Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary of Chapter 1 - Group 1
Summary of Chapter 1 - Group 1
A. IN GENERAL
Laws
- Refers to the whole body or system of law
- Rule of conduct formulated and made obligatory by legitimate power of the state
- It Includes statutes, enacted by the legislature, presidential decrees, and executive orders issued by
the President in the exercise of his legislative power, other presidential issuances in the exercise of
his ordinance power, rulings of the Supreme Court construing the law, rules and regulations
promulgated by administrative or executive officers pursuant to a delegated power and ordinances
passed by Sanggunians of local government units.
Statutes
- An act of legislature as an organized body, expressed in the form and passed according to the
procedure, required to constitute it as part of the law of the land.
- Statutes enacted by the legislature are those passed by the Philippine Commission, Phil. Legislature,
Batasang Pambansa and Congress.
- Other laws which are of the same category and binding force as statutes are Presidential Decrees
issued by the President in the exercise of his legislative power during the period of Martial Law.
- Executive Orders of President Aquino during the revolutionary period under the Freedom Constitution
According to application:
● Prospective
- If it shall apply in the present and in the future.
● Retroactive
- If shall affect actions in the past
According to operation:
● Declaratory
● Curative
● Mandatory
● Directory
● Substantive
● Remedial
● Penal
According to form:
● Affirmative
● Negative
Presidential Decrees and Executive Orders issued by the President in exercise of his legislative power are
also serially numbered.
B. ENACTMENT OF STATUTES
Example: A constitutional provision that any municipality by vote of four-sevenths of its qualified electors
may issue and sell revenue bonds in order to pay for the cost of purchasing a municipally owned public
utility is self-executing and effective without a legislative enactment.
- The mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action taken by the body
when the requisite number of members had agreed to a particular measure.
Bills may originate from either Lower or Upper House, but the following shall originate only from the
House of Representatives:
✔ Appropriation
✔ Revenue/ tariff bills
✔ Bills authorizing increase of public debt
✔ Bills of local application
✔ Private bills
● On Second reading
- The Bill shall be read in full with the amendments proposed by the Committee for study and
recommendation, unless copies are distributed and such reading is dispensed with.
- Bill will be subject to debates, motions and amendments
- After the amendments shall have been acted upon, the Bill will be voted on second reading.
- A bill approved on second reading shall be included in the Calendar of bills for third reading.
- On Third reading, the bill as approved on second reading will be submitted for final vote by
Yeas and Nays.
Third reading
A bill is approved by either House after it has gone three readings.
- No Bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate
days and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its members, three days
before its passage
o except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet
a public calamity or emergency.
o The exception dispenses with the requirement not only of printing but also that of reading
the bill on separate days. The "UNLESS" clause must be read in relation to the "EXCEPT"
clause because the two are coordinate clauses of the same sentence.
o The factual basis of the Presidential certification of bills may not be subject to judicial
review, as it merely involves doing away with the procedural requirements designed to
insure that bills are duly considered by members of Congress.
- Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall
be taken immediately thereafter, and the YEAS and NAYS entered in the Journal.
There may be 3 (three) versions of a bill or revenue bill originating from the lower house.
● Lower House
● Senate
● Conference Committee
▪ If the “Other House” approves without amendment, it is passed to the President.
▪ If the “Other House” introduces amendments, and disagreement arises, differences will
be settled by the Conference Committees of both Chambers.
▪ Report and recommendation of the 2 Conference Committees will have to be approved
by both houses in order to be considered passed.
▪ If both houses approve the report of the Conference Committee adopting a third version
of the bill, then it is the latter that is the final version, which is conclusive under the
doctrine of enrolled bill, that will be submitted to the President for approval.
Authentication of Bills
- Before an approved bill is sent to the President for his reconsideration as required by the
Constitution, the bill is authenticated.
- The system of authentication devised is the signing by the Speaker and the Senate President of
the printed copy of the approved bill, certified by the respective secretaries of the both Houses.
To signify to the President that the bill being presented to him has been duly approved by the
legislature and is ready for his approval or rejection.
C. PARTS OF STATUTES
Preamble
- A prefatory statement or explanation or a finding of facts, reciting the purpose, reason or occasion
for making the law to which it is prefixed.
