reviewer bor

8/6/2019 Reviewer BOR

1/25

REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW

A. Definition and Division of Political Law

Political Law is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the

governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory.

a. Constitutional Law

b. Administrative lawc. Election Law

d. Law of Public Officers

e. Law on Municipal Corporations

In case of Macariola vs. Asuncion, the court says ; Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to theUnited States and later on from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of thisCode of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty,

the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are

automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

Likewise, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges from engaging in commerce is, asheretofore stated, deemed abrogated automatically upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to America,

because it is political in nature.

B. Definition of Constitutional Law

Constitutional Law may be defined as that branch of Public Law which treats of constitution, their nature,formation, amendment, and interpretation.

It refers to the law embodied in the Constitution as well as the principles growing out of theinterpretation and application made by the courts of the provisions of the Constitution in specific cases. Thus,

the Philippine Constitution itself is brief but the law of the Constitution lies scattered in thousands of SupremeCourt decisions.

Distinguished Constitutional Law from Political Law

Political Law deals specifically with the study of the structure and powers of our government.

Constitutional Law is one of the division of Political Law that defines the specific duties and

responsibilities of our government together with their privileges and rights and as a fundamental or supreme

law of the land, it enumerates the rights of every citizens with their corresponding functions where the

sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

C. Constitution (1987 Constitution)

a. Definition

Constitution - define as the supreme law of the land and established by the people which prescribes the

permanent framework of the system of government, which establishes basic principles upon which thegovernment founded, and which defines and allocates to the various organs of government their respective

powers and duties.

Social Contract Theory People entrust their rights to the government. The government in return does their

part and gives the people what due to them.

b. Function

(1) Serves as the supreme or fundamental law

(2) Establishes basic framework and underlying principles of government


2/25

(3) Defines and allocates to the various organs of government their respective powers and duties.

c. Classification

A Constitution may be written or unwritten, conventional or cumulative, and rigid or flexible.

(i) Written is one which has been given definite written form at a particular time.

(ii) Unwritten is one which has not been reduced to writing at any specific time but it is the collective

product of a gradual political development, consisting of unwritten usages and customary rules, judicial decisions, and legislative enactments of a fundamental character written but scattered invarious records without having any compact form in writing.

(iii) Conventional enacted deliberately and consciously by a constituent body or ruler, at a certaintime and place.

(iv) Cumulative is a product of gradual political development.(v) Rigid is one which can be amended through a formal and difficult process.

(vi) Flexible is one which can be changed by ordinary legislation.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is a written, conventional and rigid Constitution.

d. Essential Qualities of a Written Constitution

(i) As to form, a good written constitution should be:

Brief because if a constitution is too detailed, it would lose the advantage of a fundamental law which

in a few provisions outlines the government of the whole state and the rights of the citizens. Broad- because a statement of the powers and functions of government , and of the relations between the

governing body and the governed, requires that it be as comprehensive as possible. Definite- because otherwise the application of its provisions to concrete situations may prove unduly

difficult if not impossible.

(ii) As to contents, it should contain at least three sets of provisions;

Constitution of Government

Constitution of Liberty Constitution of Sovereignty

e. Parts of a Constitution

f. Interpretation of the Constitution

In Francisco vs House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, The Supreme Court ruled that;

The separation ofpowers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not throughexpress provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive

cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow fromthe 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 ofchecks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. And

the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in theexercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative

of the Constitution.

The Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress.Instead, it provided for certain well-defined limits, or "judicially discoverable standards" for determining thevalidity of the exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review. There is indeed a plethora of

cases in which this Court exercised the power of judicial review over congressional action. Finally , there existsno constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings

would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily,the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and"one section is not to be allowed to defeat another."Both are integral components of the calibrated system of


3/25

independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government act beyond the powers assigned toit by the Constitution.

g. Supremacy of the Constitution

The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons ,

including the highest official of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if itconflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain Supreme. All must bow to mandate of

this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude.

In case of Mutuc vs COMELEC;

I ssue: Whether the taped jingles fall under the phrase and the like.

Held: Under the well-known principle ofejusdem generis, the general words following any enumeration are

applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those specifically referred to. It is quite apparent that whatwas contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred to as a means of inducement to

obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its distribution. The Constitutional Convention Actcontemplated the prohibition on the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred to as a means of inducement to

obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its distribution (distribution of electoral propagandagadgets, mention being made of pens, lighters, fans, flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas,

shirts, hats, matches, and cigarettes, and concluding with the words and the like.). Taped jingles thereforewere not prohibited.

NOTE: Ejusdem-Generis - Latin: of the same kind. A rule of statutory construction, generally accepted byboth state and federal courts, "that where general words follow enumerations of particular classes or persons or

things, the general words shall be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature orkind as those enumerated

INCUSTODIA LEGIS. In the custody of the law. In general, when things are in custodia legis, they cannot be

distrained, nor otherwise interfered with by custodia legis, they cannot be distrained, nor otherwise interferedwith by a private person.

In case of Alih vs Castro; The Supreme Court declared those seized in custodia legis and declared that the

operation conducted by Maj. Gen. Castro was ILLEGAL. The respondents have all the time to obtain a searchwarrant granted that they have about 10 trial courts. The SC also held the protection of the petitioner's human

rights as stated in Art IV Sec 3 and 4 of the 1973 Constitution regarding illegal search and seizure. The presumption of innocence of the petitioners should be observed and that they cannot be subjected to self-

incriminating instances like paraffin tests, photographing and finger printing.

In this case, "The Constitution is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the

shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving morepernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspendedduring any of the great exigencies of government."

In case of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS; In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains toheritage. When the Constitution speaks ofnational patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the

Philippines, as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources , but also to the culturalheritage of the Filipinos. It also refers to Filipinos intelligence in arts , sciences and letters. In the present case,

Manila Hotel has become a landmark, a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively anAmerican hotel when it first opened in 1912, a concourse for the elite, it has since then become the venue of

various significant events which have shaped Philippine history. In the granting of economic rights, privileges,

and concessions, especially on matters involving national patrimony, when a choice has to be made between aqualified foreigner and a qualified Filipino, the latter shall be chosen over the former.

A provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enablinglegislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or

protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of theright conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined

by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred


4/25

to the legislature for action. In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may still enact legislationto facilitate the exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the operation of such a provision,

prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for the protection of the rightssecured or the determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the right. The mere

fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the violation of a self-executingconstitutional provision does not render such a provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. The

omission from a constitution of any express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is notnecessarily an indication that it was not intended to be self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing provision

of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any legislation must be inharmony with the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right and make it more available.

II. AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE XVII

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:

(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or

(2) A constitutional convention.

Section 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.

No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this

Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention,

or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such aconvention.

A. Amendment vs Revision

Amendment is a change or alteration for the better; an amendment or change within the lines of the original

instrument which will bring about improvement

Revision is the rewriting or overhauling of the entire instrument.

B. Proposal is the motion of initiating suggestions or proposals on amendment or revision, which may either

be by;

(a) Congress, upon vote of of all its members;

(b) Constitutional Convention

(c) The people thru initiative

In case ofSantiago vs COMELEC; R.A. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments tothe Constitution. Under the said law,initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND.

The people are not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the

Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws , ordinances, orresolutions." The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted , approved or rejected, amended orrepealed" denotes that R.A. No. 6735 excludes initiative on amendments to the Constitution.

Also, while the law provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum and for Local Initiative and

Referendum, no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This means that the main thrust of the lawis initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If R.A. No. 6735 were intended to fully provide for the

implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle


5/25

therefor, considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of thepeople to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national

and local laws.

While R.A. No. 6735 specially detailed the process in implementing initiative and referendum on national and

local laws, it intentionally did not do so on the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution.

In case of Lambino vs COMELEC;

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. This means two essential elements must be present.

First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their

behalf.

Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.

These essential elements 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. The full text of the proposedamendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition muststate the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the several millions of signatories to the

petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before not after signing.

Moreover, an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which isproposed and failure to do so is deceptive and misleading which renders the initiative void.

In the case of the Lambino Groups petition, theres not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the

proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposedchanges is attached to it. 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 notshow to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet. This

omission is fatal.

An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of the

proposed amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people. Thats whythe Constitution requires that an initiative must be directly proposed by the people x x x in a petition

meaning that the people must sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments. On sovital an issue as amending the nations fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed amendments

cannot be hidden from the people under a general or special power of attorney to unnamed , faceless, andunelected individuals.

C. Submission-

In case ofTolentino vs COMELEC; The Supreme Court held that in Section 1 of Article 15 , there should be

only one election or plebiscite for the ratification of all amendments the Convention may propose.

D. Ratification: Article 17 Section 4, Paragraphs 1 and 2

Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when

ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor

later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a

plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification

by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

E. The position of the Convention in our system of government


6/25

There are three theories on the relative position of the Constitutional Convention vis--vis the regulardepartment of the government.

The first, as announced in Loomis v. Jackson, holds that the constitutional constitution is supreme over the

other departments of the government because the powers it exercises are in the nature of sovereign powers. Thistheory is thus called the Theory of Conventional Sovereignty.

The second, as announced in Woods Appeal, considers the constitutional convention inferior to the other

departments of the government since it is merely a creation of the legislature.

The third, as announced in Frantz vs Autry, declares that as long as it exists and confines itself within the

sphere of its jurisdiction, the constitutional convention must be considered independent of and co-equal with theother departments of the government.

The third of these theories, which is the most popular, has been observed in our government since the case of

Mabanag vs. Vito.

III. History and Background

A. The Philippine Revolution and the Malolos Constitution

On June 29,1898,Gen, Aguinaldo established the Revolutionary Government replacing the Dictatorial

Government with himself as the President and a Congress whose function was advisory and ministerial.The decree making such change stated that the aims of the new government were to struggle for the

independence of the Philippines, until all nations including Spain will expressly recognize it, and toprepare the country for the establishment of a real Republic.

On September 15, 1898, revolutionary Congress of Filipino representatives met in Malolos,Bulacan at

the call of the Revolutionary Government. The Malolos Congress ratified on Sept. 29, 1898 the proclamation of Philippine Independence made by Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo in Kawit, Cavite on June

12,1898 and framed the so-called Malolos Constitution.This Constitution was the first democraticconstitution ever promulgated in the whole Asia. It established a free and independent Philippine

Republic. However, it was not recognized by the family of nations. It had short-lived.

B. The Organic Laws under the American Period

(1) Mckinleys Instructions (April 7, 1990)

President McKinley's instruction to the Philippine Commission in April 1900 directed that, "... Beginning with

the 1st day of September, 1900, the authority to exercise that part of the power of government in the PhilippineIslands which is of legislative nature, is to be transferred from the Military Governor to this commission." The

instruction also gave the Commission the power to appoint to officers under the judicial , educational, and civilservice systems and in the municipal and departmental governments. The instruction charged the Commission,

"... In all the forms of government and administrative provisions which they are authorized to proscribe, theCommission should bear in mind that the government which they are establishing is designed not for our

satisfaction, or for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace and prosperity of thepeople of the Philippine islands, and measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits,and even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of just and effective

government."

(2) The Spooner Amendment (1901)

The Army Appropriation Act, also known as the Spooner Amendment, is passed by the US Senate. It providesthat the US President governs the Philippines by the authority of Congress and not as Commander-in-Chief of

the Armed Forces, thereby formally ending the US military regime in the archipelago.

