Group 5 : Knowledge Portfolio

Political Law wider scope of study than constitution

Branch of public law

o    Deals with organization and operation of the governmental organs of the state
o    Defines the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory.

 Macariola v. Asuncion

Is article 14 of the code of commerce political law?

Specific art 14 is a political law (administrative law)

FACTS
On August 6, 1968 Bernardita R. Macariola charged respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion
of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals,
with “acts unbecoming a judge when the latter purchased a property which was
previously the subject of litigation on which he rendered decision. Respondent and his
wife were also members of Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. to which
their shares and interests in said property were conveyed.

According to the petitioner, respondent allegedly violated Article 1491, par. 5, of the
New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was one of
those properties involved in in a case decided by him and that he likewise violated
Article 14, par. 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Section 3, par. H, of R.A. 3019, Sec. 12,
Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules, and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, by
associating himself with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as a
stockholder and a ranking officer while he was a judge of the Court of First Instance of
Leyte.

ISSUE
II. Whether or not respondent Judge violated paragraphs 1 and 5, Article 14 of the Code
of Commerce when he associated himself with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing
Industries, Inc.

HELD
 
II
NEGATIVE. Respondent Judge cannot be held liable under [paragraphs 1 and 5, Article
14 of the Code of Commerce] because there is no showing that respondent participated
or intervened in his official capacity in the business or transactions of the Traders
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. In the case at bar, the business of the
corporation in which respondent participated has obviously no relation or connection
with his judicial office. The business of said corporation is not that kind where
respondent intervenes or takes part in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First
Instance.

Alvez, Avelino, Catubay, Dolino, Gaspan, Laguerta, Obejero, Sarraga, Trinidad

Group 5 : Knowledge Portfolio

It is [the Court’s] considered view that although [paragraphs 1 and 5, Article 14] is
incorporated in the Code of Commerce which is part of the commercial laws of the
Philippines, it, however, partakes of the nature of a political law as it regulates the
relationship between the government and certain public officers and employees, like
justices and judges.

Article 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes more of the nature of an administrative

law because it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and employees with
respect to engaging in business: hence, political in essence. It is significant to note that
the present Code of Commerce is the Spanish Code of Commerce of 1885, with some
modifications made by the “Commission de Codificacion de las Provincias de Ultramar,”
which was extended to the Philippines by the Royal Decree of August 6, 1888, and took
effect as law in this jurisdiction on December 1, 1888.

Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the
United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of this Code of Commerce
must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of
sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not
with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are
expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

Likewise, in People vs. Perfecto (43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]), this Court stated that: “It is a
general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political
relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. ”

There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the
aforestated provision of the Code of Commerce after the change of sovereignty from
Spain to the United States and then to the Republic of the Philippines. Consequently,
Article 14 of the Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to
the respondent, then Judge of the Court of First Instance, now Associate Justice of the
Court of Appeals.

Scope of Political Law

Constitutional Law – proper balance between authority as represented by the 3 inherent powers of
the state and the liberty as guaranteed by the bill of rights.
Admin Law
Law on Municipal Corporations
Law of Public Officers
Election Law

 Manila Prince vs GSIS (define Constitution)

Alvez, Avelino, Catubay, Dolino, Gaspan, Laguerta, Obejero, Sarraga, Trinidad

Group 5 : Knowledge Portfolio

-          We now resolve. A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and
administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority
from which it emanates. It has been defined as 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. The fundamental conception in other words is that 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. 
Facts:
The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government, decided to sell
through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent
Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). The winning bidder, or the eventual “strategic
partner,” will provide management expertise or an international marketing/reservation
system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability and performance of the
Manila Hotel.
In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated:
petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy
51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a
Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number
of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. Prior to the
declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder, petitioner Manila Prince Hotel
matched the bid price and sent a manager’s check as bid security, which GSIS refused to
accept.
Apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale
may be consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner filed a petition before the Court.
  
Classification of Constitution

-          As to form
o    Written and unwritten
§  A written constitution 
·         is the one in which all the rules and regulations are written in a
well-documented form and at one place. This is of particular advantage
as a proof is available to back any claim relating to the functioning of
the government.
·         One which has been given definite written form at a particular
time, usually by a specially constituted authority called a “Constitutional
Convention”
§  An unwritten constitution 
·         pertains to a constitution in which the rules are not strictly
documented in one place. This fact leads to confusion and conflict.
·         One which is entirely the product of political evolution, consisting
largely of a mass of customs, usages and judicial decisions together with

Alvez, Avelino, Catubay, Dolino, Gaspan, Laguerta, Obejero, Sarraga, Trinidad

Group 5 : Knowledge Portfolio

a smaller body of statutory enactments of a fundamental character,

usually bearing different dates.
o    Ex: The English Constitution is unwritten only in the sense
that it is not codified in a single document.