Title of Statute
- The Constitution provides that “every bill” passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
Enacting clause
- The part of statute written immediately after the title thereof which states the authority by which
the act is enacted
- If any provision of the act is declared invalid, the remainder shall not be affected thereby. It is not
controlling and the courts may invalidate the whole statute where what is left, after the void part,
is not complete and workable.
Repealing Clause
- Announces the prior statutes or specific provisions which have been abrogated by a reason for
the enactment of the new law.
Effectivity Clause
- Announces the effective date of the law. It refers to the date that the law takes effect after 15
days of publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper for general circulation purposes.
- An enrolled bill is passed by congress, authenticated by the Speaker and the Senate President and
approved by the President.
- If there is a serious and substantial disparity between the text of the bill (deliberated in the
legislature) and the printed text sent to the President; the House Speaker and Senate President
may withdraw their respective signatures. The court can declare the bill has not been duly enacted
and did not accordingly become a law.
- The effects of withdrawal are as follows:
Question: Some congressmen after saying yes for the approval of the Anti-Terrorism Bill wanted
to withdraw their votes. Can they still stop the enrolled bill from becoming a law?
Answer: Since the bill was already enrolled (with signature from both of the Speaker and Senate
President), it is up to the President if he vetoes it or not.
Chapter 2, Book III of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), the President is granted
an ordinance power to issue the following:
● SECTION 2. Executive Orders
- Acts of the President providing for rules of a general or permanent character in
implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be
promulgated in executive orders.
● SECTION 3. Administrative Orders
- Acts of the President which relate to particular aspects of governmental operations in
pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative
orders.
● SECTION 4. Proclamations
- Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or
interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made
to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an
executive order.
● SECTION 5. Memorandum Order
- Acts of the President on matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary
interest which only concern a particular officer or office of the Government shall be
embodied in memorandum orders.
● SECTION 6. Memorandum Circulars
- Acts of the President on matters relating to internal administration, which the
President desires to bring to the attention of all or some of the departments,
agencies, bureaus or offices of the Government, for information or compliance, shall
be embodied in memorandum circulars.
● SECTION 7. General or Special Order
- Acts and commands of the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be issued as general or special orders.
QUESTION: Can the president issue a Presidential Decree under the current Constitution?
Answer: NO. Presidential decrees are laws which are of the same category and binding force as
statutes. Former President Marcos issued Presidential Decrees in his exercise of Legislative Power
during the period of Martial Law under the 1973 Constitution.
Essential Elements
1. Be complete in itself
- It must set forth the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the
delegate.
2. Fix a standard
- The limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable, to which the delegate
must conform in the performance of his functions. The standard is either expressed or
implied from the policy and purpose of the act as a whole, marks its limits, maps out its
boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it.
CEMCO Holdings, Inc. v. National Life Insurance Co., G.R. No. 171815 (August 7, 2007)
- Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure of authority conferred upon
the administrative agency by law, partake the nature of a statute, and compliance therewith may be
enforced by penal sanction provided by the law.
- The power to promulgate rules in the implementation of a statue is necessarily limited to what is
provided for in the legislative enactment. Its term must be followed for an administrative agency
cannot amend an Act of Congress.
- The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulation of the mode or proceedings to carry
into effect the law as it has been enacted, and it cannot be extended to amend or expand the statutory
requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.
- If a discrepancy occurs between the basic law and an implementing rule or regulation, it is the former
that prevails. The rule-making power of a public administrative body is a delegated legislative power,
which it may not use either to abridge the authority given it by Congress or the Constitution or to
enlarge its power beyond the scope intended.
In resolving the issue on whether or not the executive order banning the importation of used vehicles
through the Free Trade Zone is valid, the Court enumerated the requisites for a valid executive order or
any administrative rule.
To be valid, an administrative issuance, such as an executive order, must comply with the following
requirements:
Delegation of legislative power to the President is permitted in Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the
Constitution. It provides:
(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.
Anent 1st requisite, EO 156 satisfies it. It has both constitutional and statutory bases.
Anent 2nd requisite, the order must be issued or promulgated in accordance with the prescribed
procedure, it is necessary that the nature of the administrative issuance is properly determined.
