POLITICAL LAW  Pertain to the election of the

representatives of the government by

➢ is a branch of public law which deals with the the people, the limitation on the conduct
organization, and operations of the governmental of election. It has something to do with
organs of the State and defines the relations of the the government because without
State with the inhabitants of its territory [People v. election, there cannot be a government
Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887; Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 or officials in the government
SCRA 77] 6. Public International Law
 Deals on the Study how these states
➢ POLITICAL comes from the Greek word “Polis” relate with other states
(City/state) (eg. Republic of the Philippines – modern
times)
BASIS
➢ It is a study about the “State” and when you study
about the state, you study about “group of people”
more or less with numerous tiny definite proportions of 1. 1987 Constitution
territory having a government to which they render
habitual obedience and enjoys sovereignty. 2. 1973 and 1935 Constitutions

3. Organic laws made to apply to the Philippines—

SCOPE/DIVISIONS
(CALLE) a. Philippine Bill of 1902
1. Constitutional Law—the study of the
maintenance of the proper balance between Philippine Bill of 1902 (Cooper Act) otherwise known as “The
Filipino Political Reach Head”
authority as represented by the three
inherent powers of the state and liberty as When we were UNDER AMERICANS, by the virtue of
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. [Cruz, Philippine Bill 1902, we have now Filipinos who composed of
Constitutional Law, 1993 ed., p. 1]. the Philippine Assembly which is the Lower House of the
2. Administrative Law-- That branch of Legislature at that time.
public law which fixes the organization,
determines the competence of administrative ➢ Under the Philippine Bill of 1902: it defined the “Filipino
authorities who executes the law, and Citizens” as those who are “Native born in general or
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands.”
indicates to the individual remedies for the
violation of his right.
b. Jones Law of 1916
 Those who are in the Executive Branch,
in the different administrative bodies: It says that “The Children subsequent there to” (Meaning
What are the powers and how do they the children of those who have been considered as
relate with each other?
inhabitants, therefore citizens of the Philippines are likewise
 Deals on how government officials run
considered as “Filipino Citizens”)
the government and the extent of the
exercise of the powers on how one ➢ The Jones Law of 1916 with refers to the government,
branch or one department, bureau or was likewise significant. Why significant?
agency or instrumentality relates with
each other. ➢ It was otherwise known as “The Philippine Autonomy
3. Law on Municipal Corporations Act”.
 Study of “How does the Natural government
relate with the Local Government?” (That Q: Why “The Philippine Autonomy Act”?
may be changed in the future, because as of
now, we only have Local autonomy for Local ➢ Autonomy: when there is recent realization of powers or
government are subject to the authority of transfer of powers.
the “National Government” meaning “they
cannot pass laws independent of the There was a transfer of legislative powers from the
“National Government”) Americans passed to the Filipinos.
4. Law of Public Officers
 When they are chosen, how do they relate c. Tydings-McDuffie Law of 1934
with the govern?
 What are their duties and responsibilities? Q: What is Tydings-Mcduffie Law?
5. Elections Law
➢ It is otherwise known as “The Philippine Independence
 How do we choose our government
Act”.
officials?

1 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019

 Why?
➢ Because we were now promised with the GRANT OF
INDEPENDENCE. Preparing for that independence from the
US, it was a condition to DRAFT CONSTITUTION which will
be the basis of a government that will be establish and that
was the COMMONWEALTH (1935 CONSTITUTION).
4. Statutes, executive orders and decrees, and
judicial decisions
5. US Constitution
Notes:
What is your basis in studying Philippines
Political law? What would be your reference?
➢ 1987 Constitution. There are provisions in the
Constitution recalled by your study of “Political Law”.
➢ 1987 CONSTITUTION IS NOT THE SOLE
SOURCE. IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVE. Because
understanding Political Phenomenon, it’s better if you
have other sources to refer to because that may not
be answered by the 1987 Constitution.
➢ Treaty of Paris & Treaty of Peace: There was a war
between Spain and US. Spain lost that war, so it was
compelled to sign TREATY OF PARIS ceding the
PHILIPPINES ISLANDS, and ALL THE INHABITANTS &
PROPERTIES BOUND THEREIN to the US for the
amount of $20 Million on sale. To include other
territories that Spain was able to acquire, the same
were ceded to mention a few (Eg. Palma Islands)
➢ Palma Islands: Acquired by Spain, then interceded
to US by the virtue of Treaty of Paris.
➢ For the first time, there was a concept of
Citizenship. (Remember, during Spanish Colonization,
there was no concept of Citizenship for Filipino Citizens
that’s why they are described as “Indios”.)
Indios - Uncivilized people of the islands, because
there
is no such concept.
➢ We are only considered as the “subjects” of the
King of Spain.
➢ No rights or whatsoever, we were chattels or
properties by the King of Spain.
2THE PHILIPPINE
Political CONSTITUTION
Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
DEFINITION
It is the highest fundamental law of the land upon
which all activities of the government are based on.
 That body of rules and maxims in
accordance with which the power of
sovereignty are habitually exercised.
 That written instrument enacted by
direct action of the people by which the
fundamental powers of the government
are established, limited and defined, and
by which those powers are distributed
among the several departments for their
safe and useful exercise for the benefit
of the body politic.
 It is the basic and paramount law to
which all other laws must conform and
to which all persons, including the
highest officials of the land, must defer.
No act shall be valid, however noble its
intention, if it conflicts with the
Constitution. The Constitution must ever
remain supreme. All must bow to the
mandate of this law. Right or wrong, the
Constitution must be upheld as long as
the sovereign people have not changed
it.
And so therefore in case of a conflict between a
statute and the Constitution – always the Constitution
prevailing over the statute, as a general rule because
sometimes it would depend on the system of the
government.
Therefore, laws find their justification if there is a
conformity with the constitution.
Decisions and acts of the President are only be
considered as “valid” if they are in consonant
with the constitution.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
1. It is the supreme law of the land. It is a
legislation direct from the people acting in
their sovereign capacity, hence, it is more
superior than an ordinary law or statute which
is merely a legislation from the people’s
representatives subject to limitations
prescribed by the Constitution.
2. It is the symbol and monument of the people’s
will. As such, it should be submitted for rati
cation of the people.
 According to Origin
3. It outlines the infrastructure of the Conventional Cumulative or Fiat or Granted
government. or Enacted Evolutionary
deliberately When it is a it is a
4. It must be obeyed by all. It governs the poor made at a result of an Constitution
and the rich, the governed and governors. definite period evolution of made by one
of time history of the country for
5. The courts are the ultimate guardians of the activities the another usually
Constitution. people of the it’s by way of a
country and of treaty of peace,
CONSTITUTION VS STATUTE the government after one
in particular territory/country
is defeated by
CONSTITUTION STATUTE another. So a
legislation direct from legislation from the formally struck the result of sovereign
the people; people’s representative; off at a definite political country would
time and place evolution, not prepare a
states general provides the details of the following a inaugurated at Constitution for
subject matter of conscious or any specific a defeated
principles;
which it treats; deliberate effort time but territory
taken by a changing by
intended not merely to intended primarily to constituent body accretion rather
meet existing meet existing conditions or ruler than by any
conditions; only; systematic
method
it is the fundamental it conforms to the enacted by a made by one
law of the State Constitution Constitutional a product of sovereign for
Convention history another
Notes: PH has a Conventional or Enacted Constitution – From
the 1935 Constitution, which was enacted by the 1934
Constitutional Commission (ConCom) and ratified by
the people subject to the approval of the Pres. Of the
USA because at that time we were not yet
independent. It took effect upon ratification by the
people on May 14, 1935. There were amendments of
the 1935 Constitution. Because of the major changes,
it was also called as the 1947 Constitution where there
were major changes were
introduced after we were granted with our
independence.

