List of cases for Constitutional Law 1 (Atty.
Allan Lozare)
Interpretation/Constructionof the Constitution
FACTS
An impeachment complaint against Chief Justice
Francisco v. House of Hilario Davide and seven Associate Justices was
Representatives, G.R. filed on 2 June 2003 but was dismissed on 22
No. 160261, November October 2003. On 23 October 2003, Representative
Gilbert Teodoro and Felix Fuentabella filed a new
10, 2003
impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice.
Thus arose the instant petitions against the House
of Representatives et al, most of which contend that
the filing of the second impeachment complaint is
unconstitutional, “no impeachment proceedings
shall be initiated against the same official more than
once within the period of one year.”
Civil Liberties Union v.
Executive Secretary, 194
SCRA 317
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not Yes. The second impeachment complaint is barred
the second under Section 3 (5) of Article XI of the
impeachment is Constitution. The Court, in determining the
unconstitutional? merits of the issues raised in a petition before it,
must necessarily turn to the Constitution itself
which employs the well-settled principles of
constitutional construction.
In case of doubt, the Court resorts to the
following: (1)Verba legis, that is, wherever
possible, the words used in the Constitution must
be given their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed. (2) Where there is
ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words of the
Constitution should be interpreted in accordance
with the intent of its framers. (3). Ut magis valeat
quam pereat. The Constitution is to be
interpreted as a whole.
Self-executing/non-self-executing provisions
FACTS
Manila Prince Hotel v. Pursuant to the privatization program of the
GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Philippine Government, the GSIS sold in public
February 03, 1997 auction its stake in Manila Hotel Corporation
(MHC). Only 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. Petitioner
filed a petition before the Supreme Court to
compel the GSIS to allow it to match the bid of
Renong Berhad. It invoked the Filipino First Policy
enshrined in §10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution, which provides that “
in the grant of rights, privileges, and
concessions covering the national economy and
patrimony, the State shall give preference to
qualified Filipinos.”
ISSUE RULIN
G
Whether Yes Paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987
paragraph 2, Constitution is a self-executing provision and
Article XII of the does not need implementing legislation to carry
1987 it into effect.
Constitution is a Sec. 10, second par., of Art XII is couched in such
self-executing a way as not to make it appear that it is
provision and non-self-executing but simply for purposes of
does not need style. But, certainly, the legislature is not
implementing precluded from enacting further laws to enforce
legislation to the constitutional provision so long as the
carry it into contemplated statute squares with the
effect? Constitution. Minor details may be left to the
legislature without impairing the self-executing
nature of constitutional provisions. the second
paragraph can only be self-executing as it does
not by its language require any legislation in
order to give preference to qualified Filipinos in
the grant of rights, privileges and concessions
covering the national economy and patrimony.
A constitutional provision may be self-executing
in one part and non-self-executing in another.
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.
Pamatong v. Comelec, Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of
G.R. No. 161872, April Candidacy (COC) for President. Respondent
13, 2004 COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others as
nuisance candidates who could not wage a
nationwide campaign and/or are not nominated by
a political party or are not supported by a
registered political party with a national
constituency.
Judicial Review
FACTS
Petitioner, Jose Angara won the election for
National Assembly for the first district of Tayabas
Angara v. Electoral Province. The National Assembly passed
Commission, 63 Phil. Resolution No 8 declaring the deadline for filing
protest on 3 December 1935.On the other hand the
139
Electoral Commission set the deadline on 9
December 1935. Losing candidate, Pedro Ynsua
filed before the Electoral Commission a Motion of
Protest against the election of Angara. Angara
contended in his Motion to Dismiss the Protest that
Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly was
adopted in the legitimate exercise of its
constitutional prerogative to prescribe the period
during which protests against the election of its
members should be presented and that the protest
was filed out of the prescribed period.
Whether or not No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the
there is a Constitution is merely a privilege subject to
constitutional limitations imposed by law. It neither bestows
right to run for or such a right nor elevates the privilege to the
hold public office? level of an enforceable right. There is nothing
in the plain language of the provision which
suggests such a thrust or justifies an
interpretation of the sort.
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
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not No. The Constitution has rationally provided the
the Court has Judiciary the power to determine the nature,
jurisdiction to scope and extent of the powers of government.
review the And when the judiciary mediates to allocate
rulings of the constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
Electoral superiority over the other departments; it does
Commission not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
organized Legislature, but only asserts the solemn and
under the sacred obligation assigned to it be by the
National Constitution to determine conflicting claims
Assembly. of authority under the Constitution and to
establish for the parties in an actual controversy
the rights which that instrument secures and
guarantees them. This is “judicial supremacy”
which properly is the power of the judicial
review under the Constitution.
 The petitioners having been arrested and held Whether or The duty remains to assure that the supremacy of
Aquino v. Enrile, 59 pursuant to General Order No. 2 of the not the the Constitution is upheld The power is inherent
SCRA 183 President (September 22, 1972), "for being validity of in the Judicial Department, by virtue of the
participants or for having given aid and Proclamation doctrine of separation of powers.
comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and No. 1081 is
state power in the country and to take over the subject to
Government by force ...", filed the petitions for judicial
habeas corpus. General Order No. 2 was issued inquiry?
by the President in the exercise of the powers
he assumed by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081
(September 21, 1972) placing the entire country
under martial law.
Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 Emigdio Bondoc and Marciano Pineda were rivals
SCRA 792 for a Congressional seat in the 4th District of
Pampanga. Pineda was a member of the Laban
ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP). While Bondoc
was a member of the Nacionalista Party (NP).
Pineda won in that election. However, Bondoc
contested the result in the HRET (House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal). Bondoc won
in the protest and he was subsequently declared
as the winner by the HRET. Pineda contends that
the issue is already outside the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court because Camasura’s removal is an
official act of Congress and by virtue of the doctrine
of separation of powers, the judiciary may not
interfere.
Who may exercise the power?
FACTS
Whether or Yes. The SC can settle the controversy in the case at
not the bar without encroaching upon the function of
Supreme Court the legislature particularly a part thereof, HRET.
may inquire The issue here is a judicial question. It must be
upon the noted that what is being complained of is the act
validity of the of HRET not the act of Congress. In here, when
said act of the Camasura was rescinded by the tribunal, a
HRET without decision has already been made, members of the
violating the tribunal have already voted regarding the
doctrine of electoral contest involving Pineda and Bondoc
separation of wherein Bondoc won. The LDP cannot withdraw
powers? their representative from the HRET after the
tribunal has already reached a decision. They
cannot hold the same election since the issue has
already become moot and academic. LDP is
merely changing their representative to change
the outcome of the election. That duty is part of
the judicial power vested in the courts by an
express grant under Sec. 1, Art. VIII of the
Constitution which states: “Judicial power
includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of Government.
ISSUE RULING
 There had been an existing law which prohibited
Ynot v. Intermediate the slaughtering of carabaos (EO 626). To
Appellate Court, 148 strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A
SCRA 659 which not only banned the movement of carabaos
from interprovinces but as well as the movement of
carabeef. On 13 Jan 1984, Ynot was caught
transporting 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He
was then charged in violation of EO 626-A. Ynot
averred EO 626-A as unconstitutional for it violated
his right to be heard or his right to due process. He
said that the authority provided by EO 626-A to
outrightly confiscate carabaos even without being
heard is unconstitutional. The lower court ruled
against Ynot ruling that the EO is a valid exercise of
police power in order to promote general welfare so
as to curb down the indiscriminate slaughter of
carabaos.
Whether or Yes. The challenged measure is an invalid exercise
not the law is of Police power because the method employed
valid. Who to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably
may exercise necessary to the purpose of the law and,
the power ? worse, is unduly oppressive. To justify the
State in the imposition of its authority in
behalf of the public, it must be:
1) The interest of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class,
require such interference
2) that the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals.
This Court has declared that while lower
courts should observe a becoming modesty in
examining constitutional questions, they are
nonetheless not prevented from resolving the
same whenever warranted, subject only to
review by the highest tribunal. 6 We have
jurisdiction under the Constitution to "review,
revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or rules of court may
provide," final judgments and orders of lower
courts in, among others, all cases involving the
constitutionality of certain measures. 7 This
simply means that the resolution of such cases
may be made in the first instance by these lower
courts. Judicial power authorizes this; and when
the exercise is demanded, there should be no
shirking of the task for fear of retaliation, or loss
of favor, or popular censure, or any other similar
inhibition unworthy of the bench, especially this
Court.
Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v.
Court of Tax Appeals,
195 SCRA 444