The Court enunciated the doctrine that when an administrative rule goes beyond merely providing
for the means that can facilitate or render less cumbersome the implementation of the law and
substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to
those directly affected with a chance to be heard and, thereafter, to be duly informed, before the
issuance is given the force and effect of law.
Anent 4th requisite, administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the
issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly
adapted to secure the end in view.
A regulation phasing out taxi cabs more than six years old is a valid exercise of police power. The
regulation was sustained as a reasonable holding that the purpose thereof was to promote the
convenience and comfort and protect the safety of the passengers
Lupangco vs CA
PRC prohibited examinees from attending review classes and receiving handouts 3 days before the
accounting exam. Besides being unreasonable and violative of academic freedom:
Enforcement of this resolution is not a guarantee that leakages will be avoided
The measure was found to be more sweeping than necessary (how) - like uprooting a tree to get rid
of the rotting branch. Instead, find out the source of corruption - hold accountable the corrupt
officials, flush out swindlers and fixers, revoke licenses etc.
DAR v. Sutton
While admin rules have the force and effect of law, they are not immune to judicial review. They are
subject to cases for review in the Court when it seems there is a violation of the Constitution or
GADALEJ from the issuing agency.
DAR AO 9 wanted to include in its regulation the classification of “livestock farms.” However, upon
determining the intentions of the constitution, all lands EXCLUSIVELY devoted to livestock, swine and
poultry-raising (farm animal raising in general) are not “agricultural activities” but are “industrial
activities.” DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempt by the constitution
from the coverage of agrarian reform
In Dar v. Sutton, what the CARL prohibits is the conversion of agricultural lands into industrial lands
after the effectiveness of CARL. Such was not the case for respondents. Nevertheless, AO 9 was
deemed unconstitutional.
Maxima Realty Management and Dev Corp. v Parkway Real Estate Dev Corp
A Presidential Decree, being a statute, is superior to an administrative rule. Pres Dec states that the
period of appeal is 15 days. The period of appeal of 30 days set forth in Sec 27 of HLURB 1994 Rules
of Procedure is void for being in conflict with Presidential Decree No. 957
Without the advice and concurrence of the SC, statutes that allow appeal from a quasi-judicial
body to the Supreme Court are unconstitutional (Art. 8, sec.5 (5)).
The SC cannot make substantive laws. Its rule-making powers are only for procedural ones. The
legislature can make substantive and procedural laws.
If a rule creates or takes away a right, it is not procedural. If it is merely operational on a given
right, it is so (e.g. procedure on appeal).
E. VALIDITY OF STATUE
Presumption of constitutionality
⮚ EVERY statute is presumed valid. One consideration is that the people (Legislature, President) who
approved the law deemed such to be constitutional.
⮚ To declare a law unconstitutional, the repugnancy of the law must be clear and unequivocal - it
must be struck down if the statute allows something that the constitution prohibits.
⮚ There must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful or
argumentative implication.
⮚ Laws shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the constitution is CLEAR BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT. All reasonable doubts should be ruled in favor of constitutionality.
Laws are declared unconstitutional by final authority of the SC sitting en banc by the concurrence of a
majority of the members who participated in the deliberations and voted thereon.
Nonetheless, LOWER COURTS have jurisdiction to initially decide the issue of constitutionality of a law in
appropriate cases. But it would be prudent for the lower court to defer to the SC.
REASONABLE DOUBT
● Reasonable doubt is established by investigating and gathering evidence, including testimony, if
appropriate, to prove that an accuser did not commit the crime they are accused of. Lawyers must
use all legal avenues to pursue the truth and prove beyond reasonable doubt that their client is
innocent.
The final authority to declare a law is unconstitutional -- is the Supreme Court "en banc" by the
concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted thereon.
• Final arbiter of unconstitutionality of law is the Supreme Court EN BANC (majority who took part
and voted thereon)
• Nonetheless, trial courts have jurisdiction to initially decide the issue of constitutionality of a law in
appropriate cases.