 There was only originally the 1935 Constitution

which was revised in 1971 by the 1971 ConCom, this
was ratified by the Citizen Assemblies. Declared having
been validly ratified by virtue of Pres.Proclamation
1102 by Marcos. It took effect on that day when
Marcos declared as was having been validly ratified on
Jan. 17, 1973. Take Note: the 1935 Consti took effect
upon the ratification of the people while the 1973
Consti took effect upon the declaration of its valid
ratification by Marcos on Jan. 17, 1973.

 Then there was an EDSA revolution, we had a

Revolutionay Gov., it was based on a Freedom
Constitution that was promulgated by Cory Aquino
otherwise known as Proclamation No. 3 which
practically adopted the provisions of the 1973
CLASSIFICATION Constitution except for the provisions of the
government because the government was
revolutionary. It took effect immediately upon its

3 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019

promulgation by Cory Aquino. Notes:

 Then there was the promulgation of the 1986

ConCom which was created by virtue of Proclamation
No. 9 and then the ratification of the Constitution on
Feb. 2, 1987. QUALITIES OF A GOOD WRITTEN
Take Note: it was only declared as having been validly CONSTITUTION
ratified by Cory Aquino by virtue of Executive Order
No. 50 on Feb. 9, 1987 and thus the controversy when
does the 1987 Constitution take effect - whether on (BBD)
the date of ratification or the date when it was BROAD
declared as having been validly ratified.  Has to cover the entire government,
structure, and organization.
De Leon vs Esguerra BRIEF
The SC emphasized Sec. 27 of Art.18 of the  Not a place for details, you can only
Transitory Provision wherein the Constitution have general principles and the rest will
shall take effect only upon the ratification of the be supplemented by the statutes passed
people. It is settled that the declaration of its by Congress.
valid ratification retroacts from the date of the
ratification as to its effectivity. Thus it is settled Ex. Congress has the power to appropriate Public
that the 1987 Constitution took effect on Feb. 2, funds
1987. for Public purpose (Does it state specifically for what
purpose is the project? – It does not specifically state,
because you’re limiting your constitution)
According to Source
WRITTEN UNWRITTEN DEFINITE
a constitution whose not necessarily not  To avoid ambiguity and conflicting
sources are found in one reduced in writing – the interpretations of provisions of the
single instrument sources could still be constitution.
written, however the
sources are scattered Notes:

one whose precepts are consists of rules which

embodied in one have not been integrated
document or set of into a single, concrete
documents form but are scattered in
various sources
The kind of Constitution that PH has is a Written
Constitution where all provisions are found in one
single
instrument such as the 1987 Constitution.

According to Manner of Changing

FLEXIBLE RIGID
one that can be amended one that can be changed
only by a formal and by ordinary legislation
usually difficult process

difficult to change.
Not flexible
must follow a certain
procedure
(STAGES):
a. proposal
b. submission
c. ratification
The Philippine Constitution is written, conventional and
rigid. It is embodied in one document and can be
ESSENTIAL PARTS OF A GOOD WRITTEN
amended only by a formal and usually difficult process
CONSTITUTION