Ongsuco v. Malones, Petitioners are stall holders at the Maasin Public

604 SCRA 499 (2009) Market. After a meeting with the stall holders,
Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin approvedMunicipal
Ordinance No. 98-01, entitled "The Municipal
Revised Revenue Code."The Code contained a
provision for increased rentals for the stalls and the
imposition of goodwill fees in the amount of
P20,000.00 andP15,000.00 for stalls located on the
first and second floors of the municipal public
market, respectively. The same Code authorized
respondent to enter into lease contracts over the
said market stalls, and incorporated a standard
contract of lease for the stall holders at the
municipal public market.Sangguniang Bayan of
Maasin approved Resolution No. 68, series of 1998,
moving to have the meeting declared inoperative as
a public hearing, because majority of the persons
affected by the imposition of the goodwill fee failed
to agree to the said measure.
Functions of Judicial Review
c.symbolic
FACTS ISSUE RULING
Salonga v. Pano, 134
SCRA 438
Requisites of Judicial Review
a. Actual Case or Controversy: Prematurity
FACTS
The petitioners challenged a regulation of the
PACU vs Secretary of respondent requiring all private colleges and
Education, 97 Phil. 806 universities to first obtain a permit from the
(1955) Department of Education before they could open
and operate. It appeared, however, that all the
petitioners had previously obtained the required
permit and that they were questioning the
regulation only because of the possibility that such
permit might be denied them in the future
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not No. The Supreme Court declared that the case was
there is premature as there was no showing at the time of
justiciable any conflict of legal rights that would justify
controversy to assumption of jurisdiction by the judiciary. The
be settled by Court said that “mere apprehension that the
the Court? Secretary of Education might, under the law,
withdraw the permit of one of the petitioners
does not constitute a justiciable controversy.” A
request for an advisory opinion is not an actual
case or controversy. But an action for declaratory
relief is proper for judicial determination.
 Juanito Mariano, resident of Makati filed a petition
Mariano vs Comelec, for prohibition and declaratory relief, assailing
G.R. No. 119694 March unconstitutional sections in RA 7854 (“An Act
7, 1995 Converting the Municipality of Makati Into a
Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of
Makati”). Petitioners contend that that the new
corporate existence of the new city will restart the
term of the present municipal elective making it
favorable to incumbent Mayor Jejomar Binay.
Cutaran v. DENR, G.R.
No. 134958, January 31,
2001
Montesclaros v. The Local Government Code of 1991 limited its
Comelec, G.R. No. membership to youths “at least 15 but no more than
152295. July 9, 2002 21 years of age.” On 11 March 2002 the Bicameral
Committee consolidated Senate Bill 2050 and House
Bill 4456, resetting the SK election to 15 July 2002
and lowered the membership age to at least 15
but no more than 18 years of age. This was signed
by the President on 19 March 2002. The petitioners
filed prohibition and mandamus for temporary
restraining order seeking the prevention of
postponement of the SK election and reduction of
age requirement on 11 March 2002.
Requisites of Judicial Review
a. Actual Case or Controversy:Mootness
FACTS
Whether or not Dismissed Petition was premised on a contingent events the
RA 7854 is . happening of which was uncertain (Binay is not
unconstitutiona yet sure if will run or will win); the petitioner,
l? thus, posed a hypothetical issue which had not
yet ripened into an actual or controversy.
Whether or not No. Petitioner’s prayer to prevent Congress from
the proposed enacting into law a proposed bill lowering
bill is subject to membership age in the SK does not present an
judicial review. actual justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is
not subject to judicial review because it is not a
law. A proposed bill creates no rights and
imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court.
A proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates
no constitutional right or duty.
The Court has no power to declare a proposed
bill constitutional or unconstitutional because
that would be in the nature of rendering an
advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress.
ISSUE RULING
Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec, Petitioner, Atlas Fertilizer engaged in the Whether or not Dismissed The provisions that the petitioners are refuting
DAR, G.R. No. 93100, aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and RA 6657 is are now repealed and excluded from the
June 19, 1997 prawn farms. Assailed Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), unconstitutiona coverage of CARL. In view of the foregoing, the
17 and 32 of R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian l? question concerning the constitutionality of the
Reform Law), as well as the implementing assailed provisions has become moot and
guidelines and procedures contained in academic with the passage of a new law which
Administrative Order Nos. 8 and 10 Series of 1988 repealed the same.
issued by public respondent Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform as
unconstitutional. They contend that R.A. 6657, by
including the raising of fish and aquaculture
operations including fishponds and prawn ponds,
treating them as in the same class or classification
as agriculture or farming violates the equal
protection clause of the Constitution and therefore
void.