(3)The Philippine Bill of 1902, or the Cooper Act of July 1, 1902, provided for the retention of executive

powers of the Philippine Commission and the establishment of a bicameral Philippine Legislature. It providedfor the creation of the Philippine Assembly, a body that would share legislative powers with the Philippine

Commission and would function as the lower chamber of the proposed Philippine Legislature. It also provided


7/25

for a bill of rights for the Filipinos, and the appointment of two Filipino resident commissioners to represent thePhilippines in the United States Congress but without voting rights. On October 16, 1907, the first session of the

Philippine assembly opened, with an elected lower house and the Philippine Commission, previouslyestablished, as the upper house.

(4) The Philippine Autonomy Act or Jones Law

Statute announcing the intention of the United States government to withdraw their sovereignty over the

Philippine Islands as soon as a stable government can be established therein. The U.S. had acquired thePhilippines in 1898 as a result of the SpanishAmerican War; and from 1901 legislative power in the islands

had been exercised through a Philippine Commission effectively dominated by Americans. One of the mostsignificant sections of the Jones Act replaced the Commission with an elective Senate and , with minimum

property qualifications, extended the franchise to all literate Filipino males. The law also incorporated a bill ofrights.

C. Japanese Occupation

(1) The Philippine Executive Commission- a civil government composed of Filipinos was organized by themilitary forced of occupation. The commission exercised both the executive and legislative powers. The laws

enacted were, however, subject to the approval of the Commander-in-chief of the Japanese Forces.

(2) The Japanese-sponsored Republic of the Philippines was inaugurated with Jose Laurel as the President. Thesame as the Philippine Executive Commission. The ultimate source of its authority was the Japanese military

authority and government.

D. The 1935 Constitution

The original 1935 Constitution provided for unicameral National Assembly and the President was elected to a

six-year term without re-election. It was amended in 1940 to have a bicameral Congress composed of a Senateand House of Representatives, as well the creation of an independent electoral commission. The Constitution

now granted the President a four-year term with a maximum of two consecutive terms in office.

A Constitutional Convention was held in 1971 to rewrite the 1935 Constitution. The convention was stainedwith manifest bribery and corruption. Possibly the most controversial issue was removing the presidential term

limit so that Ferdinand E. Marcos could seek election for a third term, which many felt was the true reason forwhich the convention was called. In any case, the 1935 Constitution was suspended in 1972 with Marcos'

proclamation of martial law, the rampant corruption of the constitutional process providing him with one of hismajor premises for doing so.

In case ofMabanag vs Vito, the Court held;

It is a doctrine too well established to need citation of authorities that political questions are not within theprovince of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon

the courts by express constitutional or statutory provision. This doctrine is predicated on the principle of theseparation of powers, a principle also too well known to require elucidation or citation of authorities. If a

political question conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the political departments, a duly certified lawor resolution also binds the judges under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that respect. If ratification of an

amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has to be a political question. The twosteps complement each other in a scheme intended to achieve a single objective. It is to be noted that the

amendatory process as provided in section I of Article XV of the Philippine Constitution "consists of (only) twodistinct parts: proposal and ratification." There is no logic in attaching political character to one and withholding

that character from the other. Proposal to amend the Constitution is a highly political function performed by the

Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. Theexercise of this power is even in dependent of any intervention by the Chief Executive. If on grounds ofexpediency scrupulous attention of the judiciary be needed to safeguard public interest , there is less reason for

judicial inquiry into the validity of a proposal then into that of a ratification.


8/25

E. The 1973 Constitution

The 1973 Constitution, composed of a preamble and 17 articles, provides for the shift from presidential toparliamentary system of government. The Constitution vests the legislative power in the National Assembly. A

Prime Minister is elected from among the members of the National Assembly and serves as the head ofgovernment and commander-in-chief of the Philippine Armed Forces. A President is elected from among the

members of the National Assembly and serves as the symbolic head of state with a six-year term. The judicialpower is vested in the Supreme Court, composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Justices. The National Assembly

exercises the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the lower courts. All justices of theSupreme Court and judges of the lower courts are appointed by the Prime Minister. This Constitution retains the

independence of the Commission on Elections and establishes two independent Constitution al bodies [CivilService Commission and the Commission on Audit] as well as the National Economic Development Authority

[NEDA]. On 24 August 1970, Congress enacted RA No. 6132, otherwise known as the Constitution alConvention Act, for the purpose of convening a Constitution al Convention. The 320 delegates met from June

1971 until 30 November 1972, when they approved the draft of the new Charter. While in the process ofdrafting a new Constitution , President Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law on 21 September 1972. The

draft Constitution was submitted to the Citizen's Assemblies from January 10 to 17, 1973 for ratification. On 17January 1973 , President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the ratification of the Constitution

of the Republic of the Philippines. The above constitution was amended in 1976, 1980 and in 1981. There were

minor amendments done in 1984.

In case ofSanidad vs COMELEC;

The Constitutional Convention intended to leave to the President the determination of the time when he shallinitially convene the interim National Assembly, consistent with the prevailing conditions of peace and order in

the country. When the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention voted on the Transitory Provisions, they wereaware of the fact that under the same, the incumbent President was given the discretion as to when he could

convene the interim National Assembly. In sensu striciore, when the legislative arm of the state undertakes theproposals of amendment to a Constitution, that body is not in the usual function of lawmaking. It is not

legislating when engaged in the amending process. Rather, it is exercising a peculiar power bestowed upon it by

the fundamental charter itself. In the Philippines, that power is provided for in Article XVI of the 1973Constitution (for the regular National Assembly) or in Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions (for the interimNational Assembly). While ordinarily it is the business of the legislating body to legislate for the nation by

virtue of constitutional conferment, amending of the Constitution is not legislative in character. In politicalscience a distinction is made between constitutional content of an organic character and that of a legislative

character. The distinction, however, is one of policy, not of law. Such being the case, approval of the Presidentof any proposed amendment is a misnomer. The prerogative of the President to approve or disapprove applies

only to the ordinary cases of legislation. The President has nothing to do with proposition or adoption ofamendments to the Constitution.