4 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019


(LGS)
A CONSTITUTION OF
LIBERTY sets forth the fundamental civil
and political rights of the
citizens and imposes
limitations on the powers of
the government as a means of
securing the enjoyment of
those rights
ex: Bill of Rights
GOVERNMENT outlines the organization of
the government, enumerates
its powers, lays down certain
rules relative to its
administration and
defines the electorate
ex: Legislative, Executive and
Judicial Departments,
Constitutional Commissions
SOVEREIGNTY the provisions pointing out the
mode or procedure in
accordance with which formal
changes in the fundamental
law may be brought about
ex: Art. XVII-Amendments or
Revisions
CONSTRUCTION/INTERPRETATION
Whenever the words used in the constitution must be
given their ordinary meaning except when technical
terms are employed, then you should give them
ordinary meaning.
Ex. People -- could be inhabitants or residents
(ordinary
meaning) in case of ambiguity, it should be interpreted
in accordance with the intent of the framers. Whether
people only refer to qualified voters or to all residents
regardless ofcitizenship. understand how the word is
being used in the provision or it ha to be interpreted
as a whole.
1. Verba Legis—whenever possible, the words
used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical
terms are employed.
2. When there is Ambiguity—ratio legis et
anima--A doubtful provision shall be
5 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
examined in the light of the history of the
times and the conditions and circumstances
under which the Constitution was framed.
(Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary,
194 SCRA 317)
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat—the
Constitution has to be interpreted as a whole.
(Francisco vs. HR, G.R. No. 160261, November
10, 2003)
If the plain meaning of the word is not found to be
clear, resort to other aids is available—construe the
Constitution from what “appears upon its face”. The
proper interpretation, therefore, depends more on how
it was understood by the people adopting it than in the
framers’ understanding thereof.
In case of doubt, the provision should be considered
as self-executing; mandatory rather than directory;
and prospective rather than retroactive.
Notes: The general rule is that it is mandatory, you
have to follow them. It is not just directory, unless the
law itself provides otherwise that it is merely directory
or by a Supreme Court interpretation.
And then, it is selfexecuting. You dont need
legislation inorder to implement them. It can be
executed right away without need of implementing
rules as a general rule. As exception to that is
ARTICLE II which is not self-executing. You need
legislation inorder to implement. TN of the case of
Tañada vs Angara. Suffice to say that as a general rule
it is selfexecuting. Later you would learn from the
decisions of the Supreme Court where it emphasized
the fact that there is no need of a law or legislation
inorder to implement the provisions if the
Constitution. You could go to court and seek judicial
relief. If it is not self executing that cannot then be the
provisions of the Constitution especially Art. II cannot
be used as judicial basis for judicial action.
Meaning, you cannot question the validity a particular
act of the government if there is no law prohibiting it
on the basis only of Art. II because is not self
executing. And our economic provisions as well. Most
of them are not self executing. In a recent decision of
the Supreme Court, it made emphasis on some
provisions there that are self executing and therefore
need not require any legislation.
But generally, it is self executing.
Finally, you don’t apply the provisions of the
Constitution retroactively, they only have prospective
application unless it does not conflict with the previous
Constitutions
then it may be applied retroactively. General rule is,
prospective application.
SELF EXECUTING PROVISIONS
 One which is complete in itself and becomes
operative without the aid of supplementary or
enabling legislation, or that which supplies a
sufficient rule by means of which the right it
grants may be enjoyed or protected.
SELF EXECUTING NON SELF EXECUTING
assumes that the those provisions that are
provisions of the consti only guidelines or
are complete. principles that would
guide the congress on
And being complete, you what laws to be passed or
need not pass an guide the SC on how the
enabling law in order to provisions of the
enforce or implement it. constitution shall be
interpreted or how
it is complete by itself
the laws passed by
congress should be
construed or guide the
president in the passing
or implementing of a law.
Ex. Article II provisions of
the constitution
Being non self executing,
they cannot be used as
basis for judicial action.
Meaning, if it is not
followed, you cannot go
to
court and ask for judicial
relief saying that that
action of the government
is contrary to Article II
and therefore
unconstitutional
Case: Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS
SC said a provision lays down a general principle such
as those found in art 2 of the 1987 consti is usually
not self executing but a provision which is complete in
itself and becomes operative without a aid of a
supplementary or of an enabling legislature or that
which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the
right it grants maybe enjoyed or protected is self
executing.
Thus, the constitutional provision is self executing if
the nature the extent of the right conferred and the
liability imposed are fix by the constitution itself so
that they can be determined by an examination and
construction of its terms and there’s no language
6 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
indicating that the subject is referred to for legislative
action.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
The history of the 1987 Constitution began on 11 April
1899, the date when the Treaty of Paris between the
United and Spain of 10 December 1898 became
effective upon the exchange of instruments of
ratification of both countries. But the sources of the
1987 Constitution are (i) McKinley's Instructions to the
Second Philippine Commission; (ii) Spooner
Amendment; (iii) Philippine Bill of 1902; (iv) Jones Law
of 1916, otherwise known as the
Philippine Autonomy Act; (v) 1935 Constitution; (vi)
1973 Constitution and (vi) Freedom Constitution of
1986 and its implementing orders.
A. The Philippine Revolution and the
Malolos Constitution
B. The Organic Laws Under the American
Period
1. SCHURMANN COMMISSION
2. TAFT COMMISSION
3. McKINLEY’S INSTRUCTIONS
President McKinley, legislating as Commander-in-Chief,
issued on 7 April 1900 his "Letter of Instruction to the
Second Philippine Commission " under Taft.
It set up a "divided civil and military government" with
the existing Military governor as the Executive, and a
Philippine Commission, created on 1 September 1900,
as the Legislative, both representing the US President
as Commander-in-Chief.
It also extended to the Philippines all the rights in the
Bill of Rights of the US Federal Constitution, except the
right to bear arms (because the country was in
rebellion) and the right to a trial by jury (because the
Americans distrusted the Filipinos capacity to be a just
judge of his peers). The right to jury trial of an
American charged with a crime in the Philippines was
denied
by the courts in US v Dorr, 2 Phil 332 (1903) by virtue
of the Letter of Instruction.
This was the first Organic Act (a law which establishes
the structure and limitations of the government) of the
Philippines. What it lacked, as a constitution, were the
ratification by the people, and the right of amendment
(which was reserved solely to the US President).
The judiciary was subsequently established on 11 June
1901, with a Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance,
and Justice of Peace Courts.
4. THE SPOONER AMENDMENT
On 4 July 1901, the Spooner Amendment, which was
actually a rider to the "Army and Navy Appropriations
Act," changed the then "divided, military and civil
government" into a fully civil government, under the