Gonzales v. Narvasa,
G.R. No. 140835.
August 14, 2000

On 01 May 2001, Gloria Arroyo, faced by an angry Whether or not Dismissed The instant petitions have been rendered moot
and violent mob armed with deadly weapons the and academic as Gloria Arroyo ordered the
Lacson v. Perez, G.R. assaulting and attempting to break into Proclamation lifting of the declaration of a state of rebellion on
No. 147780, May 10, Malacanang, issued Proclamation No. 38 declaring No 38 and 06 May 2001.
that there was a state of rebellion in the National General Order
2001
Capital Region. She likewise issued General Order No 1 are
No. 1 directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines unconstitutiona
and the Philippine National Police to suppress the l.
rebellion in the National Capital Region. On 06 May
2001 she ordered the lifting of the declaration of a
state of rebellion in Metro Manila. Petitioners assail
the declaration of a state of rebellion by Gloria
Arroyo and the warrantless arrests allegedly
effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis both
in fact an in law.
Defunis v. Odegaard,
416 U.S. 312 (1974)

Requisites of Judicial Review

a. Actual Case or Controversy:Exceptions to Mootness
FACTS ISSUE RULING
.
Acop v. Guingona,
G.R. No. 134855, July 2,
2002

Some 300 junior officers of AFP, stormed the
Sanlakas v. Executive Oakwood in Makati demanding for the resignation
Secretary, G.R. 159085, of the President, Sec of Defense and Chief of the
February 3, 2004 PNP. State of rebellion was declared and the AFP
and PNP were directed to suppress the rebellion.
The state of rebellion was lifted. Petitions were filed
challenging the validity of Proclamation of State of
Rebellion and calling out of the AFP. Sanlakas
contend that Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution does not require the declaration of a
state of rebellion to call out the armed forces.
Because of the cessation of the Oakwood
occupation, there exists no sufficient factual basis
Whether or not Dismissed The state of rebellion has ceased to exist and has
declaring state rendered the case moot. Nevertheless, courts will
of rebellion is decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is capable
needed to of repetition yet evading review. The case at bar
declare General is one such case.
order No 4? The President, in declaring a state of rebellion
and in calling out the armed forces, was merely
exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and
Commander-in-Chief powers. These are purely
executive powers, vested on the President by
Sections 1 and 18, Article VII, as opposed to the
delegated legislative powers contemplated by
Section 23 (2), Article VI.
 for the proclamation by the President of a state of
rebellion for an indefinite period. Solicitor General
argues that the petitions have been rendered moot
by the lifting of the declaration.
Gloria Arroyo issued appointments to various Whether or not Dismissed Due to the appointment of Gloria Arroyo to the
acting secretaries on 23 August 2004. The Congress the President respondents as ad interim immediately after the
Pimentel v. Ermita, commenced regular session on 26 July 2004 and may appoint in recess of the Congress, the petition has become
G.R. 164978, October some senators filed petition for certiorari and an acting moot. However as an exemption to the rule of
prohibition against respondents. The Senators secretaries mootness, courts will decide a question
13, 2005
contended that pursuant to Section 10 (2) Book IV without the otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet
of EO 292 the undersecretary shall be designated as consent of the evading review.
acting secretary in case of vacancy. Also, petitioners Commission on
assert that while Congress is in session there can be Appointments
no appointments without first obtaining consent while Congress
from Commission on Appointments. When is in session.
Congress adjourned on 22 September 2004, Gloria
Arroyo issued ad interim appointments to the same
respondents.

