Since the fundamental freedoms

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING of speech and of the press are being

CORPORATION v. COMELEC, invoked here, we have resolved to
GR No. 133486, 2000-01-28 settle, for the guidance of posterity,
Facts: whether they likewise protect the
holding of exit polls and the...
The Resolution was issued by dissemination of data derived
the Comelec allegedly upon therefrom.
"information from [a] reliable source
that ABS-CBN (Lopez Group) has The solicitor general contends
prepared a project, with PR groups, to that the petition is moot and academic,
conduct radio-TV coverage of the because the May 11, 1998 election has
elections x x x and to make [an] exit already been held and done with.
survey of the x x x vote during the... Allegedly, there is no longer any actual
elections for national officials controversy before us.
particularly for President and Vice
The issue is not totally moot.
President, results of which shall be
While the assailed Resolution referred
[broadcast] immediately."
specifically to the May 11, 1998
The electoral body believed that election, its implications on the people's
such project might conflict with the fundamental freedom of expression
official Comelec count, as well as the transcend the past election. The
unofficial... quick count of the National holding of periodic elections is a basic
Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). feature of our democratic...
It also noted that it had not authorized government. By its very nature, exit
or deputized Petitioner ABS-CBN to polling is tied up with elections. To set
undertake the exit survey. aside the resolution of the issue now
will only postpone a task that could well
Issues: crop up again in future elections
"Whether or not the Respondent Principles:
Commission acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to a lack or In any event, in Salonga v. Cruz
excess of jurisdiction when it approved Pano, the Court had occasion to
the issuance of a restraining order reiterate that it "also has the duty to
enjoining the petitioner or any [other formulate guiding and controlling
group], its agents or... representatives constitutional principles, precepts,
from conducting exit polls during the x x doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic
x May 11 elections." function of educating bench and bar on
the extent of... protection given by
Ruling: constitutional guarantees.
In any event, in Salonga v. Cruz
Pano, the Court had occasion to Angara v. Electoral Commission,
reiterate that it "also has the duty to G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936
formulate guiding and controlling
constitutional principles, precepts,
FACTS:
doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic
function of educating bench and bar on Petitioner Jose Angara was
the extent of... protection given by proclaimed winner and took his oath of
constitutional guarantees." office as member of the National
Assembly of the Commonwealth
Government. On December 3, 1935, The Electoral Commission acted
the National Assembly passed a within the legitimate exercise of its
resolution confirming the election of constitutional prerogative in assuming
those who have not been subject of an to take cognizance of the protest filed
election protest prior to the adoption of by the respondent Ynsua against the
the said resolution. election of the petitioner Angara, and
that the earlier resolution of the National
On December 8, 1935, however,
Assembly cannot in any manner toll the
private respondent Pedro Ynsua filed
time for filing election protests against
an election protest against the
members of the National Assembly, nor
petitioner before the Electoral
prevent the filing of a protest within
Commission of the National Assembly.
such time as the rules of the Electoral
The following day, December 9,
Commission might prescribe.
1935, the Electoral Commission
adopted its own resolution providing The grant of power to the
that it will not consider any election Electoral Commission to judge all
protest that was not submitted on or contests relating to the election, returns
before December 9, 1935. and qualifications of members of the
National Assembly, is intended to be as
Citing among others the earlier
complete and unimpaired as if it had
resolution of the National Assembly, the
remained originally in the legislature.
petitioner sought the dismissal of
The express lodging of that power in the
respondent’s protest. The Electoral
Electoral Commission is an implied
Commission however denied his
denial of the exercise of that power by
motion.
the National Assembly. xxx.
ISSUE:
The creation of the Electoral
Did the Electoral Commission Commission carried with it ex
act without or in excess of its jurisdiction necesitate rei the power regulative in
in taking cognizance of the protest filed character to limit the time with which
against the election of the petitioner protests intrusted to its cognizance
notwithstanding the previous should be filed. [W]here a general
confirmation of such election by power is conferred or duty enjoined,
resolution of the National Assembly? every particular power necessary for
the exercise of the one or the
RULING: performance of the other is also
[The Court DENIED the conferred. In the absence of any further
petition.] constitutional provision relating to the
procedure to be followed in filing
NO, the Electoral Commission protests before the Electoral
did not act without or in excess of its Commission, therefore, the incidental
jurisdiction in taking cognizance of power to promulgate such rules
the protest filed against the election necessary for the proper exercise of its
of the petitioner notwithstanding the exclusive power to judge all contests
previous confirmation of such relating to the election, returns and
election by resolution of the National qualifications of members of the
Assembly. National Assembly, must be deemed by
necessary implication to have been Section 3(2) of Article XI of the
lodged also in the Electoral Constitution.
Commission.
On October 13, 2003, the HOR
Committee on Justice found the first
Francisco vs. House of impeachment complaint “sufficient in
Representatives, G.R. No 160261, form.” However, it also voted to dismiss
November 10, 2003 the same on October 22, 2003 for being
insufficient in substance. Ten days
FACTS: later, on October 23,2003, Teodoro and
Fuentebella filed a second
impeachment complaint against CJ
In late 2001 House of Davide, founded on the alleged results
Representatives (HOR) of the 12th of the legislative inquiry on the JDF.
Congress adopted its Rules of The second impeachment complaint
Procedure in Impeachment was accompanied by a “resolution of
Proceedings. The new rules Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by
superseded impeachment Rules of the at least one-third of all the Members of
11th Congress. Secs. 16 and 17 of the House of Representatives.
these Rules state that impeachment
proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if
House Committee on Justice deems Several petitions were filed with
the complaint sufficient in substance, or the SC by members of the bar,
(2) if the House itself affirms or members of the House of
overturns the findings of the House Representatives, as well as private
Committee on Justice on the substance individuals, all asserting their rights,
of the complaint, or (3) by filing or among others, as taxpayers to stop the
endorsement before the HOR illegal spending of public funds for the
Secretary General by one-thirds of the impeachment proceedings against the
members of the House. Chief Justice. The petitioners contend
that Article XI, Section 3 (5) of the 1987
Constitution bars the filing of the
A few months later, HoR passed a second impeachment complaint.
resolution directing the Committee on
Justice to conduct an investigation, in
aid of legislation, on the manner of The constitutional provision states that
disbursements and expenditures by “(n)o impeachment proceedings shall
Chief Justice Davide of the Judiciary be initiated against the same official
Development Fund (JDF).” more than once within a period of one
year.”