F. The 1986 Provisional Constitution

The 1986 Provisional Constitution, popularly known as the Freedom Constitution, promulgated by PresidentCorazon C. Aquino on March 25, 1986, was a provisional constitution after a successful People Power

Revolution. Under the Freedom Constitution, executive and legislative powers are exercised by the President,and shall continue to exercise legislative powers until a legislature is elected and convened under a new

Constitution. Furthermore, the President is mandated to convene a Constitutional Commission tasked to draft anew charter.

(1)Snap Election

In the Philippines, the term "snap election" usually refers to the 1986 presidential election, where President

Ferdinand Marcos called elections earlier than scheduled, in response to growing social unrest. Marcos wasdeclared official winner of the election but was eventually ousted when it was alleged that he cheated in the

elections.

In the current constitution, a snap election will be held for the positions of president and vice president on

the condition that both positions are vacant, and outside the 90-day range of the next scheduled presidentialelection.


9/25

(2)The February 1986 Revolution(3)Proclamation No.1 , Feb. 25, 1986

Pres. Aquino declared that she and her vice-president were taking power in the name and by the will of

the Filipino People on the basis of the clear sovereign will of the people expressed in the election ofFeb. 7, 1986. In her oath, she swore to preserve and defend the fundamental law (not the

Constitution) and execute just laws ( instead of its laws).

(4)Proclamation No. 3, March 25, 1986

That the provisional government established thereunder was revolutionary in character having been

installed by direct action of the people or by people power, deriving its existence and authoritydirectly from the people themselves and not from the then operating 1973 Constitution.

G. The 1987 Philippine Constitution

(1) The Constitutional Commission of 1986

The 1987 Constitution was drafted by a Constitutional Commission created under Article V of

Proclamation No. 3 issued on March 25, 1986 which promulgated the Freedom Constitution through a directexercise of the power of the Filipino people.

(2) Proclamation No. 58 (Feb. 11, 1987)

(3) When Considered ratified?

Article 18 Section 27 (1987 Constitution)

This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a

plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.

The foregoing proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was approved by the

Constitutional Commission of 1986 on October 12, 1986 and accordingly signed on October 15, 1986 at

the Plenary Hall, National Government Center, Quezon City, by the Commissioners whose signatures are

hereunder affixed/

IV. JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review

In case of Angara vs Electoral Commission, the Court held that;

In case of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to

determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral orconstituent thereof.

In case ofFrancisco vs House of Representatives, the court ruled that;

The judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the

exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violativeof the Constitution.

B. Requisites of Judicial Review

There must be an actual case or controversy The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party.

The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case

itself.


10/25

Article 8 Sec.5, paragraph (2)

(1)Actual Case or Controversy- involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claimssusceptible of judicial resolution. A controversy must be the one that is appropriate for judicial

determination. It must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverselegal interests.

Prematurity

In the case of PACU vs. Secretary of Education the petition contesting the validity of a regulation issued by theSecretary of Education requiring private schools to secure a permit to operate was dismissed on the ground that

all the petitioners have permits and are actually operating under the same. The petitioners questioned theregulation because of the possibility that the permit might be denied them in the future. This Court held that

there was no justiciable controversy because the petitioners suffered no wrong by the implementation of thequestioned regulation and therefore, they are not entitled to relief. A mere apprehension that the Secretary of

Education will withdraw the permit does not amount to a justiciable controversy. The questioned regulation inthe PACU case may be questioned by a private school whose permit to operate has been revoked or one whose

application therefor has been denied.

NOTE: Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions. Courts will not pass upon the constitutionalityof a law upon the complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation.

In case of Mariano vs COMELECheld that the petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent

events, i.e., that MayorBinay will run again in this coming mayoralty elections; that he would be re-elected insaid elections; and that he would seek re-election for the same position in the 1998 elections. Considering that

these contingencies may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet toripen to an actual case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not also

the proper parties to raise this abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this futuristic issue in a petition for declaratoryrelief over which this Court has no jurisdiction.

The decided case ofCutaran vs DENR the court defined the word justiciable controversy Court cannot ruleon the basis of petitioners' speculation that the DENR will approve the application of the heirs of Carantes.

There must be an actual governmental act which directly causes or will imminently cause injury to the allegedright of the petitioner to possess the land before the jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked. There is no

showing that the petitioners were being evicted from the land by the heirs of Carantes under orders from theDENR;

A justiciable controversy has been defined as, "a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of

parties having adverse legal interest which may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a law.

Courts have no judicial power to review cases involving political questions and as a rule, will desist from

taking cognizance of speculative or hypothetical cases, advisory opinions and in cases that has become

moot. Subject to certain well-defined exceptions courts will not touch an issue involving the validity of a lawunless there has been a governmental act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse effect on the legalright of the person contesting its validity.

In the instant case ofMontecarlos vs COMELEC, there is no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of judicial review. Petitioners' prayer to prevent Congress from enacting into law a proposed bill

lowering the membership age in the SK does not present an actual justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is notsubject to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed bill creates no right and imposes no duty legally

enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty. TheCourt has no power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional because that would be in the

nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress. The power of judicial review cannot be

exercised in vacuo.22 The second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states

"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 graveabuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or

instrumentality of the Government."


11/25

Thus, there can be no justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill. The Court canexercise its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not before.

Mootness

In case ofGonzales vs Narvasa, that, with respect to the PCCR, this case has become moot and academic.

An action is considered moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues

involved have become academic or dead.

The PCCR submitted its recommendations to the President on December 20, 1999 and was dissolved by the

President on the same day. It had likewise spent the funds allotted to it. Thus, the PCCR has ceased to exist,having lost its raison detre. Subsequent events have overtaken the petition and the Court has nothing left to

resolve.

The staleness of the issue before us is made more manifest by the impossibility of granting the relief prayed

for by petitioner. Basically, petitioner asks this Court to enjoin the PCCR from acting as such. Clearly , prohibition is an inappropriate remedy since the body sought to be enjoined no longer exists. It is well

established that prohibition is a preventive remedy and does not lie to restrain an act that is already fait

accompli. At this point,

any ruling regarding the PCCR would simply be in the nature of an advisory opinion,which is definitely beyond the permissible scope of judicial power.

