Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONSTI 1 DOCTRINES MIDTERMS Anjo David PDF
CONSTI 1 DOCTRINES MIDTERMS Anjo David PDF
1-ACADS (2018)
INTRODUCTION
Constitution - a system of fundamental laws of the governance and administration of a nation - it ● Manila Prince Hotel
is supreme, imperious, absolute, unalterable, except by the authority from which it vs. GSIS
emanates.
- the fundamental and paramount law of the nation; it prescribes the permanent
framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments their respective
powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is
founded.
- It is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all
private rights must be determined and all public authority administered
- Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional ● De Leon vs.
mandate, the presumption is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing Esguerra
Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
- Sec. 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution: “This Constitution shall take effect
immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the
purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitution.”
- Date of effectivity: February 2, 1987, date of the plebiscite when the people ratified the
Constitution (Proclamation No. 58)
- the fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the ● Gold Creek Mining
framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it Corp. vs Rodriguez
- A constitutional provision must be presumed to have been framed and adopted in the
light and understanding of prior and existing laws and with reference to them
- give effect to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it ● Sarmiento vs Mison
- The intention to w/c force is to be given is that w/c is embodied and expressed in the
constitutional provisions themselves
- Constitution must be presumed to have been framed and adopted in the light and
understanding of prior and existing laws and with reference to them
- the Court in construing the Constitution, should bear in mind the object sought to be ● Civil Liberties
accomplished by its adoption, and if the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. Union vs. Executive
- A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times and the Secretary
condition and circumstances under which the constitution was framed ● Luz Farms vs.
- Debates in the constitutional convention Secretary of DAR
- spirit of the law prevails over its letter ● Tanada vs. Cuenco
- legislative proceedings ● Vera vs. Avelino
- deletions in the preliminary draft of the convention are negative guides w/c cannot prevail ● Chiongbian vs. De
over the positive provisions of the finally adopted Constitution Leon
- The words used in the constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except where ● JM Tuason vs. Land
technical terms are employed Tenure Admin
- The language of the constitution, as much as possible should be understood in the sense it ● Ordillo vs. Comelec
has in common use and that the words used in constitutional convention are to be
given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed
- Where words are used which have both restricted and general meaning, the general must ● Marcos vs. Chief of
prevail over the restricted unless the nature of the subject matter of the context Staff
clearly indicates that the limited sense is intended
- Terms employed therein shall be given the meaning which had been put upon them, and ● Krivenko vs.
which they possessed at the time of the framing and adoption of the instrument Registry of Deeds
To determine whether a provision is self-executory, the test is to see whether the provision is Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI
"complete in itself as a definitive law, or if it needs future legislation for completion and
enforcement." In other words, the provision must set forth "a specific, operable legal right,
rather than a constitutional or statutory policy
The provision textually and standing alone, do not create any judicially enforceable right.
These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for Tanada vs. Cuenco
enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the
exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.
The principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of Article XII are not
"self-executing provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts.
They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation.
by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional Oposa vs. Factoran
statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II
of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present form.
Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is couched in such a way as not to make it appear that it is Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS
non-self-executing but simply for purposes of style. But, certainly, the legislature is not precluded
from enacting further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so long as the contemplated
statute squares with the Constitution. Minor details may be left to the legislature without the
self-executing nature of constitutional provisions. The omission from a constitution of any
express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an
indication that it was not intended to be self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing
provision of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject,
but any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional
right and make it more available. Subsequent legislation however does not necessarily mean that
the subject constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable
What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to the limitations imposed by law. Sec. 26, Article II Pamatong vs COMELEC
of the Constitution neither bestows such right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an
enforceable right. The provisions under Article II are generally considered not self-executing. The
provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specific
guideline for legislative or executive action.
International conventions and treaties are not self-executory and that local legislations are Poe-Llamanzares vs
necessary in order to give effect to treaty obligations assumed by the Philippines COMELEC
“it is the general rule to regard constitutional provisions as mandatory, and not to leave any
discretion to the will of a legislature to obey or to disregard them. This presumption as to
mandatory quality is usually followed unless it is unmistakably manifest that the provisions are
intended to be merely directory. The analogous rules distinguishing mandatory and directory
statutes are of little value in this connection and are rarely applied in passing upon the provisions of
a Constitution.
“neither by the courts nor by any other department of the government may any provision of the
Constitution be regarded as merely directory, but that each and every one of its provisions should
be treated as imperative and mandatory, withóut reference to the rules and distinguishing between
the directory,land the mandatory statutes."
The power to call is fully discretionary to the President; the only limitations being that he acts
within permissible constitutional boundaries or in a manner not constituting grave abuse of
discretion.
"[T]he actual use to which the President puts the armed forces is xxx not subject to judicial review."
The suggestion of the AFP Chief is merely directory and not mandatory for the President to call out
Martial Law
Any extension thereof should be determined by Congress. The act of declaring martial law and/or
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by the President, however, is separate from
the approval of the extension of the declaration and/or suspension by Congress. The initial
declaration of martial law and/or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is determined solely by
the President, while the extension of the declaration and/or suspension, although initiated by
the President, is approved by Congress.
The approval of the Congress as to the extension of the declaration of martial law and/or
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is mandatory.
