MODULE 1: WEEK 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

 Political Law v. Constitutional Law

POLITICAL LAW:
That branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the
governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the
inhabitants of its territory [People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887; Macariola v. Asuncion, 114
SCRA 77].

Scope/Divisions of Political Law

1. Constitutional Law
2. Administrative Law. That branch of public law which fixes the organization of
government, determines the competence of the administrative authorities who execute
the law, and indicates to the individual remedies for the violation of his rights.
3. Law on Municipal Corporations
4. Law of Public Officers
5. Election Laws

Basis of the Study

1. 1987 Constitution
2. 1973 and 1935 Constitutions
3. Other organic laws made to apply to the Philippines, e.g., Philippine Bill of 1902, Jones
Law of 1916, and Tydings-McDuffie Law of 1934.
4. Statutes, executive orders and decrees, and judicial decisions
5. U.S. Constitution

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

The study of the maintenance of the proper balance between authority as

represented by the three inherent powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the
Bill of Rights [Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1993 ed., p. 1].
The true role of Constitutional Law is to effect an equilibrium between authority
and liberty so that rights are exercised within the framework of the law and the laws are
enacted with due deference to rights (Cruz, Political Law).

 The Constitution
Cooley: “that body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of
sovereignty are habitually exercised”
Justice Malcolm: “the 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”

Purpose of the Constitution

- To prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign to
the several departments their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain first
fixed principles on which government is founded The Constitution is not “the origin of
private rights; it is not the fountain of law nor the incipient state of government; it is not
the cause but the consequence of personal and political freedom.

Supremacy of the Constitution

- 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 intentions, if it conflicts with the
Constitution
 - The Constitution must ever remain supreme
- Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been
changed by the sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty
of law by the pretenders to illegitimate power.

 Classification of Constitutions
a. Written or unwritten. A written constitution is one whose precepts are
embodied in one document or set of documents; while an unwritten constitution consists
of rules which have not been integrated into a single, concrete form but are scattered in
various sources, such as statutes of a fundamental character, judicial decisions,
commentaries of publicists, customs and traditions, and certain common law principles
[Cruz, Constitutional Law, pp. 4-5]
. b. Enacted (Conventional) or Evolved (Cumulative). A conventional
constitution is enacted, formally struck off at a definite time and place following a
conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler; while a cumulative
constitution is the result of political evolution, not inaugurated at any specific time but
changing by accretion rather than by any systematic method [Cruz, ibid., p. 5].
c. Rigid or Flexible. A rigid Constitution is one that can be amended only by a
formal and usually difficult process; while a flexible Constitution is one that can be
changed by ordinary legislation [Cruz, ibid., p. 5]

Qualities of a good written Constitution

a. Broad. Not just because it provides for the organization of the entire
government and covers all persons and things within the territory of the State but because
it must be comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency. It is said that the
Constitution is “not only the imprisonment of the past but the unfolding of the future”, to
which it may be added that is also the fulfillment of the present.
b. Brief. It must confine itself to basic principles to be implemented with legislative
details more adjustable to change and easier to amend.
c. Definite. To prevent ambiguity in its provisions which could result in confusion
and divisiveness among the people [Cruz, ibid,, pp. 5-6],

Essential parts of a good written Constitution

a. Constitution of Liberty. The series of prescriptions setting forth the
fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers
of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights, e.g., Art. III.
b. Constitution of Government. The series of provisions outlining the
organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative
to its administration, and defining the electorate, e.g., Arts. VI, VII, VIII and IX.
c. Constitution of Sovereignty. The provisions pointing out the mode or
procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be
brought about, e.g., Art. XVII

Permanence of the Constitution

- One advantage of the written, conventional and rigid constitution is its
permanence, or its capacity to resist capricious or whimsical change dictated not by
legitimate needs but only by passing fancies, temporary passions or occasional
infatuations of the people with ideas or personalities.
- “A Constitution must be firm and immovable, like a mountain amidst the raging of
the waves”
- Disadvantage: written constitution is unable to adjust to the need for change
justified by new conditions and circumstances; delay in effecting the needed change and
thus cause irreparable injury to the public interest.

 Interpretation/Construction of the Constitution

a. In Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10,
2003, the Supreme Court made reference to the use of well- settled principles of
constitutional construction, namely: First, verba leais. i. e., whenever possible, the words
used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical
terms are employed. As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document, it being
essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the people’s
consciousness, its language as much as possible should be understood in the sense they
have a common use. Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio leqis et anima. The words
of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers.
Thus, in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317, it was held that the
Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be
accomplished and the evils sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision shall
be examined in light of the history of the times and the conditions and circumstances
under which the Constitution was framed. Third, ut maais valeat auam pereat. i.e., the
Constitution has to be interpreted as a whole. In Civil Liberties Union, it was declared that
sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as
to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed
to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand
together.

b. If, however, the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other
aids is available. Again in Civil Liberties Union, supra., it was held that while it is
permissible to consult the debates and proceedings of the constitutional convention in
order to arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may
be had only when other guides fail as said proceedings are powerless to vary the terms
of the Constitution when the meaning is clear. We think it safer to 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.

c. In case of doubt, the provisions should be considered self-executing; mandatory

rather than directory; and prospective rather than retroactive. d) Self-executing
provisions. A provision which lays down a general principle is usually not self-executing.
But a provision 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, is self-executing.

i) Thus, a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the

right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the Constitution itself, so that they
can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no
language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action [Manila Prince
Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 03, 1997].