Requisites of Judicial Review

b. Proper Party
FACTS
The PCGG Chairman wrote to President Corazon
Aquino regarding the scheduled sale between the
Joya vs PCGG, G.R. Republic of the Philippines and Christie’s of 82 Old
96541, August 24, 1993 Masers Painting housed in Metropolitan Museum
of Manila and 7 boxes of antique silverware in the
custody of Central Bank. The assets subject of
auction were historical relics and had cultural
significance and thereby prohibited by law. As
Filipino citizens, taxpayers and artists, petitioners
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not No. Legal standing means a personal and substantial
the petitioners interest in the case such that the party has
have legal sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result
standing? of the governmental act that is being challenged.
One having no rights or interest to protect cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of the court as
party-plaintiff in an action. The courts will
exercise its power of judicial review only if the
case is brought before by a party who has legal
 Dean Jose Joya et al contended that they have legal
personality to restrain respondent from acting
contrary to preserving artistic creations pursuant to
Sec 14-18 Article XIV of the Constitution.
Petitioners filed instant petitions for prohibition
seeking to prohibit the Manila International Airport
Agan v. PIATCO, G.R. Authority (MIAA) and the Department of
No. 155001, May 5, Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and
its Secretary from implementing the various
2003
agreement executed by the Philippine Government
through the DOTC and the MIAA and the
Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.
(PIATCO)
Petitioner Commission on Human Rights Employee
Association challenged the CA and Civil Service
CHR Employees Commission’s decision affirming the upgrading
Assoc. v. CHR, G.R. and reclassification of certain personnel positions in
the CHR despite the disapproval of Department of
155336, Nov. 25, 2004
Budget and Management. The assail that the
reclassification and upgrading only benefited select
few in the upper level resulting to demoralization
on the rank and file members.
David vs. Arroyo, G.R.
No. 171396, May 3,
2006
standing to raise the constitutional or legal
question.
Do petitioners Yes. Petitioners have direct and substantial interest to
have legal protect by reason of the implementation of the
standing? PIATCO contracts. They stand to lose their source
of livelihood, a property right which is protected
by the Constitution. Subsisting agreements
between MIA and petitioners stand to be
terminated by the PIATCO contracts. The
financial prejudice brought about by the PIATCO
contract to petitioners is legitimate interests
sufficient to give them legal standing to file the
petition.
Whether or not Yes. A proper party is one who has sustained or is in
CHREA has immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a
legal standing result of the act complained of. Petitioner protests
to file petition that the upgrading and collapsing of positions
for review benefited only a select few in the upper level
against CHR? positions in the Commission. This sufficiently
meet the injury test.
Requisites of Judicial Review
b. Proper Party
Citizen Standing
FACTS ISSUE RULING
Invoking the people's right to be informed on Whether or not Yes. Clearly, the right sought to be enforced by
matters of public concern, a right recognized in the petitioners petitioners herein is a public right recognized by
Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine have legal no less than the fundamental law of the land. If
SCRA 27 (1985) Constitution, 1 as well as the principle that laws to standing petitioners were not allowed to institute this
be valid and enforceable must be published in the proceeding, it would indeed be difficult to
Official Gazette or otherwise effectively conceive of any other person to initiate the same,
promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus considering that the Solicitor General, the
to compel respondent public officials to publish, government officer generally empowered to
and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette represent the people, has entered his appearance
of various presidential decrees, letters of for respondents in this case.
instructions, general orders, proclamations,
executive orders, letter of implementation and
administrative orders. The respondents, through
the Solicitor General, would have this case
dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners
have no legal personality or standing to bring the
instant petition.
The petition seeks to compel the Public Estates Whether or not Yes. The petitioner has standing to bring this
Chavez v. PEA and Authority to disclose all facts on PEA’s then petitioner has taxpayer’s suit because the petition seeks to
Amari, G.R. 133250, on-going renegotiations with Amari Coastal Bay legal standing compel PEA to comply with its constitutional
July 9, 2002 and Development Corporation to reclaim portions to compel PEA duties. The right of citizens to information on
of Manila Bay. PEA argues that petitioner has no to comply with matters of public concern and the application of a
standing to institute mandamus proceedings to its constitutional provision intended to insure the
enforce his constitutional right to information constitutional equitable distribution of alienable lands of the
without a showing that PEA refused to perform an duties? public domain among Filipino citizens are two
affirmative duty imposed on PEA by the constitutional rights involved.
Constitution. PEA also claims that petitioner has
not shown that he will suffer any concrete injury
because of the signing or implementation of the
Amended JVA. Thus, there is no actual controversy
requiring the exercise of the power of judicial
review.
Requisites of Judicial Review
b. Proper Party
Associational Standing
FACTS
Petition for certiorari was filed by labour
group KMU to assail the constitutionality and
KMU Labor Center vs. validity of certain memoranda, circulars and /
Garcia, G.R. 115381, or orders from DOTC in relation to increase in
Dec. 23, 1994 public transportation fares. Respondent
contend that petitioner has no legal standing to
sue and that it is within DOTC and LTFRB’s
authority to set a fare range scheme.
During March 13, 1992, Republic Act 7227 were
John Hay PAC. v. Lim, enacted. The R.A. 7227 is also known as “ Bases
G.R. No. 119775, Oct. Conversion and Development Act of 1992” . This
24, 2003 grants Subic SEZ incentives which provides tax and
duty free importations, exemption of business
therein from local and national taxes, to other
hallmarks of liberated financial and bhsiness
climate. This also gave authority to the President to
create through executive proclamation, subject to
the concurrence of local government units directly