US Congress. All acts of the Philippine Commission
would now begin: "Be it enacted by the authority of
the US government," and no longer by authority of the
US President.
5. THE PHILIPPINE BILL OF
1902
The US Congress now in control of the Philippines,
ratified all the organic acts of the President, in order to
prevent disruption of government, and on 1 July 1900,
passed the Philippine Bill of 1902, which was to be
organic act of the Philippines from 1902 to 1906. The
organic act introduced significant provisions to
constitutional history.
The Philippine Commission was the upper house. It
was under the Governor-General who retained all the
executive power, including the power to suspend the
writ of habeas corpus upon recommendation of the
Philippine Commission.
It established an elective lower house called the
Philippine Assembly, composed entirely of Filipinos. It
called for the first election in the Philippines to fill up,
the membership in the lower house, as soon as the
Philippine insurrection stopped and there was a
condition of general peace, except in the Moro and
Non-Christian provinces.
A census was taken and completed on 28 March 1903
and with a certification of peace and of Filipino
acceptance of the US government made by the
Philippine Commission on 29 March 1907, the election
for the Philippine Assembly was conducted on 10 July
1907, with Osmena as speaker.
The Bill also defined for the first time who the citizens
of the Philippines were. They were all the inhabitants
of the Philippine islands who were subjects of Spain as
of 11 April 1899, who continued to reside therein, and
all the children born subsequent thereto. This
definition is still good law today.
6. THE PHILIPPINE AUTONOMY
ACT OR JONES LAW (1916)
7 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
On 29 August 1916, the US Congress passed the Jones
Law, otherwise known as the Philippine Autonomy Act.
It established a tripartite government with real
separation of powers; this was the prototype of our
present set-up. The executive power was in the hands
of an American Governor-General, who was
independent of the Legislature, and who was given the
power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and
impose martial law without the recommendation of the
Legislature. The Legislature was composed of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, all
composed of Filipinos. The judiciary continued to be
made up of the Supreme Court, the CFIs and Justice
of Peace Courts.
Under this set-up, while the Filipinos has all the
legislative power, the Americans had all the executive
power and thus, also the control of the government.
Thus, in the Board of Control (National Coal
Corporation) cases, the US Supreme Court ruled,
despite the dissent of Holmes and Brandeis, that the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
could not vote the
stocks of the NCC and elect its directors because this
was a political function. Only the Governor-General
could vote the government shares, said the court.
The definition of who were citizens of the Philippines
first enunciated in the Philippine Bill of 1902, was
carried over by the Jones Law.
7. TYDINGS-MCDUFFIE ACT OF
1934
Although this was not an organic act, it is important in
the constitutional history of the Philippines because it
was to be the enabling statute, providing the
mechanism whereby the constitution of an
independent Philippines could be adopted. The law,
upon its acceptance by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines, provided for
(i) the calling of a Constitutional Convention to
draft a Constitution for the Philippines,
(ii) the adoption of a Constitution that established
a republican government, with a Bill of Rights,
and a separation of church and state,
(iii) the submission of the draft to the US
President for certification that the Constitution
was in conformity with the conditions set by
the Tydings-McDuffie Law, and
(iv) its ratification by the people in a plebiscite.
Complete independence was to take place ten
(10) years after its effectivity.
C. The 1935 Constitution
D. The Japanese Occupation
E. Declaration of Martial Law
Accordingly, on 30 July 1934, an election was held to
choose the delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
Claro M. Recto was elected President of the
Convention. On 8 February 1935, the Concon
approved the draft. On 23 March 1935, the draft was
certified by the President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt as
conforming to the Tydings-McDuffie Law. On 14 May
1935, it was ratified by the people in a plebiscite, with
the provisions on the qualifications of the President,
Vice-President and members of Congress taking effect
upon ratification. In September 1935, the first election
under the 1935 Constitution was conducted with
Manuel Luis Quezon as
President and Sergio Osmena as Vice- President.
On 15 November 1935, upon the inauguration of the
Commonwealth, the 1935v Constitution took effect.
This Constitution was to serve as the charter of the
Commonwealth, and upon withdrawal of US
sovereignty, of the Republic.
The Constitution provides for a tripartite government,
with the executive lodged in the President who had a
six-year term, the legislative in a unicameral National
Assembly, and the judiciary in a Supreme Court, CFIs
and Justice of Peace Courts as before.
In 1940, it was amended to provide for (a) a bicameral
Congress with a Senate and a House of
Representatives; (b) a term of four years for the
President, but with re-election and (c) the
establishment of an independent constitutional body
known as the Commission on Elections.
War ensued, and the Philippines was so devastated
that the declaration of its independence, due 15
November 1945 had to be postponed. At any rate, on
23 April 1946, the election of the first officials of the
Philippine Republic was held, and on 4 July 1946, the
Republic was inaugurated and the Philippines became
"politically" independent of the US.
Theoretically, to an extent that sovereignty is never
granted to a people but is earned by them as they
assert their political will, then it is a misnomer to say
that 4 July 1946 was the day US granted
independence to the Philippines. More appropriately, it
was the day when the US withdrew its sovereignty
over the Philippines, thus giving the Filipino people an
occasion to assert their own independence.
But not "economically". On 30 April 1946, one week
after the election, the US Congress passed the Bell
Trade Act which would grant Philippine prime exports
entry to the US free of customs duties from 1946 to
1954, and a gradual increase in duties from 1954 to
1974 (LaurelLangley agreement), provided that the
Philippines would grant US citizens and corporations
the
same privileges, and in addition, the right to explore
natural resources of the Philippines in parity with the
Filipinos, and to operate public utilities. This must be
accepted by Congress, embodied in an Executive
8 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
Agreement, and reflected as an amendment in the
Constitution.
The Senate approval of this bill gave rise to the case
of Vera v Avelino, 77 Phil 192 (1946). The Senate then
had 11 Nacionalistas and 13 Liberals. Three
Nacionalista Senatorselect (Vera, Diokno and Romero),
known to be against the Bell Trade Act, were
prevented by the rest of the Senate, in what is known
as "exclusion proceedings," on grounds that their
elections were marred with fraud. The political
motivation was clear but the SC was conned into lifting
the injunction it issued for the withholding of the
suspension, because of the unfulfilled promise that the
Senate would not carry out the suspension. With the
balance of power offset, the Bell Trade Act was
passed. Subsequently, the SC had to dismiss the
petition on the ground that the principle of separation
of powers, it could not order a co-equal branch to
reinstate a member.
The Senate authorized President Roxas to enter into
an Executive Agreement, which he did on 3 July 1946,
the eve of the declaration of Philippine Independence.
Then came the amendment of the Constitution in
order to include the Parity Rights Agreement, which
