Constitutional law ensures separation of powers through division, with each department having

exclusive jurisdiction and supreme authority within its sphere.

The Constitution does not imply that the three powers are unrestrained and independent.
system of checks and balances
The Chief Executive is a check on legislative power, requiring his assent in enacting laws.
The National Assembly acts as a check on the Executive, requiring consent for officer
appointments and a majority's consent for treaties.
The National Assembly also exercises control over the judicial department, determining courts
and determining jurisdiction.
The judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks other departments
in determining laws and declaring executive and legislative acts void if violative of the
Constitution.
Gamboa vs. Teves
Facts:
In 1969, General Telephone and Electronics Corporation (GTE) sold 26% of PLDT's
outstanding common shares to Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation (PTIC).
In 1977, Prime Holdings, Inc. (PHI) became the owner of 111,415 shares of PTIC. In 1986, the
111,415 shares were confiscated by the Presidential Commission on Good Government,
representing 46.125 percent of the outstanding capital stock. In 1999, First Pacific acquired the
remaining 54% of PTIC's stock. In 2006, the Philippine Government sold the shares to Parallax
Venture, who won with a bid of P25.6 billion or US$510 million. First Pacific then exercised its
right of first refusal as a PTIC stockholder and bought the remaining shares. In 2007, First
Pacific entered into a Conditional Sale and Purchase Agreement with the Philippine
Government for P25,217,556,000 or US$510,580,189. This sale violated Section 11, Article XII
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which limits foreign ownership of a public utility's capital to
no more than 40%. The petitioner filed a petition for prohibition, injunction, declaratory relief,
and declaration of nullity of sale of the 111,415 PTIC shares.

Issue:

Whether or not the term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refer to the total
common shares only or to the total outstanding capital stock of PLDT, a public utility?

Ruling:

Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution mandates the Filipinization of public utilities, requiring only
citizens or corporations or associations with at least 60% of their capital owned by them to be
granted franchises or authorizations. These rights must be subject to amendment, alteration, or
repeal by Congress when necessary for the common good. The state encourages equity
participation in public utilities, with foreign investors limited to their proportionate share in the
governing body and all executive and managing officers being citizens of the Philippines.

The Constitution's framers aimed to ensure Filipino nationals were always in control of public utility
corporations, preventing ownership structures from being divided into one percent common stocks and
ninety-nine percent (99%) preferred stocks.

This would create an absurd situation where foreigners, who are supposed to be minority shareholders,
control the public utility corporation.

The term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers only to shares of stock entitled to
vote in the election of directors, and in the present case, only to common shares.

This interpretation aligns with the intent of the framers to place control and management in the hands
of Filipino citizens.
In the absence of provisions in the articles of incorporation denying voting rights to preferred shares,
preferred shares have the same voting rights as common shares.

However, preferred shareholders are often excluded from control, deprived of the right to vote in the
election of directors and other matters, on the theory that preferred shareholders are merely investors
in the corporation for income. Common shares cannot be deprived of the right to vote in any corporate
meeting, and any provision in the articles of incorporation restricting the right of common shareholders
to vote is invalid.
Francisco v. House of Representatives

Facts:
In June 2003, former President Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against C.J. Davide,
Jr., among others. The House Committee on Justice dismissed the complaint on 22 October
2003 for being insufficient in substance.
Just five months later, a second impeachment complaint was filed by respondents'
representatives.
This led to petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the House of
Representatives, arguing that the filing of the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional
as it violates Sec. 3 (5), Art. XI of the Constitution.
The House argues that the one-year bar could not have been violated as the first impeachment
complaint had not been initiated.
The House has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment, and filing can only be
accomplished through a verified complaint by any member of the House, a resolution of
endorsement by any member, or at least 1/3 of all House members.
As the House has yet to act on the first impeachment complaint, the first complaint could not
have been initiated.

Issue:

Is the second impeachment complaint barred under Section 3(5) of Art. XI of the Constitution?
Ruling:
Yes. The Constitutional Commission's deliberations revealed that the framers intended
"initiation" to start with the filing of a complaint. The vote of one-third of the House in a resolution
of impeachment does not initiate impeachment proceedings, which were already initiated by the
filing of a verified complaint.
Under the one-year bar on initiating impeachment proceedings, no second verified complaint
can be accepted and referred to the Committee on Justice for action within one year. The
argument that only the House can initiate impeachment proceedings is misleading and
contradicts the principle of reddendo singula singulis ( when
a list of words has a
modifying phase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last.) .
The Constitution is a legal document that provides for the initiation of impeachment cases by the
House of Representatives or citizens upon a resolution of endorsement.
A vote of at least one-third of all House Members is necessary to either affirm a favorable
resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee or override its contrary resolution.
The Constitution's principles of construction include verba legis, ratio legis est anima, and ut
magis valeat quam pereat.
An impeachment case is a legal controversy that must be decided by the Senate, and the
House has exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
The power of judicial review extends to those arising from impeachment proceedings, but the
Constitution provides for several limitations to the exercise of such power, such as the manner
of filing, required vote to impeach, and one-year bar on the impeachment of one and the same
official.
Courts are dutybound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government
properly acted within constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon
political bodies.
There are two types of political questions: justiciable and non-justiciable, and the determination
of one from the other lies in the answer to whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on
powers or functions conferred upon political bodies.