De Leon vs.

Esguerra
G.R. No. 78059
Melencio-Herrera, J

FACTS:

On 17 May 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected as Barangay

Captain along with the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay
Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. On February 9, 1987, petitioner received a Memorandum
antedated December 1, 1986 signed by OIC Gov. Benhamin B. Esguerra
designating Florentino Magno as new Barangay Captain, and the others as
members of Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality.

Petitioners pray that the memorandum be null and void in accordance to Section
3 of Barangay Election Act of 1982. Petitioner further that with the ratification of
the 1987 Constitution, respondent OIC governor no longer has authority to
designate successors and replace them.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the designation of respondents to replace petitioners was validly

made during the one-year period which ended on Feb 25, 1987.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court held that the memoranda issued by Gov. Esguerra has
no legal force and effect. Though the designation was within the one year period
which ended on Feb. 25, 1987, however, it was cut short when the 1987
Constitution took effect on Feb. 2, 1987. When the 1987 Constitution was in
effect, the governor no longer had the authority to designate successors under
the Provisional Constitution which was deemed to have been superseded. The
writ of prohibition was granted and the petitioners have acquired the security of
tenure.
 ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003.

FACTS:
On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution directing
the Committee on Justice “to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the
manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of the Judiciary Development Fund.”

On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph Estrada filed an impeachment

complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr and seven other
Associate Justices for “culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of
the public trust and other high crimes.” This complaint was then endorsed to
the House Committee on Justice conforming to the Section 3(2) of Article XI of
the Constitution.

On October 13, 2003, the House Committee on Justice ruled that the
impeachment complaint was “sufficient in form”, but later voted to dismiss the
said complaint on October 22, 2003 for being “insufficient in substance”.

On June 2, 2003, Representative Gilbert C. Teodoro, Jr. and William B.

Fuentabella, filed another impeachment complaint against Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr. founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated
by the previously mentioned House Resolution. This complaint, accompanied
by a “Resolution of Endorsement/ Impeachment”, was signed by at least 1/3 of all
the Members of the House of Representatives.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the court could determine what constitutes an impeachable
offense.
2. Whether or not Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment
adopted by the 12th Congress are unconstitutional.
3. Whether or not the filing of the second impeachment complaint is barred under
Section 3 (5) of Article XI of the Constitution.

RULINGS:
1. No, the said issue, in accordance with the Section 1 of Article VIII of the
Constitution, is beyond the scope of the judicial power of the Supreme Court. The
Courts should not contravene with the issue of constitutionality unless
unavoidable or is the *crux of the controversy. (*crux- main point)
2. Yes, the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of Rules on Impeachment violates
the Section 3 (5) of Article XI. It is to be known that all rules must not contravene
the Constitution which is the fundamental law of the land.
3. Yes, in accordance to the Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution which
states that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one year.”
 Imbong v. COMELEC (1970)
Makasiar, J.

Petitioner: Manuel B. Imbong

Respondent: Jaime Ferrer (Chair of COMELEC), Lino M. Patajo and Cesar
Miraflor

FACTS:

1.) Find the timeline of events below

• MARCH 16, 1967 - Passed Resolution # 2 calling for a Constitutional

Convention
o 2 delegates per representative district
o Election to commence on Nov. 1970
(Congress as a Constituent Assembly)

• (undated) – RA 4914 was passed

o This is the implementing legislation practically restating Resolution
#2
(Congress as a legislative body)

• JULY 17, 1969 – Passed Resolution #4 amending Resolution # 2

o Constitutional Convention be composed of 320 delegates
▪ Apportioned among representative districts according to
number of inhabitants
▪ PROVIDED at least 2 delegates per district
▪ Same qualifications as any congressman.
(Congress as a Constituent Assembly)

• AUGUST 24, 1970 – RA 6132 was passed REPEALING RA 4914.

o Implementing legislation of Resolution 2 and 4.
(Congress as a legislative body)

2.) Manuel Imbong & Raul Gonzales as members of the Bar & taxpayers filed for
a PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF impugning the constitutionality of RA
6132 saying that it prejudices their rights as candidates. (Consolidated cases of
Imbong and Gonzales)

3.) Raul Gonzales (GR L-32443) assails the validity of the entire law and sections
2,4, 5, and paragraph 1 of 8(a) of RA 6132.
4.) Manuel Imbong (GR L-32432) assails the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of
Sec 8(a) of RA 6132 on same grounds as Gonzales.

ISSUES/HOLDING:
*Whether or Not, the enactment of Secs. 2,4,5 and 8(a), paragraph 1 of RA
no. 6312 are unconstitutional. NO, they are not!

