Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Student Name: BhoXz_Daryl@21

Class Schedule: Wednesday / 5-9 p.m.
Professor: Atty. Jaliel Basay

COURSE OUTLINES

 First Meeting
 Date: July 19
 Topics
1. What is Political Law?
The branch of public law deals with the organization and operation of the governmental organs of the
state and defines the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory. (People vs. Perfecto, 43
Phil. 887, 897 [1922])

- Public law is understood as dealing with matters affecting the state, the act of state agencies, and the
protection of state interests.
- Private law deals with the regulation of the conduct of private individuals in their relationship with
one another.
- As thus conceived, public law consists of political law, criminal law, and public international law.
Private law includes civil and commercial law.

2. Subjects under Political Law

a. Law of public administration
i. Public administration has to do with the practical management and direction of the
various organs of the State and the execution of state policies by the executive and
administrative officers entrusted with such functions.
b. Constitutional law
i. Constitutional law is a body of rules resulting from the interpretation by a high court of
cases in which the validity, in relation to the constitutional instrument, of some act of
government…has been challenged. (Bernas Commentary xxxviii)
c. Administrative law
i. body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government.
d. Law of public corporations
i. Public corporation law is created to govern the actions and activities of public
corporations created by a state to execute public missions and services.

3. Constitution Defined
a. Comprehensive Definition: That body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers
of sovereignty are habitually exercised.1 (Cooley)

b. American sense: A constitution is a written instrument by which the fundamental powers of

government are established, limited, and defined and by which these powers are distributed
among several departments, for their more safe and useful exercise, for the benefit of the body
politic. (Justice Miller quoted by Bernas)

c. Constitution is a municipal law. As such, it is binding only within the territorial limits of the
sovereignty promulgating the constitution.

4. Fundamental Purpose of the Constitution

1
 a. To prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign to the several
departments their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain first principles on which
the government is founded.2 (11 Am. Jur. 606 cited in Cruz)
b. It establishes the Philippines' government's structure, policies, roles, and duties.

5. Effectivity of 1987 Constitution

a. Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution: February 2, 1987

6. Status of Prior Law and International Agreements.

a. Sec. 3, Article 18 – Transitory Provisions provides that all existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this
Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.
b. Sec. 4, Art. 18-Transit prescribes that all existing treaties or international agreements which have
not been ratified shall not be renewed or extended without the concurrence of at least two-
thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

7. Amendments and Revisions

a. Amendments vs. Revision as discussed in the case of Lambino vs. Comelec (GR. No. 174153, Oct.
25, 2006)
i. Revision broadly implies a change that alters the basic principles of the Constitution or a
change that alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution. It affects several
provisions of the Constitution.
ii. Amendment refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic
principles involved. It affects only the specific provision being amended.

b. The Two-Part test

i. Qualitative Test
 which inquire into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the
Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will “accomplish such far-
reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to
a revision.”
ii. Quantitative Test
 asks whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provision as to
change directly the “substance entirety” of the Constitution by the deletion or
provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change.

Note: The Lambino proposal constituted a revision, not simply an amendment, of the
Constitution, because it involved a change in the form of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and a shift from the present bicameral to a unicameral legislature.

c. Process of Revisions and Amendments

i. What is involved in the amendments or revision of the Constitution?
 First is the proposal and the second is ratification.
ii. Steps in Revising the Constitution
 Proposal
a. Constitutional Conventions
b. Constituent Assembly
 Ratification
iii. Steps in Amending the Constitution
 Proposal
a. Constituent Assembly

2
 b. Constitutional Convention
c. People’s Initiative

 By Congress as a Constituent Assembly (Con-Ass)

a. A Constituent assembly is composed of all members of the bicameral
Philippine Congress (Senate and the House of Representatives). It is
convened by Congress to propose amendments to the 1987
constitution. Under Article XVII of the Constitution of the Philippines,
amendments pass upon a vote of three-fourths of all members of
Congress, but it is not clear if Congress should vote as a single body or
as separate Houses. The convention of Congress into a Constituent
Assembly is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution.

 By Constitutional Convention (Con- Con)

a. Article XV of the Constitution provides: The Congress in joint session
assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the
Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may
propose amendments to this Constitution or call a contention for that
purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution
when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which
the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification.
From our viewpoint, the provisions of Article XV of the Constitution
are satisfied so long as the electorate knows that R. B. H. No. 3 permits
Congressmen to retain their seats as legislators, even if they should
run for and assume the functions of delegates to the Convention.

 By the People through initiative

a. In Santiago v COMELEC9, R.A. No. 6735 intended to include the
System of Initiative on Amendments to the Constitution, but is,
inadequate and incomplete to cover that system because it does not
contain any implementation process for Amendments to the
Constitution and merely mentions it.This law cannot use the rules and
regulations of COMELEC Resolution No.2300 to compensate for this
b. Moreover, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, insofar as it prescribes rules
and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, is void. COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and
regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system
of initiative. It does not have that power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance
on the COMELEC‘s power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the
Constitution is therefore misplaced.
c. See also R.A. No. 6735, August 4, 1989.

d. Judicial Reviews of Amendments and Revisions

 Judicial review refers to the power of the courts to test the validity of governmental acts
in light of their conformity with a higher norm (e.g. the constitution).