gave rise to the case of Mabanag v Lopez Vito, 78 Phil
1 (1947). Under the Amendatory Provisions of the
1935 Constitution, Congress, acting as constituent
body, needed 3/4 vote to propose an amendment to
the Constitution. But with the three Senators still
suspended, only the 21 remaining were used as the
basis for computing the 3/4 requirement.
When this was raised in court, it begged off from
ruling on the ground that it was a political question. It
also used the Enrolled Bill Theory. So with the
amendment proposed, it was subsequently ratified on
5 March 1947.
The third time the Constitution was amended (1940,
1947) was in 1967. A Resolution of both houses
provided for (a) the amendment of the Constitution by
a Convention, (b) the increase of seats in the House of
Representatives to make the Concon sufficiently
representative, and (c) allowing members of the
House as delegates without forfeiting their seats. The
first was
approved, the second and third were rejected. This
became the subject matter of Gonzales v COMELEC.
Election of delegates to the Concon took place on 10
November 1970. Then the ConCon met on 1 June
1971. Before it finished its work, it came up with a
resolution calling for an amendment to the 1935
Constitution reducing the voting age from 21 to 18, so
that a wider base could vote in the ratification of the
Constitution then being drafted. A plebiscite was set
by the COMELEC for 8 November 1971 but this was
enjoined by the SC in the case of Tolentino v
COMELEC, the court ruling that a piece-meal
amendment was not allowed by the 1935
Constitution since it provided that the amendments
were to be ratified at "an election" which meant only
one election. The Court upheld its jurisdiction over the
ConCon by arguing that since the Concon derived its
power from the Constitution, it was thus limited by the
Constitution.
But it was subsequently overtaken by Martial Law. On
30 November 1972, the Convention submitted its
"draft" to the President, who called on a plebiscite to
ratify the
Constitution. This was questioned in the case of Planas
v COMELEC, 49 SCRA 105 (1973) on the ground that
there can be no freedom of expression under Martial
Law. But the case was rendered moot and academic
when the President cancelled the plebiscite and
instead held a
citizens' assembly on 10 to 15 January, 1973. On 17
January 1973, the President came up with a
proclamation that the Constitution had come to full
force and effect after its overwhelming ratification by
the people in a viva voce vote.
F. The 1973 Constitution
The validity of the ratification process was
questioned in the case of Javellana v Executive
Secretary, 50 SCRA 30 (1973) but the failure of
the SC to come up with the necessary votes to
declare the act as unconstitutional forced it into
the conclusion that "there are no further obstacles
to considering the constitution in force and effect."
The 1973 Constitution was amended four times.
The first, in 1976, gave the President, legislative
powers even if the Interim Batasang Pambansa
was already operating.
The second, in 1980 was not significant. It merely
raised the retirement of justices of the SC from 65
to 70 as to keep Fernando for five more years.
The third, in 1980 changed the form of
government from Parliamentary to Presidential.
The fourth, in 1984, responded to the succession
problem by providing for a VicePresident.
The start of the end of the Marcos years, of
course, could be treated as early as 21 August
1983. But its immediate precursor was the Snap
Election which the President was forced to call and
set on 7 February 1986 to respond to the clamor
for popular mandate.
9 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
The validity of the "Snap Election Law" called by
the Batasang Pambansa was raised in the case of
Philippine Bar Association v COMELEC, 140 SCRA
455 (1985). The issue was raised because of the
conditional letter of resignation sent by Mr. Marcos
to the Batasan, making his resignation effective
only upon (i) the holding of a Presidential election,
(ii) the proclamation of a winner, (iii) the
assumption into office by the winning candidate. It
was contended that a conditional resignation was
not allowed under the 1973 Constitution, for it did
not create a vacancy, and without a vacancy,
there was no reason to call for an election. But the
SC failed to
issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
COMELEC from preparing for the election, thus
making "the initially legal question into a political
one." In the meantime, the political parties have
started campaigning and the people were so
involved in the election that to stop it on legal
grounds would frustrate their very will. And so,
failing to come up with the majority to hold the
Snap Election Law unconstitutional, the SC could
not issue the injunction prayed for. The election
went ahead.
The rest is history. The results of the election were
proclaimed by the Batasan, naming Marcos and
Tolentino as the winners. But the February 2 to
25, 1986, EDSA revolution took place. On 25
February, Marcos was proclaimed in Malacanang
by Makasiar, while Aquino was proclaimed in Club
Filipino by Teehankee. Later that evening, Marcos
fled to Hawaii.
G. The 1986 Provisional Constitution
1. The Snap Elections
2. The February 1986 Revolution
3. Proclamation No. 1 (Feb 25, 1986)
4. Proclamation No. 3 FREEDOM
CONSTITUTION (March 25, 1986)
Freedom Constitution
What was the basis of the Aquino government? Did it
assume power pursuant to the 1973 Constitution, or
was it a revolutionary government?
Proclamation No. 1, 25 February 1986 (Provisional
government).-- But Proclamation No. 3 which
announced the Provisional Constitution, seemed to
suggest that it was a revolutionary government, since
in one of its whereases it announced that the "new
government was installed, through a direct exercise of
the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of
the New Armed Forces," referring to the EDSA
revolution.
The better view is the latter view. The Aquino
government was not an offshoot of the 1973
Constitution for under that Constitution, a procedure
was given for the election of the President ---
proclamation by the Batasan --- and the candidate
Batasan proclaimed was Marcos.
Lawyers League v Aquino (GR Nos. 73748, 73972 &
73990, May 22, 1986).—This view was affirmed in
Lawyers League v Aquino where the legitimacy of the
Aquino government is questioned on the ground that it
was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution.
The SC ruled that petitioners had no personality to sue
and their petition states no cause of action. "For the
legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a
justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics
where only the people of the Philippines are the judge.
And the people have made the judgment; they have
accepted the government of President Aquino which is
in effective control of the entire country so that it is
not merely a de facto government but in fact and law
a de jure government. Moreover, the community of
nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present
government. All the eleven members of this Court as
reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental
law of the Republic under her government."
The Aquino government was a result of a "direct state
action." It was not as if a small group revolted and
succeeded in wresting power in the end. Rather, the
entire state revolted and overthrew the government,
so that right from the beginning, the installation was
already lawful and the government was at all times de
jure.
In this regard, it must be noted that there is no such
thing as a constitutional right of revolution. A
revolution, from the point of view of a State, is always
lawful since a State can never go wrong; it can change
its government in whatever way the sovereign sees fit.
But this right of revolution, inherent in sovereignty,
cannot be recognized in a Constitution, for this would
be self-destructive. The nature of a Constitution is to
set-up a government and provide for an orderly way to
change this government. A revolution contradicts this
nature.
Proclamation No. 3, March 25, 1986 (Provisional
Constitution).-- At any rate, the Provisional