- ii) Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows a right nor elevates
the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. Like the rest of the policies enumerated
in Article II, the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right
but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action. The disregard of this
provision does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts [Pamatong v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004]

 History of the Philippine Constitution

1. The Malolos Constitution
a. The Philippine Revolution of 1896
b. Proclamation of Philippine independence, at Kawit, Cavite, on June 12,
1898
c. Revolutionary Congress convened at Barasoain Church, Malolos, Bulacan, on
September 15, 1898. Three drafts were submitted, namely, the drafts of Pedro Paterno,
Apolinario Mabini and Felipe Calderon
d. The Calderon proposal was reported to the Congress on October 8, 1898, and
the Congress approved the proposed Constitution on November 29, 1898
e. President Emilio Aguinaldo approved the same on December 23, 1898;
Congress ratified it on January 20, 1899
f. Aguinaldo promulgated the Constitution the following day, along with the
establishment of the Philippine Republic on January 21, 1899
g. This was the first republican constitution in Asia, framed by a revolutionary
convention which included 40 lawyers, 16 physicians, 5 pharmacists, 2 engineers and 1
priest. The Constitution recognized that sovereign power was vested in the people,
provided for a parliamentary government, acknowledged separation of powers, and
contained a bill of rights.

2. The American Regime and the Organic Acts

a. The Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898. The treaty of peace entered into
between the US and Spain upon the cessation of the SpanishAmerican War. It provided,
among others, for the cession of the Philippine Islands by Spain to the US.
b. US President McKinley’s Instructions of April 7, 1900, to transform the military
into a civil government as rapidly as conditions would permit. On September 1, 1900, the
authority to exercise that part of the military power of the US President which is legislative
in character was transferred from the military government to the Philippine Commission
[first, the Schurman Commission, then, the Taft Commission].
c. The Spooner Amendment to the Army Appropriation Bill of March 2, 1901
provided that all military, civil and judicial powers necessary to govern the Philippine
Islands shall be exercised in such manner x x x for the establishment of a civil government
and for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants in the free enjoyment of their liberty,
property and religion. On July 1, 1901, the Office of the Civil Governor was created, and
the executive authority previously exercised by the military governor was transferred to
the Civil Governor.
d. The Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 continued the existing civil government, with
the commitment from the US Congress to convene and organize in the Philippines a
legislative body of their own representatives. On October 16,1907, the Philippine
Assembly was convened to sit as the Lower House in a bicameral legislature, with the
Philippine Commission as the Upper House.
e. The Jones Law [Philippine Autonomy Act] of August 29, 1916. It superseded the
Spooner Amendment and the Philippine Bill of 1902. It was the principal organic act of
the Philippines until November 15,1935, when the Philippine Commonwealth was
inaugurated (under the 1935 Constitution). It contained a preamble, a bill of rights,
provisions defining the organization and powers of the departments of government,
provisions defining the electorate, and miscellaneous provisions on finance, franchises
and salaries of important officials. Executive power was vested in the Governor General,
legislative power in a bicameral legislature composed of the Senate and House of
Representatives, and judicial power in the Supreme Court, the Courts of First Instance
and inferior courts.
f. The Tydings-McDuffie Act [Philippine Independence Act] of March 24, 1934
authorized the drafting of a Constitution for the Philippines, the establishment of a
Commonwealth Government and, after ten years, independence.

