POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
KA-POLI NOTES
This reviewer is made out of love and fear for the law. Please
do not hesitate to share this material because sharing is caring
and karma always has its ways. #NoToCrabs
Manila Prince vs. GSIS
G.R. No. 122156. February 3, 1997
What are the rules in interpreting the Constitution?
(Manila Prince vs. GSIS)
1. Determine whether the provision is self-executing or
non-self-executing;
2. In case of doubt, the constitutional provision is self-
executing;
(Francisco vs. HRET)
3. Specific tools of Constitutional Construction
a. Verba Legis – Wherever possible, the words used
in the Constitution must be given their ordinary
meaning except where technical terms are
employed.
b. Ratio Legis Est Anima – When there is ambiguity,
the words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of its
framers. The Court, in construing the Constitution,
should bear in mind the object sought to be
accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any,
sought to be prevented or remedied. The object is
to ascertain the reason which induced the framers
of the Constitution to enact the particular
provision and the purpose sough 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.
c. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat – The Constitution
must be interpreted as a whole. It is a well-
established rule in Constitutional construction that
no one provision of the Constitution is to be
separated from all the others, to be considered
alone, but that all the provisions bearing upon a
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
particular subject are to be brought into view and
to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great
purposes of the instrument. The Court must
harmonize them and must lean in favor of a
construction which will render every word
operative, rather than one which may make the
words idle and nugatory.
4. Extraneous materials can only be used if the above-
mentioned rules fail. This is if, however, the plain
meaning of the word is not found to be clear, it is
possible to resort to other aids available.
Principle under the Manila Prince vs. GSIS case
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy: The Constitution is the
fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It is a supreme
law to which all other laws must conform. Any law or contract
which violates any norm of the constitution, whether
promulgated by the legislative, by the executive branch, or by
private persons for private purposes is null and void without
any force and effect.
Concept of self-executing provisions: Thus a constitutional
provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right
conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an
examination and construction of its terms, and there is no
language indicating that the subject is referred to the
legislature for action. Hence, unless it is expressly provided
that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the
constitution are self-executing.
Facts:
➔ GSIS decided to sell 30% to 51% of the issues and
outstanding shares of Manila Hotel through a public
bidding.
➔ The winning bidder, or the eventual “strategic partner” is
to provide management expertise, international
marketing/reservation system, and financial support to
strengthen the profitability and performance of Manila
Hotel.
➔ In a close bidding, two bidders participated:
 Manila Prince Hotel (Filipino firm) - 51% at
P41.58 per share
 Renong Berhad (Malaysian firm) - 51% at
P44.00 per share
➔ Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the
winning bidder, MPH wrote a letter to GSIS to
subsequently match RB’s bidding price at P44.00 and
later deposited security. However, GSIS refused to
accept.
➔ Thus, MPH filed for a petition on prohibition and
mandamus where the Court issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining RB and GSIS from perfecting
and consummating the sale.
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Issue: W/N Sec. 10, paragraph 2, Article 12 of the 1987
Constitution self-executing.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the provision in
question is couched in a way as not to make it appear that it
is non-self-executing, but simply for the purposes of style. The
legislature is not precluded from enacting further laws to
enforce the constitutional provision so long as the
contemplated statute squares with the Constitution. A
provision which lays down a general principle is usually not
self-executing. But a provision which is complete in itself and
becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or
enabling legislation is self-executing. The respondents are
wrong in saying that the provision in question is not self-
executing. The mere fact that legislation may supplement and
add to or prescribe a penalty for the violation of a self-
executing constitutional provision does not render such a
provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. A
subsequent legislation does not necessarily mean that the
subject constitutional provision is not enforceable.
Are the shares of stock part of the national patrimony of the
Philippines?
Yes. The 51% of the equity of Manila Hotel comes within the
purview of the Constitutional shelter for it comprises the
majority and controlling stock. Anyone who acquires or owns
the 51% will have actual control and management of the
hotel. The Constitutional provision is addressed to the State,
not to GSIS which by itself possesses a separate and distinct
personality. The sale of 51% of MH could only be carried out
with the prior approval of the State acting through GSIS. This
fact alone makes the sale of the assets of respondents a “state
action”. The MH, or the 51%, is not merely just a commodity.
MH is not an ordinary property but a historic relic, the most
historical setting that has played a part in the shaping of a
country.
Does the SC agree that Sec 10, par. 2, of Article 12 is a non-
self-executing provision?
No. (See held in the above-mentioned case)
What is the difference between self-executing and non-self-
executing provisions?
Non-self-executing
Self-executing provisions
provisions
Can be implemented only
Can be enforced without
through appropriate laws
further legislative action.
enacted by the Legislature.
A provision which is
A provision which merely
complete in itself and
announces a policy and its
becomes operative without
language empowers the
the aid of supplementary
Legislature to prescribe the
or enabling legislation, or
means by which the policy
that supplies sufficient rule
shall be carried into effect.
by means of which the
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
right it grants may be
enjoyed or protected.
In case of doubt, which shall prevail?
In general, all provisions of the Constitution must be
presumed to be self-executing provisions.
What about the fact that the provision in question is located
in between two non-self-executory provisions? Relate with
the presumption of self-executing provisions
Respondents argued that the non-self-executing nature of
Sec. 10, second paragraph, of Article 12 is implied from the
tenor of the first and third paragraphs of the same section
which undoubtedly are not self-executing. The argument is
flawed. If the first and third paragraphs are not self-executing
because the Congress still has to enact measures to
encourage the formation and operation of enterprises fully
owned by Filipinos, and the State still needs legislation to
regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments
within its national jurisdiction, by the same logic, the second
paragraph can only be self-executing as it does not by its
language require any legislation in order to give preference
to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights, privileges, and
concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. A
constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and
non-self-executing in another.
Francisco vs. House of Representatives
G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003
Facts:
➔ July 22, 2002 - The HOR adopted a resolution sponsored
by Congressman Fuentebella, which directed the
Committee on Justice to conduct an investigation, in aid
of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and
expenditures by the CJ of the JDF.
◆ Alleging underpayment of the COLA of the
members and personnel of the Judiciary from
the JDF, and unlawful disbursement of said
funds for various infrastructure projects and
acquisition of service vehicles and other
equipment.
➔ June 2, 2003 - Former President Estrada filed an
impeachment complaint (first impeachment complaint)
against CJ Davide and seven AJs for culpable violation of
the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, and other high
crimes. The complaint was endorsed by Congressmen
Suplico, Zamora, and Dilangalen.
➔ August 1, 2003 – The speaker of the House directed the
chairman of the House Committee on Rules to include in
the Order of Business the Complaint
➔ August 5, 2003 - The first impeachment complaint was
referred to the House Committee on Justice.
➔ October 13, 2003 - The HCJ included the complaint in its
Order of Business and ruled that the first impeachment
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
complaint was sufficient in form, but insufficient in
substance.
◆ To date, the Committee Report to this effect
has not yet been sent to the House in plenary
in accordance with the said Section 3(2) of
Article XI of the Constitution
➔ October 22, 2003 – The HCJ dismissed the complaint for
insufficiency in substance.
