whether or not members of No. (Petition is Dismissed)
the Judiciary are exempt
from income taxes. The salaries of members of
the Judiciary are subject to
the general income tax
applied to all taxpayers.
Although such intent was
somehow and inadvertently
not clearly set forth in the
final text of the 1987
Constitution, the
deliberations of the 1986
Constitutional Commission
regarding the constitutional
provision in question until it
was finally approved by the
Commission disclosed that
the true intent of the
framers was to make the
salaries of members of the
Judiciary taxable. The
is but in keeping with the
fundamental principle of
constitutional construction
that the intent of the
framers of the organic law
and of the people adopting
it should be given effect.
with the 1987 Constitution.
The primary task in
constitutional construction
is to ascertain and
thereafter assure the
realization of the purpose of
the framers and of the
people in the adoption of
the Constitution. It may also
be safely assumed that the
people in ratifying the
Constitution were guided
mainly by the explanation
offered by the framers.
The ruling that "the
imposition of income tax
upon the salary of judges is
a dimunition thereof, and so
violates the Constitution", in
Perfecto vs. Meer, as
affirmed in Endencia vs.
David must be declared
discarded. The framers of
the fundamental law, as the
alter ego of the people,
have expressed in clear and
unmistakable terms the
meaning and import 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
22 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
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, pursuant
GSIS PROVISIONS to the privatization program
GR No. 122156 of the Philippine
February 3, 1997 Government under
Proclamation No. 50 dated
SELF EXECUTING 8 December 1986, decided
PROVISIONS 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
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.
Pending the declaration of
Renong Berhard as the
winning bidder and the
execution of the necessary
contracts, petitioner in a
letter to respondent GSIS
dated 28 September 1995
matched the bid price of
P44.00 per share tendered
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Whether the provisions of
the Constitution, particularly
Article XII Section 10, are
self-executing
Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the
1987 Constitution is a self-
executing provision.
income taxation equitably.
A provision which lays down
a general principle, such as
those found in Article II of
the 1987 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 expressly
provided that a legislative
act is necessary to enforce
a constitutional mandate,
the presumption now is that
all provisions of the
constitution are self-
executing. If the
constitutional provisions are
treated as requiring
legislation instead of self-
executing, the legislature
would have the power to
ignore and practically nullify
the mandate of the
fundamental law.
In fine, Section 10, second
paragraph, Art. XII of the
1987 Constitution is a
mandatory, positive
command which is complete
in itself and which needs no
further guidelines or
23 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
by Renong Berhad. In a implementing laws or rules
subsequent letter dated 10 for its enforcement. From
October 1995 petitioner its very words the provision
sent a manager's check does not require any
issued by Philtrust Bank for legislation to put it in
Thirty-three Million Pesos operation.
(P33-000,000.00) as Bid
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
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
24 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
Valmonte v Belmonte The information as to the
GR No. 74930 truth of reports that some
February 13, 1989 opposition members of
Congress were granted
Honest Public Service “clean loans” by the GSIS
and Full Public through the intercession of
Disclosure Imelda Marcos is a matter
of public concern.
Constituent vs Right to public information
Ministrant Functions entitles one to access to
official records but not to
compel its custodians to
prepare lists, summaries,
etc. thereof.
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).
Petitioner Valmonte wrote
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
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
(1) Is the information
sought a matter of public
interest and concern so as
to come within the policy of
full public disclosure?
(2) Supposing the
information sought comes
within the policy of full
public disclosure, may GSIS
be compelled to prepare
lists of names of
opposition members
requested?
Yes. The public nature of
the loanable funds of the
GSIS and the public office
held by the alleged
borrowers make the
information sought clearly
a matter of public interest
and concern.49 Wherefore,
petitioners are entitled to
access to the documents
evidencing loans granted by
the GSIS, subject to
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
The cornerstone of the
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
25 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
