CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART I: INTRODUCTION

PART I: INTRODUCTION people). He did not deprive poor

people of resources. In fact, he
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I IS ABOUT POWER maximized it
• Members = the sovereign people
A. THE CONSTITUTION AS A SOCIAL CONTRACT • How to evidence the social contract = the Organic
Act/Constitution
Maximize own potential → pursue the greatest good for
the greatest number = SOCIAL CONTRACT CONSTITUTION
• Constitution designated the sovereign people to
A constitution is a social contract created by and binding upon have the power
a group of people who dwell in a complex society where • Effectively delegate the collective power
everyone seeks to protect his own personal interest vis-à-vis • Why did we delegate power? Organized/efficient
those of others. Under the power of such contract, everyone exercise of power in order to achieve the
agrees to live together in harmony and to maintain order to objective of the common good
subsequently accord equal or fair share of opportunities for • Without it: anarchy/chaos
everyone to pursue his interests. A constitution, as a contract, • Created an institution that will effectively exercise
compels protection of certain rights, restrictions on liberties, that power for us = the State
assumption of duties, and distribution of powers.
The Constitution defined
sovereign people • Elements of a State:
(has the power) 1. People → “citizens” (who consented and hence
↓ have rights)
social contract 2. Territory
(trade-off concept – by giving up some of your rights, you 3. Sovereignty
will attain more) 4. Government → mechanism to effectively
↓ exercise the delegated power
Constitution
(to evidence the social contract)
• Pursue the common good
↓
• Common good = truth, freedom, justice, love,
the State
equality, peace
(an institution that will effectively exercise the power)
↓ • Guideposts for the attainment of the common good
Legislative, Executive and Judiciary branches = rule of law, democracy, republican system
(delegation of powers: organized and efficient exercise of • “Governing” = govern for and in behalf of the people
powers; separation of powers to prevent abuse: system • “Public office is a public trust” – power delegated by
of checks and balance) the people
• Object of the social contract (Constitution) =
common good
CONTRACT – agreement
• Understanding between parties DELEGATION OF THE POWER TO 3 BRANCHES – in
• Meeting of the minds order to prevent abuse of power
• Element of consent (permission) is present = rights • Separation of powers based on the delegation of
& obligations (cements the relationship) powers (system of checks and balance – definite
roles; prevent concentration)
• If it is contrary to law, public policy, etc. = it cannot
be a subject of a contract (values)
Legislative – making laws
Eg. Before, colluvium was a right (Spanish
Civil Code). However, there was a shift in • Police power of the State = enact laws and
values. Hence, marital rape became regulations to pursue the common good
acceptable in the Philippines. • Prejudicial to some
• Thomas Hobbes: society as “solitary, poor, nasty, (eg. public schools with a different curriculum from
brutish, and short.” the majority curriculum – Arabic)
• Not depriving others from a degree of • Tax = revenue of the people = spend for the
resources/power common good
• One would want to impose himself on other persons
Executive – executing the laws
with his resources
• Implement the law within the parameters set therein
SOCIAL CONTRACT – legal fiction and the Constitution in pursuit of the common good
• Rationale: Utilitarian origin
Judicial – settle actual cases or controversies involving rights
You have to • By giving up some of your rights, you
sacrifice some of and obligations
will gain more (attain more protection) =
your rights to • Adjudication
attain the greatest increase power
number of goods • Power and duty to decide on actual case
• Unequal access to resources = one may
•
which is beneficial
for everyone. have more power than others = inequality Courts are passive = they can only come in when
o Imbalance of power = violence there are actual cases involving demandable and
(History: eg. French Revolution) enforceable rights and obligations
• Things would be beneficial if everyone has
resources = trade (economics)
o Spread the wealth = more people
with greater purchasing power
(improves quality of life)
Henry Sy example: at first, sold to
the poor (there are more poor

1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V. GOVERNMENT
(2008)
You cannot promise something that the
people did not agree on the social contract
What did the MOA-AD provide? Bangsamoro Juridical
Entity
• BJE = quasi-state with an associative status
o Missing = sovereignty (they will have
this eventually as a separate state)
o For now, they will be attached to the RP
= not in the Constitution
o Constitution = autonomous regions only
CJ Puno = rights at the very heart of the social contract
(the very idea behind the social contract)
• Everything flows from the Constitution
• What’s the most that the panel can promise?
More autonomy (only)
• You cannot go against the basic law
eg. marriage contract – then new contract
allowing polygamy = no
• You cannot promise that the most basic law will
be changed to accommodate what you want.
• You cannot promise something that the people
did not agree on the social contract.
• “The Constitution was ordained by the
sovereign people and its postulates may not
be employed as bargaining chips without
their prior consent.”
• “In sum, there is no power nor is there any right
to violate the Constitution on the part of any
official of government. No one can claim he has
a blank check to violate the Constitution in
advance and the privilege to cure the violation
later through amendment of its provisions.
Respondents' thesis of violate now, validate later
makes a burlesque of the Constitution."
B. HOW TO READ THE CONSTITUTION
Interpretation of the construction of the Constitution
In accordance with predictable rules
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
In order to show that the SC has no bias in resolving
ambiguity of the Constitution
1. Verba legis the word of the law
• Word of the law
• As much as possible, it must be interpreted
in their ordinary meaning – people are the
“authors” through ratification: what the
people understand these words to be.
• Proof: Dictionary (based on common
meaning/usage)
2. Ratio legis est anima (the reason behind is its
spirit) reason of the law
• In accordance with the intent of its
The spirit/ soul framers
• People are the framers = practical problem
• Proof: Records of the constitutional
commission/ convention
▪ In relation to the provision, it was
found by the court that the intention
was to protect the public officer from
harassment complaints
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat
• Construe the constitution as a whole to
consider as
prevent any provision to be void
One guiding
document
PART I: INTRODUCTION
CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION
Associati • Interpretation of the Constitution or constitutional
ve- ambiguities using provisions outside the
minor Constitution
partner
in a • When all the rules of construction fail, and plain text
formal, is capable of multiple, viable meanings,
free contemporaneous construction may be resorted to
relations as means for verifying, validating the
hip clear/contextual/textual meaning of the Constitution.
between
a • Even when meaning has already been ascertained
political from a plain reading of the text, contemporaneous
territory construction may serve to verify/validate the
and meaning yielded from such meaning
majority • Only constitutional issues that are narrowly framed,
sufficient to resolve an actual case may be
entertained for contemporaneous construction
• External aid: analogous jurisprudence, judicial
decisions, etc.
FRANCISCO V. HOUSE OF REP (2003)
Illustration of the use of the rules of construction
Ring-a-bell: Chief Justice subject of an impeachment
complaint (JDF)
Legal Issue: (Provision) W/N the amended house rules on
impeachment which provides for when the impeachment
case is deemed initiated is unconstitutional for being
contrary to the prohibition against the initiation of a second
impeachment complaint within one year after the first
Analytical framework:
• Provision of House Rule contrary to the
Constitution
• Interpretation of the word “initiate”
• Initiate: used twice (Article XI):
Sec 3. The House of Representatives shall
have the exclusive power to initiate all cases
of impeachment
▪ “initiate”: establishes power
Sec 5. No impeachment proceedings shall be
initiated against the same official more than
once within a period of one year
▪ “initiate”: creates a right
• Set limits to the first provision
• Power of the court: Judicial power = settle actual
cases or controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable
• Judicial review: to assure the
Congress that it is not imposing itself on
the two branches
• Provision establishes the right on the part of the
public officer (CJ Davide) → SC has jurisdiction
because a right has been invoked
Applying the Rules of Construction:
VL Initiate = filing
It was found by the court that the intention
was to protect the public officer from
RL
harassment complaints (they want to protect
all the public officers)
Initiate was used twice in the Constitution and
UM
the same meaning must be conveyed
Determine when the one-year period starts (initiation)
2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
DAVID V. SET AND POE-LLAMANZARES (2016)
Illustration of the use of contemporaneous
construction
Legal issue: W/N Grace Poe, who is a foundling, can be
considered as a natural-born citizen under the
Constitution.
Analytical framework: Determine who are Filipinos
Categories of Filipinos based on the Constitution:
Natural-born – citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect
Philippine citizenship (Constitution).
Naturalized – former aliens or foreigners who had to
undergo a rigid procedure, in which they had to adduce
sufficient evidence to prove that they possessed all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by
law in order to become Filipino citizens (Bengson v. HoR)
• Congressional act
• Filed a verified petition through the courts (judicial
naturalization)
• Office of the Solicitor General (administrative
action)
Grace Poe
Hence, she
did not go By law
must be
through the then, she
natural-
process of should be
born. But
naturalizati stateless
she’s not
on
Dilemma: No mention of a foundling in the Constitution =
find basis for all foundling to be considered as Filipino
Applying the Rules of Construction:
VL Not applicable to this case
Records of the 1934 constitutional convention
= in the discussion = to include children of
RL
unknown origin = to provide for nationality of a
foundling
Constitution: protection of rights of
children; right to nationality at birth =
UM
human rights; Treaties, Legislation: domestic
laws on adoption
How did Leonen apply Contemporaneous Construction?
Leonen amended the issue and addressed another
problem:
• How should foundlings be treated?
• What is their citizenship?
• Are they natural-born of any country?
• How can their identity and rights be protected?
1. Used national laws in consonance with the
constitutional provisions
Eg. Adoption laws, child abuse laws, laws to protect
children, JJWA (for the best interest of the child)
2. Used international laws
Eg. Int’l Children’s right or Int’l Convention, rights
against statelessness, Universal Declaration on
Human Rights, other generally accepted
international customary laws
PART I: INTRODUCTION
3. Used equal protection clauses in the
Constitution
(Article II, Section 26; Article III, Section I; Article
XIII, Section 1)
1.violation• To consider foundlings as not natural born is to
do them injustice and situate them against the
guarantee of (1) equal protection of the law; (2)
2. deprivation equal opportunities for public service; and (3)
disrespecting their human rights
• Foundlings are also entitled, same with other
natural-born, to the full extent of state’s
protection from the moment of their birth
4. Used Bill of Rights
5. Used circumstantial evidence to establish Poe’s
citizenship
• She was found in Iloilo; there was no international
airport; she looks Filipino
• Jus sanguni, without presumption = stateless =
xxx
The Constitution establishes us as a humane and civilized
people and thus, to treat foundlings as stateless is to set
injustice upon them by their existence at a disadvantage
of being abandoned which is not their fault.
C. A FRAMEWORK FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION
SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government
SEPARATION OF POWERS
Not expressly provided for in the Constitution. But obtained
from actual division. Each department has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme
within its own sphere.
CHECKS AND BALANCE
It does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be
kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them
to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other.
The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of
checks and balance to secure coordination in the workings of
various departments of the Government.
JUDICIAL SUPREMACY = CONSTITUTIONAL
SUPREMACY
• Not supremacy over the other branches of the
government
• Judicial supremacy stems from the Constitution
itself
• Judicial review: when two branches are in conflict
(time of social disquietude)
Checks and balances: to further explain the checks and balances, consider the ff:
1.Wehen congress passes the bill, the President can veto such bill. Here the President's veto
power is to check on the power of the congress to legislate, Thus, Congress has no absolute
power to pass any law which it may consider.
2. The Supreme Court in its exercise of its power of judicial review can declare encated by
congress as unconstitutional. Here, The SC's power to conduct judicial review is a check on the
power of the Congress to legislate in order to ensure that no Constitutional provision is infringed.
3. Some appointees of the President in some government positions are subject to tot he
confirmation to the commission on appointment which are composed of the members of the
congress. Here, the confirmation of the Commission on Appointment is a check on the power of
the President to to appoint in order to ensure that those who will occupy sensitive government
3
positions are indeed qualified for such position.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART I: INTRODUCTION

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW SOVEREIGNTY

1. There must be an actual case/controversy
o Court can only exercise power if there is an
actual case = when there is a legally and
demandable right.
2. Locus standi
o Right was violated, which resulted to injury
(will or is incurred)
o Personal and substantial interest, he has
or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
enforcement of the law (and there is a
remedy)
Independent authority and power of the government to
govern itself.
REPUBLICAN
All government authority emanates from the people and is
exercised by representatives chosen by the people.
DEMOCRATIC
People are preponderant power holders and are organized
as an electorate. They have the concept of initiative and
referendum exercised through the elected representatives.
SECTION 2, ARTICLE II

3. Question of constitutionality must be ripe The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of

o The question was raised at the earliest
possible opportunity
o At the earliest time where the court may
already give a remedy (when they already
have jurisdiction)
o Cannot raise it during appeal
4. Lis mota
o The case cannot be resolved without
resolving that issue
o Constitutionality is the very lis mota
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres
to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.
ADOPTATION OF GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
International law can become part of the sphere of domestic
law either by transformation or incorporation:

SUPRA: FRANCISCO V. HOUSE OF REP (2003) 1. Transformation – requires that an international law
be transformed into a domestic law through a
Illustration of the determination of whether a case constitutional mechanism such as local legislation.
merits judicial review Eg. International humanitarian law

Issues: 2. Incorporation – occurs when, by mere constitutional

1. W/N the Court can take cognizance of the declaration, international law is deemed to have the
case → YES force and effect of domestic law.
2. W/N there was grave abuse of discretion on o Evidence of incorporation = usage in
the part of HoR → YES courts: International laws can be used by
Philippine courts to settle domestic
Court: disputes in much the same way as they
• The case seems to be a political question, but would use locally enacted laws
it’s not. o Applies to customary international law or
• Not about the impeachment per se, but the generally accepted principles of
constitutionality of the rules of impeachment international law and treaties which have
• It is not only a right, but a duty of the Court to become part of customary laws
check on the use of discretionary powers of the Eg. Human rights laws (Universal
other branches of the government (GAD) Declaration of Human Rights =
aspirational, not a treaty)

D. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION: PREAMBLE AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
ARTICLE II – Declaration of Principles and State
Policies
Guide to interpreting the other provisions and for the
government departments in the implementation of the
Constitution
PRINCIPLES
Binding rules which must be observed in the conduct of the
government; most of which are self-executory.
INTERNATIONAL LAW
In the absence of law → norms of general or customary
international law which are binding on all states.
• Renunciation of war as an instrument of national
policy
• The principle of sovereign immunity
• A person’s right to life, liberty and due process
• Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements
must be performed in good faith

POLICIES ELEMENTS BEHIND THE BINDING EFFECT OF

Guidelines for the orientation of the State; anchor justiciable CUSTOMARY LAW
rights
1. State Practice
SECTION 1, ARTICLE II • General, consistent
• Duration, consistency, and generality
The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. of practice
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them. 2. Opinio juris sive necessitates (moral
obligation)
• Belief that a certain form of behavior is
obligatory

4
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART I: INTRODUCTION

• Jus cogens – compelling law been transformed into

(mandatory) domestic law through
• Erga omnes – obligation owed by the local legislation, the
states towards the international Milk Code.
community Consequently, it is the
Milk Code that has the
VINUYA V. ROMULO (2010) force and effect of law
in this jurisdiction and
Customary law before is different from customary not the ICMBS per se.
law now.
International law is not static; it is evolving Binding NO • Incorporation
because of requirement: state
W/N there is a legally enforceable and demandable incorporation? practice and opinion
right of the MALAYA LOLAS? → NO juris
• There was no right. It was not yet part of • State practice =/= less
customary international law than 30 states (out of
• During the time the crime was committed, it was 100 states) are
an opinio juris/military practice for the States to members of ICMBS
employ comfort women for the benefit of its • Court: number of states
soldiers engaged in the practice
• Jus cogens/norm now that was not yet jus cogens = indication of opinion
before: do not violate women and children’s rights juris (sufficient state
practice)
W/N there is a basis for the court to acquire
jurisdiction → NO Soft law? YES • Non-binding
• Not customary
W/N reparations may be made → NO (because it is still
evolving)
W/N the president may be compelled by the SC → NO • Not international law
• Discretion of the President is not subject to the o Court: dangerous
writs issued by the court if soft law
• Grave abuse of discretion = none becomes
international law

PHAP V. DUQUE (2007) WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

Soft law is not international law. Hence, it is not
binding on a state.
Facts:
• Milk Code does not include: Ban on
advertisements that does not promote breastfeed
substitute – based International Code of
Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS)
• Their solution: put it in the RIRR
Issue: W/N the absolute prohibition is contrary to law
Legal argument of DOH: The prohibition on
advertisement included in the RIRR is based on the WHA,
allegedly a customary international law
Framework: What is the nature the WHA?
Sections 4(f), 11 and 46 of Administrative Order No. 2006-
0012 dated May 12, 2006 are declared NULL and VOID
for being ultra vires. The Department of Health and
respondents are PROHIBITED from implementing said
provisions.
SECTION 12, ARTICLE II
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The
natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing
of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of
moral character shall receive the support of the
Government.

Binding NO • Transformation IMBONG V. OCHOA (2014)

because of requirement: "[n]o
transformation? treaty or international
agreement shall be
valid and effective
unless concurred in by
at least two-thirds of all
the members of the
Senate”
o No such action for
WHA
• In addition, WHA =
recommendatory = o Definition of conception first (life in a
cannot become part of
Philippine law by virtue
of transformation
• However, the ICMBS
which was adopted by
the WHA in 1981 had
Use of an aspirational provision (Section 12, Article
II) to interpret a law towards its validity – overcoming
a facial challenge
Issue: W/N the RH Bill violates the rights of the unborn
child
The Right to Life (protection of the unborn)
• RH Law per se
• definition of an aborted patient
particular time)
Fertilization = creates a zygote (sperm
fertilizes egg)
VL
Implantation = attaches to the walls of
the uterus

5
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
Intent of the framers: loudest = priests
(life from the point of view of religion);
RL
SC, majority being Catholics, also took
the same view
*Conception = fertilization
• Allowed = prevents fertilization (non-abortive)
Contraceptives which are preventive (since there
is no unborn yet → no life to be protected)
Eg. condoms, tubal ligation, vasectomy
• Not allowed = kills fertilized ovum (abortifacient)
Eg. pills, IUD, Cytotec
Ratio legis for abortion
Assure that there would be no pro-abortion laws ever
passed by Congress or any pro-abortion decision passed
by the Supreme Court
• RH Law itself clearly mandates that protection be
afforded from the moment of fertilization
• RH Law recognizes that abortion is a crime under
Article 256 of the Revised Penal Code, which
penalizes the destruction or expulsion of the
fertilized ovum
• RH Law is consistent in prohibiting abortifacients
RH Law IRR
• The authors of the IRR gravely abused their office
when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient
• Section 3.01. - It added the word “primarily”
(primarily intended for abortion are prohibited) –
ultra vires
• Doctors = if “primarily” was not included, some
medicines with secondary effect may be
disallowed
• BUT: it appears to insinuate that a contraceptive
will only be considered as an “abortifacient” if its
sole known effect is abortion (prevention of
implantation of the fertilized ovum)
• RH Law Intention = prohibit all drugs with primary
and secondary effect of abortion
• IRR = unconstitutional
Marital Consent
• Issue: Ligation and vasectomy
• History: related to domestic abuse (marital rape
= unwanted pregnancy)
• Court (conservative): unconstitutional
• The purpose of the marriage: “foundation of the
family” (procreation)
• Two parties in the marriage contract: inviolable
social contract
• Inviolable = cannot be violated by the parties or
the state
E. NATIONAL TERRITORY
Parental Consent
• Issue: When minors became pregnant/had
miscarriage, they don’t need parental consent
• Age of consent = 12; Awakening = 16
• Court: under these situations, all the more they
need parental consent
Right to Health
• Contraceptives harmful to the health of the
women (pills)
• Safeguard: FDA-approved = hence, no cause of
action





6
PART I: INTRODUCTION
SECTION 16, ARTICLE II
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people
to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature.
OPOSA V. FACTORAN (1993)
DUTY WITHOUT MANDATE
(Exemption to the rule): Self-executory provision
creates a duty.
Hence, it is demandable even without a specific law.
Contention of defendants:
• No specific law that can be used to compel
• Article (declaration of state policies and
principles) in the Constitution must have a
specific law first.
Supreme Court:
• Right to a balanced and healthful ecology = self-
executory
• Self-executory: all rights create duties on the part
of the State
• Some constitutional provisions are only
aspirational; but this is an exemption because it
is intergenerational
• Intergenerational = future generations should
enjoy the right; present generation should
preserve the right
MMDA V. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF MANILA BAY
(2008)
DUTY BECAUSE OF MANDATE
With every right comes an imposable duty. A mere
statement of duty is not enough. It has to be legally
enforced and stated in a mandate to be compelling. The
execution of said duty lies within the agencies
established by the State.
Contention of defendants:
• Clean-up is discretionary
Supreme Court:
• The clean-up is a duty of everyone, beginning
with the state = intergenerational duty
• Looked at the mandates of agencies in the case
and their relation to cleaning the environment
ARTICLE I
The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial,
fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of
their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART I: INTRODUCTION

WHAT COMPRISES THE IT CONSISTS OF – F. STATE IMMUNITY

NATIONAL
TERRITORY? 1. Territorial sea, seabed, SECTION 3, ARTICLE XVI
subsoil, insular
1. The Philippine shelves, and other The State may not be sued without its consent.
archipelago, with all submarine areas
the islands and waters
embraced therein; 2. Terrestrial, fluvial, Rationale: Affording state immunity = rule of convenience →
internal waters – or aerial domains so that they may afford the same courtesy (eg. Heads of
waters around, states, ambassadors)
between, and Basis: • Consuls – commercial representatives
connecting the islands • Treaties • Vienna Convention & bilateral agreements will
of the archipelago, • Constitution determine the privileges
regardless of breath • Historic Titles
and dimension The immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard
to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard
2. All other territories over to private acts or acts jure gestionis:
which the Philippines
has sovereignty or JURE IMPERII
jurisdiction The imperial, public acts of the government of a state
(sovereign state)
ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
A body of water studded with islands, or the islands JURE GESTIONIS
surrounded by water, is viewed as a unity of islands and Generally means a nation's acts that are essentially
waters together forming one integrated unit. commercial or private, in contrast to its public acts
• Internal waters – part of PH territory • All other acts not covered by jure imperii
• Straight baseline method • Commercial activity – either a regular course of
o Before: Japan would go in and out of PH commercial conduct or a particular commercial
and Indonesia transaction or act

Baseline – the low-water line along the coast as marked on
large scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.
* Width of the territorial sea is measured from the baseline.
Normal Baseline Method – the breadth of the territorial sea
is measured from the low water-line, following the
indentations of the coast
Straight Baseline Method - instead of the baseline following
the indentations of the coast, it is drawn as straight lines
connecting appropriate points on the coast, without departing
to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the
coast
• It should be noted, however, that this assertion was
envisioned to apply only to the waters connecting
the islands of the archipelago proper. It was not
meant to apply to the waters between the
archipelago and "other territories belonging to the
Philippines."
RA 9522, AMENDED RA 3046: AN ACT TO DEFINE THE
BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Specified that baselines of Kalayaan Group of Islands and
Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) shall be determined
as “Regime of Islands” under the Republic of the Philippines,
consistent with the UNCLOS.
• Not unconstitutional (Magalona v. Ermita):
1. It is a statutory tool to demarcate the maritime
zone and continental shelf of the Philippines
under UNCLOS and does not alter the national
territory
2. While UNCLOS does not bind the Philippines to
pass a baselines law, Congress may do so
(transformation)
3. The law also does not abandon the country’s
claim to Sabah, as it does not expressly repeal
the entirety of RA 5446
THE HOLY SEE V. DEL ROSARIO (1994)
Illustration of jure imperii:
Disposal of private property
• Purpose of the land: residence of the Papal
Nuncio (but there are informal settlers there)
• Purpose of the transaction: so that the PN would
have funds to buy another parcel of land to serve
as the residence
o They disposed the land because they
cannot evict the informal settlers
• Act of selling the land in order to generate
resources for a new PN = state act
ARIGO V. SWIFT (2014)
Illustration of jure imperii:
Damage while in performance of duty
• Commanding officers of the US Navy were sued
for destroying portions of the Tubataha Reef
• The alleged act/omission (steering of the vessel)
was done during the performance of their duties
• Considering that the satisfaction of judgment will
require remedial actions appropriation of funds,
the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself
• Principle of state immunity bars the exercise of
jurisdiction of the court over the respondents
• The US must bear the international responsibility,
despite it being a non-member of UNCLOS, and
pay the damages

7
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART II: AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

PART II: AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION Stages of Amendment/Ratification:

1. Proposal
A. AMENDMENT VS. REVISION o Congress
o Constitutional Convention
ARTICLE XVII – AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS o People’s Initiative
2. Submission
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this 3. Ratification
Constitution may be proposed by:
Amendment Ratification
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Subject Doesn’t change the Changes in relation
Members; or basic structure to power
(delegation);
(2) A constitutional convention. significant change
in structure; system
SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may of government &
likewise be directly proposed by the people through bill of rights
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of By 1. Congress as 1. Congress as
the total number of registered voters, of which every Constituent Constituent
legislative district must be represented by at least three per 2. Constitutional 2. Constitutional
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment Convention Convention
under this section shall be authorized within five years 3. People’s
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener Initiative
than once every five years thereafter. Proposal 1. By a vote of ¾ 1. By a vote of ¾
of its members of its members
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the 2. (in practice) per 2. (in practice) per
exercise of this right. internal rules internal rules
limited by the limited by the
SECTION 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of Doctrine of Doctrine of
all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a Proper Proper
majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate Submission Submission
the question of calling such a convention. 3. Upon
COMELEC’s
SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this certification of
Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when the sufficiency of
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which the petition
shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than Ratification Via plebiscite, 60- Via plebiscite, 60-
ninety days after the approval of such amendment or 90 days after the 90 days after the
revision. submission of the submission of the
amendments amendments
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite Q: Why is revision not allowed under people’s initiative?
which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than A: Absence of debate and deliberation
ninety days after the certification by the Commission on
Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. PROCEDURE

I. PROPOSAL
1973 → 1987 Constitution This refers to the adoption of the suggested change in the
1986 – People unsatisfied with the previous constitution Constitution
1987 – People ratified the new Constitution • No piecemeal proposals
• Submit to the people the whole and complete
2000: People Power II proposal because:
• Presidential succession only; the same Constitution o One ratification in one election
was still used o The people should understand the
Constitution in its totality
AMENDMENT REVISION o Impracticality and absurdity of
• An addition or change • A change that alters a supplemental contracts
within the lines of the basic principle in the
original constitution constitution, 1. Congress (as a Constituent Assembly) – a vote
that will effect an eg. altering the of ¾ of ALL its members
improvement, or better principle of separation
carry out the purpose of powers or the 2. Constitutional Convention – called into existence
for which it was framed system of checks and –
• A change that adds, balance o 2/3 of all members of the Congress
reduces, or deletes • Alters the substantial o The electorate, in a referendum called for
without altering the entirety of the by a majority of all members of Congress
basic principles constitution, as when
involved the change affects 3. People’s Initiative
• Affects only the substantial provisions o Petition of at least 12% of the total number
specific provision of the constitution of registered voters
being amended. o Every legislative district must be
represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein

8
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART II: AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Limitation on initiative: No amendment in this
manner shall be authorized:
• Within 5 years following the ratification of
the 1987 Constitution
• More often than once every 5 years
thereafter
Justice Sanchez and Justice Reyes dissented:
“Plebiscite should be scheduled on a special date so
as to facilitate “Fair submission, intelligent consent or
rejection.” They should be able to compare the original
proposition with the amended proposition.