In case of Defunis vs Odegaard; DeFunis did not cast his suit as a class action, and the only remedy he

requested was an injunction commanding his admission to the Law School. He was not only accorded that

remedy, but he now has also been irrevocably admitted to the final term of the final year of the Law Schoolcourse. The controversy between the parties has thus clearly ceased to be "definite and concrete" and no

longer "touches the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests."

There is a line of decisions in this Court standing for the proposition that the "voluntary cessation of allegedly

illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i. e., does not make thecase moot." These decisions and the doctrine they reflect would be quite relevant if the question of mootness

here had arisen by reason of a unilateral change in the admissions procedures of the Law School. For it was theadmissions procedures that were the target of this litigation, and a voluntary cessation of the admissions

practices complained of could make this case moot only if it could be said with assurance "that `there is noreasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.'" Otherwise, "the defendant is free to return to his old

ways," and this fact would be enough to prevent mootness because of the "public interest in having the legalityof the practices settled." But mootness in the present case depends not at all upon a "voluntary cessation" of the

admissions practices that were the subject of this litigation. It depends, instead, upon the simple fact thatDeFunis is now in the final quarter of the final year of his course of study, and the settled and unchallenged

policy of the Law School to permit him to complete the term for which he is now enrolled.

Exceptions to Mootness

In case of Acop vs. Guingona, the court sayd that its necessary to resolve the merits of the principal issueraised for a proper disposition of prayer c) and for future guidance of both bench and bar as to the application ofSections 3(d) and 4 of R.A. No. 6981. As we have ruled in Alunan III vs. Mirasol , and Viola vs. Alunan III,

"courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is 'capable of repetition, yet evading

review.'"

In case of Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary; The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of

Proclamation No. 435, declaring that the state of rebellion has ceased to exist , has rendered the case moot. As arule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of "actual

controversies." Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is "capable of repetition yetevading review." The case at bar is one such case.

The same as in the case ofPimentel vs Ermita, the court held that as a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to

enjoin acts already done. However, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question

otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.


12/25

In the present case, the mootness of the petition does not bar its resolution. The question of the constitutionalityof the Presidents appointment of department secretaries in an acting capacity while Congress is in session will

arise in every such appointment.

2. Proper Party

In case ofJoya vs PCGG , THE COURT HELD THAT ONE HAVING NO RIGHT OR INTEREST TO

PROTECT CANNOT INVOKE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AS PART-PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION.

THIS IS PREMISED ON SEC. 2, RULE 3, OF THE RULES AND W/C PROVIDES THAT EVERY ACTION

MUST BE PROSECUTED AND DEFENDED IN THE NAME OF THE REAL PARTY INTEREST AND

THAT ALL PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTION AND IN OBTAINING

RELIEF AND SHALL BE JOINED AS PLAINTIFFS. THE COURT WILL EXERCISE ITS POWER OF

JUDICAL REVIEW ONLY IF THE CASE THAT A PARTY WHO HAS THE LEGAL STANDING TO

RAISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL QUESTION.

ANY CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT IN THEIR ACQUISITION AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT

DISPOSITION MUST BE RAISED ONLY BY THE PROPER PARTIES TRUE OWNERS THEREOF

WHOSE AUTHORITY TO RECOVER EMANATES FROM THEIR PROPRIETY RIGHTS. HAVING

FAILED TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE ARTWORK THAT THE

VALUED PISCES HAVE BECOME PULICLY OWNED, PETITIONERS DO NOT POSSESS ANY CLEAR

LEGAL RIGHT TO QUESTION THEIR ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSITION.

In case ofCHR Employees Assoc. vs CHR, the court held that; On petitioner's personality to bring this suit,which held in a multitude of cases that a proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of

sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of

Citizen Standing

In Taada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamusis to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real parties in interest; and

because it is sufficient that petitioner is a citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws , he need

not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result of the action.

In Chavez vs PEA, the Court ruled that since the instant petition, brought by a citizen, involves the

enforcement of constitutional rights - to information and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources -

matters of transcendental public importance, the petitioner has the requisite locus standi.

Associational Standing

In KMU Labor Center vs Garcia, the court held that; In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locusstandi, ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of planters, and

non-profit civic organizations were allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before this court to question

the constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies

or instrumentalities.

Court is ready to brush aside this barren procedural infirmity and recognize the legal standing of the

petitioner in view of the transcendental importance of the issues raised. And this act of liberality is not

without judicial precedent. As early as the Emergency Powers Cases, this Court had exercised its discretion

and waived the requirement of proper party.

In John Hay vs Lim, The court says; The grant by the law on local government units of the right of concurrence

on the bases' conversion is equivalent to vesting a legal standing on them, for it is in effect a recognition of the

real interests that communities nearby or surrounding a particular base area have in its utilization. Thus , the

interest of petitioners, being inhabitants ofBaguio, in assailing the legality of Proclamation 420, is personal and

substantial such that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the government act being

challenged." Theirs is a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the proclamation and not merely an


13/25

interest in the question involved or an incidental interest," for what is at stake in the enforcement of

Proclamation 420 is the very economic and social existence of the people ofBaguio City.

In the case ofKilosbayan, Inc., et al. v. Teofisto Guingona, Jr., et al., ruled in the same lines and enumeratedsome of the cases where the same policy was adopted, viz:

. . . A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of its

discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. In the landmark Emergency Powers

Cases, this Court brushed aside this technicality because "the transcendental importance to the public of

these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must,

technicalities ofprocedure." Insofar as taxpayers' suits are concerned, this Court had declared that it "is

not devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained," or that it "enjoys an open

discretion to entertain the same or not.