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 the
February 7, 1986 elections
through the intercession of
then-First Lady Imelda
Marcos.
2. Furnish petitioners with
certified true copies of the
documents evidencing said
loans.
3. Allow petitioners access
to public records for the
subject information.
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
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.
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
citizenry in governmental
decision-making as well as
in checking abuse in govt.
The right to information is
not absolute. It is limited to
"matters of public concern,"
and is further "subject to
such limitations as may be
provided by law." (Legaspi
v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530.)
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
26 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
Gov’t of Philippine Money donated for
Islands V. Monte De earthquake
Piedad
GR No. L-9959 Doctrine of Parens Patriae
December 13, 1916
The Govt as parens patriae
DOCTRINE OF PARENS has the right to enforce all
PATRIAE charities of public nature
where no other person is
entrusted with it.
The ground upon which the
right of the Government to
maintain the action rests on
the fact that the money,
being given to a charity
became a public property,
only applicable to the
specific purposes to which it
was intended to be
devoted. It is but within
those limits consecrated to
the public use, and became
part of the public resources
for promoting the happiness
and welfare of the
Philippine Government. To
deny the
Government's right to
maintain this action would
On June 3, 1863, a
devastating earthquake in
the Philippines took place.
The Spanish dominions
provided $400,000 aid as
received by the National
Treasury as relief of the
victims of the earthquake.
The government used the
money as such but $80,000
was left untouched and was
thus invested to Monte de
Piedad bank, which was in
turn invested as jewelries,
equivalent to the same
amount.
In June 1983, the
Department of Finance
called upon the same bank
to return the $80,000
deposited from before. The
Monte de Piedad declined to
comply with this order on
the ground that the
Governor-General of the
Philippine Islands and not
the Department of Finance
had the right to order the
reimbursement because the
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Whether or not the The Court held that the
Philippine government is Philippine government is
authorized to file a competent to file a supreme power of [the]
reimbursement of the complaint/reimbursement
money of the people against respondent bank in
deposited in respondent accordance to the Doctrine
bank. of Parens Patriae. The
government is the sole
protector of the rights of
the people thus, it holds an
inherent supreme power to
enforce laws which promote
public interest. The
government has the right to
"take back" the money
intended fro people. The
government has the right to
enforce all charities of
public nature, by virtue of
its general superintending
authority over the public
interests, where no other
person is entrusted with it.
Appellate court decision was
affirmed. Petition was
thereby GRANTED. The
Court ordered that
respondent bank return the
amount to the rightful heirs
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 a matter of public
interest and concern.
This prerogative of parens
patriae is inherent in the
State xxx. It is a most
beneficent function, and
often necessary to be
exercised in the interest of
humanity, and for the
prevention of injury to
those who cannot protect
themselves.
Furthermore, it would be
impracticable for the
beneficiaries to institute an
action or actions either
individually or collectively.
The only course that can be
satisfactorily pursued is for
the Government to again
assume control of the fund
and devote it to the object
for which it was originally
destined.
27 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
be contrary to sound
public policy.
Co Kim Cham V. Valdez The Republic established
GR No. L-5 during Japanese occupation
September 17, 1945 was a de facto govt of the
second kind. Judicial
De Facto governments proceedings not of political
a. Kinds & complexion of a de facto
Characteristics govt remain good and valid
even after occupation
Philippine government is not
the affected party. On
account of various petitions
of the persons, the
Philippine Islands brought a
suit against Monte de
Piedad for a recovery of the
$80,000 together with
interest, for the benefit of
those persons and their
heirs. Respondent refuse to
provide the money, hence,
this appeal.
When the Imperial
Japanese Forces occupied
the City of Manila they
proclaimed, among other
things, that “all laws now in
force in the
Commonwealth, as well as
executive and judicial
institutions, shall
continue to be effective for
the time being as in the
past.” Thereafter, a
central administrative
organization under the
name of Philippine
Executive
Commission was organized
and the Chairman thereof
issued orders in
which the SC, CA, CFI,
justices of the peace and
municipal courts under the