affected, other Special Economic Zones in the areas
covered respectively by the Clark Military
reservation, the Wallace Air Station in San
Fernando, La Union and Camp John Hay.
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not Yes. The rule requires that a party must show a
KMU has legal personal stake in the outcome of the case or
standing to an injury to himself that can be redressed by
maintain the a favorable decision so as to warrant
suit?
an invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and
to justify the exercise of the court’s remedial
powers in his behalf. KMU members, who
avail of the use of buses, trains and jeepneys
everyday, are directly affected by the
burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in
passenger fares. They are part of the millions
of commuters who comprise the riding
public. Certainly, their rights must be
protected, not neglected nor ignored.
Whether No. It is settled that when questions of constituional
Proclamation signifance are raised, the court can exercise its
no. 420 is power of judicial review only if the following
constitutional requisites are present: (1) existence of actual and
by providing appropriate case; (2) person challenging the act
for national must have the standing to question or have
and local tax personal/substantial interest in the case; (3)
exemption question of constitutionality must be raised at
within and earliest opportunit; (4) issue of constitutionality
granting other must be the very lis mota of the case. There is
economic none that have been mentioned in R.A 7227, a
incentives to grant of tax exemption to SEZ yet to be
the John Hay established in base areas, unlike the grant under
SEZ?
 July 5, 1994, President Ramos issued
proclamation no. 420 which established a SEZ on
a portion of Camp John Hay.
President Ejercito Estrada directed the AFP
IBP v. Zamora, G.R. Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate
No. 141284, August 15, with each other for the proper deployment and
2000 utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in
preventing or suppressing criminal or lawless
violence. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
filed a petition seeking to declare the
deployment of the Philippine Marines null and
void and unconstitutional. Solicitor General
contend that petitioner has no legal standing to
assail.
Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas
Executive Secretary v. Filipino Act of 1995) took effect on 15 July 1995.
CA, 429 SCRA 781, Prior to its effectivity, Asian Recruitment Council
May 25, 2004 Philippine CHaptr Inc (ARCO-Phil) filed petition
for declaratory relief. They alleged that Section 6,
subsections (a) to (m) is unconstitutional because
licensed and authorized recruitment agencies are
placed on equal footing with illegal recruiters. It
contended that while the Labor Code distinguished
between recruiters who are holders of licenses and
non-holders thereof in the imposition of penalties,
Rep. Act No. 8042 does not make any distinction. In
their answer to the petition, they contend that
Section 12 which provides for tax exemption to
the established Subic SEZ.
It was held that the controversy must be definite
and concrete, bearing upon the legal relations of
parties who are pitted against each other due to
their adverse legal interests. It is not enough that
the controversy exists at the outset; to qualify for
adjudication, it is necessary that the actual
controversy be extant at all stages of the review,
not merely at the time the complaint is filed.
Whether or No. The IBP primarily anchors its standing o its
not IBP has alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of
legal standing law and the Constitution.
to assail Apart from this declaration, however, the
constitutionali IBP asserts no other basis in support of its
ty of calling locus standi. The mere invocation by the IBP
the AFP to of its duty to preserve the rule of law
assist PNP to and nothing more is not sufficient to clothe it
suppress with standing in the case.
lawless
violence,
invasion or
rebellion?
Whether or not No. An association has standing to complain of
ARCO-Phil has injuries of its members. This view fuses the legal
legal standing identity of an association with that of its
to assail RA members. An association has standing to file
8042? suit for its workers despite its lack of interest if its
members are affected by their action. An
organization has standing to assert the concerns
of its constituents.
However, the respondent has no locus standi to
file the petition for and in behalf of unskilled
workers. We note that it even failed to implead
any unskilled workers in its petition.
 ARCO-Phil has no legal standing, it being a
non-stock, non-profit organization; hence, not the
real party-in-interest as petitioner in the action.
Sometime before March 1993, after learning that the
Kilosbayan v. PCSO was interested in operating an on-line lottery
Guingona, 232 SCRA system, the Berjaya Group Berhad (PGMC) became
110 (1994) interested to offer its services and resources to
PCSO. KILOSBAYAN submit that the PCSO cannot
validly enter into the assailed Contract of Lease
with the PGMC because it is an arrangement
wherein the PCSO would hold and conduct the
on-line lottery system in “collaboration” or
“association” with the PGMC, in violation of
Section 1(B) of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P.
Blg. 42. Respondents allege that the petitioners have
no standing to maintain the instant suit.
Taxpayer’s Standing:
U.S. v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974)
ITF v. Comelec, G.R. No. 159139. Jan. 13, 2004
Whether or not Yes. We find the instant petition to be of
Kilosbayan has transcendental importance to the public. The
standing to issues it raised are of paramount public interest
maintain and of a category even higher than those
instant suit? involved in many of the aforecited cases. The
ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect
the social, economic, and moral well-being of the
people even in the remotest barangays of the
country and the counter-productive and
retrogressive effects of the envisioned on-line
lottery system are as staggering as the billions in
pesos it is expected to raise. The legal standing
then of the petitioners deserves recognitio
Issue on the locus standi of the petitioners
should, indeed, be resolved in their favor. A
party’s standing before this Court is a procedural
technicality which it may, in the exercise of its
discretion, set aside in view of the importance of
the issues raised. In the landmark Emergency
Powers Cases, this Court brushed aside this
technicality because “the transcendental
importance to the public of these cases demands
that they be settled promptly and definitely,
brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of
procedure.
 Jumamil v. Café, G.R. 144570, September 21, 2005