Ratio:

I. Sec 4 of RA 6132 is constitutional.

o Merely and application of and in consonance with the prohibition in
Sec 2, Article XII of the constitution
o It is not a denial of due process or equal protection

II. RA6132 as a whole is constitutional.

CONGRESS
AS A CONSTITUENT AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY
ASSEMBLY (CONASS)
-has full and plenary -power to enact
authority to propose implementing details
amendments or call for a
convention
Calling of Constitutional -does not exclusively
Convention includes all pertain to Congress as a
powers essential to the Constituent Assembly
effective exercise of this
principal power (e.g. fix
qualifications, number,
apportionment, and
compensation)
-exclusive to congress -within the competence
of congress in exercise
of its comprehensive
legislative power
-It is valid as long as it
does not clash with
Consti

When congress (as CONASS) omits to provide implementing details

after calling for a concov, Congress (as Legislative Body) can exact
legislation to fill in the gaps. (May still be vetoed by the President)

III. Sec 2 of RA 6132 is constitutional

 oGonzales: Not in accordance with proportional representation. Thus,
a violation of the consti!

oSC: Wrong! IF the framers wanted the apportionment of the delegates

to be based on the number of inhabitants in each representative
district, it would have done so in so many words as they did in
relation to the apportionment of representative districts.

▪ Sec 2 was just a reinstatement of the intent of the Congress

as ConAss in Reso 4.

oABSOLUTE PROPORTIONAL APPORTIONMENT IS NOT

REQUIRED AND POSSIBLE.

▪ It is enough that the basis employed is reasonable and

resulting apportionment is substantially proportional.

▪ Sec 5, Art VI of Consti: “as nearly as may be according to

their responsive inhabitants, but each province shall have at
least 1 member.”

▪ Error of Macias et al. v. COMELEC in granting more reps in

provinces with less population is not apparent in the case at
bar since minimum is 2 representatives.

IV. Sec 5 of RA 6135 (Disqualifies for any public office in any election
or from assuming any appointive office or position in any branch
of government until after final adjournment of concov.) is
CONSTITUTIONAL.

oVALID LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT TO PUBLIC OFFICE

PURSUANT TO POLICE POWER.

▪ Citizens do not have inherent/natural right to public office.

▪ Obvious reason for limitation – to immunize delegates from

the perverting injustice of self-interest, party interest, or
vested interest.

▪ To focus solely on interest of nation

▪ It is only a TEMPORARY disqualification, not a permanent

one.

▪ Equal Protection
 • Substantial Distinction

• Germane to the purpose of law

• Applies to all members of the same class

V. Par 1 sec 8(a) is CONSTITUTIONAL

It is not a violation of due process, equal protection, freedom of

expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association

• These are neither absolute or illimitable rights

• Subject to pervasive and dormant POLICE POWER

• Gonzales vs. COMELEC used CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

TEST to determine if a stature trenches upon such constitutional
guarantees.

o The period for the conduct of an election campaign or

partisan political activity may be limited w/o offending
constitutional guarantees TO AVOID CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL OF DEBASEMENT OF
ELECTORAL PROCESS.
• Sec 8(a) permits to seek help from his family until the 4th degree of
consanguinity and affinity for his campaign.
• He cannot be denied of any permit to hold a public meeting. (Freedom
of expression and assembly)

• It is constitutional because it promotes equal protection of the law

o Equality of chances

▪ Does not create hostile discrimination against any

party or group and confers undue favor or privilege on
an individual.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the prayers in both petition are hereby

DENIED and RA6132 including sections 2, 4, 5, and 8(a) par 1 CANNOT BE
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Digester's notes:
Section 2: Composition of the Convention; Qualifications of Delegates.

[The Constitutional Convention] "shall be composed of 320 delegates who

shall have the same qualifications as those required of Members of the
House of Representatives."

Section 4: "Persons Holding Office. Any person holding a public office or

position, whether elective or appointive, including members of the armed
forces and officers and employees of corporations or enterprises owned
and/or controlled by the government, shall be considered resigned upon
the filing of his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That any government
official who resigns in order to run for delegate and who does not yet
qualify for retirement under existing laws, may, if elected, add to his length
of service in the government the period from the filing of his certificate of
candidacy until the final adjournment of the Constitutional Convention."

Section 5: Disqualification to Run. Any person elected as delegate to the

Constitutional Convention shall not be qualified to run for any public office
in any election or to assume any appointive office or position in any branch
of the Government until after the final adjournment of the Constitutional
Convention.