Constitution or Freedom Constitution was adopted on
25 March 1986 through Proclamation No. 3. It
abrogated the legislative provisions of the 1973
Constitution, modified the provisions regarding the
executive department, and totally reorganized the
government. (Its use of the 1973 Constitution,
however, is not be to construed that it was a
continuation thereof.)
Then it provided for the calling of a Constitutional
Commission, composed of 30 to 50 members
appointed by the President within 60 days. (In our
history, all major constitutions --- Malolos, 1935, 1971
--- were drafted by elected delegates.)
10 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
The President appointed 48 Commissioners, who
worked on the Constitution from 1 June to 15 October
1986. The draft was submitted to the people in a
referendum on 2 February 1987. On 11 February
1987, the President, through Proclamation No. 58,
announced its overwhelming ratification by the people
and that, therefore, it had come into force and effect.
In Re: Saturnino Bermudez (145 SCRA 160)(1960).--
In the case of In Re: Saturnino Bermudez , the SC
held, quoting the previous case of Lawyers League v
Aquino, that:
[T]he legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a
justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics
where only the people of the Philippines are the judge.
And the people have made the judgment; they have
accepted the government of President Aquino which is
in effective control of the entire country so that it is
not merely a de facto government but in fact and law
a de jure government. Moreover, the community of
nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present
government. All the eleven members of this Court as
reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental
law of the Republic under her government.
H. The 1987 Constitution
1. The Constitutional Commission of 1986
2. Proclamation No. 58 (February 11, 1987)
3. When considered ratified—
Article XVIII, Section 27
I. Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
1987 Constitution, Art. XVIII, sec. 27.
Art. XVIII, Sec. 27. 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 the all previous Constitutions.
The foregoing proposed Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines was approved by the Constitutional
Commission of 1986 on the twelfth day of October
1986,
and accordingly signed on the fifteenth day of October
1986 at the Plenary Hall, National Government Center,
Quezon City, by the Commissioners whose signatures
are hereunder affixed.
Proclamation No. 58 (Proclaiming the Ratification of
the 1987 Constitution), February 11, 1987
De Leon v Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602 (1987.)
The 1987 Constitution took effect on 2 February 1987.
F: The case arose due to Art. III, Sec. 2 of
Proclamation No. 3, which provided that: "All elective
and appointive officials and employees under the 1973
Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise
provided by proclamation or executive order or upon
the designation or appointment and qualification of
their successors, if such appointment is made within a
period of one year from 25 February 1986."
De Leon was a barrio captain in Taytay, Rizal. On 9
February 1987, he was replaced by the MLG (DLG). So
the question arose as to when the 1987 Constitution
took effect. If it took effect on 2 February, the
replacement was no longer valid, since Proclamation
No. 3 would have been superseded. But if it took
effect on 11 February (the date of proclamation), the
replacement would have been valid.
The SC, consulting the proceedings of the Concom,
ruled that the intent of the framers of the Constitution
was to make it effective on the date of its ratification.
Art. XVIII, Sec. 27 clearly provided that "this
Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its
ratification by a majority of the votes cast in the
plebiscite." The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a
plebiscite on Feb. 2, 1987, superseding the Provisional
Constitution.
Consequently, after that date, respondent OIC
Governor could not designate respondents to the
elective positions occupied by petitioners. Petitioners
must now be held to have acquired security of tenure.
The dissenting opinion pointed out that by
contemporaneous construction, the 1973 Constitution
had a similar provision as the present one in issue
(Art. XVII, Sec. 16, This Constitution shall take effect
immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite), and yet it took effect on the
day of the proclamation. The 1981 and 1984
amendments contained similar provisions (valid when
approved), and yet the practice has always been to
make the date of proclamation, the date of effectivity.
Furthermore, if the effectivity was 2 February, then
the appointments made by the President to CA posts
after that date would be invalid for they were not
submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council. On this
point, however, Teehankee noted that the President
issued the appointments in the end of January.
A concurring opinion noted the debate between Davide
(date of proclamation) and Bernas (date of
ratification), and Davide's comment that he was giving
up due to tyranny of numbers.
AMENDMENT AND REVISION
PROCESS OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION
3 STAGES
1. Proposal
2. Submission of the Proposal to the People
3. Ratification
11 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
Take Note: Most of the questions asked in the bar is
on how do you propose amendments or revisions in
the Constitution.
Changes could simply be an:
1. amendment or
2. an overhaul such as a revision.
Take Note: the one proposing may not be qualified to
propose a revision but only an amendment.
AMENDMENT REVISION
when you only make it’s an overhaul, it
changes to such a part or changes the philosophy,
parts of the constitution. the rinciple, it changes
It does not change the the whole thing
philosophy of the
constitution or the basis
of the constitution
Question: When you change the term of office of the
president, from 6 years to 8 years with one reelection,
amendment or revision?
Answer: It’s an amendment because it does not
change the system of government, still presidential.
What is
changed is simply the term of office.
Question: The term of office of president shall be
indefinite based on whether he still holds the trust and
confidence of the members of legislature, then in
effect you are having a parliamentary system of
government,
amendment or revision?
Answer: Revision because it is not simply a change of
term but you’re changing the system of government,
the
philosophy of the government being established.
THREE ENTITIES THAT CAN PROPOSE CHANGES TO
THE CONSTITUTION
This is important because in the proposal, who can
propose changes to the constitution? There are only
three entities who can change or propose a change to
the constitution;
1. Congress – 3/4 votes where you convert congress
as a constituent assembly, one of their legislative
function although other than making laws
2. Congress may call or establish a ConCon in two
ways:
a. by 2/3 votes they may call for a concon or
b. by a majority vote submit that question to
the people whether or not they want a concon
 in order to propose changes to the
constitution
Take Note: If it is by Congress or ConCon, they can
propose both amendment and revision.
3. People – Initiative and Referendum (legal basis, RA
6735) but limited only to proposing
amendments to the constitution.
RA 6735 is very clear that people could only propose
amendments
Question: How about the president? Because now you
have the problem with the Bangsamoro where the
president proposing to the congress to pass BBL which
may in effect amend the constitution.
Answer: Case involving Arroyo: declared
unconstitutional
Province of North Cotabato vs The Republic of
the Phils. Peace panel.
It was declared by the SC to be unconstitutional
because to implement the Memorandum of Agreement
with the MI before would propose an amendment to
the constitution to recognize an associate state which
the constitution of 1987 does not allow. So to