By the time the public respondent Commission rendered its decision of 20 August 1987 which is Hagonoy Water District vs.
here assailed, the 1987 Constitution had already come into effect.There is, nonetheless, no National Labor Arbiter
necessity for this Court at the present time and in the present case to pass upon the question of the
effect of the provisions of Article IX (B), Section 2 (1) of the 1987 Constitution upon the pre-existing
statutory and case law. The Court held that the 1987 Constitution did not operate retrospectively so
as to confer jurisdiction upon the Labor Arbiter to render a decision which, under the law applicable
at the time of the rendition of such decision, was clearly outside the scope of competence of the
Labor Arbiter. Thus, the respondent Commission had nothing before it which it could pass upon in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. For it is self-evident that a decision rendered by the Labor
Arbiter without jurisdiction over the case is a complete nullity, vesting no rights and imposing no
liabilities.
The prospective application of "judge-made" laws was underscored in Co vs. Court of Appeals Filoteo Jr. vs
where the Court ruled thru Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa that in accordance with Article 8 of the Sandiganbayan
Civil Code which provides that "judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines," and Article 4 of the same Code
which states that "laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided," the
principle of prospectivity of statutes, original or amendatory, shall apply to judicial
decisions, which, although in themselves are not laws, are nevertheless evidence of what
the law means.
While Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal," Article III, Section
12 is a constitutional provision specifically contained in the Bill of Rights which is
obviously not a penal statute. Penal laws, on the other hand, strictly and properly are those
imposing punishment for an offense committed against the state which the executive of the state
has the power to pardon. In other words, a penal law denotes punishment imposed and enforced
by the state for a crime or offense against its law.
The pertinent portions of the Constitution found in Article IV reads: Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of
the House of
“Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: Representatives.
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
2. Those whose fathers mothers are citizens of the Philippines
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino Mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
The Court interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3 above as applying not only to those who elect
Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987 but also to those who, having been born of Filipino
mothers, elected citizenship before that date. The provision in Paragraph 3 was intended to correct
an unfair position which discriminates against Filipino women. A close look into the deliberations of
the Constitutional Commissions shows that the intent of the framers to allow the provision to be
retroactive in regards to those mentioned in paragraph 3. To make the provision prospective from
February 3, 1987 is to give a narrow interpretation resulting in an inequitable situation. Therefore, it
must also be retroactive.
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION TO JUDICIAL REVIEW:
Definition
Involves real parties with real conflicting A response to a legal issue posed in the
legal interest abstract advance of any actual case in
which it may be presented
Effectivity
Nature
Application of Cases
● (Endencia v. David)
○ Collection of income tax from judges is a diminution in his salary and is a
violation of the Constitution
● (Angara v. Electoral Commission)
○ Electoral Commission has jurisdiction over election protest and may file for its
deadline regardless of declaration of winners of National Assembly
● (Marcos v. Manglapus)
○ The right of the Marcos to return in the Philippines is under the Doctrine of
Residual Powers of the president.
○ The basis of the President to ban the return of Marcos is a political question
● (IBP v. Zamora)
○ The Factual basis of the calling of the President for the aid of the AFP in
Metro Manila is not subject to judicial review
● (Jadaleza v. Sereno)
○ Supreme Court has supervisory authority over JBC which makes decisions of
JBC subject to judicial review
4. LIS MOTA
● The cause of the suit or action
CASES APPLIED
● (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council)
○ Petitioners failed to show that there was no actual charge or threat in the legislation
of Human Securities Act
● (Penafrancia Sugar Mills v. Sugar Regulatory Administration)
○ The supervening issuance of a new Sugar Order revoked the assailed Sugar Order.
This supervening event lead means that there is no more declaratory relief on the
case which makes it moot and academic
● (Mendoza v. Familara)
○ The supervening event of a new election made the case moot and academic
because the petitioner is no longer entitled to the position.
● (BPI v. Shemberg Biotech Corp.)
○ BPI failed to raise the constitutional question at the earliest opportunity.
● (General v. Urro)
○ Quo warranto proceedings are commenced by the government as the proper party
plaintiff. The person instituting quo warranto proceedings in his own behalf must how
he is entitled to the office in dispute; otherwise, the action may be dismissed at any
stage. Since petitioner merely hold acting appointment (and an expired one at that)
he clearly does not have a cause of action to maintain the present petition.
STATEHOOD - PART 1
A. Territory
B. Sovereignty
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over
which the Philippines has s overeignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of
the internal waters of the Philippines.
From the text of EDCA itself, Agreed Locations are territories of the
Philippines that the U.S. forces are allowed to access and use. By
withholding ownership of these areas and retaining unrestricted access
to them, the government asserts sovereignty over its territory. That
sovereignty exists so long as the Filipino people exist.
-Article XVI, Section 3|||- “The State cannot be sued without its consent”
-The principle is based on the very essence of sovereignty, and on the practical ground that
there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right
depends. It also rests on reasons of public policy — that public service would be hindered, and
the public endangered, if the sovereign authority could be subjected to law suits at the instance
of every citizen and consequently controlled in the uses and dispositions of the means required
for the proper administration of the government.|||
2. Express or Implied Consent (Waiver of Immunity from Suit) Republic vs. Feliciano
-The general law waiving the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act No. 3083, under U.S. vs. Guinto
which the Philippine government "consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim
involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil Veterans Manpower &
action between private parties." ||| Protective Services Inc.
-Waiver of the State's immunity from suit, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be lightly U.S. vs. Ruiz
inferred, but must be construed strictissimi juris (strict letter of the law).
The Holy See v. Rosario Jr.
-The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority, hence, from a
legislative act, not from a mere memorandum.
There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and firmly
established.