Voter’s Standing:

Tolentino v. Comelec, 420 SCRA 438, January 21, 2004

Legislative Standing:

Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998)

Governmental Standing:

People v. Vera, 65 Phil 56, November 16, 1937

Facial Challenge:

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001

a. Earliest Opportunity
Umali v. Guingona, 305 SCRA 533 (1999)

b. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions

Arceta v. Mangrobang, G.R. No. 152895. June 15, 2004

1. Mandatory Notice
Mirasol v. CA, G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001
2. Functions of Judicial Review
Mitra vs Comelec, 104 SCRA 58 (1981)

Salonga vs Cruz-Pano, 134 SCRA 438 (1985)

Javier v. Comelec, 144 SCRA 194 (1988)

3. The Exercise of Judicial Review

Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987)

4. Political Questions / Justiciable Questions

Velarde v. SJS, 428 SCRA 283 (2004)
Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (1993)
Vinuya v. Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010)
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998

5. Presumption of Constitutionality
Perez v. People, 544 SCRA 532 (2008)

6. Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality

a. Orthodox view
Art. 7, Civil Code of the Philippines

b. Modern view
Serrano de Agbayani v. PNB, 35 SCRA 429
Belgica v. Ochoa, 710 SCRA 1 (2013)
Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
Cocofed v. Republic, 663 SCRA 514 (2012)
Sameer Overseas v. Cabilles, G.R. No.170139, August 5, 2014
League of Cities vs. Comelec, August 24, 2010
 CIR vs. San Roque, G.R. No. 187485, October 08, 2013

7. Partial unconstitutionality
In Re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534
Salazar v. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145

A. Amendment
1. Amendment vs Revision
Lambino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006
Lambino Vs. Comelec Case Digest G.R. No. 174153 Lambino VS. ComeleC

G.R. No. 174153 OCt. 25

2006

FaCtS: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 constitution, they filed a
petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition
had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by
modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral-
presidential form of government to unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governing initiative
petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.

ISSue:

Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complie s with Section 2, Article XVII of the

Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative.

 Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms an d
conditions” to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.

Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the

Lambino Group’s petition.

Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a people’s initiative. The Court held
that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People

The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time of the signing of the nature and effect, failure to do
so is “deceptive and misleading” which renders the initiative void.

2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives

The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between “amendment” and “revision, it is intended that the third mode of stated in
sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose only amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical
change, therefore a constitutes a revision.

3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must
first comply with the constitution before complying with RA 6735
 Petition is dismissed.

2. Constituent vs Legislative Power

Imbong v. Comelec, 35 SCRA 28

FACTS:

This is a petition for declaratory judgment. Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, filing separate cases and both interested in running as candidates for
delegates to the Constitutional Convention, question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, claiming that it prejudices their rights as such candidates.
These are 2 separate but related petitions of running candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention assailing the validity of RA 6132.

Gonzales: Sec, 2, 4, 5 and Par 1 Sec 8, and validity of entire law

Imbong: Par 1 Sec 8

ISSUE:

1. Does the Congress have the right to call for a constitutional convention and set the parameters of such convention?

2. Are the provisions of R.A. 6132 constitutional?

HOLDING:

The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional Convention as a Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the
petitioners are deemed as constitutional
RATIO:

1. Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to propose amendments, or call for convention for the purpose by votes and these
votes were attained by Resolution 2 and 4. The Congress has authority to call a constitutional convention as the constituent assembly. The Congress
also has the authority to enact implementing details, contained in Res. Nos. 2 and 4 and R.A. 6132, since such details are within the competence of
the Congress in the exercise of its legislative power.

2. The provisions are constitutional. Sec. 4 of R.A. 6132 is merely an application with Sec. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution and does not
constitute a denial of due process or equal protection of the law. Sec. 2 also merely obeyed the intent of the Congress in Res. Nos. 2 and 4 regarding
the apportionment of delegates.

The challenged disqualification of an elected delegate from running for any public office in Sec. 5 is a valid limitation as it is reasonable and not
arbitrary.

Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualify members thereof. Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. This
is a safety mechanism to prevent political figures from controlling elections and to allow them to devote more time to the Constitutional Convention.

Lastly, par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) which is both contested by the petitioners is still valid as the restriction contained in the section is so narrow that basic
constitutional rights remain substantially intact and inviolate thus the limitation is a valid infringement of the constitutional guarantees invoked by the
petitioners.
Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also to assure candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend on
their individual merits, and not the support of political parties. This provision does not create discrimination towards any particular party/group, it
applies to all organization,

3. Steps in the amendatory process:

a. Proposal (Secs. 1-3, Art. XVII)
Occena v. Comelec, 104 SCRA 1
Facts: The challenge in these two prohibition proceedings against the validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing
constitutional amendments, goes further than merely assailing their alleged constitutional infirmity. Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales,
both members of the Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that framed the present Constitution, are
suing as taxpayers. The rather unorthodox aspect of these petitions is the assertion that the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law, the
Javellana ruling to the contrary notwithstanding.

Issue: Whether the 1973 Constitution was valid, and in force and effect when the Batasang Pambansa resolutions and the present petitions
were promulgated and filed, respectively.