3. The 1935 Constitution

a. Pursuant to the authority granted under the Tydings-McDuffie Law, the
Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 4125 (May 26,1934) calling for the election of
delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
b. Election of delegates: July 10, 1934; Constitutional Convention inaugural: July
30,1934.
c. Draft Constitution approved by the Constitutional Convention on February 8,
1935; brought to Washington on March 18, 1935, and on March 23, 1935, US President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt certified that the draft constitution conformed substantially with
the Tydings-McDuffie Law.
d. The Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite held on May 14, 1935.
e. The Philippine Commonwealth established under the Constitution was
inaugurated on November 15, 1935; full independence was attained with the inauguration
of the (Third) Philippine Republic on July 4, 1946.
f. The Constitution was amended in 1939: Ordinance appended to the Constitution,
in accordance with the Tydings-Kocialkowski Act of August 7, 1939 [Resolution of
Congress: September 15, 1939; Plebiscite: October 24, 1939]
g. It was amended again in 1940: Changed President’s and Vice President’s term
from six to four years, but no person shall serve as President for more than 8 years;
changed the unicameral to a bicameral legislature; established an independent
Commission on Elections [Resolution: April 11, 1940; Plebiscite: June 18, 1940]
 4. The Japanese (Belligerent) Occupation
a. With the occupation of Manila, the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Forces
proclaimed, on January 2, 1942, the military administration over the territory occupied by
the army, and ordered that “all the laws now in force in the Commonwealth, as well as
executive and judicial institutions shall continue to be effective for the time being as in the
past”, and “all public officials shall remain in their present posts and carry on faithfully
their duties as before”.
b. Order No. 1 of the Japanese Commander in Chief, on January 23, 1942,
organized the Philippine Executive Commission.
c. Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 4, dated January 30 and February 6, 1942,
respectively, continued the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Courts of First
Instance and Justices of the Peace Courts, with the same jurisdiction, in conformity with
later instructions given by the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Imperial Army in
Order No. 3, dated February 20, 1942.
d. October 14, 1943, the (Second) Philippine Republic was inaugurated, with Jose
P. Laurel as President.

5. The 1973 Constitution

a. Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 1, March 16, 1967, increasing the
membership of the House of Representatives from 120 to 180
b. RBH No. 2, March 16,1967, calling for a Constitutional Convention to revise the
1935 Constitution
c. RBH No. 3, March 16, 1967, allowing members of Congress to sit as delegates
in the Constitutional Convention without forfeiting their seats in Congress
d. RBH 1 and RBH 3 were submitted to the people in a plebiscite simultaneously
with local elections in November 1967, but both were rejected by the people.
e. RBH No. 4, June 17, 1969, amending RBH No. 2, and authorizing that specific
apportionment of delegates to the Constitutional Convention and other details relating to
the election of delegates be embodied in an implementing legislation f. Republic Act No.
6132: Constitutional Convention Act of 1970.
i) See Imbong v. Comelec, 35 SCRA 28, where the constitutionality of the RA 6132
was challenged because it had to do with the calling of a Constitutional Convention but
was not passed by % of all the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
voting separately. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the law, declaring that after
Congress had exercised its constituent power by adopting RBH 2 and RBH 4, with the
requisite % vote as required by the 1935 Constitution, it may, by simply exercising
legislative power, pass a law providing for the details for the implementation of the
resolutions passed in the exercise of its constituent power.
g. Election of delegates: November 10, 1970; Constitutional Convention was
inaugurated on June 1, 1971.
i) Attempt of the Constitutional Convention to submit for ratification one resolution
(reducing the voting age from 21 to 18) in a plebiscite to coincide with the 1971 local
elections was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Tolentino v. Comelec,
41 SCRA 702. The Court held that when a Constitutional Convention is called for the
purpose of revising the Constitution, it may not submit for ratification “piecemeal
amendments” because the 1935 Constitution speaks of submission of the proposed
amendments in “an election” (in the singular), and also because to allow the submission
would deprive the people of a “proper frame of reference”.
h. Presidential Proclamation No. 1081, on September 21, 1972: Declaration of
martial law by President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
i. Constitutional Convention approved the draft Constitution on November 29,
1972.
j. On November 30,1972, President Marcos issued a decree setting the plebiscite
for the ratification of the new Constitution on January 15, 1973; on December 17, 1972,
issued an order suspending the effects of Presidential Proclamation 1081 in order to allow
free and open debate on the proposed Constitution.
- Planas v. Comelec, 49 SCRA 105, and companion cases (collectively known as
the Plebiscite Cases) sought to prohibit the holding of the plebiscite. The cases were
eventually dismissed for being moot and academic when President Marcos issued
Presidential Proclamation 1102, declaring that the Constitution had been ratified and has
come into force and effect.
 k. On December 23, 1972, President Marcos announced the postponement of the
plebiscite, but it was only on January 7, 1973, that General Order No. 20 was issued,
directing that the plebiscite scheduled on January 15,1973, be postponed until further
notice, and withdrawing the order of December 17, 1972, suspending the effects of Pres.
Proclamation 1081 which allowed free and open debate on the proposed Constitution.
l. On December 31, 1972, Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 86, organizing
the Citizens Assemblies to be consulted on certain public issues; and on January 5, 1973,
issued Presidential Decree No. 86-A, calling the Citizens Assemblies to meet on January
10-15, 1973, to vote on certain questions, among them: “Do you approve of the new
Constitution?” and “Do you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new
Constitution?”
m. On January 17, 1973, President Marcos issued Presidential Proclamation No.
1102, declaring that the new Constitution had been ratified by the Citizens Assemblies,
and “has thereby come into force and effect”.