Before the court may resolve the question of constitutionality of a statute, the following requisites should
as a rule be present:
a. The existence of an appropriate case
b. Interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question
c. Plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity
d. Necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case
a. APPROPRIATE CASE
“Separation of powers”
- The political question being a function of the separating powers, the courts will not normally
interfere with the workings of another co-equal branch unless the case shows a clear need for the
courts step in to uphold the law and the Constitution
However, Constitution expands the concept of judicial review – "The 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 branch or the part of any branch/ instrumentality of the Government"
b. STANDING TO SUE
Not every person or taxpayer can question the constitutionality of a law. That rule is that a person
who questions the validity of a statue must show that he has sustained or is in immediate danger of
sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
When the asserted harm is a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all or a
large class citizen, that harm alone does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction. Without such direct
injury, the petition challenging the validity of a law states no cause of affection and should be
dismissed.
E.g. Taxpayers may bring an action to restrain officials from wasting public funds through the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
- Constitutional questions will not be entertained by courts unless they are specifically raised, insisted upon
and adequately argued.
Where the question of validity, though apparently has become moot, has become of paramount
interest and there is undeniable necessity for a ruling, strong reasons of public policy may demand
that its constitutionality be resolved
There is a difference between the rule on "REAL PARTY - IN - INTEREST" and the "RULE on STANDING"
● Real party in interest is a concept of Civil procedure
● Rule on Standing (e.g. Chief Justice) - has constitutional underpinnings. (strong foundation)
It is important to note that standing because of constitutional and public policy underpinnings, is very
different from questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the real party in interest or has a
capacity to sue.
On the other hand, the question as to "REAL PARTY IN INTEREST" is whether he is "the party who
would benefitted or injured by the judgement" or the "party entitled to the avails of the suit"
✔ When suing as a "Citizen" the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must
be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid,
but also he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
⮚ It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege
to which he is lawfully entitled
⮚ Or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act
complained of.
⮚ When the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies
the requirement of a personal interest.
✔ When suing as a "Taxpayer" he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally
disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper use or that there is a wastage of public
funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law
⮚ Before he can invoke the power of judicial review, he must specifically prove that he has sufficient
interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he would sustain a
direct injury as a result of enforcement of the questioned statute
✔ When suing as a "Legislator" he is allowed to question the validity of any official action which he claims
infringes his prerogatives as a legislator.
⮚ This reason however, does not suffice to clothe it with standing, its interest is too general, It is shared
by other groups and the whole citizenry.
✔ When dealing with "Class Suits" - filed in behalf of all citizen, persons intervening must be sufficiently
numerous to fully protect the interests of all concerned to enable the court to deal properly with all
interests involved in the suit for a judgement in the class suit, whether favorable or unfavorable to the
class is under the "Res Judicata" principle, binding on all members of the class, whether or not they were
before the court.
The Court has adopted a liberal attitude on the locus standi of a petitioner where the petitioner is able to
craft an issue of transcendental significance to the people, as when the issues raised are of paramount
importance to the public. A party must, at the very least, still plead the existence of "personal and
substantial interest".
The motion of intervention under Rule 19 Section 2 of the Rules of Court requires an intervenor to possess
a legal interest in matter in litigation or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both
or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody
of the court or of an officer thereof.
RIPENESS and MATURITY
- For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication "it is a prerequisite that something had by then been
accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture". Only then
the court may pass the validity of what was done, if and when the latter is challenged in an appropriate
legal proceeding.
- Related to the issue of ripeness is the question whether the instant petitions are premature.
JUSTICIABILITY
During the 1973 Constitution, Supreme Court without consistency and seemingly without any rhyme
or reason, the Court were vacillated (uncertain/hesitant) in its stance on taking cognizance of cases
which involved political questions. In some cases, this court, hid behind the cover of political question
doctrine and refused to exercise its power of judicial review.
- The "limitation on the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies" carries the assurance that
"the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government
During the 1973 Constitution, Supreme Court without consistency and seemingly without any rhyme
or reason, the Court were vacillated (uncertain/hesitant) in its stance on taking cognizance of cases
which involved political questions. In some cases, this court, hid behind the cover of political question
doctrine and refused to exercise its power of judicial review.