Taxpayers Standing

In ITF vs COMELEC, the court held that;The issues central to the case are "of transcendental importanceand of national interest." As alleged, Comelecs flawed bidding and questionable award of the Contract to an

unqualified entity would impact directly on the success or the failure of the electoral process. Any taint on thesanctity of the ballot as the expression of the will of the people would inevitably affect their faith in the

democratic system of government. Further, the award of any contract for automation involves disbursement of public funds are in gargantuan amounts; therefore, public interest requires that the laws governing thetransaction must be followed strictly. Truly, our nations political and economic future virtually hangs in the

balance, pending the outcome of the 2004 elections. Hence, there can be no serious doubt that the subject

matter of the case is "a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest"; in other words, it is of

"paramount public interest" and "transcendental importance." This fact alone would justify relaxing the

rule on legal standing, following the liberal policy of the Court whenever a case involves "an issue of

overarching significance to our society." ITF, et. al.s legal standing should therefore be recognized andupheld. Moreover, the Court has held that taxpayers are allowed to sue when there is a claim of "illegal

disbursement of public funds," or if public money is being "deflected to any improper purpose"; or when

petitioner(s) seek to restrain respondent(s) from "wasting public funds through the enforcement of an invalid orunconstitutional law."

In Jumamil vs Caf, The court defined the word locus standi and interest;

Legal standing or locus standi is a partys personal and substantial interest in a case such that he has sustainedor will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged. It calls for more than just a

generalized grievance. The term interest means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree,as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Unless a persons

constitutional rights are adversely affected by the statute or ordinance, he has no legal standing.

Voters Standing

In TOLENTINO VS COMELEC

Court Ruling:

"Legal standing" or locus standi refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has

sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged governmental act.

The requirement of standing, which necessarily "sharpens the presentation of issues," relates to the

constitutional mandate that this Court settle only actual cases or controversies

Thus, generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show that he has personally suffered

some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is

fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action.

In questioning, in their capacity as voters, the validity of the special election on 14 May 2001 , petitioners assert

a harm classified as a "generalized grievance." This generalized grievance is shared in substantially equal

measure by a large class of voters, if not all the voters, who voted in that election.


14/25

On the other hand, we have relaxed the requirement on standing and exercised our discretion to give due course

to voters' suits involving the right of suffrage

We accord the same treatment to petitioners in the instant case in their capacity as voters since they raise

important issues involving their right of suffrage, considering that the issue raised in this petition is likely to

arise again.

Legislative Standing

In Ople vs Torres

RULING:

PetitionerOple is a distinguished member of our Senate. As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the

requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A.O. No. 308 is a usurpation of

legislative power. As taxpayer and member of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can

also impugn the legality of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to implement A.O.

No. 308.

The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not affected by the fact that the implementing

rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. Petitioner Ople assails A.O. No. 308 as invalid per se

and as infirmed on its face. His action is not premature for the rules yet to be promulgated cannot

cure its fatal defects.

All signals from the respondents show their unswerving will to implement A.O. No. 308 and we need

not wait for the formality of the rules to pass judgment on its constitutionality. In this light, the

dissenters insistence that we tighten the rule on standing is not a commendable stance as its result

would be to throttle an important constitutional principle and a fundamental right.

GOVERNMENTAL STANDING:

In People vs Vera;

HELD: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City ofManila, is a proper party in the present proceedings. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the

validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or willsustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act 4221 really violates the

constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial

interest in having it set aside. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public

funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.

Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.

Facial Challenge

InEstrada vs Sandiganbayan, the court defined the face challenge;

A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because ofpossible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe

speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a singleprosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify

allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstratethat his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity." The possible harm to

society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that theprotected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory

effects of overly broad statutes.

This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting fromtheir very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented


15/25

from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chancesas in the area of free speech.

For this reason, it has been held that "a facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to

mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which theAct would be valid." As for the vagueness doctrine, it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face

only if it is vague in all its possible applications. "A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearlyproscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others."

3. Earliest Opportunity

4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions

In case of Arceta vs Mangrobang, the court held that; Every law has in its favor the presumption of

constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the

Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative. The Court examined the contentionsof Arceta and Dy carefully; but they still have to persuade us that BP 22 by itself or in its implementation

transgressed a provision of the Constitution. Even the thesis of Dy that the present economic and financial crisisshould be a basis to declare the Bouncing Checks Law constitutionally infirm deserves but scant consideration.

As stressed in Lozano, it is precisely during trying times that there exists a most compelling reason tostrengthen faith and confidence in the financial system and any practice tending to destroy confidence in checks

as currency substitutes should be deterred, to prevent havoc in the trading and financial communities. Further,while indeed the metropolitan trial courts may be burdened immensely by bouncing checks cases now, that fact

is immaterial to the alleged invalidity of the law being assailed. The solution to the clogging of dockets in lowercourts lies elsewhere.

Mandatory Notice

In case of Mirasol vs. C.A, the court held that;

(Notice to Solicitor General) of the Rules of Court provides that "in any action which involves the validity of a statute, or executive order or regulation, the Solicitor General shall be notified by the party attacking the

statute, executive order, or regulation, and shall be entitled to be heard upon such question."The purpose ofthe mandatory notice in Rule 64, Section 3 is to enable the Solicitor General to decide whether or not his

intervention in the action assailing the validity of a law or treaty is necessary. To deny the Solicitor Generalsuch notice would be tantamount to depriving him of his day in court. The mandatory notice requirement is not

limited to actions involving declaratory relief and similar remedies. The rule itself provides that such notice isrequired in "any action" and not just actions involving declaratory relief. Where there is no ambiguity in the

words used in the rule, there is no room for construction. In all actions assailing the validity of a statute , treaty,presidential decree, order, or proclamation, notice to the Solicitor General is mandatory.

C. FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

In case of Salonga vs Cruz-Pano, the court enumerates their functions for the judicial review;

The setting aside or declaring void, in proper cases, of intrusions of State authority into areas reserved by theBill of Rights for the individual as constitutionally protected spheres where even the awesome powers of

Government may not enter at will is not the totality of the Court's functions. The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. Ithas the symbolic

function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.