i) The validity of the ratification of the 1973 Constitution was challenged in Javellana v.
Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30, and companion cases (collectively known as the
Ratification Cases). The basic issues and the votes of the SC justices were: (1) Whether
the validity of Proclamation 1102 is a political or a justiciable question - Six justices said
it is justiciable, three said it is political, and one justice qualified his vote. (2) Whether the
new Constitution was validly ratified (with substantial if not strict compliance) conformably
with the 1935 Constitution - Six justices said no, three said there was substantial
compliance, and one qualified his vote. (3) Whether the people had acquiesced in the
new Constitution (with or without valid ratification) - Four justices said the people had
already accepted the new Constitution, two said that there can be no free expression by
the people qualified to vote of their acceptance or repudiation of the proposed Constitution
under martial law, one said he is not prepared to state that a new Constitution once
accepted by the people must be accorded recognition independently of valid ratification,
and three expressed their lack of knowledge or competence to rule on the question
because under a regime of martial law with the free expression of opinions restricted, they
have no means of knowing, to the point of judicial certainty, whether the people have
accepted the Constitution. (4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief - Six justices
voted to dismiss the petitions, while four were for giving due course to the petitions. (5)
Whether the new Constitution is already in force - Four said yes by virtue of the people’s
acceptance of the same, four said they could not with judicial certainty whether or not the
people had accepted the Constitution, and two declared that the new Constitution is not
in force, “with the result that there are not enough votes to declare tha the new
Constitution is not in force”. The SC decision concluded: “Accordingly, by virtue of the
majority of six votes x x x. with four dissenting votes x x x all of the aforementioned cases
are hereby dismissed. This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial
obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect. ”

n. The 1973 Constitution was amended in 1976: Package often (10) amendments,
proposed by Marcos on September 2, 1976, without specifying the particular provisions
being changed. This package contained the infamous Amendment No. 6. The
amendments were ratified in a plebiscite held on October 16, 1976.
i) In Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333, where the authority of President Marcos to
propose amendments to the Constitution was challenged, the high tribunal said: “If the
President has been legitimately discharging the legislative powers of the interim
(National) Assembly (which was never convened), there is no reason why he cannot
validly discharge the functions of the Assembly to propose amendments to the
Constitution, which is but adjunct, though peculiar, to its gross legislative power x x x
(W)ith the interim National Assembly not convened and only the President and the
Supreme Court in operation, the urge of absolute necessity renders it imperative upon
the President to act as agent for and in behalf of the people to propose amendments to
the Constitution.”
o. The Constitution was amended again on January 30, 1980: Restored original
retirement age of judges to 70 years of age
p. Another amendment was adopted on April 7, 1981: Restored the presidential system,
while retaining certain features of the parliamentary system; granted natural-born Filipinos
who had been naturalized in a foreign country the right to own a limited area of residential
land in the Philippines.
q. Still another amendment was made on January 27,1984: Provided for new rules on
presidential succession, replaced the Executive Committee with a revived Office of the
Vice President, and changed the composition of the Batasang Pambansa.

r. Snap presidential election of 1986. i) A petition to prohibit the holding of the snap
election was filed with the SC in Philippine Bar Association v. Comelec, 140 SCRA 455.
But the petition was dismissed because considerations other than legal had already set
in, the candidates were in the thick of the campaign, and the people were already looking
forward to the election.
s. February 22-25,1986: EDSAI People’s Revolution. See: Lawyers League for a Better
Philippines v. Corazon Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986, where the Supreme Court
held that the Cory Aquino government was not only a de facto but a de jure government.

 The 1987 Constitution

1. Proclamation of the Freedom Constitution
a. Proclamation No. 1, February 25, 1986, announcing that she (Corazon Aquino)
and Vice President Laurel were assuming power.
b. Executive Order No. 1 [February 28, 1986]
c. Proclamation No. 3, March 25,1986, announced the promulgation of the
Provisional [Freedom] Constitution, pending the drafting and ratification of a new
Constitution. It adopted certain provisions of the 1973 Constitution, contained
additional articles on the executive department, on government reorganization,
and on existing laws. It also provided for the calling of a Constitutional Commission
to be composed of 30-50 members, to draft a new Constitution. See: Lawyers
League for a Better Philippines v. Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986; In Re:
Saturnino Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160.

i) As stated in Proclamation No. 3, the EDSA revolution was “done in defiance of

the 1973 Constitution”. The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary
government bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations
that the revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines,
assumed under international law [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10
(2003)]. ii) During the interregnum, after the actual take-over of power by the
revolutionary government (on February 25, 1986) up to March 24, 1986
(immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution), the directives
and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no
constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. With the
abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no
municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary
government. Thus, during this interregnum, a person could not invoke an
exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a Constitution
nor a Bill of Rights [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10].

2. Adoption of the Constitution

a. Proclamation No. 9, creating the Constitutional Commission of 50 members.
b. Approval of draft Constitution by the Constitutional Commission on October 15,
1986.
c. Plebiscite held on February 2, 1987.
d. Proclamation No. 58, proclaiming the ratification of the Constitution.

3. Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution: February 2, 1987, the date of the

plebiscite when the people ratified the Constitution [De Leon v. Esguerra, 153
SCRA 602].

