CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CASE DIGEST

Title: Adm. Case No. 133 Macariola vs. Asuncion, May 31, 1982

Facts:

The Judge was charged with violating Art. 14 of the code of commerce because there
was a curtain casse involving a land dispute. The land 1184-E was included in the case was
later on acquired by his wife and later on acquired by him and sold to Dr. Galapon, so they
alleged judge asuncion that he violates Article 1491 of the New Civil Code when he acquired by
purchase portion of a lot and Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, the Civil Service Rules because of provision that prohibits public officers from
engaging in any business.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not he violated article 1491 of the New Civil Code when he acquired by
purchase portion of a lot No. 1184-E which was one of those properties involved in Civil
Case No. 3010.
(2) Whether or not he violated Art. 14 of the code of commerce

Ruling:

(1) There is no merit in the contention of complainant that respondent Judge Elias B.
Asuncion violated Article 1491, paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code in acquiring by
purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was one of those properties involved in Civil
Case No. 3010. When the respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of
Lot 1184-E, the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was
already final because none of the parties therein filed an appeal. However, He should be
reminded of Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics
(2) When there is a change of sovereignty from Spanish to US the Art. 14 is automatically
abrogated.

CASE DIGEST

Title: Santiago vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 127325. March 19, 1997

Facts:

Delfin filed with the Comelec a petition for the amendment of the Constitution to lift terms
through people's initiative based on Art. 17 sec. 2 of Philippine Constitution. Then Comelec
issued an order directing the publication of the petition and notice of hearing. The petitioners
Sen. Santiago, Padilla, Ongpin filed a civil action for the prohibition of rule 65 of the rules of
court.(1) The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the constitution can only be
implemented by law to be passed byCongress. No such law has been passed; (2) The people’s
initiative is limited to amendments to theConstitution, 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.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not Section 2 of the Art. 17 of 1987 Philippine Constitution is a self-executing
(2) Whether or not the Comelec Res. No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on the
amendments of Constitution is valid considering no law had been passed or specific
provision on such initiative.
(3) Whether or not lifting the term of elective officials would constitute a revision or
amendment

Ruling:

(1) Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory. While the Constitution
has recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for
whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation. There is, of course, no other
better way for Congress to implement the exercise of the right than through the passage
of a statute or legislative act.
(2) 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 Republic
Act No. 6735.
(3) A revision cannot be done by initiative.

CASE DIGEST

Title: Lambino vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174153. October 25, 2006.

Facts:

Lambino and Aumentado, together with 6,327,952 registered voters, filed a petition
seeking to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution through people's initiative. The petitions
several amendments including conversion of the Philippines into federal state. Comelec denied
the petition on the ground that it did not comply with the requirements for a valid people’s
initiative.
Issue:

Whether or not the petition for people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Philippine
Constitution was valid.

Ruling:

The petition for people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution was not valid. The
petitioner failed to comply the requirements for a valid people’s initiative. set forth in the R.A.
6735 (the initiative and referendum Act). Specifically the petition did not contain the required
number of signature and the petitioner did not follow the proper procedure for verifying the
signature.

The court also ruled that the proposed amendments, including the conversion of the Philippines
into federal state, involves amendments to the constitution “substantive provisions” which
cannot be amended through people’s initiative. Thus, the SC ruled against the petitioners and
upheld the comelec’s denial of the petition for people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.