Commonwealth were to
continue with the same
jurisdiction. Sometime in
1943, the Republic of the
Phils. was inaugurated but
no substantial change
was effected in the
organization and jurisdiction
of the different courts of
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
1. Is the govt organized by
the Japanese a de facto
govt?
with interest in gold or coin
in Philippine peso.
Yes. It is evident that the
Philippine Executive
Commission xxx was a civil
government established by
the military forces or
occupation and
therefore a de facto
government of the second
kind22. xxx As Halleck says,
“the government
established over an enemy’s
territory during
the military occupation may
exercise all the powers
given by the laws
of war to the conqueror
over the conquered, and is
subject to all restrictions
which that code imposes. It
is of little consequence
whether such government
be called a military or civil
government. Its character is
the same and the source of
its authority the same. In
either case it is a Municipal laws and private
government imposed of
such territory or the rest of
the world, those laws alone
determine the legality or
illegality of its
There was no change of
sovereignty during the
period of Japanese
occupation. Possession of
sovereignty remained with
the Americans while the
exercise of the acts of
sovereignty belonged to the
belligerent invaders.
Political and international
law recognizes that all acts
and proceedings of a de
facto government are good
and valid. The Philippine
Executive Commission and
the Republic of the
Philippines under the
Japanese occupation may
be considered de facto
governments, supported by
the military force and
deriving their authority from
the laws of war.
laws, however, usually
remain in force unless
suspended or changed by
the conqueror. Civil
obedience is expected even
28 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
justice. When Gen. acts.” The fact that the during war, for “the
MacArthur returned in Philippine Executive existence of a state of
Leyte, he proclaimed that Commission was a civil insurrection and war did not
“the and not a military loosen the bonds of society,
laws existing in the statute government and was run by or do away with civil
books of the Filipinos and not by government or the regular
Commonwealth of the Phils. Japanese nationals, is of no administration of the laws.
are in consequence. And if they were not valid,
full force and effect and then it would not have been
legally binding” and that “all necessary for MacArthur to
laws, regulations and 2. YES. Being a de facto come out with a
processes of any other govt 2. Whether the judicial acts government, it necessarily proclamation abrogating
on the Phils than that of the and proceedings of the follows that the judicial acts them.
said courts existing in the and proceedings of the
Commonwealth are null and Philippines under the Phil. courts of justice of those
void and without legal Executive Commission and governments, which are not
effect.” the Republic of the of a political complexion,
Philippines were good and were good and valid, and,
Petitioner filed a motion for valid and remained so even by virtue of the well known
mandamus praying that the after the liberation or principle of postliminy in
respondent judge be reoccupation of the international law, remained
ordered to continue the Philippines by the US and good and valid after the
proceedings in civil case no. Filipino forces. liberation or reoccupation of
3012 which was initiated the Philippines by the
under the regime of the so- American and Filipino
called Republic of the forces.
Philippines established
during the Japanese military
occupation of the islands. [A]ll acts and proceedings
of the legislative, executive,
The respondent judge and judicial departments of
refused to take cognizance a de facto government are
of and continue the good and valid. If [the
proceedings on the governments established in
following grounds: (1) the these Islands under the
proclamation issued on names of the Philippine
October 23, 1944 by Gen. Executive Commission and
Mac Arthur had the effect of Republic of the Philippines
invalidating and nullifying all during the Japanese military
judicial proceedings and occupation or regime were
judgments of the courts of de facto governments], the
the Philippines under the judicial acts and
Philippine Executive proceedings of those
Commission and the governments remain good
29 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
Bayan V. Zamora Constitutional Construction
GR No. 138570
October 10, 2000 Petitioners assail the
validity of the VFA (Visiting
Forces Agreement) which
after having been ratified by
Pres. Estrada was duly
concurred by the Senate, by
a 2/3 vote of its members.
They contend that the VFA
did not satisfy the
requirement laid in Art
XVIII, Sec 25 since US
merely treats it as an
“executive agreement”
rather than a “treaty.” As
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
Republic established during and valid even after the
the Japanese occupation; liberation or reoccupation of
the Philippines by the