 Self-executing v. Non-self-executing
SELF-EXECUTING:
A self-executing provision is a rule that by itself is directly or indirectly
applicable without need of statutory implementation - Examples are the provisions
found in the Bill of Rights, which may be invoked by proper parties independently
of or even against legislative enactment. - In Collector of Customs v. Villaluz, the
 SC held that judges derive directly from Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution the
authority to conduct preliminary investigations to determine probable cause for the
issuance of a search warrant or warrant of arrest, which power may not be
withdrawn or restricted by the legislature.

NON-SELF-EXECUTING:
It is one that remains dormant unless it is activated by legislative
implementation. - An example is Article II, Section 4, which provides that in the
fulfillment of the prime duty of defending the State, “all citizens may be required
under conditions provided by law to render personal military or civil service.” Such
requirement cannot be imposed until and unless the legislature so wills, through
the passage of a law specifying the conditions. - Another example is Article Article
IV, Section 3, “Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner
provided by law.” This provision does not cause the loss or recovery of citizenship.
It is the implementing statute that will.

Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution

should be considered self-executing, as a contrary rule would give the legislature
discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These provisions
would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them
entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute.

 Modes of Proposing Amendments and/or Revisions to the Constitution

AMENDMENT: Isolated or piecemeal change only
REVISION: Revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument

MODES (under Proposal):

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY:
- All members of the bicameral Congress will amend the Constitution (no election)
- By a vote of 3/4 of all its members (3/4 of the Senate; 3/4 of the HOR) - Focus
and scope: economic provisions only
- Cons: selfish interest, self-motivation

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
- The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, call a constitutional
convention, or by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the
question of calling such a convention (1987 Constitution, Article XVII, Sec. 3)
- New delegates elected will amend and/or revise the Constitution
- Focus and scope: revision and/or amendment of the whole Constitution

PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE:
- Power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose
and enact legislation through an election called for the purpose.
- Requisite: A petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered Filipino
voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein
- Limitation: no amendment in this manner shall be authorized o Within 5 years
following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution o Nor more often than once every
5 years thereafter

(in-depth)

1. Amendment vs. Revision

a. Lambino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006, enumerates
the distinctions between revision and amendment, as follows: Revision broadly
implies a change that alters a basic principle in the Constitution, like altering the
principle of separation of powers or the system of checks and balances. There is
also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution. On the
other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, deletes,
without altering the basic principle involved. Revision generally affects several
provisions of the Constitution; while amendment generally affects only the specific
provision being amended.
i) In determining whether the Lambino proposal involves an amendment or
a revision, the Court considered the two-part test. First, the quantitative test asks
whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly
the “substance entirety” of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of
numerous provisions. The court examines only the number of provisions affected
and does not consider the degree of the change. Second, the qualitative test,
which inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the
Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will “accomplish such far-
reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a
revision”.
ii) The Lambino proposal constituted a revision, not simply an amendment,
of the Constitution, because it involved a change in the form of government, from
presidential to parliamentary, and a shift from the present bicameral to a a
unicameral legislature.
2. Constituent v. Legislative Power. See Imbong v. Comelec, 35 SCRA 28,
where the Supreme Court declared R.A. 6132 constitutional, as it merely provided
the details for the implementation of Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) Nos. 2 and
4.

3. Steps in the amendatory process:

a. Proposal [Secs. 1-3, Art. XVII]. The adoption of the suggested change in
the Constitution. A proposed amendment may come from:
i) Congress, by a vote of % of all its members. Majority of authorities opine
that this is to be understood as 3 /4 of the Senate and 3 /4 of the House of
Representatives. - See Occena v. Comelec, 104 SCRA 1, which is authority for
the principle that the choice of method of proposal, i.e., whether made directly by
Congress or through a Constitutional Convention, is within the full discretion of the
legislature.
ii) Constitutional Convention, which may be called into existence either by
a 2/3 vote of all the members of Congress, or (if such vote is not obtained) by a
majority vote of all the members of Congress with the question of whether or not
to call a Convention to be resolved by the people in a plebiscite [Sec. 3, Art. XVII]
Three Theories on the position of a Constitutional Convention vis-a-vis the
regular departments of government: 1) Theory of Conventional Sovereignty
[Loomis v. Jackson, 6 W. Va. 613]; 2) Convention is inferior to the other
departments [Wood’s Appeal, 79 Pa. 59]; 3) Independent of and co-equal to the
other departments [Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1],
iii) People, through the power of initiative [Sec. 2, Art. XVI/]. Requisite: A
petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters
therein.