Enabling law: Constitutional provision on SANTAGO V. COMELEC (1997)

amendments via People’s initiative are not self-
executory Section 2, Article XVII is NOT self-executory. It needs
an enabling law before the right of the people could
II. SUBMISSION be exercised.
Submit to the people for ratification through:
• No actual law to execute the people’s initiative
1. Plebiscite – direct act of the people and exercise of provisions
power as sovereign people to make governmental • RA 6735 – merely paying it a reluctant lip service
decisions (incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential
eg. Revision/amendment of the Constitution; terms and conditions insofar as initiative on
changing a province to a city amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
• COMELEC IRR to remedy the insufficiency = xxx
2. Election – voting for representatives o It has to be the Congress who enacts
the law (otherwise, it would be a
Note: Plebiscite held simultaneously with general election is violation of the separation of powers)
not prohibited for economic reasons; but is not favored
because people’s mind and attention will be divided
LAMBINO V. COMELEC (2006)
III. RATIFICATION
The proposed amendment shall be submitted to the people
Lambino Quantitative-Qualitative Test – establishing
and shall be deemed ratified by the majority of the votes cast
the difference between an amendment and a revision
in a plebiscite, held in 60-90 days:
• After the approval of the proposal by Congress or Flawed argument: Amendment and revision is one and
ConCon the same
• After the certification by the COMELEC of • Even though there’s a difference in the
sufficiency of petition of the people procedure
• Social contract: in the end, both will be ratified
GONZALES VS. COMELEC (1968)
by the people
(act of the people – framers of the Constitution)
Amendment by the Congress (through a Constituent
Assembly) is NOT a legislative act and hence Constitutional construction:
reviewable by the Supreme Court
• Verbal legis – if the Constitution was referring to
the same thing, they would have used the same
Facts:
term
• RBH No. 1 called for an increase in the
• Ratio legis – the different came from the
membership of the HOR
Constitution itself
• RBH No. 2 called for a Constitutional Convention
• RBH No. 3 called for the amendment of Sec. 16, LAMBINO TEST
Art.VI to allow members of Congress to become
delegates to the CONCON without losing their 1. Qualitative Test – number of changes
seats.
• Petitioners seek to restrain respondents from 2. Quantitative Test – impact of changes
enforcing the law passed by Congress submitting • Whether the change will accomplish
RBH Nos. 1 and 2 for ratification during the such far reaching changes in the
general elections scheduled on Nov. 1967. nature of our basic governmental plans
as to amount to a revision
W/N the act of Congress in proposing amendments is a
political question: NO
• The issue is a justiciable question (merits judicial
review)
• The power to amend/propose amendments →
inherent in the people
(as repository of sovereignty in a republican
state)
• “Constituent” Assembly → not a legislative act
→ reviewable

W/N a plebiscite may be held simultaneously with a

general election: YES
1. Congress may propose amendments and at the
same time call for a Constituent Assembly.
2. Ratification may be done simultaneously with a
general election or in a special election called
specifically for that purpose.

9
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART III: JUDICIAL REVIEW

PART III: JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. SEPARATION OF POWERS

L
Not expressly provided for in the Constitution. But obtained
from actual division. Each department has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme
within its own sphere.
E J
JUDICIAL
POWER
JUDICIAL REVIEW There must be a system of law  there is a system in the
Where Supreme Court & Supreme Court & Constitution  exercise of judicial power (also a duty)
vested lower Courts lower Courts  Hence, the Court has no choice  in the Constitution,
Duty to settle actual Power of the courts there is only one branch who can resolve conflict (judicial
controversies to test the validity of supremacy)
involving rights executive and • In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the
which are legally legislative acts in only constitutional organ which can be called upon
demandable and light of their to determine the proper allocation of powers
enforceable and to conformity with the between the several departments and among the
Definition determine whether Constitution integral or constituent units thereof
or not there has
been GAD
amounting to lack C. JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS
or excess of
jurisdiction on the POLITICAL QUESTIONS
part of any branch It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
Jurisdiction – the 1. Actual case or legality, of a particular measure.
Requisites power to decide controversy
for and hear a case, 2. Locus standi 1. Matters to be exercised by the people in their
exercise and execute a 3. Ripeness primary political capacity
decision thereof 4. Lis mota
2. Those specifically delegated to some other
B. THEORY AND JUSTIFICATION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW department or particular office of the government,
with discretionary power to act.
ANGARA V. ELECTORAL COMMISSION (1936)
Bernas: In recent years, the Court has set aside this doctrine
Foundational case for judicial review and assumed jurisdiction whenever it found constitutionally
(basis for Section 1(2), Article VIII) imposed limits on the exercise of powers conferred upon the
Legislative and Executive branches
Laurel: justified change in the doctrine (without Article
VIII, Section 1[2]) SUPRA: FRANCISCO V. HOUSE OF REP (2003)

Separation of powers  Judiciary = settle actual cases
and controversies
• There is always a presumption of
Constitutionality in the actions of the co-equal
branches
In times of social disquietude or political excitement,
the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be
forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated.
• SD/PE comes from the people themselves
eg. Xiamen plane incident, traffic
• People want the government to immediately relieve
their suffering
• In times of social disquietude, we turn to the
Constitution
Blurred lines between branches of the government (L, E,
J)
• The overlapping and interlacing of functions and
duties between the several departments, however,
sometimes makes it hard to say just where the one
leaves off and the other begins
• Blurred lines = exercise of power
• Penumbra – blurred to the point of extending
Presence of a legally demandable right in a case
merits judicial review
• Truly political, but because of that one provision,
it became a justiciable question.
• The constitutionality of the Rules of Impeachment
affects the right of CJ Davide
SUPRA: VINUYA V. ROMULO (2010)
Illustration of a political question:
Foreign affairs (executive)
• MALAYA LOLAS (comfort women) case
• The court cannot take cognizance of the case
because it was not a justiciable question.
• The foreign affairs concerns are under the
jurisdiction of the executive branch. The court
cannot intervene or issue order to its co-equal
department.
OCAMPO V. ENRIQUEZ (2016)
Illustration of a political question:
Exercise of commander-in-chief powers

Contention: The burial of Marcos in the LNMB is a

grave abuse of discretion of the executive and a violation
of the spirit of the Human Rights Victim Compensation Act.

Court:

10
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
• It is within the powers of the president exercising
its duty and as commander-in-chief who has
vested authority to decide whether or not to bury
a person in a military cemetery in a military
reservation.
• The process was covered by military regulations
and the court cannot intervene
• Marcos remains to be a former president and
commander-in-chief and his deposition is not a
sufficient ground for him not to be buried in the
LNMB. He was never convicted of anything.
D. REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY
• There must be a right
• There must be a violation of that right
• There must be an injury
The court is precluded from entertaining the following:
1. Request for an advisory opinion
2. Cases that have become moot and academic or
those that cease to present a justiciable controversy
due to supervening events
INVALIDATION OF A STATUTE
1. On its face (facial challenge) – statute itself is
unconstitutional
2. As applied – application of the statute is
unconstitutional
Timeline: Premature  Ripe  Moot
(an actual case/controversy is established when an issue is
ripe)
OVERCOME PREMATURITY: FACIAL CHALLENGE
When provisions in question are so broad that there is clear
and imminent threat that actually operates, or it can be used
as a prior restraint of a preferred right.
• Void for vagueness
• Deprives due process of law and the right to be duly
informed
• Chilling effect – one may be too afraid to practice
freedom of expression because of uncertainty in not
knowing up to what extent does the law allow/restrict
because of its vagueness
SUPRA: IMBONG V. OCHOA (2014) – J. LEONEN
DISSENT
Illustration of overcoming prematurity with facial
challenge:
RH Law
• No actual case or controversy yet because no
right has suffered an injury yet because of the
implementation of the RH Law
• Importance of actual injury = sharpness in
adjudication
• Danger of deciding based on theory = decision
here may cause hindrance in deciding on actual
cases later on when they arise
• How did the SC overcome the fact that there is
no actual case or controversy? = Facial
challenge (preferred right here is religion)
PREMATURITY
• Issue is no to be raised too early
• issue is not conjectural or anticipatory that would
amount to an advisory opinion of the court
11
PART III: JUDICIAL REVIEW
PACU V. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION (1955)
Illustration of prematurity:
Speculative allegation of PACU against the
implementation of Act 2706
• No school was denied a permit/license revoked
• All private schools were still operational
• No one suffered an injury
MARIANO V. COMELEC (1995)
Illustration of prematurity:
Speculative allegation of Binay running again
• RA 7854 – Makati to be converted to a city
• Case raised to prevent Binay from running again
• Is there an actual case? No = mere speculation
• No Certificate of Candidacy yet from
Binay
• The Court can already nullify if
COMELEC already allowed Binay’s
CoC
MONTESCLAROS V. COMELEC (2002)
Illustration of prematurity:
A bill has no effect yet (as opposed to a law)
• SK age limit change (from 21 years old to 18
years old)
• Petitoners wanted the Court to prohibit the
Congress from passing a law that will decrease
the age for SK
• No such thing as questioning the
constitutionality of a BILL
PHILCONSA V. PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT (2016)
Illustration of prematurity:
Supplemental agreements/frameworks of
a statute that has not been passed yet has no effect
(obviously dependent on the statute for
implementation)
• Petitions challenging the constitutionality of the
Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro
and the Framework Agreement on the
Bangsomoro entered into by the PH government
and the MILF
• The CAB and the FAB mandates the enactment
of the BBL in order for these peace agreements
to be implemented and be given legal effect
• BBL was not yet enacted thus the issue of the
constitutionality of the FAB and the CAB is
premature or not yet ripe for adjudication
MOOTNESS
• The case is moot when there is nothing more for
the court to decide on
• Nothing more to invalidate, prohibit, or to compel
• The case ceased to present a justiciable
controversy due to supervening events
Note: There are instances when the Court “dribbles” the
case to prevent embarrassment on the part of the co-equal
branch.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
ATLAS FERTILIZER V. SECRETARY OF DAR (1997)
When an issue is mooted by a supervening law
Issue: W/N the fishponds and prawn farm be considered
as agricultural land
Moot: new law amending the law, excluding the fishponds
and the prawn farm (Congress immediately rectified their
mistake)
LACSON V. PEREZ (2001)
When an issue is mooted by the lifting of the instant
law
Issue: W/N the president erred in declaring state of
rebellion
Moot: State of rebellion already withdrawn/lifted by the
president
J Gutierrez dissent: if we do not rule on this, the
president will do it again
EXCEPTIONS TO MOOTNESS
The Court will still decide if:
1. There is a grave violation of the Constitution
2. The situation is of exceptional character and
paramount public interests are involved
3. (Symbolic function) The constitutional issue raised
requires formulation of controlling principles to guide
the bench, the bar, and the public
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review
SANLAKAS V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (2004)
Laying rest the validity of a declaration
Issue of declaring a state of rebellion: Almost the same
case as Lacson v. Perez where the court rendered the
issue moot and was precluded from addressing the
constitutionality of the proclamation and order
Court:
• Not barred from rendering judgment on the
petition just because it was rendered moot. The
court rendered judgment to prevent similar
questions and lay to rest the validity of the
declaration
• The declaration and order was not
unconstitutional
PIMENTEL V. ERMITA (2005)
Laying rest the validity of a specific action of the
president
Issue: constitutionality of the appointment of the president
of acting cabinet secretaries (while congress was in
session) who started assuming their functions even
without the confirmation of CA
Moot: because the president already changed the
appointment to ad interim appointment (while the congress
was not in session) as acting secretaries of the
respondents.
Court:
• Ad interim appointments of the president without
the CA confirmation are allowed under the Admin
Code of 1987
12
PART III: JUDICIAL REVIEW
• The court reviewed the case, despite the
mootness, to validate the acts of the President in
making ad interim appointments as lawful and
constitutional and use this as a basis for any
repetition of the same act moving forward
2. PROPER PARTY
• The one who directly suffered injury and brought
the case
• For the Court to give relief
LOCUS STANDI
• Refers to a party’s personal and substantial interest
in a case, arising from the direct injury it has
sustained or will sustain as a result of the challenged
governmental action
• Must be a material, not just mere incidental interest
• Unless a person’s constitutional rights are adversely
affected by a statute or governmental action, he has
no legal standing to challenge the statute or
governmental action
JOYA V. PCGG (1993)
Illustration of no injury:
A Filipino national artist and Marcos sequestered
artworks
Petitioner is not the proper party because no rights of his
was violated resulting to an injury:
• As a Filipino – the artworks were not part of the
Philippine heritage because these were foreign
artworks
• As a taxpayer – no disbursement of public funds
in relation to the auction
• As an artist – no interest of the artist in this case
nor there was a misappropriation of property
AGAN V. PIATCO (2003)
Illustration of injury:
A contract which has substantial effects on
workers/employers
Subsisting agreements between MIA and petitioners stand
to be terminated by the PIATCO contracts and will bring
financial prejudice to the petitioners (concessionaires):
• Rights of the workers/employers are recognized
(have standing)
• They stand to lose the source of their livelihood,
a property right which is protected by the
Constitution
Plot twist: Contracts are void ab initio (there was fraud).
Hence, anyone can file a case because it became a matter
of public interest
CHR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. CHR (2004)
Illustration of injury:
Piercing the veil to reveal the direct injury to the
members of an association
• Not really the association = Court disregarded the
nonexistence of the association
• Rank and file employees
• The CHR’s upgrading scheme entails eating up
of the Commission’s savings or that portion
allocated for Personnel Services from which the
benefits of the rank and file employees (vested
rights) were derived
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
• Under the law, in the absence of any authorized
used of the savings, savings will be used as
incentives for the employees
o No authorization to hire additional
people
o Right of employees to incentives
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY WORKERS ALLIANCE V.
ROMULO (2005)
Illustration of no injury:
Possible disciplinary action which specifically
involves individuals and not unions
Issue: EO 185 against separation of powers
*EO 185 - Administrative supervision over the NLRC, its
regional branches and all its personnel including the
executive labor arbiters and labor arbiters was transferred
from the NLRC Chairperson to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment.
Unions = No Standing:
It cannot be said that EO 185 will prejudice their rights and
interests considering that the scope of the authority
conferred upon the Secretary of Labor does not extend to
the power to review, reverse, revise or modify the
decisions of the NLRC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions. Thus, only NLRC personnel who may find
themselves the subject of the Secretary of Labor’s
disciplinary authority, conferred by Section 1(d) of the
subject executive order, may be said to have a direct and
specific interest in raising the substantive issue herein.
• Only employees of the NLRC themselves have
the right
• BUT: employees cannot file the case because if
they lose, they will be blacklisted
SPECIAL RULES ON STANDING (REQUISITES)
1. Appropriation
Taxpayer
2. Disbursement
1. Direct injury
Citizen
2. Public right
Voter Right of suffrage is involved
1. Authorized
Legislator
2. Affects legislative prerogatives
1. Litigants must have injury-in fact
2. Litigants must have close
Third-party relation to the third party
standing 3. There is an existing hindrance to
the third party’s ability to protect
its own interest
1. Any Filipino citizen
Enforcement of
2. In representation of others,
environmental
including minors or generations
laws
yet unborn
TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE
• While the technical requirements may not always be
present, the court has the duty to decide on it
• Justification for disregard (legal argument): matters
of procedure
o Who provided for the procedure in the first
place? Court
o What can the Court do? relax the
procedure
o Under what circumstances will the court
relax #2 (standing)?
Eg. IBP Case
• There is no exact definition of it – up to the
petitioners/respondents to phrase the case
13
PART III: JUDICIAL REVIEW
• What may be transcendental to one justice, may not
be to another justice
CITIZEN STANDING
• What is a citizen? Natural
• Is there a need to prove that you are a citizen? NO
o Unless you are a foreigner, otherwise, it is
normally presumed
• Representing other citizens
• When a public right is violated
o No specific public right in the Constitution
o A right which is shared by everyone (cf.
personal right)
eg. right to privacy, right to travel, right to
religion, right to expression
• How does a right become a public right?
• Tanada and Chavez: Right to information (in the
Constitution)
o Article 2, Section 28: provides a positive
duty: full disclosure
o Article 3, Section 7: right to information on
matters of public concern (access), subject
to limitations; otherwise, citizens can
demand for this right
• Citizens don’t even have to demand for it because
of the positive duty
• This is a reaction to the Martial Law
TANADA V. TUVERA (1985)
Right to information because ignorance of the law
excuses no one
Rationale for the demand of publication: due process
• Ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith
• No person can be held accountable for a law if
the person is not even properly informed of the
law
• Tanada did not have to wait until a case was filed
against him
CHAVEZ V. PEA AND AMARI (2002)
Right to information to further patrimonial lands
Rationale: As a Filipino, Chavez would have a right to
patrimonial lands
• PEA (agency); AMARI (private entity)
• Reclaimed lands (lands which did not previously
exist)
• Regalian Doctrine: state would own this as a
patrimonial property
• Patrimonial = state owns it = people own it
(hence standing)
• Can it be sold? No! Only leased (25 years)
• Cannot be sold to a foreign entity? No
• Suing as a citizen and as a taxpayer
(representing all Filipinos)
ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING
• Association – legal entity that has a separate entity
• Associational Standing – injury to members
(collective)
• When would an association have standing to
represent its individual members → Right of the
members will be violated and will result to an
injury equally shared by its members
• Pierce the corporate veil = who comprises the
association?
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
KMU LABOR CENTER V. GARCIA (1994)
Piercing the veil to reveal the direct injury to the
members of an association
Issue: Undue delegation of legislative power = LTFRB
(regulatory power)  leave the increase/decrease to the
bus company owners
Standing of its members: Injury of the members
(commuters), using public transportation
• KMU = Labor center
• Labor center members = labor unions
• Labor union members = workers/laborers
IBP V. ZAMORA (2000)
Lack of standing due to generality of injury
Issue: Validity of the deployment and utilization of the
Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement
IBP’s interest: responsibility to uphold the rule of law
Court: No direct injury for the members of the IBP
• Transcendental importance: President did not
err (Court laid down the foundation, so that the
Court can evaluate the acts of the other
branches in the future)
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY V. CA (2004)
Lack of standing to represent because injured rights
are not direct to petitioner
ARCO: represents licensed and registered recruitment
agencies
Rights involved: right to livelihood
Affected: unskilled workers
• Cannot be represented by ARCO
• They also failed to implead said workers in their
petitions
Transcendental importance:
• Is the guidelines in violation of the law? NO
• Exercise of police power, in regulation of
recruitment agencies (within the power of the
Secretary)
• Penal provision? NO – administrative
KILOSBAYAN V. GUINGONA (1994)
No standing, but the Supreme Court ruled on the
issue anyway because of alleged transcendental
importance (but contention is: value judgment)
Petitioners:
• Comprises of: priests, nuns (under one religion)
o Jovito Salonga = Senate President at
the time
• Other Petitioners: known for their integrity and
righteousness; stood up for democracy
Issue: W/N the contract regarding the online lottery
between PAGCOR and Malaysian Company is valid
Standing: Kilosbayan actually doesn’t have standing
(eg. not a losing bidder)
14
PART III: JUDICIAL REVIEW
Transcendental Importance: Why was the Court
compelled to decide on the case?
• In the mind of the Court, allowing the contract =
more gambling = against the common good
• Court saw this as an opportunity
• Members of the Court shared the same
perspective to the petitioners (moral and
righteous people)
• Court as the last gatekeeper of morality
Separate opinions: beyond the Court’s jurisdiction –
trying to impose a value judgment
• Action of the Court = influence legislation
TAXPAYER’S STANDING
• When there is misappropriation/disbursement of
funds
• Material interest as a taxpayer: that’s his money
being used
• Social contract: responsibility to provide the
resources
o Whatever we contributed can be used the
right way
o No need to attach Income Tax Return:
everything is taxed (even dying)
ITF V. COMELEC (2004)
Piercing the corporate veil to reveal taxpaying
members
• Automated elections case
• ITF no standing (non-profit corporation, tax-
exempt)  Pierced the corporate veil  Court
saw the members as taxpayers in order for
them to decide on the case  transcendental
importance
• Company was not the one who won the bid
o Patently illegal contract – funds already
spent on this = resulted in the waste of
taxpayers’ money
o Did they have the money? – They did
not have the financial capability
▪ Asked several banks to
syndicate to fund the project
o Did they have the technical
expertise? – No. They had to sub-
contract
▪ The contract was hence null
and void
VOTER’S STANDING
• Violation of right to suffrage of all voters
TOLENTINO V. COMELEC (2004)
When constructive notice is given, the right to
suffrage is not violated
Issue: Not allowed to vote for the 13th senator (right to
suffrage violated)
Argument: 14th Senator has more standing
• If ever, before the Senate Electoral Tribunal
How did the Court defend this?
1. As there is valid resolution, there is a
constructive notice of the vacancy was already
given
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART III: JUDICIAL REVIEW

2. 12 slots in the ballots, but 13 senators will be FACIAL CHALLENGE

proclaimed by the COMELEC → People has
already spoken by the big number of votes • Unconstitutionality on its face HIERARCHY OF
garnered by the 13th candidate (expression of (as distinguished from “as RIGHTS
the people’s will) applied”)
• No need to establish the [TOP] Preferred rights:
There was a correct assertion by the voter  SC remedied injury • Speech
it  scolded COMELEC to do their job • Requirements (dispenses • Press
with the first 2 requirements • Religion
of judicial review):
LEGISLATIVE STANDING 1. Actual case Central to democracy =
• Rights of any members of the Congress 2. Locus standi holding the government
3. Ripeness accountable to the
OPLE V. TORRES (1998) 4. Lis Mota people
• What kind of right is violated?
Any limitation of a constitutional right must be a Preferred rights Burden of
subject of proper legislation, not just an o A facial challenge establishing a
executive/administrative order may be allowed if it compelling state
is violating a interest: State
Ramos: I’m just unifying the IDs already issued by the preferred right
agencies, I don’t need a law for that • How may a law violate a [BOTTOM] Property
preferred right? rights:
Court: Any limitation of any right in the Constitution must o If a law is too broad Burden: petitioner
be provided by law (manifest intention) or vague = chilling
• Constitutional right: privacy  hence, must go effect
through legislation • Chilling effect – a person
• ID = elimination of privacy rights will be too afraid of
• Not the proper subject of an AO, but a legislation violating the broad law
because you don’t know if
Shade: The SC was independent = it nullified acts of the you’re already violating the
president then (LOL) law, so you don’t exercise
your preferred right
anymore
GOVERNMENTAL STANDING
To sum: Void on its face when it
• When the government challenges its own
violates a preferred right, and
legislation, in behalf of the people
because a law is broad or vague
• What is the legal basis for government standing?
Duty to protect and uphold the Constitution
ESTRADA V. SANDIGAN (2001)
PEOPLE V. VERA (1937)
Facial challenge is not applicable to a criminal statute
because it is supposed to have an in terrorem effect
Undue delegation of separation of powers
Estrada: RA 7080 vague and broad
Facts: Unjieng was applying for probation, but the
• Even without the intent, just looking at the law, it is
government did not allow it and challenged the
constitutionality of the Probation Law necessarily void
• No definition of “combination” and “series of acts”
• It will violate the separation of powers
• Section 1: acts which are individually already
Court: punished in RPC and Anti-Graft Law (no capital
punishment)
• Legislation (legislative) unduly delegated to
o Plunder = capital punishment
local governments (executive) to delegate where
o Combination/series of acts which are
the Probation Law will be implemented/executed
already punished in RPC and AGL
(depends on the appointment of a provincial
probation officer)
Court:
• Legislative prerogative – cannot be delegated to
• Plunder does not affect speech, press, or religion =
the provincial governor
not facial challenge
• Facial challenge not applicable to criminal statutes
• In terrorem effect is what the penal laws want to
achieve, so a person will not commit a crime
o Penalties will scare the shit out of the
perpetrators
o Not unconstitutional = does not violate the
preferred rights

15
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART III: JUDICIAL REVIEW

SUPRA: IMBONG V. OCHOA (2014)

Religion is a preferred right in Philippine society

How was the majority able to overcome the dissent of

Leonen/ a facial challenge?
Preferred rights: religion
• Contentious objection: if the government doctor
does not want to give contraceptive prescription,
they still have to refer (still against the will of the
doctor)
• Because of sanctions against government
physicians, a person will still get RH services
• High regard for religion in the Philippines (Leonen
forgot this)

3. EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
• Lowest court with jurisdiction
o Municipality = no jurisdiction to declare a
law unconstitutional
o RTC = lowest court with jurisdiction to
declare a law unconstitutional
• Ripe – not premature and not moot

4. NECESSITY OF DECIDING CONSTITUTIONAL

QUESTIONS
• The constitutionality is the very lis mota
o The constitutionality has to be resolved in
order to solve the case
• The Court tries to avoid this: due respect to the co-
equal branches = presumption of
constitutionality

16
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

PART IV: THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ALLOCATION OF DISTRICTS

A. CONGRESS (CREATION OF LAW)
1. Apportionment of legislative districts must be by law
1. COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATION AND TERM OF
OFFICE Through: (a) General Apportionment Law
(b) Special Law (i.e. creation of new
SENATE V. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES provinces)

SENATE HOUSE OF REP. Note: The power to apportion legislative districts is

DEFINITION textually committed to Congress by the Constitution:
• For the national • Concerned with • Sema v. COMELEC: It cannot be validly
perspective in parochial, narrow issues delegated to the ARMM Regional Assembly
legislation of their particular • Bagabuyo v. COMELEC: Under the
• To come up with good groups/districts Constitution and the Local Government Code,
laws that are of national apportionment and reapportionment do not
application require a plebiscite
• Represents the • A creation of a new province requires
population at large ratification/plebiscite
COMPOSITION
24 senators elected at large Not more than 250 2. Proportional representative based on a number of
members, unless inhabitants
otherwise provided by law, • Each city with a population of at least 250,000
consisting of: shall have at least 1 representative
• District • Each province, irrespective of the number of
representatives inhabitants, shall have at least 1 representative
(80%)
• Partylists (20%) 3. Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as
*Voting for 2 practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent
congressmen territory
QUALIFICATIONS • N.B. Anti-gerrymandering provision
• Natural-born citizen • Natural-born citizen
• At least 35 years old on • At least 25 years old on 4. Re-apportionments by Congress within 3 years after
the day of the election the day of the election the return of each census
• Able to read and write • Able to read and write
APPORTIONMENT RE-APPORTIONMENT
• A registered voter • A registered voter in the
the determination of the Re-alignment or change
• Resident of the district he seeks to
represent number of in legislative districts
Philippines for at least 2
representatives which a brought about by
years immediately • Resident of the said
State, county, or other changes in population
preceding the day of the district for at least 1
subdivision may send to and mandated by the
election year immediately
a legislative body. constitutional
preceding the day of
requirement of equality of
the election
representation
TERM OF OFFICE
6 years (per 12 senators) 3 years
SEMA V. COMELEC (2008)
TERM LIMITS
2 consecutive terms 3 consecutive terms
Creation of a province cannot be delegated to ARMM
SECTION 5, ARTICLE VI Lis mota: creation of the province of Shariff Kabunsuan
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as
practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. Congress Organic Act (ARMM)
Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty Creation of a
thousand, or each province, shall have at least one Cities, municipalities
district/province
representative.
*
(4) Within three years following the return of every census,
the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative MACIAS V. COMELEC (1961)
districts based on the standards provided in this section.
Apportionment of members of the HoR should not be
arbitrary
DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES
Elected from legislative districts apportioned among the Background: 1935 Constitution in effect
provinces, cities, and Metro Manila area.
RA 3040 – An Act to Apportion Representative
• Congress determines how many districts will there
Districts in the Philippines
be
• Re-adjust sizes of representative districts which
• At least one district per province (no matter how
by then have become grossly disproportionate
small)
Ruling: The apportionment of members of the HoR is not
valid because it is not based on the number of inhabitants
a province has. Some provinces were given more
representation despite the inferior in number of
inhabitants. Although Congress had the power to legislate

17
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

additional districts, it must be based on proportional (Poverty, unemployment,

representation. insurgency)
Eg. An-Waray, Anak
Mindanao
TAN V. COMELEC (1986)
Sectoral Least of nominees would belong to a
All those who will be affected by the reapportionment Party particular sector (sectoral issue)
should be part of the plebiscite • Nominee = must be
representative of the sectoral
BP 885 – An Act Creating a New Province in the Island issue
of Negros Eg. Partylist for jeepney drivers,
• Negros Del Norte was to be created by an Act but security guards, NARS (health sector)
the plebiscite was held only on the deducted
areas, not the parent areas National v. Sectoral
• Akbayan – national and multi-sectoral
The law requires that the approval of majority in a • Katabaan – sectoral, by the definition of
plebiscite must be held in the unit/units affected whenever the Constitution
a province is created, divided, merged, or when there is • Buhay – national (prohibited to carry a
substantial alteration of the boundaries. particular religious system)

The affected parties who should join the plebiscite are: Political parties excluded?
1. Voters in the parent province of Negros • Already fills district representation =
Occidental double representation?
2. Those in the area that will be subtracted • Participation: as long as it establishes a
sectoral wing
Eg. Nationalista Party →
How is Negros Occidental affected? Nationalista Women
1. Land area will be reduced • Has to incorporate as a separate entity; but
2. Population will be reduced shared goals
3. Revenue will decrease
4. 4. Political structures will be changed, and some How to establish constituency
gov’t employees might lose their jobs • By showing physically that you have
different chapters in the Philippines
Ruling: The law was unconstitutional. Legislation of a new (actually representing someone)
district is insufficient. There must be a plebiscite by all of Eg. In schools, communities,
those affected to ratify the reapportionment. clinics
• Members needed (not volunteers) who are
physically associated with chapters
PARTYLIST
Disqualified parties
1. What is a partylist system?
• Religious sects
• Foreign organizations
Purpose: Address the concern of those who cannot be
• Advocating violence or unlawful means
aptly represented by the district representatives
• Receiving support from any foreign
• Partylist is just the shell of a particular cause/issue
government, foreign political party,
• Experiment of the 1987 Constitution (in relation to
foundation, organization, whether directly
the Marcos Era)
or indirectly through third parties for
partisan election purposes
DISTRICT REP. PARTYLIST
• Violating or failing to comply with laws rules
Coverage Geographical Particular issue
or regulations relating to elections
(broader issues
• Declaring untruthful statements in its
that one identifies
petition
with)
• Failing to participate in the last 2 preceding
Examples District B - Informal Kabataan - youth,
elections for the constituency in which it
settlers; tenure Buhay - life
has registered
over lot;
congestion; lack of
3. How to determine occupation of the 20%?
schools;
healthcare;
FOUR STANDARDS OF THE PARTYLIST SYSTEM
employment
opportunities
1. 20% allocation
2. 2% threshold
2. Who can qualify as a partylist?
3. Proportional representation (additional seats)
Behind decision is identification
4. 3-seat cap
National National issues in scope 20% ALLOCATION
Party There must be an established and
• Mandatory – 20% is always filled up (maximize),
identifiable constituency
based on the Constitution
Regional Partylists that seek to address the
• For maximum guarantee of national, regional, and
Party issues of particular regions
sectoral representation
(regional issues)
• Before, only 11 partylists can get in (COMELEC was
Eg. Mindanao, Region V
wrong in Veterans)
(disaster), Region VIII

18
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

2% THRESHOLD e.g. if a party garners 2.73% of the vote, assign it 2

• Guaranteed 1 seat more seats; if 1.80%, assign it one more seat
• Not the exclusive limit (COMELEC was wrong in
Veterans) 7.33% x 38 seats remaining = 2.79% → 2 additional seats

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (ADDITIONAL B

SEATS) B B 1
• Distribution of the remaining seats after the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
distribution to those who reached the 2%, until all 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
the seats are filled 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
• Note: the continued operation of the 2% threshold is 32 33 34 35 36
unconstitutional because this threshold b. Allocating the remaining seats (i.e. total seats minus
mathematically and physically prevents the filling up round 1 and round 2a allocations) to those next in
of the available partylist seats. rank until all seats are completely distributed

3-SEAT CAP STEP 6: Apply the 3-seat cap, if necessary

• Give other sectors the opportunity to be
represented
• Otherwise, this will be abused by political parties
• In the Congress, it doesn’t matter if you’re
district/representative
• Basis: RA 7941 – Partylist System Act
PARTYLIST SYSTEM ACT (RA 7941)
Sec 11 (b). The parties, organizations, and coalitions
receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for
the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each:
Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%)
of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion
to their total number of votes : Provided, finally, That each
party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more
than three (3) seats .
4. How to compute for the occupation of the partylist
seats?
RULES ON COMPUTATION OF SEATS: TWO-ROUND
ALLOCATION
Example is from the case of Banat v. COMELEC (2009)
STEP 1: Compute the total number of seats allocated for
partylist representatives
There are 55 seats allocated for partylist representatives
BUHAY already has 3 seats = 1 2-percenter seat + 2 Round
2 seats
Notes:
• Veterans Case (2000) – intentionally omitted because
COMELEC decision was erroneous
• BANAT Case (2009) – intentionally omitted because
computation already provided in preceding section of
notes
BAGONG BAYANI V. COMELEC (2001)
A political party may be registered under the partylist
system
Issue: The petitioner sought the disqualification of the
respondent because it is a political party running as a
partylist.
Court: The respondent may run even if it is a political
party. The Constitution only provides that members of the
HoR may be elected through a partylist system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations. Also, RA 7941 (Partylist System Act) also
provides that a political party may be registered under the
partylist system.