In June 2003, former President Speaker Jose de Venecia

Estrada files the first impeachment submitted a manifestaiton to the SC
complaint against Chief Justice Davide stating that the High Court does not
and 7 Associate Justices of SC for have jurisdiction to hear the case as it
“culpable violation of the Constitution, would mean an encroachment on the
betrayal of public trust and other high power of HoR, a co-equal branch of
crimes.” The complaint was referred to government.
the House Committee on Justice on
August 5, 2003 in accordance with ISSUES/HELD:
1.) Whether the filing of the second Justice on the substance of the
impeachment complaint violates Sec. complaint, or (3) by filing or
3(5), Article XI of the Constitution—YES endorsement before the HOR
2) Whether Sec. 16 & 17 of Rule V of Secretary General by one-thirds of the
the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment members of the House.
Proceedings approved by the HoR are In this light, Secs. 16 and 17 of
unconstitutional – YES the House Rules of Procedure for
3.) Whether or not the certiorari Impeachment are unconstitutional
jurisdiction of the court may be invoked because the rules clearly contravene
– YES Sec. 3 (5), Art. XI since the rules give
the term “initiate” a different meaning
RATIO: from filing and referral.
1. The second impeachment complaint Hence, the second
falls under the one-year bar under the impeachment complaint by Teodoro
Constitution. and Fuentebella violates the
2. Sec 16 and 17 of House constitutional one-year ban.
Impeachment Rule V are 3. The certiorari jurisdiction of the court
unconstitutional. may be invoked.
The Supreme Court, in
exercising its expanded power of
The Supreme Court employed three judicial review, only carried out its duty
principles in deciding the case: as stated in Section 1, Article VIII, which
1) Whenever possible, the words in the mandates the judicial department to
Constitution must be given their look into cases where there has been a
ordinary meaning (verbal egis); grave abuse of discretion on the part of
2) If there is ambiguity, the Constitution the different branches of government.
must be interpreted according to the Here, it only reviewed the
intent of the framers; and constitutionality of the Rules of
3) The Constitution must be interpreted Impeachment against the one-year ban
as a whole. explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Applying these principles, to Consequently, the contention that
“initiate” in its ordinary acceptation judicial review over the case would
means simply to begin. The records of result in a crisis is unwarranted.
the debates by the framers affirm this The judiciary, with the Supreme
textual interpretation. From the records Court at its helm as the final arbiter,
of the Constitutional Convention and effectively checks on the other
the amicus curiae briefs of its two departments in the exercise of its power
members (Maambong and Regalado), to determine the law. It must declare
the term “to initiate” in Sec 3(5), Art. XI executive and legislative acts void if
of the Constitution refers to the filing of they violate the Constitution. The
the impeachment complaint coupled violation of Article XI, Section 3(5) of the
with taking initial action by Congress on Constitution is thus within the
the complaint. competence of the Court to decide.
By contrast, Secs. 16 and 17
state that impeachment proceedings
are deemed initiated (1) if House DENNIS A. B. FUNA v. EXECUTIVE
Committee on Justice deems the SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA,
complaint sufficient in substance, or (2) GR No. 184740, 2010-02-11
if the House itself affirms or overturns
the findings of the House Committee on Facts:
 On October 4, 2006, President shows that she does not occupy
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed it in an ex-officio capacity since
respondent Maria Elena H. Bautista an ex-officio position does not
(Bautista) as Undersecretary of the require any "further warrant or
Department of Transportation and appoint.
Communications (DOTC) Bautista was
designated as Undersecretary for  Petitioner further contends that
Maritime Transport of the department even if Bautista's appointment or
under Special Order No. 2006-171 designation as OIC of MARINA
dated October 23, 2006 was intended to be merely
temporary, still, such
On September 1, 2008, following designation must not violate a
the resignation of then MARINA standing constitutional
Administrator Vicente T. Suazo, Jr., prohibition
Bautista was designated as Officer-in-
Charge (OIC), Office of the  Petitioner likewise asserts the
Administrator, MARINA, in concurrent incompatibility between the
capacity as DOTC Undersecretary posts of DOTC Undersecretary
and MARINA Administrator...
On October 21, 2008, Dennis A. respondents submit that the
B. Funa in his capacity as taxpayer, petition should still be dismissed
concerned citizen and lawyer, filed the for being unmeritorious
instant petition challenging the considering that Bautista's
constitutionality of Bautista's concurrent designation as
appointment/designation, which is MARINA OIC and DOTC
proscribed by the prohibition on the Undersecretary was...
President, Vice-President, the constitutional. There was no
Members of the Cabinet, and their violation of Section 13, Article VII
deputies and assistants to hold any of the 1987 Constitution
other office or employment because respondent Bautista
was merely designated acting
Issues:
head of MARINA on September
 Petitioner argues that Bautista's 1, 2008. She was designated
concurrent positions as DOTC MARINA OIC, not appointed
Undersecretary and MARINA MARINA Administrator.
OIC is in violation of Section 13,
 The sole issue to be resolved is
Article VII of the 1987
whether or not the designation of
Constitution
respondent Bautista as OIC of
 He points out that while it was MARINA, concurrent with the
clarified in Civil Liberties Union position of DOTC
that the prohibition does not Undersecretary for Maritime
apply to those... positions held in Transport to which she had been
ex-officio capacities, the position appointed, violated the
of MARINA Administrator is not constitutional proscription
ex-officio to the post of DOTC against dual or multiple... offices
Undersecretary for Cabinet Members and their
deputies and assistants.
 The fact that Bautista was
extended an appointment Ruling:
naming her as OIC of MARINA
These sweeping, all-embracing WHEREFORE, the petition is
prohibitions imposed on the President GRANTED. The designation of
and his official family, which respondent Ma. Elena H. Bautista as
prohibitions are not similarly imposed Officer-in-Charge, Office of the
on other public officials or employees Administrator, Maritime Industry
such as the Members of Congress, Authority, in a concurrent capacity with
members of the civil service in general her position as DOTC Undersecretary
and members of... the armed forces, for Maritime Transport, is... hereby
are proof of the intent of the 1987 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL for
Constitution to treat the President and being violative of Section 13, Article VII
his official family as a class by itself and of the 1987 Constitution and therefore,
to impose upon said class stricter NULL and VOID.
prohibitions.
Principles:
Thus, while all other appointive officials
in the civil service are allowed to hold Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President,
other office or employment in the the Members of the Cabinet, and their
government during their tenure when deputies or assistants shall not, unless
such is allowed by law or by the primary otherwise provided in this Constitution,
hold any other office or employment
functions of their positions, members of
during their tenure. They shall not,
the Cabinet, their deputies and...
during said tenure,... directly or
assistants may do so only when
indirectly practice any other profession,
expressly authorized by the
participate in any business, or be
Constitution itself.
financially interested in any contract
Since the evident purpose of the with, or in any franchise, or special
framers of the 1987 Constitution is to privilege granted by the Government or
impose a stricter prohibition on the any subdivision, agency, or
President, Vice-President, members of instrumentality thereof, including...
the Cabinet, their deputies and government-owned or controlled
assistants with respect to holding corporations or their subsidiaries. They
multiple offices or employment in the shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in
government during... their tenure, the the conduct of their office.
exception to this prohibition must be
read with equal severity. On its face, the Sec. 7. x x x
language of Section 13, Article VII is Unless otherwise allowed by law or the
prohibitory so that it must be primary functions of his position, no
understood as intended to be a positive appointive official shall hold any other
and unequivocal negation of the office or employment in the
privilege of holding multiple... Government or any subdivision, agency
government offices or employment. or instrumentality thereof, including
Respondent Bautista being then the government-owned or controlled
appointed Undersecretary of DOTC, corporations or... their subsidiaries.
she was thus covered by the stricter Appointment may be defined as the
prohibition under Section 13, Article VII selection, by the authority vested with
and consequently she cannot invoke the power, of an individual who is to