➔ October 23, 2003 - A day after the HOCJ voted to dismiss
the first impeachment complaint, a second impeachment
complaint was filed with the Secretary General of the
House by Congressmen Teodoro, Jr. and Fuentebella
against CJ Davide, founded on the alleged results of the
legislative inquiry initiated last July 22, 2002. This second
impeachment complaint was accompanied by a
resolution of endorsement/impeachment signed by at
least ⅓ of all the members of the HOR.
➔ October 28, 2003 –
◆ During the plenary session of the HOR, a
motion was put forth that the second
impeachment complaint be formally
transmitted to the Senate, but it was not
carried because the HOR adjourned for lack of
quorum, and as reflected, to date, the Articles
of Impeachment have yet to be forwarded to
the Senate.
◆ When the HOR, through Speaker de Venecia
Jr, by way of special appearance, submitted a
Manifestation asserting that the SC has no
jurisdiction to hear, much less prohibit or
enjoin the HOR, from the performance of its
constitutionally mandated duty to initiate
impeachment cases.
➔ October 29, 2003 – The Senate of the Philippines,
through Senate President Drilon, filed a manifestation
stating that insofar as it is concerned, the petitions are
plainly premature and have no basis in law or fact.
➔ Thus, arose the instant petitions against the HOR, most
of which petitions contend:
◆ The filing of the second impeachment
complaint is unconstitutional as it violates
Section 5, Article XI of the Constitution, which
states that “no impeachment proceedings
shall be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of one year.”
Issue: W/N the second impeachment complaint is barred
under Section 3(5), Article XI of the Constitution.
Held: Yes. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by
the act of filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to
the House Committee on Justice, the initial action taken
thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes
clear.
Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the
foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
official within a one-year period following Article XI, Section
3(5) of the Constitution.
The second impeachment complaint filed violates the
constitutional prohibition against the initiation of
impeachment proceedings against the same impeachable
officer within a one-year period.
Issue: W/N the Rules on Impeachment of the House
unconstitutional.
Held: Yes. Section 3 of Article XI provides that “The Congress
shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry
out the purpose of this section.”
The power of Congress to promulgate its rules on
impeachment is limited by the phrase “to effectively carry out
the purpose of this section.” Hence, these rules cannot
contravene the very purpose of the Constitution which said
rules were intended to effectively carry out. Section 3 of
Article XI clearly provides for other specific limitations on its
power to make rules.
It is basic that all rules must not contravene the Constitution
which is the fundamental law. If as alleged Congress had
absolute rule making power, then it would by necessary
implication have the power to alter or amend the meaning of
the Constitution without need of referendum.
The Congress is allowed to create their own Rules on
Impeachment. However, these rules cannot contravene the
very purpose of the Constitution, which said rules were
intended to effectively carry out. Moreover, Section 3 of Article
XI clearly provides for other specific limitations on its power
to make rules.
Issue: W/N the Constitution has excluded impeachment
proceedings from the coverage of judicial review.
Held: No. The Court’s power of judicial review is conferred to
the Judicial Branch of Government.
Section 1, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution states that 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
GADALEJ.
This moderating power to determine the proper allocation of
powers of the different branches of government and to direct
the course of government along constitutional channels is
inherent in all courts as a necessary consequence of the
judicial power itself, which is the power of the court to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable.
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Judicial review is essential for the maintenance and
enforcement of the separation of powers and the balancing of
powers among the three great departments of government
through the definition and maintenance of the boundaries of
authority and control between them.
Essential requisites for Judicial Review
➔ There is an actual case or controversy calling for the
exercise of judicial power
➔ 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
➔ The question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity
➔ The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota
of the case.
An action by the
Filing the
House taking Initiate
complaint
cognizance of it
Political question is a question of policy. It is the language of
Corpus Juris Secundum. It refers 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 legislature
or executive branch of the Government.
The 1986 Constitutional Commission stated that judicial
power is not only a power but a duty, a duty which cannot be
abdicated by the mere specter of this creature called political
question doctrine.
Section 1, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution was not intended
to do away with truly political questions. From this clarification
it is gathered that there are two species of political question:
➔ Truly political questions - Beyond judicial review, the
reason being that respect for the doctrine of separation
of powers must be maintained.
➔ Not truly political questions - Courts can review.
The determination of a truly political question from a non-
justiciable political question lies in the answer to the question
of whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on
powers or functions conferred upon political bodies.
➔ If there are - Our courts are duty-bound to examine
whether the branch or instrumentality of the
government properly acted within such limits (this court
will now apply this standard in this case).
Who filed the first impeachment complaint?
Former President Joseph Estrada filed the first complaint with
the Office of the Secretary General of the HOR. This
impeachment complaint was endorsed by Congressmen
Suplico, Zamora, and Dilangalen.
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
When was the first impeachment complaint filed?
It was filed on June 2, 2003.
Who filed the second impeachment complaint?
Former Congressmen Teodoro, Jr., and Funtebella.
Does the Constitution allow filing of multiple complaints
against an impeachable officer within a period of one year?
Yes. What is prohibited is the initiation of impeachment
proceeding against an impeachable officer within a period of
one year.
When is an impeachment proceeding initiated?
It takes place by the:
(1.) Act of filing and referral or endorsement of the
impeachment complaint to the House Committee on
Justice; or
(2.) Filing of at least 1/3 of the members of the House of
Representatives with the Secretary General of the House.
Is filing equal to initiation
No. The framers intended initiation to start with the filing of
the complaint. The phrase “to initiate impeachment
proceedings” as contained in the text of the law was to settle
and make it understood once and for all that the initiation of
impeachment proceedings start with the filing of the
complaint, and the vote of ⅓ of the House in a resolution of
impeachment does not initiate the impeachment proceedings
which was already initiated by the filing of a verified complaint
as per Section 3, par 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives
Why did the Supreme Court did not consider the Articles of
Impeachment? The indorsement of 1/3 is not enough. It must
also be initiated. Further, in Gutierrez vs House of
Representatives, two impeachment complaints were referred
to the House Committee on Justice at the same time. The
Supreme Court held that it is valid since initiation of the two
impeachment complaints were deemed consolidated.
Whether referral of two impeachment complaints before the
Justice Committee within the same year is allowed.
Yes.
Allowed more than
once in a year
Filing Yes
Referral Yes
Initiation No
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
What are the 3 modes of filing impeachment complaints? 2 types of changes which can be introduced to the
According to Section 2 of the Rules of Procedure in Constitution
Impeachment Proceedings, the modes of initiating ➔ Amendment - Implies addition or change within the lines
impeachment are: of the original instrument as will effect the improvement,
Impeachment shall be initiated by the filing and subsequent or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.
referral to the Committee on Justice of: ➔ Revision - Implies a change that alters a basic principle
➔ A verified complaint for impeachment filed by any in the constitution.
Member of the House of Representatives;
➔ A verified complaint filed by any citizen upon a Amendment vs. Revision
resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof; or Amendment Revision
➔ A verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed Implies addition or change
by at least one-third (1/3) of all Members of the House. within the lines of the
original instrument as will Implies a change that
effect an improvement, or alters a basic principle in
Bakit di pinayagan yung impeachment complaint nila
better carry out the the constitution.