The fact that the petition was moot and academic did not prevent the Court in the exercise of its symbolic

function from promulgating one of the most voluminous decisions ever printed in the Reports. Herein, theprosecution evidence miserably fails to establish a prima facie case against Salonga, either as a co-conspirator

of a destabilization plan to overthrow the government or as an officer or leader of any subversive organization.The respondents have taken the initiative of dropping the charges against Salonga. The Court reiterates the rule,

however, that the Court will not validate the filing of an information based on the kind of evidence againstSalonga found in the records.

D. The Exercise of Judicial Review


16/25

In case ofYnot vs IAC, Under the provisiongranting the SC jurisdiction to "review, revise, reverse, modify oraffirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may provide final judgments of lower courts" in all

cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures, lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute inthe first instance.

E. Effect of Declaration ofUnconstitutionality

New Civil Code, Article 7

Laws are repealed only by the subsequent ones, and their violation or nonobservance shall not be excused

by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.

When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the

latter shall govern.

Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to

the laws or the Constitution.

In case ofSerrano de Agbayani vs PNB,

The decision reflects the orthodox view that an unconstitutional act, for that matter an executive order or amunicipal ordinance likewise suffering from that infirmity, cannot be the source of any legal rights or duties.

Nor can it justify any official act taken under it. Its repugnancy to the fundamental law once judicially declaredresults in its being to all intents and purposes a mere scrap of paper. As the new Civil Code puts it: "When the

courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the

laws of the Constitution. It is understandable why it should be so, the Constitution being supreme andparamount. Any legislative or executive act contrary to its terms cannot survive.

Such a view has support in logic and possesses the merit of simplicity. It may not however be sufficiently

realistic. It does not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative orexecutive act must have been in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after the judiciary, in an

appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and respect. Parties may have acted under itand may have changed their positions. What could be more fitting than that in a subsequent litigation regard be

had to what has been done while such legislative or executive act was in operation and presumed to be valid inall respects. It is now accepted as a doctrine that prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be

reckoned with. This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmentalorgan which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid , a period of time may

have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. Itwould be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had

transpired prior to such adjudication.

F. Partial Unconstitutionality

In caseSalazar vs Achacoso,

The decrees in question stand as the dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its twilight moments. Under the newConstitution, "no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined

personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses hemay produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. It is

only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest."Mayors may not exercise this power. Neither may itbe done by a mere prosecuting body. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or

arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. To that extent, the Court declareArticle 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect. For the guidance of the

bench and the bar, the COurt reaffirmed the principles that (1) Under Article III , Section 2 , of the 1987Constitution, it is only judges, and no other, who may issue warrants of arrest and search; and (2) The

exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissionerof Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation. Thus,

the Court herein granted the petition, declaring Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code unconstitutional and


17/25

null and void, and thus ordering the POEA to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation ofSearch and Seizure Order 1205.

V. THE STATE

A. Concept and Definition

State- is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed territory, and

possessed of an independent government organized for political ends to which the great body of inhabitantsrender habitual obedience.

NOTE: State is a legal concept, while the nation is only a racial or ethnic concept.

In case CIR vs Campos Rueda, the court held that; : If a foreign country is to be identified with a state, it isrequired in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically organizedsovereign community independent of

outside control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime of law. It is thus a sovereign person with the people composing it

viewed as an organized corporate society under a government with the legal competence to exact obedience toits commands. It has been referred to as a body-politic organized by common consent for mutual defense and

mutual safety and to promote the general welfare.

B. Territory

Definition: Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the State.

Components: land, mass, otherwise known as the terrestrial domain, the inland and external waters, which make

up the maritime and fluvial domain, and the air space above the land and waters, which is called the aerialdomain.

The Philippine Archipelago

ARTICLE I

NATIONAL TERRITORY

.

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 thePhilippines.

C. People

Definition: refers simply to the inhabitants of the State.

(a)As inhabitants

ARTICLE III

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any

person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable

searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable , and no search warrant orwarrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after

examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularlydescribing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

ARTICLE II


18/25

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousnessamong them.

Section 16. 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.

b. As Electors

ARTICLE VII

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six

years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall endat noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person

who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election tothe same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any

length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term forwhich he was elected.

Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on thesecond Monday of May.

The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each

province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt ofthe certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the

election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint publicsession, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner

provided by law, canvass the votes.

The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have

an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all theMembers of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and

qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

ARTICLE XVI

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal,

which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions of the people. Such law shalltake effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum.

ARTICLE XVIII

TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the

United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not beallowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so


19/25

requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose,and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

C. As citizens

ARTICLE II

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

PRINCIPLES

Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and allgovernment authority emanates from them.

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call uponthe people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions

provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.

ARTICLE III

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to

official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as togovernment research data used as basis for policy development , shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such

limitations as may be provided by law.

D. Government

Definition: is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and

realized.

Government of the Republic of the Philippines :

In case of People vs. Sandiganbayan; the law provides that the contribution by military officers and enlisted personnel to the System shall be compulsory. Its enabling law further mandates that the System shall be

administered by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines through an agency , group, committeeor board, which may be created and organized by him and subject to such rules and regulations governing the

same as he may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of National Defense , promulgate from time to time.Moreover, the investment of funds of the System shall be decided by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of

the Philippines with the approval of the Secretary of National Defense.

Constituent vs Ministrant Functions

Constituent functions constitute the very bonds of society and are therefore compulsory. Among the

constituent functions are the following;

1. The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence androbbery;

2. The fixing of the legal relations between husband and wife and between parents and children.3. The regulation of the holding, transmission and interchange of property, and the determination of its

liabilities for debt or crime;

4. The determination of contractual rights between individuals;5. The definition and punishment of crimes;6. The administration of justice in civil cases;

7. The administration of political duties, privileges and relations of citizens; and8. The dealings of the State with foreign powers; the preservation of the State from external danger or

encroachment and the advancement of its international interests.