the exception provided in Section 7, exercise the functions of a given office.
paragraph 2, Article IX-B where holding When completed, usually with its
another... office is allowed by law or the confirmation, the appointment results in
primary functions of the position. security of tenure for the... person
chosen unless he is replaceable at criminal or lawless violence. The
pleasure because of the nature of his President declared that the services of
office. Designation, on the other hand, the Marines in the anti-crime campaign
connotes merely the imposition by law are merely temporary in nature and for
of additional duties on an incumbent a reasonable period only, until such
official, as where, in the case before us, time when the situation shall have
the Secretary of Tourism is designated
improved. The IBP filed a petition
Chairman of the Board of Directors of seeking to declare the deployment of
the Philippine Tourism Authority, or the Philippine Marines null and void and
where, under the Constitution, three unconstitutional.
Justices of the Supreme Court are
designated by the Chief Justice to sit in Issues:
the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or (1) Whether or not the
the House of Representatives. It is said
President’s factual determination of the
that... appointment is essentially
necessity of calling the armed forces is
executive while designation is
legislative in nature. subject to judicial review
(2) Whether or not the calling of
Designation may also be loosely the armed forces to assist the PNP in
defined as an appointment because it joint visibility patrols violates the
likewise involves the naming of a constitutional provisions on civilian
particular person to a specified public
supremacy over the military and the
office. That is the common
civilian character of the PNP
understanding of the term. However,
where the person is merely designated
and not appointed, the... implication is Held:
that he shall hold the office only in a When the President calls the
temporary capacity and may be armed forces to prevent or suppress
replaced at will by the appointing lawless violence, invasion or rebellion,
authority. In this sense, the designation he necessarily exercises a
is considered only an acting or discretionary power solely vested in his
temporary appointment, which does not wisdom. Under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the
confer security of tenure on the... Constitution, Congress may revoke
person named. such proclamation of martial law or
suspension of the privilege of the writ of
IBP vs. Zamora G.R. No.141284,
habeas corpus and the Court may
August 15, 2000
review the sufficiency of the factual
IBP vs. Zamora
basis thereof. However, there is no
G.R. No.141284, August 15, 2000
such equivalent provision dealing with
the revocation or review of the
Facts:
President’s action to call out the armed
Invoking his powers as
forces. The distinction places the calling
Commander-in-Chief under Sec. 18,
out power in a different category from
Art. VII of the Constitution, the
the power to declare martial law and
President directed the AFP Chief of
power to suspend the privilege of the
Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with
writ of habeas corpus, otherwise, the
each other for the proper deployment
framers of the Constitution would have
and utilization of the Marines to assist
simply lumped together the 3 powers
the PNP in preventing or suppressing
and provided for their revocation and
review without any qualification. Moreover, the deployment of the
Marines to assist the PNP does not
The reason for the difference in unmake the civilian character of the
the treatment of the said powers police force. The real authority in the
highlights the intent to grant the operations is lodged with the head of a
President the widest leeway and civilian institution, the PNP, and not with
broadest discretion in using the power the military. Since none of the Marines
to call out because it is considered as was incorporated or enlisted as
the lesser and more benign power members of the PNP, there can be no
compared to the power to suspend the appointment to civilian position to
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus speak of. Hence, the deployment of the
and the power to impose martial law, Marines in the joint visibility patrols
both of which involve the curtailment does not destroy the civilian character
and suppression of certain basic civil of the PNP.
rights and individual freedoms, and
thus necessitating safeguards by J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Court of
Congress and review by the Court. Appeals, 3 SCRA 696, No. L-18128,
No. L-18672 December 26, 1961
In view of the constitutional
intent to give the President full FACTS:
discretionary power to determine the Bruna Rosete and Tranquilino
necessity of calling out the armed Dizon, petitioned the Court of First
forces, it is incumbent upon the Instance to suspend the order of
petitioner to show that the President’s demolition of their houses, on the
decision is totally bereft of factual basis. ground that they were tenants of the
The present petition fails to discharge Tatalon Estate; that Republic Act No.
such heavy burden, as there is no 2616, after specifically authorizing the
evidence to support the assertion that expropriation of the Tatalon Estate.
there exists no justification for calling However, Judge Nicasio Yatco of the
out the armed forces. Court of First Instance of Quezon City
denied the suspension because no
The Court disagrees to the expropriation proceedings had been
contention that by the deployment of actually filed. On certiorari, the Court of
the Marines, the civilian task of law Appeals ordered the issuance ex parte
enforcement is “militarized” in violation of the preliminary injunction.
of Sec. 3, Art. II of the Constitution. The
deployment of the Marines does not Respondent Tuason &
constitute a breach of the civilian Company, Inc., moved to dissolve the
supremacy clause. The calling of the preliminary injunction of the Court of
Marines constitutes permissible use of Appeals, that the prohibition
military assets for civilian law proceedings a question of
enforcement. The local police forces constitutionality of a statute is not
are the ones in charge of the visibility appealable to the Court of Appeals; It is
patrols at all times, the real authority urged by amicus curiae that Courts of
belonging to the PNP First Instance have no jurisdiction to
entertain actions assailing the
constitutionality of statutes or treaties, Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
because section 10 of Article VIII of the 174153, October 25, 2006
Constitution prescribes that — No
treaty or law may be declared FACTS:
unconstitutional without the
concurrence of two-thirds of all the On August 25, 2006, the
members of the (Supreme) Court. Lambino Group filed a petition with the
COMELEC to hold plebiscite that will
ISSUE: ratify their initiative petition under
Are trial courts vested with Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of
jurisdiction to decide on the RA 6735.
constitutionality of statutes or treaties?
HELD: YES. The Lambino Group claims that
their petition has the support of
[T]he Constitution itself inhibits 6,327,952 individuals satisfying the
Congress from depriving the Supreme requirement that the signatories of the
Court — petition constitute 12% of all registered
voters with each legislative district
of its jurisdiction to review, revise,
represented by at least 3% of its
reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, registered voters.
certiorari or writ of error, as the law or
the rules of court may provide, final
The Lambino Group’s initiative
judgments and decrees of inferior
petition modifies Sections 1-7 of Article
courts in —
VI and Sections 1-4 of Article VII of the
(1) All cases in which the Constitution and adds Article XVIII
constitutionality or validity of any treaty, entitled ‘Transitory Provisions” to it
law, ordinance or executive orders or shifting the country’s form of
government from Bicameral-
regulations is in question (Emphasis
Presidential to Unicameral-
supplied).
Parliamentary.
Plainly the Constitution contemplates
that the inferior courts should have Days later, the Lambino Group
jurisdiction in cases involving filed an amended petition with the
constitutionality of any treaty or law, for COMELEC. However, the COMELEC
it speaks of appellate review of final issued its resolution denying due
judgments of inferior courts in cases course to the Lambino Groups’s
where such constitutionality happens to petition invoking Santiago v.
be in issue. Construing both provisions Commission on Elections, which found
RA 6735 as inadequate, in stating that
together, it is readily discerned that the
there is no enabling law governing
two-third vote of the Supreme Court,
initiative petitions such as that of the
required by Section 10 of Article VIII, Lambino Group to amend the
conditions only the decisions of the Constitution.
Supreme Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction.
The Lambino Group is
petitioning for the issuance of writs of
certiorari and mandamus to set aside
the COMELEC Resolution of August
31, 2006 and to compel the COMELEC 1. The Lambino Group failed
to give due course to their initiative to comply with Section 2, Article XVII
petition. The petitioners and supporting of the Constitution.
intervenors hold the view that
COMELEC committed grave abuse of a. The petition is not directly proposed
discretion in relying on Santiago. by the people.