Teodoro? purpose for which it was
It was only endorsed, and not filed by at least ⅓ of all the framed.
members of the HOR. If the change alters the
A change that adds, substantial entirety of the
Discuss 3 rules of interpreting the Constitution reduces, or deletes without Constitution, as when the
altering the basic principle change affects substantial
➔ Verba legis – Wherever possible, the words used in the
involved. provisions of the
Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning Constitution.
except where technical terms are employed. Generally, affects only the Generally, affects several
➔ Ratio legis est anima – When there is ambiguity, the specific provision being provisions of the
words of the Constitution should be interpreted in amended. Constitution.
accordance with the intent of its framers. The Court, in The guiding original
The guiding original
construing the Constitution, should bear in mind the intention and plan
intention of an amendment
contemplates a re-
object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and is to improve specific parts
examination of the entire
the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. The or to add new provisions
document, or of provisions
object is to ascertain the reason which induced the deemed necessary to meet
of the document which
new conditions or to
framers of the Constitution to enact the particular have overall implications
suppress specific portions
provision and the purpose sough to be accomplished for the entire document, to
that may have become
thereby, in order to construe the whole as to make the determine how and to
obsolete or are judged to
what extent they should be
words consonant to that reason and calculated to effect be dangerous.
altered.
that purpose.
➔ Ut magis valeat quam pereat – The Constitution must be
Give examples of change that amounts to revision?
interpreted as a whole. It is a well-established rule in
The structure of the government, general principles of the
Constitutional construction that no one provision of the
Constitution
Constitution is to be separated from all the others, to be
considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing
Why is it important to know the difference between the nature
upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and
of proposal and change?
to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes
Procedural purposes.
of the instrument. The Court must harmonize them and
must lean in favor of a construction which will render
every word operative, rather than one which may make Occena vs. COMELEC
the words idle and nugatory. G.R. No. L-56350. April 2, 1981
However, if the plain meaning of the word is not found to be
clear, resort to other aids is available. Facts:
➔ The challenge in these two prohibition proceedings is
Why is the 1987 Constitution considered as a “rigid” against the validity of three Batasang Pambansa
Constitution? Resolutions proposing constitutional amendments. The
A rigid constitution is one which can be amended only by a petitioners urged that the amendments proposed are so
formal and usually difficult process. The 1987 Constitution is extensive that they go far beyond the limits of authority
a rigid constitution because before the 1987 Constitution can conferred to the Interim Batasang Pambansa.
be amended or revised, ➔ The petitioners alleged that what was done was revision
and not amendment.
➔ Further, the same petitioners asserted that the 1973
Constitution is not the fundamental law.

POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Issue: W/N the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to
propose amendments.
Held: Yes. The Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the
same powers and its members shall have the same functions,
responsibilities, rights, privileges, and disqualification as the
Interim National Assembly and the Regular National
Assembly, and one of such powers is precisely that of
proposing amendments. The 1973 Constitution in its
transitory provisions vested the Interim National Assembly
with power to propose amendments upon special call by the
Prime Minister by a vote of the majority of its members, to be
ratified in accordance with the Article on Amendments. The
Interim Batasang Pambansa, upon the call of the President
and PM Marcos, met as a constituent body, it acted by virtue
of such impotence its authority to do so is clearly beyond
doubt. It could and did propose the amendments embodied
in the resolutions now being assailed. Whether the
Constitutional Convention will only propose amendments to
the Constitution or entirely overhaul the present Constitution
and propose an entirely new Constitution is of no moment
because the same will be submitted to the people for
ratification. Once ratified, there can be no debate about the
validity of the new Constitution. There is no argument against
the validity of the law because “amendment” includes
“revision”, or the total overhaul of the entire Constitution. At
any rate, whether the Constitution is merely amended in part
or revised or totally changed would become immaterial as of
the moment. There is no ambiguity to the applicable
provision. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution
shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite which shall be held not later than three months after
the approval of such amendment or revision. Thus, the three
resolutions were approved.
How can it be amended/revised?
The Intermin Batasang Pambsansa must be sitting as a
constituent body for it to propose amendments. In that
capacity, only a majority vote is needed. It would be an
indefensible proposition to assert that the ¾ votes required
when it sits as a legislative body applies as well when it has
been convened as the agency through which amendments
could be proposed.
➔ The Supreme Court stated that Revision was decided
during the 1935 Constitution.
➔ In the 1987 Constitution, Revision is now different from
Amendment.
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
Lambino vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153. October 25, 2006
Facts:
➔ Lambino and Aumentado (Lambino Group) commenced
gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change
the 1987 Constitution.
➔ The Lambino Group filed a petition with COMELEC to
hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition.
➔ The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the
support of the majority of all registered voters, or 12% of
the population. They also claimed that COMELEC
election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3M
individuals.
➔ The matter of this petition is the Lambino Group’s
initiative petition which aims to change the 1987
Constitution, modifying:
◆ Sections 1 to 7 of Article VI (Legislative)
◆ Sections 1 to 4 of Article VII (Executive)
◆ Adding XVII (Transitional Provision)
These proposed changes will shift the present bicameral-
presidential system to a unicameral-parliamentary form
of Government.
➔ COMELEC denied Lambino’s petition for lack of an
enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution. COMELEC invoked the ruling in Santiago vs.
COMELEC, declaring R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to
implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend
the Constitution.
➔ However, the Lambino Group prays for the issuance of
the writs of certiorari and mandamus to set aside the
COMELEC Resolution and to compel COMELEC to give
due course to their petition.
Issue: W/N the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies
with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
Held: No. The framers of the Constitution intended and wrote
a clear distinction between amendment and revision of the
Constitution. The framers intended and wrote that only the
Congress or a constitutional convention may propose
revisions to the Constitution. However, there can also be no
dispute that a people’s initiative can only propose
amendments to the Constitution since the Constitution itself
limits initiatives to amendments. There can be no deviation
from the Constitutionally prescribed modes of revising the
Constitution. A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3M
signatures, cannot justify a deviation from the specific modes
prescribed in the Constitution itself.
Issue: W/N the Lambino Group complied with the
Constitutional requirements when it regards to proposal.
Held: No. The framers of the Constitution intended that the
draft of the proposed constitutional amendment should be
ready and shown to the people before they sign such
proposal. The framers plainly stated that before they sign,
there is already a draft shown to them. They also further
envisioned that the people should sign on the proposal itself
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
because the proponents must prepare that proposal and pass
it around for signature. This means, two essential elements
must be present:
(a.) The people must author and thus sign the entire
proposal. No agent or representative can sign or
their behalf.
(b.) As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must
be embodied in the petition.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the
proposed amendments is first shown to the people who
express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a
petition. Thus, an amendment is directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition only if the people
sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed
amendments. A signature requirement would be meaningless
if the person supplying the signature has not first seen what
it is that he is signing. This danger seems particularly acute
when the person giving the description is a drafter of the
petition, who obviously has interest in seeing that it gets the
requisite signatures to qualify for the ballot. In this case, there
is no presumption that the proponents observed the
constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures. The
Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with
this Court a copy of the paper that the people signed as their
initiative petition. The Lambino Group submitted to this Court
a copy of a signature sheet. However, there was not a single
word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino group’s
proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the
signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is
attached to it. It is extremely doubtful that the Lambino Group
prepared, printed, circulated during the signature-gathering
period the draft of the petition or amended petition they filed
with COMELEC. Even assuming the Lambino Group circulated
the amended petition during the signature-gathering period,
the Lambino Group admitted circulating only very limited
copies of the petition. With only 100,000 printed copies of the
petition, it would be physically impossible for all or a great
majority of the 6.3M signatories to have seen the petition
before they signed the signature sheets. Thus, the result is a
grand deception on the 6.3M signatories.