Section 8(a) par. 1 prohibits:

1. any candidate for delegate to the convention

(a) from representing, or

(b) allowing himself to be represented as being a candidate of any

political party or any other organization; and

2. any political party, political group, political committee, civic,

religious, professional or other organizations or organized group of
whatever nature from

(a) intervening in the nomination of any such candidate or in the

filing of his certificate, or

(b) from giving aid or support directly or indirectly, material or

otherwise, favorable to or against his campaign for election.
 Occena vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. L-56350 April 2, 1981

Facts:

Two prohibition proceedings questioning the validity of three Batasang

Pambansa Resolution were filed by Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales, both
members of the Philippine Bar and former delagates to the 1971 Constitution
Convention. The suits for prohibition were filed on March 6 and March 12, 1981.
Respondents were required to answer within 10 days from date of notice, March
10 and March 13 1981. Then on March 26, 1981 the case was set for hearing
and argued on by petitioners and Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza for
respondents. With the submission of pertinent data for oral arguments, the case
was deemed submitted for decision.

Issues:

1. Whether the 1973 Constitution is a fundamental law

2. Whether the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose
amendments.
3. Whether the three-fourth votes is necessary to propose amendments
as well as the standard for proper submission.
4. Whether the three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing
constitutional amendments are valid.

Ruling:

1. Yes, the Supreme Court held that in the case of Javellana v. The
Executive Secretary, dismissing petition for prohibition and mandamus
to declare invalid its ratification, this Court stated that it did so by a vote
of six to four. It then concluded "This being the vote of the majority,
there is no judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in
force and effect." This statement served to clear the issue. It made
manifest that as of January 17, 1973, the present Constitution came
into force and effect. With such pronouncement by the Supreme Court
and with the recognition of the cardinal postulate that what the
Supreme Court says in not only entitled to respect but must also be
obeyed. Thereafter as a matter of law, all doubts were resolved. The
1973 Constitution is the fundamental law.

2. Yes, the existence of the power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa is

unquestionable in fact, the provision in the 1976 Amendments explicitly
states that, "The Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the same
powers and its members shall have the same functions,
responsibilities, rights, privileges, and disqualifications as the Interim
 National Assembly and the Regular National and the members
thereof." One of such powers is to propose amendments to the
Constitution.

3. No, the three-fourth votes is not necessary to propose amendments

and is not required to be the standard for proper submission. The
Constitution provides that the Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a
constituent body, can propose amendments. In that capacity only a
majority vote is needed. It would be an indefensible proposition to
assert that three- fourth votes required when it sits as a legislative
body applies as well when it has been convened as the agency
through which amendments could be proposed. The three-fourth votes
is not a requirement as far as a constitutional convention is concerned.
It is not a requirement either for the Batasang Pambansa as when they
propose amendments. Moreover, even on the assumption that the
three-fouth votes applies, such extraordinary majority was obtained.

4. Yes, the three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing

constitutional amendments are valid. The period required by the
constitution was fulfilled as follows: "Any amendment to, or revision of,
this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than three months after
the approval of such amendment or revision." The three resolutions
were approved by the Interim Batasang Pambansa sitting as a
constituent assembly on February 5 and 27, 1981. In the Batasang
Pambansa Blg. 22, the date of the plebiscite is set for April 7, 1981. It
is thus within the 90-day period provided by the Constitution.
 Tolentino VS. Comelec (1971)

GR no. L-43150

October 16, 1971

Facts:

The Constitutional Convention of 1971 commissioned the Commission On

Election (COMELEC) to facilitate the advance plebiscite concerning their first
amendment. The advance plebiscite for the amendment would coincide with local
election on November 1971. The amendment proposes that the voting age be
changed from 21 years old to 18. This first amendment was the approved by the
convention even before the entire Constitution was drafted and approved. Arturo
Tolentino argued that all amendments should be ratified all at the same time and
not by piecemeal. Tolentino petitioned to stop the advance plebiscite.

Issue:

Whether or not the Tolentino’s petition is binding?

Held:

Yes. If the advance plebiscite is allowed, it will hinder the people from viewing the
revised constitution as whole. The people are expected to ratify the entire
Constitution. Their decision to ratify the constitution will be based on their
understanding of the entirety of the revised constitution and not just of its
amendments.
 Santiago vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 127325
Davide, JR., J

FACTS:

Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with Comelec a petition to amend the
Constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials through People’s Initiative.
He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which
provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution.

Petitioners Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago et al. filed a special civil action
prohibiting the amendment on the provisions of the Constitution through people’s
initiative since such amendment can only be implemented by law to be passed
by the Congress. There is no law passed yet and RA 6735, which provides for
three systems initiative, namely, initiative on the Constitution, on statutes and on
local legislation. However, the initiative on the Constitution failed to provide any
subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike the other modes of initiative.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-
executing provision.

(2) Whether not RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to

the Constitution.

RULING:

(1) No. Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus, without
implementing legislation the same cannot operate.

(2) No. RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and

conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
concerned.