1. Classical or absolute theory: A sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a
respondent in the courts of another sovereign.
2. Restrictive Theory: The immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to
f a state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure
public acts or acts jure imperii o
gestionis |||
3. 2.
a.) The State’s Diplomatic Agents including consuls to a certain extent are also exempt from
the jurisdiction of local courts and administrative tribunals.
- A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit but
only as long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending
State. The cloak of protection is removed the moment the foreign agent is sued in his individual
capacity, as when he is sought to be made liable for whatever damage he may have caused by
his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his jurisdiction.
- Warships and other government ships (of other States) operated for non-commercial
purposes, enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of local courts and administrative tribunals,
subject to the provisions of Arts. 30 and 31 of UNCLOS
b.) The United Nations, as well as its organized and specialized agencies
-If it will require the government to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the judgment, viz., Sanders v. Veridiano
the appropriation of the necessary amount to cover the damages awarded, thus making
the action a suit against that government without its consent. |||
-The principle of state immunity from suit does not apply, as in this case, when the relief Republic v. Sandoval
demanded by the suit requires no affirmative official action on the part of the State nor
the affirmative discharge of any obligation which belongs to the State in its political
capacity, even though the officers or agents who are made defendants claim to hold or
act only by virtue of a title of the state and as its agents and servants. This Court has
made it quite clear that even a "high position in the government does not confer a license to
persecute or recklessly injure another."|||
-The municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee, who PNB v. Pabalan
was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions.||
Character of the objects for which entity is organized determines immunity from suit (sovereign
or proprietary)
Not all government entities, whether corporate or non-corporate, are immune from suits. Immunity
from suits is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized. |||
(e.g. PNR is government-owned but not immune from suit)
EXCEPTION to performing proprietary function: The fact that a non-corporate government entity
performs a function proprietary in nature does not necessarily result in its being suable. If said
non-governmental function is undertaken as an incident to its governmental function, there is no
waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity from suit extended to such government entity (e.g. arrastre
service by B.O.C., Bureau of Printing case)|||
Municipal corporations, Public Funds are not subject to levy and execution:
In Tantoco vs. Municipal Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52, it was held that "it is the settled doctrine of the
law that not only the public property but also the taxes and public revenues of such
corporations cannot be seized under execution against them, either in the treasury or when in
transit to it. Judgments rendered for taxes, and the proceeds of such judgments in the hands of
officers of the law, are not subject to execution unless so declared by statute."|||
Rationale for the rule: Well settled is the rule that public funds are not subject to levy and execution.
The reason for this was explained in the case of Municipality of Paoay vs. Manaois, 86 Phil. 629 "that
they are held in trust for the people, intended and used for the accomplishment of the purposes
for which municipal corporations are created, and that to subject said properties and public funds
to execution would materially impede, even defeat and in some instances destroy said purpose."|
EXCEPTION: Funds belonging to governmental corporations (whose charters provide that they can
sue and be sued) that are deposited with a bank are not exempt from garnishment.||
Test to determine whether or not the proposal embodied in the petition constitutes an
amendment or revision
1) Quantitative Test – whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provisions as to change
directly the substantial entirety of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous provisions.
2) Qualitative Test – whether the change will accomplish such far-reaching changes in the nature of
our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision for instance a switch from the presidential
system to a parliamentary system would be a revision because of its over-all impact on the entire
constitutional structure. So would a switch from a bicameral system to a unicameral system be LAMBINO V. COMELEC
because of its effect on other important provisions of the Constitution.
Justice Puno in Lambino v. Comelec : The six (6) justices who ruled that R.A. 6735 is insufficient
to implement the direct right of the people to amend the Constitution through an initiative
cannot waylay the will of 6.3 million people who are the bearers of our sovereignty and from
whom all government authority emanates.
WON amendments to the Constitution must be submitted for approval in a special election or
may they be included among the general election?
Ideally, amendments should be presented in a special election in order that it can command the GONZALES V. COMELEC
undivided attention of the electorate. However, this is not required by the Constitutional
E. Separation of Powers
Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall In re: Manzano
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions (Section 12, Art.
VIII, Constitution).
"While the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor,
the practical demands of government precluding its doctrinaire application, it cannot justify a member
of the judiciary being required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character. That is
implicit in the principle. Otherwise there is a plain departure from its command. The essence of the
trust reposed in him is to decide. Only a higher court, as was emphasized by Justice Barredo, can
pass on his actuation. He is not a subordinate of an executive or legislative official, however eminent.
It is indispensable that there be no exception to the rigidity of such a norm if he is, as expected, to be
confined to the task of adjudication. Fidelity to his sworn responsibility no leas than the maintenance
of respect for the judiciary can be satisfied with nothing less."
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not Angara vs. Electoral
through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the Commission
government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
sphere.
SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES — But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers
are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained
and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and
balances to secure coordination in the workings of various departments of government.
For example, the Chief Executive under our Constitution is 80 far made a check on the legislative
power that his assent is required in the enactment of laws. This, however, is subject to the further
check that a bill may become a law notwithstanding the refusal of the President to approve it, by a vote
of two-thirds or three-fourths, as the case may be, of the National Assembly. The President has also
the right to convene the Assembly in special session whenever he chooses. On the other hand, the
National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the sense that its consent through its
Commission on Appointments is necessary in the appointment of certain officers; and the concurrence
of a majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of treaties. Furthermore, in its power to
determine what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established, to define their jurisdiction
and to appropriate funds for their support, the National Assembly exercises to a certain extent control
over the judicial department. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments.