Case Digest:
Imbong Vs. ComElec (GR. No. L-32432, Sept. 11, 1970)
i. Manuel Imbong, petitioner, vs. Jaime Ferrer, as Chairman of the ComElec, Lino M. Patao
and Cesar Milaflor, as member thereof.
ii. Raul Gonzales, petitioner vs. COMELEC, respondents. (GR. No. L-32443, Sept. 11, 1970)
iii. In the Matter of a petition for declaratory Judgement regarding the validity of R.A. No.
6132, otherwise known as the Constitutional Convention Act of 1970
iv. Rullings: The prayers ib both petitions for declaratory belief are denied, and RA. 6132
including Sec. 3,4,5 and 8a, Par.1 cannot be declared unconstitutional, without cost.
a) FACTS

 Petitioners Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, both interested in running as candidates in the 1971
Constitutional Convention, filed separate petitions for declaratory relief, impugning the
constitutionality of RA 6132, claiming that it prejudices their rights as candidates.
 Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, pursuant to Art. 15 of the Constitution passed Resolution
No.2, in March 16, 1967 which called for the Constitutional Convention to propose Constitutional
amendments. After its adoption, Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A. 4914
implementing said resolution, restating entirely the provisions of said resolution.
 Thereafter, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4 amending the
Resolution No. 2 by providing that ―xxx any other details relating to the specific apportionment of
delegates, election of delegates to, and the holding of the Constitutional Convention shall be
embodied in an implementing legislation xxx.
 On August 24, 1970, Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A. 6132, implementing
Resolution Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly repealing R.A. 4914.

b) ISSUE:
 May Congress in acting as a legislative body enact R.A.6132 to implement the resolution passed by it
in its capacity as a Constituent Assembly?
 WON.. the assailed sections (2,3,4, and 8a) of RA 6132 constitutional.?

c) HELD:
 YES. The Court declared that while the authority to call a Constitutional Convention is vested by the
Constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting as a constitutional assembly, the power to enact
the implementing details or specifics of the general law does not exclusively pertain to Congress, the
Congress in exercising its comprehensive legislative power (not as a Constitutional Assembly) may
pass the necessary implementing law providing for the details of the Constitutional Conventions, such
as the number, qualification, and compensation of its member.
 The reasons cited by the Court in upholding the constitutionality of the enactment of R.A. 6132 are as
follows:
i. Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Article XV of the Constitution
has authority to propose constitutional amendments or call a convention for the
purpose by ¾ votes of each house in joint session assembled but voting separately.
ii. Such grant includes all other powers essential to the effective exercise of the principal
power by necessary implication.
iii. Implementing details are within the authority of the Congress not only as a Constituent
Assembly but also in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power which
encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary implication withdrawn or
removed by the Constitution from the ambit of legislative action so long as it does not
contravene any provision of the Constitution; and
iv. Congress as a legislative body may thus enact necessary implementing legislation to fill
in the gaps, which Congress as a Constituent Assembly has omitted.
  The court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 4, and Sec. 8a citing that this is a mere application
of and in consonance with the prohibition in Sec. 2 of Art. 11 of the constitution and likewise do not
constitute a denial of due process or of equal protection of the law.

 The challenged disqualification prescribed in Sec. 5 of RA 6132 is a valid limitation on the right to
public office pursuant to state police power as it is reasonable and arbitrary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997)

A. FACTS:
 Pro respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action
(PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective
officials, through People’s Initiative.
 He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the
people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the
COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and
thereafter set the case for hearing.
 At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law
Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco filed a
motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC.
 The petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin, filed this civil action for
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several
arguments, such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the
constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed; (2)
The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the
term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. The Supreme
Court granted the Motions for Intervention.

B. ISSUES:
 Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.
 Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such
initiative.
 Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an amendment of the
Constitution

C. HELD:
 No. Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory, thus, without implementing legislation the
same cannot operate. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the right, the people cannot
exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation.

 No. The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct
of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void. It has been an established rule that what has
been delegated, cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). The delegation of the power
to the COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the
exercise of the right to people’s initiative.