STEP 2: Rank all partylist candidates from highest to lowest

based on the number of votes they garnered ATONG PAGLAUM V. COMELEC (2013)
BUHAY partylist garnered the most votes (1st) The intent of the Constitutional Commission was to
include all parties into the partylist elections in order
STEP 3: Compute for each partylist candidate’s percentage to develop a better political system
of votes garnered in relation to the total number of votes cast
for partylist candidates The partylist system is NOT RESERVED for the
marginalized and underrepresented or for parties who lack
1,169,234 votes for BUHAY = 7.33% of the total well-defined political constituencies. It is not limited to the
15,950,900 total votes votes economically marginalized part of society, but also for the
ideologically marginalized
STEP 4: Round 1 – Allocate 1 seat each for partylist that
garnered at least 2% of the total number of votes *BANAT v. COMELEC: sectoral wing
17 parties are “2-percenters”

B ARARO V. COMELEC (2013)

1 2 3
The total votes (divisor) shall be the total number of
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
valid votes cast for the partylist system INCLUDING
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
votes cast for partylist groups whose names are in
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 the ballot, but are subsequently disqualified
34 35 36 37 38
Not included:
STEP 5: Round 2 – Assign additional seats from the balance • Partylist groups listed in the ballot but whose
(i.e. total number of partylists seats minus round one disqualification attained finality prior to the
allocation) by: elections and whose disqualification was
reasonably made known by the COMELEC to
a. Allocating 1 seat for every whole integer the voters prior to such election

19
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
• Spoiled/invalid votes
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
How to determine compliance with residency requirement:
• Substantial link – work, school, business, family,
etc.
• Animus Revertendi – presumption to return
AQUINO V. COMELEC (1995)
Substantial link to the place must be established by
the candidate to meet the residency requirement
Facts: Aquino filed his COC for the 2nd district of Makati
and stated that he has been residing there for 1 year (he
was leasing a condo)
Court: He has no substantial link to Makati. In fact, he was
from Tarlac
MARCOS V. COMELEC (1995)
Constant changes in residency does not
automatically change the domicile of a person
Imelda has substantial link and animus revertendi with
Tacloban
SUCCESSFULLY EFFECT A CHANGE OF DOMICILE
1. An actual removal/change of domicile
2. A bonafide intention of abandoning the former
place of residence and establishing a new one
3. Acts which correspond with the purpose
TORAYNO V. COMELEC (2000)
A governor of a province can run for mayor in a city
as long as he meets the residency requirement
Facts: Emano filed his COC for mayor in CDO City in
which he claims to have 2 years residency while he was
governor in the Province of Misamis Oriental.
Court: His family is from CDO City; they have actually
been residing there even when he was governor in the
Province of Misamis Oriental. He was physically there.
2. ELECTION
ARTICLE VI
SECTION 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular
election of the Senators and the Members of the House of
Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of
May.
SECTION 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the
House of Representatives, a special election may be
called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law,
but the Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the
unexpired term.
REGULAR/GENERAL ELECTIONS
3 years for the HOR; 6 years for the Senate
SPECIAL ELECTIONS
20
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
When there is a vacancy before the next regular election
1. Resolution of vacancy
2. There is a call
3. Election proper
4. Proclamation
BODIES THAT HAVE TO ACT TOGETHER WHENEVER
THERE IS A NEED FOR SPECIAL ELECTIONS (RA 6645)
1. Senate/House of Representatives – would have to
declare vacancy
Process:
• Declaration of vacancy through a resolution and call
for a special election to be held within 45-90 days
• If Congress is in recess, an official communication
on the existence of the vacancy and call for a special
election by the Senate President or the Speaker, as
the case may be, shall be sufficient
Senate: Will only call if 18 months or more remains
House: 1 year before the next regular election for members
Note: They will usually just ask another
Representative to fill the position (as care-taker)
Partylist: Next in rank would take the place
2. Commission on Elections
SUPRA: TOLENTINO V. COMELEC (2004)
The resolution declaring vacancy serves as a
constructive notice to the public of the specifics of
the special election
As there is valid resolution, there is a constructive
notice of the vacancy was already given.
3. ORGANIZATIONS AND SESSIONS
A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
SECTION 16(1), ARTICLE VI
The Senate shall elect its President and the House of
Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its
respective Members.
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may
deem necessary.
Officers are only the Senate President and the Speaker of
the House, they have no terms of office and may be removed
at any time at the pleasure of the majority of their respective
colleagues. Other officers normally chosen are the Majority
Floor Leader, Minority Floor Leader, and Committee
Chairmen.
SANTIAGO V. GUINGONA (1998)
The Supreme Court cannot rule on W/N there is GAD
when there is no constitutional standard to use as a
basis
• Senate Minority Leader
• Rule: Vote for Senate President = majority; else
= minority (only Tatad and Santiago; Former is
more senior than latter)
• Why didn’t the Court compel the SP to
recognize Tatad as the Minority Leader = No
GAD
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
• Quo Warranto – to remove a person from the
office because he is not qualified to hold the
position (because there is someone who is
qualified [in the practice of the Senate])
• Tradition = policy
o Even if there is a tradition, there is no
standard that can be validly used by
the Supreme Court
• Limitations on the exercise of judicial review
o Before SC can JR a co-equal branch,
there must be a constitutional standard
which it can use as a basis
o No basis to use for GAD
• Nature of power exercised by SP (recognizing
Guingona as SP) = not subject to review (no
right violated)
• Nature of the issue = political issue/question (a
matter within the exclusive power and discretion
of the members of Senate)
BAGUILAT V. ALVAREZ (2017)
The Supreme Court cannot impede on the discretion
of the Speaker where it is within his express power
based on the Constitution
• House Minority Leader
• Baguilat 2nd highest = ipso facto Minority Leader
(tradition)
• There was a standard → there was a change in
rules (all those who vote for the winning
Speaker = majority; not and abstain = minority)
o Abstain larger than the second highest
• Farinas = then floor leader and chairman of the
rules committee (hence, no one can contest the
rule change)
• SC cannot impede on the affairs of HoR in this
case = when the Constitution expressly provides
for the power of a specific official, there’s
nothing the court can doo
• Nothing in the rules that states what a Minority
Leader should be
B. QUORUM
SECTION 16(2), ARTICLE VI
A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do
business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to
day and may compel the attendance of absent Members
in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House
may provide.
The minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly
necessary to conduct the business of that group.
• Majority of each house shall constitute a quorum,
although a smaller number may adjourn from day to
day and may compel the attendance of absent
members.
• In computing a quorum, members who are outside
the country, thus outside of each House’s coercive
jurisdiction, are not included.
Whether it is plenary or committee:
• Plenary: 50% + 1
• Senate Committee: Chairman and another senator
AVELINO V. CUENCO (1949)
21
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
A quorum is the majority of those who can be
compelled to attend because of a House’s coercive
power
• 24 members of the senate
• 11 walked out; 1 was sick; 1 was on official
business (outside coercive jurisdiction)
24 – 1 = 23 members for the voting
*the sick may be compelled, but he was not
23 x 50% = 11.5 → 12 votes are needed to constitute a
quorum
23 – 11 = 12 members remaining
• Exclusive powers of the Senate
SECTION 16(3), ARTICLE VI
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the
concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or
expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed,
shall not exceed sixty days.
C. RULES OF PROCEEDINGS
Each House may creative their own rules
• When may the court review the rules?
o Who has the power to promulgate the
rules? Senate/HOR
o General rule: SC can’t touch this
o Except: When the rules would violate the
constitution (rights provided for by the
Constitution)
PACETE V. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS (1971)
Revocation of an appointment must be made for a
just cause. Otherwise, it will amount to a violation of
due process because there was no hearing
• Tradition = MR = automatically vacates
confirmation
• While Commission of Appointments has power
(because of the Congress) to promulgate →
since the rules violated Pacete’s right to due
process, SC can judicially review it
• Pacete validly confirmed as a judge
• While it would appear that some prerogatives of
the other branches which are beyond judicial
review, that is only if that was within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the branch.
• But there are rules inherent to the judiciary = bill
of rights not violated
• “In excess or lack of jurisdiction” = went beyond
the restrictions set forth in the Constitution
ARROYO V. DE VENECIA (1997)
Procedural rights under the Rules of Procedure of a
co-equal branch is not within the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court
• Sin Tax Law
• Arroyo’s right has been allegedly violated, as a
congressman
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
o Microphone not on – he was invoking
his right to be heard, but no one could
hear him
o Issue of no quorum
• His right was not violated, it was not in the
record (he was not heard, literally)
• Even if they heard him – he was invoking
procedural rights
• Is the Congress necessarily bound by its own
rules = no (it’s their own creation)
• Prerogative as legislator under the rules of HoR
D. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS
Each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior,
and with the concurrence of 2/3 of all its members with:
• Suspension (shall not exceed 60 days)
• Expulsion
Other disciplinary measures:
• Deletion of unparliamentary remarks from the record
• Fine
• Imprisonment
• Censure
ALEJANDRINO V. QUEZON (1924)
The determination of Congress when it comes to
disciplining members is respected by the Court
(cannot compel to reinstate)
• Issue of suspension because of violence in the
Senate
• Court cannot review = within the exclusive
powers of the Senate (plenary) = no limitation
(previous constitution)
• 1987 Constitution = there is limitation
OSMENA V. PENDATUN (1960)
The immunity for speech given to a member of
Congress is not a bar to the power of Congress to
discipline its members
• Derogatory privilege speech in HoR
• Speech = in connection with the exercise of
power – can still be punished
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2001)
The suspension contemplated in the Constitution is
different from the suspension prescribed in the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The
former is punitive while the latter is preventive
• Congress = suspension as a disciplinary
measure
• Sandiganbayan = preventive (RA 3019)
DE VENECIA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2002)
Suspension of a public officer in relation to RA 3019
is mandatory
Issue: Speaker of the House, De Venecia, did not want to
implement the suspension order of Sandiganbayan on
Paredes because of separation of power.
22
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
Court: Separation of powers does not excuse Congress
from complying with the discretion of the Sandiganbayan.
Preventive suspension prevents a person from influencing
the witness or to tamper with documentary evidence.
E. JOURNAL AND RECORD
SECTION 16(4), ARTICLE VI
Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and
from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts
as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the
yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-
fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal.
Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
JOURNAL
An abbreviated account of the daily proceedings. It contains
a succinct and accurate account of what has taken place in
every session.
It shall contain in full the ff:
1. Proclamation issued by the president of the PH to
convene Congress
2. Titles of bills and resolutions presented by any
Member of the Senate
3. Objections by the legislative measures vetoed by
the President, together with the ayes and nays of the
Senators on each vetoed measure
4. All nominal votings
And in condensed form:
1. Messages of the President of PH
2. Messages from the HOR
3. Petitions
4. Communications
5. Memorials
Purpose of a Journal
1. Ensure publicity to the proceedings of the legislature
and a correspondent responsibility of the members
to their respective constituents, except those that
will affect national security
2. (Probative) Provide proof of what actually transpired
in the legislature so as not to rely on
memory/recollection
RECORD
A word for word transcript of Congress deliberations. It shall
be printed and published
THE ENROLLED BILL THEORY
• Enrolled bill—duly authenticated copy of a
bill/resolution bearing the signature of the Speaker
of the HOR and Senate President and the
certification of both Houses that such bill was
passed, as attested by the Secretary-General
• When there’s a conflict between a journal and an
enrolled bill, the enrolled bill prevails
• Conclusive and imports absolute verity and is
binding on the courts
• If there is any mistake in the printing before
certification, solution is by amendment or curative
legislation, not by a judicial decree
CASCO CHEMICAL CO. V. GIMENEZ (1963)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
The Court cannot intervene with mistakes in the
enrolled bill. The remedy is for Congress to amend
the law
Facts:
• Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law was enacted
to support local producers
• “urea formaldehyde,” the finished product was
printed on the bill instead of “urea and
formaldehyde,” the raw materials
Court:
• In the enrolled bill, the term urea formaldehyde
was the one used. It is therefore conclusive
• If there has been any mistake, it is not for the
court to act upon but for the Congress to correct
because the judiciary has to accord due respect
to the legislative
UNITED STATES V. PONS (1916)
The details stated in the journal shall be followed
Facts:
• Pons and Beliso were charged for illegally and
fraudulently importing and introducing
contraband materials in the Philippines. Pons
appealed the sentence arguing that the law was
null and void because it was passed on March 1,
a day after session in Congress was supposed to
end.
• Opium law passed by the congress past the
adjournment of the session (12MN, 28 February
1914)
• “Stopping the clock” – a practice for unfinished
matters to be decided before the session ends.
• On the last day, clock is stopped at 11:59PM
Court:
• Journal states that the bill was passed on 28
February.
• It was not ambiguous nor contradictory as to the
actual time of adjournment
• To question the veracity of the a legislative
journal while they are clear and explicit is to
violate the letter and spirit of the organic laws and
to overstep on the power of the Congress.
ASTORGA V. VILLEGAS (1974)
The constitutional requirement for the passage of a
bill is the approval of the congress, not the
certification of the leaders of the Houses. The
approval is reflected in the journal
Facts:
• The wrong version of the Act Defining the
Powers, Rights, and Duties of the Manila Vice
Mayor was printed (with amendments)
• Signatures of the Senate President, Speaker of
the HOR, and the PH President were withdrawn
→ no enrolled bill to speak of
• Signature withdrawal was allowed because the
law has not yet taken effect
• The right bill was never approved
Court:
• No enrolled bill → journal
• Journal reflects the deliberation for the
amendments
23
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
• Certification is not sacrosanct, it was merely a
mode of authentication.
• Lawmaking process is validly ended when the
bill is approved by both Houses. The certification
does not add to its validity. The constitutional
requirement is the approval of the congress, not
the certification of the leaders of the Houses.
MORALES V. SUBIDO (1969)
The enrolled bill is more conclusive than the journal
Facts:
• Petitioner was designated as neither qualified nor
eligible to be appointed as chief of police of
Manila because he was just a high school
graduate and did not hold a bachelor’s degree.
Only members of the armed forces can.
• The high school graduate clause was deleted in
the enrolled bill which required—bachelor’s
degree holder and has served as officer in the
Armed Forces for at least 8 years
Court: Although the high school graduate clause was
raised in the deliberation as apparent in the journal, the
enrolled bill, as an official attestation of both Houses, is
more conclusive and binding than what appears in the
journal
F. SESSION
• Congress may stay in session all year
round
• May last for as long as the Congress
Regular
wishes but only until 30 days before the
Session
opening of its next regular session,
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays
• May be called by the President anytime
• Can last for as long as the Congress
wants
Special
Session Eg. when there are priority legislative
measures that have to be deliberated
before the year ends; when there is a
special appropriation
• When both houses are acting as Board of
Joint
Canvassers
Session
Eg. SONA, declaration of war
4. SALARIES, PRIVILEGES AND DISQUALIFICATIONS
A. SALARIES
SECTION 10, ARTICLE VI
The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase
in said compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate
and the House of Representatives approving such
increase.
Salary Increase: Until the end of the term of those who
participated in the enacting of the law.
• Senators have longer terms – their term is the
benchmark
• Exhausting the term limit (6 years of what remains;
using the Senator’s term)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

PHILCONSA V. MATHAY (1966) 1. Membership in the Congress does not exempt an

accused from statutes and rules which apply to
Increase in salary of the Congress shall take effect validly incarcerated persons
after the expiration of the term of the most senior 2. One rationale behind confinement is public self-
legislator of the increase law defense
3. It would amount to creation of a privileged class,
• Senate salary increase without justification in reason
• When will the increase take effect? 4. He was provided with an offense in the New
• Any appropriation increase should take effect Bilibid Prison
after the expiration of their term

Note: Trillanes Case (Conundrum)

LIGOT V. MATHAY (1974) • Government filed a case against Trillianes for
rebellion
The provision in salary increase is in place to avoid • Rebellion is Bailable → Trillanes was able to bail out
conflict of interest for the legislators. Hence, the • Government alleges that the amnesty granted to
legislators cannot circumvent this Trillianes for coup de etat (a non-bailable offense) is
void
Issue: Retirement gratuity of the petitioner • Evidence against him for rebellion: he applied for
• Retirement gratuity = highest rate received amnesty = evidence of guilt (admission of the act
• Law taking effect is the same date as the required)
retirement date
C. SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE
Note: With judges = salary increase will be the benchmark
for the retirement (no conflict of interest) Exemption from LIBEL
• Conflict of interest for legislators • Must be directed to someone who can act
• To allow the will of the petitioner so would be to • Privilege speech directed to (based on
circumvent the law Senate/House Rules): the Senate
President/Speaker

B. FREEDOM FROM ARREST Purpose:

SECTION 11, ARTICLE VI
A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the
Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned
nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or
debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
• Legislator still criminally liable
• Cannot be arrested or detained while the congress
is in session
• 6-year standard for exemption from arrest
o 6 years: 6 years is the maximum for
probation (he will not be required to go to
prison; bailable)
▪ Else, not exempted
PEOPLE V. JALOSJOS (2000)
A legislator who was penalized to more than 6 years
in prison cannot attend legislative sessions; even if
appeal is on-going.
Facts: Jalosjos: charged with the crime of statutory rape
(girl below 12 y/o)
• He was in the National Penitentiary while the
case is on appeal
• Not for their private indulgence, but for the public
good
• It was intended to protect them against government
pressure and intimidation aimed at influencing their
decision-making prerogatives
• Such grant of legislative privilege must perforce be
viewed according to its purpose and plain language
Scope:
• Venue: not limited to the venue, but the exercise of
function
o Doesn’t have to be in session, in the halls
of the congress, as long as it is in relation
to the functions of his official
duty/office.
• “Speech:” speeches made, utterances, bills signed,
votes passed
Disciplinary Action for Slander:
In the senate, in the course of privilege speech = disciplinary
action by the Congress
JIMENEZ V. CABANGBANG
A speech is not privileged if it is malicious
Facts: Open letter → conspiracy to overthrow the
president
• Cabangbang = DND Chairman

Issue: Allow him to still perform the functions of a Elements of libel:

congressman, for his constituents – allowed to attend 1. It must be defamatory
sessions while his case was still on appeal 2. It must be malicious
3. It must be given publicity
Court: 4. The victim must be identifiable
• The penalty of his crime is more than 6 years
Court:
• Allowance would violate the constitution (equal
protection) • Unnecessary publication → The publication was
not directed at persons who can act = indication
Premises: of malice

24
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
• Privilege was defeated by malice (directed at
persons who have nothing to do; farfetched
connection)
D. DISQUALIFICATIONS
ARTICLE VI
SECTION 13. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may hold any other office or employment
in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his
term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be
appointed to any office which may have been created or
the emoluments thereof increased during the term for
which he was elected.
SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as counsel before
any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or
quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither
shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in
any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege
granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned
or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term
of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any
office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where
he may be called upon to act on account of his office.
1. CANNOT HOLD DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT OFFICES
• Senators who are also members of oversight
committees, tribunals, etc: part of the exercise of
their duty (ex officio)
ADAZA V. PACANA (1985)
When a mayor won an assemblyman position, he
must vacate the former
Facts: During the time Adaza was governor of Misamis,
he was elected as a member of the Batasan Pambansa.
Pacana, as VM, assumed the position as governor. Adaza
then filed a petition to prevent him from being governor as
Adaza was the lawful occupant of the governor’s office.
Court: Adaza must vacate his post as governor. Under the
Constitution, a member of the Batasan is prohibited from
holding any other office or employment in the government
during his tenure.
2. APPEAR AS COUNSEL BEFORE ANY COURT OR
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
• Possible conflict of interest, exercise of undue
influence = power to approve budget (might cut of
legs of court if ruling is unfavorable to the legislator)
PUYAT V. DE GUZMAN (1982)
The role upon entry in court shall be determinative of
the role of a party
• Assemblyman Fernandez appeared as counsel
first (not allowed)
• Fernandez then appeared as intervenor
stockholder (he purchased 10 stocks)
• Interest representing: himself and former clients
• Indirect circumvention of the law
25
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
3. APPOINTMENT TO AN OFFICE CREATED DURING HIS
TERM TO CONGRESS
4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
• Direct, financial interest:
o Not supposed to make money
o Not get returns on any investment made by
the government
LIBAN V. GORDON
When a mayor won an assemblyman position, he
must vacate the former
Argument: Red Cross = government corporation; created
by law; has ex officio members
Control test for GOCC:
• Does the president appoint the officials of RC?
NO
o Either ex officio or add-on functions
• Does the government fund the RC? NO
o Funding from individuals/outside
o From RC federation
o There is a law on how the RC got its
money → annual contributions (public)
– encouraged; cannot be compelled
Court: Created by law only to facilitate the creation of the
movement in the Philippines, just like the Boy Scouts of
the Philippines
• Functions of the RC in relation to the entire RC
Federation
o Beyond just the Philippine Government
E. DUTY TO DISCLOSE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
SECTION 17, Article XI. A public officer or employee
shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as
may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath
of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the
President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the
Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional
offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or
flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in
the manner provided by law.
SECTION 12, Article VI. All Members of the Senate and
the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of
office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business
interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a
potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of
a proposed legislation of which they are authors.
SECTION 20, VI. The records and books of accounts of
the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public
in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited
by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually
an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred
for each Member.
Duty to disclose the ff:
1. SALN
2. Financial and business interests
3. Potential conflicts of interest
4. Amounts paid to/expenses incurred by each
member
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
5. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
The tribunals which have jurisdiction over the question of the
qualifications of the President, Vice President, Senators,
and Members of the House was made clear by the
Constitution.
SECTION 17, ARTICLE VI
The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each
have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of
whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be
designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen
on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and the parties or organizations registered
under the party-list system represented therein. The senior
Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
Types of Electoral Tribunals:
1. Senate Electoral Tribunal
2. House Electoral Tribunal (non-partisan court)
Note: There is a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)
Composition:
• 3 Supreme Court Justices – designated by the
CJ; Senior Justice in the ET shall be its chairman
• 6 Members of the Senate/House – as the case
may be, chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from parties
Composition rules:
• The ET shall be constituted every 30 days after the
Senate and the House shall have been organized
with the election of the President and the Speaker.
• Members chosen enjoy security of tenure and
cannot be removed by mere temporary change of
party affiliation (disloyalty to party/breach of party
discipline)
Valid grounds/just cause for termination of membership
to the tribunal:
1. Expiration of Congressional term of office
2. Death or permanent disability
3. Resignation from political party which one
represents in tribunal
4. Removal from office for other valid reasons
JURISDICTION: Sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective
members
• Sole → full, complete, and unimpaired exercise of
power
When does it acquire jurisdiction?
1. When there is an election contest
2. Only after the proclamation of a candidate
Ongsiako-Reyes v. COMELEC (2013)
ET acquires jurisdiction only after:
1. A petition is filed before it
2. A candidate is already considered a member of the
House
Jurisdiction still with COMELEC
In the absence of election contest and before proclamation
LEGISLATIVE MEMBERSHIP
1. A valid proclamation
26
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
2. A proper oath before the Speaker and in open
session
3. Assumption of office
ELECTION CONTEST
One where a defeated candidate challenges the qualification
and claims for himself the seat of a proclaimed winner.
Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936)
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over EC for the purpose
of determining the character, scope, and extent of the
constitutional grant to the EC as the “sole judge…”
INDEPENDENCE: Congress/Courts cannot interfere with
procedural matters related to its functions
ABAS V. SET (1988)
The legal fiction of an ET is that once the members
are seated, they are completely independent from
their parties
Facts:
• Abbas filed a case against all senators who
won; who also happened to be members of the
SET. He contended that SC must be the only
one who will sit.
Court:
• There would be no valid decision → here are
only 3 members in the SC. A valid decision must
be from the majority which is 5.
• Disqualify the 6 and allow the 3 to rule = no
quorum = null and void
• No other option in the Constitution
• Legal fiction: once they seat, their completely
independent
BONDOC V. PINEDA (1991)
Disloyalty is not a valid ground for membership
termination in an ET
Facts: Camasura, one of the members of the tribunal,
decided in favor of Bondoc. However, Camasura was
subsequently replaced by the LDP for disloyalty.
Court: Camasura cannot be removed because disloyalty
is not a valid ground for the expulsion of a member of the
tribunal. They also enjoy security of tenure.
CODILLA V. DE VENECIA (2002)
A valid proclamation cannot be held where there is a
pending case in COMELEC
Facts: When her case was pending in the COMELEC,
Locsin immediately took an oath of office and went straight
to her office. She contended that the COMELEC no longer
has jurisdiction over her because there was already a
proclamation.
Court: The COMELEC still has jurisdiction of the case.
The Electoral tribunal can only take cognizance of the case
when there is a valid proclamation. In our present case,
there was no valid proclamation yet because there was still
a case pending in the COMELEC.
PIMENTEL V. HRET (2002)
The Constitution expressly grants to the House of
Representatives the prerogative, within
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
constitutionally defined limits, to choose from among
its district and partylist representatives those who
may occupy the seats allotted to the House in the
HRET and CA
Facts: There were no members from the party list
representatives that will sit in the HRET. The petitioners
contend that there must be at least 1 coming from the
party list.
Court: The court cannot review because it is the
prerogative of the HOR to choose their representatives
from the district representatives or the party list members.
6. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
SECTION 18, ARTICLE VI
There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting
of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman,
twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of
Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and
parties or organizations registered under the party-list
system represented therein. The Chairman of the
Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The
Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it
within thirty session days of the Congress from their
submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote
of all the Members.
Composition:
• Senate president – ex officio chairman
(shall not vote except when there is a tie)
• 12 senators
• 12 members of the HOR
RULE ON PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
The 12 senators and 12 representatives are elected on the
basis of proportional representation from the political parties
and partylist organizations.
• By requiring proportional representation in the CA,
there is a check on the majority party in the Senate
and helps to maintain the balance of power. No party
can claim more than what it is entitled to (Guingona
v. Gonzales)
JURISDICTION: CA shall confirm the appointments by the
President with respect to the following positions:
1. Heads of executive departments
2. Ambassadors, public ministers, consuls
3. Officers of the AFP from the rank of Colonel or
Naval Captain
4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in
him by the constitution
AD-INTERIM APPOINTMENTS
Appointments extended by the president while Congress is
NOT in session
Ad-interim appointments shall only be effective:
• Until disapproval by the CA
• Until next adjournment of Congress
DAZA V. SINGSON (1989)
The HOR has authority to change its representation
in the CA to reflect changes in political alignment
Facts: Daza was chosen as the representative of the LP
to be part of the 12 seats apportioned to the HOR in CA.
27
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
Later on, 24 members of the LP joined the LDP. Because
of this, representations in the CA were revised. Hence, the
seat of Daza was given to Singson.
Court: The court cannot review because it would be a
violation of the separation of power is so. It upheld the
authority of the HOR to change its representation in the CA
to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the
political alignments of its membership
COSETENG V. MITRA (1990)
Seat on the CA is based on election and not
endorsement
Facts: LDP became the majority party in the House of
Representatives. This caused a re-organisation of
representation in the Commission on Appointments.
Dominique Coseteng, being the only member of KAIBA
claimed that she is entitled to a seat for having
endorsement of nine congressmen.
Issue: W/N Coseteng was entitled to a seat by virtue of
endorsement
Court: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. Even if
Coseteng is to be considered as an opposition party, she
will only represent 0.4% or less than 1% of the House
membership and therefore not entitled to one of the twelve
seats in the Commission of Appointments.
GUINGONA V. GONZALES (1992)
In proportional representation, a party must obtain at
least 1 in the computation for the allocation of seat in
the CA
Facts: The LP-PDP obtained a ½ or 0.5 in the computation
of the allocation of seats in the CA.
Issue: W/N the party is entitled to a seat in the CA
Ruling: No. ½ is not equivalent to 1 seat. If that is followed,
the members will go over the maximum 12 members
prescribed under the law. In fact, the law does not require
filling these 12 seats. For purposes of quorum 13 members
and at least 4 shall come from either house are required.
In our present case, there would be exactly 10 members
that would come from the party- list. Even though there are
2 members lacking, they may still operate.
DRILON V. DE VENECIA (2009)
Primary recourse on procedural matters related to
CA is with the Houses of the Congress and not the
Supreme Court
Facts: Sen. Madrigal requested the reorganization of the
membership of the CA.
Ruling: The court cannot review because of the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction
is the exclusive discretion that the Congress has. It is
different from the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies where the SC is appellate body.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