Opposing intervenors maintain that The Lambino Group’s Initiative

Santiago is a binding precedent and does comply with the requirement that
they also challenge: the amendment be “directly proposed
by the people upon a petition” because
 The Lambino Group’s standing to the Lambino group failed to present the
file the petition full text of the proposed changes to the
 The validity of the signature Constitution to the signatories and thus
gathering and verification process it cannot be assumed that the
 The Lambino Group’s compliance signatories had knowledge of the full
with Section 2, Article XVII of the nature and effect of the changes they
Constitution The nature of the were supporting. Given that the
proposed changes as revisions Initiative first gathered signatures
and not mere amendments. without showing the full text of the
 The Lambino Group’s compliance proposed amendments, it can be seen
with RA 6735 limiting initiative as a “gigantic fraud on the people.”
petitions to only one subject.
While Section 2, Article XVII
ISSUES: does not explicitly state that the full text
of proposed amendments to the
1. Whether the Lambino Group’s constitution should be presented to the
initiative petition complied with Section people before they sign the petition, as
2, Article XVII of the Constitution – NO. shown on the record of the
deliberations of the Constitutional
2. Whether the Court should Commission, it was the intent of the
revisit its ruling on Santiago v. framers that an amendment is “directly
COMELEC which declared RA 6735 proposed by the people through
“incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in initiative upon a petition” only if the
essential terms and conditions” to people sign on a petition that contains
implement the initiative clause the full text of the proposed
proposals to amend the Constitution – amendments.
NO
A signature requirement would
3. Whether the COMELEC be meaningless if the signatories have
committed grave abuse of discretion in not first been informed of the full extent
denying due course to the Lambino of the proposal he/she is signing, and
Group’s petition – NO. that the attachment of the full text
proposal would provide the assumption
that people would be informed in their
RATIO: decision whether to sign or not.
 Moreover, the signature sheet enough copies of the petition for all the
submitted by the Lambino Group to the signatories to see. As per Atty.
Court does not contain the full text of Lambino’s own admission only 100,000
the proposed changes to the copies could be confirmed to have been
Constitution; instead, the signature printed as these were printed by
sheet merely asks whether the people Lambino himself. Assuming that each
approve a shift from a Bicameral- signature sheet, which had space for 10
Presidential to a Unicameral- signatures, was attached with a copy of
Parliamentary system of government. the petition, there would be enough
copies for only 1 million people, far from
The petitioners alleged that they the 6,327,952 signatures gathered by
circulated the draft of their 30 August the Lambino Group.
2006 amended petition during the
signature gathering from February to Having proved that majority of
August 2006, having the Court believe the signatories were not able to see the
that they prepared their amended full text of the of the proposed changes
petition almost seven months earlier in proposed signing, they could not have
February 2006 and even before they known the full nature and effect of the
filed their 25 August 2006 petition. proposed changes which include three
While Aumentado gives as evidence controversial amendments:
ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02, as proof
that the amended petition was  The lifting of term limits on the
circulated six months before the members of the legislature.
petitions were filed, ULAP Resolution  The interim Parliament will
No. 2006-02 does not authorize continue to function indefinitely
petitioner Aumentado to prepare the until it decides to call for
petitions, rather, it only states that parliamentary elections thus
ULAP “supports the proposals of the enabling its members to
Consultative Commission on Charter determine when they will end their
Change” which are vastly different from term.
the proposals of the Lambino Group,  Within 45 days after the proposed
thus the ULAP Resolution does not changes, the interim Parliament
establish that the Lambino Group will convene to propose further
circulated the draft of the petition. amendments to the constitution.

There is inconsistency in the This provision is determined by

story of the Lambino Group as it was the Court to be totally unrelated to the
first stated that they circulated both the stated objective of the initiative and is
25 August 2006 petion and the 30 considered logrolling.
August 2006 amended petion;
however, Atty. Lambino later changed Logrolling refers to the
the story stating that only the amended incorporation of an unrelated subject
petition was circulated. matter in the same petition thus
creating two propositions within one
Even with the assumption that petition thus putting the people in a
the amended petition was indeed dilemma where since they can only say
circulated while the signatures were yes or no to the whole petition they
being gathered it could still be cannot agree to one proposition without
concluded that there would not be also agreeing to the other.
 Logrolling confuses and even  Qualitative test – based on
deceives the people. qualitative effects, asks whether
the proposed changes create far
While Atty. Lambino states that reaching changes in the nature of
this provision is not necessary and the basic governmental plan thus
should thus be ignored, the Court does amounting to a revision.
not agree since this provision could
effectively invalidate the whole exercise The prosed changes by the
of the people’s initiative as through this Lambino Group significantly alter the
provision the interim Parliament could, basic plan of government as it would
in theory, propose amendments not effectively alter the separation of
agreed upon by the signatories of the powers through the abolition of the
initial petition. Office of the President and merging of
the legislative and executive, and alter
the system of checks and balances
b. People’s initiative can only be within the legislature through the
done for constitutional amendments abolition of one chamber of Congress.
and not revisions.
Under both quantitative and
Based on the deliberations of the qualitative tests, the Lambino Group’s
Constitutional Commission, the framers proposed changes constitute a revision
intentionally made a distinction and not simply an amendment as it
between amendments and revisions. It “radically alters the framework of
was the intent, as is written, that only government set forth in the
Congress or a constitutional convention Constitution.
can propose revisions while a people’s
initiative is limited only to the proposal
of amendments. The Court states that since the
A revision implies a change that alters proposed changes constitute a revision
a basic principle in the constitution and would require far-reaching
while amendment refers to a change amendments in not just the specified
that adds, reduces, or deletes, without articles and provisions but also in
altering the basic principle of the several others, a deliberative body with
constitution. A change in a single word recorded proceedings would be the
could already be considered a revision best vehicle to undertake them, as was
as long as it overhauls the structure of intended by the framers and is stated in
government and the ideological basis of the constitution, and not a people’s
the Constitution. initiative.