- Limitation: No amendment in this manner shall be authorized within five

years following the ratification of this Constitution nor more often than once every
five years thereafter.
- Under Republic Act No. 6735 [An Act Providing for a System of Initiative
and Referendum], approved on August 4, 1989, initiative is the power of the people
to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislation
through an election called for the purpose. There are three systems of initiative,
namely: initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing
amendments to the Constitution; initiative on statutes which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a national legislation; and initiative on local legislation which
refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal or
bararigay law, resolution or ordinance [Sec. 2(a), R.A. 6735]. Indirect Initiative is
exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the
local legislative body for action [Sec. 2(b) R.A. 6735]
In the Resolution (on the Motion for Reconsideration) in Lambino v.
Comelec, the Court noted that the majority of the justices had voted to declare RA
6735 sufficient and adequate for a people’s intitiative. Lambino thus effectively
abandoned the ruling in Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 127325, March
 19, 1997, where the Supreme Court declared R.A. 6735 inadequate to cover the
system of initiative to amend the Constitution.

Procedure. The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people

through initiative upon a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition
of the people. Thus, two essential elements must be present: (1) The people must
author and sign the entire proposal; no agent or representative can sign in their
behalf. (2) As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in the
petition. The rationale for these requisites is that the signature requirement would
be meaningless if the person supplying the signature has not first seen what it is
that he is signing, and more importantly, a loose interpretation of the subscription
requirement would pose a significant potential for fraud. In Lambino, the great
majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets did not see the
full text of the proposed changes before signing; they were not apprised of the
nature and effect of the proposed amendments. Failure to comply with these
requirements was fatal to the validity of the initiative petition [Lambino v. Comelec,
supra.].
b. Ratification [Sec. 4, Art. XVII], The proposed amendment shall become
part of the Constitution when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
held not earlier than 60 nor later than 90 days after the approval of the proposal
by Congress or the Constitutional Convention, or after the certification by the
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition for initiative under Sec.
2, Art. XVII.
i) Doctrine of proper submission. Because the Constitution itself prescribes
the time frame within which the plebiscite is to be held, there can no longer be a
question on whether the time given to the people to determine the merits and
demerits of the proposed amendment is adequate. Other related principles:
- The plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular elections
[Gonzales v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774; Occena v. Comelec, 104 SCRA 1; Almario
v. Alba, 127 SCRA 69].
- The use of the word “election" in the singular meant that the entire
Constitution must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only; furthermore,
the people have to be given a “proper frame of reference” in arriving at their
decision. Thus, submission for ratification of piece-meal amendments by the
Constitutional Convention (which is tasked to revise the Constitution) was
disallowed since the people had, at that time, no idea yet of what the rest of the
revised Constitution would be [Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702].
4. Judicial Review of Amendments. The question is now regarded as
subject to judicial review, because invariably, the issue will boil down to whether
or not the constitutional provisions had been followed [Sanidad v. Comelec, 78
SCRA 333; Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 50],

MODULE 2: WEEK 2 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

 State

The concept of a State

Article I
National Territory The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty
or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea,
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

Article II- Declaration of Principles and State Policies Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic
and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from them.
STATE (Atty. Gabriel)
A community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite
portion of territory , independent of external control, and possessing a government to
which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. Collector of Internal
Revenue v. Campos Rueda.

STATE v. NATION? (Atty. Gabriel)

STATE is a legal or juristic concept,
while NATION is an ethnic or racial concept. (NACHURA)

STATE v, COUNTRY v. GOVERNEMENT?

(Atty. Gabriel) GOVERNMENT is merely an instrumentality of the State through which
the will of the State is implemented and realized. (NACHURA) Government is merely an
external manifestation of the State through which the will of the State is exercised
(ALBANO) STATE is independent of outside control, while COUNTRY does not require
independence.

 ELEMENTS OF A STATE:

1. PEOPLE (NACHURA)
a) Different meaning as used in the Constitution:
i. Inhabitants (Sec. 2, Art III; Sec. 1, Art. XIII);
ii. Citizens (Preamble; Secs. 1 & 4, Art. II; Sec. 7, Art III);
iii. Electors (Sec. 4, Art. VII);
b) As requisite for Statehood: Adequate number for self sufficiency and defense; of both
sexes for perpetuity.

2. TERRITORY (NACHURA)
a. The National Territory: Sec.1, Art. I of the Constitution
b. Components: Terrestrial, fluvial, maritime, and aerial domains.

3. GOVERNMENT (Nachura)
- The agency or instrumentality, through which the will of the State is formulated,
expressed and realized.
- Defined as that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society
makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in
a social State, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who
possess the power or authority of prescribing them. Government is the aggregate of
authorities which rule a society. (US. V. Dorr) Albano.

Government as defined under Sec.2 of Revised Administrative Code:

‘The Government of the Philippine Islands’ is a term which refers to the corporate
governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout
the Philippine Islands, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the
various arms through which political authority is made effective in said Islands, whether
pertaining to the central Government or to the provincial or municipal branches or other
form of local government.”

Traditional functions of the government:

a. Constituent – mandatory for the government to perform because they
constitute the very bonds of society, such as the maintenance of peace and order,
regulation of property and property rights, etc.
b. Ministrant – those intended to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of
the people, and which are merely optional for the government to perform. Merely
optional.