And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other
departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and
legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.
- The term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely,
a question of policy. It refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the Tanada vs. Cuenco
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated
to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon
the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
- Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not the legality of a particular act. Where
the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is Sanidad vs. COMELEC
definitely justiciable or non-political.
However, even if the question were political in nature,it would still come within our powers of
review (of the SC) under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Daza vs. Singson
Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government.
F. Delegation of Powers
Delegation of Power
Delegation of Power
Permissible Delegation
1. Delegation to tariff powers to the President
2. Delegation to emergency powers to the President
3. Delegation to the people at large
4. Delegation to local governments
5. Delegation to administrative bodies
Condition:
1. There must be war or other national emergency
2. The delegation must be for a limited period only
3. The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may
prescribe
4. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy by the
Congress.
The Constitution requires also that the delegation be for a limited period or the
authority so delegated shall cease ipso facto at the expiration of the period, because
to require an express legislation to repeal or terminate the delegated legislative
authority of the President might be subversive to the constitutional separation of
powers in our democratic form of government, for the President may prevent
indefinitely the repeal of his delegated authority by the exercise of his veto power,
since the veto could be overridden only by a two-thirds vote and it would be
extremely difficult to repeal it in a subservient Congress dominated by the Chief
Executive. Besides, to provide that the delegated legislative powers shall continue
to exist until repealed by the Congress, would be a delegation not for a limited, but
for an unlimited period or rather without any limitation at all, because all acts
enacted are always subject to repeal by the Congress, without necessity to
providing so.
The rule, however which forbids the delegation of legislative power is not absolute
and inflexible. It admits of exceptions. An exception sanctioned by immemorial
practice permits the central legislative body to delegate legislative powers to local
authorities. On quite the same principle, Congress is empowered to delegate
legislative power to such agencies in the territories of the United States as it may
select. Courts have also sustained the delegation of legislative power to the people
at large, though some authorities maintain that this may not be done. Doubt less,
also, legislative power may be delegated by the Constitution itself.
1
delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the
doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers.
2
Completeness test
The law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do
is to enforce it.
Section 1 Republic is a representative government run by and for the people.
Essential features:
1. Representation
2. Renovation
Republican government is a responsible government whose officials hold and
discharge their position as a public trust and shall, according to the Constitution,
“at all times be accountable to the people”t hey are sworn to serve.
Section 2, 7, 8 State practice - acts must be consistent and general international practice; material part North Sea Continental
of customary law. Widespread and representative participation. Kuroda v. Jalandoni
Poe v. COMELEC
Opinio juris sive necessitatis - belief that an action was carried out as a legal obligation.
A subjective element of custom as a source of law, both domestic and international, as it
refers to beliefs. Used to judge whether the practice of a state is due to a belief that it is
legally obliged to do a particular act. Opinio juris essentially means that states must act in
compliance with the norm not merely out of convenience, habit, coincidence, or political
expediency, but rather out of a sense of legal obligation. (Self - defense)
Psychological state of the state actor - why the state behaved as it did - it can be difficult
to identify and to prove. Evidence such as diplomatic correspondence, press releases and
other government statements of policy, opinions of legal advisers, official manual on
legal questions, legislation, national and international judicial decisions, legal briefs
endorsed by the state, a pattern of treaties ratified by the state that all include the same
obligations, resolutions and declarations by the UN, and other sources.
When does an international law become part of the sphere of domestic law?
By Doctrine of Transformation - requires that an international law be transformed into a ● Pharmaceutical and
domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. Health Care
(i.e. Treaties - pursuant to Art. VII of Section 21 of the Constitution, which provides that Association v.
no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at Duque
least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate. Hence, it must go through a process
prescribed by the Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal law that can be
applied to domestic conflicts.
By Doctrine of Incorporation - by mere constitutional declaration, international law is
deemed to have the force of domestic law.
The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as
binding result from the combination of two elements: the established, widespread, and
consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological element known as the
opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter
element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of
a rule of law requiring it.
Hierarchy of Laws
- Constitution
● SOJ v. Lantion
- Treaties and Statutes are of equal standing
● Saguisag v. Exec
- Executive Agreements Secretary
Section 6 Religion
The state still recognizes the inherent right of the people to have some form of Lung Center of the
belief system, whether such may be belief in a Supreme Being, a certain way of Philippines vs Quezon City
life, or even outright rejection of religion.
“We the Sovereign Filipino People imploring the aid of Almighty God” manifested
the spirituality innate in our nature and consciousness as a people, shaped by
tradition and historical experience.
What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious Aglipay vs Ruiz
toleration. Religious freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is not
inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in
human affairs
Cases involving questions relative to ecclesiastical rights have always received Taruc vs De la Cruz
the profoundest attention from the courts, not only because of their inherent
interest, but because of the far reaching effects of the decisions in human society.
- There must be a discernable and articulate secural and articulable secular
purpose and justification to pass scrutiny of religion cause Estrada vs. Escritor
- There must be secular legislative purpose.
There is one area which the court should not touch: doctrinal and disciplinary
differences.
a. Mandatory - When all three requisites of the Compelling interest test are Estrada vs Escritor
present, accommodations are required. The injury to religious conscience
is so great and advancement of public purposes is incomparable that the
only indifference or hostility could explain a refusal to make exemptions.
Thus, if the state’s objective could be served as well or almost as well by
granting an exemption to those whose religious beliefs are burdened by
the regulation, the court must grant an exemption.
b. Permissive - When the court finds that the State may but is not required
to accommodate religious interest.