(2) the lower courts have American and Filipino
no jurisdiction to take forces.
cognizance of and continue
judicial proceedings pending The governments by the
in the courts of the defunct Philippine Executive
Republic in the absence of Commission and the
enabling law granting such Republic of the Philippines
authority; during the Japanese military
occupation being de facto
(3) the government governments, it necessarily
established in the follows that the judicial acts
Philippines during the and proceedings of the
Japanese occupation was courts of justice of those
not a de facto government. governments, which are not
of a political complexion,
were good and valid, and,
by virtue of the well-known
principle of postliminy in
international law, remained
good and valid after the
liberation or reoccupation of
the Philippines by the
American and Filipino forces
under the leadership of
General Douglas MacArthur.
The Republic of the Is the VFA governed by [The Court DISMISSED the
Philippines and the United section 21, Art. VII, or consolidated petitions, held
States of America entered section 25, Art. XVIII of the that the petitioners did not
into an agreement called Constitution? commit grave abuse of
the Visiting Forces discretion, and sustained
Agreement (VFA). The the constitutionality of the
agreement was treated as a VFA.]
treaty by the Philippine
government and was Section 25, Art XVIII, not
ratified by then-President section 21, Art. VII, applies,
Joseph Estrada with the as the VFA involves the
concurrence of 2/3 of the presence of foreign military
total membership of the troops in the Philippines.
Philippine Senate.
The Constitution contains
The VFA defines the two provisions requiring the
30 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
such, US thinks that VFA treatment of U.S. troops
does not need the and personnel visiting the
ratification of the US Philippines. It provides for
Senate. the guidelines to govern
such visits, and further
Main decision defines the rights of the
upheld the validity of the U.S. and the Philippine
Visiting Forces Agreement. governments in the matter
Justice Puno dissents and of criminal jurisdiction,
believes that VFA is movement of vessel and
unconstitutional. aircraft, importation and
exportation of equipment,
materials and supplies.
Petitioners argued, inter
alia, that the VFA violates
§25, Article XVIII of the
1987 Constitution, which
provides that “foreign
military bases, troops, or
facilities shall not be
allowed in the Philippines
except under a treaty duly
concurred in by the Senate .
. . and recognized as a
treaty by the other
contracting State.”
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
concurrence of the Senate
on treaties or international
agreements. Section 21,
Article VII reads: “[n]o
treaty or international
agreement shall be valid
and effective unless
concurred in by at least
two-thirds of all the
Members of the Senate.”
Section 25, Article XVIII,
provides:”[a]fter the
expiration in 1991 of the
Agreement between the
Republic of the Philippines
and the United States of
America concerning Military
Bases, foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities
shall not be allowed in the
Philippines except under a
treaty duly
concurred in by the Senate
and, when the Congress so
requires, ratified by a
majority of the votes
cast by the p ople in a
national referendum held
for that purpose, and
recognized as a treaty by
the
other contracting State.”
Section 21, Article VII deals
with treaties or international
agreements in general, in
which case, the concurrence
of at least two-thirds (2/3)
of all the Members of the
Senate is required to make
the treaty valid and binding
to the Philippines. This
provision lays down the
31 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
general rule on treaties. All
treaties, regardless of
subject matter, coverage, or
particular designation or
appellation, requires the
concurrence of the Senate
to be valid and effective.
In contrast, Section 25,
Article XVIII is a special
provision that applies to
treaties which involve the
presence of foreign military
bases, troops or facilities in
the Philippines. Under this
provision, the
concurrence of the Senate
is only one of the requisites
to render compliance with
the constitutional
requirements and to
consider the agreement
binding on the Philippines.
Sec 25 further requires that
“foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities” may be
allowed in the Philippines
only by virtue of a treaty
duly concurred in by the
Senate, ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in
a national referendum held
for that purpose if so
required by Congress, and
recognized as such by the
other contracting state.
On the whole, the
VFA is an agreement which
defines the treatment of US
troops visiting the
Philippines. It provides for
the guidelines to govern
32 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
such visits of military
personnel, and further
defines the rights of the US
and RP government in the
matter of criminal
jurisdiction, movement of
vessel and aircraft, import
and export of equipment,
materials and supplies.