There are two tests to determine 2. There is no need to revisit

whether a change is an amendment or the Court’s ruling in Santiago since
a revision: an affirmation or reversal of the said
ruling would not change the
outcome of this petition.
 Quantitative test – examines the
number of provisions, not the
degree of change, in order to test Even if it is assumed RA 6735 is valid,
how extensive the proposed contrary to the ruling in Santiago, the
changes are. outcome of the Lambino Group’s
petition would not change since before
referring to RA 6735 a petition must first
comply with Section 2, Article XVII, and x––––––––––––––––––––
as was previously established, it does ––x
not. G.R. No. 187910
LOUIS “BAROK” C.
The Lambino Group’s petition also BIRAOGO, Petitioner
does not comply with RA 6735. Indeed, – versus
It violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 SPEAKER PROSPERO C.
requiring that the signatories, NOGRALES, Speaker of the House
consistitng of 12% of the total number of Representatives, Congress of the
of registered voters, sign the petition Philippines, Respondents.
since it has already been established
that the 6 million signatories only signed Facts:
a signature sheet and not the petition The two petitions, filed by their
itself. respective petitioners in their capacities
as concerned citizens and taxpayers,
It also violates Section 10(a) of RA prayed for the nullification of House
6735, which states that no more than 1 Resolution No. 1109 entitled “A
subject can be embraced by a petition, Resolution Calling upon the Members
through its provision which mandates of Congress to Convene for the
the interim Parliament to propose Purpose of Considering Proposals to
further amendments which as Amend or Revise the Constitution,
determined earlier is unrelated to the Upon a Three-fourths Vote of All the
subject of a shift from presidential to Members of Congress,” convening the
parliamentary form of government. Congress into a Constituent Assembly
to amend the 1987 Constitution. In
3. The COMELEC did not essence, both petitions seek to trigger
commit a grave of abuse of a justiciable controversy that would
discretion in dismissing the warrant a definitive interpretation by this
Lambino Group’s Initiative petition. Court of Section 1, Article XVII, which
provides for the procedure for
amending or revising the Constitution.
Since the COMELEC merely followed The petitioners contend that the House
the Court’s ruling in Santiago, the Resolution contradicts the procedures
Commission did not gravely abuse its set forth by the 1987 Constitution
discretion. regarding the amendment or revision of
the same as the separate voting of the
G.R. No. 187883 June 16, 2009 members of each House (the Senate
ATTY. OLIVER O. LOZANO and and the House of Representatives) is
ATTY. EVANGELINE J. LOZANO- deleted and substituted with a vote of
ENDRIANO,Petitioners, three-fourths of all the Members of
– versus – Congress (i.e., ¾ of the “members of
SPEAKER PROSPERO C. Congress” without distinction as to
NOGRALES, Representative, which institution of Congress they
Majority, House of belong to).
Representatives, Respondents
Issue:
Whether the court has the power
to review the case of the validity of
House Resolution No. 1109.
 performed by a branch of government
Held: before the courts may step in.
No. The Supreme Court cannot
indulge petitioners’ supplications. While In the present case, the fitness of
some may interpret petitioners’ moves petitioners’ case for the exercise of
as vigilance in preserving the rule of judicial review is grossly lacking. In the
law, a careful perusal of their petitions first place, petitioners have not
would reveal that they cannot hurdle the sufficiently proven any adverse injury or
bar of justiciability set by the Court hardship from the act complained of. In
before it will assume jurisdiction over the second place, House Resolution
cases involving constitutional disputes. No. 1109 only resolved that the House
The Court’s power of review may be of Representatives shall convene at a
awesome, but it is limited to actual future time for the purpose of proposing
cases and controversies dealing with amendments or revisions to the
parties having adversely legal claims, to Constitution. No actual convention has
be exercised after full opportunity of yet transpired and no rules of procedure
argument by the parties, and limited have yet been adopted. More
further to the constitutional question importantly, no proposal has yet been
raised or the very lis mota presented. made, and hence, no usurpation of
The “case-or-controversy” requirement power or gross abuse of discretion has
bans this court from deciding “abstract, yet taken place. In short, House
hypothetical or contingent questions,” Resolution No. 1109 involves a
lest the court give opinions in the nature quintessential example of an uncertain
of advice concerning legislative or contingent future event that may not
executive action occur as anticipated, or indeed may not
occur at all. The House has not yet
An aspect of the “case-or- performed a positive act that would
controversy” requirement is the warrant an intervention from this Court.
requisite of “ripeness.” In the United
States, courts are centrally concerned As in the case of Tan v.
with whether a case involves uncertain Macapagal, as long as any proposed
contingent future events that may not amendment is still unacted on by it,
occur as anticipated, or indeed may not there is no room for the interposition of
occur at all. Another approach is the judicial oversight. Only after it has made
evaluation of the twofold aspect of concrete what it intends to submit for
ripeness: first, the fitness of the issues ratification may the appropriate case be
for judicial decision; and second, the instituted. Until then, the courts are
hardship to the parties entailed by devoid of jurisdiction
withholding court consideration. In our
jurisdiction, the issue of ripeness is A party will be allowed to litigate
generally treated in terms of actual only when he can demonstrate that (1)
injury to the plaintiff. Hence, a question he has personally suffered some actual
is ripe for adjudication when the act or threatened injury because of the
being challenged has had a direct allegedly illegal conduct of the
adverse effect on the individual government; (2) the injury is fairly
challenging it. An alternative road to traceable to the challenged action; and
review similarly taken would be to (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by
determine whether an action has the remedy being sought. In the cases
already been accomplished or at bar, petitioners have not shown the
elemental injury in fact that would
endow them with the standing to sue. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions are
Locus standi requires a personal stake dismissed.
in the outcome of a controversy for
significant reasons. It assures Marbury v. Madison
adverseness and sharpens the
presentation of issues for the Brief Fact Summary. William Marbury
illumination of the Court in resolving (Marbury), an end-of-term appointee of
difficult constitutional questions. The President John Adams (President
lack of petitioners’ personal stake in this Adams) to a justice of the peace
case is no more evident than in position in the District of Columbia,
Lozano’s three-page petition that is brought suit against President Thomas
devoid of any legal or jurisprudential Jefferson’s (President Jefferson)
basis. Secretary of State, James Madison,
seeking delivery of his commission.
Neither can the lack of locus
standi be cured by the claim of Synopsis of Rule of Law. The
petitioners that they are instituting the Supreme Court of the United States
cases at bar as taxpayers and (Supreme Court) has constitutional
concerned citizens. A taxpayer’s suit authority to review executive actions
requires that the act complained of and legislative acts. The Supreme
directly involves the illegal Court has limited jurisdiction, the
disbursement of public funds derived bounds of which are set by the United
from taxation. It is undisputed that there States Constitution (Constitution),
has been no allocation or disbursement which may not be enlarged by the
of public funds in this case as of yet. Congress.