Estrada vs. Escritor
Example of Permissive: Permissive accommodation based on religious freedom
has been granted with respect to one of the crimes penalized under the Revised
Penal Code - Bigamy: Muslims are allowed to marry more than one spouse.
The burden of proof shifts to the government to demonstrate that the law or
practice is necessary to the accomplishment of some important secular objective
to be achieved.
The State cannot set up a Church, nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religion, or prefer one religion over another nor force nor influence a person to go
to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess his belief or
disbelief in one religion; that the state cannot punish a person for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs.
1. Freedom to Believe (Compelling State Interest Test) - absolute, as In Re: Letter of Tony
long as it is confined in the realm of thought. The State must cherish any Valenciano
religious conviction as he and he alone sees fit. Everyone has the right to
his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he cannot prove
what he believes.
The law does not authorize the appropriation of public money or property for the
use, benefit or support of a particular sect or church.
“It was not inspired by any sectarian feeling to favor a church or religious
denomination therefore it does not infringe the separation of the church and the
state”
Test is the use of the property: It must be proven, by clear and unequivocal
proof, that
(a) it is a charitable institution; and
(b) its real properties are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used
for charitable purposes.
If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively
used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation. The words "dominant
use" or "principal use" cannot be substituted for the words "used exclusively"
without doing violence to the Constitutions and the law.
The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that laws granting exemption from tax are
construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing
power. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The effect of an
exemption is equivalent to an appropriation. Hence, a claim for exemption from
tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain
to be mistaken
Section 9, 10 ● the promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken ● Calalang vs.
sympathy towards any given group Williams
● SOCIAL JUSTICE (J. Laurel) - “neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism, nor anarchy but the humanization of laws and the equalization of
social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and
objectively secular conception may at least be approximated
● Property use must not only be for the benefit of the owner but of the
society as well ● Almeda vs. CA
● The state, in the promotion of social justice, may regulate “the acquisition,
ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private property and
equitably diffuse property, ownership and profits”
Section 11 - Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of asylum therein ● Mejoff vs. Director of
even if they are “stateless” Prisons
- Protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and ● See Article VIII, Sec.
except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to 5 (5)
Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens,
regardless of nationality
- Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every ● Hong Kong vs.
person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental Olalia
right to liberty - right to be admitted to bail is included
- “temporary detention” may be a necessary step in the process of
extradition, but the length of time should be reasonable
____
- The rights involved in the Bill of Rights are liberty of abode and right to ● Marcos vs.
travel Manglapus
- Right to return to one’s country is not among the rights specifically
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It is distinct and separate from the right to
travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights
____
Amparo ● Secretary of National
- Se originó en México Defense vs. Manalo
- “Protection” en Español
- Enables courts to enforce the constitution by protecting individual rights in
particular cases, but prevents them from using this power to make law for
the entire nation
Kinds of Amparo
1. Amparo Libertad - protection of personal freedom, equivalent to habeas
corpus writ
2. Amparo contra leyes - judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes
3. Amparo casacion - judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of a
judicial decision
4. Amparo administrativo - judicial review of administrative actions
5. Amparo agrario - protection of peasants’ rights derived from agrarian
reform process
- Writ of amparo serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the
problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances:
Preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these
offenses.
Curative in that is facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it will
inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action.
- The goal of both of these roles is to deter the further commission of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances
Extralegal killings - killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without
legal safeguards or judicial proceedings
Enforced disappearances
- attended by the following characteristics: arrest, detention or abduction of
a person by a government official or organized groups or private
individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the
government
- Refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person
concerned
- Refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such
persons outside the protection of law
The Amparo Rule was promulgated “in the light of the prevalence of extralegal
killing and enforced disappearances.” It was an exercise for the first time of the
Court’s expanded power to promulgate rules to protect our people’s constitutional
rights [Sec. 5 (5) Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution]
Grave Abuse Clause - Article VIII, Sec. 1 (2) of 1987 Constitution; accords
similar general protection to human rights extended by amparo contra leyes,
amparo casacion, a nd amparo administrativo.
____
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) ● See Article XIII, Sec.
- CHR has no such power to adjudication to try, decide, hear, or determine 17, 18, 19
certain type of cases like alleged human rights violations involving civil or ● Cariño vs. CHR
political rights
- The word “investigate” in Sec. 18(1) means fact-finding, and it is not
adjudication and cannot be likened to judicial function of a court of justice
or even quasi-judicial agency or official
The CHR:
- can exercise power to cite for contempt in accordance with the Rules of
Court
- may grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or
possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to
determine the truth
- can request assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in
performance of its functions in conduct of the investigation
_____
- Constitutional Provision directing CHR to “provide for preventive measures ● EPZA vs. CHR
and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have
been violated or need protection” may not be construed to confer
jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of
injunction
- CHR has no jurisdiction to issue writs because it may only be issued by
a judge of any court or by a Justice of Court of Appeals or Supreme Court,
or Judge of RTC
Note: The three constitutional commissions (Civil Service, Commission on
Elections, Commission on Audit) as mentioned in Article IX have jurisdiction as
quasi-judicial agencies.