Types of Government:

As to concentration of powers in a
governmental branch:
a. Presidential – there is separation of executive and legislative powers.
b. Parliamentary – there is fusion of executive and legislative powers in parliament,
although the actual exercise of executive powers is vested in a Prime Minister who is
chosen by, and accountable to, Parliament.

As to centralization of control:
a. Unitary – one in which the control of national and local affairs is exercised by the
central or national government; single, centralized government, exercising powers over
both the internal and external affairs of the State.
b. Federal – one in which the powers of the government are divided between two sets of
organs, one for the national affairs and the other for local affairs, each organ being
supreme within its own sphere; consists of autonomous local government units merged
into a single state, with national government exercising a limited degree of power over
the domestic affairs but generally full discretion of the external affairs of the State

4. SOVEREIGNTY
- The supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State I
governed. (Laurel v. Misa)
- Juristically speaking, sovereignty means the supreme, uncontrollable power, the
jures sumi imperri, the absolute right to govern. (Story on the Constitution, Gonzales,
Political Law). It is the supreme will of the State, the power to make laws and enforce
them by all the means of coercion it cares to employ. (Albano)

KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY
: a. Legal – which is the power to issue final commands - is the possession of
unlimited power to make laws. (Sinco, cited in Gonzales, Phil. Politica Law, ALBANO) - it
is the authority by which a law has the power to issue final commands. (Gilebrist,
Principles of Political Science, ALBANO) - it is conferred upon Congress (ALBANO)
b. Political – which is the sum total of all the influences which lie behind the law -
is the sum total of all the influences in State which lie behind the law. - It is roughly defined
as the power of the people. - It is the sovereignty of the electorate, or in its general sense,
the sovereignty of the whole body politic. (Gonzales, Phil. Political Law, ALBANO) - It is
conferred upon the people.
c. Internal – the supreme power over everything within its territory
d. External – also known as independence, which is freedom from external control.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOVEREIGNTY
a. Permanent
b. Exclusive
c. Comprehensive
d. Absolute
e. Indivisible
f. Inalienable
g. Imprescriptible (Laurel v Misa)

Distinguish “state” from “nation”.

Although for the purpose of political sociology a state, which is a legal concept,
may be distinguished from nation, which is an ethnic concept, for the purpose of
constitutional law the two terms are not distinct. The Constitution uses them
interchangeably to designate the legal concept of state as defined above.

Define “people”
As an element of a state, “people” simply means a community of persons sufficient
in number and capable of maintaining the continued existence of the community and held
together by a common bond of law. It is of no legal consequence if they possess diverse
racial, cultural, or economic interests.

Define sovereignty.

Legal sovereignty is the supreme power to affect legal interests either by

legislative, executive or judicial action. This is lodged in the people but is normally
exercised by state agencies. Stated in terms of auto-limitation, sovereignty “is the
property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-
determination and self-restriction” (Jellinek)
Political sovereignty is the sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and non-
legal, which determine the course of law.

Define “government.”
Government, as an element of a state, is defined as “that institution or aggregate
of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action
which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon
the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing
them.”

Definition of a State
A state refers to a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently
occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing
an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual
obedience.

Elements of a State

1. People
A community of persons sufficient in number and capable of maintaining the continued
existence of the community and held together by a common bond of law.

Different Meanings of “People” as used in the Constitution:

3. Inhabitants
4. Electors
5. Citizens
6. Sovereign.

The people organized collectively as a legal association is the state which sovereignty
resides.

2. Territory
Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of
the state. Territory as an element of a state means an area over which a state has
effective control.

3. Sovereignty
“Sovereignty resides in the people”
a. Sovereignty The supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that
State is governed.
In auto-limitation terms: It is the property of a State- force due to which it has the exclusive
capacity of legal determination and restriction.

Kinds of Sovereignty

Legal Sovereignty. Cruz: Legal sovereignty is the authority which has the power
to issue final commands. In our country, the Congress is the legal sovereign.
Bernas: Legal sovereignty is the supreme power to affect legal interests either by
legislative, executive or judicial action. This is lodged in the people but is normally
exercised by state agencies.
Political Sovereignty Sum total of all the influences of a State, legal and non-
legal which determine the course of law.
Internal Sovereignty It refers to the power of the State to control its domestic
affairs. It is the supreme power over everything within its territory.
 External Sovereignty Also known as Independence, which is freedom from
external control. It is the power of the State to direct its relations with other States.

 What are the fundamental Powers of the State?

1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of taxation

Briefly, the POLICE POWER is the power of the State to regulate liberty, and property for
the promotion of General Welfare. The POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN enables the
State to forcibly acquire private property, upon payment of just compensation, for some
intended for public use. By the POWER OF TAXATION, the State is able to demand from
the members of society their proportionate share or contribution in the maintenance of
the government.