implement it then, in effect the president through the
MOA is proposing that the constitution be changed in
order to recognize an associate state. The challenge to
the constitutionality of the BBL is similar to the MOA
case. The justification for declaring it later as
unconstitutional is firstly, the president cannot propose
amendments or revision to the constitution. There are
only three entities under the 1987 constitution which
can propose.
Question: Then why did Marcos able to change the
1973 constitution?
Answer: Because he had legislative power. It was
under martial law and by amendment no. 6, he
arrogate unto himself legislative power that enables
him to make amendments to the 1973 constitution.
Question :Then why Cory Aquino?
Answer: because there was no legislative body. It was
a revolutionary government. She arrogate unto herself
both legislative and executive powers. But not under
the 1987 consti. The consti is very clear, only three
entities can propose changes to the consti; congress,
concon (constitutional convention or constitutional
commission) and people.
How? Procedure under RA 6735, it must be:
1. Proposal - proposed by 12% of the registered
voters
wherein
12 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
2. Representation - each legislative district is
represented by at least 3% of its registered voters.
a) And According to the Lambino case,
because the people who are the authors of the
proposed the amendments,
3. Signing - they must sign the petition itself. Not just
you make attachments to the petition the signatures
but the petition itself must be signed by the registered
voters being the authors of the proposed
amendments.
4. Ratification - Ratification by majority of the people
who casts their votes during the plebiscite.
a) So plurality, based on the result of the
plebiscite, majority vote is all that is required.
On the concept of congress acting as a
constituent assembly:
They’re supreme within their own sphere so far
proposing changes to the constitution. This is separate
and distinct from its power to make laws and to
appropriate funds. So when they are considered as
constituent assembly, the function is only to propose.
 That does not include appropriating funds. The
appropriation will be done by congress acting as a
legislative body.
 Thereafter the proposal there is the Submission.
The submission is made when their done with their
draft, it is
submitted to the people for consultation so people will
understand what it is they are going to decide on,
whether to approve or disapprove it.
 The only principle that we need to remember here
is the manner of submitting it.
 It CANNOT be done piecemeal.
 It has to be the whole thing so that people will be
able to fully understand the provisions and their
relationship with each other. That was one of the
reason why the changes proposed by Marcos to the
1973 consti, it was scheduled for referendum or
plebiscite was declared unconstitutional because it was
done on installment basis. It cannot be done that way.
SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION
Supremacy of the Constitution
➢ The basic and paramount law of the land, which all
other laws must conform, which all people including
highest officials of the land must defer.
➢ Even for grave abuse of discretion and improvised
by a Co-equal branch of government like of the
President or of Congress, it can still be reviewed by
the SC in order to assert not the superiority of the
Supreme Court, but the Supremacy of the
Constitution.
Justiciable questions: Questions involving
“Controversies” on contrariety of assertion of rights.
Based on existing laws or applicable rights of the
constitution.
Theory of Judicial Review
Angara v Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139 (1936). In
1935, the National Assembly adopted a resolution that
"all members- elect, with no election protest filed on or
before 3 December 1935 are deemed elected." The
Electoral Commission, a constitutional body, on the
other hand set the 9 December 1935 as the deadline
for the filing of election protest.
Ynsua, who lost to Angara, filed a motion of protest
(complaint) on 8 December 1935.
This was entertained by the Electoral Commission.
Angara contended that the deadline set by the
National Assembly was controlling. Who prevailed?
The SC, through J. Laurel, ruled for Ynsua, thereby
upholding the authority of the Electoral Commission, in
view of the constitutional provision granting the
Electoral Commission jurisdiction over election
protests.
In justifying the power of judicial review, J. Laurel
pointed out that when the court allocated
constitutional boundaries, it neither asserts
supremacy, nor annuls the acts of the legislature. It
simply carries out the obligations imposed upon it by
the constitution to determine conflicting claims and to
establish for the parties the rights which the
constitution grants to them.
Take note however that no less than the constitution
provides for judicial review
 This is one way of checking the exercise of
the discretionary powers of the executive
and legislative branches of the government.
 Because however of the maintenance of the
separation of powers where you have to maintain
the independence of the three branches of the
government, this judicial review power of the
courts particularly that of the supreme
court may only be exercised provided that
the requisites are complied.
 In all questions that relates to the
constitutionality of any act of government, the SC
will not directly go to deciding whether or not it is
13 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
constitutional. The SC will first justify this exercise
of judicial review on the issue of constitutionality
by discussing first whether or not the requisites
have been complied with otherwise the supreme
court will simply dismiss the petition for lack of
jurisdiction simply because of the observance of
the separation of powers.
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. There must be an actual case or controversy;
2. The question must be raised by the proper party;
3. It must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity;
4. The issue is the lis mota of the case.
 this means that the main case cannot be
decided without first deciding on the
constitutionality
1. ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY
The question has to be a justiciable question and
not a political question.
Political question pertains to the philosophy, the
rationale of the law or the act of the government; it
has nothing to do with the legality that is political
because they are in the best position to know whether
the law is beneficial to the people. As to the reason for
its enactment, we leave it to congress that makes the
law to determine the propriety of its enactment and
such can only be acted by congress themselves as
regards to the matter of policy and why such particular
law is implemented by the president, that is within the
domain of the president to determine. So in which
case, if it is a matter of political discretion, such is
beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry. Only when there
is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion, then the
SC may look into. So should it be justiciable, meaning,
there has to be an applicable law or a constitutional
provision as basis for invoking or questioning the
validity or the constitutionality of a particular act of
government or of a law passed by congress.
By case we mean it is contested. There has to be a
conflicting rights claimed by the parties. It cannot be
friendly debate or mere resolution of court to ask the
court to be a referee. It is not for the court to give an
opinion.
Actual means existing at the tie of filing of the
complaint up to the termination WON the act
complained of is valid. So a premature filing is not an
actual case, in which case, it is dismissable such as the
case of BANGSAMORO.
SC said dismissed questions pertaining to BBL because
there is still a pending bill in Congress. Thus, it will
preclude Congress in the enactment of the law if the
SC will assume jurisdiction. Prematurity could also
mean that the complaint has not yet resulted into a