7. POWERS OF CONGRESS Who prepares the

bill (drafting)?
Note: Steps 1 to 4 happen
A. GENERAL PLENARY POWERS Ideally: legislators simultaneously at the Senate
Pass laws → plenary powers Most of the time: and HOR. One house may
lobbying groups finish first or they may finish at
INHERENT SPECIFIC POWERS the same time.
POWERS 1. Constituent power (propose STEP 1: FIRST
1. Police power amends. to Consti.) READING The difference will lie in the
2. Power of 2. Legislative inquiries • Reading amendments portion
taxation 3. Appropriation of title
3. Power of 4. Taxation • Referred
eminent 5. Concurrence in treaties/int’l. to Committee(s)
domain agreements • Hearing
4. Contempt 6. War powers and delegation • Output: Committee Report
Power powers • Calendar for second reading
B. LIMITATIONS STEP 2: SECOND READING
• Sponsorship speech
Substantive Circumscribe both the exercise of o Explain the reason why the law should be
limitations the power itself and the allowable passed
subject of legislation o Highlights of the bill
Procedural Express limitation (what can & • Period of interpellation (questioning)
limitations cannot) • Period of amendment
See steps to make a law • Vote
o If no → return to Committee = bill dies a
8. LEGISLATIVE PROCESS natural death
o If yes → for printing
ARTICLE VI

SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall STEP 3: WAIT FOR 3 DAYS
embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the • For printing etc.
title thereof. • If urgent: President must approve/certify (eg.
Calamity)
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law
unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and STEP 4: THIRD READING
printed copies thereof in its final form have been
• Vote
distributed to its Members three days before its passage,
except when the President certifies to the necessity of its
STEP 5: BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
• To reconcile differences
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment
thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be • Output: Bicameral Committee Report
taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays • “Paper Bicameral Conference” is possible
entered in the Journal.
STEP 6: APPROVAL OF BCC REPORT
SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, • BCC is submitted to both the Senate and the
before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If House for approval
he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall • Copies signed by the Senate President and the
veto it and return the same with his objections to the House Speaker of the House
where it originated, which shall enter the objections at • The signed copies are considered as the enrolled
large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after bill
such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of
such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, STEP 7: EB SENT TO PRESIDENT
together with the objections, to the other House by which • Once the EB is sent to the president, he has 30
it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two- days to sign it
thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a o Sign → Approved
law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be o Inaction → Approved
determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the o Veto → explanation
Members voting for or against shall be entered in its ▪ Congress may override by vote
Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any of 2/3
bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after
the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law
as if he had signed it.

(2) The President shall have the power to veto any

particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or
tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to
which he does not object.

28
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
A. REQUIREMENTS AS TO BILLS
1. TITLE
One subject → title = mandatory
Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations:
Reasons for the One Subject-Rule
1. Prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation.
• Log rolling – the trading of favors (quid pro
quo) such as vote trading by legislative
members to obtain passage of actions of
interest to each legislative member.
2. Prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by
means of provisions in bills of which the titles gave
no information, and which might therefore be
overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally
adopted.
3. To fairly appraise the people, through such
publication of legislative proceedings as is usually
made, of the subjects of legislation that are being
considered, in order that they may have the
opportunity of being heard therein by petition or
otherwise if they shall so desire.
Justice Fernando, Sumulong v. COMELEC (1941):
The constitutional requirement shall be given a liberal
interpretation.
Justice Sanchez, Lidasan v. COMELEC (1967):
Of course, the Constitution does not require Congress to
employ in the title of an enactment language of such
precision as to mirror, fully index or catalogue all the
contents and the minute details therein. It suffices if the
title should serve the purpose of the constitutional demand
that it informs the legislators, the persons interested in the
subject of the bill and the public of the nature, scope, and
consequences of the proposed law and its operation. And
this, to lead them to inquire into the body of the bill, study and
discuss the same, take appropriate action thereon, and thus,
prevent surprise or fraud upon legislators.
TIO V. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD (1987)
GERMANE provisions in a statute which are not
explicitly reflected in the title are not considered
riders
Title: PD 1987 – AN ACT CREATING THE VIDEOGRAM
REGULATORY BOARD (5 October 1985)
Petitioner(s): Valentin Tio – videogram operator
Intervenor(s): Theatrical and Film institutions
Respondent(s): Videogram Regulatory Board
Issue: W/N Section 10 of PD 1987, which imposes a tax
of 30% on the gross receipts payable to the local
government, is a rider and the same is not germane to the
subject matter thereof
Held: NO
Ratio: The creation of the regulatory board is basically to
regulate or to limit the uncontrolled distribution of
videograms by imposing certain costs such as taxes.
Ruling: PD 1987 is Constitutional
• Section 10 is allied and germane to, and is
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of,
the general objective of the decree, which is the
regulation of the video industry through the
29
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
Videogram Regulatory Board as expressed in its
title.
• Section 10 is one of the tools for regulation.
• The title of the decree is comprehensive enough
to include the purposes expressed in its preamble
and reasonably covers all its provisions.
• It is unnecessary to express all those objectives
in the title or that the title to provide an index to
the body of the decree.
LIDASAN V. COMELEC (1967)
A title is sufficient when it apprises its audience
(legislators and public) of its contents
Title: RA 4709 – AN ACT CREATING THE
MUNICIPALITY OF DIANATON IN THE PROVINCE OF
LANAO DEL SUR (18 June 1966)
Petitioner(s): Bara Lidasan – resident and tax payer from
Parang, Cotabato
Respondent(s): COMELEC
*for the purposes of establishment of precincts,
registration of voters, and for other election purposes
Issue: W/N RA 4709, which includes barrios located in
another Province (Cotabato), is against Section 26, Article
VI of the Constitution
Held: YES
Ratio: The title was misleading. It gave an impression that
all municipalities are from Lanao Del Sur. It misleads
people into thinking that it only affects areas and territories
in Lanao when it actually includes areas in Cotabato.
Ruling: RA 4709 is null and void.
DUAL LIMITATIONS OF SECTION 26, ARTICLE VI
1. Congress is to refrain from conglomeration,
under one statute, of heterogenous subjects.
2. The title of the bills is to be couched in a language
sufficient to notify the legislators and the public
and those concerned of the import of the single
subject thereof
TL;DR → the subject of the statute must be
expressed in the title of the bill.
Compliance is imperative. Given the fact that the
Constitution does not exact the Congress the
obligation to read during its deliberations the entire
text of the bill. In fact, in the case of HB 1247 (RA 4790),
only its title was read from its introduction to its final
approval in the House of Representatives.
TEST OF SUFFICIENCY OF A TITLE
• Whether or not it is misleading
• Substance over form.
• Purpose of the constitutional requirement is to
give notice to all persons interested.
A title which is so uncertain that the average person
reading it would not be informed of the purpose of the
enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, or which is
misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject
where another or different one is really embraced in the
act, or in omitting any expression or indication of the real
subject or scope of the act, is bad.
WHY THE TITLE IS DECEPTIVE
• “In the Province of Lanao Del Sur” read without
subtlely or contortion = misleading/deceptive
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
The legislation has two purposes combined in
one statute:
1. It creates the municipality of Dianaton
purportedly from 21 barrios in the towns
of Butig and Balabagan, both in the
province of Lanao Del Sur; and
2. Dismembers two municipalities in
Cotabato (a province different from
Lanao Del Sur).
• Such title did not inform the members of the
Congress as to the full impact of the law
• It did not apprise the people in the towns of
Buldon and Parang in Cotabato and in the
province of Cotabato itself that part of their
territory is being taken away from their towns and
province and added to the adjacent Province of
Lanao Del Sur
• It kept the public in the dark as to what towns and
provinces were actually affected by the bill.
Transfer of a sizeable portion of territory from one province
to another of necessity involves a reduction of area,
population, and income of the first and corresponding
increase of those of the other. This is as important as the
creation of a municipality. And yet the title did not reflect
this as a fact.
The lumping together of barrios in adjacent but separate
provinces under one statute is neither a natural nor
logical consequence of the creation of the new
municipality of Dianaton (cf. Tobias v. Abalos).
CRUZ V. PARAS (1983)
Title > provision, in line with the Constitutional
requirement
Title: ORDINANCE NO. 84 – PROHIBITION AND
CLOSURE ORDINANCE OF BOCAUE, BULACAN (1975)
v. RA 938 AS AMENDED – AN ACT GRANTING
MUNICIPAL OR CITY BOARDS AND COUNCILS THE
POWER TO REGULATE THE ESTABLISHMENT,
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF CERTAIN
PLACES OF AMUSEMENT WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS. (20 June
1953)
Petitioner(s): Vicente Dela Cruz, et al – nightclub
operators
Respondent(s): Judge Egardo Paras
Issues and Held:
1. W/N Ordinance No. 84 is inconsistent with the
laws or policy of the State - YES
2. W/N the amendment in RA 938 which included
prohibition, but without change in title of said
statute, changes the power granted to it - NO
Ratio:
1. The existing policy only allows regulation and not
prohibition.
2. The title of the RA should prevail (when in conflict
with a provision) because the purpose of the title
is to inform the people what the sanctions of the
law are. It will be a violation of the people’s right
to notice before they can be made accountable.
Hence, there can only be regulation. The
ordinance cannot prohibit
Ruling: Ordinance No. 84 is void and unconstitutional
30
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
Police Power. General power of council to enact
ordinances and make regulations – must not be repugnant
to law.
General rule: Ordinances passed by virtue of the implied
power found in the general welfare clause must be
reasonable, consonant with the general powers and
purposes of the corporation, and not inconsistent with the
laws or policy of the State.
RA 938
• Section 1 was amended to include “the power to
regulate, but likewise prohibit…”
• But no change in title
• Petitioners: to construe RA 938 as allowing the
prohibition of the operation of night clubs would
give rise to a constitutional question.
TOBIAS V. ABALOS (1994)
The creation of a separate district of San Juan is
germane in the process of Mandaluyong becoming a
city
Title: RA 7675 - AN ACT CONVERTING THE
MUNICIPALITY OF MANDALUYONG INTO A HIGHLY
URBANIZED CITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY OF
MANDALUYONG (9 February 1994)
Petitioner(s): Robert Tobias, et al – residents and tax
payers from Mandaluyong
Respondent(s): Mayor Benjamin Abalos
Issue: W/N Article VIII, Section 49 of RA 7675 is
unconstitutional for being violative Section 26, Article VI of
the Constitution
Held: NO
Ratio: The title is sufficient. The separation of San Juan
from Mandaluyong is a natural logical consequence of
converting Mandaluyong into a city
Ruling: RA 7675 is constitutional
Article VIII, Section 49 of RA 7675: “… the remainder of
the former legislative district of San
Juan/Mandaluyong shall become the new legislative
district of San Juan…”
The creation of a separate congressional district for
Mandaluyong is a natural and logical consequence of
its conversion into a highly urbanized city.
+ Recognizes liberal construction (cf. Lisadan v.
COMELEC)
2. REQUIREMENTS AS TO CERTAIN LAWS
A. APPROPRIATION LAWS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 24, ARTICLE VI. All appropriation, revenue or
tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills
of local application, and private bills shall originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the
Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
SECTION 25, ARTICLE VI. (1) The Congress may not
increase the appropriations recommended by the
President for the operation of the Government as specified
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
in the budget. The form, content, and manner of
preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to
some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision
or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the
appropriation to which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the
Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving
appropriations for other departments and agencies.
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose
for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds
actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or
to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposed therein.
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the President, the President of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for
their respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations.
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials
shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported
by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as
may be prescribed by law.
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have
failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the
ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the
preceding fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and shall
remain in force and effect until the general appropriations
bill is passed by the Congress.
SECTION 29, ARTICLE VI. (1) No money shall be paid out
of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation
made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated,
applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the
use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination,
sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary
as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special
purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for
such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund
was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance,
if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the
Government.
31
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
1. LIMITS ON POWER TO APPROPRIATE
IMPLICIT LIMITATION: Public money can be appropriated
only for a public purpose.
• This limitation arises from the relation between the
power to spend and the power to tax.
List of explicit restrictions on the power of Congress:
• Article VI, Sections 24, 25, 29
• Article VII, Section 22
1. Section 24, Article VI: All appropriation, revenue or
tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public
debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall
originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments.
2. Section 25[1], Article VI: The Congress may not
increase the appropriations recommended by the
President for the operation of the Government as
specified in the budget.
3. Section 25[2], Article VI: The Congress may not
clutter the general appropriation law with provisions
not specifically related to some particular item of
appropriation, and every such provision shall be
limited in its operation to the appropriation item to
which it relates.
4. Section 25[3], Article VI: The Congress may not
adopt a procedure for approving appropriations for
itself different from the procedure for other
appropriations.
5. Section 25[4], Article VI: Special appropriation bills
must specify the purpose for which they are
intended and must be supported by funds certified
as available by the National Treasurer (DBM). If the
funds are not actually available, the special
appropriation bill must provide a corresponding
revenue proposal.
6. Section 25[5], Article VI: Congress has limited
discretion to authorize transfer of funds:
• President
• Senate President
• Speaker of the House
• Chief Justice, SC
• Constitutional Commission Heads
7. Section 25[6], Article VI: Discretionary funds
appropriated for particular officials shall be
disbursed only for public purposes to be supported
by appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
8. Section 25[7], Article VI: Congress cannot cripple
the operation of government by its failure or refusal
to pass a general appropriations bill.
• Provides for automatic re-enactment of the
general appropriations law of the
preceding fiscal year. Such “re-
appropriation” remains in force until the
new general appropriations law is
approved.
9. Section 29[2], Article VI: Prohibits the expenditure
of public money or property for religious purposes.
The scope of this prohibition is discussed under the
religion clause of the Bill of Rights.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
Outline of Cases

Part I
Introduction

A. The Constitution as a social contract

Preamble
Province of North Cotabato v. Government, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008 (Read only: Puno, C.J.,
concurring opinion)
B. How to read the Constitution
Francisco v. House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, Nov.10, 2003
David v. SET and Poe-Llamanzares, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016
C. A framework for constitutional litigation
Francisco v. House of Rep., supra
D. Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Article II
PHAP v. Duque, G.R. 173034, Oct. 9, 2007
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R.101083, July 30, 1993
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
E. National Territory
Article I
Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011
F. State Immunity
Article XVI, Sec. 3
The Holy See v. Del Rosario, 238 SCRA 524 (1994)
Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, et al. v. Scott H. Swift, et al., G.R. No. 206510. September 15, 2014

Part II
Amendment of the Constitution

A. Amendment vs. Revision

Article XVII, Sec. 1
Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006
B. Proposal
Article XVII, Sec. 2-3
1. By Congress as a constituent assembly
2. By Constitutional Convention
Gonzales vs. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774 (1968)
3. By the people thru initiative (See R.A. 6735 August 4, 1989)
Santiago vs. Comelec, G.R. 127325, March 19, 1997
Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006
C. Submission
Tolentino vs. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702 (1971)
D. Ratification
Article XVII, Sec. 4

Part III
Judicial Review

A. Separation of Powers
B. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review
Article VIII, Sec. 1
Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)
C. Justiciable and Political Questions
Francisco v. House of Rep., supra
Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, Nov. 8, 2016
(Read only: Mendoza, J., separate opinion)
D. Requisites of Judicial Review
1. Actual Case or Controversy
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014, see J. Leonen dissent

Prematurity:
PACU vs Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806 (1955)
Mariano vs Comelec, G.R. No. 118577, March 7, 1995
Montesclaros v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152295. July 9, 2002
Philconsa v. Philippine Government, G.R. No. 218406, November 29, 2016

Mootness:
Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec, DAR, G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997
Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001
Exceptions to Mootness:
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. 159085, February 3, 2004
Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. 164978, October 13, 2005
2. Proper Party
Joya vs PCGG, G.R. 96541, August 24, 1993
Agan v. PIATCO, G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003
CHR Employees Assoc. v. CHR, G.R. 155336, Nov. 25, 2004
Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v. Romulo, G.R. 157509, Jan. 18, 2005

Citizen Standing:
Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)

1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
10. Section 22, Article VII: The general appropriation
law must be based on the budget prepared by the
President.
2. PROHIBITION OF INCREASE
Purpose: to prevent big budget deficits
3. PROHIBITION OF “RIDERS” IN APPROPRIATION
BILLS
Riders – provisions unrelated to the appropriation bill;
considered prohibited.
4. TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Limited discretion (exclusive list) to authorize transfer of funds
from savings in other item of their respective appropriations:
• President
• Senate President
• Speaker of the House
• Chief Justice, SC
• Constitutional Commission Heads
5. APPROPRIATIONS MUST BE FOR A PUBLIC
PURPOSE
The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use
of public funds is whether the statute is designed to
promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance
of the advantage of individuals although such advantage to
individuals might incidentally serve the public
DEMETRIA V. ALBA (1987)
The president may not indiscriminately transfer
funds
Title: PD 1177 – BUDGET REFORM DECREE OF 1977
Petitioner(s): Demetrio Demetria, et al – members of the
National Assembly/Batasan Pambansa
Respondent(s): Hon. Manuel Alba (Minister of the
budget) and Victor Macalingcag (Treasurer of the
Philippines)
Issue: W/N Section 44(1) of PD 1177 unduly extends the
power of the president to indiscriminately transfer funds
from one executive office to another, thereby making it
unconstitutional
Held: YES
Ratio: The president may not transfer the funds. He will be
usurping the power of the legislative. The GAA have to go
under the legislative because they are the representative
of the people and the people will decide where their money
should go.
Augmentation using savings is allowed only if savings from
activities by which money had been allocated had been
completed. The only persons who can authorize the
augmentation are the heads of each branch.
Ruling: Section 44(1) of PD 1177 null and void for being
unconstitutional
Section 44(1) of PD 1177:
“The President shall have the authority to transfer any
fund, appropriated for the different departments, bureaus,
offices and agencies of the Executive Department, which
are included in the General Appropriations Act, to any
program, project or activity of any department, bureau, or
32
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
office included in the General Appropriations Act or
approved after its enactment.”
Section 16[5] of the 1973 Constitution:
“No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations, however, the President, the Prime
Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and the heads of constitutional commissions may
by law be authorized to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for their respective offices
from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.”
Section 44(1) of PD 1177 unduly overextends the
privilege granted under said Section 16[5]. It empowers
the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one
department, bureau, office or agency of the Executive
Department to any program, project or activity of any
department, bureau or office included in the General
Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment, without
regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are
actually savings in the item from which the same are to be
taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of
augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made.
GUINGONA V. CARAGUE (1991)
Where there are valid laws for a specific
appropriation (although not included in the GAA),
said appropriation is valid
Title: Automatic appropriation for debt service in the 1990
budget:
• PD 81 – Amending Certain Provisions of RA
4860, as Amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing Act),
• PD 1177 – Revising the Budget Process in Order
to Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of
the New Society
• PD 1967 – An Act Strengthening the Guarantee
and Payment Positions of the Republic of the
Philippines on Its Contingent Liabilities Arising
out of Relent and Guaranteed Loans by
Appropriating Funds For The Purpose
Petitioner(s): Teofisto Guingona & Aquilino Pimentel, Jr.
- senators
Respondent(s): Hon. Guillermo Carague (Secretary,
Budget & Management), Hon. Rozalina Cajucom (National
Treasurer), COA
Issues and Held:
1. W/N contested PDs are invalid as they did not
originate from the House of Representatives,
based on Section 24, Article VI of the Constitution
– NO
2. W/N the P 86B automatic debt appropriation from
the P 233B 1990 Budget is invalid as it does not
meet definiteness, certainty, and exactness in an
appropriation - NO
Ratio:
1. (1) Legislative intent is contrary; (2) Repeal or
amendment by implication is frowned upon; and
(3) prospective and not retrospective application
of the law.
2. RA 4860: (1) the Constitution does not require a
definite, certain, exact, or specific appropriation
made by law (see Section 29[1]); purpose:
maintain good credit standing; and (2) legislative
parameters established to avoid abuse.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
Ruling: All contested statutes constitutes lawful
authorizations or appropriations
*unless they are repealed or otherwise amended by the
Congress
ISSUE 1: MUST ORIGINATE FROM THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Intent: [C]ertainly, the framers of the Constitution did not
contemplate that existing laws in the statute books
including existing presidential decrees appropriating
public money are reduced to mere "bills" that must
again go through the legislative mill. The only
reasonable interpretation of said provisions of the
Constitution which refer to "bills" is that they mean
appropriation measures still to be passed by Congress. If
the intention of the framers thereof were otherwise they
should have expressed their decision in a more direct or
express manner.
Implied Repeal: Well-known is the rule that repeal or
amendment by implication is frowned upon.
Prospective Application: Equally fundamental is the
principle that construction of the Constitution and law is
generally applied prospectively and not retrospectively
unless it is so clearly stated.
ISSUE 2: DEFINITENESS, CERTAINTY, AND
EXACTNESS IN AN APPROPRIATION
No Such Requirement:
“No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” (Section
29[1])
There is no provision in our Constitution that provides or
prescribes any particular form of words or religious recitals
in which an authorization or appropriation by Congress
shall be made, except that it be 'made by law. An
appropriation may be made impliedly (as by past but
subsisting legislations) as well as expressly for the
current fiscal year (as by enactment of laws by the
present Congress), just as said appropriation may be
made in general as well as in specific terms.
Legislative Intention: The amount needed should be
automatically set aside in order to enable the Republic of
the Philippines to pay the principal, interest, taxes and
other normal banking charges on the loans, credits or
indebtedness incurred as guaranteed by it when they shall
become due without the need to enact a separate law
appropriating funds therefor as the need arises. The
purpose of these laws is to enable the government to make
prompt payment and/or advances for all loans to protect
and maintain the credit standing of the country.
Safeguard Against Abuse (Legislative Parameters):
The mandate is to pay only the principal, interest, taxes
and other normal banking charges on the loans, credits
or indebtedness, or on the bonds, debentures or security
or other evidences of indebtedness sold in international
markets incurred by virtue of the law, as and when they
shall become due. No uncertainty arises in executive
implementation as the limit will be the exact amounts as
shown by the books of the Treasury.
GOVERNMENT BUDGETARY PROCESS
1. Budget preparation (E) – Covers the estimation
of government revenues, the determination of
budgetary priorities and activities within the
constraints imposed by available revenues and
33
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
by borrowing limits, and the translation of desired
priorities and activities into expenditure levels.
2. Legislative authorization (L) – Congress
deliberates or acts on the budget proposals of the
President, and Congress in the exercise of its
own judgment and wisdom formulates an
appropriation act precisely following the process
established by the Constitution, which specifies
that no money may be paid from the Treasury
except in accordance with an appropriation made
by law.
3. Budget execution (E) – Covers the various
operational aspects of budgeting. The
establishment of obligation authority ceilings, the
evaluation of work and financial plans for
individual activities, the continuing review of
government fiscal position, the regulation of
funds releases, the implementation of cash
payment schedules, and other related activities
comprise this phase of the budget cycle.
4. Budget accountability – covers the various
operational aspects of budgeting. The
establishment of obligation authority ceilings, the
evaluation of work and financial plans for
individual activities, the continuing review of
government fiscal position, the regulation of
funds releases, the implementation of cash
payment schedules, and other related activities
comprise this phase of the budget cycle.
BELGICA V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (2013)
Post-identification of expenditure after the approval
of GAA is an usurpation of legislative power
(refer to government budgetary process)
Priority development Assistant Fund
Facts: The petitioners seek that the PDAF be declared
unconstitutional because it violates the principle of
separation of powers.
• The PDAF is a discretionary fund after
appropriation has been enacted. There is a
congressional pork barrel and presidential pork
barrel.
Court: PDAF is unconstitutional because it violates the
separation of powers.
*From now on the presidential pork barrel in the form of the
Malampaya funds will only be used for energy related and
the Federal Social Fund for any calamity emergencies.
Congressional pork barrel
Executive power was being exercised by the legislative
because they basically instruct what project will be done
through the budget—they enact the budget which only the
executive function can perform.
Presidential pork barrel
Violation because the president was performing a
legislative function. Through this, the president determined
where to spend the funds which only the congress can do.
ARAULLO V. AQUINO (2014)
Disbursement Acceleration Program
While the intention of DAP is good, there is no line-
item appropriation for its projects under the GAA.
Hence, it is void. But under the doctrine of operative
fact, those funds that were used for good and in
good faith will not be undone
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

Facts: Disbursement Acceleration Fund (DAP) enables

the Executive to realign funds from slow moving projects (4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
to priority projects instead of waiting for next year’s without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members
appropriation. The funds will be withdrawn and be of the Congress.
declared savings even though they are not yet.