20/25

Ministerial functions are those undertaken to advance the general interests of society, such as public works,public charity, and regulation of trade and industry. These functions are merely optional.

In case ofACCFA vs CUGCO;the court held;

The ACA is a government office or agency engaged in governmental, not proprietary functions. These functions

may not be strictly what President Wilson described as "constituent"(as distinguished from "ministrant"), suchas those relating to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of crime, those regulating property and

property rights, those relating to the administration of justice and the determination of political duties ofcitizens, and those relating to national defense and foreign relations. Under this traditional classification, such

constituent functions are exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty, and not merely to promote thewelfare, progress and prosperity of the people these latter functions being ministrant, the exercise of which is

optional on the part of the government.

PARENS PATRIAE

Definition: Guardian of the rights of the people.

In case ofGovernment of the Phil. Vs. Monte de Piedad, the court held the right of the government to file the

case for the State as parens patriae in representation of the legitimate claimants.

In Cabanas v Pilapil, the Supreme Court said;

the judiciary as the agency of the State acting as parens patriae, is called upon whenever a pending suit or

litigation affects one who is a minor to accord priority to his best interests. It may happen as it did in this case,that family relations may press their respective claims. It would be more in consonance not only with the

natural order of things but the tradition of the country for a parent to be preferred.

DE JURE GOVERNMENT/ CRITERIA FOR LEGITIMACY

A de jure government has rightful title but no power or control, either because this has been withdrawn from itor because it has not yet actually entered into exercises thereof.

DE FACTO GOVERNMENT

A de facto government is a government of fact, that is, it actually exercises power or control but without legaltitle.

KINDS of de facto government;

1. The government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority,

the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter, such as the government ofEngland under the Commonwealth, first by Parliamentary and later by Cromwell as Protector.

2. That established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection

against the parent state, such as the government of the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Unionduring the war of secession in the United States.

3. That which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of theenemy in the course of war, and which is denominated as a government of paramount force, such as the

cases of Castine in Maine, which was reduced to a British possession in the war of 1812, and ofTampico, Mexico, occupied during the war with Mexico by the troops of the United States.

In case Co Kim Cham vs Valdez, the court define the kinds of de facto governments;

There are several kinds of de facto governments. The first, or government de facto in a proper legal sense, isthat government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the

rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter. The second is that which isestablished and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of

war, and which is denominated a government of paramount force. And the third is that established as anindependent government.


21/25

By contrast, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Lawyers League for a better Philippines v Aquino that the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of Pres. Aquino which is in effective

control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de juregovernment. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government.

Government distinguished from Administration

Government must be distinguished from administration, which is the group of persons in whose hands the reins

of government are for the time being. The administration runs the government as a machinist operates hismachine.

Administration is transitional whereas the government is permanent.

OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF GOVERNMENTS

a. Based on accountability to the peopleb. Presidential vs Parliamentary

c. National. Local, federal

E. Sovereignty

Definition: is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is governed.

Kinds:

1. Legal Sovereignty is the authority which has the power to issue final commands.2. Political Sovereignty is the power behind the legal sovereign or the sum of the influences that operate

upon it.3. Internal Sovereignty refers to the power of the State to control its domestic affairs.

4. External Sovereignty power of the State to direct its relations with other States is also known as

independence.

Sovereign is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and imprescriptible.

Effects of Change of Sovereignty

In case ofMacariola vs Asuncion, the court held that ; Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the

United States and later on from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Art. 14 of the Code of

Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is a change of sovereignty , the

political laws of the former sovereign , whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are

automatically abrogated,

unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

Acts of State

In case ofHarvey vs. Commissioner, the court held that; Every sovereign power has the inherent power toexclude aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its self-preservation or public

interest. The power to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or under the authority of the sovereignpower. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be

injurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the people. Particularly so in this case , where theState has expressly committed itself to defend the tight of children to assistance and special protection from all

forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development (Article XV,

Section 3[2]). Respondent Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation, in instituting deportationproceedings against petitioners, acted in the interests of the State.

VI. CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship- is membership in a political community which is personal and more or less permanent in

character.


22/25

Nationality- is membership in any class or form of political community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [ifmember of a democratic community] or subjects [if members of a monarchial community]. It does not

necessarily include the right orprivilege of exercising political and civil rights.

Modes of Acquiring Citizenship

Jus Soli acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth.

Jus sanguinis- acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship. Naturalization- the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of native-

born citizen. Marriage

A. Who are Philippine Citizens;

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;

[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;

[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship uponreaching the age of majority; and

[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship

1. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before anyofficial authorized to administer oaths.

2. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to theConstitution and the Government of the Philippines. [Sec. 1, CA 625].

Naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under CA

No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law(Act No. 2927), and

by RA 530.

To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and none of thedisqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship

becomes executor only after 2 years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the

intervening period, the applicant:

1. Has not left the Philippines;

2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession;3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated rules; or

4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announcedpolicies. [Sec. 1, RA 530]

Naturalization

-mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of citizenship

-governed by CA 473 (for acquisition) and CA 63 (for reacquisition)-consists a lengthy process

Modes of Naturalization:

1. DIRECT- through:


23/25


24/25

- For those intending to practice their profession, apply with the proper authority for a license or

permit to engage in such practice

2. By express renunciation of citizenship

Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation Express renunciation means a renunciation made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to

inference or implication.

Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of foreign passport do not constitute effective

renunciation. In Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, obtaining a Portuguese passport and signing commercial documents

as a Portuguese were construed as renunciation of Philippine citizenship.

3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country uponattaining the age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in

this manner while RP is at war with any country. an application of the principle of Indelible Allegiance.byvirtue of RA 9225

4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country EXCEPT:

If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; and The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine territory with the consent of RP

5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization

6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter of the pardon or amnesty has been granted.

Reacquisition of citizenship:

1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance

2. By naturalization

3. By repatriation4. By dir

reviewer bor

Documents