conflict but a mere anticipation that his right will be
violated that would be speculative.
It must not be moot and academic as well, in such
that the controversy must sustain until the
determination of the act complained as valid or not. At
the option of SC, even if it is already moot and
academic, SC is not precluded in reviewing the act
complained of and determine its constitutionality to
establish jurisprudence so I the future the same issue
may be raised, then there will be a guideline for our
lawyers, judges, and public.
GR: mootness of issue cannot be considered as
magical
formula in dismissing a case just because the issue is
no longer there. It cannot close its eyes just because
the issue is moot and academic.
There are 4 EXCEPTIONS:
A. Patent And Gross Violation Of The
Constitution
The supreme cannot just close its eyes and
simply dismiss the case because the case has
become moot and academic. The supreme
court has to review the act and establish
guidelines for the future that if the issue would
be raised at least there would be a prevailing
principle
B. Issue Is Of Transcendental Importance Or Of
Paramount Interest Or
C. When There Is Necessity Establish Guidelines
Or Precepts For Future Reference
D. When It Can Be Repeated In The Future
However It May Evade Review Then In Which
Case Supreme Court
2. PROPER PARTY
who is the proper party to raise a question of
constitutionality?
DIRECT INJURY PRINCIPLE
They must be aggrieved or in the imminent danger of
sustaining injury if the issue on constitutionality is not
resolved.
It would not just be any citizen. He has to be affected
directly by the law for him to be a proper party.
Direct Injury : personal and substantial interest in
such that he has sustained or will sustained direct
injury as a result
3. LOCUS STANDI
14 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
GR in Civil Cases: must have an actionable right;
personal interest in the outcome of the case.
Otherwise, no legal personality to seek relief.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN POLITICAL LAW.
In Political law, it is sufficient to have Locus Standi:
PROPER PARTY
As a TAXPAYER
1st instance: when there’s an appropriation of funds
and the disbursement is anomalous. Not just any
disbursement of public funds, it has to be anomalous
that would result to misappropriation of public funds.
2nd instance, when taxpayer questions an exorbitant
tax imposition, because that would tantamount to
taking his property without due process and so,
unconstitutional.
As a VOTER
Must show an obvious interest in the validity of the
election law, that will affect his right to vote or to run
for public office.
As a CITIZEN
GR: you can’t be a proper party if you’re just a
concerned citizen because of Direct Injury Principle
EXC: There must be showing that the issues are
transcendental importance which must be settled
early. So that the issue of proper party might be
considered as mere procedural technicality which can
be set aside by the SC that is discretionary of the SC.
So even if you are not directly affected by it, if the SC
takes that it has transcendental importance.
As a LEGISLATOR
There must be a claim of official action that infringes
upon their prerogatives as legislators.
As a CORPORATE ENTITY
The parties suing has substantial relation to the third
party, the third party cannot assert his constitutional
right: the right of the third party to be included unless
the third party by the Court is allowed to the
constitutional claim.
3. EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
The issue of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest opportunity, which is when you file your
pleading, that's the earliest opportunity. If you do not
allege that in your complaint or in your answer, you
may not be allowed to present evidence on the
unconstitutionality of the act complained of during the
trial.
If you presented in your pleading, however you did
not present evidence to substantiate what you alleged
in your pleadings, then you may not be allowed to
raise that for the first time on appeal if you lose the
case.
That's the general rule. However, take note of the
exceptions where even if it was not raised in the
pleadings in the trial, it may still be allowed to be
raised for the first time on appeal.
1. When it is a criminal case. You are
questioning the validity or the
constitutionality of the penal laws.
Because after all, if a penal law is declared
unconstitutional, it would be to the
advantage of the accused, and it would be
applied retroactively, so meaning if there
is no law punishing the act, then, it would
be as if no crime was committed. In which
case, it would be beneficial to the accused
because it is as if he did not commit a
crime. The case can be dismissed. So it
can be raised for the first time on appeal.
2. On the issue of jurisdiction. That could
raised anytime at any stage of the
proceedings before finality of the decision.
3. And finally, in civil cases, only when it is the lis
mota. Meaning, the relief sought for cannot be
determined or cannot be resolved without first
settling the issue of constitutionality.
4. LIS MOTA
Only when it is the lis mota. Meaning if there are other
grounds by which the case can be resolved or be
disposed of, as much as possible, our courts should
not touch on the issue of constitutionality because it
might endanger the stability of our country. So, only
when the issue or the case cannot be resolved without
settling first the issue on constitutionality, then the
Supreme Court may exercise judicial review.
Take note of Belgica et al., vs. the Executive
Secretary, Supreme court said of these requisites, the
case law states that the first two are the most
important. What are the first two?
a) Actual case or controversy
b) It must be raised by the proper party
Now let us go the effects of the declaration of
unconstitutionality. Assuming that judicial review was
exercised properly, what would be the outcome?
EFFECTS OF THE DECLARATION OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
Assuming that judicial review has been exercised
properly, the outcome may either be that:
15 Political Law Reviewer. WLCNotes | NTS2019
(1) the Supreme Court may declare the law as not
unconstitutional, what we call as double negative
declaration.
In other words, ratifying or legitimating what is
already presumed to be valid as valid or it may
(2) declare the law as unconstitutional. So how do you
treat a law as declared as unconstitutional? The
process in such declaration can only be decided by the
Supreme Court sitting en banc with majority vote of
those who actually participated in the deliberation,
based on a quorum.
Let us review!
There are 15, so you’ll need majority (no. divided by 2
plus 1) so 8. If there are 14 justices, you’ll still need 8.
If 13, you need 7. If there are 12, you need 7 votes as
well. If there are 11 or 10, you’ll need 6. If there are
9, you’ll need 5. If there are 8, you’ll still need 5. If
you have 7, there is no more quorum, in which case
there cannot be any deliberation. If they cannot obtain
the requisite majority, the petition will be dismissed,
thereby sustaining the constitutionality or the validity
of the law that is being questioned.
Justiciable Question—a given right, legally
demandable and enforceable, an act or omission
violative of such right, and a remedy granted by law
for said breach of right
Political Questions—those questions which, under
the constitution, are to be decided by the people in
their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branches of government.
•Political questions are questions of policy. They
involve the wisdom of an act or the efficacy or the
necessity of a particular measure. These are questions
which are better left for the political branches of the
government to determine or resolve.
•Arose from doctrine of separation of powers
Two (2) Types of Political Question
1. Those to be decided by the people themselves in
their sovereign capacity
2. Full discretionary authority has been delegated by
the Constitution to the Legislative or Executive branch
of the government
Legislative and Executive—political branches of the
government—where laws are enacted and enforced