Section 12 - The protection accorded to the unborn starts from the moment of ● Imbong vs Ochoa
CONCEPTION
- Contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an
abortive and thus prohibited, however, contraceptives that actually
PREVENT the union of the male sperm and the female ovum, and those
that similarly take action PRIOR TO FERTILIZATION SHOULD BE
DEEMED NON-ABORTIVE and thus CONSTITUTIONALLY
PERMISSIBLE
-
Section 14 Philippines are under legal obligation to ensure their development and advancement for Garcia vs. Drilon
the improvement of their position from one of de jure as well as de facto equality with
men. The governmental objectives of protecting human rights and fundamental
freedoms, which include promoting gender equality and empowering women, as
mandated not only by our Constitution, but also by commitments we have made in the
international sphere, are undeniably important a nd essential.
The constitutional provision of equal protection simply requires that similarly situated
persons be treated in the same way. It does not connote identity of rights among
individuals, nor does it require that every person is treated identically in all circumstances.
It acts as a safeguard to ensure that State-drawn distinctions among persons are based on
reasonable classifications and made pursuant to a proper governmental purpose. In short,
statutory classifications are not unconstitutional when shown to be reasonable and made
pursuant to a legitimate government objective
Equal Protection Clause Test:
1. Rational Basis Scrutiny — the traditional test, which requires "only that government
must not impose differences in treatment except upon some reasonable differentiation
fairly related to the object of regulation." Simply put, it merely demands that the
classification in the statute reasonably relates to the legislative purpose.
3. Strict Scrutiny — requires that the classification serve a compelling state interest and
is necessary to achieve such interest. This level is used when suspect classifications or
fundamental rights are involved.
Section 15, 16 ● Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals ● Laguna Lake
- If the authority to issue a "cease and desist order" were not expressly Development Authority
conferred by law, there is jurisprudence enough to the effect that the rule v. Court of Appeals
granting such authority need not necessarily be express. While it is a ● Oposa v. Factoran
fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers as ● Resident Mammals v.
are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an Reyes
administrative agency has also such powers as are necessarily
implied in the exercise of its express powers. In the exercise, therefore,
of its express powers under its charter as a regulatory and quasi-judicial
body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, the
authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order" is, perforce,
implied. Otherwise, it may well be reduced to a "toothless" paper agency.
- The immediate response to the demands of "the necessities of protecting
vital public interests" gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies or the 1987 Constitution.
Article II, Section 16 which provides:
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.
- As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the
correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but in consonance with the
declared policy of the state "to protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them. It is to be borne
in mind that the Philippines is party to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978 which recognize
health as a fundamental human right.
● Oposa v. Factoran
- Right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners
dramatically associate with the twin concepts of “inter-generational
responsibility” and “inter-generational justice.”
- While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and
political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than
self-preservation and self-perpetuation.
- As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental
charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the
rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as
state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their
continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn
obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second,
the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for
the present generation, but also for those to come — generations
which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining
life.
- A cause of action is defined as an act or omission of one party in violation
of the legal right or rights of the other.
Essential elements:
1. legal right of the plaintiff,
2. correlative obligation of the defendant,
3. and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
- Class suit complain is of common and general interest.
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls or officers
of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He
shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments
are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the
appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the
courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
[emphasis ours]
This provision classifies into four groups the officers that the President can
appoint. These are:
Section 18 in Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall ISAE v. Quisumbing
relation with protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
to Article XII,
Section 3 CASE – I SAE v. Quisumbing
“EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK” — Persons who work with substantially equal
qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be
paid similar salaries
The School employs four tests to determine whether a faculty member should be
classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire:
a. What is one's domicile?
b. Where is one's home economy?
c. To which country does one owe economic allegiance?
d. Was the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School and
was the School responsible for bringing that individual to the
Philippines?
Should the answer to any of these queries point to the Philippines, the faculty
member is classified as a local hire; otherwise, he or she is deemed a foreign-hire.
The school justifies the difference on wages and benefits on two “significant
economic disadvantages” foreign hires have to endure, namely:
a. the “dislocation factor”; and
b. limited tenure.
Section 19 in Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony), Section 11: “No franchise, Gamboa v. Reyes
relation with certificate, or any form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be
Article XII, granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations
Section 11 organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least 60% of whose capital is
owned by such citizens…”
The purpose of this citizenship requirement is to prevent non-Filipinos from
assuming control over the country’s public utilities, which may be detrimental to
national interest. For any citizen, company, or other judicial entity to be granted
authority to operate a public utility, at least 60% of its “capital” must be
Filipino-owned.
The case of Gamboa v. Reyes seeks to define which types of stocks constitute
the “capital” of a company or corporation. The Court is of the opinion that the term
“capital” in Art. XII, Sec. 11, as intended by the framers, refers only to common
shares, because such stocks come with voting rights for the shareholders. These
voting rights come with the right of the stockholder to participate in the control or
management of the corporation, based on the definition provided by the
Corporation Code of the Philippines.
In Garcia v. BOI, the petitioners question the decision of BOI in giving Garcia v. Board of
unprecedented favors to the Bataan Petrochemical Corp. (BPC) which was Investments
formed by Taiwanese investors. Article XII, Section 1 provides that “the State shall
promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient
use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic
and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against
unfair foreign competition and trade practices.” Art. XII, Sec. 11 is similarly
applicable in this case. This is because a petrochemical industry is not an ordinary
investment; its establishment is of national interest, therefore the BOI should have
acted in a way that it prioritized the best interest of the Filipino people.
Section 21 The 1935 Constitution mandated the policy of social justice to “insure the Association of Small Land
well-being and economic security of all the people, especially the less privileged.” Owners in the Philippines v.