Undoubtedly, Section 25,

Article XVIII, which
specifically deals with
treaties involving foreign
military bases, troops, or
facilities, should apply in the
instant case. To a certain
extent, however, the
provisions of Section 21,
Article VII will find
applicability with regard to
determining the number of
votes required to obtain the
valid concurrence of the
Senate.

It is specious to argue that

Section 25, Article XVIII is
inapplicable to mere
transient agreements for
the reason that there is no
permanent placing of
structure for the
establishment of a military
base.

The Constitution makes no

distinction between
“transient” and
“permanent”. We find
nothing in Section 25,
Article XVIII that requires
foreign troops or facilities to
be stationed or placed
33 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
permanently in the
Philippines. When no
distinction is made by law;
the Court should not
distinguish. We do not
subscribe to the argument
that Section 25, Article
XVIII is not controlling since
no foreign military bases,
but merely foreign troops
and facilities, are involved in
the VFA.

The proscription covers

“foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities.” Stated
differently, this prohibition
is not limited to the entry of
troops and facilities without
any foreign bases being
established. The clause
does not refer to “foreign
military bases, troops, or
facilities” collectively but
treats them as separate and
independent subjects, such
that three different
situations are contemplated
— a military treaty the
subject of which could be
either (a) foreign bases, (b)
foreign
troops, or (c) foreign
facilities — any of the three
standing alone places it
under the coverage of
Section 25, Article XVIII.
Harvey V. Commissioner ACTS OF STATE American nationals Andrew Whether or not the AFFIRMATIVE. [The Court] Every sovereign power has
GR No. 82544 Harvey and John Sherman, Philippine Immigration Act reject petitioners’ the inherent power to
June 28, 1988 Petitioners were charged for 52 and 72 years, clothed the Commissioner contentions and uphold exclude aliens from its
committing acts of respectively, and Adriaan with any authority to arrest respondent’s official acts territory upon such grounds
“pedophilia.” A warrant of Van Elshout, 58, a Dutch and detain petitioners ably defended by the as it may deem proper for
ACTS OF STATE arrest was issued by the citizen, are all residing at pending determination of Solicitor General. The its self-preservation or
judge and they were Pagsanjan, Laguna. the existence of a probable Petition is dismissed and the public interest. The power
34 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019
apprehended. Commissioner Miriam cause leading to an Writ of Habeas Corpus is to deport aliens is an act of
Defensor Santiago issued administrative investigation. hereby denied. State, an act done by or
They however Mission Orders to the under the authority of the
questioned the authority Commission of Immigration There can be no question sovereign power. It is a
of the Commissioner of and Deportation (CID) to that the right against police measure against
Immigration and apprehended petitioners at unreasonable searches and undesirable aliens whose
Deportation to arrest and their residences. seizures guaranteed by the continued presence in the
detain them. Constitution is available to country is found to be
The “Operation Report” all persons, including aliens, injurious to the public good
Deportation proceedings read that Andrew Harvey whether accused of crime and the domestic tranquility
are administrative in was found together with or not. One of the of the people. Particularly
character and never two young boys. Richard constitutional requirements so in this case where the
construed as a Sherman was found with of a valid search warrant or State has expressly
punishment but a two naked boys inside his warrant of arrest is that it committed itself to defend
preventive measure. It is room. While Van Den must be based upon the tight of children to
summary and nature and Elshout in the “after Mission probable cause. assistance and special
therefore, it need not be Report” read that two protection from all forms of
conducted strictly in children of ages 14 and 16 In this case, the arrest of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
accordance with ordinary has been under his care and petitioners was based on exploitation, and other
court proceedings. What subjects confirmed being probable cause determined conditions prejudicial to
is essential is that there live-in for some time now. after close surveillance for their development (Article
be a specific charge three (3) months during XV, Section 3[2]).
against the alien intended Seized during the which period their activities Respondent Commissioner
to be arrested and petitioner’s apprehension were monitored. The of Immigration and
deported. A fair hearing were rolls of photo existence of probable cause Deportation, in instituting
must also be conducted negatives and photos of justified the arrest and the deportation proceedings
with assistance of a counsel suspected child prostitutes seizure of the photo against petitioners, acted in
if desired. The charge must shown in scandalous poses negatives, photographs and the interests of the State.
be substantiated by as well as boys and girls posters without warrant.
competent evidence, engaged in sex. Posters and [The fact that] petitioners
hearsay evidence may even other literature advertising were not “caught in the act”
be admitted. the child prostitutes were does not make their arrest
also found. illegal.

Petitioners were among the The deportation charges

twenty-two (22) suspected instituted by respondent
alien pedophiles who were Commissioner are in
apprehended after three accordance with Section
months of close surveillance 37(a) of the Philippine
by CID agents in Pagsanjan, Immigration Act of 1940, in
Laguna. Only the three relation to Section 69 of the
petitioners have chosen to Revised Administrative
face deportation. Code. The requirement of
probable cause, to be
35 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW
Warrants of Arrest were
issued by respondent
against petitioners for
violation of Sections 37, 45
and 46 of the Immigration
Act and Section 69 of the
Revised Administrative
Code.Tthe Board of Special
Inquiry III commenced trial
against petitioners.
Petitioners filed a Petition
for Bail which the CID
denied.
Andrew Harvey filed a
Manifestation/Motion stating
that he had “finally agreed
to a self-deportation” and
praying that he be
“provisionally released for at
least 15 days and placed
under the custody of Atty.
Asinas before he voluntarily
departs the country.”
However, it appears that on
the same date that the
aforesaid Manifestation/
Motion was filed, Harvey
and his co-petitioners had
already filed the present
petition.
Petitioners availed of this
Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus. A Return of the
Writ was filed by the
Solicitor General and the
Court heard the case on
oral argument on 20 April
1988. A Traverse to the
Writ was presented by
petitioners to which a Reply
was filed by the Solicitor
General.
NTS.WLCNOTES2019
determined by a Judge,
does not extend to
deportation proceedings.”
What is essential is that
there should be a specific
charge against the alien
intended to be arrested and
deported, that a fair hearing
be conducted with the
assistance of counsel, if
desired, and that the charge
be substantiated by
competent evidence.
The denial by respondent
Commissioner of petitioners’
release on bail, also
challenged by them, was in
order because in
deportation proceedings,
the right to bail is not a
matter of right but a matter
of discretion on the part of
the Commissioner of
Immigration and
Deportation. As deportation
proceedings do not partake
of the nature of a criminal
action, the constitutional
guarantee to bail may not
be invoked by aliens in said
proceedings.
36 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW NTS.WLCNOTES2019