Held: It is much too late in the day to deny the force and applicability of the 1973 Constitution. In the dispositive portion of Javellana v. The
Executive Secretary, dismissing petitions for prohibition and mandamus to declare invalid its ratification, this Court stated that it did so by a
vote of six to four. It then concluded: "This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being
considered in force and effect." Such a statement served a useful purpose. It could even be said that there was a need for it. It served to clear the
atmosphere. It made manifest that as of 17 January 1973, the present Constitution came into force and effect. With such a pronouncement by
the Supreme Court and with the recognition of the cardinal postulate that what the Supreme Court says is not only entitled to respect but must
also be obeyed, a factor for instability was removed. Thereafter, as a matter of law, all doubts were resolved. The 1973 Constitution is the
fundamental law. It is as simple as that. What cannot be too strongly stressed is that the function of judicial review has both a positive and a
negative aspect. As was so convincingly demonstrated by Professors Black and Murphy, the Supreme Court can check as well as legitimate. In
declaring what the law is, it may not only nullify the acts of coordinate branches but may also sustain their validity. In the latter case, there is
an affirmation that what was done cannot be stigmatized as constitutionally deficient. The mere dismissal of a suit of this character suffices.
That is the meaning of the concluding statement in Javellana. Since then, this Court has invariably applied the present Constitution. The latest
case in point is People v. Sola, promulgated barely two weeks ago. During the first year alone of the effectivity of the present Constitution, at
least ten cases may be cited.

i. Congress
ii. Constitutional Convention
iii. People
Republic Act No. 6735 - An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum

b. Ratification (Sec. 4, Art. XVII)

 Gonzales v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774

Facts:

On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions:

1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to
increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180,
to be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants, although each
province shall have, at least, one (1) member;

2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates
from each representative district, to be "elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of November, 1971;" and

3. R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of the same Constitution, be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the
House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in
Congress.

Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that
the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the
general elections, which shall be held on November 14, 1967.

Issue:

1. Does the Congress (through ordinary legislative process) have the power to amend or propose amendment to the Constitution?

2. May the proposed amendments be submitted at a plebiscite scheduled on the same day as the regular elections?

Held:

1. No. The power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It
is part of the inherent powers of the people - as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, to make, and, hence, to amend their own
Fundamental Law.
 Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the same explicitly grants such power. Hence, when exercising the
same, it is said that Senators and Members of the House of Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as component elements of a
constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when
performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate from the Constitution - they are the very source of all powers of government,
including the Constitution itself.

Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority from
the Fundamental Law, it follows that they do not have the final say on whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. The
Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court, the power to declare a treaty unconstitutional, despite the eminently political character of
treaty-making power.

The issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress - acting as a constituent assembly - violates the Constitution essentially justiciable, not
political, and, hence, subject to judicial review.

2. Yes. The term “election” in article XV of the 1935 Constitution does not indicate that the “election” therein referred to is a “special”, not a
general election. The circumstance that three previous amendments to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for ratification in special
elections merely shows that congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its authority to submit
proposed amendments for ratification in general elections.

Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702

Facts: The challenge in these two prohibition proceedings against the validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing
constitutional amendments, goes further than merely assailing their alleged constitutional infirmity. Samuel Occena and Ramon
A. Gonzales, both members of the Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that framed the
present Constitution, are suing as taxpayers. The rather unorthodox aspect of these petitions is the assertion that the 1973
Constitution is not the fundamental law, the Javellana ruling to the contrary notwithstanding.

Issue: Whether the 1973 Constitution was valid, and in force and effect when the Batasang Pambansa resolutions and the present
petitions were promulgated and filed, respectively.

Held: It is much too late in the day to deny the force and applicability of the 1973 Constitution. In the dispositive portion of
Javellana v. The Executive Secretary, dismissing petitions for prohibition and mandamus to declare invalid its ratification, this
Court stated that it did so by a vote of six to four. It then concluded: "This being the vote of the majority, there is no further
 judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect." Such a statement served a useful purpose. It could
even be said that there was a need for it. It served to clear the atmosphere. It made manifest that as of 17 January 1973, the present
Constitution came into force and effect. With such a pronouncement by the Supreme Court and with the recognition of the
cardinal postulate that what the Supreme Court says is not only entitled to respect but must also be obeyed, a factor for instability
was removed. Thereafter, as a matter of law, all doubts were resolved. The 1973 Constitution is the fundamental law. It is as simple
as that. What cannot be too strongly stressed is that the function of judicial review has both a positive and a negative aspect. As
was so convincingly demonstrated by Professors Black and Murphy, the Supreme Court can check as well as legitimate. In
declaring what the law is, it may not only nullify the acts of coordinate branches but may also sustain their validity. In the latter
case, there is an affirmation that what was done cannot be stigmatized as constitutionally deficient. The mere dismissal of a suit of
this character suffices. That is the meaning of the concluding statement in Javellana. Since then, this Court has invariably applied
the present Constitution. The latest case in point is People v. Sola, promulgated barely two weeks ago. During the first year alone
of the effectivity of the present Constitution, at least ten cases may be cited.

Sanidad v. Comelec, 78 SCRA 333

Facts:

- On October 23, 1989, RA 6766, entitled “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION” was enacted into law;

- Pursuant to said law, the City of Baguio and Provinces of Benguet, Abra, Mt. Province, Ifugao and Kalinga-Apayao, all comprising the autonomous region shall take
part in a plebiscite originally scheduled for December 27, 1989 but was reset to January 30, 1990 specifically for the ratification or rejection of the said act;

- By virtue of the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), the Comelec issued Comelec Resolution No. 2167, Section 19 of which provides:

“Section 19. Prohibition on columnist, commentators or announcers.- During the plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on plebiscite day, no mass media
columnist, commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues.”
- On November 20, 1989, petitioner PABLITO V. SANIDAD who is a columnist (“OVERVIEW”) for the Baguio Midland Courier, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City
of Baguio and the Cordilleras, filed a petition for Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction against the
Comelec to enjoin the latter from enforcing Section 19 of resolution No. 2167. Petitioner claims that the said provision is violative of his constitutional freedom of
expression and of the press and it also constitutes a prior restraint because it imposes subsequent punishment for those who violate the same;

- On November 28, 1989, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondent from enforcing Section 19 of Resolution No. 2167;

- On January 9, 1990, Comelec through the Solicitor General filed its Comment and moved for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that Section 19 of Resolution
No. 2167 does not absolutely bar the petitioner from expressing his views because under Section 90 and 92 of BP 881, he may still express his views or campaign for
or against the act through the Comelec space and airtime.