The 1973 Constitution similarly affirms this by adding that “the State shall regulate Secretary of DAR
the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and disposition of private property and
equitably diffuse property ownership and profits.” These were echoed in Article
XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights), Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution,
through the adoption of an agrarian reform program.
The Agrarian Reform Program is not simply an exercise of police power. It is an
exercise of the power of eminent domain.
(When the owner is unwilling to sell, or when the owner cannot accept the price or
other conditions offered by the vendee, the Power of Eminent Domain must come
into play, to assert the paramount authority of the State over the interests of the
property owner.)
Section 25 The power of local government to "impose taxes and fees" is always subject to Basco vs. PAGCOR
"limitations" which Congress may provide by law. Since PD 1869 (PAGCOR
charter) remains an "operative" law until "amended, repealed or revoked" (Sec. 3,
Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution), its "exemption clause" remains as an exception to
the exercise of the power of local governments to impose taxes and fees. It
cannot therefore be violative but rather is consistent with the principle of local
autonomy.
Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply
means "decentralization". It does not make local governments sovereign within
the state or an "imperium in imperio." "Local Government has been described as a
political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has
substantial control of local affairs. In a unitary system of government, such as the
government under the Philippine Constitution, local governments can only be an
intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation, it cannot be an imperium in
imperio. Local government in such a system can only mean a measure of
decentralization of the function of government. As to what state powers should be
"decentralized" and what may be delegated to local government units remains a
matter of policy, which concerns wisdom. It is therefore a political question. What
is settled is that the matter of regulating, taxing or otherwise dealing with gambling
is a State concern and hence, it is the sole prerogative of the State to retain it or
delegate it to local governments.
Section 26 What is recognized in this provision is merely a privilege subject to the limitations Pamatong vs. COMELEC
“Equal imposed by law. It neither bestows such righ nor elevates the privilege to the level
Access…” of an enforceable right. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, this
provision does not contain any judicially enforceable right but merely specifies a
guideline for legislative or executive.
The provisions is not intended to compel the State to enact positive measures that
would accommodate as many people. The privilege of equal access to
opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations. As long as the
limitations apply to everybody equally without discriminations, the equal
access clause is not violated.
Equality is not sacrificed as long as the burdens endangered by the limitations are
meant to be borne by anyone who is minded to file ca certificate of candidacy.
Section 28 Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and ● Legaspi vs. Civil Service
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving Commission
public interest. ● Valmonte vs. Belmonte
● Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission ● Aquino-Sarmiento vs.
Petition for Mandamus Morato
- Instituted by a party aggrieved by alleged inaction of any tribunal, ● Province of Cotabato
corporation, board or person which excludes the said party from vs. The Gov’t. of the RP
enjoyment of a legal right. Peace Panel on
- Aggrieved meaning clear legal right to be enforced in the duty or act Ancestral Domain
to be performed ● In re Petition for
- Petition is that the petitioner has firmly anchored his case upon right Records, February 14,
of the people to information on matters of public concern <- a public 2012
right ● Echagaray vs. Secretary
- Proceeding involves the assertion of a public right the requirement of of Justice
personal interest is satisfied my the mere fact: a.) petitioner is a ● Chavez vs. Presidential
citizen and part of the general public which possesses the right. Commission on Good
- Public - no direct/tangible interest in any real estate Government
- Comprehensive all-inclusive term
- Embraces every person
- Imperative duty of government officials concerned to publish all
important legislative acts and resolution of public nature as well as all
executive and proclamation
- “No discretion whatsoever as to what must be included/excluded
from such publication.”
- Absence of discretion on the part of the government agencies in
allowing the examination of public record office of Register of Deeds.
Except: clear that the purpose of examination is unlawful,
sheer, idle curiosity
- It is not the duty of the officers to concern themselves with motives of
the person seeking access to records
- It is not the prerogative to see that information is not flaunted for
public gaze.
- The legislature is called upon to devise a remedy
- Authority to regulate the manner of examining public records doesn’t
carry with it the power to prohibit
Distinction
MILF is a rebel group which splintered from the MNLF then headed
by Nur Misuari on the ground, among others, of what Salamat
perceived to be the manipulation of the MNLF away from an
Islamic basic towards Marxist-Maoist orientations. Erap declared
an all-out war. GMA – suspended the military offensive against the
MILF and sought resumption of peace talks.
*The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and
referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly
propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed
by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor
signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters thereof.
Section 4. Term of Office — Six years, commencing at noon on the 30th day of
June next following their election.
❏ Limitation — No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term
for which elected.
QUALIFICATIONS
Natural-born Filipino citizen, and, on the day of the election, at least 25 years of
age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered
voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for not less
than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
*Definition of terms:
❏ Party - either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.
❏ Political party - an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and
which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly
nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates
for public office. It is a national party when its constituency is spread over
the geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is a
regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical
territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the
region.
❏ Sectoral party - an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the
following sectors: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers and professionals, whose principal advocacy pertains to the
special interest and concerns of their sector.
❏ Sectoral organization - a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of
citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics,
employment, interests or concerns.
❏ Coalition - aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral
parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes.
This formulation means that any increase in the number of district representatives,
as may be provided by law, will necessarily result in a corresponding increase in
the number of party-list seats. To illustrate – since there were 208 district
representatives to be elected during the 1998 national elections, the number of
party-list seats would be 52, computed as follows:
Question – Does the Constitution require all such allocated seats to be filled up all
the time and under all circumstances? The Court said NO.
