Consti Law 2
Week 1 Cases
CASE 1: MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v GSIS, 1997
1. Constitution: a system of fundamental laws for
the governance and administration of a nation. It
is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable
except by the authority from which it emanates.
2. Constitutional supremacy: any law or contract
that contravenes the constitution is null and void.
As the supreme law of the nation, it is deemed
written in every statute and contract.
– Consti is impliedly written in the GSIS
bidding rules.
3. Self-executing Presumed: Art. 12, Sec. 10, par. 2
is self-executing and only appears general for
purposes of style. But legislature is not precluded
from enacting further laws to enforce the
provision.
4. Party self-executing, partly not: A Consti provi
can be self-executing in one part, and not in
another. Art. 12, Sec. 10, pars. 1 and 3 are clearly
not self-executing requiring a law or rule for
enforcement. But, par. 2 is self-executing, a
positive command without need of legislation to
give preference to qualified Filipinos in the grants
of rights, privileges, and concessions covering
national economy and patrimony.
“Where there is a right, there is a remedy”
(Ubi jus ibi remedium)
- if there is no law enforcing a Consti right, such
right enforces itself by its own inherent potency
and from which all legislations must take their
bearings.
5. National patrimony: incudes both natural
resources and cultural heritage, for if it only refers
to the former, it could have simply used the term.
CASE 2: Pamatong v COMELEC, 2004
 Art. 2, Sec. 26 provision on equal access to
opportunities for public service is a privilege,
not a Consti right.
GEN RULE: general provisions are not self-
executing (e.g. Art 2, 1987 Consti).
 Davide amendment: “broaden” to “ensure
equal access to” is not to compel the state to
enact positive measures
Page 1 of 3
 As long as limitations in Art. 2, Sec. 26 apply
to every citizen equally, the equal access
clause is not violated.
CASE 3: Yrasuegui v PAL
Bona fide occupational qualification
GEN RULE: employment may not be limited
to persons of a particular sex, religion, or
national origin
EXCEPT: unless the employer can show that
sex, religion, or national origin is an actual
qualification for performing the job.
PAL’s company policy on weight for cabin crew is
parallel to BFOQ for it is relevant to the safe
transport of the passengers
Equal protection erects no shield against private
conduct: In the absence of governmental
interference, the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked
against acts of private individuals, however
discriminatory or wrongful.
CASE 1: Garcillano v HoR, 2008
DISMISSED GARCI PETITION
“actual controversy” – ripe for judicial
determination, otherwise, decision =
advisory opinion; practical relief must be
granted
HENCE, Garci petition is moot since tape
has been played in the Senate.
GRANTED: DUE PROCESS (Sec. 1, Art. III)
1. Intervenor alleges that the Senate Rules
of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation was not published.
2. Said Rules of Procedure was only
published on the senate website and
pamphlets
3. Pub must be made in OG or newspaper of
gen circulation every end of Congress.
4. Electronic Commerce Act only considers
web publication for evidentiary purposes,
 Consti Law 2
Week 1 Cases

not as a medium for publishing laws, CASE 3: Southern Hemisphere Engagement

rules, and regulations.
5. Rules of procedure must be published
following the Tanada v Tuvera because it
puts to risk the liberty of persons who can
be arrested or detained by the Senate.
6. Every start of Congress requires
publication regardless of the lack of
amendments to the rules since 1995
because Art. VI, Sec. 21 of the
Constitution requires such publication
without distinguishing whether or not the
rules have undergone amendments or
revision.
Network v Anti-terrorism Council
1. 6 petitioners assailing the validity of the Human
Security Act of 2007 through certiorari. Certiorari
is not proper here since respondents are not
judicial or quasi-judicial bodies.
2. Petitioners have no locus standi since they don’t
face any charge or threat of prosecution under
said Act: (1) no charge or (2) credible threat of
prosecution. Taxpayer suit not applicable since the
Act is a penal statute, not one that includes
appropriation.

Senate as an institution is a continuing body which
is not dissolved at the end of Congress, BUT not a
continuing body since less than the majority will
continue into the next Congress. THEREFORE,
Rules of Procedure must be published every end of
Congress.
CASE 2: Surigao Electric v ERC
3. Petition has no actual controversy ripe for
judicial determination. No sufficient facts for
adjudication. “Political surveillance” is merely a
theory.
4. Void for vagueness and overbreadth only
applies to free speech cases as a facial challenge.
Applies to penal cases only in as-applied challenge,
provided that petitioner is actually charged.
HERE, the Act only regulates conduct, not speech.

1. SURNECO invokes non-impairment clause (Sec. Facial challenge As-applied challenge

10, Art. III), insists exclusion from new PPA
(Sec. 1, Art. III)
formula under RA 7832 after NEA memo: FALSE.
- asserts that said law - asserts that the law
Former must prevail over memo. Arguendo there
is always is unconstitutional
is a violation, contract must yield to state’s police
unconstitutional based on its
power. application
- uses strict scrutiny, - typically involves
2. SURNECO cannot collaterally attack validity of overbreadth, and violation of due
RA 7832 under which it is required to refund its vagueness in free process
consumers for over-recoveries. speech cases
- cannot be applied to
3. SURNECO was given due process. Admin due penal statutes unless
process does not require a formal trial-type petitioner is charged
hearing. by the same statute
- applies to free
4. ERC’s findings must be accorded with respect speech
and finality by virtue of the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction.
Vagueness Overbreadth
POLICE POWER: - lacks comprehensible - individual
State can regulate rates of imposed by a standards that men of understands the
public utility. common intelligence statute which is too
differ in interpretation broad thereby
and application invading protected
freedoms
Cannot apply to penal statutes as a facial
challenge since it will hamper prosecution

Page 2 of 3
 Consti Law 2
Week 1 Cases

Apply to penal statutes as an as-applied

challenge, provided that:
(1) petitioners are actually charged or
(2) credible threat of prosecution

CASE 4: Heritage Hotel v National Union of Hotel

Workers Facial challenge As-applied challenge

1. Petitioner was not denied due process when it - asserts that said law - asserts that the law
is always is unconstitutional
was not given notice upon BLR Director’s inhibition
unconstitutional based on its
and the DOLE Secretary’s assumption. Admin
application
proceeding only requires right to be heard or
- uses strict scrutiny, - typically involves
opportunity to explain one’s side or seek overbreadth, and violation of due
reconsideration. vagueness in free process
speech cases
Ang Tibay Rules require that right to a hearing
- cannot be applied to
includes right to present case and submit
penal statutes
evidence, an opportunity accorded to Heritage
- applies to free
Hotel. speech

Admin Proceedings based on Ang Tibay Rules do

not require notice.

“locus standi” – personal and substantial interest

in a case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury
- strict ‘direct injury’ test has been relaxed Vagueness Overbreadth
to avoid procedural barriers in addressing
legal questions - lacks comprehensible - individual
(David v Macapagal; Chavez v Gonzales) standards that men of understands the
common intelligence statute which is too
differ in interpretation broad thereby
Non-impairment clause
and application invading protected
- Sec. 10, Art. III
freedoms
- protects integrity of contracts from
Cannot apply to penal statutes as a facial
unwarranted interference challenge since it will hamper prosecution
- subsequent laws (e.g. taxation) shall not Apply to penal statutes as an as-applied
alter the rights of the parties in a challenge, provided that petitioners are actually
previously perfected contract charged with the penal statute

Taxpayer suit
- applies only if the law is about spending
or taxing power of Congress

Citizen suit
- must rest on direct and personal interest
in the proceeding

Page 3 of 3