Issue: Whether or not Section 19 of resolution No. 2167 is violative of the constitutional freedom of expression and of the press

Held: YES. What is granted by Art. IX-C of the Constitution to the Comelec is the power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or
other grants issued for the operation of transportation or other public utilities to the end that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including
reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are insured. The evil sought to be prevented by this provision is the
possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give undue advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising time and space. This is also the reason why a columnist,
commentator or announcer is required to take a leave of absence from his work during the campaign period if he is a candidate.

HOWEVER, NEITHER ARTICLE IX-C OF THE CONSTITUTION NOR SECTION 11(B), 2ND PAR. OF RA 6646 CAN BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT THE COMELEC HAS
ALSO BEEN GRANTED THE RIGHT TO SUPERVISE AND REGULATE THE EXERCISE BY MEDIA PRACTITIONERS THEMSELVES OF THEIR RIGHT TO EXPRESSION
DURING THE PLEBISCITE PERIODS. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during the plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the
candidates. In fact, there are no candidates in a plebiscite.

While it is true that the petitioner is not absolutely barred from campaigning for or against the Organic Act, said fact does not cure the constitutional infirmity of
Section 19, Comelec Resolution No. 2167. This is so because IT IS STILL A RESTRICTION ON HIS CHOICE OF THE FORUM WHERE HE MAY EXPRESS HIS VIEW.
Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. The people’s right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would
be better served by access to an unabridged discussion of the issues, INCLUDING THE FORUM. The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should
not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised.

Ruling: ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is GRANTED. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void and unconstitutional. The restraining
order herein issued is hereby made permanent.

Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 50

FACTS:

On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite cases, Javellana filed this suit against the
respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitution.

This is a petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for himself and in behalf of all citizens
and voters similarly situated.

Javellana also alleged that the President had announced the immediate implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet, including
respondents.

Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed constitution upon ground the that the President as
Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution; without
power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed constitution; and the election held to ratify the proposed constitution was
not a free election, hence null and void.
Following that, petitioners prayed for the nullification of Proclamation No. 1102 and any order, decree, and proclamation which have the same
import and objective.

ISSUES:

2. Whether or not the constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention has been ratified validly conforming to the applicable
constitutional and statutory provisions.

3. Whether or not the proposed Constitution has been acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the people.

HELD:

Second. The Constitution does not allow Congress or anybody else to vest in those lacking the qualifications and having the
disqualifications mentioned in the Constitution the right of suffrage.

The votes of persons less than 21 years of age render the proceedings in the Citizen’s assemblies void.

Proceedings held in such Citizen’s Assemblies were fundamentally irregular, in that persons lacking the qualifications prescribed in
Article V Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution were allowed to vote in said Assemblies. And, since there is no means by which the
invalid votes of those less than 21 years of age can be separated or segregated from those of the qualified voters, the proceedings in
the Citizen’s Assemblies must be considered null and void.

Viva voce voting for the ratification of the constitution is void.

Article XV of the 1935 Constitution envisages with the term "votes cast" choices made on ballots – not orally or by raising hands – by
the persons taking part in plebiscites.
This is but natural and logical, for, since the early years of the American regime, we had adopted the Australian Ballot System, with
its major characteristics, namely, uniform official ballots prepared and furnished by the Government and secrecy in the voting, with
the advantage of keeping records that permit judicial inquiry, when necessary, into the accuracy of the election returns.

The plebiscite on the constitution not having been conducted under the supervision of COMELEC is void.

The point is that, such of the Barrio Assemblies as were held took place without the intervention of the COMELEC and without
complying with the provisions of the Election Code of 1971 or even of those of Presidential Decree No. 73.

The procedure therein mostly followed is such that there is no reasonable means of checking the accuracy of the returns filed by the
officers who conducted said plebiscites. This is another patent violation of Article X of the 1935 Constitution which form part of the
fundamental scheme set forth in the 1935 Constitution, as amended, to insure the "free, orderly, and honest" expression of the
people's will. For this, the alleged plebiscite in the Citizen’s Assemblies is null and void, insofar as the same are claimed to have
ratified the revised Constitution.

Third. Proclamation No. 1102 is not an evidence of ratification. Article X of the 1935 Constitution places COMELEC the "exclusive"
charge to the "the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections," independently of the Executive. But
there is not even a certification by the COMELEC in support of the alleged results of the citizen’s assemblies relied upon in
Proclamation No. 1102.

Also, on January 17, 1973 neither the alleged president of the Federation of Provincial or City Barangays nor the Department of
Local Governments had certified to the President the alleged result of the citizens' assemblies all over the Philippines. The citizen’s
assemblies did not adopt the proposed constitution. It is to my mind a matter of judicial knowledge that there have been no such
citizen’s assemblies in many parts of Manila and suburbs, not to say, also, in other parts of the Philippines