How many signatures were gathered?
6.3M or 12% of the whole voting population.
How many copies were produced?
Only 100,000 copies were produced.
Can the President actively participate in the initiative?
No, the president cannot actively participate by gathering
votes because that would not be an initiative by the people
anymore.
What were the proposals by the Lambino Group?
The matter of this petition is the Lambino Group’s initiative
petition which aims to change the 1987 Constitution,
modifying:
(1.) Sections 1 to 7 of Article VI (Legislative)
(2.) Sections 1 to 4 of Article VII (Executive)
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
(3.) Adding XVII (Transitional Provision)
What is the two-part test cited in Lambino?
➔ Qualitative Test - Inquires into the qualitative effects of
the proposed change in the Constitution. The main
inquiry is whether the change will accomplish such far
reaching changes in the nature of our basic
governmental plan as to amount to a revision.
➔ Quantitative Test - Asks whether the proposed change is
so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the
substantial entirety of the Constitution by the deletion or
alteration of numerous existing provisions. The Court
examines only the number of provisions affected and
does not consider the degree of the change.
Relate to the Qualitative and Quantitative tests
Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino
Group’s initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment.
➔ Quantitatively - The Lambino Group proposed changes
to overhaul two articles--Article VI on the Legislature and
Article VII on the Executive--affecting a total of 105
provisions in the entire Constitution.
➔ Qualitatively - The proposed changes alter substantially
the basic plan of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and from bicameral to a unicameral
legislature.
Bicameral Congress: checks and balances
A change in the structure of government is a revision of the
Constitution, as when the 3 great co-equal branches are
reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in the
Constitution. A shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential
to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a revision of the
Constitution. Merging the Legislative and Executive branches
is a radical change in the structure of the Government.
Can Congress amend or revise the Constitution?
No, they can only propose changes. However, in proposing
amendments, Congress does not act as a legislative body but
a Constituent Assembly.
In what capacity is the Congress allowed to propose
amendment or revision?
When the Congress is acting as a Constituent Assembly,
exercising constituent power.
Constituent power vs. legislative power
Constituent power Legislative power
The power to formulate a
The power to pass, repeal
Constitution or to propose
or amend or ordinary laws
amendments to or revisions
or statutes (as opposed to
of the Constitution and to
organic law).
ratify such proposals.
Exercised by Congress (by
Legislative power is an
special constitutional
ordinary power of
conferment), by a
Congress and of the
Constitutional Convention
people, also through
or Commission, by the
initiative and referendum.
people through initiative
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
and referendum, and
ultimately by sovereign
electorate.
The exercise of legislative
The exercise of Constituent power ordinarily needs the
power does not need the approval of the Chief
approval of the Chief Executive, except when
Executive. done by people through
initiative and referendum.
What is the requirement for Sec. 1, Art. XVII – The meaning
of “all its members”
Entire composition, regardless of vacancy.
2 modes of proposing amendments through the Constitution
Art 17, Sec 1 and 2 modes of proposing amendments or
revisions
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.
Is Sec. 2, Art XVII a grant of power to the people?
No. Even without express Constitutional grant, the people
shall exercise the power to propose change in the
Constitution because sovereign power emanates from the
people. Article 17, Section 2 is only a limitation to the exercise
of the power, which is to propose amendments only.
Limitations to the power of the people to propose
(1.) Amendments only
(2.) Exercise 5 years from 1987
(3.) Once every 5 years only
Constitutional requirement on initiative
(1.) There must be an implementing law
(2.) 12% of the total of all registered voters
(3.) Of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.
What are the additional requirements on initiative?
(1.) The people must author and sign the entire proposal. No
agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
(2.) As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition or attached in the petition with
proper reference.
Gonzales vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. L-28196. November 9, 1967
Facts:
➔ The Senate and the House of Representatives passed the
following resolutions:
◆ RBH No. 1 – Proposing the increase of the
membership of the House from 120 to 180.
◆ RBH No. 2 – Calling a convention to propose
amendments to the Constitution, the
convention to be composed of 2 elective
delegates from each representative district to
be elected in the general elections to be held
on the second Tuesday of November 1971.
◆ RBH No. 3 – Proposing that Section 16, Article
VI be amended so as to authorize Senators and
Members of the House to become delegates
to the Constitutional Convention without
forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
➔ The Congress, subsequently, passed a bill, which, upon
approval of the President, became RA 4913, providing
that RBH No.1 and RBH No.2 be submitted for approval
by the people at the general elections on November 14,
1967.
➔ The petitioner assails the constitutionality of RA4913,
contending that Congress cannot simultaneously
propose amendments to the Constitution and call for the
holding of a Constitutional Convention.
Issue: W/N Congress can simultaneously propose
amendments to the Constitution and call for the holding of a
constitutional convention.
Held: Yes. The constituent power or the power to ament or
revise the Constitution is different from the law-making power
of the Congress. The Congress can directly propose
amendments to the Constitution and at the same time call for
a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments.
However, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose
amendments is not included in the legislative powers of
Congress. It is part of the inherent powers of the people. But
Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution
merely because the same explicitly grants such powers.
Hence, Senators and members of the House of
Representatives acting not as members of the Congress but
as component elements of a Constituent Assembly may do so
as their authority no longer emanate from the Constitution.
To elaborate, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, has
authority to propose Constitutional Amendments or call a
convention for the purpose by 2/3 votes of each house in a
joint session assembled, but voting separately. Such grant
includes all other powers essential to the effective exercise of
the principal power by necessary implication. Implementing
details are within the authority of Congress not only as a
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Constituent Assembly but also in the exercise of its
comprehensive legislative power so long as it does not
contravene any provision of the Constitution.
What are the 3 proposals in Gonzales vs COMELEC
On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of
Representatives passed the following resolutions:
1) R.B.H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, proposing
Philippines, be amended so as to increase the
membership of the House of Representatives from a
maximum of 120, as provided in the present
Constitution, to a maximum of 180, to be apportioned
among the several provinces as nearly as may be
according to the number of their respective
inhabitants, although each province shall have, at
least, one (1) member;
2) R.B.H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose
amendments to said Constitution, the convention to
be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each
representative district, to be "elected in the general
elections to be held on the second Tuesday of
November, 1971;" and
3) R.B.H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of
the same Constitution, be amended so as to authorize
senators and members of the House of
Representatives to become delegates to the
aforementioned constitutional convention, without
forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
Amicus curiae – Not binding
Atty. Juan T. David maintains that Congress may either: (1)
propose amendments to the Constitution; or (2) call a
convention for that purpose, but it cannot do both at the
same time. This theory is based upon the fact that two
alternatives are connected in the Constitution by the
disjunctive “or.” Such basis is, however, a weak one, in the
absence of other circumstances supporting the conclusion
drawn by the amicus curiae.