TWENTY PERCENT ALLOCATION IS A MERE CEILING
Party-list lawmakers, who shall “constitute twenty per centum of the total number
of representatives including those under the party list.” [Art. VI, Sec. 5(2)] The
Court maintains that the Congress was vested with the broad power to define and
prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. Hence, the
Congress enacted RA 7941. The relevant portion of Section 11(b) of RA 7941
provides:
“(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%)
of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each;
Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes; Provided,
finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than
three (3) seats.”
Considering the foregoing statutory requirements, the Court held that Article VI,
Section 5 (2) of the Constitution is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling
for party-list seats in Congress.
The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of
the Constitution and the law, but with the very essence of “representation.” Under
a republican or representative state, all government authority emanates from the
people, but is exercised by representatives chosen by them. But to have
meaningful representation, the elected persons must have the mandate of a
sufficient number of people. Even legislative districts are apportioned according to
“the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio” to ensure meaningful local representation.
The Court held that “the statutory provision on this two percent requirement is
precise and crystalline. When the law is clear, the function of courts is simple
application, not interpretation or circumvention. ”
THREE-SEAT-PER-PARTY LIMIT
An important consideration in adopting the party-list system is to promote and
encourage a multiparty system of representation. Thus, Congress set the seat-limit
to three (3) for each qualified party, organization or coalition.
“Qualified” means having hurdled the two percent vote threshold. Such three-seat
limit ensures the entry of various interest-representations into the legislature; thus,
no single group, no matter how large its membership, would dominate the party-list
seats, if not the entire House.
PROPOSED FORMULAS
1. One Additional Seat Per Two Percent Increment
Allocate one additional seat for every additional proportion of the votes obtained
equivalent to the two percent vote requirement for the first seat. Translated in
figures, a party that wins at least six percent of the total votes cast still be entitled
to three seats; another party that gets four percent will be entitled to two seats; and
one that gets two percent will be entitled to one seat only.
Like the previous proposal, the Niemeyer formula would violate the principle of
“proportional representation,” a basic tenet of our party-list system.
The Niemeyer formula, while no doubt suitable for Germany, finds no application in
the Philippine setting, because of our three-seat limit and the non-mandatory
character of the twenty percent allocation. True, both our Congress and the
Bundestag have threshold requirements — two percent for us and five for them.
There are marked differences between the two models, however. One half of the
German Parliament is filled up by party-list members. More important, there are no
seat limitations, because German law discourages the proliferation of small
parties. In contrast, RA 7941, as already mentioned, imposes a three-seat limit to
encourage the promotion of the multiparty system. This major statutory
difference makes the Niemeyer formula completely inapplicable to the
Philippines.
Step Two. Determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to, in order to
be able to compute that for the other parties. Since the distribution is based on
proportional representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties
cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is entitled by virtue of its
obtaining the most number of votes.
The other qualified parties will always be allotted less additional seats than the first
party for two reasons: (1) the ratio between said parties and the first party will
always be less than 1:1; and (2) the formula does not admit of mathematical
rounding off, because there is no such thing as a fraction of a seat.
*NOTE that the above formula will be applicable only in determining the number of
additional seats the first party is entitled to. It cannot be used to determine the
number of additional seats of the other qualified parties. The use of the same
formula for all would contravene the proportional representation parameter.
The Court maintains that the above formula does not give an exact mathematical
representation of the number of additional seats to be awarded since, in order to
be entitled to one additional seat, an exact whole number is necessary. In fact,
most of the actual mathematical proportions are not whole numbers and are not
rounded off, as it may result in the awarding of a number of seats in excess of that
provided by the law. Furthermore, obtaining absolute proportional representation is
restricted by the three-seat-per-party limit to a maximum of two additional slots.
CASE – BANAT v. COMELEC BANAT V. COMELEC
The Court maintains that a Philippine-style party-list election has at least four
inviolable parameters as clearly stated in Veterans v. COMELEC. However,
because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical interpretation of the
term “proportional representation”, the Court is compelled to revisit the formula for
the allocation of additional seats to party-list organizations.
The Court ruled that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued
operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as
found in the second clause of Section 11 (b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional.
Also, the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the
maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party
list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the
distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive
ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of
party-list representatives.
The Court therefore strikes down the two percent threshold only in relation to the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11 (b)
of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to
the full implementation of Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents
the attainment of “the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group
interests in the House of Representatives.”
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest
to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the
elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent
(2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one
guaranteed seat each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than
three (3) seats.
And finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each
qualified party-list candidate is entitled.
CASE – Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
The Supreme Court said that even if major political parties are allowed by the Labor Party v. COMELEC
Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must show, however, that
they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented.
The following guidelines should be followed in order that a political party registered
under the party-list system may be entitled to a seat in the House of
Representatives:
1. Must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors
2. Major political parties must comply with the statutory policy of “Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors . . . to be
elected to the House of Representatives.” (In other words, must show that
they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented)
3. Religious sector may not be represented
4. Must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941
5. Must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or
assisted by the government
6. The party and its nominees must comply with the requirements of the law
7. The nominee must also represent a marginalized or underrepresented
sector
8. The nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment
of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation
CASE – Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v.
The Court held that moral disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient COMELEC
governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the
party-list system. The LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered individuals)
is a sector that can be represented in the party-list system even if it is not
specifically enumerated in the law. The crucial element is not whether a sector is
specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with
the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.