Court: The DAP is unconstitutional. Requirements for Tax Exemptions to Tax Laws:
Laws: • Used actually, directly
Transfer of funds • Uniform and exclusively
Only allowed when there are savings. Savings in the GAA • Equitable • The exemptions must
only occurs when there is an excess in the funding of a • Progressive be provided for by law
certain project and once it is completed, discontinued or • Originate exclusively (congress concurrence)
abandoned. Savings are only declared at the end of the • Should not be violative • They must be for
fiscal year. In our present case, when the funds were of Constitutional rights institutions with
transferred, they were not yet savings because they were (preferred rights) charitable, educational,
withdrawn from existing projects. Hence, there is no basis religious nature
for the transfers. • Exemption on real
property tax
Funds under DAP were taken from:
1. UNRELEASED APPROPRIATIONS under TOLENTINO V. SECRETARY OF FINANCE (1994)
Personnel Services
2. Unprogrammed funds Tax exemption is a privilege granted by congress and
3. Carry-over appropriations unreleased from the they can take it away. The power of taxation prevails
previous year but it should not also violate individual rights
4. Budget for slow-moving items or projects that
had been realigned to support faster disbursing Statute: RA 7716 (E-VAT)
projects

NO LINE-ITEM APPROPRIATION (PAPs) IN GAA FOR PETITIONERS COURT

DAP PROJECTS Tolentino: The Parallel system under the
Senate may only Bicameral Committee
CROSS-BORDER TRANSFERS OR AUGMENTATION make
TRANSPIRED UNDER DAP If it was dependent on HoR alone,
The Court amendments to it will be impossible to pass a bill
holds that the original House
Void = Undo? → Doctrine of operative fact Bills “Originate exclusively” – the bill
the
Not to undo the funds that were used for good appropriati
must be first filed in the HoR
(infrastructure) on for Newspaper and What was being taxed? The
DELA CRUZ V. OCHOA motor bibles: E-VAT activity of printing
DRILON V. DE VENECIA (2009) vehicle violated freedom A tax exemption is a PRIVILEGE.
registratio of the press and
While a project that causes fund disbursement is not n naturally There is no vested right. At any
religion. Before, time, the one (the State) who gave
explicitly reflected in a line-item appropriation, if it is and
by law and
germane to what is explicitly reflected, then it is not a logically the privilege can take it back.
jurisprudence,
rider included The activity being taxed is
newspapers and
plate- PRINTING. This applies to
bibles were
Line-item appropriation: “MFO 2: Motor vehicle making in
exempted from everyone
registration and driver’s licensing regulation services” as much
tax Had the activity being taxed is
as plate-
DISTRIBUTION, preferred rights
Motor vehicle plate making project is a germane process making
would have been violated.
in the above-mentioned line item appropriation was an
integral *
component
of the LUNG CENTER V. QC (2004)
- END OF MIDTERMS COVERAGE -
registratio
n process Scope of taxability or non-taxability depends on the
B. TAX LAWS
percentage of the charitable factors in the institution
SECTION 28, ARTICLE VI
Statute: PD 1823
(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. Lung Center: We are a charitable institution. Hence,
exempted from tax
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to QC-LBAA: All of Lung Center is taxable
fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations
and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and Court: Both are wrong
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other 1. Test of W/N an institution is charitable: 60% of the
duties or imposts within the framework of the national bed space is reserved for charity patients (hence,
development program of the Government. it is a charitable institution)
o The percentage is used only to
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or determine
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit 2. Scope of taxability or non-taxability = deduct the
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, areas for private use
actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, 3. In short: The portions leased to private entities
charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from are not exempted from taxes. The portions used
taxation. for charitable purposes maintain their exemption.

34
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
JOHN HAY PAC V. LIM (2003)
Tax exemption is an act of the Congress
Tax exemption cannot be subject of the invocation of
the equal protection clause in the Constitution since
it is a privilege and not a right
Statute: RA 7227
John Hay: Equal protection – John Hay should also be
exempted, since the Subic Special Economic Zone (SEZ)
is exempted.
Court:
• Tax exemption is a privilege. Hence, it is not
covered by the equal protection clause
• Exemption should be an act of Congress, not the
president (else, violation of separation of
powers).
• The president usurped the power of congress by
legislating tax exemptions. It is only Congress
that can do that.
TAN V. DEL ROSARIO (2003)
Substantial distinction can give rise to a different tax
schedule without violating the equal protection
clause in the Constitution
Statute: RA 7496
• SNIT – different taxing system for those who are
self-employed
• Different schedule and fewer deductions from
gross income (direct expenses)
Tan: Violation of uniformity = violates equal protection
Court: No violation of the rule of uniformity
• Substantial distinction that can give rise to a
valid classification
• Professionals v. employees
o Taxed when: after receiving their
income v. when they receive their salary
o Professionals would have to receive
their full salary first. Their tax deductions
are determined at the end of the quarter
o Employees already know their tax
deductions ahead of time.
• Equitable tax = based on taxpayer’s ability to pay
GARCIA V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (2003)
Congress can delegate the execution of tax-related
laws, but not the legislation itself.
Statute: EO 443, 475, & 478
Garcia: Statute to generate revenue = should be a
legislative act, not a presidential act
Court:
• Congress authorized the president to fix tariff
rates and other duties or imports (Tariffs and
Customs Code)
• Any tariff, duties, or imposts generates revenues.
But this is just a secondary purpose. The primary
purpose is to protect local.
35
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
• No undue delegation – Tariff and Customs
Code already provided for because it already set
the limits (discretion was not really delegated). All
that was delegated was the execution.
Why should the president be given such leeway?
Reactive to the conditions in the market. Since the market
climate is always changing.
Undue delegation of powers
When the law allows other branches of government the
discretion in making the law.
C. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT
The appellate jurisdiction of the SC may not be increased
by congress without its advice and concurrence. This is to
prevent any undue increase of case loan in SC.
FABIAN V. DESIERTO (1998)
There cannot be a direct appeal from the OMB to the
SC
Issue: W/N decisions of the Ombudsman are appealable
to the SC (enlargement of the SC’s jurisdiction)
Court: Did not concur (legal basis)
• Nature of the OMB = quasi-judicial body (not a
court) that determines questions of fact → SC
only has jurisdiction over questions of law
• Hence, there cannot be a direct appeal from the
OMB to the SC
• CA = questions of fact
B. PROCEDURE FOR THE PASSAGE OF BILLS
BICAMERAL COMMITTEE
Jefferson Manual/Rules of Procedure: Comes up with a
consolidated version of the HoR and Senate bill.
*See portion on how a bill becomes a law
SECTION 27(1), ARTICLE VI
Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes
a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the
same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return
the same with his objections to the House where it
originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its
Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such
reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such
House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together
with the objections, to the other House by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of
all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all
such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined
by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for
or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President
shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where
it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt
thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had
signed it.
SUPRA: TOLENTINO V. SECRETARY OF FINANCE
(1994)
What must originate from the House of
Representatives is the bill, not the law
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
Statute: RA 7716 (E-VAT)
Garcia: Not merely reconciliation, which is in violation of
the basic principles in the legislative bill)
Court:
• Enrolled Bill Doctrine - already binding
• Discretion of the legislative branch
• Certified by the Senate President and
the Speaker of the House
• No specific violation of rights = the SC cannot
intervene
Excerpt from the case:
“The argument that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively
in the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI,
Sec. 24 of the Constitution will not bear analysis. To begin
with, it is not the law but the revenue bill which is
required by the Constitution to originate exclusively in
the House of Representatives. To insist that a revenue
statute and not only the bill which initiated the legislative
process culminating in the enactment of the law must
substantially be the same as the House bill would be to
deny the Senate’s power not only to concur with
amendments but also to propose amendments. Indeed,
what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for
filing revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase
of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application
must come from the House of Representatives on the
theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the
members of the House can be expected to be more
sensitive to the local needs and problems. Nor does the
Constitution prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute
bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House,
so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld
pending receipt of the House bill.”
SECTION 27 (2), ARTICLE VI
The President shall have the power to veto any particular
item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but
the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does
not object.
Options of the president:
1. Approve
2. Inaction
3. Veto
VETO
• Part of checks in balance, in line with the separation
of powers.
• General rule: must veto the entire bill
• Constitutional reason: a bill must only
have one subject
• Exception: GAA → Each line item is a subject
under the law (i.e. PAPS, provisions)
• GAA is actually several subjects of bills
under one bill
• Special Appropriations Law – one subject
PHILCONSA V. ENRIQUEZ (1994)
The president has to veto the entire bill and not
merely parts thereof
Statute: Republic Act No. 7663 (GAA of 1994)
• It imposed conditions and limitations on certain
items of appropriations in the proposed budget
previously submitted by the President and also
36
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
authorized members of Congress to identify
projects in the "pork barrels" allotted to them and
to realign their respective operating budgets
Issue:
• W/N the veto is constitutional
• W/N the provision is constitutional
PhilConSa: The president's veto of the President of the
Special Provision of Article XLVIII is unconstitutional and
void
Presumptions:
• Constitutionality of a veto
• Constitutionality of a Congress action
*Veto power is actually part of the legislative
process
General Rule: The President has to veto the entire bill, not
merely parts thereof (Sec 27[1], Art. VI)
• Exception: Power given to the President to veto
any particular item or items in a general
appropriations bill (Sec 27[2], Art. VI)
GAA General Rule: if a provision must be vetoed, the
entire item must be vetoed
• Exception: inappropriate provision
Inappropriate Provision:
• Any provision which does not relate to any
particular item
• Unconstitutional provisions
• Provisions which are intended to amend other
laws (for separate and general legislation)
• Can be vetoed separately from an item
• Nature: Rider – not germane
1. Attempt to repeal the Foreign Borrowing Act
• The President vetoed the entire paragraph of
one of the Special Provision of the item on
debt service, including the provisos that the
appropriation authorized in said item "shall be
used for payment of the principal and interest of
foreign and domestic indebtedness" and that "in
no case shall this fund be used to pay for the
liabilities of the Central Bank Board of
Liquidators." These provisos have a direct
connection with the item on debt service.
Inherent in the power of appropriation is the
power to specify how the money shall be spent.
The said provisos, being appropriate
provisions, cannot be vetoed separately.
• Veto is VOID
2. Revolving funds → violation of 1 fund policy
• Ratio: in violation of an existing law (amend
existing law)
• No violation of equal protection – substantial
distinction that gives rise to a valid classification
(i.e. retention of income)
o Eg. UP v. other SUCs = UP is a
research university
• Veto is VALID
3. DPWH, GR: road repairs → 30/70 ratio
(contractors/admin)
• Study: better if the repairs are given to the
contractors
• Only a provision was vetoed
• Veto is VOID
4. AFP Modernization → before the AFP pays for the
planes, the Congress must approve
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

• Violation of the non-impairment clause constitutional and statutory authority of the

• Amounts to a legislative veto of the President’s
disbursement pursuant to law
• Veto is VALID
5. AFP Purchase of Medicines → Generics Act:
Government purchase generic medicine
• Ramos believes that generic medicine is not as
effective
• Special provision’s nature: an amendment to the
Generics Act, by making an exemption (cannot
be done in a GAA – must be a subject of a
separate legislation)
• Veto is VOID
6. CAFGU → Payment of separation benefits
• Since it is under the executive branch, the
president is the one who will decide on matters of
CAFGU.
• President’s discretion as the Commander-in-
Chief
• Force the president to retire the CAFGU
• Veto is VALID
7. AFP pension fund augmentation using savings
• Congress allowing the use of savings for
augmentation → should be the act of the
president
• Veto is VALID
President and other key officials to augment any
item or any appropriation from savings in the
interest of expediency and efficiency.
• The GAB makes appropriation of money from the
public treasury, and the power of augmentation is
not considered a specific appropriation; thus,
cannot be inserted in the GAB
Court:
• The essence of the line-veto power is to veto
a severable part of a bill so that there is no
need to veto the whole bill.
• A provision in an Appropriations Bill is limited in
its operation to some particular
• appropriation to which it relates and does not
relate to the entire bill.
• The vetoed provision was an inappropriate
provision; thus, a severable part and can be
vetoed.
• The purpose really was to amend PD 1177 which
allowed for the authority to augment funds
Test of Appropriateness:
• They logically belong in a schedule of
expenditures
BENGZON V. DRILON (1992)

8. Supreme Court → benefits of the judiciary officials from No president may veto a law enacted before
savings from appropriations
• Fiscal autonomy of the Court provided by the Statutes:
Constitution itself
• Veto is VOID Retirement pensions for retired
Justices who served for at least 20
RA 910 (1953)
years in service and attained 70
GONZALES V. MACARAIG (1990) years old
In case salary is increased or
The essence of the line-veto power is to veto a RA 1792 (1954) decreased, such increase or
severable part of a bill so that there is no need to Section 3-A decrease will be deemed the
veto the whole bill retirement pension
PD 578 (1974)
An inappropriate provision; thus, a severable part, RA 1797 (1957) Automatic re-adjustment features
can be vetoed RA 3595 (1963)
Repealing Sec 3-A of RA 1797 and
Statute: Republic Act No. 6688 (GAA of 1989) PD 644 (1975) 3595 (no more readjustment
features)
President vetoed Section 55, which reads: Re-enactment of RA 1979 and 3595
“No item of appropriation recommended by the President • Realizing the unfairness of
in the Budget submitted to Congress pursuant to Article Marcos’ actions and under
VII, Section 22 of the Constitution which has been the impression that PD 644
disapproved or reduced in this Act shall be restored became a law
or increased by the use of appropriations authorized • PD 644: Tanada v. Tuvera:
for other purposes by augmentation. An item of did not validly publish = not
appropriation for any purpose recommended by the HB 16297
a law)
President in the Budget shall be deemed to have been SB 790
• Cory: it would erode the
disapproved by Congress if no corresponding very foundation of the
appropriation for the specific purpose is provided in this Government's collective
Act.” effort to adhere faithfully to
• Veto is VALID and enforce strictly the
• Limited the Constitutional power of the president policy on standardization of
under Section 25 compensation
Cory vetoed:
Gonzales: The president’s line-veto power as regards • Section 1. Augmentation of
appropriation bills is limited to items and does not cover any Item in the Court's
provisions. GAA of 1992 Appropriations.
• Section 4. Payment of
Provision discussion: Adjusted Pension Rates to
• When Sections 55 (FY '89) and 16 (FY '90), Retired Justices.
therefore, prohibit the restoration or increase by
augmentation of appropriations disapproved or Court:
reduced by Congress, they impair the

37
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

• PD 644 never became valid o Includes those with penalties

• RA 1797 was not repealed
• HB 16297 veto was superfluous
Cannot be vetoed:
1. Subject of AM (previous court decision)
2. Repeal by an existing RA
• Vetoed portions were not items but provisions. In
short, the President did not veto an item but the
method to issue obligations to officials. In reality
what were vetoed were RA 1797 and the SC
resolution. No President may veto provisions
of a law enacted 35 years before.
• Incidental reason: fiscal autonomy of the judiciary
• Retirement benefits should be interpreted
liberally in favor of the retiree to provide for
sustenance.
MILLER V. MARDO (1961)
o Does not include issuances and
circulars which are internal in nature
• A law ought to be published before it becomes
effective
o Height of injustice to bind people to laws
which they do not even have knowledge
of in the first place
o Constructive notice (ignorance of the
law excuses no one)
D. QUESTION HOUR
SECTION 21, ARTICLE VI
The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected
by such inquiries shall be respected.

The Constitution does not provide for an alternative

QUESTION HOUR LEGISLATIVE
to the Bicameral law-making system
INVESTIGATION
Statute: Reorganization Plan No. 20-A • Not applied in the • Investigation = to
Philippines discover facts
Mechanics of the Reorganization Act: • Parliamentary system • Foundation of
1. Create a commission to make the plan • In the Constitution evidence-based
2. Submit the plan to Congress for approval because the first draft legislation
3. Plan deemed approved if there is inaction was for a Parliamentary • Plenary in nature
upon adjournment of Congress system • Investigation –
4. It becomes law • Members of cabinet coercive power
may be invited and • Power to cite a person
Court: appear with the consent in contempt (inherent in
• The Reorganization law was created by the of the president them in the
Congress but the Constitution does not provide ascertainment of facts)
for an alternative to the Bicameral law-making • Contempt power:
system punitive in nature
• In short, the Reorganization Plan is not a valid act
of the Congress. E. LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION

MILLER V. MARDO (1961)

C. EFFECTIVITY OF LAWS
The Constitution does not provide for an alternative
Publication (EO 200) to the Bicameral law-making system
• Official Gazette (Tanada, 1985)
• Newspapers of General Circulation (Tanada, 1986) Statute: Reorganization Plan No. 20-A
• Easily available
• Have a wider readership Mechanics of the Reorganization Act:
1. Create a commission to make the plan
• Come out regularly
2. Submit the plan to Congress for approval
3. Plan deemed approved if there is inaction
Newspaper of “General Circulation”
upon adjournment of Congress
• Ex-officio clerk of court, RTC: keeps a list of
4. It becomes law
newspapers of general circulation
Court:
National Circulation v. Regional Circulation
• The Reorganization law was created by the
• Local Government → regional
Congress but the Constitution does not provide
• Agencies → national
for an alternative to the Bicameral law-making
system
• In short, the Reorganization Plan is not a valid act
Online Publication
of the Congress.
• Not yet allowed
• Subject of easy manipulation
• Evidence of existence, but not substance of the law SABIO V. GORDON (2006)
• Discussed in the case of Garcilliano
The Congress’ power of inquiry, being broad,
TANADA V. TUVERA (1985) encompasses everything that concerns the
administration of existing laws as well as proposed
Laws of general applicability should be published or possibly needed statutes. It even extends “to
government agencies created by Congress and
• Laws of general applicability should be published

38
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
officers whose positions are within the power of
Congress to regulate or even abolish.”
Statute: EO No. 1
• Former President Cory issued EO No. 1 creating
the PCGG. She entrusted upon this body the task
of recovering the ill-gotten wealth accumulated by
the deposed President Marcos and his close
associates. To ensure the PCGG’s unhampered
performance of its tasks, Section 4 (b) of E.O. No.
1 provides that: “No member or staff of the
Commission shall be required to testify or
produce evidence in any judicial, legislative
or administrative proceeding concerning
matters within its official cognizance.”
Court:
• EO No. 1 is repealed by the 1987 Constitution
• Plenary power cannot be trumped by an RA
• It’s not the person, but the information that the
president has
• Privilege attaches to the information
Notes:
• Plenary power – power that has been granted to
a body or person in absolute terms, with no
review of or limitations upon the exercise of that
power.
• Article VI, Section 21 grants the power of inquiry
not only to the Senate and the House of
Representatives, but also to any of their
respective committees.
ARNAULT V. NAZARENO (1950)
The Congress can imprison/impose penalty against
recalcitrant witnesses during congressional hearing
in aid of legislation
Facts: This case arose from the legislative inquiry into the
acquisition by the Philippine Government of the
Buenavista and Tambobong estates sometime in 1949.
Among the witnesses called to be examined by the special
committee created by a Senate resolution was Jean L.
Arnault, a lawyer who delivered a partial of the purchase
price to a representative of the vendor. During the Senate
investigation, Arnault refused to reveal the identity of said
representative, at the same time invoking his constitutional
right against self-incrimination. The Senate adopted a
resolution committing Arnault to the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms and imprisoned “until he shall have
purged the contempt by revealing to the Senate . . . the
name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000, as
well as answer other pertinent questions in connection
therewith” (he was cited in contempt). Arnault petitioned
for a writ of Habeas Corpus
Issue 1: W/N the Senate can impose such penalty against
those who refuse to answer its questions in a
congressional hearing in aid of legislation - YES
Court:
• It is the inherent right of the Senate to impose
penalty in carrying out their duty to conduct
inquiry in aid of legislation.
• The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the
legislative body to make, must be material or
necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested
by the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to
expel a Member; and every question which the
investigator is empowered to coerce a witness to
39
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS
answer must be material or pertinent to the
subject of the inquiry or investigation.
o The materiality of the question must be
determined by its direct relation to the
subject of the inquiry and not by its
indirect relation to any proposed or
possible legislation.
Issue 2: W/N the Senate lacks authority to commit him for
contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative
session, which ended on May 18, 1950 - NO
Court:
• Senate is a continuing body and which does
not cease to exist upon the periodical dissolution
of the Congress or of the House of
Representatives. There is no limit as to time to
the Senate’s power to punish for contempt in
cases where that power may constitutionally be
exerted as in the present case. Senate will not be
disposed to exert the power beyond its proper
bounds, i.e. abuse their power and keep the
witness in prison for life. If proper limitations are
disregarded, Court is always open to those
whose rights might thus be transgressed.
Notes:
• Alleged bribery and corruption – criminal –
congress can investigate anything
• The Congress does not have to explain the
purpose for its investigation
ARNAULT V. BALAGTAS (1955)
Courts cannot review legislative actions which does
not involve arbitrary exercise of legislative function
Facts:
• Arnault eventually divulged that he had
transacted with one Jess D. Santos in relation to
the Buenavista and Tambobong deal. Upon
further inquiry, the Senate was obviously not
satisfied with Arnault's explanations (they believe
Arnault was still trying to deceive them). Hence,
they sent him back to prison.
• CFI ordered Arnault’s release.
Court:
• The CFI nor the SC can review such decision of
the Senate because that would violate the
separation of powers.
Notes:
There is an inherent fundamental error in the course of
action that the lower court followed. It assumed that courts
have the right to review the findings of legislative bodies in
the exercise of the prerogative of legislation, or interfere
with their proceedings or their discretion in what is known
as the legislative process. The Judicial department has no
right or power or authority to do this, in the same manner
that the legislative department may not invade the judicial
realm in the ascertainment of truth and in the application
and interpretation of the law, in what is known as the
judicial process, because that would be in direct conflict
with the fundamental principle of separation of powers
established by the Constitution. The only instances when
judicial intervention may lawfully be invoke are when
there has been a violation of a constitutional
inhibition, or when there has been an arbitrary
exercise of the legislative discretion.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

BENGZON V. SBRC (2006) conclusion of treaties and executive

When there is already a case filed in court, the
Congress can no longer investigate on the matter (no
more jurisdiction)
Facts: The petitioners were required to testify and
produce evidence on the alleged sale of the equity of
Romualdez to the Lopa Group in several corporations.
They wanted to look into possible violations of the Anti-
graft and corruption practices act.
Court: The Committee can no longer investigate because
there was already a case pending in court. They can only
investigate in aid of legislation and it stops whenever a
case has been filed in court.
agreements
Chavez v. Discussion in closed-door Cabinet
PCGG (1998) meetings
Chavez v. PEA Matters affecting national security
(2002) and public order
President as the only exemption to power of inquiry:
• Only one executive official may be exempted
from the power of inquiry – the president on
whom the executive power is vested, hence
beyond the reach of the Congress except by the
power of impeachment. Members of SC are
likewise exempt from this power of inquiry. This
is on the basis of separation of powers and fiscal
autonomy, as well as the constitutional
independence of the judiciary.

Dengvaxia Case
• Filed in the Ombudsman NERI V. SENATE (2008)
• Congress can still take jurisdiction
To invoke executive privilege, the elements must be
SENATE V. ERMITA (2006) met

Executive privilege is attached to the information and Facts: When Neri was probed further on what they
not the person discussed about the NBN Project, he refused to answer,
invoking “executive privilege”. In particular, he refused to
Statute: EO 464 (2005) answer the questions on:
• All heads of departments of the Executive Branch a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the
of the government shall secure the consent of the NBN Project;
President prior to appearing before either House b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it;
of Congress. and
c) whether or not she directed him to approve
Court: He later refused to attend the other hearings and Ermita
sent a letter to the senate averring that the
Section Status Justification communications between GMA and Neri are privileged
Sec 1. CONDITIONAL Question hour- and that the jurisprudence laid down in Senate vs Ermita
Appearance by related = VALID be applied. He was cited in contempt of respondent
Heads of Legislative committees and an order for his arrest and detention until
Departments inquiry-related = such time that he would appear and give his testimony.
Before INVALID
Congress – Court: The executive privilege was properly invoked.
Consent of the • The president invoked the privilege and was
President communicated through the executive secretary
required. by order of the president.
Sec 2(a). VALID It only
Nature and summarizes the Elements of presidential
The circumstances of
Scope. recognition of SC communications
the case
of executive privilege
privilege. 1) The protected The power of the
Sec 2(b). Who INVALID Executive communication must President to enter into
are covered – privilege is relate to a an executive agreement
Enumerates attached to the “quintessential and with other countries
the executive information and non-delegable
officials not the person presidential power.”
holding the 2) The communication Under the “operational
information per must be authored or proximity” test, petitioner
se. “solicited and received” can be considered a
by a close advisor of close advisor, being a
Section 2(a): Nature and Scope the President or the member of President
President himself. The Arroyo’s cabinet.
Case/s Coverage judicial test is that an
Almonte v. Conversations and correspondence advisor must be in
Vasquez between the President and the “operational proximity”
(1995); Chavez public officials covered by this with the President.
v. PEA (2002) executive order 3) The presidential There is no adequate
Almonte v. Military, diplomatic and other communications showing of a compelling
Vasquez national security matters which in privilege remains a need that would justify
(1995); Chavez the interest of national security qualified privilege that the limitation of the
v. PCGG (1998) should not be divulged may be overcome by a privilege and of the
Chavez v. Information between inter- showing of adequate unavailability of the
PCGG (1998) government agencies prior to the need, such that the information elsewhere
information sought

40
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

“likely contains by an appropriate completed upon the enactment and approval of

important evidence” investigating authority. the law, the creation of the COC permits
and by the legislative participation in the implementation
unavailability of the and enforcement of the law
information elsewhere
by an appropriate Court:
investigating authority. • Congress was performing a purely executive
power by judging the IRR
Additional Notes: The Senate did not follow the protocol. • Nature of executive power = power of control
• There were no published rules so there is so
basis for the contempt power
• They did not give Neri a hearing B. ACT AS BOARD OF CANVASSERS FOR
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

GARCILLANO V. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PIMENTEL V. CONGRESS (2004)

(2008)
The rules of procedure for inquiry in aid of legislation
must be published
Facts: Inquiry on Garcillano in relation to the Hello Garci
case of Gloria Arroyo.
Court:
• The investigation was not valid. There were no
rules published.
• Respondent contended that: (1) the rules are still
the same; and (2) they posted their rules in their
website → not substantial compliance.
• To satisfy requirement of publication, it must be
done in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines.
9. OTHER POWERS
A. OVERSIGHT
The joint canvassing commission may exist even if
the congress has already adjourned
Court:
• Adjourn = 30 days before the next Congress (4th
Monday of July)
• They can continue despite adjourn = canvassing
is not a legislative function
• Add-on function → they are just acting as the
board of canvassers (ex-officio)
• Do they still get paid? NO
C. CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR PRESIDENCY
There is vacancy upon the president’s:
1. Death
2. Resignation - the president’s resignation shall be
submitted to the Congress
3. Disability - the cabinet shall submit to the Congress
4. Impeachment

1. SCRUTINIZE D. DECIDE ON DISABILITY OF THE PRESIDENT

• Congress looks into overall administration
and utilization of funds, compliance of
programs, eliminate dishonestly and
issues of graft and corruption, and possible
usurpation or undue delegation of power
• What purpose: ensure that the office is
performing its functions
• When: appropriations, when there are
pending measures, resolutions
2. LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION
• See Section 21, Article VI of the
Constitution
E. LEGISLATIVE VETO OR EXTENSION FOR
SUSPENSION OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR
DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW
*Revoke marital law or writ of habeas corpus
PADILLA V. SENATE (2017)
The Congress does not need to convene for the
extension of Martial Law
Issue: W/N the Congress should jointly convene for the
extension of the Martial Law

3. SUPERVISION
• Through the Joint Oversight Committee
ABAKADA V. PURISIMA (2008)
The oversight power of the Congress is limited to
scrutiny, legislative investigation, and supervision.
Acts beyond that (i.e. implementing and enforcing
the law) will undermine the separation of powers
granted by the Constitution
Court:
• The Constitution only provides for the joint
convention for the revocation or suspension,
not extension.
• Verba legis: only revocation
• Joint session: revoking an act of another branch
of the government (the president) – so it has to
be extraordinary
• Cf. when the SC declares a law as
unconstitutional, they do in en banc

Statute: RA 9335 – Attrition Act of 2005 → IRR

• BIR & BOC – Rewards and Incentives Fund & F. PRESIDENTIAL AMNESTIES
Revenue Performance Evaluation Board The congress concurs on the proclamations of the executive
• Creation of the Congressional Oversight for amnesties
Committee (COC) (Sec. 19[2], Art. VII)

Petitioners: Trillanes: Congress concurrence in amnesty

• COC violates the separation of powers. While the • Sovereign act = the people
legislative function is deemed accomplished and

41
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – A: CONGRESS

• Joint act between the President (who was directly
elected by the people) and Congress (who was
also elected by the people).
• Act of the people, but revoked by the President.
G. CONCUR IN TREATIES
Congress confers by 2/3 votes (Sec. 21, Art. VII)
ICC: Congress concurrence in treaties
• President revocation
• Same vein as in amnesty
H. DECLARATION OF EXISTENCE OF WAR
*Only congress can declare the war
Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall
forthwith proceed.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against
the same official more than once within a period of one
year.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide
all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose,
the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the
President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No
person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-
thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

SECTION 23(1), ARTICLE VI
The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in
joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the
sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend
further than removal from office and disqualification to hold
any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the
party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law.