The possible consequence of

House Resolution No. 1109 is yet Facts.
unrealized and does not infuse
petitioners with locus standi Before the inauguration of
President Jefferson, outgoing President
The rule on locus standi is not a Adams attempted to secure Federalist
plain procedural rule but a control of the judiciary by creating new
constitutional requirement derived from judgeships and filling them with
Section 1, Article VIII of the
Federalist appointees. Included in
Constitution, which mandates courts of
these efforts was the nomination by
justice to settle only “actual
controversies involving rights which are President Adams, under the Organic
legally demandable and enforceable.” Act of the District of Columbia (the
Moreover, while the Court has taken an District), of 42 new justices of the peace
increasingly liberal approach to the rule for the District, which were confirmed by
of locus standi, evolving from the the Senate the day before President
stringent requirements of “personal Jefferson’s inauguration. A few of the
injury” to the broader “transcendental commissions, including Marbury’s,
importance” doctrine, such liberality is were undelivered when President
not to be abused. It is not an open Jefferson took office. The new
invitation for the ignorant and the president instructed Secretary of State
ignoble to file petitions that prove James Madison to withhold delivery of
nothing but their cerebral deficit.
the commissions. Marbury sought
mandamus in the Supreme Court,
requiring James Madison to deliver his Resolution No. 2 dealing with the
commission. Presidency, the Prime Minister and the
Cabinet, and the National Assembly by
Issue. a vote of 147 to 5 with 1 abstention; and
Resolution No. 3 on the amendment to
Is Marbury entitled to mandamus the Article on the Commission on
from the Supreme Court? Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with 1
abstention.) The petitioners contends
Held. that such resolution is against the
constitutions in proposing
No. Case dismissed for want of amendments:
jurisdiction. As the President signed
Marbury’s commission after his ISSUE: Whether the resolutions are
confirmation, the appointment has been unconstitutional?
made, and Marbury has a right to the
commission. Given that the law HELD: In dismissing the petition for
imposed a duty on the office of the lack of merit, the court ruled the
president to deliver Marbury’s following:
commission, that the Supreme Court
1. The power of the Interim
has the power to review executive
actions when the executive acts as an Batasang Pambansa to propose its
officer of the law and the nature of the amendments and how it may be
writ of mandamus to direct an officer of exercised was validly obtained. The
the government “to do a particular thing 1973 Constitution in its Transitory
therein specified,” mandamus is the Provisions vested the Interim National
appropriate remedy, if available to the Assembly with the power to propose
Supreme Court. To issue mandamus amendments upon special call by the
to the Secretary of State really is to Prime Minister by a vote of the majority
sustain an original action, which is (in of its members to be ratified in
this case) outside the constitutional accordance with the Article on
limits of jurisdiction imposed on the Amendments similar with the interim
Supreme Court.
and regular national assembly. 15
When, therefore, the Interim Batasang
SAMUEL OCCENA VS. COMELEC
Pambansa, upon the call of the
G.R. NO. L-34150
President and Prime Minister
APRIL 2, 1981 Ferdinand E. Marcos, met as a
constituent body it acted by virtue of
FACTS: such impotence.
Petitioner Samuel Occena and
2. Petitioners assailed that the
Ramon A. Gozales instituted a
resolutions where so extensive in
prohibiting proceedings against the character as to amount to a revision
validity of three batasang pambansa rather than amendments. To dispose
resolutions (Resolution No. 1 proposing this contention, the court held that
an amendment allowing a natural-born whether the Constitutional Convention
citizen of the Philippines naturalized in
will only propose amendments to the
a foreign country to own a limited area
Constitution or entirely overhaul the
of land for residential purposes was
present Constitution and propose an
approved by the vote of 122 to 5;
entirely new Constitution based on an three resolutions were approved by the
ideology foreign to the democratic Interim Batasang Pambansa sitting as
system, is of no moment, because the a constituent assembly on February 5
same will be submitted to the people for and 27, 1981. In the Batasang
ratification. Once ratified by the Pambansa Blg. 22, the date of the
sovereign people, there can be no plebiscite is set for April 7, 1981. It is
debate about the validity of the new thus within the 90-day period provided
Constitution. The fact that the present by the Constitution.
Constitution may be revised and
replaced with a new one ... is no OSMEÑA vs. COMELEC G.R. No.
argument against the validity of the law 100318 June 30, 1991 Elections
because 'amendment' includes the OCTOBER 30, 2017
'revision' or total overhaul of the entire
Constitution. At any rate, whether the FACTS:
Constitution is merely amended in part
or revised or totally changed would Petitioners pray for this Court to
declare Republic Act No. 7056 as
become immaterial the moment the
unconstitutional and, therefore, invalid
same is ratified by the sovereign and inoperative because:
people."
1. It violates the mandate of the
Constitution for the holding of
3. That leaves only the questions synchronized national and local
of the vote necessary to propose elections on the second Monday of May
amendments as well as the standard for 1992.
proper submission. The language of the
Constitution supplies the answer to the 2. Republic Act 7056, particularly the
above questions. The Interim Batasang 2nd paragraph of Section 3 thereof,
Pambansa, sitting as a constituent providing that all incumbent provincial,
city and municipal officials shall hold
body, can propose amendments. In that
over beyond June 30, 1992 and shall
capacity, only a majority vote is needed. serve until their successors shall have
It would be an indefensible proposition been duly elected and qualified violates
to assert that the three-fourth votes Section 2, Article XVIII (Transitory
required when it sits as a legislative Provision) of the Constitution.
body applies as well when it has been
convened as the agency through which 3. The same paragraph of Section 3 of
amendments could be proposed. That Republic Act 7056, which in effect,
is not a requirement as far as a shortens the term or tenure of office of
constitutional convention is concerned. local officials to be elected on the 2nd
Further, the period required by the Monday of November, 1992 violates
constitution was complied as follows: Section 8, Article X of the Constitution.
"Any amendment to, or revision of, this
4. Section 8 of Republic Act 7056,
Constitution shall be valid when ratified
providing for the campaign periods for
by a majority of the votes cast in a Presidential, Vice-Presidential and
plebiscite which shall be held not later Senatorial elections, violates the
than three months after the approval of provision of Section 9, Article IX under
such amendment or revision." 21 The
the title “Commission on Elections” of January 1988. Therefore, their term
the Constitution. would have expired on February 2,
1991. But their term was adjusted to
5. The so-called many difficult if not expire at noon of June 30, 1992. The
insurmountable problems mentioned in reason for the said adjustment, as well
Republic Act 7056 to synchronized as those of the Senators, members of
national and local elections set by the the House of Representatives,
Constitution on the second Monday of President and Vice-President, is the
May, 1992, are not sufficient, much same — to synchronize the national
less, valid justification for postponing and local elections.
the local elections to the second
Monday of November 1992, and in the 2. Yes. With the clear mandate of the
process violating the Constitution itself. 1987 Constitution to hold synchronized
If, at all, Congress can devise ways and (simultaneous) national and local
means, within the parameters of the elections in the second Monday of May,
Constitution, to eliminate or at least 1992, the inevitable conclusion would
minimize these problems and if this, be that Republic Act 7056 is clearly
still, is not feasible, resort can be made violative of the Constitution because it
to the self-correcting mechanism built in provides for the holding of a
the Constitution for its amendment or desynchronized election. Stated
revision. differently, Republic Act 7056
particularly Sections 1 and 2 thereof
Respondents argue that the questioned contravenes Article XVIII, Sections 2
provision is a valid exercise of and 5 of the 1987 Constitution.
legislation power, and that the
amending process in the Constitution Pormento vs. Estrada, G.R. No.
does not apply to transitory provisions. 191988, August 31, 2010