 Yes. The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it would affect other provisions of the
Constitution such as the synchronization of elections, the constitutional guarantee of equal access to
opportunities for public service, and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision cannot be done by initiative.
 However, considering the Court’s decision in the above Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is a
revision or amendment has become academic

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lambino Vs. Comelec Case Digest G.R. No. 174153
Lambino VS. ComeleC
G.R. No. 174153
OCt. 25 2006
FaCtS: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to
change the 1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will
ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support
of 6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the
1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18.
the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral- presidential form of government to
unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governing
initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to
implement the initiative petitions.
ISSue:
Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complie s with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative.
Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete,
inadequate or wanting in essential terms an d conditions” to implement the initiative clause on
proposals to amend the Constitution.
Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the
Lambino Group’s petition.
Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for
conducting a people’s initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of discretion
on dismissing the Lambino petition.
1.
The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct
Proposal by the People
The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time of the
signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which renders the
initiative void.
2.
The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through
Initiatives
The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between “amendment” and “revision, it is
intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose only
amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change,
therefore a constitutes a revision.
3.
A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary
Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the present petition
violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply with the constitution before complying
with RA 6735
Petition is dismissed
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006, CARPIO, J.

Two essential elements must be present: the people must author and sign the entire proposal and it must be
embodied in a petition. These are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the
people who express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is “directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” only if the people sign on a petition that contains the
full text of the proposed amendments.
FACTS:
2. On Feb. 15, 2006, Lambino Group, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the
1987 Constitution.
3. The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article
VI (Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department)5 and by adding Article
XVIII entitled "Transitory Provisions."6 These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential
system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
4. They filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Sec
5(b) and (c) and Sec 7 of RA No. 6735. They alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952
individuals constituting at least 12% of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at
least 3% of its registered voters.
5. On Aug. 31, 2006, COMELEC denied the petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to
amend the Constitution citing the court’s ruling on Santiago vs. Commission on Elections declaring RA.
6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the constitution.
6. Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and mandamus to set aside the COMELEC
Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel the COMELEC to give due course to their initiative petition.
They contend that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to their
petition since Santiago is not a binding precedent. Alternatively, they also claim that Santiago binds only
the parties to that case, and their petition deserves cognizance as an expression of the "will of the
sovereign people.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.

2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate or
wanting in essential terms and conditions" to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Constitution; and

3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino
Group's petition.

RULING:

There is no merit for the petition.

The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a
people's initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based
alone on the Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution. For
following the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the Commision on Elections.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct
Proposal by the People

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a people's
initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This section states:

a. Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
 b. The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a
petition" is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. An initiative signer
must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed" and
failure to do so is "deceptive and misleading" which renders the initiative void.

c. On September 26, 2006 , The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition, a copy of
the paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. They’ve only submitted a copy of a
signature sheet after the oral arguments. The signature sheet merely asks a question whether
the people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary
system of government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the
proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet.

d. The inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to the 6.3 million
signatories the full text of the proposed changes.

e. In short, the Lambino Group's initiative is void and unconstitutional because it dismally fails to
comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution that the initiative must
be "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition."

2. 2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through
Initiatives

A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution and not
to its revision. In contrast, Congress or a constitutional convention can propose both amendments and
revisions to the Constitution.

Lambino Group's initiative is a revision and not an amendment. Thus, the present initiative is void and
unconstitutional because it violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution limiting the scope of a
people's initiative to "[A]mendments to this Constitution."

3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the basic requirements of Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and scope of a people's initiative to amend the
Constitution. this Court must decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not
comply with the requirements of the Constitution to implement the initiative clause on amendments to
the Constitution.

4. The COMELEC Did Not Commit Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissing the Lambino Group's Initiative

In dismissing the Lambino Group's initiative petition, the COMELEC en banc merely followed this Court's
ruling in Santiago and People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v.
COMELEC.52 For following this Court's ruling, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the COMELEC.
On this ground alone, the present petition warrants outright dismissal.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153

NO. The framers intended that the “draft of the proposed constitutional amendment” should be “ready and
shown” to the people “before” they sign such proposal, before they sign there is already a draft shown to them
and that the people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must “prepare that proposal and
pass it around for signature.”The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon
a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. Two essential elements must be
present: the people must author and sign the entire proposal andit must be embodied in a petition. These are
present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by
signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is “directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition” only if the people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed
amendments. The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or
attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state such fact. This is an assurance that every one of the several
millions of signatories had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing. Otherwise, it is physically
impossible to prove.
The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition, a copy of the paper that the people signed as their
initiative petition. The Lambino Group submitted a copy of a signature sheet after the oral arguments. The
signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the
Unicameral-Parliamentary system of government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the
proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet. Clearly, the signature sheet is not the
“petition” that the framers of the Constitution envisioned when they formulated the initiative clause in Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution.
Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence that the proposed amendment must be incorporated with, or
attached to, the initiative petition signed by the people. In the present initiative, the Lambino Group’s proposed
changes were not incorporated with, or attached to, the signature sheets. The Lambino Group’s citation of Corpus
Juris Secundum pulls the rug from under their feet. With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be
physically impossible for all or a great majority of the 6.3 million signatories to have seen the petition before they
signed the signature sheets. The inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to the 6.3 million
signatories the full text of the proposed changes. If ever, not more than one million signatories saw the petition
before they signed the signature sheets