(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on

I. DELEGATION OF EMERGENCY POWERS impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this
*Congress delegates the power to make a law to the section.
president to make use his emergency power.

SECTION 23(2), ARTICLE VI

In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress

may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period
and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by
resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon
the next adjournment thereof.

J. UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES

*Congress approves service or agreement entered by the
president

K. AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
*See previous notes on amendment and revision

L. POWER OF IMPEACHMENT

SECTION 3, ARTICLE XI

(1) The House of Representatives shall have the

exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.

(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by

any Member of the House of Representatives or by any
citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member
thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business
within ten session days, and referred to the proper
Committee within three session days thereafter. The
Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its
Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty
session days from such referral, together with the
corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be
calendared for consideration by the House within ten
session days from receipt thereof.

(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the

House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable
resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the
Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of
each Member shall be recorded.

(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of

impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the
Members of the House, the same shall constitute the

42
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY

PART IV: THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT 3. TERM (Sec. 4, Art. VII)
B. EXECUTIVE (EXECUTION OF LAWS)
Term: 6 years, for only 1 term
1. THE PRESIDENT Start: Noon on the 30th of June next following the day of the
*The President is the ONLY ONE in the executive. election
* No such thing as a private act of the President during
his/her term. *If he or she has served the presidency for less than 4
years, he or she may run for another term (Arroyo’s case)
SECTION 1, ARTICLE VII
4. OATH
The executive power shall be vested in the President of
the Philippines. SECTION 5, ARTICLE VII

Before they enter on the execution of their office, the

QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall
(Joson v. Executive Secretary, 1998) take the following oath or affirmation:
Under the doctrine of qualified political agency “…which
recognizes the establishment of a single executive, all “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and
executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-
the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive President or Acting President) of the Philippines, preserve
departments are assistants and agents of the Chief and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to
Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the
required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the Nation. So help me God.” (In case of affirmation, last
exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the sentence will be omitted.)
multifarious executive and administrative functions of the
Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive
departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such B. PRIVILEGES AND SALARY (Sec. 7, Art. VII)
departments, performed and promulgated in the regular
course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by Official residence: Malacanang
the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Salary: SG 33
Executive.”
PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGE
This doctrine is corollary to the control power of the President
provided in the Constitution. Control is said to be the very 1. IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
heart of the power of the presidency. As head of the The president as such cannot be sued, enjoying as he does
Executive Department, the President, however, may delegate immunity from suit. But the validity of his acts can be tested
some of his powers to the Cabinet members except when he by an action against other executive officials
is required by the Constitution to act in person or the • Who should be sued? Executive Secretary
exigencies of the situation demand that he acts personally. • The immunity may only be invoked by the
The members of Cabinet may act for and in behalf of the President
President in certain matters because the President cannot be • The President may waive the protection afforded
expected to exercise his control (and supervisory) powers by the privilege and submit to the court’s
personally all the time. Each head of a department is, and jurisdiction
must be, the President’s alter ego in the matters of that • Only covers official duties (exception: act not
department where the President is required by law to exercise arising from official conduct)
authority. • Cannot be invoked by a non-sitting president
A. QUALIFICATIONS, ELECTION, TERM AND OATH 2. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
This refers to the power of the government to withhold
1. QUALIFICATIONS (Sec 2, Art. VII) information from the public, the courts, and the Congress
1. Natural Born Citizen (See Senate v. Ermita and Neri v. Senate for discussion).
2. Registered Voter C. SUCCESSION (Sec. 8, Art. VII)
3. Able to read and write
4. 40 years of age on the day of the election Causes: Order of Succession:
5. Resident of the PH for at least 10 years 1. Death 1. President
immediately preceding the day of the election 2. Resignation 2. Vice President
3. Permanent 3. Senate
*Why 40 years old? There is a presumption of experience Disability President
and wisdom. 4. Impeachment 4. Speaker of the
House
2. ELECTION (Sec. 4, Art. VII)
1. Regular Election: Second Monday of May • Written declaration of Cabinet to Congress
2. National Board of Canvassers (President and • What if only Temporary disability? No vacancy. The
Vice President): Congress VP will take over.
a. Returns shall be transmitted to Congress,
directed to the Senate President 1. IN CASE OF VACANCY AT THE BEGINNING OF TERM
b. Joint Public Session: not later than 30
days after election date; returns to be 2. IN CASE OF VACANCY DURING TERM
opened in the presence of the Senate and
HOR in joint session

43
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
3. IN CASE OF TEMPORARY DISABILITY
ESTRADA V. ARROYO (2001)
Resignation can be gleaned from the intent of the
President
Issue: W/N the assumption of office of Arroyo is
constitutional – YES
• Issue of resignation v. leave
Provisions on succession → What are the grounds for
vacancy?
1. Death? No. He’s still alive up to now.
2. Disabled? No. He was able to file this case in the
SC.
3. Impeached? No. There was an impeachment
case but he was not convicted because the
Senate suspended the proceedings.
4. Resignation? The Court looked into his
INTENTION.
Intention:
• He left Malacaῇang and went to his house in
Greenhills
• They also looked into the Diary of Angara and
several communications that indicated that there
was CLEAR ITENTION to resign
Acts of Congress:
• They issued a resolution recognizing the
presidency of Pres. Arroyo
• They nominated Guingona as VP
• There was also international recognition of
Arroyo’s presidency
Taken all of these together, Pres. Estrada resigned from
the presidency.
D. REMOVAL
*See Causes under Succession
E. PROHIBITIONS
1. Holding any other office/employment (double
compensation)
2. Practicing any profession
3. Participating any business
4. Being financially interested in any contract of the
government
5. Appointing a spouses or relatives by consanguinity
or affinity within the 4th civil degree as Con-Con,
members of the office of Ombudsman, Secretary or
Undersecretary, Chairman, Heads of Bureau or
offices or GOCCs
F. EXCEPTIONS TO PROHIBITION FROM HOLDING
ANOTHER OFFICE:
• The president can assume any or all Cabinet posts
o Because the departments are mere
extensions of his personality (qualified
political agency)
• The president can assume ex-officio positions
o E.g. the President is the chairman of NEDA
1. VICE-PRESIDENT AS MEMBER OF THE CABINET
*Such appointment requires no confirmation
2. SEC. OF JUSTICE AS MEMBER OF JUDICIAL AND
BAR COUNCIL
44
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
CLU V. EXEC. SECRETARY (1991)
No laws regarding relevant government officials
holding a non-ex-officio office is allowed
Issue: An EO was passed by Cory Aquino that stated that
the Cabinet, Usec, Assistant Secretary, or other
appointees may hold other offices in addition to their
positions.
Court: EO is unconstitutional.
• The prohibition on holding other offices is
violated.
• The prohibition does not apply to executive
officials without additional compensation in Ex-
officio capacity.
• It must be required by official’s primary function
or it is closely related to his duties
• If the duty is alien or inconsistent, it is a different
office. Hence, it falls within the prohibition.
CRUZ V. COA (2001)
The prohibition from holding non-ex-officio offices
and receiving additional/double compensation
trickles down to those in “acting” capacity
Facts: COA directed all government agencies who have
effected additional compensations to officials in violation
of the rule on holding additional offices to effect refund.
Issue: W/N the NHA directors, acting on behalf of their
respective cabinet secretaries, are entitled to receive
remuneration such as representation allowances - NO
Court: The direction was valid. If the president is
prohibited from holding other offices, his alter-egos are
also prohibited. It also applies to those persons who are
designated by his alter-egos. The only exception to this is
ex-officio capacities because they are germane to the
functions of the appointee.
NAC V. COA (2001)
The prohibition from holding non-ex-officio offices
and receiving additional/double compensation
trickles down to those in “acting” capacity
Facts: Ex officio officials delegated their tasks to their staff
who were given honoraria.
Court: The staff were not entitled to compensation
because they are covered by the prohibition. Disallowance
is valid.
2. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT
Summary:
1. Executive power
2. Control of executive departments
3. General supervision over local
governments/autonomous regions
4. Power of appointment
5. Executive clemency
6. Commander-in-Chief
7. Emergency powers
8. Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans
9. Foreign affairs
10. Legislation
11. Immunity from suit
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
A. EXECUTIVE POWER
Power to enforce and administer laws.
MARCOS V. MANGLAPUS (1989)
The president can now prohibit the Marcoses to
return in relation to national security
Issue: W/N the president has the power to prohibit the
Marcoses from returning in the PH - YES!
Breakdown of issue:
• What is the right being asserted by the
Marcoses? Right to return.
o It is not provided under the Constitution.
o However, the right to return is
recognized in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights which is Customary
International Law.
o It was then deemed incorporated.
o It was also transformed because the
Senate ratified it.
o Hence, the right to return is now part of
the law of the land.
• The Marcoses has the right to return.
o Is it absolute? No.
o The limitation is National Security
which the president has the prerogative.
• Marcoses’ contention: But the power of the
president is limited to those listed in the
Constitution.
Framework of the president’s power:
1. What is the correct way of construing the power
of the president? No strict interpretation.
2. The Court looked into how the Courts
appreciated executive power. It was found that,
through times, the president was compelled by
specific situations to define his powers to control
specific crises, but it was impractical because our
experience shows that the president needs to
react quickly. Hence, there is a need for greater
flexibility. The court concluded that there was a
penumbra. Although there are boundaries
between the 3 branches, these boundaries are
actually elastic that allowed them to perform acts
that are incidental to their functions.
3. Now, are the ones enumerated in the Constitution
the only powers of the president? No! It must
include the incidental powers of the president
because he had an oath. An oath that he must
“faithfully execute the laws”, meaning, he must
MAKE DECISIONS TO PROMOTE THE
GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST
NUMBER which is part of our agreement in the
social contract.
4. Considering the elasticity of the boundaries in the
3 branches, how would the relationship between
the 3 branches be? As long an act is not
exclusively exercised by 1 branch, it can be
exercised by the president.
5. Use the Test of Arbitrariness:
a. Was the act made without consideration
of the facts?
i. If yes → There is grave abuse
of discretion
ii. If no → The act is valid
b. Does the court need to verify the facts?
No.
45
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
ALMARIO V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (1989)
The Theory of Auto-limitation binds the President to
the laws – “faithful execution of the laws”
Facts: The president gave an award to a person who was
not part of those recommended.
• Case about the national artist award
Court: Not valid. Although the president has the power to
award, she herself provided for the procedure (through the
passed laws). This is called Theory of Auto-limitation,
through this, the president has set the standards or
processes. In our present case, the president has provided
for the process of awarding. Hence, the president may not
add to the list because it did not go to the process of
screening and other procedures imposed.
DENR V. DENR REGION 12 EMPLOYEES (2003)
The doctrine of qualified political agency makes the
action of the president’s alter egos as his
Facts: The DENR Secretary directed the transfer of DENR
Region 12 Office from Cotabato to Koronadal City.
Issue: W/N the DENR Secretary had the power to
reorganize.
Court: Yes. The act of the DENR Secretary is deemed to
be that of the president. This is called Doctrine of Qualified
Political Agency. The different executive departments are
mere adjuncts of the president. Hence, the president has
the power of control, he can alter, modify, nullify or set-
aside what the subordinate has done in the performance
of his duties.
B. CONTROL OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS
BLAQUERA V. ALCALA (1998)
The President can – by virtue of his power of control
– review, modify, alter or nullify any action or
decision of his subordinate in the executive
departments, bureau or offices under him.
Facts: An AO was passed that directed the heads of
departments to return the unauthorized payments of
Bonus to employees. The heads then deducted the
salaries and allowances of petitioners to cover the
overpayment.
• Bonus/incentive case
Petitioners: There is already a law passed, so the
President cannot alter that with an AO
Court: The AO is valid.
• The president was just exercising his power to
control over the executive department.
• Through his power of control, he nullified the
decision of his subordinate for the automatic
grant to bonus.
o The president can change the incentive
scheme every year because it is within
the power of his control (alter, modify,
revoke any of the decisions of his alter
egos)
• No vested right for bonus. It’s a privilege
• The AO was only for a particular year.
Notes from the Internet (take note of explanation
structure):
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
• The Pres. is the head of the government.
Governmental power and authority are exercised
and implemented through him. His power
includes the control of executive departments as
provided under Sec. 17, Art. VII of the
Constitution.
• Control means the power of an officer to alter or
modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had
done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former for that of
the latter.
• When the Pres. issued AO 29 limiting the amount
of incentive benefits, enjoining heads of
government agencies from granting incentive
benefits without approval from him and directing
the refund of the excess over the prescribed
amount, the Pres. was just exercising his power
of control over executive departments.
HUTCHINSON PORTS V. SBMA (2000)
The President may overturn any decision of his alter
ego
Facts: The president ordered a rebidding although the
respondent was already declared the winning bidder.
Petitioner: Already vested right because of decision of
Subic Board
Court: The president’s action was valid
• SBMA was under the direct control of the
president, hence, he may within his authority,
overturn any award made by the SBMA for
justifiable reasons.
o President can revoke said decision (not
finalized yet)
o Retained power of the president over
contracts, fixing a certain amount
o If the contract did not reach 2M = the
president can still overturn the decision
• The courts cannot interfere because it would be
a violation of the separation of powers unless
such exercise of discretion is used to shield
unfairness or injustice.
Note:
• Hutchison did not apply for license doing
business (no legal personality in the
Philippines). Hence, Court has no jurisdiction.
NEA V. COA (2002)
The President can exercise power of control through
a DMB directive
Facts: EO provided for salary increases in 2 tranches (Jan
and Nov). But NEA implemented said salary increase in
one lump sum (Jan). COA provided for disallowance
Court:
• The disallowance is the consequence of going
against the directive of the president, through the
DBM.
o The president was just exercising power
of control
• Following the schedule is important.
• GAA is not self-executory.
46
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
C. GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS/AUTONOMOUS REGIONS
Subordinates to make sure that laws are executed.
PIMENTEL V. AGUIRRE (2000)
The supervisory power of the President over LGUs is
supervisory in nature – oversight only
Facts: An AO was passed that directed the LGUs to save
25% of their budget. 10% will be automatically saved or
withheld from the LGUs.
Court: AO not valid.
• This amounts to power of control which the
president does not have over LGUs.
• It controls the LGUs on how they should spend
their money which interferes with their autonomy.
• President = power of supervision over LGU, not
control
• President is bound to follow the Local
Government Code
Additional Notes from the Case:
• Supervisory power, when contrasted with control,
is the power of mere oversight over an inferior
body; it does not include any restraining authority
over such body. (Taule v. Santos)
• The heads of political subdivisions, unlike the
members of the Cabinet and other executive
officials who are merely alter egos of the
President, are elected by the people and thus,
their sovereign powers emanate from the
electorate, to whom they are directly
accountable. By constitutional fiat, they are
subject to the President’s supervision only, not
control, so long as their acts are exercised within
the sphere of their legitimate powers. The
President may not withhold or alter any authority
or power given them by the Constitution and the
law.
NATIONAL LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY V. PAREDES
(2004)
The supervision doctrine limitation to the president is
also applicable to its alter egos (i.e. DILG)
Facts: Due to the irregularities in the election in the Liga,
the DILG was appointed ad interim caretaker by judge
Paredes. The DILG issued memorandums and circulars
for the Liga.
Court:
• The DILG may validly be appointed as a
caretaker because the President though his alter
ego, the DILG secretary, exercises supervision
over local governments.
• However, the DILG secretary went beyond the
power of supervision when it issued the
memorandums circulars because this
amounted to the power of control → DILG
appointed a different set of officers v. who
actually won
• Liga not organic to local gov't, that's why the
DILG interfered
• DILG = advisory power over the Liga (an
association)
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
D. POWER OF APPOINTMENT
APPOINTMENT
Vesting of an office which is created and funded by law to a
person who acquires rights, duties, and responsibilities.
SECTIONS RELATED TO APPOINTMENT - ARTICLE
VII
SECTION 14. Appointments extended by an Acting Kinds of Appointments:
President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the
elected President within ninety days from his assumption
or reassumption of office.
SECTION 15. Two months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will
prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
SECTION 16. The President shall nominate and, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the
heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed
forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this
Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the
Government whose appointments are not otherwise
provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized
by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the
appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President
alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments,
agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments
during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or
compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only
until after disapproval by the Commission on
Appointments or until the next adjournment of the
Congress.
BERMUDEZ V. TORRES (1999)
The power to appoint is discretionary in nature and
the Secretary of Justice’s recommendation is not Appointment in staff agency
binding and obligatory upon the President
Facts:
• Quiaoit was the one appointed as Provincial
Prosecutor while Bermudez was the one
recommended and he refused to vacate the
office. He contends that Quiaoit’s appointment
was not valid because there was no
recommendation from the Secretary of
Justice as provided for under the law.
Court: The appointment was valid.
• The power to appoint is discretionary in nature
and the recommendation is only persuasive,
hence, it is not binding and obligatory upon the
president.
Appointments that are subject to confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments:
Note: This list is exclusive (apply StatCon)
1. Heads of executive department- those heads of the
line department or those provided for under the
Administrative Code
2. Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls-
representatives of the PH in other countries
47
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
3. Officers of the AFP with the rank of colonel or naval
captain
4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in the
president under the constitution:
a. Chairman and members of the
Constitutional Commission
b. Regular members of the Judicial and Bar
Council
Those that are covered under the
Regular
Commission on Appointments
Made while congress is not in session.
The appointee can take his post right
away. It is complete and permanent
appointment that lasts until disapproved
Ad interim
by the commission on appointment or
until next adjournment of congress,
unless in the meantime the commission
confirms it
Acting Has the powers and authority of those
capacity appointed in a regular capacity
Made 2 months before the next
Midnight
presidential election
SARMIENTO V. MISON (1987)
The appointments of the heads of bureaus are not
subject to confirmation
Facts: Mison's appointment as Commissioner of BOC was
not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments
Issue: W/N the appointments of the heads of bureaus are
required to be confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments - NO
Ruling:
• During the deliberation of the 1987 Constitution,
the word “bureau” was deleted from the provision
that lists those that required confirmation from the
commission on appointments.
• It follows then that the appointments of the heads
of bureaus are not subject to confirmation.
• E.g. Presidential Management Staff → no
confirmation needed
CONCEPCION-BAUTISTA V. SALONGA (1989)
The appointments of the chairman and members of
the CHR need not be confirmed by the Commission
on Appointments
Facts: Bautista was appointed chairman of the CHR. Her
appointment is now challenged because it was not
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
Court: The appointment is valid.
• The Constitution does not provide for the
appointment of the Chairman and the Members
of the CHR unlike with the other commissions,
such as CSC, COA and COMELEC.
• Hence, the Constitution has impliedly taken out
the requirement of appointment by not including
the same provision that you can expressly find in
other commissions.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
CALDERON V. CARALE (1992)
The list of those who needs the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments is exclusive and no
law can be passed that will add on to said list
(otherwise, it will amount to the amendment of the
Constitution)
Facts: A law was passed that required the confirmation of
the appointees from the NLRC by the Commission on
Appointments.
Court: The law is unconstitutional because it amends the
Constitution by adding the list of those that needed the
confirmation by the commission on appointment.
• The list under the Constitution is EXCLUSIVE.
MANALO V. SISTOZA (1999)
The appointments of the heads of the PNP need not
be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments
Facts: The respondents were appointed as Director
and Chief Superintendent without submitting their
appointments to the commission on appointments.
Court: The appointments were valid.
• The PNP is different from the AFP which
requires confirmation by the commission on
appointments under the Constitution.
• The PNP is civilian in nature.
SORIANO V. LISTA (2003)
The appointments in the Philippine Coast Guard need
not be confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments
Facts: The legality of the appointments made by PGMA to
different positions of the Philippine Coast Guard is
assailed because they were not confirmed by the
commission on appointment.
Courts: The appointments were valid.
• The Coast Guard is no longer in the AFP they are
now under the DOTC.
• Hence, they are no longer covered under the
requirement of confirmation
PIMENTEL V. ERMITA (2005)
The power of the president to appoint extends to
acting secretaries
Issue: W/N PGMA’s appointment of respondents as acting
secretaries without the consent of the Commission on
Appointments while Congress is in session is
unconstitutional – NO
• Respondents aver that the undersecretaries
should serve as the secretaries and not the
appointees of the president.
Ruling:
• The power to appoint is essentially executive in
nature, and the legislature may not interfere with
the exercise of this executive power except in
those instances when the Constitution expressly
allows it to interfere.
48
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
• The essence of an appointment in an acting
capacity is its temporary nature. In case of
vacancy in an office occupied by an alter ego
of the President, such as the office of a
department secretary, the President must
necessarily appoint an alter ego of her choice
as acting secretary before the permanent
appointee of her choice could assume office.
• Congress, through a law, cannot impose on the
President the obligation to appoint automatically
the undersecretary as her temporary alter ego.
An alter ego, whether temporary or permanent,
holds a position of great trust and confidence.
Congress, in the guise of prescribing
qualifications to an office, cannot impose on the
President who her alter ego should be.
• Power of Appointment: The Legislative can
create office, but only Executive can fill it;
Congress cannot circumvent this by setting very
narrow qualifications, such that only one person
is qualified to hold office.
Additional notes:
• Regular, ad-interim, OIC = same everything
• OIC = already in the government, designating to
a higher position/bigger office
• An appointee is never confirmed
• Intent: avoid constitutional requirement of
appointment (valid)
• An OIC does not have all the powers = cannot
hire
IN RE VALENZUELA (1998)
OLD RULE:
The President cannot fill the vacancies in the courts
two months immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term
Issue: W/N, during the period of the ban on appointments
imposed by Sec. 15, Art. VII of the Constitution, the
President is nonetheless required to fill the vacancies in
the judiciary, in view of Secs. 4(1) and 9 of Art. VIII.
Court:
• During the period stated in Sec. 15, Art. VII of the
Constitution “two months immediately before the
next presidential elections and up to the end of
his term” the President is neither required to
make appointments to the courts nor allowed to
do so;
• And that Secs. 4(1) and 9 of Art. VIII simply mean
that the President is required to fill vacancies in
the courts within the time frames provided
therein unless prohibited by Sec. 15 of Art.
VII. This prohibition on appointments comes into
effect once every 6 years.
• The appointments of Valenzuela and Vallarta
were unquestionably made during the period of
the ban. They come within the operation of the
prohibition relating to appointments. While the
filling of vacancies in the judiciary is undoubtedly
in the public interest, there is no showing in this
case of any compelling reason to justify the
making of the appointments during the period of
the ban
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
DE CASTRO V. JBC (2010)
NEW RULE:
The Section 15 ban on appointments by the President
applies only to the Executive Branch and
Constitutional Commissions
Facts: The compulsory retirement of Chief Justice
Reynato S. Puno by May 17, 2010 occurs just days after
the coming presidential elections on May 10, 2010.
Issue: Whether the incumbent President can appoint the
successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement - YES
Ratio:
• Election period prohibition period - only for
appointment within the executive branch and the
constitutional commissions → not applicable to
the judicial branch because there is a separate
provision that imposes a duty on the
president to appoint in the judicial branch
o Else, culpable violation of the
Constitution
• Hence, there is a duty on the part of the
president to appoint because the
appointment is essential to the administration
of justice.
Also looked at the intent of the framers:
• Had the framers intended to extend the
prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to
the appointment of Members of the Supreme
Court, they could have explicitly done so. They
could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of
the provisions. They would have easily and surely
written the prohibition made explicit in Section 15,
Article VII as being equally applicable to the
appointment of Members of the Supreme Court
in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1),
Article VIII. That such specification was not done
only reveals that the prohibition against the
President or Acting President making
appointments within two months before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of the
President’s or Acting President’s term does not
refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.
DE RAMA V. CA (2001)
The ban on appointments does not apply to
appointments of a mayor
Facts: De Rama sought to recall the appointments of 14
municipal employees and contended that they were
midnight appointments.
Court: The appointments were valid. The ban only applies
to the president. There is no law that bans the mayor from
appointing.
MATIBAG V. BENIPAYO (2002)
Valid acts of an ad-interim appointee has the force
and effect of that of a regular appointee
Facts: Benipayo was appointed ad-interim in COMELEC.
Matibag now contends that Benipayo had no power to
transfer her because he was a mere ad-interim appointee
(allegedly temporary in nature).
49
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
Court: The transfer was valid.
• An ad-interim appointment is permanent in
nature.
• An ad-interim appointee has the same powers of
those of a regular appointee.
VELICARIA-GARAFIL V. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
(2015)
All appointments, whether done outside the
appointment ban or during (but falling under the
enumerated exceptions) should meet ALL the
requirements BEFORE appointment.
Facts:
• PGMA issued more than 800 appointments to
various positions in several government offices
prior to the conduct of the May 2010 elections.
• None of the petitioners claim that their
appointments fall under this exception.
• EO 2 (by PNoy) - recalling, withdrawing, and
revoking appointments issued by PGMA which
violated the constitutional ban on midnight
appointments.
Issue 1: W/N EO 2 is constitutional – YES
• The next president can revoke the midnight
appointments of the previous president
Issue 2: W/N Ante-dating of appointment is valid - YES
• As long as the appointees will take their oath and
assume their office before the period of ban.
Discussion:
• All appointments, whether done outside the
appointment ban or during (but falling under the
enumerated exceptions) should meet ALL the
requirements BEFORE appointment. Otherwise,
there is no valid appointment no matter what the
circumstances are:
(1) authority to appoint and evidence of the
exercise of the authority;
(2) transmittal of the appointment paper
and evidence of the transmittal;
(3) a vacant position at the time of
appointment; and
(4) receipt of the appointment paper and
acceptance of the appointment by the
appointee who possesses all the
qualifications and none of the
disqualifications.
Appointees did not follow the steps. Hence, they are only
de facto officers.
REMOVAL POWER
• With the power to appoint comes the power to
remove
• The President may only exercise his removal
power when there is just cause.
• Coverage: Members of the cabinet and other
executive officials whose term of office is
determined at the pleasure of the president.
• Ratio: The president’s relationship with them is
based on trust and confidence. If this trust and
confidence is no longer present, the president may
remove them.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY

LARIN V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (1997) Reprieve • Postponement/suspension of the

application of the penalty (eg.
The Presidents disciplinary (removal) powers must Death penalty)
be exercised with just cause • Penalty not changed
Commutation • Reduction of penalty
Facts: • Adds another paragraph –
• Larin was charged in 2 cases related to the recommendation to the president
National Internal Revenue Code and that the penalty be lessened
subsequently acquitted. Parole • Law in application: Indeterminate
• The President issued Memo Order 164 creating Sentence Law (Parole Board
an executive committee to investigate the under DOJ)
administrative charges. • After serving of a minimum term,
• While the investigation is pending, the President the accused can be released; it
issued an order for the streamlining of BIR, in can be revoked if the accused
which case the office of Larin was abolished. would violate the conditions
• Instead of being reinstated as an assistant imposed
commissioner of the BIR, another AO was issued • Cf. Conditional pardon – that one
that dismissed him for being guilty of grave does not commit any other
misconduct in connection with the criminal criminal offense.
charges against him. Amnesty • Act of the sovereign
• Requires the concurrence of the
Court: Congress
• Power to discipline = President (because the • Acts (not about crime) in the eyes
office is career executive service) of the law are not criminal law
• Administrative Code = career services have because of supervening events
security of tenure (no crime)
o Order of separation: first in, last out • Trillanes amnesty: For the acts
• There must be valid case in accordance with due committed in the Oakwood mutiny.
process They were deemed not criminal
• Larin was acquitted from the criminal cases = no • Can one still be convicted if there
more ground (valid cause) for the administrative is amnesty? NO – because there
case is no more criminal act
• President cannot just reorganize him out of the • What if you are given amnesty
office after conviction? No more need to
serve sentence, because no more
crime
ADDITIONAL NOTES: • Extinguishes crime of the act
• Local Government Code and Administrative • Revocation of an amnesty to a
Code – The President can cause the filing for person? NO. Amnesty is to an act,
investigation not the person
• Ombudsman – an official who is charged with • Does not apply to a person, but
representing the interests of the public by to acts
investigating and addressing complaints of • Even if one does not apply, if the
maladministration or a violation of rights amnesty proclamation covers the
• DOH – Based on Charter, the President must a act, he may squash a complaint
appoint a doctor as secretary against him
• Ambassadors, consuls, and ministers – as • Act of the sovereign state with the
official representatives of the sovereign state, they participation of the 2 branches of
must be confirmed in order to assure qualifications gov’t
• Non-career diplomats – also need to be confirmed • Cf. Pardon – personal
• Commission on Appointments – not required to
explain why they rejected a nominee (political ADDITIONAL NOTES:
question). • Erap can be pardoned because he was never
• Civil Service Merit – professionalize government impeached
service • Convicted by Sandigan – can be pardoned
• Pardon does not apply to people who were
E. EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY (Sec. 19, Art. VII)
impeached
• Power of the sovereign
• Exercised by the president in behalf of the sovereign RISOS-VIDAL V. COMELEC (2015)
MODES OF CLEMENCY Pardon extinguishes the penalty imposed with the
conviction for a crime
Pardon • Crime is not extinguished
• Penalty is extinguished Facts: Estrada filed his COC for mayor but this was
• May be revoked (must have proper opposed by petitioner. She contended that when he was
basis, otherwise, GAD) convicted for plunder, he was sentenced with perpetual
• Convicted first disqualification. Estrada was however, pardoned by
PGMA.
Absolute – extinguish penalties
Conditional – release subject to Court: Estrada may run. When Estrada was pardoned, the
conditions penalty of perpetual disqualification was extinguished
together with the crime of plunder.