What was the call for convention?
It was to propose amendments to the Constitution, the
convention to be composed of 2 elective delegates from each
representative district to be elected in the general elections to
be held on the second Tuesday of November 1971.
What does “or” and “and” mean?
The term “or” has, oftentimes, been held to mean “and”, or
vice-versa, when the spirit or context of the law warrants it.
What was the justiciable question in Gonzales vs.
COMELEC?
W/N a resolution of Congress—acting as a constituent
assembly—violates the Constitution.
¾ of all its members ¾ of Congress
Entire composition, Only those incumbent
regardless of vacancy AND present
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
1935 Constitution: Congress in joint session by ¾ vote of
all Senate and ¾ of all HOR, voting separately.
1987 Constitution: Using “ut magis valeat quam pereat” –
Congress is voting separately
What is the legal basis for allowing Congress to provide
implementing rules?
The Doctrine of Necessary Implication.
What is the Doctrine of Necessary Implication?
Under the Doctrine of Necessary Implication, the grant of
an express power carries with it by necessary implication all
other necessary powers in order to implement the express
power.
Congress as a Congress as a legislative
constituent assembly body
If the Congress provides
for the implementing
If it is in exercise of the
details acting as a
legislative power under
constituent assembly
Section 27, Article 6 of
there is no need for the
the Constitution, it must
President’s approval.
require the approval of
Mere resolutions will do
the Preisdent.
as long as it will pass the
¾ votes.
Imbong vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. L-32432
Facts:
➔ Two separate but related petitions for declaratory relief
were filed by Imbong and Gonzales, both members of
the Bar, taxpayers, and interested in running as
candidates for delegates to the Constitutional
Convention. Both Imbong and Gonzales impugn the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132 claiming that the
former prejudices their rights.
➔ On March 16, 1967, Congress, acting as a Constituent
Assembly, passed Resolution No. 2, which among others
called for a Constitutional Convention to propose
constitutional amendments to be composed of two
delegates from each representative district. After the
adoption of Resolution No. 2, the Congress, acting as a
legislative body, enacted R.A. No. 4914 implementing
the aforesaid Resolution No. 2 and practically restating
in toto the provisions of said Resolution No. 2.
➔ Further, Congress, also acting as a Constituent Assembly,
passed Resolution No. 4, amending Resolution No. 2, by
providing that the convention shall be composed of 320
delegates that a representative district shall be entitled
to at least two delegates, who shall have the same
qualifications as those required of members of the
House of Representatives.
➔ Republic Act No. 6132, implementing Resolutions Nos. 2
and 4, expressly repealing R.A. No. 4914.
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
➔ Gonzales assails the validity of the entire law, while
Imbong impugns the constitutionality of par. 1, Sec. 8(a)
of the said R.A. No. 6132.
➔ The validity of Sec. 4, R.A. No. 6132, which considers all
public officers and employees, whether elective or
appointive, including members of the AFP, as well as
officers and employees of corporations or enterprises of
the Government, as resigned from the date of filing of
their certificates of candidacy, was recently sustained by
this Court as merely an application of Sec. 2 of Art. XII of
the Constitution and does not constitute a denial of due
process.
Issue: W/N Congress, acting as a legislative body, enact R.A.
No. 6132 to implement the resolution passed by it in its
capacity as a Constituent Assembly.
Held: Yes. The Court declared that while the authority to call
a Constitutional Convention is vested in the Constitution
solely and exclusively in Congress acting as a Constitutional
Assembly, the power to enact the implementing details or
specifics of the general law does not exclusively pertain to
Congress, the Congress in exercising its comprehensive
legislative power may pass the necessary implementing law
providing for the details of the Constitutional Conventions,
such as the number, qualification, and compensation of its
member. As reiterated above, the reasons cited by the Court
in upholding the constitutionality of the enactment of R.A. No.
6132 are as follows:
(1) Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, pursuant to
Article XV of the Constitution, has authority to propose
constitutional amendments or call a convention for the
purpose by ¾ votes of each house in joint session
assembled but voting separately;
(2) Such grant includes all other powers essential to the
effective exercise of the principal power by necessary
implication;
(3) Implementing details are within the authority of
Congress not only as a Constituent Assembly but also in
the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power so
long as it does not contravene any provision of the
Constitution; and
(4) Congress as a legislative body may enact necessary
implementing legislation to fill in the gaps which
Congress as a Constituent Assembly omitted.
Can Congress convert itself to a Constitutional Assembly?
What is the Constitutional Provision?
Yes. Congress, when acting as a Constituent Assembly
pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, has full and plenary
authority to propose Constitutional amendments or to call a
convention.
Can the Congress convert itself as a Constitutional
Convention?
No, the Congress can only call for a ConCon, but they cannot
convert themselves into a ConCon.
10
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
Two modes of calling for a ConCon?
(1.) By 2/3 vote of all the members of Congress
(2.) Majority vote of all members, submitting to the
electorate the question of calling a convention.
What is the requirement by the ConCon in approving an
amendment?
Majority vote (Occena vs. COMELEC)
Basis: Democratic republican state = will of the majority
Sanidad vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. L-44640. October 12, 1976
Facts:
➔ Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 which called
for a National Referendum for the Citizens Assemblies
(barangays) to resolve:
 Issues of Martial Law;
 Interim Assembly;
 The replacement of the Interim Assembly;
 The powers of such replacement;
 The period of its existence;
 The length of the period for the exercise by the
President of his present powers.
➔ Later, Marcos issued another related decree, P.D. No.
1031, amending P.D. 991, by providing for the manner of
voting and canvass. On the same date, Marcos issued
P.D. No. 1033, stating the questions to be submitted to
the people in the referendum-plebiscite.
➔ Further, COMELEC was vested with the exclusive
supervision and control of such National Referendum-
Plebiscite.
➔ Petitioners asserted –
 Pablo and Pablito Sanidad – Sought to enjoin
COMELEC from holding and conducting the
Referendum-Plebiscite. Further, they contended
that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, there
was no grant to the incumbent president to exercise
the constituent power to propose amendments.
Thus, there was no constitutional or legal basis.
 Vicente M. Guzman – Asserted that the power to
propose amendments to or revisions of the
Constitution is expressly conferred on the interim
National Assembly.
 Raul M. Gonzales, Raul Gonzales, Jr., and Alfredo
Salapantan – Prayed to restrain the implementation
of the Presidential Decrees, and argued that even
granting Marcos legislative powers under the
Martial Law, the former cannot act as a constituent
assembly, a referendum-plebiscite is untenable, the
submission of the proposed amendments in such a
short period of time for deliberation renders the
plebiscite a nullity, that Marcos need not consult
the people via referendum to lift Martial Law, and
that allowing 15-year olds to vote would amount to
an amendment of the Constitution.
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Issues:
(1) W/N the question of the constitutionality of the assailed
PDs a political or justiciable.
(2) W/N the President has the power to propose
amendments to the Constitution and set up the required
machinery and prescribe the procedure for the
ratification of his proposals by the people.
(3) W/N the submission to the people of the proposed
amendments within the time frame allowed.
(4) W/N the petitioners have locus standi.