ISSUES: Facts:

o Can the national and local Estrada was elected President of the
elections be Republic of the Philippines in the May
desynchronized? 1998 elections. He sought the
o Is RA 7056 valid and presidency again in the May 2010
constitutional? elections. Pormento opposed Estrada’s
candidacy and filed a petition for
RULING: disqualification. COMELEC (Division)
denied his petition as well as his
1. No. It is very evident that the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration
Constitution has mandated a (En Banc). Pormento then filed the
synchronized national and local present petition for certiorari before the
election prior to June 30, 1992 or more Court. In the meantime, Estrada was
specifically as provided for in Article able to participate as a candidate for
XVIII, Sec. 5-on the second Monday of President in the May 10, 2010 elections
May, 1992. On this point, it has to be where he garnered the second highest
stressed that the term of office of number of votes.
elective local officials, except barangay
officials, is fixed by the Constitution at
three years (Sec. 8, Art. X). The
incumbent local officials were elected in
Issue: already been resolved and hence, one
is not entitled to judicial intervention
Is Estrada disqualified to run for unless the issue is likely to be raised
presidency in the May 2010 elections in again between the parties. There is
view of the prohibition in the nothing for the court to resolve as the
Constitution which states that: "[t]he determination thereof has been
President shall not be eligible for any overtaken by subsequent events.
reelection?
Assuming an actual case or
Held: controversy existed prior to the
proclamation of a President who has
Private respondent was not elected been duly elected in the May 10, 2010
President the second time he ran. Since elections, the same is no longer true
the issue on the proper interpretation of today. Following the results of that
the phrase any reelection will be elections, private respondent was not
premised on a persons second elected President for the second time.
(whether immediate or not) election as Thus, any discussion of his reelection
President, there is no case or will simply be hypothetical and
controversy to be resolved in this case. speculative. It will serve no useful or
No live conflict of legal rights exists. practical purpose.
There is in this case no definite,
concrete, real or substantial MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v.
controversy that touches on the legal COMELEC, (G)
relations of parties having adverse legal
interests. No specific relief may G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
conclusively be decreed upon by this
Court in this case that will benefit any of FACTS:
the parties herein. As such, one of the
essential requisites for the exercise of December 6, 1996, private respondent
the power of judicial review, the Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public
existence of an actual case or respondent Commission on Elections
controversy, is sorely lacking in this (COMELEC) a Petition to Amend the
case. Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of
Elective Officials, by People's Initiative.
As a rule, this Court may only
adjudicate actual, ongoing Upon the filing of the Petition, the
[Link] Court is not COMELEC, through its Chairman,
empowered to decide moot questions issued an Order directing Delfin to
or abstract propositions, or to declare cause the publication of the petition,
principles or rules of law which cannot together with the attached Petition for
affect the result as to the thing in issue Initiative on the 1987 Constitution
in the case before it. In other words, including the proposal, proposed
when a case is moot, it becomes non- constitutional amendment, and the
justiciable. signature form, and the notice of
hearing in three (3) daily newspapers of
An action is considered moot when it no general circulation at his own expense
longer presents a justiciable and setting the case for hearing on 12
controversy because the issues December 1996 at 10:00 a.m.
involved have become academic or
dead or when the matter in dispute has
December 12, 1996, Senator Roco, so, whether the Act, as worded,
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on adequately covers such initiative.
the ground that it is not the initiatory
petition properly cognizable by the HELD:
COMELEC.
No, Insofar as initiative to propose
December 18, 1996, Senator Miriam amendments to the Constitution is
Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably
and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed this failed to satisfy both requirements in
special civil action for prohibition raising subordinate legislation.
that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three
systems of initiative, namely, initiative First. Contrary to the assertion of public
on the Constitution, on statutes, and on respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of
local legislation. However, it failed to the Act does not suggest an initiative on
provide any subtitle on initiative on the amendments to the Constitution. The
Constitution, unlike in the other modes inclusion of the word "Constitution"
of initiative, which are specifically therein was a delayed afterthought.
provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. That word is neither germane nor
This deliberate omission indicates that relevant to said section, which
the matter of people's initiative to exclusively relates to initiative and
amend the Constitution was left to referendum on national laws and local
some future law. laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That
section is silent as to amendments on
December 19, 1996, the Court required the Constitution. As pointed out earlier,
the respondents to comment on the initiative on the Constitution is confined
petition and issued a temporary only to proposals to AMEND. The
restraining order, effective immediately people are not accorded the power to
and continuing until further orders, "directly propose, enact, approve, or
enjoining public respondent COMELEC reject, in whole or in part, the
from proceeding with the Petition, and Constitution" through the system of
private respondents conducting a initiative. They can only do so with
signature drive for people's initiative to respect to "laws, ordinances, or
amend the Constitution. resolutions."