Example:
Estrada v. Desierto
Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution cannot be any clearer: "The judicial power shall be vested in
one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. [It] 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." In Estrada v. Desierto, the
expanded concept of judicial power under the 1987 Constitution and its effect on the political question
doctrine was explained as follows:
To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it
expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of government. Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the "thou shalt not's" of the Constitution directed
against the exercise of its jurisdiction. With the new provision, however, courts are given a greater
prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new provision did
not just grant the Court power of doing nothing. x x x (Emphases supplied)
It must also be borne in mind that "when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does
not assert any superiority over the other departments; does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
legislature [or the executive], but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the
Constitution." To a great extent, the Court is laudable cognizant of the reforms undertaken by its co-equal
branches of government.
But it is by constitutional force that the Court must faithfully perform its duty. Ultimately, it is the Court‘s avowed
intention that a resolution of these cases would not arrest or in any manner impede the endeavors of the two
other branches but, in fact, help ensure that the pillars of change are erected on firm constitutional grounds.
After all, it is in the best interest of the people that each great branch of government, within its own sphere,
contributes its share towards achieving a holistic and genuine solution to the problems of society. For all these
reasons, the Court cannot heed respondents‘ plea for judicial restraint.
During the Marcos regime, Chief Justice Concepcion who became a Constitutional Commissioner clarified
the Court's power of judicial review and its application issues involving political questions:
“It is clear that judicial power is not only a power, it is also a duty, a duty which cannot be abdicated by
the mere specter of this creature called political question doctrine” Chief Justice Concepcion hastened to
clarify, however that Section 1 of Article VIII was not intended to do away with “truly political questions”
From the clarification it is gathered that there are two species of political questions: (1) truly political
questions and (2) those which are not truly political questions”
TEST OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
- The test of constitutionality of a statute is what the Constitution provides in relation to what can or
may be done under the statute, and not by what it has been done under it.
A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in application.
Unbridled - unrestrained
Arbitrary - unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority; based on random choice or personal whim,
rather than any reason or system; describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or
judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules
Tests of Validity:
⮚ It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
⮚ It must not be unfair or oppressive
⮚ It must be not be partial or discriminatory
⮚ It must not prohibit but may regulate trade
⮚ It must be general and consistent with public policy
⮚ It must not be reasonable
- Not all the parties but all persons are bound by the declaration of unconstitutionality, which
means that no one may therefore invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to apply it in
subsequent cases. It is in other words, a total nullity
● Modern view is less stringent
- The court in passing upon the question of unconstitutionality does not annul or repeal the statute
if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution.
- It simply refuses to recognize it and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute
had no existence.
- The court may give its reasons for ignoring or disregarding the law, but the decision affects the
parties only and there is no judgment against the statute
- It does not strike the books from the statute books
- It does not repeal, supersede, revoke or annul the statute
- The parties to the suit are concluded by the judgment, but no one else is bound.
PARTIAL INVALIDITY
- The exception of the general rule is that when the parts of a statute are so mutually dependent and
connected, as conditions, considerations, inducements, or compensations for each other as to
warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole the nullity of one part will vitiate the
rest.
Generally, rules and regulations issued by administrative or executive officers are of two types, namely:
● Those whose purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation or to
fill in the details of a statute. This type requires publication to be effective.
● Those which are merely interpretative in nature or merely internal in character not concerning
the public. These do not need to be published.
a. Otherwise stated in the ordinance or the resolution the, local development plan and public
investment program, the same shall take, effect after ten (10) days from the copy thereof is
posted in a bulletin board at the 'entrance of the provincial capitol or city, municipal or barangay
hall.
b. The secretary to the sanggunian concern shall cause the posting of an ordinance or resolution in
the bulletin board at the entrance of the provincial capitol and the city, municipal or barangay
hall in at least two (2) conspicuous places in the, local 'government unit concerned not later than
five (5) days after approval.
c. The gist of all ordinances with penal sanctions shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation within the province where the local legislative body concerned belongs.
d. In the case of highly urbanized and independent component cities, the main features of the
ordinance or resolution duly enacted or adopted shall, in addition to being posted, be published
once in a local newspaper of general circulation within the city.
Temporary statutes
● are those that, according to their provisions, are in force only for a limited period,
● terminate upon the expiration of the term therein stated or upon the occurrence of certain
events.
No repealing statute is necessary to bring a temporary law to an end.