Held #1: The amending process both as to proposal and
ratification raises a judicial question. In this case, the “normal
course” has not been followed. Rather than calling the interim
national assembly to constitute itself into a constituent
assembly, the incumbent President undertook the proposal of
amendments and submitted the proposed amendments
through PD No. 1033 to the people in a Referendum-
Plebiscite. Further, the Constitution provided that all cases
involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive
agreement, or law shall be heard and decided by the Supreme
Court en banc and no treaty, executive agreement, or law may
be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of at
least 10 members. Thus, the Supreme Court has the last word
in the construction not only of treaties and statutes, but also
the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court is vested with that
authority to determine whether that power has been
discharged within its limits. Therefore, such is a justiciable
question.
Held #2: Yes. If the President has been legitimately
discharging the legislative functions of the interim assembly,
there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the
function of that assembly to propose amendments to the
Constitution, which is but adjunct, although peculiar, to its
gross legislative power. This is not to say that the President
has converted his office into a constituent assembly of that
nature normally constituted by the legislature. Rather, with
the interim assembly not convened and only the Presidency
and Supreme Court in operation, the urges of absolute
necessity render it imperative upon the President to act as
agent for an in behalf of the people to propose amendments
to the Constitution. Also, the Supreme Court has no capacity
to propose amendments without constitutional infractions.
For the President to shy away from that actuality and decline
to undertake the amending process would leave the
governmental machinery at a stalemate or create in the
powers of the State a destructive vacuum. After all, the
constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions, like the
President now, are mere agents of the people.
Held #3: Yes. Article XVI of the Constitution makes no
provision as to the specific date when the plebiscite shall be
held, but simply states that it shall be held not later than 3
months after the approval of such amendment or revision. The
period from September 21 to October 16, or a period of three
weeks is not too short for free debates or discussions on the
referendum-plebiscite issues. The issues are not new. They are
11
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
the issues of the day, and the people have been living with it
since the proclamation of Martial Law. The referendums of
1972 and 1975 carried the same issue of martial law. The
contested brief period for discussion is not without
counterparts in previous plebiscites for constitutional
amendments.
Held #4: In contrast to what the Solicitor General asserts,
Sanidad possesses locus standi. It is now an ancient rule that
the valid source of a statute may be contested by one who will
sustain a direct injury as a result of its enforcement. In this
case, at the instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the
disbursement of public funds may be enjoined upon the
theory that the expenditure of public funds by the State for
the purpose of executing an unconstitutional act constitutes
a misapplication of such funds.
Can a President propose changes to the Constitution?
(See: Held #2)
Province of North Cotabato vs.
RP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
G.R. No. 183591. October 14, 2008
Facts:
➔ The Government of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF
were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on
the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF
Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. The signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP
and the MILF cannot materialize due to the TRO
enjoining the GRP from signing the same.
➔ The MOA-AD was preceded by a long process of
negotiation and the concluding of several prior
agreements between the two parties beginning in 1996.
In 1997, the GRP and MILF Peace Panels signed the
Agreement on General Cessation of Hostilities. In 1998,
they signed the General Framework of Agreement.
➔ The commitment of the parties to pursue peace
negotiations, protect and respect human rights,
negotiate with sincerity in the resolution and pacific
settlement of the conflict and refrain from the use of
threat or force to attain undue advantage while the
peace negotiations on the substantive agenda are on-
going.
➔ Towards the end of 1999 up to the early 2000, the MILF
attacked a number of municipalities in Central
Mindanao, and in March 2000, it took control of the town
hall of Kauswagan. In response, former President Estrada
declared and carried out an all-out war against the MILF.
➔ When former President Macapagal-Arroyo assumed
office, the government sought a resumption of the peace
talks. The MILF responded with reservation, but when
Arroyo asked the Government of Malaysia, through PM
Matahir Mohhamed, the MILF convened its Central
Committee to seriously discuss the matter and,
eventually, decide to meet with the GRP. Subsequently,
the MILF suspended all military actions.
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
➔ Formal peace talks between the parties were, then, held
in Tripoli, Libya in 2001, the outcome of which was the
GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli
Agreement 2001). Such contained the basic principles
and agenda on the following aspects of the negotiation:
 Security Aspect
 Rehabilitation Aspect
 Ancestral Domain Aspect – The parties in the Tripoli
Agreement 2001 simply agreed that the same be
discussed further by the parties in their next
meeting.
➔ A second round of peace talks was held in Cyberjaya,
Malaysia, which ended with the signing of the
Implementing Guidelines on the Security Aspect of the
Tripoli Agreement 2001, which eventually lead to a
ceasefire. This was followed by the Implementing
guidelines on the Humanitarian Rehabilitation and
Development Aspects of the Tripoli Agreement 2001.
Thus, in 2005, several exploratory talks were held
between the parties which eventually lead to the crafting
of the draft of the MOA-AD in its final form, which was
set to be signed last August 5, 2008.
MOA-AD
➔ Includes the early agreements between the GRP and the
MILF, and the GRP and the MNLF.
➔ Includes the controversial provision that previous laws
and treaties will be modified to fit promises made in this
agreement.
Four strands of the MOA-AD
➔ Concepts and principles:
 Bangsamoro people – The natives or original
inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands
including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the
time of conquest or colonization, and their
descendants whether mixed or full blood,
including their spouses.
 Bangsamoro people have a right to self-
governance.
 Bangsamoro ancestral domain does not form part
of the public domain.
 Pat a Pangampong ku Ranaw – Confederation of
independent principalities (pangampong) each
ruled by datus and sultans, none of who was
supreme over the others.
 Bangsamoro people are recognized as the first
nation which has a defined territory with a system
of government having entered into treatises of
amity and commerce with foreign nations.
 Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) – Grants the
authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral
Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro.
➔ Territory
 Includes maritime, terrestrial, fluvial, alluvial, aerial
and atmospheric domains; territory will also have
jurisdiction over all natural resources within its
12
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
"internal waters," defined as extending 15
kilometers from the coastline of the BJE area, as
well as territorial waters, stretching beyond BJE
internal waters until the baseline of the RP south
east and south west of mainland Mindanao; within
these territorial waters, BJE and Central
Government shall exercise joint jurisdiction,
authority and management over all natural
resources.
 Present geographic area of the ARMM: Lanao del
Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan and
Marawi City, as well as certain municipalities of
Lanao del Norte that voted for inclusion in the
ARMM in the 2001 plebiscite.
 BJE is also to cover other provinces, cities and
municipalities included in Category A and B; each
will be subjected to a plebiscite years apart from
each other.
▪ Category A areas are to be subjected to a
plebiscite not later than 12 months following
the signing of the MOA-AD.
▪ Category B areas (Special Intervention
Areas) are to be subjected to a plebiscite 25
years from the signing of a separate
agreement--the Comprehensive Compact.
 MOA-AD further provides for sharing of minerals
on the territorial waters between the Central
Government and the BJE, in favor of the latter.
➔ Resources
 BJE is free to enter into any economic (and
environmental) cooperation and trade relations
with foreign countries and shall have the option to
establish trade missions in those countries ○
Cannot include aggression against GRP.
 The external defense of the BJE is to remain the
duty and obligation of the Central Government.