January 2, 1997, private respondents Second. It is true that Section 3 of the

filed their Comment on the petition. Act defines initiative on amendments to
They argue therein that R.A No. 6735 is the Constitution and mentions it as one
the enabling law implementing the of the three systems of initiative, and
power of people initiative to propose that Section 5 restates the
amendments to the constitution. constitutional requirements as to the
percentage of the registered voters who
ISSUE: must submit the proposal. But unlike in
the case of the other systems of
Whether or not R.A. No. 6735, entitled initiative, the Act does not provide for
An Act Providing for a System of the contents of a petition for initiative on
Initiative and Referendum and the Constitution. Section 5, paragraph
Appropriating Funds Therefor, was (c) requires, among other things,
intended to include or cover initiative on statement of the proposed law sought
amendments to the Constitution; and if to be enacted, approved or rejected,
amended or repealed, as the case may
be. It does not include, as among the President Diosdado Macapagal sent
contents of the petition, the provisions letter to Comelec calling upon it to
of the Constitution sought to be implement the resolution. A day later,
amended, in the case of initiative on the Comelec resolved to inform the
Constitution. Constitutional Convention that it will
hold the plebiscite. Constitutional
Third. While the Act provides subtitles Convention then passed a series of
for National Initiative and Referendum resolutions to continue with the
(Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and plebiscite. Plebiscite was scheduled on
Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is November 8, 1971, which is the same
provided for initiative on the day for the elections of other
Constitution. This conspicuous silence government officials.
as to the latter simply means that the
main thrust of the Act is initiative and Petitioner assailed COMELEC’s
referendum on national and local laws. resolution and the holding of the
If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to plebscite, arguing that:
fully provide for the implementation of
the initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, it could have provided for  the calling and holding of such a
a subtitle therefor, considering that in plebiscite is, by Constitution, a
the order of things, the primacy of power lodged exclusively in
interest, or hierarchy of values, the right Congress.
of the people to directly propose  the proposed amendment in
amendments to the Constitution is far question cannot be presented to
more important than the initiative on the people for ratification
national and local laws. separately from each and all of the
other amendments. (Sec. 1, Art.
Tolentino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L- XV – partly stated above)
34150, October 16, 1971
The COMELEC argued that the power
to provide for, fix the date and lay down
the details of the plebiscite is within the
FACTS:
authority of the Constitutional
Convention and that this power
The Constitutional Convention of 1971 includes that of submitting such
came into being by virtue of two amendments either individually or
resolutions of the Congress of the jointly.
Philippines by Resolutions No. 2 and 4
on March 16, 1967 and June 17, 1969,
ISSUES:
respectively.

1. Whether the Constitutional

On November 10, 1970, the delegates
Convention is governed by the
were elected. The Convention has its
Constitution.
inaugural session on June 1, 1971.
2. Whether the plebiscite initiated by
Three months later, the Constitutional
the Constitutional Convention,
Convention approved Organic
and to be held by the COMELEC
Resolution No. 1. Constitutional
is constitutional
Convention OR No. 1 lowered the
voting age to 18 years old and made
RATIO:
women qualified to vote.
 1. The Constitutional Convention No. 626-A is assailed. Said order
is governed by the decreed an absolute ban on the inter-
Constitution. provincial transportation of carabao
(regardless of age, sex, physical
As a creature of the Constitution, the condition or purpose) and carabeef.
Constitutional Convention is governed The carabao or carabeef transported in
by the same Constitution that created it. violation of this shall be confiscated and
This Convention has not been called by forfeited in favor of the government, to
the people, that is, revolutionary be distributed to charitable institutions
convention). Consequently, it is not and other similar institutions as the
completely without restrain and Chairman of the National Meat
omnipotent all wise. Therefore, it is Inspection Commission (NMIC) may
subject to the constraints imposed upon see fit, in the case of carabeef. In the
it by the Constitution. case of carabaos, these shall be given
to deserving farmers as the Director of
2. The plebiscite initiated by the Animal Industry (AI) may also see fit.
Constitutional Convention, and Petitioner had transported six (6)
to be held by the Comelec, is carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate
not constitutional. to Iloilo. These were confiscated by the
police for violation of the above order.
The plebiscite is against Sec. 1, Article He sued for recovery, which the RTC
of the 1935 Constitution, which granted upon his filing of a supersedeas
provides that: bond worth 12k. After trial on the merits,
the lower court sustained the
confiscation of the carabaos, and as
“SECTION 1. … Such amendments they can no longer be produced,
shall be valid as part of this Constitution directed the confiscation of the bond. It
when approved by a majority of votes deferred from ruling on the
cast at an election at which the constitutionality of the executive order,
amendments are submitted to the on the grounds of want of authority and
people for their ratification.” (emphasis presumed validity. On appeal to the
supplied) Intermediate Appellate Court, such
ruling was upheld. Hence, this petition
The phrase “an election” refers to a for review on certiorari. On the main,
singular election. The rationale of which petitioner asserts that EO 626-A is
is that, to allow the people to realize the unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes
wisdom and appropriateness of the outright confiscation, and that its
provision, they need to examine the penalty suffers from invalidity because
amendments proposed by the it is imposed without giving the owner a
Constitutional Convention in harmony right to be heard before a competent
with the others, as well as the rest of the and impartial court—as guaranteed by
Constitution. due process.

ISSUE
YNOT v. IAC
Whether EO 626-A is unconstitutional
FACTS for being violative of the due process
clause.
Here, the constitutionality of former
President Marcos’s Executive Order HELD
YES. To warrant a valid exercise of transported is immediately impounded
police power, the following must be by the police and declared as forfeited
present: (a) that the interests of the for the government. Concededly, there
public, generally, as distinguished from are certain occasions when notice and
those of a particular class, require such hearing can be validly dispensed with,
interference, and; (b) that the means such as summary abatement of a public
are reasonably necessary for the nuisance, summary destruction of
accomplishment of the purpose. In US pornographic materials, contaminated
v. Toribio, the Court has ruled that EO meat and narcotic drugs. However,
626 complies with the above these are justified for reasons of
requirements—that is, the carabao, as immediacy of the problem sought to be
a poor man’s tractor so to speak, has a corrected and urgency of the need to
direct relevance to the public welfare correct it. In the instant case, no such
and so is a lawful subject of the order, pressure is present. The manner by
and that the method chosen is also which the disposition of the confiscated
reasonably necessary for the purpose property also presents a case of invalid
sought to be achieved and not unduly delegation of legislative powers since
oppressive. The ban of the slaughter of the officers mentioned (Chairman and
carabaos except those seven years old Director of the NMIC and AI
if male and eleven if female upon respectively) are granted unlimited
issuance of a permit adequately works discretion. The usual standard and
for the conservation of those still fit for reasonable guidelines that said officers
farm work or breeding, and prevention must observe in making the distribution
of their improvident depletion. Here, are nowhere to be found; instead, they
while EO 626-A has the same lawful are to go about it as they may see fit.
subject, it fails to observe the second Obviously, this makes the exercise
requirement. Notably, said EO imposes prone to partiality and abuse, and even
an absolute ban not on the slaughter of corruption.
the carabaos but on their movement.
The object of the prohibition is unclear.
The reasonable connection between
the means employed and the purpose
sought to be achieved by the disputed
measure is missing. It is not clear how
the interprovincial transport of the
animals can prevent their indiscriminate
slaughter, as they can be killed
anywhere, with no less difficulty in one
province than in another. Obviously,
retaining them in one province will not
prevent their slaughter there, any more
that moving them to another will make
it easier to kill them there. Even if
assuming there was a reasonable
relation between the means and the
end, the penalty is invalid as it amounts
to outright confiscation, denying
petitioner a chance to be heard. Unlike
in the Toribio case, here, no trial is
prescribed and the property being