Constitutional Law I – Midterms
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I MIDTERMS
POLITICAL LAW
Political law is the branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the
governmental organs of the state and defines the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its
territory
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Isagani Cruz: Study of maintaining balance on one hand the government as represented by the three
inherent powers and on the other hand, liberty as protected by the bill of rights
Padilla: Constitutional law is the study of the interpretations rendered by the court of the
constitution
Lazo: Primarily a part of public law embodied in the Constitution, serves as the basis of social,
political, and economic order of the State
Blacks: That department of science of law which treats of constitutions, their establishment,
construction and interpretations, and of the validity of legal enactments as tested by the criterion of
conformity to the fundamental law
THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
• The fundamental law of the land, the Constitution is supreme law that all existing laws must
conform – The Constitution is the only legitimate source of power and control
• The constitution is a municipal law, and is therefore only binding within the territorial limits of
the sovereignty promulgating the Constitution
o People v. Perfecto – It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of
territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated --
"political" being used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by
the inhabitants to the sovereign.
o Macariola v. Asuncion – Upon the sovereignty from the Spain to the US and to the
Republic of the Philippines, Art. 14 of this Code of Commerce, which sourced from
the Spanish Code of Commerce, appears to have been abrogated because whenever
there is a change in the sovereignty, political laws of the former sovereign are
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
automatically abrogated, unless they are reenacted by Affirmative Act of the New
Sovereign.
• Constitution is regarded as a written document that sets forth fundamental rules through
which a society is governed
• Protects, guarantees and safeguards the rights of an individual and defines the governmental
machinery and other instruments of the state, including their functions and purposes
• Classification
o Origin either enacted or evolved – product of tedious legislation by either a
constituent assembly or a constitutional convention, evolved – product of long
political and cultural history of the people
o Form – written or unwritten
§ Ex. England – unwritten
• Qualities and essential parts of a good written Constitution
o Clarity
o Brevity
o Broadness
• Ratification; Political vs. Justiciable Questions
o Javellana v. Executive Secretary :
o There being no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation during the
election, it is to be assumed that the people had acquiesced in or accepted the 1973
Constitution. The question of the validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political
question, which was left to the people in their sovereign capacity to answer. Their
ratification of the same had shown such acquiescence
o Political Question = question of policy; to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity or full discretionary authority
o Justiciable Question = implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable; act
or omission violative of such right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law for
said breach of right.
• Constitutional Construction
o Establish an effect of the actual intent and purpose of the law for which it is written
by competent authority
o Letter and spirit – gleaned from the objectives sought to be upheld by the framers
o Must be construed as a whole, harmonized based on its interests and objectives
o Spirit of the law prevails over the letter
o Words must be given their ordinary meaning
o Perfecto v. Meer – Judges would indeed be hapless guardians of the Constitution if
they did not perceive and block encroachments upon their prerogatives in whatever
form. The undiminishable character of judicial salaries is not a mere privilege of
judges — personal and therefore waivable — but a basic limitation upon legislative
or executive action imposed in the public interest
1
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
o Endencia v. David – This act of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by
the Legislature is an invasion of the well-defined and established province and
jurisdiction of the Judiciary. “The rule is recognized elsewhere that the legislature
cannot pass any declaratory act, or act declaratory of what the law was before its
passage, so as to give it any binding weight with the courts. A legislative definition of
a word as used in a statute is not conclusive of its meaning as used elsewhere;
otherwise, the legislature would be usurping a judicial function in defining a term
o Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue – The clear intent of the framers of the
Constitution, based on their deliberations, was NOT to exempt justices and judges
from general taxation. Members of the judiciary, just like members of the other
branches of the government, are subject to income taxation.
o Congress may pass a law increasing the salary of the judiciary and such increase will
immediately take effect thus the incumbent members of the judiciary (time law is
passed increasing their salary) shall benefit immediately.
o Congress can also pass a law decreasing the salary of the members of the judiciary
but such will only be applicable to members of the judiciary which were appointed
AFTER the effectivity of such law.
• Self-executing Provisions
o Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS – Par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution is self
executing. “Qualified Filipinos” simply means that preference shall be given to those
citizens who can make a viable contribution to the common good, because of
credible competence and efficiency. It does NOT mandate the pampering and
preferential treatment to Filipino citizens or organizations that are incompetent or
inefficient, since such an indiscriminate preference would be counter productive and
inimical to the common good.
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY
• Pre-1935 Constitution
o Schurman Commission;
o Taft Commission;
o Spooner Amendment – Civilian officials ran the government from the US headed by
the Civil Governor, in the process though, Filipinos ran it
o Philippine Bill of 1902;
o Jones Law of 1916 – heralded the birth of an autonomous government of the
Philippines
o Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 – enabled the establishment of Commonwealth
Government
• 1935 Constitution
o Jan 31, 1935
o Established constitutionalism founded on republican and representative government
o During the Japanese period – the 1935 Constitution was suspended – political laws,
but municipal laws were deemed continued
o Laurel v. Misa – allegiance by a Filipino to the Philippine Government during the
Japanese occupation was not severed or suspended. The sovereignty of the de jure
or legitimate government was not suspended nor amended during the Japanese days
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
o What was suspended was not sovereignty – allegiance is not transferred to the
enemy occupation nor suspended during the Japanese occupation – allegiance to
government or sovereignty is absolute and permanent
• Declaration of Martial Law
o Lazo: Declaration suspended and abrogated the 1935 Constitution – governmental
powers were concentrated in the hands of Marcos and in 1973 an authroriatarian
Constitution came into force
o Aquino v. Enrile – In the case at bar, the state of rebellion plaguing the country has
not yet disappeared, therefore, there is a clear and imminent danger against the state.
The arrest is then a valid exercise pursuant to the President’s order.
o The Constitution provides that in case of invasion, insurrection or rebellion, or
imminent danger against the state, when public safety requires it, the President may
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
part therein under Martial Law.
• 1973 Constitution
o Ratified on January 17, 1973 and took effect immediately
o Lazo: “Authoritatian in nature yet democratic in practice”
o Javellana v. Executive Secretary – Ascertainment made by the president of the
Philippines, in the exercise of his political prerogatives. Further, there being no
competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation during the election, it is to
be assumed that the people had acquiesced in or accepted the 1973 Constitution.
The question of the validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political question, which
was left to the people in their sovereign capacity to answer. Their ratification of the
same had shown such acquiescence.
• 1986 Snap Presidential Election
o Philippine Bar Association v. COMELEC – The Court turned the issue into a political
question (from the purely justiciable issue of the questioned constitutionality of the
act due to the lack of the actual vacancy of the President’s office) which can be truly
decided only by the people in their sovereign capacity at the scheduled election,
since there is no issue more political than the election. The Court cannot stand in
the way of letting the people decide through their ballot, either to give the
incumbent president a new mandate or to elect a new president
• People Power Revolt
o Proclamation No. 1
o Proclamation No. 3 (Freedom Constitution) – March 24, 1986 provided for
Provisional Constitution of the Republic – revolutionary government but
democratic and transitional in character
o Lawyers League v. Aquino - The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a
justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics where only the people are the
judge.The Court further held that:
§ The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control
of the entire country;
§ It is not merely a de facto gov’t but in fact and law a de jure government; and
§ The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new
government.
o In re: Saturnino Bermudez – The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a
justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the
2
Constitutional Law I – Midterms Ina Cojuangco Guingona

Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment; they have
accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino which is in effective
control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in
fact and in law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has
recognized the legitimacy of the present government.
• 1987 Constitution
o Contains three parts
§ Bill of Rights
§ Government Organization
§ Constitution of Sovereignty – Art. 17
o In re: Letter of Reynato Puno – Cory Aquino government is de jure because it was
established by authority of the legitimate sovereign, the people. A government as a
result of people's revolution is considered de jure if it is already accepted by the
family of nations or countries like the US, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and others.
In the new government under Pres. Aquino, it was installed through direct exercise
of the Filipino power.
o Estrada v. Arroyo – Effectivity of 1987 Constitution Congress has clearly rejected
petitioner’s claim of inability. Even if petitioner can prove that he did not resign, still,
he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is
merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress
and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure President made by a co-equal
branch of government cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
o Lazo: Establishment – Cory Aquino distinguished herself as revolutionary president
and a de facto president
o 1986 Constitution was approved by October 15, 1986 through a national plebiscite
and took effect immediately
o De Leon v. Esguerra - Effectivity of 1987 Constitution – immediately upon ratification
o The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date,
therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded.
• Philippines under the new Constitution is not just a representative government but also shares
some aspects of direct democracy

Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance 3
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
CONCEPT OF STATE
A state is a community of persons more or less numerous, 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
• Distinction between state and nation not important for Constitutional law
• Four elements: people, territory, sovereignty, government
PEOPLE
o Lazo: most essential and important characteristic of a state
o Bernas: a community of persons sufficient in number and capable of maintaining the continues
existence of the community and held together by a common bond of law
o Bound by law, living together for the purpose of mobilizing a polity
o Size must be congruent to the capability of the national economy supporting it
o Citizens – the members of the political organization who enjoy political rights and privileges –
sovereign Filipino people
o Individual citizens who live permanently or temporarily in the county
o Electorate – body consisting of the registered votes of the State who posses the right of
suffrage
o Population, political culture, nationalism and patriotism
CITIZENSHIP (ART. IV, CONSTITUTION)
§ Distinguished from nationality
o Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent membership in apolitical
community, denotes possession of full civil and political rights, duty of allegiance to
the political community
o Nationality is an informal membership or identification with a particular state, more
of a social relationship than a legal one
§ Modes of acquiring citizenship
o Jus sanguinis – on the basis of blood
o Jus soli – on the basis of place of birth
o Naturalization
§ The legal act of adopting and alien and clothing him with the privilege of
a native born citizen
o Philippines follows the rule of jus sanguinis and provides for naturalization
§ Citizens of the Philippines (Article IV, Sec. 1)
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines
3. Those born before Jan. 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine
Citizenship upon reaching the age of majority
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
o Mo Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration - An alien woman marrying a Filipino,
native-born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not
disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines
o Djumantan v. Domingo - The fact of marriage by alien to Filipino does not withdraw
her from the operation of the immigration laws governing the admission and
exclusion of aliens. It does not ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen
§ Election of Philippine citizenship
o In re: Vicente Ching - Fourteen years had lapsed and it’s way beyond the allowable 7
year period. The Supreme Court even noted that the period is originally 3 years but
it was extended to 7 years. (It seems it can’t be extended any further). Ching’s special
circumstances can’t be considered.
§ Doctrine of implied Election
o Co v. HRET - On January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers elected Filipino citizenship
through his act of voting. This provision on citizenship-curative. Even though they
had to acquire citizenship, counted as a natural born citizens.
§ Natural-born citizen
o Section 2 of Article IV provides that natural born citizens are those who are citizens
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship
o Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Sec. 1 (3)
o Bengson v. HRET – Extends the definition of natural born citizen to include former
natural born Filipino citizens who reacquire their citizenship not by naturalization
but by repatriation.
o Tecson v. COMELEC – An illegitimate child of a Filipino father is a Filipino
provided that paternity is certain.
§ Dual citizenship & dual allegiance
o Dual citizenship can be unavoidable and involuntary
o Citizenship includes allegiance to the country of citizenship. Dual citizenship
therefore necessarily includes dual allegiance
o R.A. 9225 – Dual Citizenship Law
§ Natural born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship are
deemed to have reacquired it upon taking a prescribed oath
§ Natural born citizens who acquire foreign citizenship after the effectivity
of the new law, retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
prescribed oath
o Mercado v. Manzano - Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must be subject to strict
process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual
citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their CoC, they elect Philippine
citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that
their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states.
o Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result
of the concurrent application of the different laws of 2 or more states, a person is
simultaneously considered a national by the said states.
§ Res judicata in citizenship cases (Article II, Sec. 4)
o Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by
their act or omission, they are deemed to have renounced it.
§ Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance
4
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
o An individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding
that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second state
whose nationality he has acquired.
§ Naturalization
o Naturalization if the legal act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the
privileges of a citizen
o May be effected by a special act of Congress or judicial or administrative
naturalization
o Republic v. De la Rosa - Private respondent is declared NOT a citizen of the
Philippines and therefore disqualified from continuing to serve as governor of the
Province of Sorsogon. He is ordered to vacate his office and to surrender the same
to the Vice-Governor of the Province of Sorsogon once this decision becomes final
and executory.
o Procedural Irregularities: (1) hearing of the petition was set ahead of the scheduled
date of hearing w/o a publication of the order advancing the date of hearing, and
the petition itself; (2) petition was heard within six months from the last publication
of the petition; (3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before the
finality of the judgment; and (4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance without
observing the two-year waiting period.
§ Loss of Citizenship
o By naturalization in a foreign country
§ Frivaldo v. COMELEC - He cannot serve as governor when he owes
allegiance to a foreign state. The fact that he was elected by the people of
Sorsogon does not excuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting
public office and employment only to the citizens of this country.
§ As far as Philippine law is concerned, he is not a Filipino. He lost his
citizenship when he declared allegiance to the United States. Even if he
did lose his US citizenship, that did not restore his being a Filipino
because he did not undergo naturalization or repatriation proceedings.
Neither did his participation in the 1988 elections restore his Philippine
citizenship.
§ Labo v. COMELEC – Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national
interest and shall be dealt with by law. He lost his Filipino citizenship
when he swore allegiance to Australia. He cannot also claim that when he
lost his Australian citizenship, he became solely a Filipino. To restore his
Filipino citizenship, he must be naturalized or repatriated or be declared
as a Filipino through an act of Congress – none of this happened.
o By express renunciation or expatriation
§ Yu v. Defensor-Santiago – Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a
commodity or were to be displayed when required and suppressed when
convenient.
§ Reaquisition of citizenship
o May be reacquired by naturalization or repatriation
o Repatriation: Lost citizenship is reacquired. If what was lost was naturalized
citizenship, that is what is reacquired, but if what was lost was natural born
citizenship, repatriation restores it
§ Repatriation is administrative and courts have no jurisdiction
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
§ Must be registered with the proper civil registry or the Bureau of
Immigration
§ Frivaldo v. COMELEC – He claims that he has reacquired Philippine
citizenship by virtue of valid repatriation. He claims that by actively
participating in the local elections, he automatically forfeited American
citizenship under the laws of the United States of America. The Court
stated that that the alleged forfeiture was between him and the US. If he
really wanted to drop his American citizenship, he could do so in
accordance with CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473 and PD 725.
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by
naturalization, or by repatriation.
TERRITORY
Article I, Section 1. “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 and jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains,
including its territorial sea, the sea bed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine
area. 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
• Philippine Territory:
o The Philippine archipelago
o All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
o Including terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including the territorial sea, seabed,
subsoil, insular shelves and other submarine areas
• The claim to territory in the constitution must be supported by treaties or other recognized
principles of international law
• All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction – catch all,
includes any territory over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, even if it is
temporarily controlled by an invading force, OR any territory that the Philippines might
establish sovereignty or jurisdiction in the future
• The silence of a constitution regarding the territorial limits of a sovereignty does not deprive
such sovereignty of any portion of territory it is entitled to under international law
• Philippine Archipelago
o Fluvial domain – bays, rivers, streams, internal waters, waters of the sea, landwards
from the baseline
o Aerial domain – air directly above its terrestrial and fluvial domains all the way up to
outer space
o Territorial sea – marginal belt of maritime waters adjacent to the base lines
extending twelve nautical miles outward
§ State exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea subject to the right of
innocent passage by other States
• Archipelagic Doctrine
o Adheres to the territorial or maritime integration of divided islands or islets into one
cohesive geographical entity
5
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
o The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago
regardless of their breadth and dimension, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines
o Straight baseline method – drawing lines between appropriate points on the baseline
to designate the territory of the archipelago
• UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
o Provides that inland seas and continental shelves shall become integral parts of the
sovereign territories of archipelagic nation-states
o Hypothetical extent practicable over any archipelago’s maritime domain and
immediate territorial boundaries
GOVERNMENT
• 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 posses the power or authority of
prescribing them
• Administrations change without a change in either state or government
• The transition from the 1935 to 1973 to the 1987 involved changes of government but not of
state
• Functions
o Constituent – compulsory – those which constitute the very bonds of society
o Ministrant – optional – government can undertake any function to advance the
welfare of the common people, including the interest of the society as well
o Laissez-faire vs. Welfare State
§ Constitution did away with the Laissez faire idea
§ Welfare State: is a concept of government where the state plays a key role
in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of
its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity,
equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable
to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general
term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization.
§ Laissez-faire: that the government leaves the people alone regarding all
economic activities. It is the separation of economy and state.
• Doctrine of Parens Patriae
o The government functions work as an entity to serve and protect the rights of the
people in its territory
o Government of Philippine Islands v. Monte de Piedad - Transfer of sovereignty; effect on
laws: Abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted
sovereign (political law). Great body of municipal law regarding private and
domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or changed by new ruler.
o Cabanas v. Pilapil – The uncle here should not be the trustee, it should be the mother
as she was the immediate relative of the minor child and it is assumed that the
mother shall show more care towards the child. The application of parens patriae
here is in consonance with this country’s tradition of favoring conflicts in favor of
the family hence preference to the parent (mother) is observed.
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
o The Constitution provides for the strengthening of the family as the basic social unit,
and that whenever any member thereof such as in the case at bar would be
prejudiced and his interest be affected then the judiciary if a litigation has been filed
should resolve according to the best interest of that person
• Classification
o De Jure – one which exists according to the will of the people as expressed in the
fundamental law
o De Facto - exists against the fundamental law
o Lawyers League v. Aquino – Aquino presidency is not merely a de facto government
but in fact and law a de jure government; and The community of nations has
recognized the legitimacy of the new government
• In determining de jure or de facto, state whether the question is in the context of local or
international law
• The status of a government in international law depends on the recognition it receives or does
not receive from the community of nations
SOVEREIGNTY
• Sovereignty is the capacity to conduct international relations
• Sovereignty means independence from outside control
• Not always directly exercised by the people – Normally delegated by the people to the
government and to the concrete persons in whose hands the powers of government
temporarily reside
• Includes the concept that government officials have only the authority given to them by law
and defined by law – and such authority continues only with the consent of the people
• BUT states do not cease to be states because they have agreed not to engage in certain
international activities
• Since the ultimate law in the Philippine system is the Constitution, sovereignty, understood as
legal sovereignty, means the power to adapt or alter a constitution
• The power resides in the people
• Political sovereignty – sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and non-legal, which
determine the course of law
• Effects of Change in sovereignty
o Lazo: The general effect suggests the political laws of the former sovereign, whether
compatible or not with those of the new sovereign are automatically abrogated
unless otherwise states by an affirmative act of the new sovereign
o People v. Perfecto – . With the change of sovereignty, a new government, and a new
theory of government, was set up in the Philippines. It was no sense a continuation
of the old laws. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority
of such exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only in bated breath.
o Macariola v. Asuncion – Art 14 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, effective Aug
1888) of the Code of Commerce, prohibiting judges from engaging in commerce
was political in nature and so was automatically abrogated with the end of Spanish
rule in the country (Change of Sovereignty to the US by virtue of cession, 1898).
• Effects of Belligerent Occupation
6
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
o The effect of belligerent occupation indicates no change in sovereignty
o However political laws (except laws against national security) are suspended
o Municipal laws, are in force unless changed by the belligerent occupant.
• Doctrine of Jus Postliminium - political laws are automatically revived at the end of such
occupation
• Dominium v. Imperium
o Imperium – state’s authority to govern is embraced in the concept of sovereignty
o Dominium – the capacity of the state to own or acquire territory
• Derogation of Philippine Sovereignty:
o Bayan v. Zamora – Visiting Forces Agreement entered into by the Phils. under Pres.
Estrada (through a treaty) & the US. Ratified by the Senate through 2/3 vote,
concluded by exchange of notes. Grants tax exemption to all materials, equipment,
supplies, & other properties imported into or acquired in the Philippines by or on
behalf of the USAF in connection w/ such activities. They shall be free from all
import duties, taxes, & other similar charges. Personal baggage, effects & other
properties likewise may be imported free of said duties.
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
SUFFRAGE (ART. V. CONSTITUTION)
• The right and obligation to vote
• Requirements
o All citizens of the Philippines
o Age – 18 years as of the day of the election
o Residence – Domicile (habitually present and he intends to return, animus manendi
and animus non revertendi)
o Conditioned upon certain procedural requirements
o Congress can create disqualifications as long as they are not based on substantive
requirements
• Absentee Voting allowed
• Akbayan Youth v. COMELEC – The COMELEC was well within its right to do so pursuant to
the clear provisions of Section 8, RA 8189 which provides that no voters registration shall be
conducted within 120 days before the regular election. The right of suffrage is not absolute. It
is regulated by measures like voters registration which is not a mere statutory requirement. The
State, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to safeguard and
regulate the act of voter’s registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly
and peaceful election
• Makalintal v. COMELEC – There can be no absentee voting if the absentee voters are required
to physically reside in the Philippines within the period required for non-absentee voters.
Further, as understood in election laws, domicile and resident are interchangeably used. Hence,
one is a resident of his domicile (insofar as election laws is concerned). The domicile is the
place where one has the intention to return to. Thus, an immigrant who executes an affidavit
stating his intent to return to the Philippines is considered a resident of the Philippines for
purposes of being qualified as a voter (absentee voter to be exact). If the immigrant does not
execute the affidavit then he is not qualified as an absentee voter.
The said provision should be harmonized. It could not be the intention of Congress to
allow COMELEC to include the proclamation of the winners in the vice-presidential and
presidential race. To interpret it that way would mean that Congress allowed COMELEC to
usurp its power. The canvassing and proclamation of the presidential and vice presidential
elections is still lodged in Congress and was in no way transferred to the COMELEC by virtue
of RA 9189.
7
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
AMENDMENT PROCESS
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized
within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five
years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. 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.
Constitution of sovereignty – defines one constitutional meaning of sovereignty of the people as the
power to promulgate or alter the supreme law
Amendment vs. Revision
• Amendment – an alteration of one or a few specific and separable provisions
o To improve specific parts
o Add new provisions to meet new condition
o To suppress specific portions that are obsolete or dangerous
o Ex. Change in the age requirement for Congress
• Revision – total change of the Constitution
o Contemplates a reexamination of the basic structure or provision of the
document which have over-all implications for the entire document
o Effects of revision if it dehors the old constitution – the living link between the
old and the new constitution is severed.
o The result is a totally new expression of the sovereign will
o Ex. Change from presidential to parliamentary
PROPOSAL
- By Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly
o Amendments and revisions
o Congress upon a vote of 3/4ths of all its members
o Congress can decide the process of voting
o Essential is that if the two houses are in joint session, the must vote separately
o May not propose anything that is inconsistent with what jus cogens
o Once convened – it is endowed with extrajudicial powers generally beyond the
control of any department of the existing government
- By a Constitutional Convention
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
o Amendments and revisions
o Comes into existence when called by Congress by a vote of two thirds of all the
members
o May also be called by the people if Congress by Majority vote allows it
o Rules and procedure – determined by Congress
o Once constituted, it acts independently of Congress
o The use of the word electorate does not connote that a plebiscite to determine the
subject must be held concurrently with an election. A plebiscite can be held
independently
- By the people thru initiative
o Initiative ONLY it would be practically impossible to have an overall review of the
Constitution through action by the entire electoral population
o Without implementing legislation this cannot operate – as of now there is now law
yet
o Limitations:
§ An effective proposal must carry the support of at least twelve per centum
of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district
must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered votes
therein
§ This method of proposing amendments may not be used within five years
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every
five years thereafter
o Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC- Supreme Court held that R.A. 6735 as worded did
not apply to constitutional amendment. RA No. 6735 intended to include
Constitutional Amendments, inadequate to cover that system. It failed to provide a
subtitle for Constitutional amendments, failed to provide contents of the petition, &
failed to provide the detailed procedures but provided such for amendment of
statutes and local legislation.
- The choice as to whether to propose amendments or to call a constitutional convention for
that purpose or to do both was a question of wisdom and not of authority and hence was a
political question not subject to review by the courts
- Labino v. Comelec
o 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.
o 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 constitutes a revision.
o The changes proposed were not within the scope of initiative and referendum.
8
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
RATIFICATION
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be
valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or
revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days
after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
• Tolentino v. COMELEC – Doctrine of Proper Submission
o Plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election provided the people are
sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously
deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-
meal amendments is constitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for
ratification at one plebiscite only. The people have to be given a proper frame of
reference in arriving at their decision. They have no idea yet of what the rest of the
amended constitution would be.
• The time set for waiting before a plebiscite can be held is intended to give the electorate time
to study the proposed constitutional changes to avoid allowed the proposed changes to
become stale
• Not earlier than sixty days
o By a constituent body – starts from the approval of such amendment or revision by
the constituent body
o By initiative – starts from the certification by the Commission of Elections of the
sufficiency of the petitions
• The date of effectivity of any amendment or revision should ordinarily be the same as that of
the date of ratification, when the votes are cast. HOWEVER, the amendments can specify
otherwise
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 3:
THE STATE MAY NOT BE SUED WITHOUT ITS CONSENT
• Without such principle and with the propensity of the people to go to court, government can
be paralyzed by suits
• When the suit is one against the Republic of the Philippines, eo nomine, the suit is clearly
against the state
• USA v. Reyes –Public official acted without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him.
It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private
capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith,
or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.
IMMUNITY OF FOREIGN STATES & DIPLOMATS
o Principle of pai in parem non habet imperium
§ Equals do not have authority over one another
§ One sovereign power cannot exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign
power. It is the basis of the act of state doctrine and sovereign immunity
o Process of Suggestion
§ In the United States, the procedure followed is the process of 'suggestion,'
where the foreign state or the international organization sued in an
American court requests the Secretary of State to make a determination as
to whether it is entitled to immunity. If the Secretary of State finds that
the defendant is immune from suit, he, in turn, asks the Attorney General
to submit to the court a 'suggestion' that the defendant is entitled to
immunity.
§ It is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon
appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government
§ The Holy See v. RTC – The Holy See is immune from suit for the act of
selling the lot of concern is non-proprietary in nature..The lot was
acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. The
donation was made not for commercial purpose, but for the use of
petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal
Nuncio.
§ Only when business relations are conducted in the ordinary way (profit-
making) can a transaction said to have been done in private capacity.
DETERMINATION OF IMMUNITY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
9
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
• Liang v. People – Courts cannot blindly adhere to the communication from the DFA that the
petitioner is covered by any immunity. It has no binding effect in courts. The court needs to
protect the right to due process not only of the accused but also of the prosecution. Secondly,
the immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement is not absolute, but subject to the exception
that the acts must be done in “official capacity”
IMMUNITY OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES
• SEAFDEC v. NLRC – Intergovernmental organizations enjoy functional independence from
control of the state in whose territory its office is located.
• Callado v. IRRI – PD 1620 (a decree re the status, privileges, and prerogatives of the IRRI)
provides that the only way that the institute can waive rights is expressly through its Director-
General.
o Where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive
branch of the government, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of
immunity
• DFA v. NLRC – The DFA's function includes, among its other mandates, the determination
of persons and institutions covered by diplomatic immunities, a determination which, when
challenged,entitles it to seek relief from the court so as not to seriously impair the conduct of
the country's foreign relations
o The DFA must be allowed to plead its case whenever necessary or advisable to
enable it to help keep the credibility of the Philippine government before the
international community
IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
INCORPORATED
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
o Municipality of San Fernando v. Judge Firme – Municipal corporations are agencies of the State
when they are engaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign
immunity from suit. Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the performance of such
functions their charter provided that they can sue and be sued.
o Generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions
and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in a proprietary
capacity.
UNINCORPORATED
o If principal function is governmental – the need for consent would flow from the fact of
having been established for governmental purposed, which makes the corporation participate
in the immunity of the sovereign
o The fact than an unincorporated government entity performs a proprietary function does not
necessarily mean that it does not enjoy immunity from suits. If the propriety and non-
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
governmental function is undertaken as an incident to its government function, immunity is
not lost.
o Farolan v. CTA – As an unincorporated government agency without any separate
judicial personality of its own, the Bureau of Customs enjoys immunity from suit.
o Vested with an inherent power of taxation.
o Performs the governmental function of collecting revenues which is defined not a
proprietary function.
o If proprietary – suable because unincorporated corporations possess no juridical personality –
the suit is necessarily against the person of the agency’s principal, the state.
SUITS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS
• When the suit is against an officer of the state, inquiry must be made whether ultimate liability
will fall on the office or on the government
• If the liability falls on the government, it must be considered a suit against the state
• City of Angeles v. Court of Appeals – The Court ruled that public officials are not immune from
damages in their personal capacities arising from acts done in bad faith. In theory, the cost of
such demolition, and the reimbursement of the public funds expended in the construction
thereof, should be borne by the officials of the City of Angeles who ordered and directed such
construction. The public officials concerned deliberately violated the law and persisted in their
violations, going so far as attempting to deceive the courts by their pretended change of
purpose and usage for the center, and “making a mockery of the judicial system.” Indisputably,
said public officials acted beyond the scope of their authority and jurisdiction and with evident
bad faith
o Petitioners mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Angeles City
were sued only in their official capacities, hence, they could not be held personally
liable without first giving them their day in court. Prevailing jurisprudence holding
that public officials are personally liable for damages arising from illegal acts done in
bad faith are premised on said officials having been sued both in their official and
personal capacities.
• Veterans Manpower v. Court of Appeals – The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from
statutory authority. Without such consent, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
public respondents.
• Wylie v. Rarang – The petitioners were negligent because under their direction, they issued the
publication without deleting the said name. Such act or omission was ultra vires and cannot be
deemed part of official duty. State may not be sued without its consent. The doctrine of
incorporation is applicable not only to suits against the state but also to complaint filed against
officials for acts that are in the discharge of their duties.
CONSENT TO BE SUED
EXPRESS CONSENT
10
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
o Republic v. Feliciano – Suit against the state is not permitted, except upon a showing that the
State has consented to be sued, either expressly of by implication through the use of statutory
language too plain to be misinterpreted. It may be invoked at any stage of the proceedings.
Waiver of immunity, will not be inferred lightly, but must be construed strictly.
o General Law – (Ex. CA 327, PD 1445)
o A general law authorizes any person who meets the conditions state in the law to sue
the government in accordance with the procedure specified in the law
o Art. 2180 – The state is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special
agent
o Act. No. 3038 – Ordinary rule for execution will not apply after money judgment
against the government for the consent to be sued is only up to the point of
judgment
o Special Law
o A special law waiving immunity may come in the form of a private bill authorizing a
named individual to bring a suit on a specified claim
o Meritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands – The Government may expressly waive its
consent to be sued. In this case, it was done through Act 2547,
o An Act authorizing E. Merritt to bring suit against the Government of the
Philippine Islands and authorizing the Attorney-General of said Islands to appear in
said suit.
o The government can give express consent to be sued. It simply waives its immunity
from suit, it does not automatically submit itself to liability in favor of the plaintiff
IMPLIED CONSENT
o When State commences litigation
o Opens itself to whatever counterclaims or defenses the private individual may have
against the state
o Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping – Appellees Froilan, Compania Maratma, and the
Republic of the Philippines are declared liable for the reimbursement to appellant of
its legitimate expenses, as allowed by law, with legal interest from the time of
disbursement
o HOWEVER! There is no implied waiver of immunity when the state files a
complaint in intervention merely to resist a claim
o When State enters into a business contract
o When the state authorizes an agency not to maintain a necessary function of
government but to run what is essentially a business – by engaging in an enterprise
normally undertaken by a private citizen, the state descends to the level of a private
citizen and sheds some sovereignty
o BUT if it is merely incidental to the performance of governmental functions,
immunity is not waived.
o USA v. Ruiz – The state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual
and impliedly consented to be sued when it enters into business contracts. But It
does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.
In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the
defense of both the US & Phil., they are not utilized for nor dedicated to
commercial or business purpose
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
SUABILITY NOT OUTRIGHT LIABILITY
• By consenting to be sued, the state does not concede it’s liability, it is not an admission of guilt
• Waiver of immunity from suit does not deprive the state of the right to interpose any lawful
dense
• Meritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands – the government is not liable for the negligent act of
the ambulance driver.
o The state is not responsible for the damages suffered by private individuals in
consequence of acts performed by its employees in the discharge of the functions
pertaining to their office.
o In the case at bar, the ambulance driver was not a special agent nor was a
government officer acting as a special agent hence, there can be no liability from the
government.
o By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not
thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or
extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy
to enforce a preexisting liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court,
subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense
CONSENT TO BE SUED DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSENT TO
EXECUTION
• Even when the government has been adjudged liable – it does not necessarily follow that the
judgment can be enforced by execution
• Public funds cannot be disbursed unless there has been a proper appropriation by law
• Republic v. Villasor – The funds of the AFP are public funds duly appropriated and allocated for
the payment of pensions of retirees, pay and allowances of military and civilian personnel and
for maintenance and operations of the AFP.
• gov’t funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to
satisfy such judgments for obvious considerations of public policy. The functions and public
services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion
of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.
o The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties
either by general or special law is limited “only up to the completion of proceedings
anterior to the state of execution” and that the power of the Courts ends when the
judgment is rendered.
• Municipality of San Miguel v. Fernandez – All the funds of the municipality in the possession of the
Municipal Treasurer of San Miguel and of Bulacan, are public funds which are exempt from
execution as stated under Presidential Decree No. 477, "The Decree on Local Fiscal
Administration", Section 2, paragraph (a): No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in
pursuance of a lawful appropriation or other specific statutory authority. There must be an
ordinance duly passed by the Sangguniang Bayan for corresponding appropriation before any
money of the municipality may be paid.
11
Constitutional Law I – Midterms Ina Cojuangco Guingona

o Unlike the State which has the immunity of not being sued without its consent, A
municipal corporation is an example of an incorporated agency which has a charter
of its own that grants them the competence to sue and be sued. However, municipal
government is generally not liable for torts committed during the discharge of its
governmental functions. It can be held liable only if it has been proven that they
were acting in a proprietary function. Failing to do this, the claimant cannot recover
• Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals – Absent a showing that the municipal council of
Makati has passed an ordinance appropriating the said amount from its public funds deposited
in their PNB account, no levy under execution may be validly effected. However, this court
orders petitioner to pay for the said land which has been in their use already. This Court will
not condone petitioner's blatant refusal to settle its legal obligation arising from expropriation
of land they are already enjoying.
o Public funds are not subject to levy and execution, unless otherwise provided for by
statute. Municipal revenues derived from taxes, licenses and market fees, and which
are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental
activities and functions of the municipality, are exempt from execution
o The State's power of eminent domain should be exercised within the bounds of fair
play and justice.

IMMUNITY CANNOT BE USED TO PERPETRATE AN INJUSTICE ON A

CITIZEN

• Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu – There was a failure on what the law requires and the
petitioners have the right to demand from the Government what is due to them. The Supreme
Court decided that the lower court’s decision of dismissing the complaint is reversed and the
case remanded to the lower court for proceedings in accordance with law.
o The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot be an instrument for
perpetrating an injustice on a citizen
o When the government takes property for public use without going through the legal
process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly
maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of
governmental immunity from suit without its consent

Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance 12
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
PREAMBLE
We, the Sovereign Filipino People, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society,
and establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and
develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the
rule of law, and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this
Constitution.
• Sets down the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution
• People put their mark of approval by ratifying it in a plebiscite
• Scope and purpose – establish a government endowed with the enumerated ideals, principally
the rule of law, truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace
• Seeks to build a society that is just and humane
LEGAL VALUE OF ARTICLE II, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
- Tondo Medical v. Court of Appeals – The provisions of the Constitution that are considered self-
executing do not require future legislation for their enforcement. For if they are not treated as
self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law can be easily nullified by the inaction of
Congress.
- Article II of the Constitution is a “declaration of principles and state policies.” These
principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement
through the courts, and therefore, cannot give rise to a cause of action in the courts as they do
not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights. The judiciary uses them as aids or as
guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of
laws.
- Bases Convention and Development Authority v. Commission on Audit – Every presumption should be
indulged in favor of the constitutionality of RA No. 7227 and the burden of proof is on the
BCDA to show that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. A law enacted
by Congress enjoys the strong presumption of constitutionality. To justify its nullification,
there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and
unequivocal one. BCDA fails to provide sufficient prove of unconstitutionality of RA 7227
(which limits BCDA's power to give compensation)
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
REPUBLICANISM
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them.
Republicanism is a democratic government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The
people are the source of all power emanating from the government and they can choose their
leaders through elections. It is one where the powers of the state are held and exercised by a
specific person or groups of persons
The Philippines is a democratic and republican state
MANIFESTATIONS
• Nemo est supra legis – nobody is above the law
o People and government must respect and observe the Constitution as the
fundamental law of the land in all decisions and actions of governance
o Villacicencio v. Lukban - whereby the just hope expressed in the majority decision will
be realized, that is, that in the Philippine Islands there should exist a government of
laws and not a government of men and that this decision may serve to bulwark the
fortifications of an orderly Government of laws and to protect individual liberty
from illegal encroachments.
• Rule of majority
o The rule of majority prevails over the minority for any decision, action, or law which
shall be passed in the observance of the acceptance of the majority
• Accountability of Public Officers – Article XI
o Framework of the governing rules on accountability and trust
o Allows impeachment for culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public
trust, crimes involving moral turpitude
• Bill of Rights
o Enumeration of rights of individuals covering all aspects of political, civil, social,
culture, and economic rights
• Legislature cannot pass irrepealably laws
o The Congress must be flexible and allow change in the laws to address the growing
needs of the constituencies
o All laws are not permanent; they may be modified, amended, or revised according to
law.
SEPARATION OF POWER
- To prevent concentration in one person or group of persons that might lead to irreparable
error or abuse in exercise of powers. Each government branch has exclusive or separate
functions from the other branch
- Principle of Blending of Powers – when powers are not confined exclusively within one
department but are assigned to or shared by several departments
13
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
o Ex. The Legislative approves the budget prepared by the Executive
- Principle of Checks and Balances – Allows one department to resist encroachment upon its
prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excess committed by the other departments
o Ex. The appointing power of the Executive must be confirmed by the Legislative
o The Steel Seizure Case (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer) - The President has
limited inherent authority. He may have a legislative power in “theaters of war”. The
President can act without Congress when it is an emergency and Congress has not
negated such action that the President wishes to undertake.
o Bowsher v. Synar – The Act was unconstitutional. Congress controls the Comptroller
General. The Act's provisions give him, not the President, the ultimate authority in
determining what budget cuts are to be made. By placing the responsibility for
execution of the Act in the hands of an officer who is subject to removal only by
itself, Congress in effect has retained control over the Act's execution and has
unconstitutionally intruded into the executive function.
§ Under the constitutional principle of separation of powers, Congress
cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with
the execution of the laws except by impeachment. To permit the
execution of the laws to be vested in an officer answerable only to
Congress would, in practical terms, reserve in Congress control of the
execution of the laws. The structure of the Constitution does not permit
Congress to execute the laws; it follows that Congress cannot grant to an
officer under its control what it does not possess. The Congress retained
removal authority (a legislative power), it shall not be entrusted with
executive powers.
o Senate v. Ermita – EO464 Section 3 is unconstitutional since the enumeration in
Section 2(b) has been held to be broad and was not covered by the doctrine of
executive privilege.
§ The doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact that certain
information must, as a matter of necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit
of the public interest. The privilege being, by definition, an exemption
from the obligation to disclose information, in this case to Congress, the
necessity must be of such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in
enforcing that obligation in a particular case.
NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS
- Phil. Interisland Shipping Association v. Court of Appeals – The fixing of rates is essentially a
legislative power. The orders previously issued by the PPA were in the nature of subordinate
legislation, promulgated by it in the exercise of delegated power. As such these could only be
amended or revised by law, as the President did by E.O. No. 1088. He issued P.D. No. 857
which created the PPA, endowing it with the power to regulate pilotage service in Philippine
ports. Although the power to fix rates for pilotage had been delegated to the PPA, it became
necessary to rationalize the rates of charges fixed by it through the imposition of uniform rates.
E.O. No. 1088 is not meant simply to fix new pilotage rates. Its legislative purpose is the
"rationalization of pilotage service charges, through the imposition of uniform and adjusted
rates for foreign and coastwise vessels in all Philippine ports." Being a mere administrative
agency, PPA cannot validly issue orders or regulations that would have the effect of rendering
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
nugatory the provisions of the legislative issuance such as those of the executive order in
question.
- Potestas delegate non delegare potest
o Once an act or function is delegated, it cannot be further delegated
o Delegated power constitutes not only a right, but a duty to be performed by the
delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the
intervening mind of another
PERMISSIBLE DELEGATION
- Corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of non-delegation of powers.
- Potestas delegata non delegari potest- What has been delegated cannot be delegated
- Such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate
through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of
another.
- The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of the
government but is especially important in the case of the legislative power because of the many
instances when its delegation is permitted.
- Tariff powers to the President
o Section 28(2). The Congress may by law authorize the President to fix within
specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose,
tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties
or imposts, within the framework of the national development program of the
Government.
o Reason for the delegation: The necessity, not to say expediency, of giving the Chief
Executive the authority to act immediately on certain matters affecting the national
economy lest delay result in hardship to the people
- Emergency Powers to the President
o Section 23(2). In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may by law
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it
may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared
national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such
powers shall cease upon its next adjournment.”
o When emergency powers are delegated to the President, he becomes in effect a
constitutional dictator.
o Conditions for the vesture of emergency powers in the President are the following:
§ There must be a war or other national emergency.
§ The delegation must be for a limited period only.
§ The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may
prescribe.
§ The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy
declared by the Congress.
o “Other national emergency” may include rebellion, economic crisis, pestilence or
epidemic, typhoon, flood or other similar catastrophe of nation-wide proportions or
effect.
14
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
o Conferment of emergency powers on the President is NOT MANDATORY on the
Congress.
o The emergency does not automatically confer emergency powers on the President.
o First Emergency Powers - Under the doctrine of separation of the powers of
government, the law-making functions is assigned exclusively to the legislative, and
the legislative branch cannot delegate the power to make laws to any other authority.
But it must be borne in mind that what cannot be delegated is that which is purely
legislative in nature, not administrative. There are powers so far legislative that may
properly be exercised by the legislature, but which may nevertheless be delegated
because they may be advantageously exercised in proper cases by persons belonging
to the other departments of the government, such as the authority to make rules and
regulations of administrative character to carry out an legislative purposes or to
effect the operation and enforcement of a law.
o “In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may by law authorize
the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe,
to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out a declared national policy.” (Art. VI,
Sec. 26, Commonwealth Constitution).
o Second Emergency Powers – The EO’s issued in pursuant to CA 671 shall be rendered
ineffective. The president did not invoke any actual emergencies or calamities
emanating from the last world war for which CA671 has been intended.
- Delegation to the People
o Referendum- a method of submitting an important legislative measure to a direct
vote of the whole people.
o Plebiscite- a device to obtain a direct popular vote on a matter of political
importance, but chiefly in order to create a some more or less permanent political
condition
- Delegation to Local Government Units - local governments may be allowed to legislate on
purely local matters
o Based on the recognition that local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the
national lawmaking body on matters of purely local concern and are therefore in a
better position to enact the necessary and appropriate legislation thereon.
o Local affairs managed by local authorities and General affairs by the central
authority.
- Delegation to the Administrative Bodies
o With this power administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down
in a statute by “filling in” the details which the Congress may not have the
opportunity or competence to provide.
o This is effected by their promulgation of what are know as SUPPLEMENTARY
REGULATIONS.
o They may also issue contingent regulations pursuant to a delegation of authority to
determine some fact or state of things upon which the enforcement of law depends.
In other words, they are allowed to ascertain the existence of particular
contingencies and on the basis thereof enforce or suspend the operation of a law.
o Powers of Subordinate Legislation
§ Miners Association v. Factoran – Well -settled is the rule, that regardless of
the reservation clause, mining leases or agreements granted by the State,
such as those granted pursuant to Executive Order No. 211 referred to
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
this petition, are subject to alterations through a reasonable exercise of the
police power of the State.
§ Accordingly, the State, in the exercise of its police power in this regard,
may not be precluded by the constitutional restriction on non-impairment
of contract from altering, modifying and amending the mining leases or
agreements granted under Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended,
pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. Police Power, being co-extensive
with the necessities of the case and the demands of public interest;
extends to all the vital public needs. The passage of Executive Order No.
279 which superseded Executive Order No. 211 provided legal basis for
the DENR Secretary to carry into effect the mandate of Article XII,
Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
o Principle of Subdelegation of Powers
§ A far wider range of delegations to subordinate officers. This sub-
delegation of power has been justified by “sound principles of
organization” which demand that “those at the top be able to concentrate
their attention upon the larger and more-important questions of policy
and practice, and their time be freed, so far as possible, from the
consideration of the smaller and far less important matters of detail.
§ While the power to decide resides solely in the administrative agency
vested by law, this does not preclude a delegation of the power to hold a
hearing on the basis of which the decision of the administrative agency
will be made.
§ The rule that requires an administrative officer to exercise his own
judgment and discretion does not preclude him from utilizing as a matter
of practical administrative procedure, the aid of subordinates to
investigate and report to him the facts, on the basis of which the officer
makes his decisions.
• It is sufficient that the judgment and discretion finally exercised
are those of the officer authorized by law. There is no
abnegation of responsibility on the part of the officer
concerned as the actual decision remains with and is made by
said officer.
• It is, however, required that to “give the substance of a hearing,
which is for the purpose of making determinations upon
evidence, the officer who makes the determinations must
consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them.”
o Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
§ Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, department secretaries are
alter egos or assistants of the President and their acts are presumed to be
those of the latter unless disapproved or reprobated by him.
§ Thus, as a rule, an aggrieved party affected by the decision of a cabinet
secretary need not appeal to the Office of the President and may file a
petition for certiorari directly in the Court of Appeals assailing the act of
the said secretary.
- Test for valid delegation
o Completeness Test
15
Constitutional Law I – Midterms Ina Cojuangco Guingona

§ The law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it § Hirabayashi v. United States - The US supreme Court affirmed the
leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to constitutionality of EO 9066 pointing out the necessity to adapt such
do when it reaches him except to enforce it. measures in time of war to prevent the country from espionage and
§ If there are gaps in the law that will prevent its enforcement unless they sabotage. In addition, the Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality
are first filed, the delegate will then have been given the opportunity to of the Congress delegating its legislative function to another. The
step into the shoes of the legislature and to exercise a discretion essentially Proclamation No. 3, EO 9066 and HR 1911 should not be taken
legislative in order to repair the omission. This is INVALID individually but is rather each as an affirmation of the other and that they
DELEGATION. are all in conformity.
§ Determine: § Chiongbian v. Orbos – in conferring on the President the power to merge by
• What is to be examined: administrative determination the existing regions following the
• subject matter (what is delegated) establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Congress
merely followed the pattern set in previous legislation dating back to the
• scope of the subject matter or measure
initial organization of administrative regions in 1972. The choice of the
• what job must be done President as delegate is logical because the division of the country into
• authority (who is to do it) regions is intended to facilitate not only the administration of local
• scope of authority governments but also the direction of executive departments, which the
o Sufficient Standard Test law requires should have regional offices. While the power to merge
§ It is intended to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority by administrative regions is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it
defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under is a power which has traditionally been lodged with the President to
which it is to be pursued and effected. facilitate the exercise of the power of general supervision over local
§ PURPOSE: to prevent a total transference of legislative power from the governments.
lawmaking body to the delegate. • State Immunity – one cannot sue an entity which gives him the right to sue
§ Examine • Election through popular will - Election as a mechanism of democracy through the rule of
• legislative policy (“whereas” clauses) majority
• specific administrative agency to apply the legislative policy
• scope of the policy and the circumstances under which it is to
be carried out
o Ynot v. IAC – The Supreme Court found that the challenged measure is an invalid
exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos
is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly
oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is
denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and
punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge
the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and
militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, also an
invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are
granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken.
o De la Llana v. Alba – the Supreme Court is empowered “to discipline judges of
inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight members, order their dismissal.” Thus
it possesses the competence to remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the
President who was vested with such power. Removal is, of course, to be
distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition of the office. There can be
no tenure to a non-existent office. After the abolition, there is in law no occupant.
In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his
position. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any
impairment of security of tenure does not arise.”
o Legislative standard need not be expressed

Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance 16
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
ACT OF STATE
Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
• Renunciation of war (Article II, Sec. 2)
o Does not merely renounce war
o Refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the UN
o Adherence to a policy of peace, freedom and amity with all nations
• Incorporation Clause (Article II, Sec. 2)
o Generally recognized customs of international law form party of our domestic law
o Customary law – becomes part of domestic law by the doctrine of incorporation
o Treaty law becomes part of the law of the land when concurred in by the Philippine
o Conflict between municipal law and international law
§ Municipal law will prevail because international law is basically only
directory and persuasive law
o Ichong v. Hernandez – a law may supersede a treaty or a
o generally accepted principle. In this case, there is no conflict at all between the raised
generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law
clause “does not demand absolute equality amongst residents; it merely requires that
all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to
privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”; and, that the equal protection clause “is
not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a
specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable
grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and
those who do not.”
o For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in
conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an
exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or
surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his
right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market.
Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of
the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty
of the State and the integrity of the national territory.
• Civilian Supremacy -Inherent characteristic of republicanism
• The supremacy of the civilian authority over the military is endured in the capacity of the
President (a civilian) is made the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
• The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the state. Its goal is to
secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory
• Protector of the people – corrective to military abuses experienced during martial rule
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
• Disapproval of military abuses and guardianship of state sovereignty, the sovereignty of the
people
• Military exercise of political power can be justified as a last resort – when civilian authority has
lost its legitimacy
• IBP v. Zamora - the Marines only assist the PNP, the LOI itself provides for this. In fact, the
PNP Chief is the leader of such patrols and in no way places the over-all authority in the
Marines.
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or
civil service.
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property,
and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.
• Government to serve and protect the people - prime duty
o Must protect the people from lawless violence and undesirable elements of society
o Must uphold the independence of the state
o National defense remains a duty of the state but it is placed merely as one of the
modes or serving and protecting the people
• People to defend the State
o To suppress lawless violence or in case of invasion, the government may call upon
its citizen in defense of the state when public safety so requires
o For self-defense
o The service is compulsory
o It is a personal service rendered to the state – only active duty
o Civil service involvement or community participation may be required by the state
o Must be consistent and conform to law
o The police force is empowered to promote peace and order
o National defense is the responsibility of the Armed forces
o Extraordinary situations – the President may call on the Armed Forces to assist the
police
Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
• Separation of Church and State – non-establishment clause
• The State shall not intervene in the affairs of the Church
• The Church must not interfere with the authority and powers of the State
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other
states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity,
national interest, and the right to self-determination.
• Independent Foreign Policy
17
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
• Philippines shall pursue the principles of independence and self-determination; enhance the
welfare of the people based on national interests.
• Relations covers treaties, international agreements and other kinds of intercourse
• Principle which no will dispute but fidelity to which will always be a matter of dispute
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy
of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
• Nuclear Free Philippines
• The ban is on nuclear arms – the use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, devices, and parts
thereof, nuclear tests, use of our territory as a dumping ground for nuclear waste
• NOT a ban on PEACEFUL uses of nuclear energy NOR nuclear-capable vessels
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the
prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies
that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and
an improved quality of life for all.
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
• Just and dynamic social order and social justice
• Humanization of laws for the interest of common good and the equalization of the social and
economic forces by the State
• Calalang v. Williams – Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the
necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection
that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and
economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of
promoting the health, comfort and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest
good to the greatest number."
• Those who have less in life should have more in law
• Go beyond what was covered by the 1935 and 1973
• The new constitution covers all phases of national development but with emphasis not just on
the socio-economic but also political and cultural inequities
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights.
• Respect for human dignity and human rights
• The government has the responsibility to respect and protect human rights of every individual
– the state cannot violate or prevent the exercise or enjoyment of those rights
Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen
the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character
shall receive the support of the Government.
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall
promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It
shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in
public and civic affairs.
• Meyer v. Nebraska – Liberty means more than freedom from bodily restraint. State regulation of
liberty must be reasonably related to a proper state objective. The legislature's view of
reasonableness was subject to supervision by the courts.
• Pierce v. Society of Sisters – the fundamental liberty upon which all governments in this Union
repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to
accept instruction from public teachers only."
• Wisonsin v. Yoder – The parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion outweighed the state's
interest in educating its children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents' right to educate
their children outside of traditional private or public schools.
• Cabanas v. Pilapil – The Constitution provides for the strengthening of the family as the basic
social unit, and that whenever any member thereof such as in the case at bar would be
prejudiced and his interest be affected then the judiciary if a litigation has been filed should
resolve according to the best interest of that person.
• Malto v. People – The “sweetheart theory” cannot be invoked for purposes of sexual intercourse
and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610. Consent is immaterial because the
mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is
subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense. Moreover, a child is presumed by law to be
incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse
• The family is to be understood as a stable heterosexual relationship
• It does not assert that the life of the unborn is placed on exactly the same level as the life of
the mother. If necessary to save the life of the mother, the unborn’s life may be sacrificed
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
• Fundamental Equality of men and women
• Patriotism and nationalism and encourage involvement
• Ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men
• The intent was not to achieve an ipso facto repeal of laws offensive to equality but merely to
give a push to statutory legislation that would eliminate the inequalities found in existing law
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
• Clear desire to make environmental protection and ecological balance conscious objects of
police power
• Speak of the people’s right to health and balanced ecology, they confer rights which can be
enforced by the courts – self-executory
• Oposa v. Factoran – petitioners have a cause of action. The case at bar is of common interest to
all Filipinos. The right to a balanced and healthy ecology carries with it the correlative duty to
18
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
refrain from impairing the environment. The said right implies the judicious management of
the country’s forests. This right is also the mandate of the government through DENR. A
denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to
respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. All licenses may thus be revoked or
rescinded by executive action.
Section 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture,
and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total
human liberation and development.
• Priority to education, science and technology
• Flagship provision to Art. XIV
• Education and total human development as the gateway to intellectual and moral development,
economic advances, and the cultivation of yearning for freedom and justice
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare.
• Protection to labor
• Protect the rights workers and promote their welfare
• Human factor over the non-human factors in production
Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos.
Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages
private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.
• 19 – An independent and nationalist approach to economic development
• 20 – Affirmation that the private sector is an indispensible engine of development
• Self-reliant and independent national economy
• Effecitvely controlled by Filipinos
• More equitable distribution of opportunities, income, wealth,
• A sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the
benefit of the people
• Expanding productivity to raise the quality of life for all
• Tañada v. Angara – In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “adopts
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres
to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. By
the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of
international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws.
• Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is
not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.
Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.
• Land Reform – must be comprehensive.
• Rural development is not just agricultural development. It encompasses a broad spectrum of
social, economic, human, cultural, political, and even industrial development.
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
• Association of Small Land Owners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform – Eminent domain is an inherent
power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon
payment of just compensation to the owner. Obviously, there is no need to expropriate where
the owner is willing to sell under terms also acceptable to the purchaser, in which case an
ordinary deed of sale may be agreed upon by the parties
• Regalian Doctrine
o All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other minerals
oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife, flora, and
fauna and natural resources belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural
lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. (Sec. 2 Art XII)
o Republic v. Court of Appeals, CCP Intervenor – The duty of the court is to interpret the
enabling Act, RA 1899. In so doing, we cannot broaden its meaning; much less
widen the coverage thereof. If the intention of Congress were to include submerged
areas, it should have provided expressly. That Congress did not so provide could
only signify the exclusion of submerged areas from the term “foreshore lands.”
o Cruz v. DENR Secretary – Ancestral domains may include public domain – somehow
against the regalian doctrine.
o La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v. DENR Secretary – RA 7942 or the Philippine
Mining Act of 1995 is unconstitutional for permitting fully foreign owned
corporations to exploit the Philippine natural resources.
§ Article XII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution retained the Regalian
Doctrine which states that ―All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the
State. The same section also states that, ―the exploration and
development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State.
• Inalienable Lands of the Public Domain
o Chavez v. PEA & AMARI – To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public
domain to be transferred to PEA as private lands will sanction a gross violation of
the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable
land of the public domain.
Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities
within the framework of national unity and development.
• Indigenous Cultural Communities
• Cruz v. DENR Secretary – Cruz, assailed the validity of the RA 8371 or the Indigenous People’s
Rights Act on the ground that the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s
ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources
therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution. Cruz et al contend that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of
“ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands” which might even include private lands found
within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of said law violate the rights of private landowners.
o The Supreme Court deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation they voted and
reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again and the same result transpired. Since
19
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
there was no majority vote, Cruz’s petition was dismissed and the IPRA law was
sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may include public domain – somehow against
the regalian doctrine
Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral
organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.
• Independent People’s organizations
• Organized to protect the interest of the poor, underserved, or marginalized groups in society
• Volunteerism and participation of NGOs in national development should be encouraged
Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-
building.
• Communication and information in nation-building
• Vital in achieving national interest
• Communication – better interactions to increase productivity
Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
• Autonomy of Local Governments
• Local Government Code of 1991
• Decentralization of Administration vs. decentralization of Power
• Limbonas v. Mangelin
• Decentralization of Administration: delegation by the central gov’t of administrative powers to
political subdivisions, to broaden the base of government power & make local governments
more responsive & accountable & “ensure their development as self-reliant communities and
make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and progress”.
• Decentralization of Power: involves the abdication of power in favor of autonomous local
governments. The autonomous government is free to manage its affairs with minimum
intervention from central authorities. An autonomous government enjoying autonomy under
this category is only subject to the organic act creating it and accepted principles on the effects
& limits of “autonomy”.
• Basco v. PAGCOR – taxing power of LGUs are subject to such guidelines and limitation as
Congress may provide.
• The City of Manila, being a mere Municipal corporation has no inherent right to impose taxes.
Congress, therefore, has the power of control over Local governments
• PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an original charter, PD 1869.
All of its shares of stocks are owned by the National Government. Otherwise, its operation
might be burdened, impeded or subjected to control by a mere Local government.
• Autonomous Region
o Disomangcop v. DWPH Secretary –DO119 is violative of the provisions of EO426
(issued pursuant to RA6734). The 1987 Constitution mandates regional autonomy to
give a bold and unequivocal answer to the cry for a meaningful, effective and
forceful autonomy.
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
o Autonomy, as a national policy, recognizes the wholeness of the Philippine society
in its ethnolinguistic, cultural and even religious diversities. It strives to free
Philippine society of the strain and wastage caused by the assimilationist approach.
o Policies emanating from the legislature are invariably assimilationist in character
despite channels being open for minority representation.
o A necessary prerequisite of autonomy is decentralization. Decentralization is a
decision by the central government authorizing its subordinates, whether
geographically or functionally defined, to exercise authority in certain areas. It
involves decision-making by subnational units. It is typically a delegated power,
wherein a larger government chooses to delegate certain authority to more local
governments.
Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take
positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.
Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
• Honest public service and full public disclosure
• In order to be effective, public officers should be accountable, transparent and neutral
• Good governance and responsible citizenship
• Bernas: Political dynasties, they have the means and are still voted for, how do you stop that.
• Supposed to impose on the state the obligation of guaranteeing equal access to public office
• It is meant to be a blow in the direction of democratizing political power
• The state is commanded to prohibit political dynasties – but the electorate has to be left free to
decide whom to choose
• The meaning of political dynasty is for the Congress to define
• Constitutional confession of the prevalence of graft and corruption
• The right to information guarantees the right of people to demand information, and the
availability even if it is not demanded
• The provisions are not self-executory
20
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
ARTICLE VIII: JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
as may be established by law.
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 the Government.
• Judicial power is the measure of what the judiciary can do
• Judicial power is the right to determine actual controversy arising between adverse litigants
duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction
• Before a court can act, its power must first be invoked by parties seeking the settlement of an
actual controversy by the application of existing law
• Expanded jurisdiction – under 1987 Constitution the courts can now 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 the government
o Response to protect against what Marcos’ regime’s tendency to hide behind the
political question doctrine
o It is not meant to do away with the political questions doctrine itself
o Not every abuse of discretion can be the occasion for the Court to intervene – it
must be amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
JURISDICTION (SEC. 2)
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of
its Members.
• Kinds of jurisdiction (original, appellate, general, limited, exclusive, and concurrent)
• Unless there is an applicable law, courts are without power to settle controversies
• The congress creates courts and determines which court or courts shall have jurisdiction over
various types of controversies
• All courts, except the Supreme Court are creations of Congress
• The authority to create courts also includes the authority to abolish courts
• Congress may not use the power to abolish courts as a subterfuge for removing unwanted
judges – abolition of office is valid when done in good faith and not for political or personal
reasons
• Implicit in the authority of Congress to create courts and apportion their jurisdiction is also the
authority to abolish courts
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
• Necessarily, the termination of the tenure of whoever may be occupying the offices abolished
• Distinguish between an attempt to create a second Supreme court and conferment of
additional jurisdiction upon the one existing Supreme Court
• Sec. 30 of Article 6 provides that no law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
o Diaz v. Court of Appeals –EO No. 172, creating the Energy Regulation Board (ERB),
which was enacted when the 1987 Constitution was already in effect, vested the
Supreme Court with jurisdiction over ERB w/o its advice & concurrence, rendering
it inoperative.
o First Lepanto Ceramics v. Court of Appeals – After the enactment of the 1987
Constitution, EO NO. 226, the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 repealed BP.
No. 129 w/c vested appellate jurisdiction over BOI orders to the IAC (now the CA)
& now provided that all appeals from the decisions of said board shall be filed
directly w/ the Supreme Court – added without concurrence
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
• Justices/judges may not be designated to any agency performing non-judicial function
o Judges may not be given any assignment that is not judicial in nature
o Explicit application of the principle of separation of powers
• Fiscal Autonomy
o Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the
Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated
for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released.
o The appropriation for any given year may not be lower than the amount
appropriated for the previous year
o Once approved, the appropriation should be automatically released without need for
approval by an executive officer
Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular
session of the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the
operations and activities of the Judiciary.
• The Supreme Court must still make an annual report to the President and to Congress
detailing the operations and activities of the judiciary to enable the judiciary to inform
government about its needs
JUDICIAL POWER V.S. POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
• Power of Judicial Review: The Court’s power to invalidate a treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
by declaring it unconstitutional
21
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
• The power to declare unconstitutional the application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations even if the legal basis for
the action is in itself constitutional
• It necessarily involves a search for an applicable law
• Judicial review can only be exercised in the context of exercising judicial power
• Lower courts also possess judicial power – not an exclusive power of the Supreme Court
• Duties of the Court of Justice – Judicial power
o To settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable
o 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 the
government
§ When an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law, or
jurisprudence
§ When it is executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice,
ill will or personal bias
• By the principle of separation of powers, courts may neither attempt to assume nor be
compelled to perform non-judicial functions
• There is no inherent power in the Executive or Legislature to charge the Judiciary with
administrative functions except when reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of judicial duties
• A declaration of unconstitutionality made by the supreme court constitutes a precedent
binding on all, while a similar decision of an inferior court binds only the parties in the case
• The Supreme Court does not give advisory opinions. The giving of such opinions is not the
exercise of the judicial function
• The Supreme Court does not entertain original petitions for declaratory relief
• Marbury v. Madison - It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law
is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If
courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of
the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they
both apply.
o The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all
cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which
a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate
jurisdiction.” If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to
apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to
the will of that body, this section is useless and entirely without meaning.
• Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona - The Court rules that the validity of the selection of members of
the Senate Electoral Tribunal by the senators was not a political question. The choice of these
members did not depend on the Senate's "full discretionary authority," but was subject to
mandatory constitutional limitations. Thus, the Court held that not only was it clearly within its
jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the selection proceedings, but it was also its duty to
consider and determine the issue. It is clear that this Court has jurisdiction over the petition. It
is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether indeed the Senate or
its officials committed a violation of the Constitution or gravely abuse their discretion in
exercise of their functions and prerogatives.
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
• Francisco v. House of Representatives - The court’s power of judicial review, like almost all powers
conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several limitations, namely: (1) an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must
have “standing” to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such
that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the
question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the
issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
The judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a branch of government or any
of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to
constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of
jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but also a duty to pass judgment on matters of
this nature…” a duty which cannot be abdicated by the mere specter of the political law
doctrine.
JUDICIAL SUPREMACY V.S. CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY
Bernas: The superiority of the Constitution to any official act of government is rooted in the very essence of modern
constitutionalism. Modern Constitutionalism separates government from sovereignty. Sovereignty belongs to the people
and the Constitution is the written instrument through which the people entrust to the government a measure of its own
sovereignty.
• If the applicable law is either a statute or a constitutional precept and two are irreconcilable.
The court must choose between the two
• The constitution is superior to any act of the legislature
• The constitution must govern the case
• The power of judicial review is not an abstract revisory power over the actions of Congress of
Executive – only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to
determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties
in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them
• While the Judiciary is regarded as the weakest of the three departments, the Judiciary is still
vested with the power to annul the acts of either the legislative or the executive, or both of
them when not conformable to the fundamental law
22
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
POLITICAL VS. JUSTICIABLE QUESTION
• The Court will not touch political questions
• Political questions – those which should be decided by political authority, to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government
• Baker v. Carr – guideline for determining if it is political
o Textual – textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to a political department
o Functional – policy issues or wisdom issues which belong to the legislature or the
executive
§ Assumption of jurisdiction whenever the Court finds constitutionally
imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies.
o Prudential – ELIMINATED, what was used in Marcos era and now the Supreme
Court’s jurisdiction is broader
§ Impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without
expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government
§ Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already
made
§ Potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by
various departments on one issue
• The Court cannot be called to overrule the President’s wisdom or substitute its own. However,
this does not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised within permissible
constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of
discretion
o Court must have to depart from the principle of separation of powers
• US v. Nixon - A constitutional question arises with regard to the admissibility of evidence as
opposed to executive privilege invoked by the President; and it is upon the Supreme Court to
exercise its duty to resolve the matter in accordance with the law & the Constitution.
• Goldwater v. Carter - Whether or not a President can terminate a treaty closely involves his
foreign relations authority and therefore is not reviewable by the Supreme Court. Even though
the Court cannot review political questions, the court has the power to review whether or not
a particular branch of government has exclusive decision-making power over an issue.
• Sanlidad v. Comelec - Whether, therefore, the constitutional provision has been followed or not
is the proper subject of inquiry, not by the people themselves of course who exercise no power
of judicial but by the Supreme Court in whom the people themselves vested that power, a
power which includes the competence to determine whether the constitutional norms for
amendments have been observed or not.
• Estrada v. Arroyo - Political questions- "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are
to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure."
• Brillantes v. Concepcion - Comelec issued resolutions adopting an Automated Elections System
including the assailed resolution, Resolution 6712, which provides for the electronic
transmission of advanced result of “unofficial” count. Comelec contended that the resolution
was promulgated in the exercise of its executive and administrative power "to ensure free,
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections” Comelec added that the issue is beyond
judicial determination.
The Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in issuing Resolution 6712. The issue squarely fell within the ambit of the expanded
jurisdiction of the court.
PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
o Until declared unconstitutional – operative fact doctrine
o The actual existence of a statute prior to such a determination of unconstitutionality is an
operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be erased by a new judicial
declaration
o Lim v. Pacquing - The time-honored doctrine is that all laws (PD No. 771 included) are
presumed valid and constitutional until or unless otherwise ruled by this Court. Not only this;
Article XVIII Section 3 of the Constitution states:
"Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked."
There is nothing on record to show or even suggest that PD No. 771 has been repealed,
altered or amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY
• There must be before it an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power
• The court has no authority to pass upon issues of constitutionality through advisory opinions
and it has no authority to resolve hypothetical or feigned constitutional problems or friendly
suits without real adverse interests
• Board of Optometry v. Colet - An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy
that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory. It cannot be
disputed that there is yet no actual case or controversy involving all or any of the private
respondents on one hand, and all or any of the petitioners on the other, with respect to rights
or obligations under R.A. No. 8050. This is plain because Civil Case No. 95-74770 is for
declaratory relief. The private respondents have not sufficiently established their locus standi
to question the validity of R.A. No. 8050. The conclusion then is inevitable that the
respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he issued a writ of preliminary
injunction restraining the implementation of R.A. No. 8050.
• Mariano v. COMELEC - RA No. 7854 converted the Mun. of Makati into a highly urbanized
city. It was assailed by the petitioners on the ground that it will have the city acquire a new
corporate existence & thus disregards the terms preivoulsly served by the elective officials. He
thus alleges that Mayor Binay might run and be re-elected in excess of the allowable
consecutive terms among others.
These are merely hypothetical & speculative issues w/c have not yet ripened into an actual case
or controversy.
23
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
• Fernandez v. Torres - Mere speculations does not make one an actual controversy. Academic
questions will generally be dismissed by the Courts for lack of jurisdiction
• La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v. DENR Secretary - The third requisite should not be taken to
mean that the question of constitutionality must be raised immediately after the execution of
the state action complained of. That the question of constitutionality has not been raised
before is not a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised later. A contrary rule would
mean that a law, otherwise unconstitutional, would lapse into constitutionality by the mere
failure of the proper party to promptly file a case to challenge the same.
RIPENESS
o The question must be ripe for adjudication – when the governmental act being challenged has
had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it
o It is a prerequisite that something had by then been accomplished or performed by either
branch before a court may come into the picture
o THIS IS A PROCEDURAL RULE: tolerates exceptions
o City of Los Angeles v. Lyons :
§ Respondent's lack of standing does not rest on the termination of the police practice, but
on the speculative nature of his claim that he will again experience injury as the result
of that practice even if continued.
§ Lyons did not have standing to bring this case to the Supreme Court. In order to have
standing, a plaintiff must show 1) an actual or likely injury in fact, 2) that the injury is
sufficiently concrete and individually affects the plaintiff, 3) that the challenged action
is the “cause in fact” of the injury, and 4) that the Court will be able to redress the
injury by its decision.
He did not have standing to enforce an injunction where it was not clear if others
would be placed in a chokehold in the future. Furthermore, it was speculative, at best,
that Lyons himself would be placed in a chokehold in the future, and therefore
injunctive relief would not clearly redress any potential injury.
MOOTNESS
o David v. Macapagal-Arroyo - Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if
(Exception):
§ First, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
§ Second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
involved;
§ Third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and
§ Fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
§ All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this Court's assumption of
jurisdiction over the instant petitions.
o La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v. DENR Secretary - The controversy should be resolved
notwithstanding its mootness to determine once and for all the constitutionality of RA 7942,
its implementing rules and other future FTAAs which may be the subject of other similar suits.
Such a ruling should remove the cloud of uncertainty that has discouraged investments into
the Philippine mining industry.
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest involved, as well
as the necessity for a ruling to put an end to the uncertainties plaguing the mining industry and
the affected communities as a result of doubts cast upon the constitutionality and validity of
the Mining Act, the subject FTAA and future FTAAs, and the need to avert a multiplicity of
suits makes it necessary to resolve the controversy.
o DeFunis v. Odegaard - When the original controversy has disappeared prior to development of
the suit, it is deemed moot and a trial must not proceed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
That a matter deemed moot leaves an important social issue unresolved is of no consequence.
§ Dissent (Douglas) – Due to the social significance of the issue involved in this case, this matter
should be adjudicated despite its apparent mootness.
§ Dissent (Brennan) - Because of the social significance of the issue involved in this case, failure to
adjudicate this matter now will only result in a future duplication of the court effort
PROPER PARTY
• Locus standi
• Requisites:
o The petitioner must have suffered injury in fact which can be legal, economic, or
environmental
o The injury must be traceable to the governmental act challenged
o The injury must be redressable by the remedy being sought by petitioner
• Must be personal and not based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third
and unrelated party
• The rule on standing does not prevent an association from asserting the rights of its members
where the rights of the association and of the members are so intertwined that to vindicate one
is really to vindicate the other
• Conventional Standing
o Warth v. Seldin - They have no locus standi. The plaintiff himself must have suffered
“some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively legal action.” Additionally,
standing will generally not be found when: a “generalized grievance” is shared in
substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, a plaintiff attempts to claim
relief on the legal rights of third parties. Congress may create standing for individuals
through statutes who would otherwise lack standing, so long as the plaintiff alleges a
distinct and palpable injury to himself.
• Representative Standing
o For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon
their prerogatives as legislators
o David v. Arroyo – the plaintiff who asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal
official action, does so as a representative of the general public. He may be a person who
is affected no differently from any other person. He could be suing as a "stranger," or in
the category of a "citizen," or "taxpayer." In either case, he has to adequately show that he
is entitled to seek judicial protection. In other words, he has to make out a sufficient
interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a "citizen" or
"taxpayer.
• Jus Tertii standing
24
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
o Jus tertii - is the legal classification for an argument made by a third party (as opposed to
the legal title holder) which attempts to justify entitlement to possessory rights based on
the showing of legal title in another person. By showing legitimate title in another person,
jus tertii arguments imply that the present possessor’s interest is illegitimate or that the
present possessor is a thief
o Craig v. Boren – An intermediate level of scrutiny should be applied in analyzing the statute.
Specifically, the gender-based classification must serve an important government
objective and be substantially related to the achievement of such objective.
TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC
o The court applies the rule on standing liberally where a most compelling reason exists.
o Whenever a majority of the members of the Court agree that a matter is of paramount interest,
the Court will entertain a suit despite the locus standi requirement
o Guidelines
§ To be accorded standing on the ground of transcendental importance, the following
elements must be established:
§ The public character of the funds or other assets involved in the case,
§ The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the
public respondent agency or instrumentality of government, and
§ The lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions
being raised.
o Kilosbayan v. Guingona – Invalidating the Contract of Lease between the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and the Philippine Gaming Management Corp. (PGMC) on the
ground that it had been made in violation of the charter of the PCSO, the parties entered into
negotiations for a new agreement that would be "consistent with the latter's [PCSO] charter . . .
and conformable to this Honorable Court's aforesaid Decision."
§ The petition is of transcendental importance to the public. 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 recognition and, in the exercise
of its sound discretion, this Court hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier, which the
respondents tried to take advantage of.
o Kilosbayan v. Morato – The real parties are those who are parties to the agreement or are bound
either principally or subsidiarily or are prejudiced in their rights with respect to one of the
contracting parties and can show the detriment, which would positively result to them from
the contract. Petitioners do not have such present substantial interest.
o Kilosbayan v. Morato (Reconsideration) – Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because
some cases are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of
the law or by official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually
sue in the public interest. Petitioners do not in fact show what particularized interest they have
for bringing this suit. And they do not have present substantial interest in the ELA as would
entitle them to bring this suit.
o Francisco v. Fernando – Specifically declares that the transcendental importance of the issues
raised must relate to the merits of the petition
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
STANDING OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
• Members of congress as a body have standing to challenge an unconstitutional act
• Philconsa v. Enriquez – In G.R. No. 113766, after the vetoing by the president of some
provisions of the General Appropriations Bill of 1994, neither house of congress took steps to
override the veto. Instead, Senators Wigberto Tañada and Alberto Romulo sought the issuance
of the writs of prohibition and mandamus against Executive Secretary Teofisto Guingona et al.
Supreme Court- We rule that a member of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives for
that matter, has the legal standing to question the validity of a presidential veto or a condition
imposed on an item in an appropriation bill.
• Bagatsing v. Committee on Privatization – In the absence of a claim that the contract in question
violated the rights of petitioners or impermissibly intruded into the domain of the Legislature,
petitioners have no legal standing to institute the instant action in their capacity as members of
Congress. However, petitioners can bring the action in their capacity as taxpayers
STANDING OF INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
o IBP v. Zamora – The IBP has failed to provide the requisites for legal standing in the case at bar
in that it has failed to conclusively prove that such deployment would harm the IBP in any way.
It’s contention that it is fighting to uphold the rule of law and the constitution is insufficient,
too general and too vague. The Court disagrees with the contention of the Solicitor-General
that the president’s act is a political question beyond the authority of the Court to review when
the grant of power is qualified or subject to limitations, the issue becomes whether the
prescribed qualifications have been met, then it becomes a question of legality and not wisdom,
so is not a political question. It is then subject to the Court’s review power.
STANDING OF THE GOVERNMENT TO QUESTION ITS OWN LAWS
o People v. Vera – Act 4211 which provides that only provinces that can provide appropriation
for a probation officer may have a system of probation within their locality. Meaning to say
that convicts in provinces where no probation officer is instituted may not avail of their right
to probation. It may be said that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws, as in this
case. The well-settled rule is that the person impugning validity must have personal and
substantial interest in the case (i.e. he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of its
enforcement). The Philippines has a valid interest ad injury
TAXPAYER’S SUITS
o Guidelines
§ That he has a sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by
taxation
§ That he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute
o The court has open discretion to entertain the same or not
o What is required is that the action being challenged must be the exercise of the spending or
taxing power of Congress
o Bayan v. Zamora – A party bringing a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law, act, or
statute must show “not only that the law is invalid, but also that he has sustained or in is in
immediate, or imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement,
and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way.” He must show that he has
been, or is about to be, denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled, or that
25
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute complained
of.
In the case before us, petitioners failed to show, to the satisfaction of this Court, that they
have sustained, or are in danger of sustaining any direct injury as a result of the enforcement of
the VFA. As taxpayers, petitioners have not established that the VFA involves the exercise by
Congress of its taxing or spending powers. On this point, it bears stressing that a taxpayer’s
suit refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of
public funds derived from taxation
o Gonzales v. Narvasa - a taxpayer is deemed to have the standing to raise a constitutional issue
when it is established that public funds have been disbursed in alleged contravention of the law
or the Constitution. It is readily apparent that there is no exercise by Congress of its taxing or
spending power. The PCCR was created by the President by virtue of E.O. No. 43, as
amended by E.O. No. 70. Under section 7 of E.O. No. 43, the amount of P3 million is
“appropriated” for its operational expenses “to be sourced from the funds of the Office of the
President.” Being that case, petitioner must show that he is a real party in interest - that he will
stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment or that he will be entitled to the avails of the
suit. Nowhere in his pleadings does petitioner presume to make such a representation
QUESTION MUST BE RAISED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE
OPPORTUNITY
• General Rule: Constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, such
that if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not
considered in trial, cannot be considered on appeal.
• Exceptions:
o In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any time in the
discretion of the court.
o In civil cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any stage if it is necessary
to the determination of the case itself.
o In every case, except where there is estoppel, the constitutional question may be
raised at any stage if it involves jurisdiction of the court.
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MUST THE “LIS MOTA” OF THE CASE
• The Court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality unless it really is unavoidable or is the
very lis mota
• Doctrine of Purposeful Hesitation
o Drilon v. Lim - Every court, including this Court, is charged with the duty of a
purposeful hesitation before declaring a law unconstitutional, on the theory that the
measure was first carefully studied by the executive and the legislative departments
and determined by them to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was
finally approved. To doubt is to sustain. The presumption of constitutionality can be
overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the
Constitution, and only when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority
may the Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the
challenged act must be struck down.
• Doctrine of Constitutional Doubt
o A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times, and
the condition and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. The
object is to ascertain the reason which induced the framers of the Constitution to
enact the particular provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby,
in order to construe the whole as to make the words consonant to that reason and
calculated to effect that purpose.
o Requires a court – faced with two or more reasonable constructions of a statute – to
construe and interpret the statute with the plain constitutional meaning, and stay
away from the hard constitutional questions that would come with the other
interpretation
• Constitutional Avoidance Canon
o If possible, the Supreme Court should avoid ruling on constitutional issues and
resolve the cases before them on statutory grounds
o The avoidance doctrine flows from the canon of judicial self-restraint, and is
intertwined with the debate over the proper scope of federal judicial review and the
allocation of power among the three branches of the federal government and the
states
• Functions of Judicial Review
o Checking – invalidates a law or executive act that is found to be contrary to the
Constitution
o Legitimizing – Upholds the validity of a law after the dismissal of the case
challenging its validity
o Symbolic – educates the bench and bar as to the controlling principles and concepts
on matters of grave public importance for the guidelines of and restraint in the
future
• Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
o Void – does not enjoy any presumption of validity because it is patently offensive to
the Constitution. It produces no effect, creates no office, and imposes no duty
o Republic v. Court of Appeals - An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no right; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal
26
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not been passed. It is therefore stricken from
the statute books and considered never to have existed at all. Not only the parties
but all persons are bound by the declaration of unconstitutionality, which means
that no one may thereafter invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to apply it in
subsequent cases. It is, in other words, a total nullity.
o Doctrine of Operative Fact - The law is recognized as unconstitutional but the
effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left
undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. The operative fact doctrine is a rule
of equity. As such, it must be applied as an exception to the general rule that an
unconstitutional law produces no effects. It can never be invoked to validate as
constitutional an unconstitutional act
APPOINTMENT TO THE JUDICIARY
Section 7.
(1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must
be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower
court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person
may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the
Philippine Bar.
(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.
• Qualifications for lower collegiate courts
o Natural born citizens of the Philippines
o Member of the Philippines bar
o Proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence
o Possessing other qualifications as may be prescribed by Congress
• Single-member courts
o Members of the Bar
o Citizens of the Philippines (not just natural born)
o Congress prescribes the other qualifications
• Qualifications of judges includes the duty of every prospective appointee to the judiciary to
apprise the appointing authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for judicial office,
including such circumstances as may reflect on his integrity and probity
• What the Constitution authorizes the President to do is to appoint justices and judges, not the
authority merely to designate a non-member of the Supreme Court temporarily to sit as Justice
of the Supreme Court
Section 8.
(1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a
representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private
sector.
(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four
years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed,
the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three
years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall
keep a record of its proceedings.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined
by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the
appropriations for the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary.
It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.
• Ex-oficio members
o Chief Justice – ex oficio Chairman
o Secretary of justice – ex oficio Member
o Representative of congress – ex oficio Member
§ Nothing in the Constitution but in practice Congress – one from both
house, ½ vote each
o Clerk of the Supreme Court – ex oficio secretary
• Regular Members
o IBP member (initial term 4)
o Professor of law (initial term 3)
o Retired member of the Supreme Court (initial term 2)
o Representative of the private sector (initial term 1)
• 4 year terms
• Function is to recommend to the President appointees to the Judiciary – from among the
nominees, the President appoints justices and judges without need for confirmation by the
Commission on appointments
• JBC recommends at least 3 nominees
• If the President is not satisfied with the names in the list, he may ask for another one
• But once the appointment is issued by the President and accepted by the nominee, it needs no
further confirmation
• De Castro v. JBC –
• This case is based on multiple cases field with dealt with the controversy that has arisen from
the forthcoming compulsory requirement of Chief Justice Puno
• Movants argue that the disputed constitutional provision, Art. VII, Sec. 15 and Art. VIII, Sec.
4(1), clearly intended the ban on midnight appointments to cover the members of the Judiciary.
• Prohibition under section 15, Article VII does not apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in
the Supreme Court or to other appointments to the judiciary. The meticulousness of the
Constitutional Commission indicates that the organization and arrangement of the provisions
of the Constitution were not arbitrarily or whimsically done by the framers, but purposely
made to reflect their intention and manifest their vision of what the Constitution should
contain. As can be seen, Article VII is devoted to the Executive Department, and, among
others, it lists the powers vested by the Constitution in the President. The presidential power
of appointment is dealt with in Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Article. Had the framers intended
27
Constitutional Law I – Midterms Ina Cojuangco Guingona

to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of Members majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. and voted thereon.
• Chavez v. JBC (3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a
• majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
The case is in relation to the process of selecting the nominees for the vacant seat of Supreme
Court Chief Justice following Renato Corona’s departure. and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members.
• It is clear, therefore, that the Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7) When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that
members only. Thus, any inclusion of another member, whether with one whole vote or half no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in
division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
(1/2) of it, goes against that mandate. Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, providing
Congress with an equal voice with other members of the JBC in recommending appointees to • Composition
the Judiciary is explicit. Any circumvention of the constitutional mandate should not be o 1 Chief Justice
countenanced for the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is the o 14 Associate Justices
basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, • Qualifications for the Supreme Court:
including the highest officials of the land, must defer. Constitutional doctrines must remain o Natural born citizen of the Philippines
steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to sway and o At least 40 years of age
o 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the
accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of
Philippines
the government and the people who run it.
o Proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence
• Notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of the JBC, all its
• No other qualification may be added by Congress
prior official actions are nonetheless valid. In the interest of fair play under the doctrine of
• Whether reached en banc or in a division – the decisions must be reached by a majority vote
operative facts, actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized.
of those who actually took part in the deliberation on the case
They are not nullified.
• Eight justices are enough to constitute a quorum
Section 9. • En Banc
The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the o Constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement or law
President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for o Modification or reversal of the doctrine or principle laid down by the Supreme
every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation. Court and a decision en banc or in a division
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the o Those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential
submission of the list. decrees, proclamations, order, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations
o When the required number of votes is not obtained in the case heard by a division
• The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts are appointed by the President § Provided that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a
from a list of at least three nominees, prepared by the JBC decision rendered en banc or in a division may be modified or reversed
• These appointments do not need confirmation. except by the court sitting en banc
o Administrative cases where the vote is for the dismissal of a judge of a lower court
or otherwise to discipline such a one
o Election contests for President or Vice-President
o Cases are decided by the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually
SUPREME COURT took part in the deliberations on the issues and voted thereon
o 5 votes are enough to constitute a majority
Section 4. • Division
(1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. o Division of 3, 5, or 7 therefore, a case can be decided by as few as a minimum of 3
It may sit en banc votes
or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled o Will hear any issue
within ninety days from the occurrence thereof. o Majority rule is followed in divisions – where no majority is reached, the case is
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, elevated to the Court en banc
or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under o Refers only to the original decision
the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the o If on consideration or review, no decision is reached, the case is no elevated to the
constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, Court en banc, rather the original decision is deemed affirmed
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a o Not inferior to an en banc decision
o Decision may no longer be appealed to the Court en banc
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance 28
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
o May be overturned or reversed only by the court sitting en banc
• Currently there are 3 divisions in the Supreme Court with 15 members each
• Fortich v. Corona –
o The OP wanted to appease the farmers, hence, they issued a new resolution. They
said that only 44 hectares will be converted into agro-industrial land and that the
remaining 100 hectares will be distributed to the farmers.
o The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but there was “no result”
because the justices voted 2-2 in resolving such MR.
o Now, the respondents wanted to refer the case to the Supreme Court en banc.
o The Supreme Court said that the resolution of the MR cannot be referred to the
Court en banc based on Article 8, Sec. 4 (3) of the Constitution.
o The Court differentiated CASES from MATTERS. CASES are to be DECIDED,
while MATTERS are to be RESOLVED. An example of a MATTER is a motion
for reconsideration, such as the one in this case. Only CASES which do not obtain
the required number of votes are required to be elevated en banc.
o On the other hand, as regards MATTERS, the failure of the division to resolve the
motion because of a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. If there is a
tie in resolving a matter, the earlier decision of the Court is upheld
POWERS
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent
of the judge concerned.
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law,
the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase,
or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.
• 1 and 2 – Jurisdiction over cases
• 3 to 6 – Auxiliary administrative powers
• Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
o ORIGINAL jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls; petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas
corpus (concurrent with RTC).
o Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, final judgments of
lower courts in:
§ Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
or executive agreement, law, decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance or regulation is in question;
§ Cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed thereto;
§ Cases involving the jurisdiction of lower courts;
§ All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher;
§ All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved
SUPERVISION OVER THE JUDICIARY
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof
• Dolalas v. Office of the Ombudsman – The complaint against petitioner-judge ("miscarriage of
justice, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, unnecessary delay in the administration of justice and
for failure to prosecute Criminal Case no. 5881 for an unreasonable length of time) before the
Office of the Ombudsman is basically administrative in nature. In essence, petitioner-judge is
being charged with having violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct. It must be borne in mind that the resolution of the administrative charge of
unduly delaying the disposition of the said criminal case involves the determination of whether,
in resolving the alarms and scandals case, petitioner-judge acted in accordance with the
guidelines provided in the Rules of Court and in the Administrative Circulars in pursuance of
the ideals embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such is clearly an administrative matter.
o The Supreme Court is mandated of the 1987 Constitution to assume under section 6,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution to assume administrative supervision over all
courts and the personnel thereof. Hence, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over
the case at bar
• Section 11. …. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of
lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
o Exclusive power of the Supreme Court
RULE-MAKING POWERS
o Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases.
29
Constitutional Law I – Midterms
o They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade.
o They shall not diminish, increase, modify substantive rights.
o Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
o For a more independent judiciary. The authority to promulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice and admission to the practice of law is a traditional power of the Supreme Court. The
grant of this authority, coupled with its authority to integrate the Bar, to have administrative
supervision over all courts, in effect places in the hands of Supreme Court the totality of the
administration of justice and thus makes for a more independent judiciary.
o Enhances the capacity to render justice. It also enhances the Court’s capacity to render justice,
especially since, as the Supreme Court has had occasion to say, it includes the inherent
authority to suspend rules when the requirement of justice demand.
o Moreover, since it is to the Supreme Court that rule making authority has been given, rules
promulgated by special courts and quasi-judicial bodies are effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
o Maniago v. CA – where the rule merely deals with procedure
§ Unless a reservation to file a separate civil action is reserved, the civil case is deemed
filed with the criminal case is not about substantive rights. Whether the two actions
must be tried in a single proceeding is a matter of procedure
MANDATORY REVIEW OF DEATH PENALTY CASES
o Before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed – the case is
reviewed by the Court of Appeals before they are elevated to the Supreme Court
o People v. Rocha and Ramos (2007) – for the sentence of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
the review is not mandatory – may be waived.
o People v. Esparas - No litigant can repudiate this power which is bestowed by the Constitution.
The power is more of a sacred duty which we have to discharge to assure the People that the
innocence of a citizen is our concern not only in crimes that slight but even more, in crimes
that shock the conscience. This concern cannot be diluted. Our unyielding stance is dictated
by the policy that the State should not be given the license to kill without the final
determination of this Highest Tribunal whose collective wisdom is the last, effective hedge
against an erroneous judgment of a one-judge trial court. An accused does not cease to have
rights just because of his conviction.
WRIT OF AMPARO
o A remedy for the protection of constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. In some
legal systems, predominantly those of the Spanish-speaking world, the amparo remedy or action
is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the protection of individual rights.
EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE
o Rule which states that when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly
balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls for tilting of the scales in favor of the accused. •
Thus, the evidence for the prosecution must be heavier to overcome the presumption of
innocence of the accused.
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance
Ina Cojuangco Guingona
DECISIONS OF THE COURT
Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en
banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for
the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice
shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the
parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or
resolution, must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all
lower collegiate courts.
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused
due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
Section 15.
(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be
decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the
Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for
all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the
filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court
or by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect
signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and
a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the
parties. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been
rendered or issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without
prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof,
shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination,
without further delay.
• Time frame in which to decide cases
o Supreme Court – 24 months
o Lower collegiate court – 12 months
o Lower courts – 3 months
• The respective periods are mandatory and failure to comply can subject a judge to disciplinary
action
• It applies only to cases filed after the effectivity of the Constitution
• Their failure to do so is considered gross inefficiency and warrants administrative sanctions
• Even when there is delay and no decision or resolution is made within the prescribed period,
there is no automatic affirmance of the appealed decision
• A heavy case load and poor healthy may partially excuse such lapses, but only if the judges
concerned request reasonable extensions
Conclusions shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the
writing of the opinion of the court
• Certification to this shall be signed by the Chief Justice
• Each dissenting judge must state the reasons
30
Constitutional Law I – Midterms Ina Cojuangco Guingona

• Justice who took no party must give an explanation • To contend that only the Excecutive can protect the right of life to an accused after his final
• Must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the decision is based on conviction is to violate the principle of co-equal and coordinate powerse of the three branches
• Nicos Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals – of government
o It is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of how
it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in
favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification whatsoever
for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to a
higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A
decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is
based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially
prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the
court for review by a higher tribunal.
o It is important to observe at this point that the constitutional provision does not
apply to interlocutory orders, such as one granting a motion for postponement or
quashing a subpoena, because it "refers only to decisions on the merits and not to
orders of the trial court resolving incidental matters
• Prudential Bank v. Castro –
o After a member has given an opinion on the merits of a given case, he may not be
disqualified from participating in the proceedings because a litigant cannot be
permitted to speculate upon the action of the Court and raise an objection of this
sort after decision has already been rendered.
o As to the lack of certification. This requirement is only present in judicial decisions,
not in administrative cases, like a disbarment proceeding. Even if such certification
were required, it is beyond doubt that the conclusions of the Court in its decision
were arrived at after consultation and deliberations and voted attest to that

POWER TO CONTROL EXECUTION OF DECISION

• Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice:

• The Court was within its authority when it granted the TRO on the execution of Echegaray
despite the final and executory judgment having been rendered already. The Court did not lose
its jurisdiction when it granted the TRO. In its decision, it categorically answered the
contention of the plaintiff in such that it is not changing its judgment. The Court is merely
suspending its execution temporarily.
• It was emphasized tht the Court, in rendering the judgment lost its jurisdiction to amend,
modify or alter the same, but it retained its power to execute and enforce it. It was further
stated that the power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of
jurisdiction.
• The 1987 Constitution, according to the Court, strengthened and broadened the power of the
Court in matters like these. It gave the Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, i.e. the right to life.
• The power to control the exceution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It
cannot be the subject of substantial subtraction because the Constitution vests all the judicial
power in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law

Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance 31
Constitutional Law I – Midterms Ina Cojuangco Guingona

o People v. Gacott - dismissal of judges, disbarment of a lawyer, suspension of either for

TENURE OF JUSTICES/JUDGES more than 1 year or a fine exceeding 10,000 pesos requires en banc decision.

Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to and of judges of lower courts, shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their
discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to salary shall not be decreased.
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted o Salaries are fixed by congress
thereon. o May not be diminished but it may be increased
o Prohibition of the diminution in salary is a protection for the independence of the judiciary
• Requirements to remain o Still subject to tax – not considered a diminution
o Good Behavior o Perfecto v. Meer - salaries of judges are not included in the word "income" taxed by the Income
o Below 70 years old Tax Law
o Capacitated to discharge duties o Endencia v. David – The collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a
• De la Llana v. Alba diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution. The interpretation and application of the
o It is the termination of their incumbency that for petitioners justify a suit of this Constitution and of statutes is within the exclusive province and jurisdiction of the judicial
character, it being alleged that thereby the security of tenure provision of the department, and that in enacting a law, the Legislature may not legally provide therein that it be
Constitution has been ignored and disregarded. interpreted in such a way that it may not violate a Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying the
o Well-settled is the rule that the abolition of an office does not amount to an illegal hands of the courts in their task of later interpreting said statute, especially when the
removal of its incumbent is the principle that, in order to be valid, the abolition interpretation sought and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous interpretation
must be made in good faith. already given in a case by the highest court of the land.
o Removal is to be distinguished from termination by virtue of valid abolition of the o Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue - The salaries of members of the Judiciary are subject
office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. After the abolition, there is to the general income tax applied to all taxpayers. Although such intent was somehow and
in law no occupant. In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who inadvertently not clearly set forth in the final text of the 1987 Constitution, the deliberations of
would thereby lose his position. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict the 1986 Constitutional Commission negate the contention that the intent of the framers is to
law, the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. revert to the original concept of non-diminution of salaries of judicial officers. Hence, the
• Removal and Discipline doctrine in Perfecto v. Meer and Endencia vs. David do not apply anymore. Justices and
o Failure to satisfy the requirement of good behavior - guilty of any offenses that are judges are not only the citizens whose income has been reduced in accepting service in
constitutional grounds for impeachment government and yet subject to income tax. Such is true also of Cabinet members and all other
o Supreme Court themselves determine whether they are in good behavior employees
o The Supreme Court sits en banc in all disciplinary cases
o The power to determine incapacity is part of the overall administrative power which
the Supreme Court has over its members and all members of the judiciary
o Maceda v. Ombudsman
§ Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme
Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from
the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal trial court
clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can
oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and
take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any
violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this
power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.
§ Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises
from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on
said complaint and refer the same to the Supreme Court for
determination whether said judge or court employee had acted within the
scope of their administrative duties.

Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance 32
Constitutional Law I – Midterms Ina Cojuangco Guingona

17 Priority to education, arts, sports

18 Affirmation of labor
PREAMBLE 19 Self-reliant and independent national economy
20 Role of the private sector
WE, THE SOVEREIGN FILIPINO PEOPLE, IMPLORING THE AID OF
21 Agrarian reform
ALMIGHTY GOD, IN ORDER TO BUILD A JUST AND HUMANE SOCIETY, AND 22 Indigenous cultural communities
ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT THAT SHALL EMBODY OUR IDEALS AND 23 NGOs
ASPIRATIONS, PROMOTE THE COMMON GOOD, CONSERVE AND DEVELOP 24 Communication
OUR PATRIMONY, AND SECURE TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, THE 25 Autonomy of Local Governments
BLESSINGS OF INDEPENDENCE AND DEMOCRACY UNDER THE RULE OF 26 Equal access/prohibition on political dynasties
LAW AND A REGIME OF TRUTH, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, LOVE, EQUALITY,
AND PEACE, DO ORDAIN AND PROMULGATE THIS CONSTITUTION. 27 Honesty and integrity in public service
28 Full public disclosure

ARTICLE I ARTICLE VIII: CODAL MEMORY AID

THE NATIONAL TERRITORY COMPRISES THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO, Section Keyword

WITH ALL THE ISLANDS AND WATERS EMBRACED THEREIN, AND ALL 1 Judicial power
OTHER TERRITORIES OVER WHICH THE PHILIPPINES HAS SOVEREIGNTY
OR JURISDICTION, CONSISTING OF ITS TERRESTRIAL, FLUVIAL AND
2 Jurisdiction of courts
AERIAL DOMAINS, INCLUDING ITS TERRITORIAL SEA, THE SEABED, THE 3 Fiscal autonomy
SUBSOIL, THE INSULAR SHELVES, AND OTHER SUBMARINE AREAS. THE 4 Composition and Functions of the Supreme Court
WATERS AROUND, BETWEEN, AND CONNECTING THE ISLANDS OF THE 5 Powers of the Supreme Court
ARCHIPELAGO, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BREADTH AND DIMENSIONS, FORM 6 Administrative supervision
PART OF THE INTERNAL WATERS OF THE PHILIPPINES. 7 Qualifications for the Judiciary
8 Judicial and Bar council
9 Process of appointments
10 No diminution of salary
ARTICLE II: CODAL MEMORY AID 11 Tenure
12 Separation of powers
Section Keyword 13 Case consultation and writing
1 State and sovereignty 14 Explanation for decision
2 Renunciation of war/Incorporation Doctrine 15 Timeline to decide cases
3 Supreme civilian authority 16 Annual report
4 Government to serve and protect the people
5 Maintenance of harmony for democracy
6 Separation of church and state
7 Independent foreign policy
8 Freedom from nuclear weapons
9 Just and dynamic social order
10 Social justice
11 Human dignity
12 Sanctity of family
13 Vital role of Youth
14 Role of Women
15 Health
16 Balanced and Healthful Ecology
Sources: Bernas Green Book, Bernas Primer, Bernas Ladies & Gentlemen, Lazo, Philippine Governance 33