50
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
What pardon was given? – Absolute
• Penalty extinguished
• Civil and political rights reinstated
Local Government Code – Conviction of more than 1 year
= disqualified
• But the nature of power: plenary (vested in the
president)
o Cannot be prohibited by the LGC
Nature of his right to run for office = political (restored)
BARRIOQUINTO V. FERNANDEZ (1949)
Admission to the crime is not necessary to claim
amnesty. The important factor is meeting the terms
of the amnesty proclamation
Facts: Jimenez and Barrioquinto were claiming amnesty
but refused to admit the crime charged.
Issue: W/N admission to the crime is necessary to claim
amnesty – NO
Court: No. It is sufficient that the evidence comes with the
terms of the amnesty proclamation. What are the effects:
• If you are not charge yet → ask for the dismissal
of the case
• If you are convicted → ask judgment to be
vacated
• If you are serving sentence → ask for release, file
the writ of habeas corpus
AMNESTY – admission of guilt required? NO
• Admit guilt – during arraignment in a criminal case
in front of a competent court
• In amnesty, what do you admit? – admit the
commission of the act
• Avoid prosecution by applying early for amnesty
• Do you need to show remorse? NO (how can you
show remorse for something that is not even
criminal)
• Amnesty has the force and effect of law – outside
RPC
• A board is not always required/created for amnesty
application – commission, etc.
• Usually for: coup d’etat, insurgency, cessation
• May a person choose not to avail of amnesty? YES
(2 magdalo members did this – case dismissed
anyway)
VERA V. PEOPLE (1963)
BARRIOQUINTO DOCTRINE IS FOLLOWED, NOT
THIS.
Admission to the crime is necessary to claim
amnesty
Issue: W/N admission to the crime is necessary to claim
amnesty – YES
Court:
• It is inconsistent to ask for forgiveness from the
crime that you are claiming to not have committed
because in amnesty it presupposes the
commission of the crime.
• Hence, when a person is claiming not to have
committed the crime, he cannot claim the benefits
of amnesty.
51
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
CRISTOBAL V. LABRADOR
An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime
committed, but removes all disabilities resulting from
the conviction
Facts:
• Santos was convicted of estafa. He served his
sentence and all the accessory penalties
• Petitioner contends that since Santos already
served his sentence, there is nothing more to
pardon
Issue: W/N a convict can be pardoned after serving his
sentence - YES
Ruling:
• The pardon will now restore all the political and
civil rights of Santos.
• Santos can run for office.
PELOBELLO V. PALATINO (1941)
The
Facts: Pellobello was extended pardon but he was not
permitted to take his oath when he was elected mayor
because when he was convicted, there was a penalty of
disqualification.
Court: Pellobello may take his oath.
• The SC here interpreted the pardon liberally in
favor of Pellobello as to interpret the pardon that
was given to include the restoration of his civil
rights → to coincide with the will of the people (he
won the elections)
• When was he given pardon? after winning and
before assuming office
• Extinguish the disqualification
IN RE LONTOK (1923)
Pardon on a criminal case has the effect of wiping a
lawyer’s slate clean. However, where the act involves
professional misconduct, disbarment may be due
Facts: A lawyer was granted pardon from the president but
the SolGen moved to disbar him by reason of his
conviction of the crime.
Court:
• The lawyer cannot be disbarred because of
bigamy.
o If the ground for disbarment was his
immoral conduct, that is different and
will not be affected by the pardon of the
bigamy case
• When a person is extended pardon, it blots out
the existence of guilt, and treats him as innocent
as if he had never committed anything. After
pardon, a person is given a clean slate.
Additional notes:
Where proceedings to disbar an attorney are founded on
the professional misconduct involved in a transaction
which has culminated in a conviction of felony, it has been
held that while the effect of the pardon is to relieve him of
the penal consequences of his act, it does not operate as
a bar to the disbarment proceeding, inasmuch as the
criminal acts may nevertheless constitute proof that the
attorney does not possess a good moral character and is
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY

not a fit or proper person to retain his license to practice courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
law. conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies
over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
TORRES V. GONZALES (1987)
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only
Conditional pardon may be revoked when the convict to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses
commits another crime, even if the current case is inherent in or directly connected with the invasion.
still pending (in short, the state can arrest him
immediately) During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any
person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
Facts: Torres was given a conditional pardon, but he charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
committed another crime. Torres contended that the
pardon cannot be revoked yet because the case was still
pending. Chief Executive Commander-in-Chief
1. Faithful execution 1. Call out
Court: The president is the one who will determine if the of the laws 2. Suspension of writ
conditions were violated not any other branch. 2. Emergency of habeas corpus
delegation 3. Declaration of
Revocation of conditional pardon: 3. Control of Martial Law
• The needs to serve his penalty executive
• state can immediately arrest him (he has already departments
been in court before, and has been convicted)
In cases of: lawless violence, invasion, rebellion

What are the remedies of the state when a conditional When can C-in-C powers be exercised?
pardon has been violated?
1. Revoke the pardon, order his arrest, no hearing Call out Whenever it becomes necessary
required Suspension of Actual invasion and rebellion and that
2. Charge with violation of criminal law Writ of Habeas public safety requires the exercise of
3. Charge with a new crime Corpus such power
Declaration of Actual invasion and rebellion and that
Note: In a pardon, it is important that it should state the extent Martial Law public safety requires the exercise of
and the consequences of the pardon. such power

F. COMMANDER-IN CHIEF • C-in-C powers are graduated and calibrated

SECTION 18, ARTICLE VII
SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-
Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever
it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty
days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in
writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a
vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or
special session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined
by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist
and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four
hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene
in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
• Graduated in terms of severity
• Calibrated - surgical, contain it (otherwise, message
that the president can't control what's happening in
the country)
CALL-OUT
• Call out the AFP to prevent lawless violence
• This is merely a police measure meant to quell
disorder. As such, the Constitution does not regulate
its exercise radically
• Any visible impact? NO
• Any identifiable groups? NO
SUSPENSION OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
• Threat comes from certain identifiable people (those
who are directly participating in the
invasion/rebellion)
• HB – bring a person before a competent court to see
if the charges are justifiable
• RPC 125
• Detention - commission of crime (probable cause)
• Suspension = extends to 72 hours (the charge);
after which, they can demand release and officer
can be liable
• See Consti1 BOC for more guidelines
NOTE:
RPC 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the
proper judicial authorities. — The penalties provided in the
next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer
or employee who shall detain any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper
judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12) hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and

52
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by
afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of
the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his
request, to communicate and confer at any time with his
attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and
272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).
DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW
• The very existence of the state is at risk (because of
the taking of arms, etc.)
• Objective of the risk: to deprive the chief executive
of his prerogatives
o Eg. Rebellion - turn over to a diff sovereign
• See Consti1 BOC for more guidelines
IBP V. ZAMORA (2000)
Call-out power is a discretionary power of the
president which is vested in his wisdom
Facts: The marines are called out to assist the civilian
police to suppress lawless violence (bombings – cars,
cinemas, etc).
Court: The call out was valid.
• President just ordered the Marines to help the
PNP
• They (Marines + PNP were just walking around in
pairs (visibility)
• Power: faithful execution of the laws + control
over the PNP (a civilian organization)
• Cf. coup attempts - president called out the
military
• The call out power is a discretionary power of the
president which is vested in his wisdom.
• The court cannot be called upon to substitute its
wisdom to that of the president. However, the
court may still review on the basis of whether
such power was exercised within permissible
constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in
a manner constituting GAD.
• The call out must state the time frame and the
limitations of it.
SANLAKAS V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (2004)
The only criterion for the President’s calling out
power is
“whenever it becomes necessary”
Facts: Oakwood mutiny
• By virtue of Proclamation No. 427 and General
Order No. 4, the Philippines was declared under
the State of Rebellion.
Issue: W/N a state of rebellion is necessary for the
president to exercise the call out power – NO
Court: The only criterion is that “whenever it becomes
necessary”
AQUINO V. ENRILE (1974)
OLD CASE (NOT APPLICABLE ANYMORE)
1973: Martial Law is a political question
1987: Martial Law can be subject of judicial review
53
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
In this case, the court ruled that the declaration of martial
law is a political question; hence, the courts cannot
intervene.
Now that the 1987 Constitution has been ratified, the
declaration of martial law is now justiciable. It can be the
subject of review through a petition. The courts can
determine if there was factual basis for the declaration and
that if it is arbitrary.
OLAQUER V. MC NO. 4 (1987)
The declaration of martial law does not shut down
the courts. Civil Courts remain open and civilians
must be tried under them
Facts:
• Petitioners, as civilians, have been charged the
crime of subversion.
• Consequently, the Chief-of-Staff of the AFP
created a military tribunal, named Military
Commission No. 34, to try criminal case against
petitioners.
• Petitioners were then convicted and have been
imposed a penalty of death penalty.
• Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition to enjoin the
military tribunal from taking further action on their
case for the tribunal should be considered null
and void.
• Respondents invoked that the creation of Military
Commission is constitutional as ruled upon in a
previous case – Aquino v. Military Commission
No. 2.- as decided upon by the Supreme Court.
• However, petitioners contend that such ruling
must be overturned because the ruling is now
inapplicable since Martial Law has already been
lifted.
Issue: W/N a military tribunal has the jurisdiction to try
civilians while the civil courts are open and functioning -
NO
Court:
• The SC nullified for lack of jurisdiction all
decisions rendered by the military courts or
tribunals during the period of martial law in all
cases involving civilian defendants.
• A military commission or tribunal cannot try and
exercise jurisdiction, even during the period of
martial law, over civilians for offenses allegedly
committed by them as long as the civil courts are
open and functioning, and that any judgment
rendered by such body relating to a civilian is null
and void for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
military tribunal concerned.
During Martial Law:
• Congress remains open for the President to submit
reports
• Courts still open so people can question such
Martial Law
NAVALES V. ABAYA (2004)
Where the charge has a bearing in the professional
conduct of military officers, a military tribunal has
jurisdiction over the case
Issue: W/N the RTC has jurisdiction over the cases
involving violation of the articles of war – NO
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
Court:
• The Military Tribunal remains to have jurisdiction
over these cases. The RTC cannot make the
decision to deprive the MT its jurisdiction.
• It is only the legislative department that has the
power to change the jurisdiction of courts.
Additional notes:
Article 96 of the Articles of War is service-connected. This
is expressly provided in Section 1 (second paragraph) of
R.A. No. 7055. It bears stressing that the charge against
the petitioners concerns the alleged violation of their
solemn oath as officers to defend the Constitution and the
duly-constituted authorities. Such violation allegedly
caused dishonor and disrespect to the military profession.
In short, the charge has a bearing on their professional
conduct or behavior as military officers. Equally indicative
of the "service-connected" nature of the offense is the
penalty prescribed for the same — dismissal from the
service — imposable only by the military court. Such
penalty is purely disciplinary in character, evidently
intended to cleanse the military profession of misfits and
to preserve the stringent standard of military discipline.
LANSANG V. GARCIA (1971)
Rebellion need not to be a wide-scale event
Facts: The president suspended the writ of habeas corpus
following the explosion that occurred (Plaza Miranda
bombing) and in conclusion that there is conspiracy of
rebellion and insurrection. The petitioners contended that
there was no valid ground to suspend the writ because the
proclamation did not indicate any actual invasion or
rebellion and that public safety requires it.
Court:
• The suspension is still valid. Even if there is no
actual invasion or insurrection, there was
conspiracy and actuality of intent to cause
uprising.
• The declaration of a rebellion as argued by the
petitioners need not to be a wide-scale event, it
may be declared even if it only involves a small
part of the country.
IN RE DE VILLA (2004)
When already convicted, habeas corpus is no longer
a proper remedy
Facts:
• De Villa was convicted for rape
• Years later, De Villa alleged that during his trial,
he did not know the availability of DNA testing
(his counsel was not as competent before, hence
he changed - FLAG)
• Relief was denied so he asked for his relatives'
help for the conduct of DNA testing
• DNA results showed that De Villa could not have
sired the child born out of rape
Issue: W/N the DNA result is a valid basis for habeas
corpus and new trial - NO
Issuance of the writ of habeas corpus - as a
consequence of a judicial proceeding:
a. There has been a deprivation of a constitutional
right resulting in the restraint of a person;
b. The court had no jurisdiction to impose the
sentence; or
54
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
c. An excessive penalty has been imposed, as such
sentence is void as to such excess.
- De villa was already convicted = there is legal ground
for his detention
Motion for new trial based on newly-discovered
evidence:
a. that the evidence was discovered after trial;
b. that said evidence could not have been
discovered and produced at the trail even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence;
c. that it is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative or impeaching; and
d. that the evidence is of such weight that, if
admitted, it would probably change the judgment.
- Negligence of counsel = negligence of De Villa
- Lack of filiation is NOT tantamount to innocence from
rape
DAVID V. ARROYO (2006)
President cannot declare state of emergency, only
the Congress may
Statutes: PP 1017 and GO 5 (because of Oakwood
mutiny)
First provision: "by virtue of the power vested upon me
by Section 18, Article VII . . . do hereby command the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order
throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms
of lawless violence as well any act of insurrection or
rebellion" → CONSTITUTIONAL
• Calling out power
Second provision: "and to enforce obedience to all the
laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations
promulgated by me personally or upon my direction" →
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
• The second provision was lifted from
Proclamation 1081 of Marcos (Declaration of ML)
• The president is granted ordinance power under
Chapter 2, Book III of the Administrative Code of
1987 where she may only promulgate the
following: executive orders, administrative
orders, proclamations, memorandum orders,
memorandum circulars, and general/special
orders
• This Court rules that the assailed PP 1017 is
unconstitutional insofar as it grants President
Arroyo the authority to promulgate "decrees."
• With respect to "laws," she cannot call the military
to enforce or implement certain laws, such as
customs laws, laws governing family and
property relations, laws on obligations and
contracts and the like. She can only order the
military, under PP 1017, to enforce laws pertinent
to its duty to suppress lawless violence.
Third provision: "as provided in Section 17, Article XII of
the Constitution do hereby declare a State of National
Emergency." → UNCONSTITUTIONAL
• Requires delegation form the Congress
• Hence, the President has no absolute authority to
exercise all the powers of the State under Section
17, Article VII in the absence of an emergency
powers act passed by Congress.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
FORTUN V. ARROYO (2012)
The power of the judiciary to review Martial Law is
not joint to Congress’ action
Facts: Maguindanao massacre → PGMA declared Martial
Law in parts of Central Mindanao (and lifted it eventually)
Issue: W/N the declaration of martial law or suspension of
the writ is a joint and sequential function of the President
and Congress such that, without Congressional action on
the proclamation or suspension either affirming or revoking
it, the President having in the meantime lifted the same,
this Court has nothing to review
The President's power to declare martial law or
suspend the writ is independent, separate, and
distinct from any constitutionally mandated act to be
performed by either the Legislature or the Judiciary. It
is neither joint nor sequential with Congress' power to
revoke the declaration or suspension or to extend it upon
the initiative of the President. Even if Congress has not
acted upon the President's declaration or suspension, the
Court may review the declaration or suspension in an
appropriate proceeding led by any citizen.
To hold that the power of this Court to review the
President's declaration of martial law or suspension of the
writ is sequential, or joint, with the review power of
Congress is to make it impossible for this Court to decide
a case challenging the declaration or suspension "within
thirty days from its filing," as mandated by the Constitution.
The President's lifting of the declaration or suspension
before this Court could decide the case within the 30-day
period does not operate to divest this Court of its
jurisdiction over the case. A party cannot simply oust the
Court's jurisdiction, already acquired, by a party's own
unilateral act. The President's lifting of the declaration or
suspension merely means that this Court does not have to
decide the case within the 30-day period, as the urgency
of deciding has ceased. Certainly, the Court is not divested
of its jurisdiction simply because the urgency of deciding a
case has ceased.
LAGMAN V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (2017)
The President does not need to obtain the favorable
recommendation of the Secretary of National Defense
The President only needs to take into account the
situation at the time of the proclamation, and not
after
Facts: Rebellion in Marawi → Martial Law
Issue 1: W/N the President in declaring martial law and
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
required to obtain the favorable recommendation thereon
of the Secretary of National Defense – NO
• President's power to declare martial law is not
subject to any condition except for the
requirements of actual invasion or rebellion and
that public safety requires it.
• It is only on the President and no other that the
exercise of the powers of the Commander-in-
Chief
Issue 2: Is the President required to take into account only
the situation at the time of the proclamation, even if
subsequent events prove the situation to have not been
accurately reported - YES
55
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
• Since the exercise of these powers is a judgment
call of the President, the determination of the
Court as to whether there is sufficient factual
basis for the exercise of the power to declare
martial law and/or suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, must be based only on
facts or information known by or available to
the President at the time he made the
declaration or suspension which facts or
information are found in the proclamation as well
as the written Report submitted by him to
Congress.
• Similarly, events that happened after the
issuance of the proclamation, which are included
in the written report, cannot be considered in
determining the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the declaration of martial law and/or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus since these happened after
the President had already issued the
proclamation.
PADILLA V. CONGRESS (2017)
Congress is only required to vote jointly to revoke
the President’s proclamation of Martial Law
Issue: W/N the Congress must convene in joint session to
deliberate on PDut’s declaration of Martial Law in
Mindanao - NO
When does the Congress need not vote jointly on
Martial Law?
1. Concur - no need to vote
2. Extension → just concurring = no need to vote
When does the Congress need to vote jointly on
Martial Law?
• Revocation
o Vote jointly (Separation of powers -
checks and balance - union - overrule
an act of a co-equal branch)
o Joint - in reality - senate votes
undermined (number)
o Deadlock between 2 = no action
LAGMAN V. PIMENTEL (2018)
The Court's power of review, as provided under
Section 18, Article VII do not empower the Court to
advise, nor dictate its own judgment upon the
President, as to which and how these military powers
should be exercised.
Facts: Second extension of Martial Law in Mindanao
(Marawi issue)
• President submitted reports and the Senate and
HoR separately expressed support for the Martial
Law
The Court's power to review the extension of martial law is
limited solely to the determination of the sufficiency of the
factual basis thereof.
Requisites for extension:
a. the invasion or rebellion persists; and
b. public safety requires the extension.
*All within the prerogative of the president
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
Martial Law judicial review standard:
• 1935: arbitrariness (petitioner burden) - president
declared without legal basis
• 1973: ---
• 1987: sufficient factual basis (respondent/gov't
burden)
o Probable cause: the crime is committed or
being committed - how? - based on what
was presented by the military to the
president (the court cannot look beyond
that)
o No need to conduct a hearing to determine
the facts
• Miltary - help the president execute the laws (law
enforcement functions; aithful execution of laws)
• Call out the military through General Orders (not
proclamation)
• Martial Law extension only until the end of Congress
G. EMERGENCY POWERS
SECTION 17, ARTICLE XII
SECTION 17. In times of national emergency, when the
public interest so requires, the State may, during the
emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it,
temporarily take over or direct the operation of any
privately owned public utility or business affected with
public interest.
Delegated emergency power by the Congress
• Congress to set parameters
Take over (not the same as expropriation) - public
utilities:
What are the public utilities?
• Electric companies
• Communications companies
• TV and radio
• Transportation, etc.
*Congress must already state the parameters and timeframe.
Constitution provides for the maximum
• Otherwise: tantamount to confiscation of private
property
H. CONTRACTING AND GUARANTEEING FOREIGN
LOANS
Contracting loans → power to incur debt in behalf of PH
Why does PH need the debt? It is for economic means.
• Although we have the GAA, it is not yet funded,
hence we need to borrow money
To expand, you need money to generate more income
The country needs funds → to generate services →
economic growth → build infrastructures, but we don’t have
money? → so we need to borrow!!!
Guaranteeing debts (sovereign guarantee) - securing
debts of non-government entities
Is that possible? Yes! Non- government borrows → builds
infras → Benefit of PH
56
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
CONSTANTINO V. CUISA (2005)
The President’s power to contract a loan includes
various kinds of debts
The act of the Secretary of Finance is the act of the
President under the doctrine of qualified political
agency (also, Sec has more expertise)
Statute: Philippine Comprehensive Financing Program
These were contested in this case:
a. Bond conversion
o It is covered by the power of the
president to contract loan. The SC
interpreted the power to contract loans
as a general power to incur
indebtedness. Meaning, it includes
various kinds of debts
b. Buy- back scheme
o This mode pre-terminates debts.
Constantino contends that it is a
violation of the separation of powers
because Congress has already
appropriated a certain amount, the buy-
back scheme is using more money than
the appropriations.
o The scheme is valid. This is a
prerogative of the president. Only the
president as chief executive can
perform this, here, it is the Secretary of
Finance. Under the doctrine of qualified
political agency, an act of an alter ego of
the president; is an act of the president.
Besides, it is impractical for the
president.
I. FOREIGN AFFAIRS
President acts as Head of State - representative of the PH/
the president makes the decision and articulates the policy
Treaties These are national policies that are
permanent in nature which must be
concurred by 2/3 of Senate
Executive these are implementing agreements which
Agreements do not need concurrence by the senate;
common substances are: commercial and
consular relations, most favored nation
rights, patent rights, trademark and
copyright protection, postal and navigation
arrangements and the settlement of claims
Ratio on why they are for executive: it requires immediate
action.
*See 2018 Consti1 BOC for more guidelines
SAGUISAG V. OCHOA (2016)
An executive agreement that merely implements a
valid treaty does not need concurrence of the Senate
Facts: The constitutionality of the EDCA is being assailed
in this case. The petitioners contend that the EDCA was
not sent to congress to be concurred. They also assert that
the agreed locations in the PH for the prepositioning of
supplies and equipment and sending personnel amounts
to a US base.
Court:
• The EDCA is not a treaty; it is an executive
agreement.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
• It merely supplements the Mutual Defense Treaty
and Visiting Forces Areement
Can the president enter into an executive agreement
relating to foreign military bases, troops, or facilities? Yes.
The role of the President as the executor of the law
includes the duty to defend the State, for which purpose
he may use that power in the conduct of foreign relations.
In light of this duty, it is the prerogative of the president to
do whatever is legal and necessary for Philippine defense
interest.
What is the wisdom of the EDCA? The EDCA was
necessary because of the threat of China
NICOLAS V. ROMULA (2009)
An executive agreement that merely implements a
valid treaty does not need concurrence of the Senate
Facts: The petitioner contends that the Visiting Forces
Agreement is not effective because even if concurred in
the Senate, it was not concurred in the US.
Court:
• The VFA is valid because it is not a treaty that
must be concurred.
• The VFA implements the Mutual Defense Treaty.
• The VFA does not provide for policy, it provides
for jurisdiction which is its substance.
• The policy of the treaty is mutual aid. For treaties
like this, there must be mutuality and reciprocity
to be effective.
• The VFA, she said, was submitted to the U.S.
Senate not for concurrence, but only in
compliance with the Case-Zablocki Act, an
American law that requires the U.S. State
Department to transmit to the U.S. Senate
agreements not recognized as treaties.
VINUYA V. ROMULO (2010)
The Court cannot question the wisdom of the
President in terms of foreign relations (political
question)
Facts: The question whether the Philippine government
should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign
government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for
which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not
to the courts but to the political branches.
Court: the Executive Department has already decided that
it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of
its nationals for reparations against Japan.
PMPF V. MANGLAPUS (1988)
Information in relations to foreign negotiation is
covered by executive privilege
Facts: The case is about the extension of military bases in
the PH.
Issue: W/N the public have the right to information on the
matters of negotiation of the president with other heads of
state - NO
57
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
Court: This information is confidential It cannot be
disclosed because it is possible that other states might use
the information against us. It can however be disclosed
after an agreement is met and when it has become a
matter of public concern.
COMM. OF CUSTIMS V. EASTERN SEA TRADING
(1961)
An executive agreement does not need concurrence
of the Senate
Facts: EST was a shipping company charged in the
importation from Japan of onion and garlic into the
Philippines. In 1956, the Commissioner of Customs
ordered the seizure and forfeiture of the import goods
because EST was not able to comply with Central Bank
Circulars 44 and 45. The said circulars were pursuant to
EO 328 w/c sought to regulate the importation of such non-
dollar goods from Japan (as there was a Trade and
Financial Agreement b/n the Philippines and Japan
then). EST questioned the validity of the said EO averring
that the said EO was never concurred upon by the Senate.
The issue was elevated to the Court of Tax Appeals and
the latter ruled in favor of EST. The Commissioner
appealed.
Issue: W/N the EO is subject to the concurrence of at least
2/3 of the Senate – NO
Court:
• Executive Agreements are not like treaties which
are subject to the concurrence of at least 2/3 of
the members of the Senate.
• Agreements concluded by the President which
fall short of treaties are commonly referred to as
executive agreements and are no less common
in our scheme of government than are the more
formal instruments — treaties and conventions.
IPAP V. OCHOA (2016)
Under prevailing jurisprudence, the registration of
trademarks and copyrights have been the subject of
executive agreements entered into without the
concurrence of the Senate
Facts: The petitioners in this case seek to nullify the
Madrid Protocol on the ground that it lacks concurrence
form the senate and that its implementation is in conflict of
the IP code.
Court: The Madrid Protocol does not need concurrence
from the senate because it is not a treaty but an executive
agreement. There is a right given to the executive to enter
into binding agreements without the necessity of
congressional approval covers subjects such as trademark
and copyright protection. Cases such as trademark and
copyright need prompt action.
There is no conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the
IP code because the method of registration in the IP code
is distinct from the system of registration of the Madrid
Code. The applications under the Madrid protocol are
subject to relevant national law while applications under
our country are governed by our local registration
requirements.
Additional notes:
The Court observed that there are no hard and fast rules
on the propriety of entering into a treaty or an executive
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY

agreement on a given subject as an instrument of 3. VICE PRESIDENT

international relations. The primary consideration in the The VP has the same qualifications as the president because
choice of the form of agreement is the parties’ intent and the VP is a spare tire. He has no other job but to wait for the
desire to craft their international agreement in the form president to die, to be impeached or to be permanently
they so wish to further their respective interests. The become disabled. Nevertheless, the VP may be appointed in
matter of form takes a back seat when it comes to a cabinet position.
effectiveness and binding effect of the enforcement of a
treaty or an executive agreement; inasmuch as all the
parties; regardless of the form, become obliged to comply
conformably with the time-honored principle of pacta sunt
servanda. The principle binds the parties to perform in
good faith their parts in the agreements.

GO TEK V. DEPORTATION BOARD (1977)

The President is the sole and exclusive judge of the

existence of facts which would warrant deportation
of aliens (full discretion)

Facts: Go Tek was found to be in possession of fake

dollars which was in violation of the RPC. Hence, he was
declared an undesirable alien. He was recommended for
deportation but Go Tek contended that the case against
him was still pending.
Court: The pending case is immaterial because the Chief
Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence
of facts which warrant the deportation of alien. This power
is not dependent in any judgment. He has the power to
allow entry or to deport aliens.

J. LEGISLATION

1. ADDRESS CONGRESS
Mandated by the 1987 Constitution, the speech (State of the
Nation Address) is delivered every fourth Monday of July at
the Plenary Session Hall of the Batasang Pambansa
Complex in Batasan Hills, Quezon City, Metro Manila.

2. PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE BUDGET

The president will submit a budget of expenditures and
sources of financing, including receipts from existing and
proposed revenue measures.

3. VETO-POWER
Power of the President to disapprove a bill.

4. EMERGENCY POWERS
It is delegated from Congress; it is the power to issue rules
and regulations to carry out a declared national policy,

K. IMMUNITY FROM SUIT

The President cannot be sued.