POLICE POWER (by Freund)

Police power is defined by Freund as 'the power of promoting the public welfare by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property'.
Definition
- Power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and
property.
- Most essential, insistent and less limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great
public needs.

Scope/Characteristics
• It cannot be bargained away through the medium of treaty /contract
• Taxing power may be used to implement police power
• Eminent domain may also be used to implement or attain police power
• Non-impairment of contracts or vested rights will have to yield to superior and legitimate
exercise of police power
• Exercise of profession may be regulated by the state to safeguard health, morals,
peace, education, order, safety and several welfare of the people

Basis :
Salus populi est suprema lex (welfare of the people is the supreme law)
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (so as to use your property so as not to impair/injure
another)

What are the Two (2) elements Of Police Power as enunciated in the case of (PASEI
vs. Drilon)
Foster Common Good
Imposition of restraint upon liberty or property

Who exercises said power?

Legislative branch Executive branch, upon valid delegation

CONCEPT OF POLICE POWER.

The concept of police power is well established in this jurisdiction. It has been defined as
the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property
in order to promote the general welfare." As defined, it consists of
(1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property,
(2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable of an exact definition but has
been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all comprehensive embrace.

POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

 It is the right, authority or power of the State as sovereign, or of those to whom the
power has been lawfully delegated to take private property for public use upon
observance of due process of law and paying for the owner a just compensation
to be ascertained according to law.
  It is an inherent power of the state that enables it to forcibly acquire private
property, which is intended for public use, upon the payment of just compensation.
It is based on political necessity; it is inseparable from the state unless it is denied
to it by its fundamental law.

Is eminent domain same with expropriation?

No. Eminent Domain is an inherent power, while Expropriation is the exercise of
eminent domain.

How will you distinguish from police power?

Police power is the power of the 
State to promote public welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of liberty and property. The power of eminent domain is the
inherent right of the State to condemn private property to public use upon payment of just
compensation.

Who may exercise the Power of Eminent domain?

1. The Congress
2. The President
3. The local legislative bodies
4. Certain public corporations (e.g. Land Authority and the MWSS)
5. Quasi-public corporations (e.g. PLDT and Meralco)

What are the requisites in exercising the power of eminent domain?

1. The property taken must be private property;
2. The taking must be within constitutional sense;
3. The taking must be for public use
4. Just compensation must be paid;
5. There must be due process of law

POWER OF TAXATION

What is Taxation?
 Is a mode of raising revenue for public purposes. (Cooley) What is the power of
taxation?
Taxation is the power inherent in sovereignty to raise revenue to defray the necessary
expenses of government, that is, for any public purpose.

What are taxes?

Are enforced proportional contributions from persons and property, levied by the state by
virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and for all its public needs
(Cooley)

Justice Malcolm believed that the power to tax “is an attribute of sovereignty. It is the
strongest of all the powers of government.” This led Chief Justice Marshall of the US
Supreme Court, in the celebrated case of McCulloch v. Maryland, to declare: “The power
to tax involves the power to destroy.” This might be construed to mean that the power
to tax includes the power to regulate even to the extent of prohibition or destruction
(Cooley) since the inherent power to tax vested who to tax, what to tax and how much tax
is to be imposed.
the power to tax is the power to destroy” is to describe not the purposes for
which the taxing power may be used but the degree of vigor with which the taxing
power may be employed in order to raise revenue-Cooley
The power to tax includes the power to destroy if it is used validly as an
implement of the police power in discouraging and in effect, ultimately prohibiting
certain things or enterprises inimical to the public welfare. X x x But where the
power to tax is used soley for the purpose of raising revenues, the modern view is
that it cannot be allowed to confiscate or destroy.
 “The power of taxation is sometimes called also the power to destroy. Therefore it
should be exercised with caution to minimize injury to the propriety rights of a taxpayer.
It must be exercised fairly, equally and uniformly, lest the tax collector kill the ‘hen that
lays the golden egg.”

Who may exercise the power?

Primarily, the legislature; also: local legislative bodies.

What is the system of taxation in the Philippine?

PROGRESSIVE. Basis: Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
(Art. VI, Sec. 28[1]) *Taxation is progressive when its rate goes up depending on the
resources of the person affected.

Why is taxation important?

Taxation is important because:
1. No constitutional government can exist without it;
2. It is one great power upon which the whole national fabric is based;
3. It is necessary for the existence and prosperity of the nation; and
4. It is the lifeblood of the nation. (ALBANO)

Upon which is taxation based?

Taxation is based on necessity and the reciprocal duties of protection and support
between the State and those that are subject to its authority, and in the exclusive
sovereignty and jurisdiction of the State over all persons and property within its limits for
governmental purposes. (Cooley, Albano). The power of taxation rests on necessity
and is an essential and inherent attribute of sovereignty.

Double Taxation
- It happens when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing
jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the same purpose.
- It is not prohibited as long as equal protection clause is not violated.
- What is prohibited is DOUBLED TAXATION because it applies only to specific individual
which is a violation of equal protection clause.