-          As to Origin
o    Enacted and evolved
§  The enacted or conventional constitution
·         is the result of the deliberate effort of man. It is consciously made.
It may be made by a constituent assembly or by the command of
sovereign authority, king or parliament. The features of an enacted
constitution are embodied in a document or in a series of documents.
·         One which is enacted by a constituent assembly or granted by a
monarch to his subjects like the Constitution of Japan in 1889

Example : 1987 constitution 

§  An evolved or cumulative constitution

·          is the result of the growth of rules, which have been developed
with the time, added one by one as and when the need was felt.
·         Like the English Constitution, one which is a product of growth or
a long period of development originating in customs, traditions, judicial
decisions, etc. rather than from a deliberate and formal enactment.

No group of people coming together to draft a constitution

Example; British Constitution

-          As to Manner of Amendment
o    Rigid and Flexible
§  Rigid
·         One regarded as a document of special sanctity which cannot be
amended or altered except by some special machinery more cumbrous
than the ordinary legislative process
§  Flexible
·         One which processes no higher legal authority than ordinary laws
and which may be altered in the same way as other laws.

1987 Constitution

-          Classified as Enacted, Written, and Rigid. It was drafted by an appointive body called
“Constitutional Commission”

Good written constitution

             Requisites:

Alvez, Avelino, Catubay, Dolino, Gaspan, Laguerta, Obejero, Sarraga, Trinidad

Group 5 : Knowledge Portfolio

1.   Broad – because a statement of the powers and functions of government, and

of the relations between the governing body and the governed, requires that it be as
comprehensive as possible
2.   Brief – because if a constitution is too detailed, it would lose the advantage of a
fundamental law which in a few provisions outlines the structure of the government of
the whole state and the rights of the citizens. It would probably never be understood by
the public. Furthermore, it would be necessary to amend it every once in a while, to
cover many future contingencies.
3.   Definite – because otherwise the application of its provisions to concrete
situations may prove unduly difficult if not impossible. Any vagueness which may lead to
opposing interpretations of essential features may cause incalculable harm. Civil war
and the disruption of the state may conceivably follow from ambiguous expressions in a
constitution.

Essential Parts of provisions:

1.   Constitution of Government – that dealing with the framework of government,
its structure and powers, and defining the electorate.
Art 6 7 8 9 10 11
2.   Constitution of Liberty – that setting forth the fundamental rights of the people
and imposing certain limitations on the powers of the government as a means of
securing the enjoyment of these rights.
Art 2 3 4 5 12
3.   Constitution of Sovereignty – that pointing out the mode or procedure for
amending or revising the constitution.
Art 17
Sovereignty : Independence freedom

Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

-          Manila vs GSIS

Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or
entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect.
Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and contract.

What reason did the SC use in disqualifying Renong Berhad? Explain

Par 5 – if the highest bidder does not qualify, for any reason…” And in the case at bar, the reason was, it
is against in our constitution. Hence, Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy will be applied.

 Tools for Constitutional Construction

1.   Verba Legis – If we are to interpret the provisions of the Constitution, Ordinary
words should be given their ordinary meaning

Alvez, Avelino, Catubay, Dolino, Gaspan, Laguerta, Obejero, Sarraga, Trinidad

Group 5 : Knowledge Portfolio

2.   Ratio Legis Est Anima – When there is doubt or ambiguity in interpreting the
provisions of the Constitution, it should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of
framers, that is the spirit and purpose of the law.
3.   Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat – the Constitution has to be interpreted as a
whole.
 

          Franciso v HOR, Art 11, Section 3(5) 1987 Constitution

How did the SC interpret Art 11, Section 3(5) 1987 Constitution using 3 tools

Facts:

On 28 November 2001, the 12th Congress of the House of Representatives adopted and
approved the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings, superseding the
previous House Impeachment Rules approved by the 11th Congress.

On 22 July 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, which directed 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 (JDF).

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

(first impeachment complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court for “culpable violation of the Constitution,
betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes.” The complaint was endorsed by
House Representatives, and was referred to the House Committee on Justice on 5
August 2003 in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. The House
Committee on Justice ruled on 13 October 2003 that the first impeachment complaint
was “sufficient in form,” but voted to dismiss the same on 22 October 2003 for being
insufficient in substance.