BELTRAN V. MACASIAR (1988)

The President’s immunity from suit is a privilege and

can be waived

Facts: The petitioner maintains that since the president

can’t be sued, the president cannot sue.

Court: No. There is no law barring the president from filling

a suit.
• Immunity from suit is a privilege and can be
waived
• Only the president can invoke this

58
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
PART IV: THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
C. JUDICIARY
1. JUDICIAL POWER
SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
JUDICIAL POWER
Includes the duty of the courts of justice to:
1. Settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable; and
2. 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.
Requisite/s: Jurisdiction
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Power of the courts to test the validity of executive and
legislative acts in light of their conformity with the
Constitution.
Requisite/s: Actual case, locus standi, ripeness, lis mota
Grave Abuse of Discretion
W/N a branch or instrumentality acted within the limits given
to it by the Constitution
Judicial Supremacy
• Does not substitute its exercise of its discretion to
that of the Legislative and the Executive.
• Only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation
assigned to it by the Constitution to determine
conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution
and to establish for the parties in an actual case or
controversy the rights which that instrument secures
and guarantees to them.
K-12 Law (Caguioa, J)
• Determine only w/n the law promulgated is within the
power of Congress (pass the law), Executive
(promulgate)
• Court is not the venue to determine wisdom
• Remedy within the Congress
Note:
• Court is passive - can never be proactive
• There must be an actual case or controversy
2. THE SUPREME COURT
A. COMPOSITION
Justices of the
SC and the
RTC Judge MTC/MCTC
Collegiate
Courts
CITIZENSHIP
Natural-born citizens
AGE
At least 40 y/o At least 35 y/o At least 30 y/o
59
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
EXPERIENCE
15 years or more
as a judge or a
lower court OR Has been engaged for at least 5
has been years in the practice of law OR has
engaged in the held public office in the Philippines
practice of law in requiring admission to the practice of
the Philippines law as an indispensable requisite
for the same
period
TENURE
Hold office during good behavior until they reach the age
of 70 OR become incapacitated to discharge their duties
CHARACTER
Person of proven competence, integrity, probity and
independence
B. MODE OF SITTING
1. En Banc
2. Divisions
EN BANC:
1. Constitutional issues
2. Overturn previous doctrine
3. Disciplinary cases
4. Automatic review - death penalty
*See 2018 Consti1 BOC for more guidelines
Ratio: SC decisions become laws
Note: In case 1 division lacks members, the CJ may appoint
another justice to that division
C. APPOINTMENTS AND QUALIFICATIONS
Chief Justice is only primos interpares - only the first, but
equal to others (not over and above)
• Administrative & ceremonial powers
President appoints members of the SC
• No seniority rule
• In the absence of appointment = senior as acting
• What is the participation of the president in the JBC?
He is one of the members of the JBC through his
alter-ego, the Secretary of Justice.
PRACTICE OF LAW
Not confined to litigation. It means any activity in and out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training, and experience (Cayetano v. Monsod)
REPUBLIC V. SERENO (2018)
Holders of impeachable positions may be removed
through other means if such appointment is rendered
ab initio (no right to hold office in the first place)
SALN is a measure of integrity for a public officer
because it is one of the instruments used to assure
trust in public officers. As such, dishonesty in such
document = lack of integrity
QUO WARRANTO
• By what authority
• Determines whether or not a person appointment
has the LEGAL qualifications under the law
• Who may file it: Republic or person who claims
that he should have been appointment (he is the
one who is appointed)
OSG: Quo Warranto is proper because she was not
qualified at the time of the appointment
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
Court: impeachment is not the only remedy available
IMPEACHMENT
- For those already LEGALLY holding the office
Sec 2, Art. XI. The President, the Vice-President, the
Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be
removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction
of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
public trust. All other public officers and employees may
be removed from office as provided by law, but not by
impeachment.
• Quo Warranto presupposes person not qualified
→ No right
• Not removed from the office, but rather renders
the appointment void ab initio → Sereno never CJ
• Actions = valid since she is considered a de facto
officer
↓ •
Sereno is a de facto officer removable through
quo warranto
The effect of a finding that a person appointed to an office
is ineligible therefor is that his presumably valid
appointment will give him color of title that confers on him
the status of a de facto officer. For lack of a Constitutional
qualification, Sereno is ineligible to hold the position of
Chief Justice and is merely holding a colorable right or title
thereto. As such, Sereno has never attained the status of
an impeachable official and her removal from the office,
other than by impeachment, is justified. The remedy,
therefore, of a quo warranto at the instance of the State is
proper to oust Sereno from the appointive position of Chief
Justice.
Which qualification was not met? INTEGRITY
What was the omission? Did not file her SALN for a couple
of years
Failure to file SALN = lack of integrity
Cf. Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board
• drug test not valid because the Consti does not
require it
Constitutional requirement: Sec. 17, Art. 11 → SALN
• As often as may be required by law = RA 6713
(annually)
• To prevent unjust enrichment
• Public office is a public trust
D. NO NON-JUDICIAL WORK FOR JUDGES
MERALCO V. PASAY TRANS CO (1932)
The SC cannot perform non-judicial work
Facts: The SC is requested to sit as board of arbitrators
as provided for under the law.
Court: Invalid.
• SC represents one of the three divisions of power
in the government. The Supreme court and its
members should not and cannot be required to
exercise any power, to perform any task, or to
assume any duty pertaining to or connected with
the administration of judicial functions.
60
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
• Moreover, if the SC sits as arbitrators on this
(assuming their task is judicial), the next
appellate court if ever is the SC itself
(conundrum)
GARCIA V. MACARAIG (1971)
Judges cannot aid in administrative work (in this
case, executive) that will present conflict of interest
later on
Facts:
• Judge Macaraig’s office was not finished when he
assumed office. In order for him to not waste
time, he helped in his previous office (DOJ)
• He was asked to review the petitioners for the
DOJ. He was acting like the executive secretary
for the Secretary of Justice.
Court:
There is conflict of interest. It is possible that he
might review decisions that may be filed before
his court. Macaraig was performing an executive
function which is a violation of the separation of
powers.
Limited administrative work
1. Provided in the Constitution
(Presidential electoral tribunal, HRET, SET)
2. Germane to their judicial task
E. SALARY
NITAFAN V. COMM. OF INTERNAL REVENUE (1987)
The salaries of judges are taxable
Issue: WON the salaries of judges are taxable – YES
Court:
• Exemption of the judiciary from taxes is a
violation of equal protection.
• Equal protection means that the same class of
persons receives the same treatment unless they
have substantial distinction.
• Members of the judiciary and other members of
the different branches are all government
employees.
• Since other members of the different branches
are taxed, the judiciary must also be taxed.
F. TENURE
Security of tenure – hold office during good behavior until
they reach the age of 70 OR become incapacitated to
discharge their duties
G. REMOVAL
Impeachment that will be filed in
SC Justices
Congress
En banc decision of the SC
Judges
(administrative case)
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY

IN RE: GONZALES (1988) How about the case involving a student that was prevented
from finishing her speech during her graduation and because
A sitting Supreme Court Justice cannot be disbarred of that the school refused to give her a certificate of good
moral which prevented her from entering college?
Facts: Special Prosecutor Raul Gonzales forwarded to • This is justiciable. The certificate was a requirement
Justice Marcelo Fernan an anonymous letter-complaint that the student needs.
together with a telegram of Miguel Cuenco in relations to
the disbarment charges against the justice. J. DELIBERATIONS
When the SC sits en banc, cases are decided by the
Issue: W/N a member of the Supreme Court may be concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took
disbarred during his term of office – NO part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.
Court: A public officer who under the Constitution is
required to be a member of the Philippine bar as a Intent
qualification for the office held by him and who may be 1. Not to allow the absence of some members of the
removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be SC or their non-participation in deliberations to delay
charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such decisions
public officer. Such public officer, during his incumbency, 2. Require that only those thoroughly familiar with the
cannot be charged criminally with any offense which case participate in the decision.
carries with it the penalty of removal from office, or any
penalty service of which would amount to removal from PARTICIPATION
office. Not to just have studied the briefs and listened to oral
arguments, but also to have taken part in the deliberations
Additional notes: among justices.
• The SC has the sole disciplinary jurisdiction over
judges. K. VOTING
• To prevent undue influence and harassment MAJORITY requirement
cases.
• The Ombudsman is like a prosecutor. Its findings L. REQUIREMENTS AS TO DECISIONS
are filed before the RTC.
SECTION 14, ARTICLE VIII

H. FISCAL AUTONOMY No decision shall be rendered by any court without

The budget proposal on the judiciary cannot be decreased by expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the
congress → To prevent political pressure from congress law on which it is based.

I. JURISDICTION
Resolution Decision
Question of law: Legal basis Facts + law
Original Certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, Relates to why the case Disposition based on
jurisdiction special civil action was not given due course merits after the case is
Appellate En banc decision of the SC given due course
jurisdiction (administrative case) Lack of merit/ no real issue Answers questions of law
that need to be decided
Note: Questions of facts are resolved from MTC to CA level
only
Will the court give due
SANTIAGO V. BAUTISTA (1970) course

An honor rank in school is a privilege and not a right

Facts: The proclamation of honor students of a graduating YES NO

class is being assailed.

Court: No jurisdiction. There is no right to be an honor

student, hence, no legally demandable right that is Resolution → incidents
Parties will submit their
violated. memorandum that shall of the case
contain their
discussionsn and
FELIPE V. LEUTERIO (1952) reasoning with full
documented citations
Winning in an oratorical contest is a privilege and not (to help the court review
a right the strength of
argument)
Facts: The petitioner was asking the court to reverse the
award given in an oratorical contest.
Court will issue a
Court: No jurisdiction. There is no legally demandable decision based on the
right. There is no right to win an oratorical contest. merits of the case
• They alleged that there was cheating. WHO
CARES?

61
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
VALLADOLID V. INCIONG (1992)
The constitutional requirement as to decisions is not
applicable to quasi-judicial bodies
Facts: The order of the Deputy minister of labor was being
assailed because it did not state the facts and the law.
Court: Valid. The Constitutional requirement is only
applicable to court of law and judicial decisions. The order
was coming from a quasi-judicial body.
NUNAL V. COA (1989)
The constitutional requirement as to decisions is not
applicable to quasi-judicial bodies
Facts: Decision of the COA is being assailed because it
did not follow the requirement under the Constitution. The
SC in a resolution stated the legal basis for the dismissal
of the petition to review the decision of the COA.
Court: The resolution of the SC is valid. Legal basis is the
only requirement for resolutions issued by courts. The
decision of COA is still valid even if it did not follow the
requirement because COA is not mandated under the law
to follow the consti requirement even if it exercises quasi-
judicial functions.
PEOPLE V. BUGARIN (1996)
Trial courts must state decisions the facts and the
legal basis of their decisions
Facts: The decision of the TC does not state the grounds
for the conviction of Bugarin for the felony of rape.
Court: Invalid. The requirement was not met. Under the
law, decisions must state the facts and the law. The TC
must have stated why Bugarin was guilty and if the
elements of the crime were met.
Importance: To inform the parties of the reason for the
decision, so if there is any appeal, he can point out in the
appellate court the matters he disagrees. It is also an
assurance that the judge went to the process of legal
reasoning.
HERNANDEZ V. CA (1993)
The court can directly lift the statement of the facts
from one of the petitions submitted to it
Facts: The court copied and pasted the facts adopted by
the OSG and it made its own legal discussion.
Court: Valid. There is no prohibition against the court
adopting the narration of facts; it suffices that the court
states in its decision the facts on which it is based.
YAO V. CA (2000)
Trial courts must state decisions the facts and the
legal basis of their decisions
Facts: The RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC without
stating the facts and the law it is based.
62
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
Court: Invalid. The requirement is that decisions must
state the facts and the law. The reason is to afford a person
due process by giving him a fair opportunity to be heard.
DIZON V. JUDGE LOPEZ (1997)
The
Facts: Judge Lopez at first only made a verbal dispositive
portion to the accused but she served a copy of the
decision only after 1 year and 8 months.
Court: Invalid. The decision must have been made within
3 months. The law also requires that a decision contains
the law and the facts.
ASIAVEST V. CA (2001)
The decision of a competent foreign court who
validly acquired jurisdiction over the parties and the
case is valid and respected based on the rule of
reciprocity
Facts: The High Court of Malaysia ruled against PNCC.
PNCC alleged that the decision of Malaysia is not valid
because it did not state the facts and the law upon which
it is based.
Court: The decision is valid based on the rule of
reciprocity. Final judgments of foreign courts of competent
jurisdiction are respected. To strengthen the claim, the
petitioner should use the foreign judgment as supplement
to his petitioner. To verify its authenticity, there must be a
certification from the Philippine Embassy in the country
where the foreign judgment was rendered.
M. PETITION FOR REVIEW/MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
*No denial of petition or MR without stating the legal basis.
N. PERIODS FOR DECIDING CASES
RTC 3 months
CA 12 months (1 year)
SC 24 months (2 years)
Ratio: Upper level = less courts
Point x = last pleading → memorandum
= appeal → brief
*look at what is provided for in the Rules of Court
RE: DELAYS IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN (2001)
The period for deciding cases for the Sandiganbayan
is 3 months based on its function as a trial court
Facts: There are delays with the decisions of Presiding
Justice Francis Garchitorena (backlogs)
Legal argument of PJFG: Not covered by the 3-month
period, but by the 12 months because SB = CA (they were
all justices of the same rank)
Court: Not a valid argument -> 3 months is applicable
• SB is a trial court and a court of first instance
• "But we decide in divisions" → Answer is not how
it seats, but its functions (trial court)
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
o Cf. CA = does not receive evidence in
the first instance
• The Constitution requires speedy disposition of
cases
• Effect of the failure to decide within the
reglementary period = will not affect the
validity of the decision → administrative
sanctions only
• What are judges supposed to do every month?
Certify cases which they have disposed
O. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
• Decides election cases involving Pres and VP.
• Electoral Tribunal receives evidences by verifying all
the contested ballots.
• The SC cannot originally do this because the SC is
not a trier of facts so the SC sits as an Electoral
Tribunal.
• Manual recount (costs millions)
P. ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS
Summary:
1. Supervision of lower courts
2. Temporarily assign judges to other stations in public
interest
3. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid
miscarriage of justice
4. Appointment of officials and employees of entire
judiciary
5. Promulgate rules concerning the enforcement and
protection of constitutional rights
6. Promulgate Rules Concerning Pleading, Practice
and Procedure
7. Admission to the Practice of Law
8. Integration of the Bar
9. Legal Assistance to the Underprivileged
1. SUPERVISION OF LOWER COURTS
• Disciplinary: reprimand, fine, suspension,
suspension without pay, removal
• En Banc: when penalty is dismissal
• Pursuant to admin circular issued by court
• Update: SC created two bodied (look into cases of
misconduct by judges and court personnel) – Nov.
2018
IN RE: DEMETRIA (2001)
Any act of court judge/personnel that will have a
negative effect on the judiciary may be sanctioned
Facts: Justice Demetria went to a prosecutor to request
him to withdraw his inhibition against a Chinese drug lord.
As a defense, J. Demetria contended that it was just a
social visit as their offices were adjacent to each other.
Court: He can be disciplined. J. Demetria can exercise
ascendency over the prosecutor as he was the former
USec. of DOJ. Thus, there is a possibility that he can
influence the outcome of the case. He was dismissed from
service because he showed to be unfit as a judge instead
of showing integrity and impartiality.
Additional notes:
• Motion to Inhibit → Judge was biased in favor of
the accused
• Demetria asked in the inhibition can be withdrawn
• Demetria: I don't have anything to do with the
case (not an RTC judge) = Demetria is a CA
Justice
63
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
• What he did undermined the integrity of the
judicial branch (judge can use his position as
justices in order to INFLUENCE the outcome of
the case)
• Any act of court judge/personnel that will have a
negative effect on the judiciary may be
sanctioned (even personal issues between
judges and their wives)

IN RE: LETTER OF PJ VASQUEZ (2008)
Actions of Justice Roxas (undue interest) is ground
for dismissal from judgeship
Facts: There were allegations that J. Roxas received
money as bribe money. As a result, he himself went door
to door and asked the other justices to sign it.
• Stockholders' battle against control of MERALCO
Court: The court dismissed him from services because he
showed undue interest in the case. As a collegial court,
discussion among the justices is necessary. There was
none in this case because he solicited for the signature of
the justices before their discussion.
• After the creation of the new division = even if
they no longer have jurisdiction, he should have
let the other judges sign
• DISMISSAL (with loss of all benefits; perpetually
disqualified from government appointment)
2. TEMPORARILY ASSIGN JUDGES TO OTHER
STATIONS IN PUBLIC INTEREST
Designated to another court for a fixed period which should
not be longer than 6 months.
3. ORDER A CHANGE OF VENUE OR PLACE OF TRIAL TO
AVOID MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
• The purpose is to avoid miscarriage of justice.
• The court may initiate the transfer of the
proceedings.
eg. Maguinadanao massacre case, it was originally
set to be heard in Maguinadanao but was
transferred in Metro Manila
PEOPLE V. PILOTIN (1975)
Venue can be changed where the life of a party is in
jeopardy
Facts: The accused was charged because he burned
down 2 barangays. He was requesting to transfer the place
of trial because his life was in danger.
Court: The trial can be transferred. There is a miscarriage
of justice because the safety of the accused was at risk.
• Court changed venue to Camp Crame (QC)
Note: Now → Camp Bagong Diwa (Taguig)
MONDIGUING V. ABAD (1975)
Venue can be changed where a fair trial cannot be
expected because of the bias of the assigned judge
Facts: The accused moved to transfer the hearing of the
case because they were expecting the judge to be
impartial as he was the protégée of one of the victims.
Court: The transfer is valid. There would be a miscarriage
of justice because the accused may not be given a fair trial.
• Judge is a protege of the political enemy
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY

• No witness would want to testify in his favor (with
this particular judge)
• Change of venue = there was already a previous
case where the judge was ordered to inhibit
(history) → to Baguio City
PEOPLE V. SOLA (1981)
ZALDIVAR V. GONZALES (1988)
The conduct of a lawyer subject to the authority of
the Supreme Court
Facts: Gonzales said something in court about the justices
as if he is implying that they are corrupt. He contended that
it is part of his freedom of speech.

The new venue should be far enough for the safety of
the witnesses, but close enough for them to be able
to attend and testify
Facts: The mayor allegedly killed a sacada (a sugar cane
worker). There was a request to transfer the venue of the
case because of the possibility that no one might not come
out for the sacadas against the mayor (witnesses did not
want to testify).
Court: Valid. There would be a miscarriage of justice
because the witnesses are prevented from testifying
because of fear on testifying against the mayor.
• Trial court in the next town (Bacolod)
4. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF
ENTIRE JUDICIARY
Court: He was cited for contempt.
• The court has the power to maintain order in the
proceedings; it is part of the plenary power to
maintain order.
• There was no violation of his freedom of speech
because it is not absolute in the first place.
• The court weight down the speech of Gonzales
with the integrity of the court and it was concluded
that the integrity of the court is important because
the court needs to ensure that the people’s trust
and confidence on the courts are maintained.
• If the court chose to ignore the attacks against it,
people might lose their faith on the courts of
justice.
• Conduct of a lawyer subject to the authority of the
Court
• Gonzales asked the entire court to inhibit
themselves

5. PROMULGATE RULES CONCERNING THE

ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTION OF IN RE: CUNANAN (1954)
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The primary power and responsibility concerning the
To order a person to stop a particular admission to the practice of law which the
Writ of
activity because of the harm of the Constitution recognizes continue to reside in this
Kalikasan
environment Court (not the Congress)
A remedy available to any person whose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is Facts: Several unsuccessful bar examinees asked
violated or threatened by an unlawful act or congress to pass a law to reduce the passing rate of the
Writ of omission of a public official or employee, or bar exam from 75 to 70. The ratio for the law is that the
Habeas of a private individual or entity engaged in examinees have no legal access to legal materials
Data the gathering, collecting or storing of data because of the war.
or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved Court: The law is not valid. Although the Constitution vests
party. to congress the power to legislate, the Constitution itself
To a remedy available to any person whose provided for the exception. It specifically reserves to the
right to life, liberty and security is violated or SC the power to regulate the admission to the practice of
Writ of
threatened with violation by an unlawful act law.
Amparo
or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity Additional notes:
• Passing grade = 75% or lower (cannot increase
6. PROMULGATE RULES CONCERNING PLEADING, = due process)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE • Why can't congress fix passing grade?
Exclusively for the SC
5 books under the ROC: • If there is no case = the SC can ignore it
I. Civil procedure • Can SC nullify the whole of the bar exams? (Wala
II. Criminal procedure ng bar exams) = YES
III. Special proceedings • Only UP students = NO (equal protection clause)
IV. Legal ethics
V. Rules on evidence
AGUIRRE V. RANA (2003)
• SC also comes up with specialized rules
• May SC pass law relating to court procedure? NO Passing the bar does not mean automatic admission
o Congress → pass law to the practice of law (oath-taking and signature in
the roll of attorneys must also be done first)
7. ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
SC administers the licensure examination/ administer the Facts: Appeared and signed as counsel in an election-
oath and the signing of the roll of attorneys/ power to related case before he signed the roll of attorneys
discipline lawyers •
Issue: W/N the SC prevent someone from becoming a
lawyer → YES
• On what grounds? Unauthorized practice of law
= reflects on his integrity → fraud (not a lawyer)

64
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
What can an underbar or non-lawyer do?
• Submit motion, can't submit evidence
• Submit for counsel, not as counsel
• Representative for counsel
May law students actually appear? YES
• Student pratice rule = limited to MTCs = under
the supervision of a practicing lawyer
May the prosecutor object? YES
• Discretion of the judge
8. INTEGRATION OF THE BAR
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
1. Discipline lawyers → they investigate and send a
recommendation to the SC
2. Education → MCLE service providers/ they issue
journals and legal articles
3. Service → free legal aid/ IBP provides for the
venue/ 60 hours per year (government lawyers)
IN RE: EDILLON (1978)
IBP is the regulatory mechanism of lawyers in the
Philippines. As such, its mandatory nature is not
unconstitutional
Issue: W/N the mandatory membership in the IBP is
unconstitutional → NO
Court:
• IBP = regulatory mechanism of lawyers in the
Philippines
• IBP = investigates and recommends (lawyers)
• IBP = not just an association
• SC itself cannot investigate all complaints against
lawyers
IN RE: IBP ELECTIONS (1989)
The IBP is under SC’s supervision. As such, it can
nullify elections and change the rules
Facts: There were prohibited campaigning activities and
solicitation of votes done by the candidates.
Court: Nullified the elections. The court has the power to
do so because it exercises control over the IBP.
Solution:
1. SC put the IBP under their direct supervision. J
Capunan to the interim president of IBP
2. Changed the governance structure of IBP
3. All governors will get a chance to be president
(rotational)
4. SC can put IBP under its supervision and change
the rules
What happens to the other bar associations?
VOLUNTARY STATUS
9. LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO THE UNDERPRIVILEGED
Legal assistance/ legal aid office
Q. REPORT ON THE JUDICIARY
The Court reports to congress annually regarding the
highlights, how many cases were decided, new rules and
doctrines, etc.
65
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
3. LOWER COURTS
A. QUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT
Judges of lower courts are screened by the JBC and
appointed by the president; their tenure is until they are 70
years old unless they become incapacitated.
B. TENURE
DE LA LLANA V. ALBA (1983)
An abolition of office, done in good faith, is not a
method to violate a judge’s security of tenure
Facts: Congress passed BP 129 or the judicial
reorganization law. The petitioners were contending that
the law was unconstitutional because it violates the
security of tenure as a lot of judges were dismissed from
service.
Court: the law is VALID. Reorganization merely changed
the name of the courts. The law even created new courts.
There was no violation of their security of tenure because
most of the judges were later on re-appointed. There
would only be a violation of their security of tenure if they
are terminated without just cause.
Additional notes:
• BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act) - during
Martial Law
• Similar to being removed
• Abolition of office - done in good faith = no
violation of security of tenure
• Most of the judges were re-appointed; except
those with pending cases
• Created more vacancies
4. THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
They recommend nominees to the president/ not barred by
the election ban because it is not merely a power but also a
duty
Based on: qualification (competence, integrity, probity,
independence)
Commission on Appointment: for confirmation
• Act on it by confirming or rejecting
• Not to act = as if they have consented it
Ex-officio members:
1. Chief Justice (Chairman)
2. Secretary of Justice
3. One representative of Congress
Regular members:
4. Representative of the Integrated Bar
5. Professor of law
6. Retired member of the SC
7. Representative of the private sector
Secretary ex-officio: Clerk of Court
CHAVEZ V. JBC (2013)
The Congress cannot have 2 representatives to the
JBC (one for the Senate and one for the House)
Issue: W/N the old practice of the Congress of having 2
representatives in the JBC with .5 vote each is valid → NO
Court:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - MUYOT
• Congress as co-equal representative (not there
for legislative function per se
• Verba legis – 1 representative only
• If you split the vote = tie - hence, odd number
• Solution: Chair on the Committee on Justice
• Senate = 1st half; HOR = 2nd half
JARDALEZA V. SERENO (2014)
The SC has the supervisory power to make sure that
JBC is following its own rules
Facts:
• JBC can provide for a well-defined procedure for
the nomination
• Issues:
o Legal strategy (international arbitration =
west philippine sea; did not assert rights of
the PH over certain islands; will just make
more enemies; case against china, islands
taiwan; carpio - all islands),
o Adultery (moral character; just an allegation
- no evidence; knowledge: spouse),
o Insider trading (VP legal counsel, san
miguel corp; knowledge: corporation)
• If one questions integrity unanimous instead of
majority vote = veto power (invalid)
Court:
The JBC committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding
Jardeleza from the shortlist of nominees, in violation of its
own rules.
• The "unanimity requirement" provided under
Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 does not ??nd
application when a member of the JBC raises an
objection to an applicant's integrity. Here, the
lone objector constituted a part of the
membership of the body set to vote. The lone
objector could be completely capable of taking
hostage the entire voting process by the mere
expediency of raising an objection. Chief Justice
Sereno's interpretation of the rule would allow a
situation where all that a member has to do to
veto other votes, including majority votes, would
be to object to the qualification of a candidate,
without need for factual basis.
Jardaleza got 4 votes (majority), so JBC should apply
its own rule, submit the list with Jardaleza
If Jardaleza got less than 4 votes:
JBC-010, Section 1 (2) of which provides for a 10-day
period from the publication of the list of candidates within
which any complaint or opposition against a candidate
may be ??led with the JBC Secretary; 6] Section 2 of JBC-
010 requires complaints and oppositions to be in writing
and under oath, copies of which shall be furnished the
candidate in order for him to file his comment within five
(5) days from receipt thereof; and 7] Sections 3 to 6 of
JBC-010 prescribe a logical, reasonable and sequential
series of steps in securing a candidate's right to due
process.
• TL;DR: give him the 5 days!
• no details of the objection
• due process not provided
66
PART IV (3 BRANCHES) – C: JUDICIARY
VILLANUEVA V. JBC (2015)
The additional 5-year requirement is reflective of the
Constitutional requirement of proven competence for
judges
Issue: W/N the additional 5-year requirement for the
promotion to second-level court for a judge is
unconstitutional (adding to what the Constitution provides)
→ NO
Court:
• +5 years for those already in the first-level courts
• JBC has power to set standards
• Proven competence -> section 7(3)
• 5 years = experience
• The equal protection clause of the Constitution
does not require the universal application of the
laws to all persons or things without distinction;
what it requires is simply equality among equals
as determined according to a valid classification.
Hence, the Court has affirmed that if a law neither
burdens a fundamental right nor targets a
suspect class, the classification stands as long as
it bears a rational relationship to some legitimate
government end.
AGUINALDO V. AQUINO (2016)
JBC cannot cluster the nominees that the President
will choose from
Facts: Clustering of nominees for the Sandiganbayan
vacancies (6 vacancies; 37 nominees)
Court:
• Could influence the selection process
• (1) President not given full discretion; and (2)
deprived of determination for seniority
• The JBC cannot corral the discretion of the
President to appoint, a core constitutional
prerogative, by designating qualified nominees
within specific, artificial numerical categories and
forcing the President to appoint in accordance
with those artificial numerical categories
How should the JBC submit the nominees of the
Sandiganbayan?
Just a plain list, at least 18 and up to the number of those
who got 4 votes
Can the president ask for the list of all who were ranked
and appoint someone who only got 1 vote?
• Is there anything from the Constitution that prohibits
the President from appointing someone who only
got 1 vote?
• Provided in the JBC rules, but not in the Constitution
5. AUTOMATIC RELEASE OF APPROPRIATION FOR
THE JUDICIARY