 The BJE’s participation in international meetings
and events must be ensured by the Central
Government. It is entitled to participate in
Philippine official missions and delegations
concerning environmental protection and
equitable sharing of incomes and revenues
involving bodies of water within the ancestral
domain.
 The Central Government and the BJE will follow a
75:25 sharing of total production pertaining to
natural resources, in favor of the BJE.
 Jurisdiction and control over the right to
exploration, production, and obtaining of
potential sources of energy, petroleum, fossil fuel,
mineral oil and natural gas falls under the BJE
except in “times of national emergency when the
public interest so requires,” wherein the Central
Government may assume or direct operation (for a
fixed period and under reasonable terms as agreed
upon by both parties).
 The BJE may modify or cancel land tenure
instruments granted by the Philippine
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Government, including those issued by the present
ARMM.
➔ Governance
 The parties are bound to invite a multinational
third-party to observe and monitor the
implementation of the Comprehensive Compact.
 There is an “associative” relationship between the
Central Government and the BJE, characterized by
shared authority and responsibility.
 MOA-AD provides that its provisions requiring
“amendments to the existing legal framework”
shall take effect upon signing of the
Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting the
aforesaid amendments, with due regard to the
non-derogation of prior agreements.
 The BJE is granted power to build, develop and
maintain its own institutions.
Position of the Petitioners
➔ That they have the right to information on matters of
public concern.
➔ Seek to prohibit the signing of the MOA-AD, as many of
its provisions is unconstitutional.
➔ Not all the provisions of the MOA-AD can be
accommodated under the present Constitution and laws.
➔ Powers granted to the BJE exceed those granted to any
local government under the present laws, and even go
beyond those of the present ARMM. This nearly makes
the BJE its own independent state.
➔ Zamboanga, Iligan, Isabela, North Cotabato, Lanao del
Norte seek exclusion from the BJE territory as they allege,
they were not given the chance to vote for their inclusion
in the ARMM.
Position of the Respondents
➔ Petitions are moot and academic as the requests of the
petitioners to see the full content of the MOA-AD and
the pronouncement of the Executive Secretary that no
matter what the SC decides the government will not sign
the MOA-AD.
➔ The OSG argues that there is no justiciable controversy
that is ripe for judicial review.
➔ The issue no longer legitimately constitutes an actual
case or controversy.
➔ Full public disclosure of transactions involving public
interest must first be legislated by Congress to
implement—Doctrine of executive privilege.
Issue: W/N the MOA-AD violative of the Constitution.
Held: Yes. The MOA-AD goes against our present Constitution
and Laws. The associative relationship envisioned between
the GRP and the BJE are unconstitutional. The concept
presupposes that the associated entity is a State and implies
that the same is on its way to independence. An association is
formed when two states of unequal power voluntary establish
durable links. Free associations represent a middle ground
13
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
between integration and independence. In international
practice, the associated state arrangement has usually been
used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way
to full independence.
The MOA-AD contains many provisions which are consistent
with the international legal concept of association, to note:
➔ BJE’s capacity to enter into economic and trade relations
with foreign countries.
➔ The commitment of the GRP to ensure BJE’s participation
in meetings and events in ASEAN.
➔ GRP’s continued responsibility over external defense.
➔ BJE’s right to participate in Philippine official missions
bearing on negotiation of border agreements and
environmental protection.
➔ Sharing of revenues pertaining to the bodies of water
adjacent to, or between the islands forming part of the
ancestral domain.
The concept of association is not recognized under the
present Constitution. It does not contemplate any State in this
jurisdiction other than the Philippine State. Further, an
amendment is required for may of MOA-AD’s provisions, like
the following:
➔ Section 1, Article X – The territorial and political
subdivisions of the RP are provinces, cities,
municipalities, and barangays. There shall be
autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.
➔ Section 15, Article X – There shall be created
autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the
Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities,
and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive
historical and cultural heritage, economic and social
structures, and other relevant characteristics within the
framework of this Constitution and the national
sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic
of the Philippines.
If you take it into consideration, the BJE is a far more powerful
entity than the ARMM which is constituted in our Constitution.
It is a State in all but in name, meeting the criteria of a State
laid down in the Montevideo Convention:
➔ A permanent population;
➔ A defined territory;
➔ A government; and
➔ Capacity to enter into relations with other States.
Thus, the MOA-AD is unconstitutional because it virtually
guarantees that the necessary amendments to the
Constitutions and the laws eventually be put into place.
Neither the GRP Peace Panel nor the President is authorized
to make such a guarantee. Upholding such an act would
amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers
vested only in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the
people themselves though the process of initiative. Further,
the President’s authority is limited to proposing constitutional
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
amendments. The President cannot guarantee to any third
party that the required amendments will eventually be put in
place nor even be submitted to a plebiscite. In this case, the
MOA-AD itself presents the need to amend.
Can the President guarantee of change in the Constitution?
No. Neither the GRP Peace Panel nor the President is
authorized to make such a guarantee. Upholding such an act
would amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent
powers vested only in Congress, a Constitutional Convention,
or the people themselves though the process of initiative.
To what extent can the President participate?
The President has no legislative power to propose, but can
suggest to Congress needed charges. This is usually done
through SONA. The power to create the committee rests from
the “take-care-power” of the President under Section 17,
Article 7. The power to ensure that laws are faithfully executed
gives him the authority to create a fact-finding committee –
ad hoc committee in order to study the implementation of the
law and the study of the Constitution. As long as the work of
the Consultative Committee is only recommendatory it is not
binding on the Congress which means that the Congress is
free whether to adopt or reject the proposal of the
consultative committee.
What is the extent of permissibility of the President as to
initiative?
the President’s authority is limited to proposing constitutional
amendments. The President cannot guarantee to any third
party that the required amendments will eventually be put in
place nor even be submitted to a plebiscite.
Santiago vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153. October 25, 2006
Facts:
➔ Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to
amend the Constitution, to lift term limits of elective
officials, by people’s initiative (Delfin Petition). Delfin
alleged in his petition that he is a founding member of
the Movement for People’s Initiative, and that he and the
members of the movement intend to:
 Exercise the power to directly propose
amendments;
 That the exercise of that power shall be conducted
in proceedings under the control and supervision of
the COMELEC;
 That as required by COMELEC, signature stations
shall be established all over the country, with the
assistance of municipal election registrars who shall
verify the signatures affixed by individual
signatories;
 Before the movement and its volunteers gather
signatures, time and dates to be designated must
be fixed in an order to be issued by the COMELEC;
and
 Adequately inform the people of the electoral
process involved.
➔ The Delfin Petition further alleged that the provisions
sought to be amended are:
 Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI;
 Section 4 of Article VII; and
 Section 8 of Article X.
➔ According to Delfin, the petition for initiative will first be
submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at least
12% of the total number of registered voters in the
country, it will be formally filed with the COMELEC.
➔ Upon filing, COMELEC issued an order directing Delfin to
cause the publication of the petition, including the
proposal, proposed constitutional amendment, and the
signature form, and the notice of hearing in 3 daily
newspapers of general circulation at his own expense. At
the hearing of the Delfin Petition, Senator Roco filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the ground that it is not the
initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC.
After hearing the arguments, COMELEC directed Delfin
and the oppositors to file a memorandum within five
days.