The following day or on 23 October 2003, the second impeachment complaint was filed
with the Secretary General of the House by House Representatives against Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by
above-mentioned House Resolution. The second impeachment complaint was
accompanied by a “Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by at least 1/3 of
all the Members of the House of Representatives.

Various petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed with the Supreme
Court against the House of Representatives, et. al., most of which petitions contend that
the filing of the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the
provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution that “[n]o impeachment
proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period
of one year.”

Issue: Whether the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of
Article XI of the Constitution.

Held: It falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution.

Alvez, Avelino, Catubay, Dolino, Gaspan, Laguerta, Obejero, Sarraga, Trinidad

Group 5 : Knowledge Portfolio

Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the impeachment
complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the initial action taken
thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment
complaint has been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed against
the same official within a one year period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the
Constitution.

Considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed by former President Estrada
against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along with seven associate justices of this
Court, on June 2, 2003 and referred to the House Committee on Justice on August 5,
2003, the second impeachment complaint filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro,
Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella against the Chief Justice on October 23, 2003 violates
the constitutional prohibition against the initiation of impeachment proceedings against
the same impeachable officer within a one-year period.

Hence, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment

Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representatives on November 28,
2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment complaint against
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which was filed by Representatives Gilberto C.
Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with the Office of the Secretary General of
the House of Representatives on October 23, 2003 is barred under paragraph 5, section
3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

           Civil Liberties Union v Exec. Secretary, Art 7, sec 13, 1987 Constitution
o How did SC interpret, Art 7, sec 13, 1987 Constitution using 3 tools

 FACTS: Consolidated petitions are being resolved jointly as both seek for the declaration
of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 (EO No. 284) issued by former
President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987.

EO No. 284 allows members of the Cabinet, their Undersecretaries and Assistant
Secretaries to hold other than their government positions in addition to their primary
positions.

Section 1: A Cabinet member, Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary or other appointive

officials of the Executive Department may, in addition to his primary position, hold not
more than two (2) positions in the government and government corporations and
receive corresponding compensation thereof.

Section 2: If they hold more than the requisites of Section 1, they must relinquish the
excess position in favor of the subordinate official who is next in rank but in no case
shall any officer hold not more than two (2) positions other than his primary position.

Section 3: At least 1/3 of the members of the boards of such corporation should either
be a Secretary, Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary.

Alvez, Avelino, Catubay, Dolino, Gaspan, Laguerta, Obejero, Sarraga, Trinidad

Group 5 : Knowledge Portfolio

Petitioners are challenging EO No. 284's unconstitutionality as its provisions are in direct
contrast with Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, the
only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in government are
those provided in the Constitution namely: 1) the Vice President may be appointed as a
Cabinet member under Section 3(2) of Article VII; 2) The Secretary of Justice is and ex-
officio of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section 8, Article VIII.

Constitutional provisions:

Section 13, Article VII: The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet and
their Deputies or Assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution,
hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, directly or
indirectly, during their tenure, practice any other profession, participate in any business,
or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

Section 8, Article VIII: Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of
his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the
government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. 

ISSUE: Whether or not EO No. 284 is constitutional.

HELD: The Court ruled in the negative.

It has been held that in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought
to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or
remedied. A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times
and the condition and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed.

The legislative intent of both Constitutional provisions is to prevent government officials

from holding multiple positions in the government for self enrichment which is a
betrayal of public trust.

The provisions of EO No. 284 above-mentioned are in direct contradiction to the express
mandate provided by the Constitutional provisions (Sec 13, Art VII and Sec 8, Art VIII).
The Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, shall reign supreme over any other

Alvez, Avelino, Catubay, Dolino, Gaspan, Laguerta, Obejero, Sarraga, Trinidad

Group 5 : Knowledge Portfolio

statute. When there is conflict, it shall be resolved in favor of the highest law of the
land. Thus, the Court held that EO No. 284 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As a result, DENR
Secretary Fulgenio Factoran, Jr., DILF Secretary Luis Santos, DOH Secretary Alfredo
Bengzon and DBM Secretary Guillermo Carague are ordered to immediately relinquish
their offices and employment. 

WHEREFORE, subject to the qualifications stated, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive
Order No. 284 is hereby declared null and void and is accordingly set aside.

Alvez, Avelino, Catubay, Dolino, Gaspan, Laguerta, Obejero, Sarraga, Trinidad