➔ Thus, Senator Defensor-Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and
Maria Isabel Ongpin filed this special civil action for
prohibition, raising the following arguments:
 The constitutional provision on people’s initiative
to amend the Constitution can only be
implemented by law to be passed by Congress.
 It is true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three
systems of initiative (Constitution, statutes, local
legislation). However, it failed to provide any
subtitle initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the
other modes of initiative. This deliberate omission
indicates that the matter of people’s initiative to
amend the Constitution was left to some future law.
 R.A. No. 6735 covers only laws and not
constitutional amendments.
 COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires insofar
as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
concerned, since COMELEC has no power to
provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the
right of initiative to amend the Constitution.
 The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to
the Constitution, not to revision thereof.
 Congress has not yet appropriated funds for
people’s initiative; neither the COMELEC office has
realigned funds for the purpose.
➔ To justify their recourse, petitioners allege that in the
event the COMELEC grants the Delfin Petition, the
people’s initiative would entail expenses to the national
treasury for general re-registration of voters. Further,
Delfin filed in his own behalf a comment, or a knee-jerk
reaction to a draft petition for initiative on the 1987
Constitution. Delfin maintained that:
 R.A. 6735 governs the conduct of initiative to
amend the Constitution.

14

POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
 Section 9(b) of R.A. No. 6735 specifically provides
that the proposition in an initiative to amend the
Constitution shall become effective as of the day of
the plebiscite.
 COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires is
contradicted by the Constitution which grants
COMELEC the power to enforce and administer all
laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election.
 The proposed initiative does not involve a revision
of, but mere amendment to the Constitution.
➔ Later, Senator Roco filed his petition in intervention,
averring that R.A. No. 6735 is the enabling law that
implements the people’s right to initiate constitutional
amendments. He likewise submits that COMELEC was
empowered to promulgate COMELEC Resolution No.
2300. Nevertheless, he contends that COMELEC is
without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Delfin
Petition and to order its publication because the said
petition is not the initiatory pleading contemplated
under the Constitution, R.A. 6735, and COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300. He further submits that the
proponents of a constitutional amendment cannot avail
of the authority and resources of the COMELEC to assist
them in securing the required number of signatures, as
the COMELEC’s role in an initiative is limited to the
determination of the sufficiency of the initiative petition
and the call and super vision of a plebiscite, if warranted.
Issue: W/N R.A. No. 6735 was intended to include or cover
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and if so,
whether it covers such initiative.
Held: No. The provision is not self-executory. Father Joaquin
Bernas stated that without implementing legislation Section 2
cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of amending the
Constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses
congressional action, in the last analysis, it still is dependent
on congressional action. The right of the people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution through the system
of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the
Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation.
R.A. 6735 was, as history reveals, intended to cover initiative
and referendum. However, such Republic Act does not have
full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to
provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right.
Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on
amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of the word
“Constitution” was an afterthought. That word is neither
germane nor relevant. Initiative on the Constitution is
confined only to proposals to amend. The people are not
accorded the power to “directly propose, enact, approve, or
reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution” though the system
of initiative. Further, while the act provides subtitles for
national initiative and referendum, and for local initiative and
referendum, no subtitle is provided for initiative on the
Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply
means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and
15
POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
referendum on national and local laws. The foregoing brings
us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete,
inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions. Its
lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be
cured by empowering the COMELEC to promulgate such rules
and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes
of the Act.
RA 6735 – Sufficient enabling law of People’s initiative
Tolentino vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. L-34150. October 16, 1971
Facts:
➔ A Constitutional Convention was called upon to propose
amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines by
virtue of two resolutions of the Congress approved in its
capacity as a constituent assembly convened for the
purpose of calling a convention to propose amendments
to the Constitution.
➔ The petitioners raised that OR No. 1 and other
implementing resolutions subsequently approved by the
Convention have no force and effect as laws in so far as
they provide for the holding of a plebiscite coincident
with the elections since the proposed amendment in
question cannot be presented to the people for
ratification separately from each and all of the other
amendments to be drafted and proposed by the
Convention. Hence, all of COMELEC’s acts are null and
void on the ground that calling and holding of such a
plebiscite is a power lodged exclusively in Congress as a
legislative body and may not be exercised by the
Convention.
➔ However, the respondents and intervenors posit that the
power to provide for, fix the date and lay down the
details of the plebiscite for the ratification of any
amendment the Convention may deem proper to
propose is within the authority of the Convention as a
necessary consequence and part of its power to propose
amendments and that this power includes that of
submitting such amendments either individually or
jointly at such time and manner as the Convention may
direct in its discretion.
Issue: W/N the Resolution approved by the 1971
Constitutional Convention constitutional.
Held: No. In providing for the questioned plebiscite before it
has finished, and separately from, the whole draft of the
Constitution it has been called to formulate, OR No. 1 and all
subsequent acts of the Convention violate the condition in
Section 1, Article XV. The Supreme Court arrived at this
conclusion for the following reasons:
➔ The language of the Constitutional provision is clear. It
states that “such amendments shall be valid as part of
this Constitution when approved by a majority of the
votes cast at an election at which the amendments are
submitted to the people for their ratification.” The
provision unequivocally says an election which means
only one.
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
➔ The Constitution has to be an integrated and
harmonious instrument, if it is to be viable as the
framework of the government it establishes, on the one
hand, and adequately formidable and reliable as the
succinct but comprehensive articulation of the rights,
liberties, ideologies, social ideals, and national and
nationalistic policies and aspirations of the people. A
constitution is the work of the people thru its drafters
assembled by them for the purpose. At the very least,
they can examine it before casting their vote and
determine for themselves from a study of the whole
document the merits and demerits of all or any of its
parts and of the document as a whole.
Further, it is evident that no fixed frame of reference is
provided for the voter. There are other considerations which
make it impossible to vote intelligently on the proposed
amendment. No one knows what changes in the fundamental
principles of the constitution the Convention will be minded
to approve. To be more specific, the voters do not have any
means of foreseeing whether the right to vote would be of
any significant value at all. The Convention is precisely on the
verge of introducing substantial changes, if not radical ones,
in almost every part and aspect of the existing social and
political order enshrined in the present Constitution. How can
a voter in the proposed plebiscite intelligently determine the
effect of the reduction of the voting age upon the different
institutions which the Convention may establish and of which
presently he is not given any idea of. Clearly, there is improper
submission, thus it is unconstitutional.

Is there anything that prohibit partial submission of proposal

under the 1935 Constitution? What part?
Yes. Article XV of the 1935 Constitution.

Doctrine of Proper Submission

The Doctrine of Proper Submission is when all the proposed
amendments to the Constitution shall be presented to the
people for the ratification or rejection at the same time, not
piecemeal

Connection of Santiago and Lambino

Lambino vs. Lambino vs.

Santiago vs. COMELEC COMELEC
COMELEC (minute
(Oct 2006; Resolution,
(RA 6735 is Revisit the Nov 2006; RA
insufficient) sufficiency of 6735 is
RA6735) insufficient)

Since this is only a minute resolution, not an en banc decision,

it is not stare decisis. Thus, the Santiago ruling still holds.

16

POLI RECIT Qs / AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva