CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Table of Contents
MODULE 1: Constitutional Law 
The Philippine Constitution 3
Classification of the Constitutions 4
Interpretation of the Constitution 5
Self Executing v. Non-Self Executing 5
Brief History of the Constitution 6
The 1987 Constitution 12
Modes of Proposing Amendments or Revisions of the
Constitution 13
Is RA 6735 Sufficient? 15
De Leon v. Esguerra (1987) 17
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS 267 SCRA 408 (1997) 18
Oposa v. Factoran 18
Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997) 19

MODULE 2: THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE

Concept of a State 25
    
Powers of the State
31
South China Sea Arbitration 32
Province of North Cotabato v. The Gov’t of the RP Peace Panel
on Ancestral Domain [G.K No. 18359 1, October 14, 2008] 40
Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 (2011) 41

MODULE 3: STATE IMMUNITY, PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES,

THE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT
State Immunity 41
University of the Philippines (UP) v. Dizon, 679 SCRA 54 (2012) 51
Section 1 – Democratic and Republican State 52
Section 3 – Civilian Supremacy, The Role of the AFP 54
Section 4 – Compulsory Service 55
Section 6 – Separation of the Church and the State 55
Section 16 – Healthful Ecology 61
Doctrine of Separation of Power, Blending of Powers, Checks
and Balances 61
The Executive, The Legislative, The Judiciary, Constitutional
Commissions 62
Villavicencio v. Lukban [G.R. No. 14639, March 25, 1919] 62

Page 1 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Aglipay v. Ruiz [G.R. No. 4545 9, March 13, 1937] 62

Imbong v Ochoa Jr., 721 SCRA 146 (2014) 63

MODULE 4: THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

The Legislative 65
Llamanzares v. COMELEC [G.R. No. 221698-700, September
18, 1995] 103
Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC [G.R. No. 119976, 18
Septmeber 1995] 103
Aquino v. COMELEC [G.R. No. 120265, September 18,1995] 104
Belgica v. Ochoa (2013) 104
Senate v. Ermita [G.R. No. 169777, 2006] 105
Tanada v. Angara (1997) 106
Francisco v. House of Representatives 107

MODULE 5: THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Executive Department 107
Marcos v. Manglapus [G.R. No. 88211, 27 October 1989] 126
Estrada v. Desierto, [G.R. No. 146710-16, March 2, 2001] 128
De Castro v. JBC (2010) 132
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary (2004) 132
IBP v. Zamora (2000) 132
Lagman v. Medialdea (2017) 133

MODULE 6: THE JUDICIARY

Judiciary 133
The Supreme Court 135
Composition 135
The Judicial Review 136
Actual Case or Controversy 136
Lis Mota of the Case 137
Moot and Academic 138
Grave abuse of discretion 138
References 139
Acknowledgement 140

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
MODULE 1 Political Law defined. That
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW branch of public law which deals
with the organization ,and
operations of the governmental

Page 2 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

organs of the State and defines the

relations of the State with the Statutes, executive orders and
inhabitants of its territory [People v. decrees, and judicial decisions
Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887; Macariola v.
Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77]. U.S. Constitution.

 THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

Scope/Divisions of Political Law.
Constitution defined. That body of
Constitutional Law. The study of rules and maxims in accordance
the maintenance of the proper with which the powers of sovereignty
balance between authority as are habitually exercised [Cooley,
represented by the three inherent Constitutional Limitations, p. 4].
powers of the State and liberty as With particular reference to the
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights Constitution of the Philippines: That
[Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1993 ed., written instrument enacted by direct
p. 1]. action of the people by which the
fundamental powers of the
Administrative Law. That branch government are established, limited
of public law which fixes the and defined, and by which those
organization of government, powers are distributed among the
determines the competence of the several departments for their safe
administrative authorities who and useful exercise for the benefit of
execute the law, and indicates to the the body politic [Malcolm, Philippine
individual remedies for the violation Constitutional Law, p. 6].
of his rights.
Purpose. To prescribe the
Law on Municipal Corporations. permanent framework of a system of
government, to assign to the several
Law of Public Officers. departments their respective powers
and duties, and to establish certain
first principles on which the
Election Laws. government is founded [11 Am. Jur.
Basis of the Study. 606].

1987 Constitution Classification:

Written or unwritten. A written

1973 and 1935 Constitutions constitution is one whose precepts
are embodied in one document or
Other organic laws made to apply to set of documents; while an
the Philippines, e.g., Philippine Bill unwritten constitution consists of
of 1902, Jones Law of 1916, and rules which have not been
Tydings-McDuffie Law of 1934. integrated into a single, concrete

Page 3 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

form but are scattered in various Brief. It must confine itself to basic
sources, such as statutes of a principles to be implemented with
fundamental character, judicial legislative details more adjustable to
decisions, commentaries of change and easier to amend.
publicists, customs and traditions,
and certain common law principles
[Cruz, Constitutional Law, pp. 4-5]. Definite. To prevent ambiguity in its
provisions which could result in
confusion and divisiveness among
Enacted (Conventional) or Evolved the people [Cruz, ibid,, pp. 5-6],
(Cumulative). A conventional
constitution is enacted, formally Essential parts of a good written
struck off at a definite time and Constitution:
place following a conscious or
deliberate effort taken by a Constitution of Liberty. The
constituent body or ruler; while a series of prescriptions setting forth
cumulative constitution is the result the fundamental civil and political
of political evolution, not rights of the citizens and imposing
inaugurated at any specific time but limitations on the powers of
changing by accretion rather than government as a means of securing
by any systematic method [Cruz, the enjoyment of those rights, e.g.,
ibid., p. 5]. Art. III.

Rigid or Flexible. A rigid Constitution of

Constitution is one that can be Government. The series of
amended only by a formal and provisions outlining the organization
usually difficult process; while a of the government, enumerating its
flexible Constitution is one that can powers, laying down certain rules
be changed by ordinary legislation relative to its administration, and
[Cruz, ibid., p. 5]. defining the electorate, e.g., Arts. VI,
VII, VIII and IX.
Qualities of a good written
Constitution: Constitution of Sovereignty.
The provisions pointing out the
mode or procedure in accordance
Broad. Not just because it provides with which formal changes in the
for the organization of the entire fundamental law may be brought
government and covers all persons about, e.g., Art. XVII.
and things within the territory of the
State but because it must be
comprehensive enough to provide Interpretation/Construction
for every contingency. of the Constitution.

Page 4 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

In Francisco v. House of the two can be made to stand

Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, together.
November 10, 2003, the Supreme
Court made reference to the use of
well- settled principles of If, however, the plain meaning of the
constitutional construction, namely: word is not found to be clear, resort
First, verba legis. e., whenever to other aids is available. Again in
possible, the words used in the Civil Liberties Union, supra., it was
Constitution must be given their held that while it is permissible to
ordinary meaning except where consult the debates and proceedings
technical terms are employed. As of the constitutional convention in
the Constitution is not primarily a order to arrive at the reason and
lawyer’s document, it being essential purpose of the resulting
for the rule of law to obtain that it Constitution, resort thereto may be
should ever be present in the had only when other guides fail as
people’s consciousness, its language said proceedings are powerless to
as much as possible should be vary the terms of the Constitution
understood in the sense they have a when the meaning is clear. We think
common use. Second, where there is it safer to construe the Constitution
ambiguity, ratio leqis et anima. from what “appears upon its face”.
The words of the Constitution The proper interpretation, therefore,
should be interpreted in accordance depends more on how it was
with the intent of the framers. Thus, understood by the people adopting it
in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive than in the framers’ understanding
Secretary, 194 SCRA 317, it was thereof.
held that the Court in construing a
Constitution should bear in mind  In case of doubt, the provisions
the object sought to be should be considered self-
accomplished and the evils sought executing; mandatory rather than
to be prevented or remedied. A directory; and prospective rather
doubtful provision shall be than retroactive.
examined in light of the history of
the times and the conditions and  Self-executing provisions. A
circumstances under which the provision which lays down a general
Constitution was framed. Third, ut principle is usually not self-
magis valeat quam pereat. i.e., the executing. But a provision which is
Constitution has to be interpreted complete in itself and becomes
as a whole. In Civil Liberties Union, operative without the aid of
it was declared that sections bearing supplementary or enabling
on a particular subject should be legislation, or that which supplies a
considered and interpreted together sufficient rule by means of which
as to effectuate the whole purpose of the right it grants may be enjoyed or
the Constitution and one section is protected, is self-executing.
not to be allowed to defeat another,
if by any reasonable construction,

Page 5 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Thus, a constitutional Apolinario Mabini and Felipe

provision is self-executing if the Calderon.
nature and extent of the right
conferred and the liability imposed
are fixed by the Constitution itself, The Calderon proposal was reported
so that they can be determined by to the Congress on October 8, 1898,
an examination and construction of and the Congress approved the
its terms, and there is no language proposed Constitution on November
indicating that the subject is 29, 1898.
referred to the legislature for action
[Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. President Emilio Aguinaldo
No. 122156, February 03, 1997]. approved the same on December 23,
1898; Congress ratified it on
ii) Section 26, Article II of the January 20, 1899.
Constitution neither bestows a right
nor elevates the privilege to the level Aguinaldo promulgated the
of an enforceable right. Like the rest Constitution the following day, along
of the policies enumerated in Article with the establishment of the
II, the provision does not contain Philippine Republic on January 21,
any judicially enforceable 1899.
constitutional right but merely
specifies a guideline for legislative or
executive action. The disregard of This was the first republican
this provision does not give rise to constitution in Asia, framed by a
any cause of action before the revolutionary convention which
courts [Pamatong v. Comelec, G.R. included 40 lawyers, 16 physicians,
No. 161872, April 13, 2004]. 5 pharmacists, 2 engineers and 1
  priest. The Constitution recognized
Brief Constitutional History. that sovereign power was vested in
the people, provided for a
parliamentary government,
The Malolos Constitution. acknowledged separation of powers,
and contained a bill of rights.
The Philippine Revolution of 1896.

The American Regime and the

Proclamation of Philippine Organic Acts
independence, at Kawit, Cavite, on The Treaty of Paris of
June 12, 1898. December 10, 1898. The treaty of
peace entered into between the US
Revolutionary Congress convened at and Spain upon the cessation of the
Barasoain Church, Malolos, Spanish-American War. It provided,
Bulacan, on September 15, 1898. among others, for the cession of the
Three drafts were submitted, Philippine Islands by Spain to the
namely, the drafts of Pedro Paterno, US.

Page 6 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

US President McKinley’s The Jones Law [Philippine

Instructions of April 7, 1900, to Autonomy Act] of August 29, 1916.
transform the military into a civil It superseded the Spooner
government as rapidly as conditions Amendment and the Philippine Bill
would permit. On September 1, of 1902. It was the principal organic
1900, the authority to exercise that act of the Philippines until
part of the military power of the US November 15,1935, when the
President which is legislative in Philippine Commonwealth was
character was transferred from the inaugurated (under the 1935
military government to the Constitution). It contained a
Philippine Commission [first, the preamble, a bill of rights, provisions
Schurman Commission, then, the defining the organization and
Taft Commission]. powers of the departments of
  government, provisions defining the
The Spooner Amendment to electorate, and miscellaneous
the Army Appropriation Bill of provisions on finance, franchises
March 2, 1901 provided that all and salaries of important officials.
military, civil and judicial powers Executive power was vested in the
necessary to govern the Philippine Governor General, legislative power
Islands shall be exercised in such in a bicameral legislature composed
manner x x x for the establishment of the Senate and House of
of a civil government and for Representatives, and judicial power
maintaining and protecting the in the Supreme Court, the Courts of
inhabitants in the free enjoyment of First Instance and inferior courts.
their liberty, property and religion.
On July 1, 1901, the Office of the
Civil Governor was created, and the The Tydings-McDuffie Act
executive authority previously [Philippine Independence Act] of
exercised by the military governor March 24, 1934 authorized the
was transferred to the Civil drafting of a Constitution for the
Governor. Philippines, the establishment of a
Commonwelath Government and,
The Philippine Bill of July 1, after ten years, independence.
1902 continued the existing civil
government, with the commitment The 1935 Constitution
from the US Congress to convene
and organize in the Philippines a
legislative body of their own Pursuant to the authority
representatives. On October granted under the Tydings-McDuffie
16,1907, the Philippine Assembly Law, the Philippine Legislature
was convened to sit as the Lower passed Act No. 4125 (May 26,1934)
House in a bicameral legislature, calling for the election of delegates
with the Philippine Commission as to the Constitutional Convention.
the Upper House.

Page 7 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Election  of  delegates:  July  Elections [Resolution: April 11,

10,  1934;  Constitutional  1940; Plebiscite: June 18, 1940]
Convention inaugural: July
30,1934. Draft Constitution
approved by the Constitutional Another amendment was
Convention on February 8, 1935; adopted in 1947: Parity
brought to Washington on March Amendment, effective July 4, 1949,
18, 1935, and on March 23, 1935, granting to Americans, for a period
US President Franklin Delano of twenty-five years, the same
Roosevelt certified that the draft privileges as Filipinos in the
constitution conformed utilization and exploitation of
substantially with the Tydings- natural resources in the Philippines
McDuffie Law. [Resolution: September 18, 1946;
Plebiscite: March 11, 1947], See:
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1.
The Constitution was ratified
in a plebiscite held on May 14,
1935. The Japanese (Belligerent)
Occupation

The Philippine Commonwealth

established under the Constitution With  the  occupation  of  Manila, 
was inaugurated on November 15, the  Commander  in  Chief  of  the
1935; full independence was Japanese Forces proclaimed, on
attained with the inauguration of January 2, 1942, the military
the (Third) Philippine Republic on administration over the territory
July 4, 1946. occupied by the army, and ordered
that “all the laws now in force in the
Commonwealth, as well as executive
The Constitution was and judicial institutions shall
amended in 1939: Ordinance continue to be effective for the time
appended to the Constitution, in being as in the past”, and “all public
accordance with the Tydings- officials shall remain in their
Kocialkowski Act of August 7, 1939 present posts and carry on faithfully
[Resolution of Congress: September their duties as before”.
15, 1939; Plebiscite: October 24,
1939]
Order No. 1 of the Japanese
Commander in Chief, on January
 It was amended again in 1940: 23, 1942, organized the Philippine
Changed President’s and Vice Executive Commission.
President’s term from six to four
years, but no person shall serve as
President for more than 8 years; Executive Orders Nos. 1 and
changed the unicameral to a 4, dated January 30 and February
bicameral legislature; established an 6, 1942, respectively, continued the
independent Commission on Supreme Court, the Court of

Page 8 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Appeals, the Courts of First Instance authorizing that specific

and Justices of the Peace Courts, apportionment of delegates to the
with the same jurisdiction, in Constitutional Convention and other
conformity with later instructions details relating to the election of
given by the Commander in Chief of delegates be embodied in an
the Japanese Imperial Army in implementing legislation
Order No. 3, dated February 20,
1942.
Republic Act No. 6132:
Constitutional Convention Act of
October 14, 1943, the 1970.
(Second) Philippine Republic was
inaugurated, with Jose P. Laurel as See Imbong v. Comelec, 35
President. SCRA 28, where the
constitutionality of the RA 6132 was
The 1973 Constitution challenged because it had to do with
the calling of a Constitutional
Convention but was not passed by
Resolution of Both Houses % of all the members of the Senate
(RBH) No. 1, March 16, 1967, and the House of Representatives,
increasing the membership of the voting separately. The Supreme
House of Representatives from 120 Court upheld the validity of the law,
to 180 declaring that after Congress had
exercised its constituent power by
adopting RBH 2 and RBH 4, with
RBH No. 2, March 16,1967, the requisite % vote as required by
calling for a Constitutional the 1935 Constitution, it may, by
Convention to revise the 1935 simply exercising legislative power,
Constitution pass a law providing for the details
for the implementation of the
RBH No. 3, March 16, 1967, resolutions passed in the exercise of
allowing members of Congress to sit its constituent power.
as delegates in the Constitutional
Convention without forfeiting their Election of delegates:
seats in Congress November 10, 1970; Constitutional
Convention was inaugurated on
June 1, 1971.
RBH 1 and RBH 3 were  
submitted to the people in a Attempt of the Constitutional
plebiscite simultaneously with local Convention to submit for ratification
elections in November 1967, but one resolution (reducing the voting
both were rejected by the people. age from 21 to 18) in a plebiscite to
coincide with the 1971 local
elections was declared
RBH No. 4, June 17, 1969,
unconstitutional by the Supreme
amending RBH No. 2, and

Page 9 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Court in Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 academic when President Marcos

SCRA 702. The Court held that issued Presidential Proclamation
when a Constitutional 1102, declaring that the
Constitution had been ratified and
has come into force and effect.
Convention is called for the purpose
of revising the Constitution, it may
not submit for ratification On December 23, 1972,
“piecemeal amendments” because President Marcos announced the
the 1935 Constitution speaks of postponement of the plebiscite, but
submission of the proposed it was only on January 7, 1973, that
amendments in “an election” (in the General Order No. 20 was issued,
singular), and also because to allow directing that the plebiscite
the submission would deprive the scheduled on January 15,1973, be
people of a “proper frame of postponed until further notice, and
reference”. withdrawing the order of December
17, 1972, suspending the effects of
Presidential Proclamation No. Pres. Proclamation 1081 which
1081, on September 21, 1972: allowed free and open debate on the
Declaration of martial law by proposed Constitution.
President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
On December 31, 1972,
Constitutional Convention Marcos issued Presidential Decree
approved the draft Constitution on No. 86, organizing the Citizens
November 29, 1972 . Assemblies to be consulted on
certain public issues; and on
January 5, 1973, issued Presidential
On November 30,1972, Decree No. 86-A, calling the Citizens
President Marcos issued a decree Assemblies to meet on January 10-
setting the plebiscite for the 15, 1973, to vote on certain
ratification of the new Constitution questions, among them: “Do you
on January 15, 1973; on December approve of the new Constitution?”
17, 1972, issued an order and “Do you still want a plebiscite to
suspending the effects of be called to ratify the new
Presidential Proclamation 1081 in Constitution?”
order to allow free and open debate  
on the proposed Constitution. m) On January 17, 1973, President
Marcos issued Presidential
Proclamation No. 1102, declaring
. i) Planas v. Comelec, 49 SCRA 105, that the new Constitution had been
and companion cases (collectively ratified by the
known as the Plebiscite Cases)
sought to prohibit the holding of the
plebiscite. The cases were eventually Citizens Assemblies, and “has
dismissed for being moot and thereby come into force and effect”.

Page 10 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

justices voted to dismiss the

petitions, while four were for giving
The validity of the ratification due course to the petitions. (5)
of the 1973 Constitution was Whether the new Constitution is
challenged in Javellana v. Executive already in force - Four said yes by
Secretary, 50 SCRA 30, and virtue of the people’s acceptance of
companion cases (collectively known the same, four said they could not
as the Ratification Cases). The basic with judicial certainty whether or
issues and the votes of the SC not the people had accepted the
justices were: (1) Whether the Constitution, and two declared that
validity of Proclamation 1102 is a the new Constitution is not in force,
political or a justiciable question - “with the result that there are not
Six justices said it is justiciable, enough votes to declare tha the new
three said it is political, and one Constitution is not in force”. The SC
justice qualified his vote. (2) decision concluded: “Accordingly, by
Whether the new Constitution was virtue of the majority
validly ratified (with substantial if of six votes x x x. with four
not strict compliance) conformably dissenting votes x x x all of the
with the 1935 Constitution - Six aforementioned cases are hereby
justices said no, three said there dismissed. This being the vote of the
was substantial compliance, and majority, there is no further judicial
one qualified his vote. (3) Whether obstacle to the new Constitution
the people had acquiesced in the being considered in force and effect.
new Constitution (with or without ”
valid ratification) - Four justices said
the people had already accepted the
new Constitution, two said that The 1973 Constitution was
there can be no free expression by amended in 1976: Package often
the people qualified to vote of their (10) amendments, proposed by
acceptance or repudiation of the Marcos on September 2, 1976,
proposed Constitution under martial without specifying the particular
law, one said he is not prepared to provisions being changed. This
state that a new Constitution once package contained the infamous
accepted by the people must be Amendment No. 6. The amendments
accorded recognition independently were ratified in a plebiscite held on
of valid ratification, and three October 16, 1976.
expressed their lack of knowledge or
competence to rule on the question
because under a regime of martial In Sanidad v. Comelec, 73
law with the free expression of SCRA 333, where the authority of
opinions restricted, they have no President Marcos to propose
means of knowing, to the point of amendments to the Constitution
judicial certainty, whether the was challenged, the high tribunal
people have accepted the said: “If the President has been
Constitution. (4) Whether the legitimately discharging the
petitioners are entitled to relief - Six legislative powers of the interim

Page 11 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

(National) Assembly (which was

never convened), there is no reason
why he cannot validly discharge the  A petition to prohibit the holding of
functions of the Assembly to the snap election was filed with the
propose amendments to the SC in Philippine Bar Association v.
Constitution, which is but adjunct, Comelec, 140 SCRA 455. But the
though peculiar, to its gross petition was dismissed because
legislative power x x x (W)ith the considerations other than legal had
interim Natiional Assembly not already set in, the candidates were
convened and only the President'and in the thick of the campaign, and
the Supreme Court in operation, the the people were already looking
urge of absolute necessity renders it forward to the election.
imperative upon the President to act
as agent for and in behalf of the February 22-25,1986: EDSAI
people to propose amendments to People’s Revolution. See: Lawyers
the Constitution.” League for a Better Philippines v.
Corazon Aquino, G.R. No. 73748,
The Constitution was May 22, 1986, where the Supreme
amended again on January 30, Court held that the Cory Aquino
1980: Restored original retirement government was not only a de facto
age of judges to 70 years of age but a de jure government.

Another amendment was  The 1987 Constitution.

adopted on April 7, 1981: Restored
the presidential system, while  Proclamation of the Freedom
retaining certain features of the Constitution
parliamentary system; granted
natural-born Filipinos who had been
naturalized in a foreign country the  Proclamation No. 1, February 25,
right to own a limited area of 1986, announcing that she (Corazon
residential land in the Philippines Aquino) and Vice President Laurel
were assuming power.
 
Still another amendment was Executive Order No. 1 [February
made on January 27,1984: Provided 28, 1986]
for new rules on presidential
succession, replaced the Executive
Committee with a revived Office of Proclamation No. 3, March
the Vice President, and changed the 25,1986, announced the
composition of the Batasan promulgation of the Provisional
Pambansa [Freedom] Constitution, pending the
drafting and ratification of a new
Constitution. It adopted certain
Snap presidential election of provisions of the 1973 Constitution,
1986. contained additional articles on the

Page 12 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

executive department, on could not invoke an exclusionary

government reorganization, and on right under a Bill of Rights because
existing laws. It also provided for the there was neither a Constitution nor
calling of a Constitutional a Bill of Rights [Republic v.
Commission to be composed of 30- Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10].
50 members, to draft a new
Constitution. See: Lawyers League
for a Better Philippines v. Aquino, Adoption of the Constitution
G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986; In
Re: Saturnino Bermudez, 145 SCRA Proclamation No. 9, creating
160. the Constitutional Commission of 50
members.
As stated in Proclamation No.
3, the EDSA revolution was “done in Approval of draft Constitution
defiance of the 1973 Constitution”. by the Constitutional Commission
The resulting government was on October 15, 1986.
indisputably a revolutionary
government bound by no
constitution or legal limitations Plebiscite held on February 2,
except treaty obligations that the 1987.
revolutionary government, as the de
jure government in the Philippines,
assumed under international law Proclamation No. 58,
[Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 proclaiming the ratification of the
SCRA 10 (2003)]. Constitution.
 
Effectivity of the 1987
During the interregnum, after Constitution: February 2, 1987, the
the actual take-over of power by the date of the plebiscite when the
revolutionary government (on people ratified the Constitution [De
February 25, 1986) up to March 24, Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602].
1986 (immediately before the
adoption of the Provisional
Constitution), the directives and D. Amendment.
orders of the revolutionary
government were the supreme law Amendment vs. Revision.
because no constitution limited the
extent and scope of such directives
and orders. With the abrogation of Lambino v. Comelec, G.R. No.
the 1973 Constitution by the 174153, October 25, 2006,
successful revolution, there was no enumerates the distinctions between
municipal law higher than the revision and amendment, as follows:
directives and orders of the Revision broadly implies a change
revolutionary government. Thus, that alters a basic principle in the
during this interregnum, a person Constitution, like altering the

Page 13 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

principle of separation of powers or Constituent v. Legislative

the system of checks and balances. Power. See Imbong v. Comelec, 35
There is also revision if the change SCRA 28, where the Supreme Court
alters the substantial entirety of the declared R.A. 6132 constitutional,
Constitution. On the other hand, as it merely provided the details for
amendment broadly refers to a the implementation of Resolution of
change that adds, reduces, deletes, Both Houses (RBH) Nos. 2 and 4.
without altering the basic principle
involved. Revision generally affects
several provisions of the Steps in the amendatory
Constitution; while amendment process:
generally affects only the specific
provision being amended. Proposal [Secs. 1-3, Art. XVII].
The adoption of the suggested
In determining whether the change in the Constitution. A
Lambino proposal involves an proposed amendment may come
amendment or a revision, the Court from:
considered the two-part test. First,
the quantitative test asks whether i.) Congress, by a vote of % of all its
the proposed change is so extensive members. Majority of authorities
in its provisions as to change opine that this is to be understood
directly the “substance entirety” of as 3/4 of the Senate and 3/4 of the
the Constitution by the deletion or House of Representatives.
alteration of numerous provisions.
The court examines only the
number of provisions affected and ia) See Occena v. Comelec, 104
does not consider the degree of the SCRA 1, which is authority for the
change. Second, the qualitative test, principle that the choice of method
which inquiries into the qualitative of proposal, i.e., whether made
effects of the proposed change in the directly by Congress or through a
Constitution. The main inquiry is Constitutional Convention, is within
whether the change will “accomplish the full discretion of the legislature.
such far-reaching changes in the
nature of our basic governmental
plan as to amount to a revision”. Constitutional Convention,
The Lambino proposal constituted a which may be called into existence
revision, not simply an amendment, either by a 2/3 vote of all the
of the Constitution, because it members of Congress, or (if such
involved a change in the form of vote is not obtained) by a majority
government, from presidential to vote of all the members of Congress
parliamentary, and a shift from the with the question of whether or not
present bicameral to a a unicameral to call a Convention to be resolved
legislature.  by the people in a plebiscite [Sec. 3,
Art. XVII].

Page 14 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

iia) Three Theories on the position of local legislation which refers to a

a Constitutional Convention vis-a- petition proposing to enact a
vis the regular departments of regional, provincial, city, municipal
government: (1) Theory of or bararigay law, resolution or
Conventional Sovereignty [Loomis v. ordinance [Sec. 2(a), R.A. 6735].
Jackson, 6 W. Va. 613]; (2) Indirect Initiative is exercise of
Convention is inferior to the other initiative by the people through a
departments [Wood’s Appeal, 79 Pa. proposition sent to Congress or the
59]; (3) Independent of and co-equal local legislative body for action [Sec.
to the other departments [Mabanag 2(b) R.A. 6735].
v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1], People,   
through  the  power  of  initiative  iiibl) In the Resolution (on the
[Sec.  2,  Art.  XVI/]. Motion for Reconsideration) in
Lambino v. Comelec, the Court
noted that the majority of the
Requisite: A petition of at least 12% justices had voted to declare RA
of the total number of registered 6735 sufficient and adequate for a
voters, of which every legislative people’s intitiative. Lambino thus
district must be represented by at effectively abandoned the ruling in
least 3% of the registered voters Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec, G.R.
therein. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, where
the Supreme Court declared R.A.
iiia) Limitation: No amendment in 6735 inadequate to cover the system
this manner shall be authorized of initiative to amend the
within five years following the Constitution.
ratification of this Constitution nor
more often than once every five iiic) Procedure. The essence of
years thereafter. amendments directly proposed by
the people through initiative upon a
iiib) Under Republic Act No. 6735 petition is that the entire proposal
[An Act Providing for a System of on its face is a petition of the people.
Initiative and Referendum], Thus, two essential elements must
approved on August 4, 1989, be present: (1) The people must
initiative is the power of the people author and sign the entire proposal;
to propose amendments to the no agent or representative can sign
Constitution or to propose and enact in their behalf. (2) As an initiative
legislation through an election called upon a petition, the proposal must
for the purpose. There are three be embodied in the petition. The
systems of initiative, namely: rationale for these requisites is that
initiative on the Constitution which the signature requirement would be
refers to a petition proposing meaningless if the person supplying
amendments to the Constitution; the signature has not first seen
initiative on statutes which refers to what it is that he is signing, and
a petition proposing to enact a more importantly, a loose
national legislation; and initiative on interpretation of the subscription

Page 15 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

requirement would pose a on Elections of the sufficiency of the

significant potential for fraud. In petition for initiative under Sec. 2,
Lambino, the great majority of the Art. XVII. i)
6.3 million people who signed the
signature sheets did not see the full
text of the proposed changes before Doctrine of proper
signing; they were not apprised of submission. Because the
the nature and effect of the Constitution itself prescribes the
proposed amendments. Failure to time frame within which the
comply with these requirements was plebiscite is to be held, there can no
fatal to the validity of the initiative longer be a question on whether the
petition [Lambino v. Comelec, time given to the people to
supra.]. determine the merits and demerits
of the proposed amendment is
adequate. Other related principles:
iiid) People’s initiative applies only to  
an amendment, not a revision, of
the Constitution. A people’s
initiative can only propose ia) The plebiscite may be held on the
amendments to the Constitution, same day as regular elections
inasmuch as the Constitution itself [Gonzales v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774;
limits initiatives to amendments, as Occena v. Comelec, 104 SCRA 1;
shown by the deliberations of the Almario v. Alba, 127 SCRA 69].
Constitutional Commission. The
Lambino initiative constituted a
ib) The use of the word “election"
revision because it proposed to
in the singular meant that the entire
change the form
Constitution must be submitted for
of government from presidential to
ratification at one plebiscite only;
parliamentary and the bicameral to
furthermore, the people have to be
a unicameral legislature. Thus, the
given a “proper frame of reference”
people’s initiative as a mode to effect
in arriving at their decision. Thus,
these proposed amendments was
submission for ratification of piece-
invalid [Lambino v. Comelec,
meal amendments by the
supra.].
Constitutional Convention (which is
tasked to revise the Constitution)
Ratification [Sec. 4, Art. XVII], was disallowed since the people had,
The proposed amendment shall at that time, no idea yet of what the
become part of the Constitution rest of the revised Constitution
when ratified by a majority of the would be [Tolentino v. Comelec, 41
votes cast in a plebiscite held not SCRA 702]. 
earlier than 60 nor later than 90
days after the approval of the
proposal by Congress or the REPUBLIC ACT 6735 NOW
Constitutional Convention, or after SUFFICIENT?
the certification by the Commission

Page 16 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Dean Jorge Bocobo has an countervailing considerations, like

interesting observation on the cases ought to be decided alike.
Supreme Court’s Resolution denying The Santiago vs. COMELEC
the motions to reconsider the doctrine. The ruling in Santiago vs.
dismissal of the petition for people’s COMELEC may be summarized in
initiative. The “minute resolution” this manner: RA 6735, also known
pertinently reads: as the “People’s Initiative and
Ten (10) Members of the Court Referendum Act”, is incomplete,
reiterate their position, as shown by inadequate, or wanting in essential
their various opinions already given terms and conditions insofar as
when the Decision herein was initiative on amendments to the
promulgated, that Republic Act No. Constitution is concerned”.
6735 is sufficient and adequate to Santiago was decided by the
amend the Constitution thru a Supreme Court en banc, which
people’s initiative. means that it may be overturned
Now, does this single sentence only in another en banc decision
constitute a reversal of the ruling in and only when necessary.
Santiago vs. COMELEC incomplete, The Lambino vs. COMELEC
inadequate, or wanting in essential ruling. The Supreme Court’s ruling
terms and conditions insofar as in Lambino vs. COMELEC, in
initiative on amendments to the contrast to the Santiago ruling,
Constitution is concerned? states that there is no need to revisit
A “minute resolution”. The Supreme the sufficiency of R.A. 6735. In the
Court is not compelled to adopt a words of the Supreme Court:
definite and stringent rule on how There is no need to revisit this
its judgment shall be framed. It has Court’s ruling in Santiago declaring
long been settled that the Supreme RA 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or
Court has discretion to decide wanting in essential terms and
whether a “minute resolution” conditions” to cover the system of
should be used in lieu of a full- initiative to amend the Constitution.
blown decision in any particular In other words, any
case. Depending on the tenor, a discussion on the sufficiency of RA
minute resolution has the same 6735 is an obiter, and the
effect as any decision. subsequent “reiteration” of the
Stare decisis. Under the doctrine of separate opinions of the 10
stare decisis, once a point of law has members of the Supreme Court does
been established by the court, that not change that fact.
point of law will, generally, be Still, the Supreme Court left
followed by the same court and by the door wide open for future
all courts of lower rank in proponents of people’s initiative. It
subsequent cases where the same can be argued that the reiteration of
legal issue is raised. Stare decisis the 10 votes in favor of the
proceeds from the first principle of sufficiency of RA 6735 has the effect
justice that, absent powerful of overturning the Santiago ruling.
In any case, with or without such

Page 17 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

“reiteration”, the Supreme Court is and express intent of the

not precluded from revisiting the Constitutional Commission in
Santiago ruling in future unanimously approving (by thirty-
controversies. five (35) votes in favor and none
One of the effects of the against) the aforequoted Section 27
“reiteration” is this: When a petition of Transitory Article XVIII of the
for people’s initiative is filed in the 1987 Constitution was that “the act
future, the COMELEC can grant the of ratification is the act of voting by
petition on the basis of the the people. So that is the date of the
“reiteration” of the sufficiency of RA ratification” and that “the canvass
6735. In other words, proponents of thereafter [of the votes] is merely the
future moves for a Charter Change mathematical confirmation of what
have a better fighting chance. was done during the date of the
plebiscite and the proclamation of
the President is merely the official
De Leon vs. Esguerra  confirmatory declaration of an act
which was actually done by the
The main issue revolved in the Filipino people in adopting the
judgment at bar whether the 1987 Constitution when they cast their
Constitution took effect on February votes on the date of the plebiscite.”
2, 1987, the date the plebiscite for (De Leon vs. Esguerra) 
its ratification was held or whether
it took effect on February 11, 1987, Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS 
the date its ratification was
proclaimed per Proclamation No. 58 Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the
of the President of the Philippines, 1987 Constitution is a mandatory,
Corazon C. Aquino. The thrust of positive command which is complete
the dissent is that the Constitution in itself and which needs no further
should be deemed to “take effect on guidelines or implementing laws or
the date its ratification shall have rules for its enforcement. From its
been ascertained and not at the time very words the provision does not
the people cast their votes to require any legislation to put it in
approve or reject it.” This view was operation. It is per se judicially
actually proposed at the enforceable. When our Constitution
Constitutional Commission mandates that[i]n the grant of
deliberations, but was withdrawn by rights, privileges, and concessions
its proponent in the face of the covering national economy and
“overwhelming” contrary view that patrimony, the State shall give
the Constitution “will be effective on preference to qualified Filipinos, it
the very day of  means just that - qualified Filipinos
shall be preferred. And when our
the plebiscite.” The record of the Constitution declares that a right
proceedings and debates of the exists in certain specified
Constitutional Commission fully circumstances an action may be
supports the Court’s judgment. It maintained to enforce such right
shows that the clear, unequivocal
Page 18 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

notwithstanding the absence of any and constitutions”.  The right is

legislation on the subject; linked to the constitutional right to
consequently, if there is no statute health, is “fundamental”,
especially enacted to enforce such “constitutionalised”, “self-executing”
constitutional right, such right and “judicially enforceable”. It
enforces itself by its own inherent imposes the correlative duty to
potency and puissance, and from refrain from impairing the
which all legislations must take environment.
their bearings. Where there is a
right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi The court stated that the petitioners
remedium.  were able to file a class suit both for
others of their generation and for
Oposa v. Factoran succeeding generations as “the
minors' assertion of their right to a
An action was filed by several sound environment constitutes, at
minors represented by their parents the same time, the performance of
against the Department of their obligation to ensure the
Environment and Natural Resources protection of that right for the
to cancel existing timber license generations to come.”
agreements in the country and to
Santiago vs. COMELEC 
stop issuance of new ones. It was
claimed that the resultant
Is the System of Initiative to Propose
deforestation and damage to the
Amendments to the Constitution self-
environment violated their
executing? No PROVISION ON THE
constitutional rights to a balanced
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO
and healthful ecology and to health
DIRECTLY PROPOSE
(Sections 16 and 15, Article II of the
AMENDMENTS TO THE
Constitution).   The petitioners
CONSTITUTION, NOT SELF-
asserted that they represented
EXECUTORY. 
others of their generation as well as
generations yet unborn.
Section 2 of Article XVII of the
Constitution is not self-executory. In
Finding for the petitioners, the
his book, Joaquin Bernas, a
Court stated that even though the
member of the 1986 Constitutional
right to a balanced and healthful
Commission, stated: Without
ecology is under the Declaration of
implementing legislation Section 2
Principles and State Policies of the
cannot operate. Thus, although this
Constitution and not under the Bill
mode of amending the Constitution
of Rights, it does not follow that it is
is a mode of amendment which
less important than any of the rights
bypasses congressional action, in
enumerated in the latter: “[it]
the last analysis it still is dependent
concerns nothing less than self-
on congressional action. Bluntly
preservation and self-perpetuation,
stated the right of the people to
the advancement of which may even
directly propose amendments to the
be said to predate all governments
Constitution through the system of

Page 19 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

initiative would remain entombed in the constitutional requirements as

the cold niche of the Constitution to the percentage of the registered
until Congress provides for its voters who must submit the
implementation. Stated otherwise, proposal. But unlike in the case of
while the Constitution has the other systems of initiative, the
recognized or granted that right, the Act does not provide for the contents
people cannot exercise it if of a petition for initiative on the
Congress, for whatever reason, does Constitution. Section 5 paragraph
not provide for its implementation.  (c) requires, among other things, a
statement of the proposed law
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735 IS sought to be enacted, approve or
INSUFFICIENT, AND DOES NOT rejected, amended or repealed, as
COVER INITIATIVE ON THE the case may be. It does not include,
CONSTITUTION. First, Contrary to as among the contents of the
the assertion of public respondent petition, the provisions of the
COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does Constitution sought to be amended,
not suggest an initiative on in the case of initiative on the
amendments to the Constitution. Constitution. . . . The use of the
The inclusion of the word clause "proposed laws sought to be
"Constitution" therein was a delayed enacted, approved or rejected,
afterthought.  amended or repealed" only
strengthens the conclusion that
That word is neither germane Section 2, quoted earlier, excludes
nor relevant to said section, which initiative on amendments to the
exclusively relates to initiative and Constitution. Third. While the Act
referendum on national laws and provides subtitles for National
local laws, ordinances, and Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle,
resolutions. That section is silent as II) and for Local Initiative and
to amendments on the Constitution. Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle
As pointed out earlier, initiative on is provided for initiative on the
the Constitution is confined only to Constitution. This conspicuous
proposals to AMEND. The people are silence as to the latter simply means
not accorded the power to "directly that the main thrust of the Act is
propose, enact, approve, or reject, in initiative and referendum on
whole or in part, the Constitution" national and local laws. If Congress
through the system of initiative. intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully
They can only do so with respect to provide for the implementation of
"laws, ordinances, or the initiative on amendments to the
resolutions."' . . . Second. It is true Constitution, it could have provided
that Section 3 (Definition of Terms) for a subtitle therefor, considering
of the Act defines initiative on that in the order of things, the
amendments to the Constitution primacy of interest, or hierarchy of
and mentions it as one of the three values, the right of the people to
systems of initiative, and that directly propose amendments to the
Section 5 (Requirements) restates Constitution is far more important

Page 20 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

than the initiative on national and a form of delegation of legislative

local laws. . . . The foregoing brings authority under no. 5 above.
us to the conclusion that R.A. No. However, in every case of
6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or permissible delegation, there must
wanting in essential terms and be a showing that the delegation
conditions insofar as initiative on itself is valid. It is valid only if the
amendments to the Constitution is law (a) is complete in itself, setting
concerned. Its lacunae on this forth therein the policy to be
substantive matter are fatal and. executed, carried out, or
cannot be cured by "empowering" implemented by the delegate; and (b)
the COMELEC "to promulgate such fixes a standard — the limits of
rules and regulations as may be which are sufficiently determinate
necessary to carry out the purposes and determinable — to which the
of [the] Act."  delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions. A 
THE CONGRESS CANNOT
DELEGATE TO OTHER AGENCIES sufficient standard is one which
THE POWER TO PROVIDE FOR defines legislative policy, marks its
THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT limits, maps out its boundaries and
OF INITIATIVE ON THE specifies the public agency to apply
CONSTITUTION. The rule is that it. It indicates the circumstances
what has been delegated, cannot be under which the legislative
delegated or as expressed in a Latin command is to be effected. 
maxim: potestas delegata non
delegari potest. The recognized It logically follows that the
exceptions to the rule are as COMELEC cannot validly
follows:  promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the exercise of the right
1. Delegation of tariff powers to the of the people to directly propose
President under Section 28(2) of amendments to the Constitution
Article VI of the Constitution;  through the system of initiative. It
does not have that power under R.A.
2. Delegation of emergency powers No. 6735. Reliance on the
to the President under Section 23(2) COMELEC's power under Section
of Article VI of the Constitution;  2(1) of Article IX-C of the
Constitution is misplaced, for the
[Link] to the people at large; laws and regulations referred to
therein are those promulgated by
4. Delegation to local governments; the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of
and 5. Delegation to administrative Article IX-C of the Constitution, or
bodies.  (b) a law where subordinate
legislation is authorized and which
Empowering the COMELEC, an satisfies the "completeness" and the
administrative body exercising "sufficient standard" tests.
quasi-judicial functions, to
promulgate rules and regulations is
Page 21 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Lambino vs. COMELEC  that contains the full text of the

proposed amendments. 
PETITION FOR INITIATIVE TO
PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE The full text of the proposed
CONSTITUTION MUST CONTAIN amendments may be either written
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.  on the face of the petition, or
attached to it. If so attached, the
Clearly, the framers of the petition must state the fact of such
Constitution intended that the "draft attachment. This is an assurance
of the proposed constitutional that every one of the several millions
amendment" should be "ready and of signatories to the petition had
shown" to the people "before" they seen the full text of the proposed
sign such proposal. The framers amendments before signing.
plainly stated that "before they sign Otherwise, it is physically
there is already a draft shown to impossible, given the time
them." The framers also "envisioned" constraint, to prove that every one of
that the people should sign on the the millions of signatories had seen
proposal itself because the the full text of the proposed
proponents must "prepare that amendments before signing. 
proposal and pass it around for
signature."  Moreover, "an initiative signer must
be informed at the time of signing of
The essence of amendments the nature and effect of that which
"directly proposed by the people is proposed" and failure to do so is
through initiative upon a petition" is "deceptive and misleading" which
that the entire proposal on its face is renders the initiative void. 
a petition by the people. This means
two essential elements must be Section 2, Article XVII of the
present. First, the people must Constitution does not expressly
author and thus sign the entire state that the petition must set forth
proposal. No agent or representative the full text of the proposed
can sign on their behalf. Second, as amendments. However, the
an initiative upon a petition, the deliberations of the framers of our
proposal must be embodied in a Constitution clearly show that the
petition.  framers intended to adopt the
relevant American jurisprudence on
These essential elements are present people's initiative. In particular, the
only if the full text of the proposed deliberations of the Constitutional
amendments is first shown to the Commission explicitly reveal that
people who express their assent by the framers intended that the people
signing such complete proposal in a must first see the full text of the
petition. Thus, an amendment is proposed amendments before they
"directly proposed by the people sign, and that the people must sign
through initiative upon a petition" on a petition containing such full
only if the people sign on a petition text. Indeed, Section 5(b) of Republic

Page 22 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Act No. 6735, the Initiative and INTIATIVE CAN ONLY BE

Referendum Act that the Lambino EXERCISED TO PROPOSE
Group invokes as valid, requires AMENDMENTS TO THE
that the people must sign the CONSTITUTION, AND NOT
"petition . . . as signatories."  REVISION. 

An initiative that gathers signatures This Court, whose members are

from the people without first sworn to defend and protect the
showing to the people the full text of Constitution, cannot shirk from its
the proposed amendments is most solemn oath and duty to insure
likely a deception, and can operate compliance with the clear command
as a gigantic fraud on the people. of the Constitution — that a people's
That is why the Constitution initiative may only amend, never
requires that an initiative must be revise, the Constitution. 
"directly proposed by the people . . .
in a petition" — meaning that the The question is, does the Lambino
people must sign on a petition that Group's initiative constitute an
contains the full text of the proposed amendment or revision of the
amendments. On so vital an issue Constitution? If the Lambino
as amending the nation's Group's initiative constitutes a
fundamental law, the writing of the revision, then the present petition
text of the proposed amendments should be dismissed for being
cannot be hidden from the people outside the scope of Section 2,
under a general or special power of Article XVII of the Constitution. 
attorney to unnamed, faceless, and
unelected individuals.  Courts have long recognized the
distinction between an amendment
The Constitution entrusts to the and a revision of a constitution. One
people the power to directly propose of the earliest cases that recognized
amendments to the Constitution. the distinction described the
This Court trusts the wisdom of the fundamental difference in this
people even if the members of this manner: 
Court do not personally know the
people who sign the petition. [T]he very term "constitution"
However, this trust emanates from a implies an instrument of a
fundamental assumption: the full permanent and abiding nature, and
text of the proposed amendment is the provisions contained therein for
first shown to the people before they its revision indicate the will of the
sign the petition, not after they have people that the underlying
signed the petition.  principles upon which it rests, as
well as the substantial entirety of
the instrument, shall be of a like
permanent and abiding nature. On
the other hand, the significance of
the term "amendment" implies such

Page 23 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

an addition or change within the proposed change in the constitution.

lines of the original instrument as The main inquiry is whether the
will effect an improvement, or better change will "accomplish such far
carry out the purpose for which it reaching changes in the nature of
was framed.  our basic governmental plan as to
amount to a revision." Whether
Revision broadly implies a change there is an alteration in the
that alters a basic principle in the structure of government is a proper
constitution, like altering the subject of inquiry. Thus, "a change
principle of separation of powers or in the nature of [the] basic
the system of checks-and- balances. governmental plan" includes
There is also revision if the change "change in its fundamental
alters the substantial entirety of the framework or the fundamental
constitution, as when the change powers of its Branches." A change in
affects substantial provisions of the the nature of the basic governmental
constitution. On the other hand, plan also includes changes that
amendment broadly refers to a "jeopardize the traditional form of
change that adds, reduces, or government and the system of check
deletes without altering the basic and balances." 
principle involved. Revision
generally affects several provisions Under both the quantitative and
of the constitution, while qualitative tests, the Lambino
amendment generally affects only Group's initiative is a revision and
the specific provision being not merely an amendment.
amended.  Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's
proposed changes overhaul two
In California where the initiative articles — Article VI on the
clause allows amendments but not Legislature and Article VII on the
revisions to the constitution just like Executive — affecting a total of 105
in our Constitution, courts have provisions in the entire
developed a two-part test: the Constitution. 40 Qualitatively, the
quantitative test and the qualitative proposed changes alter substantially
test. The (1) quantitative test asks the basic plan of government, from
whether the proposed change is "so presidential to parliamentary, and
extensive in its provisions as to from a bicameral to a unicameral
change directly the 'substantial legislature. 
entirety' of the constitution by the
deletion or alteration of numerous A change in the structure of
existing provisions." The court government is a revision of the
examines only the number of Constitution, as when the three
provisions affected and does not great co-equal branches of
consider the degree of the change.  government in the present
Constitution are reduced into two.
The (2) qualitative test inquires into This alters the separation of powers
the qualitative effects of the in the Constitution. A shift from the

Page 24 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

present Bicameral- Presidential conditions or to suppress specific

system to a Unicameral- portions that may have become
Parliamentary system is a revision of obsolete or that are judged to be
the Constitution. Merging the dangerous. In revision, however, the
legislative and executive branches is guiding original intention and plan
a radical change in the structure of contemplates a re-examination of
government.  the entire document, or of
provisions of the document which
The abolition alone of the Office of have over-all implications for the
the President as the locus of entire document, to determine how
Executive Power alters the and to what extent they should be
separation of powers and thus altered. Thus, for instance a switch
constitutes a revision of the from the presidential system to a
Constitution. Likewise, the abolition parliamentary system would be a
alone of one chamber of Congress revision because of its over-all
alters the system of checks-and- impact on the entire constitutional
balances within the legislature and structure. So would a switch from a
constitutes a revision of the bicameral system to a unicameral
Constitution.  system be because of its effect on
other important provisions of the
By any legal test and under any Constitution. 
jurisdiction, a shift from a
Bicameral-Presidential to a
Unicameral-Parliamentary system, MODULE 2
involving the abolition of the Office Concept of State, National
of the President and the abolition of Territory
one chamber of Congress, is beyond
doubt a revision, not a mere
amendment. On the face alone of THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE
the Lambino Group's proposed
changes, it is readily apparent that Definition of a State. A
the changes will radically alter the community of persons, more or less
framework of government as set numerous, permanently occupying a
forth in the Constitution. Father definite portion of territory,
Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a leading independent of external control, and
member of the Constitutional possessing a government to which a
Commission, writes:  great body of inhabitants render
habitual obedience. See: Collector of
An amendment envisages an Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda,
alteration of one or a few specific 42
and separable provisions. The SCRA 23.
guiding original intention of an
amendment is to improve specific
parts or to add new provisions Distinguished from Nation.
deemed necessary to meet new State is a legal or juristic concept,

Page 25 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

while nation is an ethnic or racial Art. !].

concept.
Components: Terrestrial,
Distinguished from Fluvial, Maritime and Aerial
Government. Government is merely domains.
an instrumentality of the State
through which the will of the State
is implemented and realized. The Philippine Archipelago:
(i) Treaty of Paris, December 10,
1898 (Cession of the Philippine
B. Elements of a State. . Islands by Spain to the United
States); (ii) Treaty between Spain
and US at Washington, November 7,
  People. 1900 (Cagayan, Sulu & Sibuto); (iii)
Treaty between US and Great
Different meanings as used in Britain, January 2, 1930 (Turtle &
the Constitution: (i) Inhabitants Mangsee Islands).
[Sec. 2, Art. Ill; Sec. 1, Art. XIII]; (ii)  
Citizens [Preamble; Secs. 1 & 4, Other territories over which
Art. II; Sec. 7, Art. Ill]; (iii) Electors the Philippines exercises
[Sec. 4, Art. VII]. jurisdiction. (i) Batanes [1935
Constitution]; (ii) Those
contemplated in Art. I, 1973
As requisite for Statehood: Constitution [belonging to the
Adequate number for self-sufficiency Philippines by historic right or legal
and defense; of both sexes for title]; (iii) PD 1596, June 11, 1978.
perpetuity.

Archipelago Doctrine: “The

  Territory [Art. I; R.A. 3046; waters around, between and
R.A. 5446]. connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of
The  National  Territory:  the internal waters of the
“The  national  territory  Philippines” [2nd sentence, Sec. 1,
comprises  the Philippine Art II
archipelago, with all the islands and
waters embraced therein, and all
other territories over which the This articulates the
Philippines has sovereignty or archipelagic doctrine of national
jurisdiction, consisting of its territory, based on the principle that
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial an archipelago, which consists of a
domains, including its territorial sea, number of islands separated by
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular bodies of water, should be treated as
shelves, and other submarine one integral unit.
areas.” [Sec. 1,

Page 26 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Straight baseline method: the functions of government are

Imaginary straight lines are drawn exercised throughout the
joining the outermost points of Philippines, including, save as the
outermost islands of the contrary appears from the context,
archipelago, enclosing an area the the various arms through which
ratio of which should not be more political authority is made effective
than 9:1 (water to land); provided in the Philippines, whether
that the drawing of baselines shall pertaining to the autonomous
not depart, to any appreciable regions, the provincial, city,
extent, from the general municipal or barangay subdivisions
configuration of the archipelago. The or other forms of local government"
waters within the baselines shall be [Sec. 2 (1), Administrative Code of
considered internal waters; while 1987].
the breadth of the territorial sea  
shall then be measured from the Functions:
baselines.
Traditionally, the functions of
UN Convention on the Law of government have been classified into
the Sea [April 30,1982; ratified by constituent, which are mandatory
the Philippines in August, 1983] for the Government to perform
provides (i) Contiguous Zone of 12 because they constitute the very
miles; (ii) Exclusive Economic Zone bonds of society, such as the
of 200 miles. Although the maintenance of peace and order,
contiguous zone and most of the regulation of property and property
exclusive economic zone may not, rights, the administration of justice,
technically, be part of the territory of etc; and ministrant, those intended
the State, nonetheless, the coastal to promote the welfare, progress and
State enjoys preferential rights over prosperity of the people, and which
the marine resources found within are merely optional for Government
these zones. See also P.D. 1599, to perform.
June 11, 1978.

In Romualdez-Yap v. Civil
  Government Service Commission, 225 SCRA 285,
the Court declared that a distinction
Defined. The agency or can be made on the validity of the
instrumentality through which the reorganization between a
will of the State is formulated, government bureau or office
expressed and realized. See U.S. v. performing constituent functions
Dorr, 2 Phil 332. i) (like the Bureau of Customs) and a
government-owned or -controlled
corporation performing ministrant
Government of the functions (like the PNB).
Philippines is “the corporate Commercial or universal banking is,
governmental entity through which ideally, not a governmental, but a

Page 27 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

private sector, endeavor. It is an between the two functions had

optional function of government. become blurred. See also Edu v.
[However, reorganization in either Ericta, 35 SCRA 481, where the
must meet a common test, the test Supreme Court declared that, as
of good faith.] In Fontanilla v. early as the 1935 Constitution, we
Maliaman, 194 SCRA 486, the had already repudiated the laissez
Supreme Court said that the faire doctrine. The repudiation of the
functions of government are laissez faire doctrine is reiterated in
classified into governmental or Association of Philippine Coconut
constituent and proprietary or Desiccators v. Philippine Coconut
ministrant. The former involves the Authority, G.R. No. 110526,
exercise of sovereignty and therefore February 10, 1998, where it was
compulsory; the latter connotes held that although the 1987
merely the exercise of proprietary Constitution enshrines free
functions and thus considered as enterprise as a policy, it
optional. nevertheless reserves to the
Government the power to intervene
whenever necessary to promote the
In Shipside, Inc. v. Court of general welfare, as reflected in Secs.
Appeals, G.R. No. 143377, February 6 and 19, Art. XII.
20,2001, it was held that the Bases
Conversion Development Authority
(BCDA), created under R.A. 7227, Doctrine of Parens Patriae.
performs functions which are Literally, parent of the people. As
basically proprietary in nature. The such, the Government may act as
promotion of economic and social guardian of the rights of people who
development of Central Luzon, in may be disadvantaged or suffering
particular, and the country’s goal for from some disability or misfortune.
enhancement, in general, do not See Government of the Philippine
make BCDA equivalent to Islands v. Monte de Piedad, 35
Government. Other corporations, SCRA 738; Cabanas v. Pilapil, 58
such as SSS, GSIS, NIA, although SCRA 94.
performing functions aimed at
promoting public interest and public Classification:
welfare, are not invested with
government attributes. [Thus, with
the transfer to BCDA of Camp De jure vs. De facto. See: Co
Wallace, the government no longer Kim Chan v. Tan Keh, 75 Phil. 113;
had a right or interest to protect; the Lawyers League for a Better
real party in interest to recover the Philippines v. Aquino, supra..
property is, thus, the BCDA, not the
Republic of the Philippines.]
ia) Kinds of de facto government:
That which takes possession or
In PVTA v. CIR, 65 SCRA 416, control of, or usurps, by force or by
the Court noted that the distinction the voice of the majority, the rightful

Page 28 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

legal government and maintains Defined: The supreme and

itself against the will of the latter; uncontrollable power inherent in a
that which is established by the State by which that State is
inhabitants of a territory who rise in governed.
insurrection against the parent  
state; and that which is established Kinds:
by the invading forces of an enemy
who occupy a territory in the course
of war. The last is denominated a de Legal, which is the power to
facto government of paramount issue final commands; or Political,
force. which is the sum total of all the
influences which lie behind the law.

Presidential vs.
parliamentary government. The Internal, or the supreme
principal distinction is that in a power over everything within its
presidential government, there is territory; or External, also known as
separation of executive and independence, which is freedom
legislative powers (the first is lodged from external control.
in the President, while the second is
vested in Congress); while in a Characteristics: permanence,
parliamentary government, there is exclusiveness, comprehensive-ness,
fusion of both executive and absoluteness, indivisibility,
legislative powers in Parliament, inalienability, imprescriptibility. See
although the actual exercise of the Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil. 856.
executive powers is vested in a
Prime Minister who is chosen by,
and accountable to, Parliament. Effects of change in
sovereignty: Political laws are
abrogated [People v. Perfecto, 43
Unitary vs. federal Phil. 887; Macariola v. Asuncion,
government. A unitary government 114 SCRA 77]; municipal laws
is a single, centralized government, remain in force [Vilas v. City of
exercising powers over both the Manila, 229 US 345].
internal and external affairs of the
State; while a federal government
consists of autonomous state (local) Effects of belligerent
government units merged into a occupation: No change in
single State, with the national sovereignty. See: Peralta v. Director
government exercising a limited of Prisons, 75 Phil. 285; Alcantara v.
degree of power over the domestic Director of Prisons, 75 Phil.
affairs but generally full direction of 749;Ruffyv. Chief of Staff, 75 Phil.
the external affairs of the State. 875.

Sovereignty However, political laws, except

the law on treason, are suspended

Page 29 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

[Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil. 856]; Immunities of Specialized Agencies

municipal laws remain in force of the United Nations; World Health
unless repealed by the belligerent Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA
occupant. At the end of the 242; Southeast Asian Fisheries
belligerent occupation, when the Development Center v. NLRC, 206
occupant is ousted from the SCRA 283.
territory, the political laws which
had been suspended during the
occupation shall automatically Personal: power of the State
become effective again, under the over its nationals, which may be
doctrine of jus postliminium. exercised by the State even if the
individual is outside the territory of
the State.
Dominium v. Imperium:
Dominium refers to the capacity to
own or acquire property, including Extraterritorial: power
lands held by the State in its exercised by the State beyond its
proprietary capacity; while territory in the following cases: (a)
Imperium is the authority possessed Assertion of its personal jurisdiction
by the State embraced in the over its nationals abroad; or the
concept of sovereignty. exercise of its rights to punish
certain offenses committed outside
Jurisdiction its territory against its national
Territorial: power of the State interests even if the offenders are
over persons and things within its nonresident aliens; (b) By virtue of
territory. Exempt are: (a) Foreign its relations with other states or
states, heads of state, diplomatic territories, as when it establishes a
representatives, and consuls to a colonial protectorate, or a
certain degree; (b) Foreign state condominium, or administers a
property, including embassies, trust territory, or occupies enemy
consulates, and public vessels territory in the course of war; (c)
engaged in noncommercial When the local state waives its
activities; (c) Acts of state; (d) jurisdiction over persons and things
Foreign merchant vessels exercising within its territory, as when a
the rights of innocent passage or foreign army stationed therein
involuntary entry, such as arrival remains under the jurisdiction of
under stress; (e) Foreign armies the sending state; (d) By the
passing through or stationed in its principle of exterritoriality, as
territory with its permission; and (f) illustrated by the immunities of the
Such other persons or property, head of state in a foreign country; (e)
including organizations like the Through enjoyment of easements or
United Nations, over which it may, servitudes, such as the easement of
by agreement, waive jurisdiction. innocent passage or arrival under
See: Convention on Privileges and stress; (f) The exercise of jurisdiction
Immunities of the United Nations; by the state in the high seas over its
Convention on Privileges and vessels; over pirates; in the exercise

Page 30 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

of the right to visit and search; and of innocent passage for foreign
under the doctrine of hot pursuit; (g) vessels exist in the case of internal
The exercise of limited jurisdiction waters. (Harris, Cases and Material
over the contiguous zone and the on International Law, 5th ed., 1998,
patrimonial sea, to prevent p.407)
infringement of its customs, fiscal,
immigration or sanitary regulations.
Under Section 1, Article I of the
1987 Constitution, the internal
D. Archipelago Doctrine in Article I, waters of the Philippines consist of
Section 1 (1989 Bar Question) the waters around between and
connecting the islands of the
Philippine archipelago regardless of
“The waters around, between and their breadth and dimensions
connecting the islands of the including the waters in bays, rivers,
archipelago, regardless of their and lakes.
breadth and dimensions, form part of
internal waters of the Philippines”
Distinguish briefly but
clearly between the contiguous
 Differentiate archipelagic waters, zone and the exclusive economic
territorial sea and internal waters. zone. (2004 Bar Question)
(2004 Bar Question)

Contiguous zone is a zone

contiguous to the territorial sea and
According to UNCLOS, Archipelagic extends up to twelve nautical miles
waters refers to areas enclosed as from the territorial sea and over
internal waters by using the which the coastal state may exercise
baseline method which had not been control necessary to prevent
previously considered as internal infringement of its customs, fiscal,
waters. (See Article 53 of UNCLOS) immigration or sanitary laws and
regulations within its territory or
territorial sea. (Article 33 of the
Territorial sea is an adjacent belt of
Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
sea with a breadth of 12 nautical
miles measured from the baselines
of a state and over which the state The EEZ extends 200 nautical miles
has sovereignty. (Article 2, 3 of from the baseline. The EEZ is
UNCLOS) recognized in the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea. Although it is
not part of the national territory,
Internal waters refer to “all waters
exclusive economic benefit is
landwards from the baseline of the
reserved for the country within the
territory.” Is from which the breadth
zone.
of territorial sea is calculated.
(Brownlie, Principles of PIL) No right

Page 31 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

By virtue of PD 1599, the Philippine President, and administrative

declares that it has sovereign rights boards as well as the lawmaking
to explore, exploit, conserve and bodies on all municipal levels,
manage the natural resources of the including the barangay may not
seabed, subsoil, and superjacent exercise it without a valid delegation
waters. Other states are prohibited of legislative power.  Municipal
from using the zone except for governments exercise this power by
navigation and overflight, laying of virtue of the general welfare clause
submarine cables and pipeline, and of the Local Government Code of
other lawful uses related to 1991.  Even the courts cannot
navigation and communication. compel the exercise of this power
through mandamus or any judicial
process.
3 Inherent Powers of the State:

Requisites of a valid police

1. Police Power; measure:
2. Power of Eminent Domain or
Power of Expropriation; and
3. Power of Taxation Lawful Subject – the activity or property
sought to be regulated affects the public
welfare. It requires the primacy of the
Purpose: welfare of the many over the interests of
the few.
1. for public good or welfare - Police
Power  Lawful Means – the means employed
2. for public use - Power of Eminent must be reasonable and must conform to
Domain the safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of
3. for revenue - Power of Taxation Rights.

   2. POWER OF EMINENT
1. POLICE POWER is the DOMAIN affects only property
power of promoting the public RIGHTS. It may be exercised by
welfare by restraining and some private entities. The property
regulating the use of both liberty forcibly taken under this
and property of all the people. It is power, upon payment of just
considered to be the most all- compensation, is needed for
encompassing of the three powers. It conversion to public use or purpose.
may be exercised only by the
government. The property taken in
the exercise of this power is The taking of property in law may
destroyed because it is noxious or include:
intended for a noxious purpose.
It lies primarily in the discretion of - trespass without actual eviction of
the legislature.  Hence, the the owner;

Page 32 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

- material impairment of the value of general requirements of the equal

the property; or  protection clause that the rule of
- prevention of the ordinary uses for taxation shall be uniform and
which the property was intended. equitable.
 
    The property that may be subject South China Sea Arbitration
for appropriation shall not be
limited to private property. Public The Philippines’ claims fell into four
property may be expropriated general categories. The ruling of the
provided there is a SPECIFIC grant Tribunal on each category of claims
of authority to the delegate. Money is summarized below: 
and a chose in action are the only
things exempt from expropriation.  1. The broadest claim was a
Although it is also lodged primarily challenge to China’s “nine-dash line”
in the national legislature, the covering most of the South China
courts have the power to inquire the Sea. China has never
legality of the right of eminent clarified whether the line represents
domain and to determine whether or a claim to the islands within the line
not there is a genuine necessity and their adjacent waters; a
therefore. boundary of national sovereignty
over all the enclosed waters
(including, but not limited by, the
3. POWER OF TAXATION land features inside the line); or a
affects only property rights and may “historic” claim of sovereignty or
be exercised only by the some other set of historic rights to
government. The property taken the maritime space within the line.
under this power shall likewise be The Philippines sought a declaration
intended for a public use or that the countries’ respective rights
purpose. It is used solely for the and obligations regarding the
purpose of raising revenues, to waters, seabed, and maritime
protect the people and extend them features of the South China Sea are
benefits in the form of public governed by UNCLOS. As such,
projects and services (I hope so). China’s claims based on any
Hence, it cannot be allowed to be “historic rights” to waters, seabed,
confiscatory, except if it is intended and subsoil within the nine-dash
for destruction as an instrument of line are contrary to UNCLOS and
the police power. invalid. (See Table:
Claims 1 and 2)
It must conform to the
requirements of due process. Holding: UNCLOS
Therefore, taxpayers are entitled to “comprehensively” governs the
be notified of the assessment parties’ respective rights to maritime
proceedings and to be heard therein areas in the South China Sea.
on the correct valuation to be given Therefore, to the extent China’s
the property. It is also subject to the nine-dash line is a claim of “historic

Page 33 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

rights” to the waters of the South plants, etc.). Based on historical

China Sea, it is invalid.  evidence, none of the features in the
Spratly Islands can sustain either a
Reasoning: Whatever historic rights stable community of people or
China may have had were economic activity that is not
extinguished when UNCLOS was dependent on outside resources or
adopted, to the extent those rights purely extractive in nature. The
were incompatible with UNCLOS.  current presence of personnel on the
features is dependent on outside
2. The Philippines sought a support and does not reflect the
determination as to whether certain capacity of the features in their
land features in the Spratly Islands natural condition. 
claimed by both China and the
Philippines are properly 3. The Philippines sought a
characterized as islands, rocks, low declaration that China violated
tide elevations (LTEs), or submerged UNCLOS by interfering with the
banks. Under UNCLOS, an “island” Philippines’ rights and freedoms
generates both a territorial sea of 12 within its EEZs. This includes
nautical miles and an exclusive preventing Philippine fishing around
economic zone (EEZ) of up to 200 Scarborough Shoal, violating
nautical miles, subject to UNCLOS’s environmental protection
delimitation of a maritime boundary provisions through construction and
with any other countries’ fishing activities that have harmed
overlapping territorial seas or EEZs. the marine environment (including
A “rock” is entitled to a territorial at Scarborough Shoal, Second
sea no greater than 12 nautical Thomas Shoal, and Mischief Reef),
miles, but not an EEZ. LTEs and and by dangerously operating law
submerged banks do not generate enforcement vessels around
any such entitlements. (See Table: Scarborough Shoal. (See Table:
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7) Claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
and 13)
Holding: None of the features in the
Spratly Islands generates an EEZ, Holding: China violated the
nor can the Spratly Islands generate Philippines’ sovereign rights in its
an EEZ collectively as a unit. As EEZ. It did so by interfering with
such, the Tribunal declared certain Philippine fishing and hydrocarbon
areas are within the Philippines’ exploration; constructing artificial
EEZ and not overlapped by any islands; and failing to prevent
possible Chinese entitlement.  Chinese fishermen from fishing in
the Philippines’ EEZ. China also
Reasoning: The baseline of analysis interfered with Philippine
is what the features can sustain in fishermen’s traditional fishing rights
their “natural condition” (i.e., not near Scarborough Shoal (without
after construction of artificial prejudice to the question of
islands, installation of desalination sovereignty over Scarborough

Page 34 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Shoal). China’s construction of failed to prevent Chinese fishermen

artificial islands at seven features in from fishing within the Philippine
the Spratly Islands, as well as illegal EEZ at Mischief Reef and Second
fishing and harvesting by Chinese Thomas Shoal, and (d) constructed
nationals, violate UNCLOS artificial islands/installations at
obligations to protect the marine Mischief Reef without the
environment. Finally, Chinese law Philippines’ authorization. As for
enforcement vessels unlawfully Scarborough Shoal, regardless of
created a serious risk of collision by who has sovereignty, both Philippine
physically obstructing Philippine and Chinese fishermen have
vessels at Scarborough Shoal in “traditional fishing rights” at the
2012.  Shoal that were not extinguished by
UNCLOS, and China violated the
Reasoning: This set of holdings Philippines’ rights by entirely
depended on the Tribunal finding preventing Filipino fishermen from
that certain areas are within the fishing near Scarborough Shoal
Philippines’ EEZ and not subject to after May 2012. In addition, Chinese
possible overlapping Chinese artificial island construction has
entitlements. It also depended on caused “severe harm to the coral
finding that activities such as island reef environment” and China has
construction are, in accordance with failed to stop its nationals from
China’s own public statements, not engaging in “harmful” and
“military activities” and therefore not “destructive” harvesting and fishing
excluded from jurisdiction under of endangered sea turtles, coral, and
UNCLOS. Once this was established, giant clams in violation of UNCLOS.
the Tribunal considered Chinese Finally, Chinese law enforcement
activities in the relevant areas and vessels violated maritime safety
found that China had (a) interfered obligations by creating a serious risk
with Philippine petroleum of collision on two occasions in April
exploration at Reed Bank, (b) and May 2012 during the
purported to prohibit fishing by Scarborough Shoal standoff. 
Philippine vessels within the
Philippine EEZ, (c) protected and

Subm. Jurisdictional
Philippines’ Claim Merits Ruling
no Ruling
China’s maritime Yes: UNCLOS
(Deferred to
entitlements in comprehensively allocates
merits stage)
South China Sea rights to maritime areas
1
may not exceed
Jurisdiction
those established by Philippines win
granted
UNCLOS
China’s “nine-dash Yes: There is no legal basis
(Deferred to
2 line” claim is invalid for China to claim historic
merits stage)
to the extent it rights to waters in the

Page 35 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

South China Sea (so, to the

extent that is what the
exceeds the limits nine-dash line means, it is
established by invalid)
UNCLOS
Jurisdiction
Philippines win
granted
Yes: Scarborough Shoal is
Scarborough Shoal a rock that generates no
Jurisdiction
3 generates no EEZ or EEZ
granted
continental shelf
Philippines win
Mischief Reef, Yes: Mischief Reef, Second
Second Thomas Thomas Shoal, and Subi
Shoal, and Subi Reef Reef are LTEs
are all LTEs that do
Jurisdiction
4 not generate
granted
territorial seas or
Philippines win
EEZs, and are not
subject to
appropriation
Yes: Mischief Reef and
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are
(Deferred to
Second Thomas part of the EEZ and
merits stage)
5 Shoal are part of the continental shelf of the
Philippines’ EEZ and Philippines
continental shelf Jurisdiction
Philippines win
granted
Gaven Reef and No: Both Gaven and
McKennan Reef McKennan Reef are above
(including Hughes water at high tide; they are
Reef) are LTEs that rocks that generate
generate no maritime Jurisdiction territorial seas but no EEZ
6
entitlements, but granted or continental shelf
may be used to
determine baselines
Philippines loss
to measure territorial
sea
Johnson Reef, Yes: Johnson Reef,
Cuarterton Reef, and Cuarterton Reef, and Fiery
Fiery Cross Reef Jurisdiction Cross Reef are rocks that
7 generate no EEZ or
generate no granted
entitlements to EEZ continental shelf
or continental shelf Philippines win
8 Johnson Reef, (Deferred to Yes: China has interfered
Cuarterton Reef, and merits stage) with Philippine sovereign
Fiery Cross Reef rights to fishing and

Page 36 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

hydrocarbon exploration
generate no within its EEZ
entitlements to EEZ
Jurisdiction
or continental shelf Philippines win
granted
China has failed to Yes: China failed to prevent
prevent its nationals (Reserved to Chinese fishermen from
and vessels from merits stage) fishing within the
9
exploiting the living Philippine EEZ
resources in the Jurisdiction
Philippines win
Philippines’ EEZ granted
China has prevented Yes: China violated the
Philippine fishermen Philippines’ “traditional
from pursuing their fishing rights” at
Jurisdiction
10 livelihoods through Scarborough Shoal
granted
traditional fishing
activities around Philippines win
Scarborough Shoal
China has violated Yes: China engaged in
UNCLOS’s environmentally harmful
environmental fishing/harvesting
protection Jurisdiction practices at Scarborough
11
obligations at granted Shoal and Second Thomas
Scarborough Shoal Shoal
and Second Thomas
Philippines win
Shoal
Yes: Environmental
protection provisions were
China’s occupation
violated at Mischief Reef;
and construction on
artificial island
Mischief Reef violate
construction violated
UNCLOS provisions (Deferred to
Philippine sovereign rights
on artificial islands merits stage)
12 within its EEZ; the
and environmental
“appropriation” claim is
protection, and are
moot because Mischief Reef
unlawful acts of
is an LTE not capable of
attempted
appropriation
appropriation
Jurisdiction
Philippines win
granted
13 China has violated Jurisdiction Yes: China violated
UNCLOS by granted UNCLOS and other treaty
dangerously provisions on maritime
operating law safety
enforcement vessels Philippines win
creating serious risk
of collision near
Page 37 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Scarborough Shoal
Yes: Although there is no
China has unlawfully
jurisdiction over disputes
aggravated and
involving military activities
extended the dispute
such as the Second
by interfering with
Thomas Shoal standoff,
the Philippines’
(Deferred to China has
rights of navigation
merits stage) aggravated/extended the
near Scarborough
disputes through recent
Shoal, preventing the
14 large-scale land
rotation and
reclamation and artificial
resupply of
island construction in the
Philippine personnel
Philippine EEZ
stationed at Second
Thomas Shoal, and Jurisdiction
endangering the granted in
Philippines win 
health of the part, denied in
personnel there part
Going forward China (Deferred to
shall respect the merits stage) Qualified yes: This claim
rights and freedoms simply asks China to do
of the Philippines what it is required to do
15
under UNCLOS and Jurisdiction under UNCLOS; therefore,
comply with its granted no further statement is
duties under necessary
UNCLOS

4. The Philippines sought a Reasoning: While these proceedings

declaration that China’s recent were pending, China has built a
actions, specifically its land large island on Mischief Reed, an
reclamation and construction of LTE within the Philippines’ EEZ;
artificial islands in the Spratly caused irreparable harm to the
Islands after the arbitration was marine ecosystem; and permanently
commenced, violated the obligations destroyed evidence of the natural
UNCLOS places on states to refrain condition of the features at issue. 
from conduct that “aggravates and
extends” a dispute while dispute Table of Philippine Claims and
resolution proceedings are Tribunal Rulings* 
pending. (See Table: Claim 14)
* See p. 34-35 of Tribunal’s Award
Holding: China has aggravated and on Jurisdiction and Admissibility; p.
extended the disputes through its 5 of the PCA’s 12 July 2016 Press
dredging, artificial island-building, Release; and p. 4 of this paper by
and construction activities.  Paul Gewirtz.

Page 38 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Initial Takeaways  noted earlier, this was a bit of a

preemptory legal strike against “any
1. Not many people predicted that Chinese attempt to draw ‘straight
the Philippines would all but run baselines’ around the Spratlys and
the table in this case. It’s hard to thus treat the whole area as a single
imagine a much more favorable entity for generating maritime
outcome for their legal team. rights.”

2. One of the ironies of the Award is 4. Of all the rulings on the status of
that China has vociferously argued features in the Spratly Islands,
in public statements that it is not perhaps none will generate more
“militarizing” the South China Sea discussion than the conclusion that
and that its actions there are for Itu Aba (Taiping Island) is a rock
civilian purposes. Those claims and not an island. Many observers
turned out to be crucial to the thought that Itu Aba, the largest
Tribunal’s conclusion that it had naturally occurring land feature in
jurisdiction to consider the legality the Spratly Islands, had
of certain Chinese actions such as the strongest claim to being deemed
construction of artificial islands in an island entitled to both a
the South China Sea, because territorial sea and an EEZ. The
Article 298(1)(b) of UNCLOS concepts the Tribunal employed to
excludes disputes concerning determine what makes something a
“military activities” from compulsory “rock[] which cannot sustain human
dispute settlement. Despite China’s habitation or economic life of [its]
non-participation in the own” are likely to guide future legal
proceedings, the Tribunal went out determinations of this character.
of its way to review the December
2014 position paper issued by It will take time to digest this
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs portion of the opinion, but the
as well as numerous public Tribunal’s “habitability and
statements of Chinese leaders. This economic life” factors seem to
was an example of where those include:
public statements worked against
China’s legal interests in the  The objective capacity of the
arbitration. feature in its natural
condition (i.e., “without
3. The Tribunal rejected the external additions or
possibility that China could claim modifications” and without
the entirety of the Spratly Islands as outside support), to sustain,
a single archipelagic feature, as over an extended period of
suggested in recent statements by time, either
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as
well as a white paper issued last
month by the Chinese Society of o (a) a stable community
International Law. As Julian of people for whom the

Page 39 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

feature constitutes a transient residence for

home and on which labourers engaged in
they can remain, or mining and fishing.” 
o (b) economic activity
that is not 5. Given its sweeping conclusions
 (i) dependent on favoring the Philippines, the Award
outside resources, may seem to have nothing positive
or in it for China. But the Tribunal
 (ii) purely offered an important qualification to
extractive in its judgment, and perhaps a bit of
nature without an olive branch toward the end of a
the involvement of decision it knew would not be well
a local received in Beijing. We should not
population. assume, said the Tribunal, that
 Factors contributing to these disputes are the product
the natural capacity of a of bad faith on the part of the PRC;
feature to do so “include rather, they are the result of basic
the presence of water, disagreements about respective
food, and shelter in rights and obligations and the
sufficient quantities to applicability of UNCLOS. From
enable a group of paragraph 1198 of the Award:
persons to live on the
feature for an “The root of the disputes presented
indeterminate period of by the Philippines in this arbitration
time.” lies not in any intention on the part
 In assessing these of China or the Philippines to
“capacity” factors, the infringe on the legal rights of the
Tribunal stated, “the other, but rather—as has been
most reliable evidence of apparent throughout these
the capacity of a feature proceedings—in fundamentally
will usually be the different understandings of their
historical use to which respective rights under the
it has been put.” Convention in the waters of the
Applying that standard South China Sea. In such
here, the Tribunal saw circumstances, the purpose of
“no indication that dispute resolution proceedings is to
anything fairly clarify the Parties’ respective rights
resembling a stable and obligations and thereby to
human community has facilitate their future relations in
ever formed on the accordance with the general
Spratly Islands. Rather, obligations of good faith that both
the islands have been a governments unequivocally
temporary refuge and recognise.” 
base of operations for
fishermen and a

Page 40 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

6. Where does this leave us? China’s questions now turn to what any
position all along with respect to form of “implementation” might look
these proceedings can be summed like and the effect this ruling will
up as “no acceptance, no have on future negotiations over
participation, no recognition, and no territorial sovereignty.
implementation.” The PRC Ministry
of Foreign Affairs predictably wasted China, the Philippines, ASEAN
no time releasing countries, and the United States
a statement declaring that “the face a range of strategic questions
award is null and void and has no about the best way forward. Will
binding force.” The Philippine Beijing demonstrate its disregard for
Foreign Affairs the decision by engaging in land
Secretary welcomed the decision, reclamation at Scarborough Shoal
stating: “The Philippines strongly or declaring an Air Defense
affirms its respect for this milestone Identification Zone in the South
decision as an important China Sea, as some have predicted?
contribution to ongoing efforts in Will it continue to insist on
addressing disputes in the South conditioning any future bilateral
China Sea.” No surprises here, negotiations with the administration
especially given that the Tribunal of new Philippine President Rodrigo
resolved virtually all the key issues Duterte on his government’s
in favor of the Philippines. For its rejection of the Tribunal’s Award?
part, the U.S. State Department Will it worry that some of these
issued a behaviors will push the Philippines
measured statement remarking that and other ASEAN nations closer to
“[t]he decision today by the Tribunal the United States? Will we see the
in the Philippines-China arbitration U.S. Navy conducting “pure”
is an important contribution to the freedom of navigation operations
shared goal of a peaceful resolution (FONOPs) within 12 nautical miles
to disputes in the South China of the Spratly Island features the
Sea.”  Tribunal says are not entitled to a
territorial sea?
As these statements suggest, the
issuance of this Award by no means There is much to digest here and
puts to rest the disputes or the much more left to shake out.
tensions in the South China Sea. National governments will be under
The arbitration was never going to pressure to respond quickly, but
resolve issues of sovereignty over the let’s hope they first take the time to
islands and rocks in the South carefully read the Tribunal’s
China Sea, because disputes over mammoth 501-page decision.
territorial sovereignty are beyond
the jurisdiction of an UNCLOS Province of North Cotabato v. The
Tribunal. And since the Tribunal Gov’t of the RP Peace Panel on
has no power to enforce its Ancestral Domain 
nominally binding decision,

Page 41 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Doctrine: Territory. Creation of BJE zones and continental shelves.

as an independent State cannot be Territorial claims to land features
effected my mere agreement. are outside UNCLOS III, and are
Establishment of BJE as having an instead governed by the rules on
associative relationship with the general international law.
government is not granted by the MODULE 3
present Constitution. The State Immunity, Declaration of
associative relationship between the Principles and Policies,
government and BJE is not The Branches of the Government
recognized in our present
constitutions. Association, in
international law, is when two states State Immunity from Suit. “The
of unequal power voluntarily State cannot be sued without its
establish durable links. One state consent” [Sec.3, Art. XVI].
(associate) delegates certain
responsibilities to the principal Basis: There can be no legal
while maintaining its international right against the authority which
status as a state. It is the middle makes the law on which the right
ground between integration and depends [Republic v. Villasor, 54
independence. BJE is far more SCRA 83], However, it may be sued
powerful than the autonomous if it gives consent, whether express
region recognized in the or implied. The doctrine is also
Constitution. It has permanent known as the Royal Prerogative of
population, defined territory, a Dishonesty.
government, capacity to enter into
relations with other states, the only
thing missing is actually calling BJE Immunity is enjoyed by other
a state. States, consonant with the public
international law principle of par in
parem non habet imperium. The
Magallona v. Ermita  Head of State, who is deemed the
personification of the State, is
Doctrine: UNCLOS III and its inviolable, and thus, enjoys
ancillary baselines laws play no role immunity from suit.
in the acquisition, enlargement or,
as petitioners claim, diminution of The State’s diplomatic agents,
territory. Under traditional including consuls to a certain
international law typology, States extent, are also exempt from the
acquire (or conversely, lose) territory jurisdiction of local courts and
through occupation, accretion, admiinistraive tribunals. [See
cession and prescription, not by PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW,
executing multilateral treaties on infra.].
the regulations of sea-use rights or
enacting statutes to comply with the
treaty’s terms to delimit maritime

Page 42 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

A foreign agent, operating Nations; World Health Organization

within a territory, can be cloaked v. Aquino, supra.].
with immunity from suit but only as
long as it can be established that he
is acting within the directives of the In Lasco v. UNRFNRE (United
sending State. The cloak of Nations Revolving Fund for Natural
protection is removed the moment Resources Exploration), 241 SCRA
the foreign agent is sued in his 681, the Supreme Court upheld the
individual capacity, as when he is diplomatic immunity of private
sought to be made liable for respondent as established by the
whatever damage he may have letter of the Department of Foreign
caused by his act done with malice Affairs recognizing and confirming
or in bad faith or beyond the scope such immunity in accordance with
of his authority or jurisdiction. In the 1946 Convention on the
Minucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Privileges and Immunities of the UN
No. 142396, February 11, 2003, it of which the Philippines is a
was sufficiently established that signatory.
respondent Arthur Scalzo an agent
of the US Drug Enforcement Agency, Even other international
was tasked to conduct surveillance organizations or international
on suspected drug activities within agencies may be immune from the
the country, and having ascertained jurisdiction of local courts and local
the target, to inform the local law administrative tribunals. 
enforcers who would then be
expected to make the arrest. In
conducting this surveillance and In SEAFDEC (Southeast Asia
later, acting as the poseur- buyer Fisheries Development Center) v.
during the buy-bust operation, and NLRC, 241 SCRA 580, and
then becoming a principal witness SEAFDEC v. Acosta, G.R. Nos.
in the criminal case against 97468-70. September 02, 1993, it
Minucher, Scalzo can hardly be said was held that SEAFDEC, as an
to have acted beyond the scope of international agency, enjoys
his official functions or duties. He diplomatic immunity. It was
should, therefore, be accorded established through an international
diplomatic immunity. agreement to which the Philippines
became a signatory on January 16,
1968. The purpose of the Center is
The United Nations, as well as to contribute to the promotion of
its organs and specialized agencies, fisheries development in Southeast
are likewise beyond the jurisdiction Asia by mutual cooperation among
of local courts [Convention on the member governments of the
Privileges and Immunities of the Center. The invocation by private
United Nations; Convention on respondents of the doctrine of
Privileges and Immunities of estoppel is unavailing, because
Specialized Agencies of the United estoppel does not confer jurisdiction
on a tribunal that has none over a
Page 43 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

cause of action. The Tijam v. as the appropriation of the needed

Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, ruling amount to satisfy the judgment? If
cannot apply to parties which enjoy so, then it is a suit against the
foreign and diplomatic immunity State. See: Sanders v. Veridiano,
[SEAFDEC-Aquaculture v. NLRC, 162 SCRA 88; Republic v. Feliciano,
206 SCRA 283]. 148 SCRA 424.

In Callado v. IRRI, 244 SCRA  In Tan v. Director of Forestry, 125

210, the Court upheld anew the SCRA 302, the Supreme Court said
constitutionality of Sec. 3, P.D. that State immunity from suit may
1620, which provides that the be invoked as long as the suit really
International Rice Research Institute affects the property, rights or
(IRRI) shall enjoy immunity from interests of the State and not merely
any penal, civil and administrative those of the officers nominally made
proceedings, except insofar as that party defendants. In this case, the
immunity has been expressly waived Court said that the promotion of
by the Director General of the public welfare and the protection of
Institute or his authorized the inhabitants near the public
representative. Citing International forest are property rights and
Catholic Migration Commission v. interests of the State. In Veterans
Calleja (and Kapisanan ng Manpower and Protective Services,
Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI v. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA
Secretary of Labor), 190 SCRA 120, 286, the suit for damages filed
the Court stated that the letter of against the PC Chief and the PC-
the Acting Secretary of Foreign SUSIA would require an affirmative
Affairs to the Secretary of Labor and act of appropriation should damages
Employment constituted a be awarded, and is, therefore, a suit
categorical recognition by the against the State.
Executive Branch of the
Government that IRRI enjoys
immunities accorded to Suits against Government
international organizations, a Agencies
determination held to be a political
question conclusive upon the Courts Incorporated: If the charter provides
in order not to embarrass a political that the agency can sue and be
department of the government. sued, then suit will lie, including
one for tort. The provision in the
Test to determine if suit is charter constitutes express consent
against the State: On the on the part of the State to be sued.
assumption that decision is See: PNB v. CIR, 81 SCRA 314; Rayo
rendered against the public officer v. CFI of Bulacan, 110 SCRA 460;
or agency impleaded, will the SSS v. Court of Appeals, 120 SCRA
enforcement thereof require an 707.
affirmative act from the State, such

Page 44 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Municipal corporations are agencies of Printing Employees Association, 1

of the State when they are engaged SCRA 340]. In the Veterans
in governmental functions and, Manpower case, the Court said that
therefore, should enjoy the sovereign the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA are
immunity from suit. However, they instrumentalities of the national
are subject to suit even in the government exercising primarily
performance of such functions governmental functions (regulating
because their respective charters the organization and operation of
provide that they can sue and be private detective, watchmen or
sued [Municipality of San Fernando, security guard agencies), and thus
La Union v. Judge Firme, 195 SCRA may not be sued without consent. In
692]. One of the corporate powers of Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals, 217
local government units, as SCRA 298, the Supreme Court said
enumerated in Sec. 22, Local that the Bureau of Customs, being
Government Code, is the power to an unincorporated agency without a
sue and be sued. separate juridical personality, enjoys
immunity from suit. It is invested
with an inherent power of
In National Irrigation Administration sovereignty, namely the power of
v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 35, taxation; it performs governmental
the Supreme Court reiterated that functions. In Mobil Philippines
NIA is a corporate body performing Exploration v. Customs Arrastre
proprietary functions, whose Service, 18 SCRA 1120, it was held
charter, P.D. 552, provides that it that the Customs Arrastre Service is
may sue and be sued. merely an adjunct of the Bureau of
Customs. A suit against it is,
therefore, a suit against the Bureau
of Customs, an unincorporated
In Philippine National Railways v.
agency performing primarily
Intermediate Appellate Court, 217
governmental functions. [NOTE:
SCRA 401, it was held that although
Even in the exercise of proprietary
the charter of PNR is silent on
functions incidental to its primarily
whether it may sue or be sued, it
governmental functions, an
had already been ruled in Malong v.
unincorporated agency still cannot
PNR, 185 SCRA 63, that the PNR “is
be sued without its consent.]
not performing any governmental
function” and may, therefore, be
sued.
ia) But in Department of
 Unincorporated: Inquire into Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693,
principal functions of the agency: because of the express consent
contained in Act No. 3038 (where
the Philippine Government
If governmental: NO suit without “consents and submits to be sued
consent [Sanders v. Veridiano, upon any money claim involving
supra.; Bureau of Printing v. Bureau liability arising from contract,
Page 45 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

express or implied, which could and maintained the dormitories at

serve as a basis of civil action the Clark Air Base for USAF
between private parties”), the members.
Department of Agriculture could be
sued on the contract for security
services entered into by it (subject to In Sanders v. Veridiano, 162
prior filing of the claim with the SCRA 88, the Supreme Court spoke
Commission on Audit), despite it of a number of well-recognized
being an unincorporated agency exceptions when a public officer
performing primarily governmental may be sued without the prior
functions. consent of the State, viz: (1) to
compel him to do an act required by
law; to restrain him from enforcing
 If proprietary: suit will lie because an act claimed to be
when the State engages in unconstitutional; (3) to compel the
principally proprietary functions, payment of damages from an
then it descends to the level of a already appropriated assurance
private individual, and may, fund or to refund tax over-payments
therefore, be vulnerable to suit. See: from a fund already available for the
National Airports Corporation v. purpose; (4) to secure a judgment
Teodoro, 91 Phil. 207; Civil that the officer impleaded may
Aeronautics Administration v. Court satisfy by himself without the State
of Appeals, 167 SCRA 28. having to do a positive act to assist
him; and (5) where the government
itself has violated its own laws,
Suit against Public Officers. because the doctrine of state
The doctrine of State immunity also immunity “cannot be used to
applies to complaints filed against perpetrate an injustice”.
officials of the State for acts
performed by them in the discharge
of their duties within the scope of The unauthorized acts of
their authority. Thus, in the government officials are not acts of
Veterans Manpower case, the suit state; thus, the public officer may be
against the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA sued and held personally liable in
was dismissed for being a suit damages for such acts [Shauf v.
against the state, since it was a suit Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713],
against public officers in the Where a public officer has
discharge of official functions which committed an ultra vires act, or
are governmental in character. where there is a showing of bad
Likewise, in Larkins v. NLRC, 241 faith, malice or gross negligence, the
SCRA 598, it was noted that the officer can be held personally
private respondents were dismissed accountable, even if such acts are
from their employment by Lt. Col. claimed to have been performed in
Frankhauser acting for and in connection with official duties [Wylie
behalf of the US government which, v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357]. Thus,
by right of sovereign power, operated the PCGG or any of its members,

Page 46 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

may be held civilly liable (for the General Assembly of the Blind, Inc.
sale of an aircraft to Fuller Aircraft, (GABI) from the Rizal Park; thus, the
which was void) if they did not act case was not deemed a suit against
with good faith and within the scope the State.
of their authority in the performance
of official duties [Republic v. Need for consent. In order
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 142476, that suit may lie against the state,
March 20, 2001]. Likewise, in U.S. there must be consent, either
v. Reyes, 219 SCRA 192, petitioner express or implied. Where no
Bradford, Activity Exchange consent is shown, state immunity
Manager at JUSMAG Headquarters, from suit may be invoked as a
was held personally liable, defense by the courts sua sponte at
inasmuch as the search of any stage of the proceedings,
respondent Montoya at the JUSMAG because waiver of immunity, being
parking lot (which subjected in derogation of sovereignty, will not
respondent to embarrassment) was be inferred lightly and must be
held to be beyond the scope and construed in strictissimi juris.
even beyond the Manager’s official Accordingly, the complaint (or
functions. Similarly, in Republic v. counterclaim) against the State
Hon. Edilberto Sandoval, 220 SCRA must allege the existence of such
124, even as the Supreme Court consent (and where the same is
dismissed the suit against the found), otherwise, the complaint
Republic of the Philippines, the may be dismissed [Republic v.
action for damages against the Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424].
military personnel and the
policemen responsible for the 1989
Mendiola massacre was upheld, Express consent. Express
inasmuch as the initial findings of consent can be given only by an act
the Davide Commission (tasked by of the legislative body [Republic v.
President Aquino to investigate the Feliciano, supra.], in a general or a
incident) showed that there was, at special law. i)
least, negligence on their part when
they fired their guns.
i) General Law. An  example  of 
Where the public official is a  general  law  granting consent is
sued in his personal capacity, the CA327, as amended by PD 1445,
doctrine of state immunity will not which requires that all money
apply, even if the acts complained of claims against the government must
were committed while the public first be filed with the Commission on
official was occupying a public Audit before suit is instituted in
position. In Lansang v. Court of court. See: Sayson v. Singzon, 54
Appeals, G.R. No. 102667, February SCRA 282. The Department of
23, 2000, the petitioner was sued Agriculture may be sued for money
for allegedly “personal motives” in claims based on a contract entered
ordering the ejectment of the into in its governmental capacity,

Page 47 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

because of the express consent the payment and the DBM had
contained in Act No. 3038, provided ordered the release of the amount
that the claim be first brought to the under a corresponding Advise of
Commission on Audit in accordance Allotment it issued. Where in
with CA 327, as amended Ministerio, the Court said that the
[Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, doctrine cannot serve as an
227 SCRA 693]. instrument for perpetrating an
injustice on a citizen, in this case
the Supreme Court declared that it
is just as important, if not more so,
ia) But in Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 that there be fidelity to legal norms
SCRA 360, an action for the on the part of officialdom if the rule
recovery of the value of the property of law were to be maintained.
taken by the government and
converted into a public street
without payment of just ic) In Santiago v. Republic, 87 SCRA
compensation was allowed, despite 294, an action for the revocation of
the failure of the property owner to a donation because of the failure of
file his claim with the Auditor the defendant to comply with
General. Invoking Ministerio v. City stipulated conditions was allowed,
of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464, the Supreme inasmuch as the action did not
Court said that suit may lie because involve a money claim.
the doctrine of State immunity
cannot be used to perpetrate an i) Special Law. See: Merritt v.
injustice. This ruling was reiterated Government of the Philippines
in De los Santos v. Intermediate Islands, 34 Phil. 311. This form of
Appellate Court, 223 SCRA 11, consent must be embodied in a
where it was held that the “public statute and cannot be given by a
respondents’ belief that the property mere counsel [Republic v. Purisima,
is public, even if buttressed by 78 SCRA 470].
statements of other public officials,
is no reason for the unjust taking of
petitioner’s property”; after all, the iia) By virtue of P.D. 1620, the grant
TCT was in the name of the of immunity to IRRI is clear and
petitioner. See also Republic v. unequivocal, and an express waiver
Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212. by its Director General is the only
way by which it may relinquish or
abandon this immunity [Callado v.
IRRI, supra.].
ib) In EPG Construction v. Secretary
Vigilar, G.R. No. 131544, March 16,
2001, the ruling in Ministerio was Implied Consent
invoked when the respondent DPWH  
Secretary denied the money claims When the State commences
of petitioners even after the DPWH litigation, it becomes vulnerable to a
Auditor interposed no objection to counterclaim [See: Froilan v. Pan

Page 48 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Oriental Shipping, G.R. No. L-6060, upkeep or maintenance of air

Sept. 30, 1950]. Intervention by the conditioning units, generator sets,
State would constitute electrical facilities, water heaters
commencement of litigation, except and water motor pumps of the
when the State intervenes not for embassy and the Ambassador’s
the purpose of asking for any residence, are contracts in jure
affirmative relief, but only for the imperii. The fact that the contract
purpose of resisting the claim contains a provision that any legal
precisely because of immunity from action arising out of the agreement
suit [Lim v. Brownell, 107 Phil. 345], shall be settled according to the
laws of the Philippines and by a
specified court of the Philippines
When the State enters into a does not necessarily mean a waiver
business contract. See: U.S. v. Ruiz, of the state’s sovereign immunity
136 SCRA 487, where the Supreme from suit.
Court distinguished between
contracts entered into by the State
in jure imperii (sovereign acts) and iib) Conversely, in U.S. v. Guinto,
in jure gestionis (commercial or 182 SCRA 644, the contract bidded
proprietary acts). Where the out for barbershop facilities in the
contract is in pursuit of a sovereign Clark Field US Air Force Base was
activity, there is no waiver of deemed commercial. Similarly, in a
immunity, and no implied consent companion case, U.S. v. Rodrigo, a
may be derived therefrom. contract for restaurant services
within the Camp John Hay Air
Station was likewise held
iia) In U. S. v. Ruiz, it was held that commercial in character.
the contract for the repair of
wharves was a contract in jus
imperii, because the wharves were to iic) Note, however, that in Republic
be used in national defense, a v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212,
governmental function. In JUSMAG the Court held that even if, in
Phil. v. NLRC, 239 SCRA 224, the exercising the power of eminent
engagement of the services of private domain, the State exercises a power
respondent was held to be jus imperii, as distinguished from its
performance of a governmental proprietary right of jus gestionis,
function by JUSMAG, on behalf of where property has been taken
the United States. Accordingly, without just compensation being
JUSMAG may not be sued under paid, the defense of immunity from
such a contract. In Republic of suit cannot be set up in an action
Indonesia v. Vinzon, G.R. No. for payment by the owner. See
154705, June 26, 2003, it was held Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360.
that contracts entered into by a  
sovereign state in connection with iid) In Republic (PCGG) v.
the establishment of a diplomatic Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 129406,
mission, including contracts for the March 6, 2006, 227 shares in

Page 49 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Negros Occidental Golf and Country Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA

Club, Inc. (NOGCCI) owned and 693]. Thus, in Larkins v. NLRC, 241
registered in the name of private SCRA 598, considering that the
respondent Benedicto were employer of private respondents was
sequestered and taken over by not Lt. Col. Frankhauser or the
PCGG fiscal agents. In a suit for petitioner but the U.S. Government
payment of dues of the sequestered which, by right of sovereign power,
shares, PCGG raised, among others, operated and maintained the
the defense of immunity from suit. dormitories at the Clark Air Base for
The Supreme Court held that by USAF members, the awards (of
entering into a Compromise monetary claims to the private
Agreement with Benedicto, the respondents) will have to be satisfied
Republic stripped itself of its by the U.S. Government. Without its
immunity and placed itself in the consent the properties of the U.S.
same level as its adversary. When Government may not be subject to
the State enters into a contract execution.
through its officers or agents, in
furtherance of a legitimate aim and
purpose and pursuant to But funds belonging to
constitutional legislative authority, government corporations (whose
whereby mutual or reciprocal charters provide that they can sue
benefits accruse and rights and and be sued) that are deposited with
obligations arise therefrom, the a bank are not exempt from
State may be sued even without its garnishment [Philippine National
express consent, precisely because Bank v. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595;
by entering into a contract, the Rizal Commercial Bank v. De
sovereign descends to the level of Castro, 168 SCRA 49]. In National
the citizen. Housing Authority

Scope of Consent. Consent to Heirs of Quivelondo, G.R. No.

be sued does not include consent to 154411, June 19, 2003, it was held
the execution of judgment against it. that if the funds belong to a public
corporation or a government- owned
or controlled corporation which is
Such execution will require clothed with a personality of its own,
another waiver, because the power then the funds are not exempt from
of the court ends when the garnishment. This is so because
judgment is rendered, since when the government enters into
government funds and properties commercial business, it abandons
may not be seized under writs of its sovereign capacity and is to be
execution or garnishment, unless treated like any other corporation.
such disbursement is covered by the NHA is one such corporation; thus,
corresponding appropriation as its funds are not exempt from
required by law [Republic v. Villasor, garnishment or execution.
54 SCRA 84; Department of  

Page 50 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

However, in Municipality of and the corresponding

San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez, disbursement of municipal funds to
130 SCRA 56, it was held that funds satisfy the money judgment.
of a municipality (although it is an
incorporated agency whose charter
provides that it can sue and be In Pacific Products v. Ong, 181
sued) are public in character and SCRA 536, the Supreme Court said
may not be garnished unless there that by the process of garnishment,
is a corresponding appropriation the plaintiff virtually sues the
ordinance duly passed by the garnishee for a debt due from the
Sangguniang Bayan. Thus, in City of defendant. The debtor-stranger
Caloocan v. Allarde, G.R. No. becomes a forced intervenor; when
107271, September 10, 2003, the served with the writ of attachment,
rule was reiterated that all he becomes a party to the action.
government funds deposited with Money in the hands of government
any official depositary bank of the agency (engaged in governmental
Philippine Government by any of its functions), even if due to a third
agencies or instrumentalities, party, is not liable to creditors of the
whether by general or special third party through garnishment. To
deposit, remain government funds allow this would be to allow a suit
and may not be subject to against the State without the latter’s
garnishment or levy in the absence consent.
of a corresponding appropriation as
required by law. In this case, the Suability not equated with
City of Caloocan had already outright liability. Liability will have
approved and passed Ordinance No. to be determined by the Court on
0134, Series of 1992, allocating the the basis of the evidence and the
amount of P439.377.14 for applicable law.
respondent Santiago’s back salaries
plus interest. Thus, this case fell
squarely within the exception, and In Merritt v. Government of
the amount may therefore be the Philippine Islands, supra., while
garnished. consent to be sued was granted
through a special law, the
government was held not liable for
ia) Be that as it may, in Municipality damages, because under the
of Makati v. Court of Appeals, 190 attendant circumstances the
SCRA 206, it was held that where government was not acting through
the municipality fails or refuses, a special agent.
without justifiable reason, to effect
payment of a final money judgment
rendered against it, the claimant . b) In Fontanilla v. Maliaman, 194
may avail of the remedy of SCRA 486, the Supreme Court said
mandamus in order to compel the that the National Irrigation
enactment and approval of the Administration is a government
necessary appropriation ordinance agency with a juridical personality

Page 51 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

separate and distinct from the have had to resort to filing its
government; it is a corporate body complaint for reconveyance. 
performing proprietary functions.
Thus, the NIA may be held liable for
damages caused by the negligent act UP vs. Dizon (Case Doctrine)
of its driver who was not a special The funds of the UP are government
agent. This was reiterated in funds that are public in character.
National Irrigation Administration v. Hence, the funds subject of this
Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 35. action could not be validly made the
subject of the RTC’s writ of
execution or garnishment. The
adverse judgment rendered against
DOTC v. Abecina (Case Doctrine) the UP in a suit to which it had
The Constitution identifies the impliedly consented was not
limitations to the awesome and immediately enforceable by
near-limitless powers of the State. execution against the UP, because
Chief among these limitations are suability of the State did not
the principles that no person shall necessarily mean its liability. 
be deprived of life, liberty, or A distinction should first be made
property without due process of law between suability and liability.
and that private property shall not "Suability depends on the consent of
be taken for public use without just the state to be sued, liability on the
compensation .These limitations are applicable law and the established
enshrined in no less than the Bill of facts. The circumstance that a state
Rights that guarantees the citizen is suable does not necessarily mean
protection from abuse by the State. that it is liable; on the other hand, it
Consequently, our laws require that can never be held liable if it does not
the State's power of eminent domain first consent to be sued. Liability is
shall be exercised through not conceded by the mere fact that
expropriation proceedings in court. the state has allowed itself to be
Whenever private property is taken sued. When the state does waive its
for public use, it becomes the sovereign immunity, it is only giving
ministerial duty of the concerned the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it
office or agency to initiate can, that the defendant is liable.
expropriation proceedings. By
necessary implication, the filing of a The UP correctly submits here that
complaint for expropriation is a the garnishment of its funds to
waiver of State immunity. If the satisfy the judgment awards of
DOTC had correctly followed the actual and moral damages
regular procedure upon discovering (including attorney’s fees) was not
that it had encroached on the validly made if there was no special
respondents' property, it would have appropriation by Congress to cover
initiated expropriation proceedings the liability. The Constitution
instead of insisting on its immunity strictly mandated that "(n)o money
from suit. The petitioners would not shall be paid out of the Treasury

Page 52 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

except in pursuance of an Note: The distinction between

appropriation made by law." principles and polices is of little
significance because not all of the
six “principles” are self-executory
Article II: DECLARATION OF and some of the “policies” already
PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES anchor justiciable rights.

A. Description Section 5 (maintenance of

peace and order… promotion of
This portion of the Constitution general werlfare…) is a mere
(Article II) might be called the basic guideline. (Section 16 (right of the
political creed of the nation. people to a balanced and healthful
ecology is right-conferring
B. Function of the “Declaration of provisions. (Oposa vs. Factoran)
Principles and State Policies” in
the Constitution (See Tanada v. PRINCIPLES
Angara. See Vicente Sinco,
Philippine Political Law) (11th ed., III. Republicanism
1962).
Section 1. The Philippines is a
It is the statement of the basic democratic and republican State.
ideological principles and policies Sovereignty resides in the people
that underlie the Constitution. As and all government authority
such, the provisions shed light on emanates from them.
the meaning of the other provisions
of the Constitution and they are a A. Republic
guide for all departments of the
government in the implementation Republic is a representative
of the Constitution.65 government run by the people and
for the people. Republican state is
C. What are Principles? What are a state wherein all government
Policies? authority emanates from the people
and is exercised by representatives
Principles are binding rules which chosen by the people.
must be observed in the conduct of
the government. B. Essential Features of
Republicanism
Policies are guidelines for the
orientation of the state. The essence of republicanism is
representation and renovation.
The citizenry selects a corps of
public functionaries who derive their
mandate from the people and act on
their behalf, serving for a limited
period only, after which they are

Page 53 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

replaced or retained at the option of Yes if the Constitution upon

their principal. which the Executive bases his
assumption of power is a legitimate
C. Manifestations of Republicanism expression of the people’s will and if
the Executive who assumes power
1. Ours is a government of laws received his office through a valid
and not of men. (Villavicencio election by the people.
v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778)
2. Rule of Majority (Plurality in Renunciation of War/
elections) Incorporation Clause/ Policy of
3. Accountability of public PEJ-FCA with All Nations Section
officials 2. The Philippines renounces war as
4. Bill of Rights an instrument of national policy,
5. Legislature cannot pass adopts the generally accepted
irrepealable laws principles of international law as
6. Separation of powers part of law of the land and adheres
to the policy of peace, equality,
D. “Democratic State” justice, freedom, cooperation, and
amity with all nations.
In the view of the new Constitution,
the Philippines is not only a A. Renunciation of War
representative or republican state “The Philippines renounces war as
but also shares some aspects of an instrument of national policy…”
direct democracy such as “initiative (Read along Preamble, Article II
and referendum”. The word Secs. 7 &8; Article XVIII Sec. 25)
democratic is also a monument to
the February Revolution which re-
won freedom through direct action 1. Aggressive War
of the people. The Philippines only renounces
AGGRESSIVE war as an instrument
E. Constitutional Authoritarianism of national policy. It does not
renounce defensive war.
Constitutional authoritarianism as
understood and practiced in the
Marcos regime under the 1973
Constitution, was the assumption of 2. Philippines Renounces Not
extraordinary powers by the Only War
President, including legislative and As member of United Nations, the
judicial and even constituent Philippines does not merely
powers. renounce war but adheres to Article
2(4) of the UN charter which says: “
Is constitutional All Members shall refrain in their
authoritarianism compatible with a international relations from the
republican state? threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any

Page 54 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

other manner inconsistent with automatically part of its own laws.

Purposes of the Untied Nations.” This is the doctrine of incorporation.

Historical Development of the 3. International Law

Policy Condemning or Outlawing Traditional definition: It is a body of
War in the International Scene: rules and principles of action which
Covenant of the League of Nations are binding upon civilized states in
- provided conditions for the right to their relation to one another.
go to war. Restatement: The law which deals
Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 - also with the conduct of states and of
known as the General Treaty for the international organizations and with
Renunciation of War, ratified by 62 their relations inter se, as well as
states, which forbade war as “an with some other relations with
instrument of national policy.” persons, natural or juridical.
Charter of the United Nations -
Prohibits the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or To What Elements of International
political independence of a State. Law does the principle of
incorporation apply?
Since treaties become part of
Incorporation Clause Philippine law only by ratification,
“The Philippines…adopts the the principle of incorporation
generally accepted principles of applies only to customary law and to
international law as part of law of treaties which have become part of
the land…” customary law. 

Effect of Incorporation Clause

1. Acceptance of Dualist View International law therefore can be
Implicit in this provision is the used by Philippine courts to settle
acceptance of the dualist view of domestic disputes in much the same
legal systems, namely that domestic way that they would use the Civil
law is distinct from international Code or the Penal Code and other
law. Since dualism holds that laws passed by Congress.
international law and municipal law
belong to different spheres,
international law becomes part of Policy of PEJ-FCA with All
municipal law only if it is Nations
incorporated in to municipal law. “The Philippines…adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice,
2 Doctrine of Incorporation (1997 freedom, cooperation, and amity with
Bar Question) all nations.”
Every state is, by reason of its
membership in the family of
nations, bound by the generally Does the affirmation of amity
accepted principles of international will all nations mean automatic
law, which are considered to be diplomatic recognition of all nations?

Page 55 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

No. Amity with all nations is an 1. As protector of the people and

ideal to be aimed at. Diplomatic the State
recognition, however, remains a 2. To secure the sovereignty of
matter of executive discretion. the State and the integrity of
the national territory.
3. They may be called to prevent
or suppress lawless violence,
Supremacy of Civilian Authority. invasion or rebellion.
Section 3. Civilian Authority is, at all 4. All Members of the armed
times supreme over the military. The forces shall take an oath or
Armed Forces of the Philippines is affirmation to uphold and
the protector of the people and the defend the Constitution.
State. Its goal is to secure the
sovereignty of the State and integrity
of the national territory.
2. Composition
The Armed Forces of the Philippines
shall be composed of a citizen armed
A. Civilian Authority force which shall undergo military
That civilian authority is at all training and serve as may be
times supreme over the military is provided by law. (Article XVI,
implicit in a republican system. Section 4)
Still, it was felt advisable to
expressly affirm this principle in the 3. On Politics
Constitution to allay all fears of a The armed forces shall be insulated
military take-over of our civilian from partisan politics. No member of
government. It was also fittingly the military shall engage directly or
declared that the President, who is a indirectly in any partisan political
civilian official, shall be the activity, except to vote. (Article XVI,
commander-in-chief of all the armed Section 5)
forces of the Philippines. Is the provision an assertion of
Does this mean that civilian the political role of the military?
officials are superior to military No. The phrase “protector of
officials? the people” was not meant to be an
Civilian officials are superior assertion of the political role of the
to military official only when a law military. The intent of the phrase
makes them so. “protector of the people” was rather
to make it as corrective to military
abuses experienced during martial
1. Armed Forces of the
rule.
Philippines
Does this mean that the
military has no military role?
Reasons [in the constitution] for the Bernas: The military exercise
existence of the armed forces of political power can be justified as
a last resort—when civilian

Page 56 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

authority has lost its legitimacy.118 B. Who is Prohibited from

(This is dangerous.) Interfering
Doctrine cuts both ways. It is not
only the State that is prohibited
4 . Bar Question (2003) from interfering in purely
Is the PNP covered by the ecclesiastical affairs; the Church is
same mandate under Article II, likewise barred from meddling in
Section 3? purely secular matters. 120(Cruz)
No. This provision is
specifically addressed to the AFP
and not to the PNP, because the C. Separation of Church and State
latter is separate and distinct from is Reinforced by:
the former. (Record of the
Constitutional Commission, Volume
V, p. 296; Manalo v. Sistoza, 312 1. Freedom of Religion Clause
SCRA 239) (Article III, Section 5)
2. Religious sect cannot be
Defense of State registered as a political party
Section 4. The prime duty of the (Article IX-C, Section 2(5))
government is to serve and protect 3. No sectoral representatives
the people. The Government may call from the religious sector.
upon the people to defend the state (Article VI, Section 5 (2))
and, in the fulfillment thereof, all 4. Prohibition against
citizens may be required, under appropriation against
conditions provided by law, to render sectarian benefit. (Article VI,
personal military or civil service. 29(2)).
D. Exceptions
1. Churches, parsonages, etc.
actually, directly and
Separation of the Church and the exclusively used for religious
State purposes shall be exempt
Section 6. The separation of Church from taxation. (Article VI,
and State shall be inviolable. Section 28(3)).
2. When priest, preacher,
minister or dignitary is
A. Rationale assigned to the armed forces,
“Strong fences make good or any penal institution or
neighbors.” The idea is to delineate government orphanage or
boundaries between the two leprosarium, public money
institutions and thus avoid may be paid to them. (Article
encroachments by one against the VI, Section 29(2))
other because of a 3. Optional religious instruction
misunderstanding of the limits of for public elementary and
their respective exclusive high school students. (Article
jurisdictions.119 XIV, Section 3(3)).

Page 57 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

4. Filipino ownership XIV [optional religious instruction in

requirement for education public elementary and high schools:
institutions, except those at the option expressed in writing by
established by religious the parents or guardians, religious
groups and mission boards. instruction taught within regular
(Article XIV, Section 4(2)). class hours by instructors
designated or approved by the
religious authorities of the religion
to which the children or wards
Two guarantees contained belong, without additional cost to
in Sec. 5, Article III: (a) Non- the Government]; (iv)Sec. 29 (2), Art.
establishment Clause; and Freedom VI [appropriation allowed where the
of religious profession and worship. minister or ecclesiastic is employed
in the armed forces, in a penal
institution, or in a government-
Non-establishment clause.
owned orphanage or leprosarium].
This reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II, on the
separation of Church and State.
Recall other constitutional Scope. In Everson v. Board of
provisions which support the non- Education, 30 U.S. 1, the U.S.
establishment clause, namely: Sec. Supreme Court said that the non-
2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or establishment clause means that
denomination cannot be registered the State cannot set up a church,
as a political party]; Sec. 5(2), Art. VI nor pass laws which aid one
[no sectoral representative from the religion, aid alt religion, or prefer
religious sector]; and Sec. 29 (2), one religion over another, nor force
Art. VI [prohibition against the use nor influence a person to go to or
of public money or property for the remain
benefit of any religion, or of any
priest, minister, or ecclesiastic]. See
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201; Garces away from church against his will or
v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510. force him to profess a belief or
disbelief in, any religion, etc. In
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S, 421, known
Exceptions: (i) Sec. 28 (3), Art. as the “School Prayer
VI [exemption from taxation of
properties actually, directly and
exclusively used for religious Case”, the recitation by the students
purposes]; see Bishop of Nueva in public schools in New York of a
Segovia v. Provincial Board, 51 Phil prayer composed by the Board of
352; (ii) Sec. 4 (2), Art. XIV Regents was held unconstitutional.
[citizenship requirement of i)
ownership of educational
institutions, except those
established by religious groups and
mission boards]; (iii) Sec. 3 (3), Art. In line with the constitutional
principle of equal treatment of all

Page 58 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

religions, the State recognizes the exclusive power to classify food

validity of marriages performed in products as halal, EO 46
conformity with the rites of the encroached on the religious freedom
Mohammedan religion [Adong v. of Muslim organizations like herein
Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil 43]. As to petitioner to interpret for Filipino
the expression “non-Christian” used Muslims what food products are fit
in some restrictive laws applicable to for Muslim consumption. Also by
“non-Christian” tribes, the Supreme arrogating to itself the task of
Court, conscious of the implication issuing halal certifications, the State
of religious discrimination in the has, in effect, forced Muslims to
term, has given the interpretation accept its own interpretation of the
that it does not refer to religious Qur’an and Sunnah on halal food.
belief, but to degree of civilization. Intramural religious dispute.
See People v. Cayat, supra.; Rubi v. In Gonzales v. Archbishop of Manila,
Provincial Board of Mindoro, 51 Phil 420, the Supreme Court said
supra..  that where a civil right depends
Laws, such as Art. 133, upon some matter pertaining to
Revised Penal Code, which punish ecclesiastical affairs, the civil
blasphemy or acts notoriously tribunal tries the civil right and
offensive to the feelings of the nothing more. In Fonacier v. Court
faithful in a place devoted to of Appeals, 96 Phil 417, where the
religious worship or during the dispute involves the property rights
celebration of a religious ceremony, of the religious group, or the
do not violate the freedom of relations of the members where
religion. - In Islamic Da’wah. property rights are involved, the civil
Council of the Philippines v. Office courts may assume jurisdiction.
of the Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
153888, July 9, 2003, the Supreme
Court declared that freedom of iva) In Austria v. NLRC and Central
religion is accorded preferred status Philippine Union Mission
by the framers of the fundamental Corporation of the Seventh Day
law, well aware that it is “designed Adventists, G.R. No. 124382, August
to protect the broadest possible 16, 1999, concerning the dismissal
liberty of conscience, to allow each of petitioner, a minister, for
man to believe as his conscience misappropriation of denominational
directs, to profess his beliefs, and to funds, willful breach of trust,
live as he believes he ought to live, serious misconduct and gross and
consistent with the liberty of others habitual neglect of duties, the
and with the common good”. Supreme Court had occasion to
Without doubt, classifying food define an ecclesiastical affair as “one
products as halal is a religious that concerns doctrine, creed or
function because the standards form of worship of the church, or
used are drawn from the Qur’an and the adoption and enforcement
Islamic beliefs. By giving the Office within a religious association of
of Muslim Affairs (OMA) the needful laws and regulations for the
government of the membership, and

Page 59 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

the power of excluding from such

associations those deemed
unworthy of membership” [Black’s Aspects of freedom of religious
Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (1979), p. profession and worship: ij Right to
460]. Based on this definition, an believe, which is absolute.
ecclesiastical affair involves the
relationship between the church and Right to act according to one’s
its members and relates to matters beliefs, which is subject to
of faith, religious doctrines, worship regulation. In German v. Barangan,
and governance of the congregation. 135 SCRA 514, the Supreme Court
Examples of these affairs in which found that the petitioners were not
the State cannot meddle are sincere in their profession of
proceedings for excommunication, religious liberty * and were using it
ordination of religious ministers, merely to express their opposition to
administration of sacraments, and the government. But see the
other activities to which is attached dissenting opinion of Justice
religious significance. In this case, Teehankee: religious freedom may
what is involved is the relationship be regulated only upon the
of the church as an employer and application of the “clear and present
the minister as an employee. It is danger rule”. In Ebralinag v.
purely secular and has no relation Division Superintendent of Schools
whatsoever with the practice of of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256, the
faith, worship or doctrine of the Supreme Court reversed Gerona v.
church. Secretary of Education, 106 Phil 2,
and the Balbuna decision, and
ivb) In Taruc v. Bishop Porfirio de la upheld the right of the petitioners to
Cruz, G.R. No. 144801, March 10, refuse to salute the Philippine flag
2005, the Supreme Court declared on account of their religious
that the expulsion/ scruples. In People v. Zosa, supra.,
excommunication of members of a the invocation of religious scruples
religious institution/organization is in order to avoid military service was
a matter best left to the discretion of brushed aside by the Supreme
the officials, and the laws and Court. In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope
canons of such Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54, the
institution/organization. It is not for Supreme Court upheld the validity
the Court to exercise control over of R.A. 3350, exempting members of
church authorities in the a religious sect from being
performance of their discretionary compelled to join a labor union. In
and official functions. Rather, it is Pamil v. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413, a
for the members of religious divided Supreme Court upheld the
institutions/organizations to constitutionality of Sec. 2175 of the
conform to just church regulations. Revised Administrative Code
disqualifying ecclesiastics from
holding elective or appointive
Free Exercise Clause. municipal offices. In American Bible

Page 60 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil liberty to the greatest extent

386, the Supreme Court recognized possible within flexible
the “right to proselytize’’ as part of constitutional limits. Thus, although
religious freedom, and invalidated the morality contemplated by laws is
the application of a City Ordinance secular, benevolent neutrality could
imposing license fees on the sale of allow for accommodation of morality
merchandise to the sale of religious based on religion, provided it does
tracts. Citing this case, the Supreme not offend compelling state interest,
Court said in Iglesia ni Cristo v. in applying the test, the first inquiry
Court of Appeals, supra., that the is whether respondent’s right to
constitutional guarantee of free religious freedom has been
exercise of religious profession and burdened.
worship carries with it the right to
disseminate religious information,
and any restraint of such right can There is no doubt that between
be justified only on the ground that keeping her employment and
there is a clear and present danger abandoning her religious belief and
of an evil which the State has the practice and family on the one hand,
right to prevent. and giving up her employment and
keeping her religious belief and
practice and family on the other,
iia) The compelling State interest puts a burden on her free exercise of
test. In Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. religion. The second step is to
P-02-1651, August 4, 2003, ascertain respondent’s sincerity in
respondent was administratively her religious belief. Respondent
charged with immorality for living appears to be sincere in her
with a married man not her religious belief and practice, and is
husband. As members of the not merely using the “Declaration of
Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Pledging Faithfulness” to avoid
Tower and Bible Tract Society, their punishment for immorality. This
conjugal arrangement was in being a case of first impression, the
conformity with their religious parties were not aware of the burden
beliefs. In fact, after ten years of of proof they should discharge in the
living together, they executed a Court’s use of the “compelling state
“Declaration of Pledging interest” test. It is apparent that the
Faithfulness” before their religious state interest it upholds is the
elders. Recognizing the religious preservation of the integrity of the
nature of the Filipinos and the judiciary by maintaining among its
elevating influence of religion in ranks a high standard of morality
society, the constitution’s religion and decency. However,
clauses prescribe not a strict but a there is nothing in the
benevolent neutrality. Benevolent memorandum to the Court that
neutrality .recognizes that demonstrates how the interest is so
government must pursue its secular compelling that it should override
goals and interests, but at the same the respondent’s plea of religious
time, strive to uphold religious freedom, nor is it shown that the

Page 61 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

means employed by the government freedom of religion; but solicitations

in pursuing its interest is the least for religious purposes are not
restrictive to respondent’s religious covered by PD 1564 (Solicitation
exercise. The case was ordered Permit Law) which requires a prior
remanded to the Office of the Court permit from DSWD in solicitations
Administrator for the application of for “charitable or public welfare
this test. purposes” [Centeno v. Villalon, 236
  SCRA 197].
iia1) Thus, in the final resolution of
the case [June 22, 2006], it was held
that if the burden is great and the iic) RA 7716, insofar as the sale of
sincerity of the religious belief is not religious articles, as well as their
in question, adherence to benevolent printing and publication, is subject
neutrality accommodation approach to VAT, is not unconstitutional. As
requires that the Court make an the US Supreme Court held in
individual determination and not Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board
dismiss the claim outright. of Equalization, the free exercise
Accordingly, the Court found that in clause does not prohibit imposing a
this particular case and under the generally applicable sales and use
distinct circumstances prevailing, tax on the sale of religious materials
respondent Escritor’s arrangement by a religious organization
cannot be penalized as she made [Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance,
out a case for exemption from the supra.]. In the Resolution on the
law based on her fundamental right Motion for Reconsideration, October
to freedom of religion. Concluding, 30, 1995, the Supreme Court said
the high tribunal said that the Court that the resulting burden on the
recognizes that the state interests exercise of religious freedom is so
must be upheld in order that incidental as to make it difficult to
freedoms, including religious differentiate it from any other
freedom, may be enjpyed. But in the economic imposition that might
area of religious exercise as a make the right to disseminate
preferred freedom, man stands religious doctrines costly. At any
accountable to an authority higher rate, liability for VAT must be
than the state, and so the state decided in concrete cases in the
interest sought to be upheld must event the BIR assesses this tax on
be so compelling that the violation the Philippine Bible Society.
will erode the very fabric of the state
that will also protect the freedom. In
the absence of a showing that such Balanced and Healthful Ecology
state interest exists, man must be Section 16. The State shall protect
allowed to subscribe to the infinite. and advance the right of the people
to a balanced and healthful ecology
in accord with the rhythm and
iib) State regulations imposed on harmony of nature.
solicitations for religious purposes
do not constitute an abridgment of

Page 62 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Section 16 provides for enforceable

rights. Hence, appeal to it has been
recognized as conferring “standing” Doctrine of Separation of Powers
on minors to challenge logging (General Rule)
policies of the government. (Oposa v. Purpose: Intended to prevent
Factoran) contravention of authority in one
person or group of persons as it may
While the right to a balanced lead to an irreversible error or abuse
and healthful ecology is to be found in its exercise of power which can
under the Declaration of Principles impair our republican institutions.
and State Policies and not under the The doctrine ordains that each of
Bill of Rights, it does not follow that the three great branches of the
it is less important than any of the government has exclusive
civil and political rights enumerated cognizance and supreme with all the
in the latter. Such a right belongs to matters falling into its
a different category of rights for it constitutionally allocated sphere.
concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation.
These basic rights need not even be
Exceptions:
written in the Constitution for they
1. Blending of Powers
are assumed to exist from the
These are instances under the
inception of humankind. (Oposa v.
Constitution where the power is not
Factoran,1993)
confined only to one department but
are shared by several departments.
On this basis too, the SC
This is often necessary in order for
upheld the empowerment of the
certain powers to be reposed so that
Laguna Lake Development Authority
they may better collaborate with and
(LLDA) to protect the inhabitants of
in the process check each other for
the Laguna Lake Area from the
the common good. 
deleterious effects of pollutants
coming from garbage dumping and
the discharge of wastes in the area Examples:
as against the local autonomy claim 1. The enactment of General
of local governments in the area. Appropriations Law
(LLDA v. CA, 1995) 2. Grant of Amnesty
3. COMELEC during Elections
THE BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT
Legislative Department – can 2. Checks and Balances
enact laws but may not enforce/ These are instances in which one
apply department is allowed to resist
Executive Department – can encroachments upon its
enforce but may not enact/apply prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or
Judicial Department – can apply excess committed by the other
but cannot enforce/enact departments. 

Page 63 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Examples: postage stamps would be

1. President may nullify a conviction "advantageous to the Government."
in a criminal case by pardoning the Of course, the phrase "advantageous
offender to the Government" does not
2. Judiciary has the power to authorize the violation of the
declare an invalid act done by the Constitution. It does not authorize
Congress, the President and the the appropriation, use or application
Constitutional Commissions of public money or property for the
3. Lawmaking power of the Congress use, benefit or support of a
is checked by the President through particular sect or church. In the
his veto which in turn may be present case, however, the issuance
overridden by the Congress. of the postage stamps in question by
the Director of Posts and the
Secretary of Public Works and
Communications was not inspired
Villavicencio v. Lukban by any sectarian denomination. The
stamps were not issue and sold for
Doctrine: No official, no matter how the benefit of the Roman Catholic
high, is above the law. The courts Church. Nor were money derived
are the forum which functionate to from the sale of the stamps given to
safeguard individual liberty and to that church.
punish official transgressors. The
170 women of ill-reputation are still, It is significant to note that the
as citizens of the Philippines, stamps as actually designed and
entitled to fundamental rights, as printed (Exhibit 2), instead of
every other citizen. Their choice of showing a Catholic Church chalice
profession should not be a cause for as originally planned, contains a
discrimination. It may make some, map of the Philippines and the
like Lukban, uncomfortable but it location of the City of Manila, and
does not authorize anyone to compel an inscription as follows: "Seat
said prostitutes to isolate XXXIII International Eucharistic
themselves. These women have been Congress, Feb. 3-7,1937." What is
deprived of their liberty by being emphasized is not the Eucharistic
exiled to Davao without even being Congress itself but Manila, the
given the opportunity to collect their capital of the Philippines, as
belongings or, worse, without even the seat of that congress. It is
consenting to being transported to obvious that while the issuance and
Mindanao. For this, Lukban et al sale of the stamps in question may
must be punished. be said to be inseparably linked with
an event of a religious character, the
Aglipay v. Ruiz (Case Doctrine) resulting propaganda, if any,
received by the Roman Catholic
What it gives the Director of Posts is Church, was not the aim and
the discretionary power to determine purpose of the Government. We are
when the issuance of special of the opinion that the Government

Page 64 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

should not be embarrassed in its government. They can neither cause

activities simply because of the government to adopt their
incidental results, more or less particular doctrines as policy for
religious in character, if the purpose everyone, nor can they not cause the
had in view is one which could government to restrict other groups.
legitimately be undertaken by To do so, in simple terms, would
appropriate legislation. The main cause the State to adhere to a
purpose should not be frustrated by particular religion and, thus,
its subordinate to mere incidental establishing a state religion. 
results not contemplated. Consequently, the petitioners are
misguided in their supposition that
Imbong vs. Ochoa Jr. (Case the State cannot enhance its
Doctrine) population control program through
the RH Law simply because the
The constitutional assurance of promotion of contraceptive use is
religious freedom provides two contrary to their religious beliefs.
guarantees: the Establishment Indeed, the State is not precluded
Clause and the Free Exercise to pursue its legitimate secular
Clause.  The establishment clause objectives without being dictated
"principally prohibits the State from upon by the policies of any one
sponsoring any religion or favoring religion. One cannot refuse to pay
any religion as against other his taxes simply because it will
religions. It mandates a strict cloud his conscience. The
neutrality in affairs among religious demarcation line between Church
groups." Essentially, it prohibits the and State demands that one render
establishment of a state religion and unto Caesar the things that are
the use of public resources for the Caesar's and unto God the things
support or prohibition of a religion. that are God's.
On the other hand, the basis of the
free exercise clause is the respect for
the inviolability of the human The Free Exercise Clause and the
conscience. Under this part of Duty to Refer
religious freedom guarantee, the The Court is of the view that the
State is prohibited from unduly obligation to refer imposed by the
interfering with the outside RH Law violates the religious
manifestations of one's belief and belief and conviction of a
faith. conscientious objector. Once the
medical practitioner, against his
will, refers a patient seeking
The Establishment Clause and information on modem reproductive
Contraceptives health products, services,
In the same breath that the procedures and methods, his
establishment clause restricts what conscience is immediately burdened
the government can do with religion, as he has been compelled to perform
it also limits what religious sects an act against his beliefs.
can or cannot do with the

Page 65 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Institutional Health Providers perceptible distinction why they

The same holds true with respect to should not be considered exempt
non-maternity specialty hospitals from the mandates of the law. The
and hospitals owned and operated protection accorded to other
by a religious group and health care conscientious objectors should
service providers. Considering that equally apply to all medical
Section 24 of the RH Law practitioners without distinction
penalizes such institutions should whether they belong to the public or
they fail or refuse to comply with private sector. After all, the freedom
their duty to refer under Section to believe is intrinsic in every
7 and Section 23(a)(3), the Court individual and the protective robe
deems that it must be struck that guarantees its free exercise is
down for being violative of the not taken off even if one acquires
freedom of religion. The same employment in the government.
applies to Section 23(a)(l) and (a)(2)
in relation to Section 24,
considering that in the Exception: Life Threatening Cases 
dissemination of information All this notwithstanding, the Court
regarding programs and services properly recognizes a valid exception
and in the performance of set forth in the law. While generally
reproductive health procedures, the healthcare service providers cannot
religious freedom of health care be forced to render reproductive
service providers should be health care procedures if doing it
respected. would contravene their religious
beliefs, an exception must be made
in life-threatening cases that require
The Implementing Rules and the performance of emergency
Regulation (RH-IRR)  procedures. In these situations, the
The last paragraph of Section 5.24 right to life of the mother should be
of the RH-IRR reads:  Provided, That given preference, considering that a
skilled health professional such as referral by a medical practitioner
provincial, city or municipal health would amount to a denial of service,
officers, chiefs of hospital, head resulting to unnecessarily placing
nurses, supervising midwives, the life of a mother in grave danger.
among others, who by virtue of their Thus, during the oral arguments,
office are specifically charged with Atty. Liban, representing CFC,
the duty to implement the provisions manifested: "the forced referral
of the RPRH Act and these Rules, clause that we are objecting on
cannot be considered as grounds of violation of freedom of
conscientious objectors.  religion does not contemplate an
This is discriminatory and emergency.
violative of the equal protection
clause. The conscientious objection
clause should be equally protective MODULE 4
of the religious belief of public Legislative Department
health officers. There is no

Page 66 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

III. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT  The rules and regulations

issued by these administrative
bodies have the force and effect
LEGISLATIVE POWER – the power of law. However, it must be made
to propose, enact, amend, and clear that the function performed
repeal laws.  by the administrative agency is
not law-making but law
A. WHO MAY EXERCISE execution.
LEGISLATIVE POWER
N.B.: A violation of the rules and
1. Congress of the Philippines, regulations promulgated by
which consists of the Senate administrative agencies may be
and the House of punished as penal offense.
Representatives.
Requisites:
EXCEPTION: The people to
themselves, by the system of 1. Such violation be made a
initiative and referendum. crime by the delegating statute
itself. (U.S. vs. Grimaud, 20 U.S.
2. Regional/Local Legislative 506 [1911])
Power 2. The regulation must be
published. (People vs. Que Po
Lay, G.R. No. L-6791, March 29,
Delegation to Local Governments: 1954) 
It is sufficient that the statute
indicated the subject matter over
which the local law-making agency PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE AND
may legislate. REFERENDUM

Delegation to Administrative Agencies:  INITIATIVE – the power of the

people to propose amendments to
the constitution, or to propose and
a. “Fill up the details” of a enact legislation through an election
statute – subject to the tests called for the purpose.
of completeness and sufficient
standard;
b. Contingent Legislation – Three Systems of Initiative
that which leaves to another
body the business of a. Initiative on the
ascertaining the facts Constitution – a petition
necessary to bring the law into proposing amendments to the
actual operation. constitution;

Page 67 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

b. Initiative on statutes – a assemblies and local

petition proposing to enact a legislative bodies.
national legislation; and 
c. Initiative on local
legislation – a petition Q: Is the power of to hold a
proposing to enact a regional, referendum plenary?
provincial, city, municipal or
barangay law, resolution, or A: No, the following cannot be the
ordinance. subject of an initiative or
referendum petition: (a) No petition
embracing more than one subject
shall be submitted to the electorate;
Limitations on Local Initiative and (b) Statutes involving emergency
 Shall not be exercised for measures, the enactment of which is
more than once a year; specifically vested in Congress by
 Shall extend only to subjects the Constitution, cannot be subject
or matters which are within the to referendum until 90 days after
legal powers of the local their effectivity. (Sec. 10, RA 6735)
legislative bodies to enact; and 
 If at any time before the
initiative is held, the local The President under a martial law
legislative body shall adopt in rule or in a revolutionary
toto the proposition presented, government
the initiative shall be cancelled.
However, those against such
action may, if they so desire,  For reasons of expediency and
apply for initiative. national security, it is submitted
that during a period of martial
law, the President may legislate
REFERENDUM – the power of the where Congress will find it
electorate to approve or reject difficult to convene and regularly
legislation through an election called perform its functions. (Magsalin
for that purpose. Jr., Philippine Political Law, 2007)

Two Classes of Referendum  The Congress, may, by law,

authorize the President within
specified limits…may impose
a. Referendum on statutes –  a tariff rates, import and export
petition to approve or reject quotas, tonnage and wharfage
an act or law, or part thereof, dues, and other duties or
passed by Congress. imposts within the framework of
b. Referendum on local laws – the national development
a petition to approve or reject program of the government. (Sec.
a law, resolution or ordinance 28[2], Article VI, 1987 Philippine
enacted by regional Constitution)

Page 68 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

denied a chance to be elected

to public office by reason of
B. HOUSES OF CONGRESS poverty (Maquera vs. Borra,
G.R. No. L-24761, September
1. Senate 7, 1965); and
d. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of
Composition: The Senate shall be civil and political rights. (Sec.
composed of twenty-four (24) 5, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Senators who shall be elected at
large by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, as may be provided by Term of Office: 6 years, to
law. (Sec. 2, Art. VI, 1987 commence at noon of June 30,
Constitution)  following the election.

Qualifications: No person shall be a Limitation: No Senator shall serve

Senator unless he is: for more than two (2) consecutive
terms.
N.B.: Voluntary renunciation of
a. A natural-born citizen of the office for any length of time shall not
Philippines; be considered as an interruption in
b. On the day of the election, is the continuity of his service for the
at least thirty-five (35) years of full term for which he was elected.
age; (Section 4, par 2, Article VI, 1987
c. Able to read and write; Constitution) 
d. A registered voter;
e. A resident of the Philippines
for not less than two (2) years 2. House of Representatives
immediately preceding the day
of the election. (Section 3, Composition: Not more than 250
Article VI, 1987 Constitution)   members, unless otherwise fixed by
law. Consists of:
Restriction:
a. District Representatives –
a. They must be possessed who shall be entitled to 80%
during the officer’s entire of the seats to be elected from
incumbency; legislative districts. 
b. The qualifications prescribed b. Party-List Representatives –
by the Constitution are who shall constitute 20% of
exclusive and the legislature the total number of
may not make additional representatives, elected
qualifications; through a party-list system of
c. Property qualifications are not registered national, regional,
allowed as no person may be

Page 69 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

and sectoral parties or residence or bodily presence in

organizations. the new locality; (2) an intention
to remain there; and (3) an
intention to abandon the odd
Domiciliary Requirement: domicile. (Gallego vs. Vera, G.R.
No. L-48641, November 24, 1941)
a. If a person retains his  The wife does not
domicile of origin for purposes automatically gain the husband’s
of the residence requirement domicile because the term
for representatives, the one “residence” in Civil Law does not
year period is irrelevant mean the same in Political Law.
because  by legal fiction, (Marcos vs. Commission on
wherever he may be, he is a Elections, G.R. No. 119976,
resident of his domicile of September 18, 1995)
origin; and 
b. If a person re-establishes a Term of Office: 3 years (unless
previously abandoned otherwise provided by law)
domicile or acquires a new commencing at noon of the 30 of th
one, the one-year requirement June, following their election (2 nd
must be satisfied. (Marcos vs. Monday of May).
Commission on Elections, G.R. Limitation: Shall not serve for more
No. 119976, September 18, than three consecutive terms.
1995) 

a. District representatives and

 Immigration to the US by questions of apportionment 
virtue of the acquisition of a
“green card” constitutes
abandonment of domicile in the Apportionment of Legislative
Philippines. (Caasi vs. Districts
Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
88831, November 8, 1990).
 Apportionment shall be made
in accordance with the number of
 A minor follows the domicile of respective inhabitants on the
his parents.” (Marcos vs. basis of a uniform and
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. progressive ratio.
119976, September 18, 1995)   Each city with not less than
250,000 inhabitants shall be
entitled to at least one
 Domicile imports not only representative. Sec. 5(3), Art. VI
intention to reside in a fixed of the Constitution requires a
place but also personal presence 250,000 minimum population
in that place coupled with only for a city to be entitled to a
conduct indicative of that representative, but not so for a
intention. Requisites: (1) province.

Page 70 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 Each province, irrespective of  Reapportionment of legislative

the number of inhabitants, is districts may be made through a
entitled to one representative. special law. To hold that
Each legislative district shall reapportionment can be made
comprise, as far as practicable, only through a general law would
contiguous, compact, and create an inequitable situation
adjacent territory. where a new city or province
created by Congress will be
denied legislative representation
 There is no reason why the for an indeterminate period of
Mariano case (Mariano, Jr. vs. time, which would deprive the
Commission on Elections, G.R. no. people in the new city of province
118577, March 7, 1995), which a particle of their sovereignty.
involves the creation of an (Tobias vs. Abalos, G.R. No. L-
additional district within a city, 114783, December 8, 1994) 
should not be applied to
additional district in provinces.
Indeed, if an additional legislative b. Party-list System (Republic
district created within a city is Act No. 7941)
not required to represent a
population of at least 250,000 in
order to be valid, neither should A free and open party system shall
such be needed for an additional be allowed to evolve according to the
district in a province is entitled to free choice of the people. (Sec. 2[5],
an initial seat by the mere fact of Art. IX, 1987 Constitution) 
its creation and regardless of its
population. (Sen. Benigno Aquino Under this system, a voter elects,
and Mayor Jesse Robredo vs. apart from the district
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. representative, a registered party,
189793, April 7, 2010) organization or coalition that will be
entitled to a maximum of three (3)
party-list representatives in the
House of Representatives, depending
Reappointment of Legislative on its obtaining a required
districts percentage of the national vote.

Within three years following the PARTY-LIST SYSTEM – a

return of every census, the Congress mechanism or proportional
shall make reappointment of representation in the election of
legislative districts based on the representatives to the House of
standards provided in this section. Representatives from national,
(Sec. 5(4), Art. VI, 1987 regional and sectoral parties or
Constitution)  organizations or coalitions thereof
registered with the Commission on
Election. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 7941).

Page 71 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

a. Ceased to exist for at least one

(1) year;
Number of Party-List b. Advocates violence or
Representatives: 20% of the total unlawful means to seek its
number of the members of   the goal;
House of Representatives including c. Religious sect or
those under the party-list. denomination, organization or
association, organized for
GENERAL RULE: The Party-List religious purposes;
Representatives shall have the same d. Receives support from any
rights and be subject to the same foreign government, foreign
inhibitions and disqualifications as political party, foundation,
a District Representative. organization, whether directly
Any Party-List Representative who or through any of its officers
changes his political party or or members or indirectly
sectoral application during his term through third parties for
of office shall forfeit his seat. If the partisan election purposes;
change is made within six (6) e. Violates or fails to comply with
months before an election, he shall laws, rules or regulations
not be eligible for nomination as a relating to elections;
Party-List Representative under his f. Untruthful statements in its
new party or organization.  petition;
g. Foreign party or organization;
h. Fails to participate in the last
Allocation of Seats: The parties, two (2) preceding election;
organization, and coalitions shall be i. Fails to obtain at least two per
ranked from the highest to the centum (2%) of the votes cast
lowest based on the number of votes under the party-list system in
they garnered during the elections. the two (2) preceding elections
Those receiving at least two percent for the constituency in which
(2%) of the total votes cast for the it has registered. 
party-list system shall be entitled to
one seat each. Those garnering more Recent Ruling on the 2%
than two percent (2%) of the votes in Threshold: The Supreme Court
proportion to their total number of declared as unconstitutional the two
votes. Each party, organization, or percent threshold in the distribution
coalition shall be entitled to not of additional party-list seats in the
more than 3 seats (Sec. 11, R.A. No. second clause of Sec. 11(b) of R.A.
7941). No. 7941, the Party-List System Act.
The Court held that the provision
struck down is an “unwarranted
GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL AND/OR obstacle” to the attainment of the
CANCELLATION OF broadest possible representation of
REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL party, sectoral or group interests in
PARTIES the House of Representatives.

Page 72 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

(Barangay Association for National underrepresented sectors,

Advancement and Transparency vs. organizations and parties; and
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. h. The nominee must likewise be
179271, April 21, 2009) able to contribute to the
formulation and enactment of
JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDEPOSTS  appreciate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole
a. Veterans Federation Party
vs. Commission on Elections
(G.R. No. 136781, October 6, c. Barangay Association for
2010): Panganiban Formula National Advancement and
for seat allocation Transparency vs. Commission
 20% allocation of total House on Elections (G.R. No. 179271,
of Representatives seats for April 21, 2009)
Party-List Representatives;
 2% threshold
 Three-seat limit Neither the Constitution nor RA
7941 mandates the filling up of the
entire 20% allocation of party-list
b. Bagong Bayani Party-List v. representatives found in the
Commission on Elections (G.R. Constitution. The Constitution, in
No. 147589, June 26, 2001): paragraph 1, Sec. 5 of Art VI, left the
Guidelines in determining determination of the number of the
eligibility for Party-List election members of the House of
Representatives to Congress. The
a. Must represent marginalized 20% allocation of party-list
and underrepresented; representatives is merely a ceiling;
b. Must show that they represent party-list representatives cannot be
the marginalized and more than 20% of the members of
underrepresented; the House of Representatives.
c. Must not be a religious
organization or sect; d. Atong paglaum, Inc. vs.
d. Must not be disqualified Commission on Elections (G.R.
under Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 7941; No. 203766, April 2, 2013):
e. Must not be an adjunct of a Parameters in determining Party-
project assisted or funded by List winners
the government;
f. The party must not only
comply with the requirements a. The parties, organizations,
of the law; its nominees must and coalitions shall be ranked
likewise do so; from the highest to the lowest
g. Nominees must be Filipino based on the number of votes
citizens who belong to they garnered during the
marginalized and elections;

Page 73 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

b. The parties, organization, and i. Formula for determining

coalitions receiving at least additional seats for the first
two (2%) of the total votes cast Party-List
for the party list system shall
be entitled to one guaranteed
seat each; In the case of Veteran Federation
c. Those garnering sufficient Party vs. Commission on Elections,
number of votes according to the only basis given by the law is
the ranking in paragraph 1, that a party receiving at least two
shall be entitled to additional percent of the total votes shall be
seats in proportion to their entitled to one seat. Proportionally,
total number of votes until the if the first party was to receive twice
additional seats are allocated; the number of votes of the second
and party, it should be entitled to twice
d. Each party, organization or the latter's number of seats and so
coalition shall be entitled to on. The formula, therefore, for
not more than three (3) seats. computing the number of seats to
which the first party is entitled is as
follows:
Computation of Additional Seats:
In computing the additional seats,
the guaranteed seats shall no longer Number of votes of first Party ÷ Total
be included because they have votes for Party-List System =
already been allocated, at one seat Proportion of votes of first Party
each, to every two-percenter. Thus, relative to total votes for Party-
the remaining available seats for List System
allocation as “additional seats” are
the maximum seats reserved under If the proportion of votes received by
the Party-List System less the the first party without rounding it
guaranteed seats. Fractional seats off is equal to at least six percent of
are disregarded in the absence of a the total valid votes cast for all the
provision in RA 7941 allowing for a party list groups, then the first party
rounding off of fractional seats. shall be entitled to two additional
seats or a total of three seats
overall. 
MATHEMATICAL COMPUTATION
OF VOTES GARNERED BY PARTY- If the proportion of votes without a
LIST CANDIDATES rounding off is equal to or greater
than four percent, but less than six
percent, then the first party shall
a. Veteran Federation Party have one additional or a total of two
vs. Commission on Elections seats. And if the proportion is less
than four percent, then the first
party shall not be entitled to any
additional seat.

Page 74 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

b. Barangay Association
for National Advancement and
The Supreme Court adopted this six Transparency vs. Commission
percent bench mark, because the on Elections
first party is not always entitled to
the maximum number of additional
seats. Likewise, it would prevent the In the case of BANAT vs.
allotment of more than the total Commission on Elections, the
number of available seats, such as percentage of votes garnered by
in an extreme case wherein 18 or each party-list candidate is arrived
more parties tie for the highest rank at by dividing the number of votes
and are thus entitled to three seats garnered by each party by
each. In such scenario, the number 15,950,900, the total number of
of seats to which all the parties are votes cast for party-list candidates
entitled may exceed the maximum [in the 2007 elections]. 
number of party-list seats reserved There are two steps in the second
in the House of Representatives. round of seat allocation: 
1. Formula for
determining additional seats
for other qualified Party- 1. The percentage is multiplied
Lists by the remaining available
seats, 328, which is the
difference between the 55
Additional for concerned Party- maximum seats reserved
List = [(Number of votes of under the Party-List System
concerned Party-List ÷ Total number and the 17 guaranteed seats of
of votes for Party-List System) ÷ the two-percenters. The whole
(Number of votes of First Party-List ÷ integer of the product of the
Total number of votes for Party-List percentage and of the
System)] x Number of additional remaining available seats
seats allocated for the first Party- corresponds to a party’s share
List in the remaining available
seats. 
2. Assign one party-list seat to
In simplified form, it is written as each of the parties next in
follows: rank until all available seats
are completely distributed. We
Additional for concerned Party- distributed all of the remaining
List = (Number of votes of 38 seats in the second round
concerned Party-List ÷ Number of of seat allocation. 
votes of First Party-List) x Number of
additional seats allocated for the  Apply the three-seat cap to
first Party-List determine the number of seats
each qualified party-list
candidate is entitled, the
Supreme Court clarified.
Page 75 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 The Court stressed that  No party-list representative

though neither the Constitution shall serve for more than three
nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates that (3) consecutive terms; and
the 20% allocation of Party-List  Voluntary renunciation of the
Representatives be entirely filled office for any length of time shall
up, “we cannot allow the not be considered as an
continued existence of a interruption in the continuity of
provision in the law [referring to his service for the full term for
the two percent threshold in the which he was elected. (Sec. 14,
distribution of additional party- R.A. No. 7941)
list seats in sec. 11(b) of RA  Under Sec. 2 of RA 7941, the
7941] which will systematically nominees must be Filipino
prevent the constitutionally citizens “who belong to
allocated 20% party-list marginalized and
representation from being filled.” underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties.”
Surely, the interests of the youth
 The Court, however, upheld cannot be fully represented by a
the three-seat cap as it is a valid retiree; neither can those of the
statutory device that prevents urban poor or the working class,
any party from dominating the by an industrialist. To allow
party-list elections. otherwise is to betray the State
policy to give genuine
 SEPARATE OPINION by representation to the
Justice Nachura: Until Congress marginalized and
shall have effected an acceptable underrepresented. (Ang Bagong
amendment to the minimum vote Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
requirement in RA 7941, a Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
gradually regressive threshold 147589, June 26, 2001)
vote requirement, inversely
proportional to the increase in Vacancy: The vacancy shall be
the number of party-list seats, automatically filled by the next
should be adopted such that the representative from the list of
minimum vote requirement will nominees in the order submitted to
gradually lessen as the number the COMELEC by the same party,
of party-list seats increase. organization, or coalition, who shall
(BANAT vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. serve for the unexpired term. If the
179271, April 21, 2009) list is exhausted, the party,
organization coalition concerned
Term of Office shall submit additional nominees
(Sec. 16, R.A. No. 7941) 

 Party-list representatives shall

be elected for a term of 3 years; Rights: Party-List Representatives
shall be entitled to the same salaries

Page 76 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

and emoluments as regular In Ang Bagong Bayani case, the

members of the House of Supreme Court decided that major
Representatives (Sec. 17, R.A. 7941). political parties may participate in
the party list elections provided that
they are consistent with the purpose
NATURE OF PARTY-LIST of the party list system as provided
in the Constitution and RA 7941
 The party-list system is a which is to represent the
social justice tool designed not marginalized and underrepresented
only to give more law to the great sectors of society. In BANAT case,
masses of our people who have the Supreme Court categorically
less in life, but also to enable declared that major political parties
them to become veritable are not allowed to directly or
lawmakers themselves, indirectly participate in the party list
empowered to participate directly elections.
in the enactment of laws
designed to benefit them. It  We declare that it would not
intends to make the marginalized be in accord with the 1987
and the underrepresented not Constitution and R.A. No. 7941
merely passive recipients of the to apply the criteria in Ang
State’s benevolence, but active Bagong Bayani and BANAT in
participants in the mainstream of determining who are qualified to
representative democracy. (Ang participate in the coming 13 May
Bagong Bayani OFW Labor Party 2013 party-list elections. (Atong
vs. COMELEC, GR No. 147589, Paglaum vs. Commission on
June 26, 2001) Elections, G.R. No. 203776, April
2, 2013)
GUIDELINES FOR SCREENING
PARTY-LIST CANDIDATES  In the Atong Paglaum case, the
following guidelines for the
determination of eligibility of a party
list to participate in the May 13
elections are provided as follows: 

a. Three different groups may

participate in the party-list
system: (1) national parties or
organizations, (2) regional
parties or sectoral parties or
organizations.
b. Political parties can
participate in party-list
elections provided they
register under the party-list
Page 77 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

system and do not field majority of the members of

candidates in legislative sectoral parties or
district elections. A political organizations that lack “well-
party, whether major or not, defined political
that fields candidates in constituencies” must belong
legislative district elections to the sector they represent.
can participate in party-list The nominees of sectoral
elections only through its parties or organizations that
sectoral wing that can represent the “marginalized
separately register under the and underrepresented,” or
party-list system. The sectoral that represent those who lack
wing is by itself an “well-defined political
independent sectoral party, constituencies,” either must
and is linked to a political belong to their respective
party through a coalition.  sectors, or must have a track
c. Sectoral parties or record of advocacy for their
organizations may either be respective sectors. The
“marginalized and nominees of national and
underrepresented” or lacking regional parties or
in “well-defined political organizations must be bona-
constituencies.”  fide members of such parties
d. It is enough that their or organizations.
principal advocacy pertains to f. National, regional, and
the special interest and sectoral parties or
concerns of their sector. The organizations shall not be
sectors that are “marginalized disqualified if some of their
and underrepresented” nominees are disqualified,
include labor, peasant, provided that they have at
fisherfolk, urban poor, least one nominee who
indigenous cultural remains qualified.
communities, handicapped,
veterans, and overseas
workers. The sectors that lack C. LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES,
“well-defined political INHIBITIONS AND
constituencies” include DISQUALIFICATIONS
professionals, the elderly,
women, and the youth. PRIVILEGES
e. A majority of the members of
sectoral parties or
organizations that represent Salaries
the “marginalized and
underrepresented” must
belong to the “marginalized The salaries of Senators and
and underrepresented” sector Members of the House of
they represent. Similarly, a Representatives shall be determined
by law. Increase in said

Page 78 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

compensation shall not take effect Representatives) must have

until after the expiration of the full expired before the increase in
term of all the Members of the compensation can become
Senate and the House of operative. Such disregard of the
Representatives approving such separate houses, in favor of the
increase. (Sec. 10, Art. VI, 1987 whole, accords in turn with the
Constitution)  fact that the enactment of laws
rests on the shoulders of the
entire Legislative body;
 In establishing what might be responsibility therefor is not
termed a waiting period before apportionable between the two
the increased compensation for chambers. (Philconsa v. Mathay,
legislators becomes fully effective, G.R. No. L-25554, October 4,
the constitutional provision 1966) 
refers to "all the members of the
Senate and of the House of
Representatives" in the same Parliamentary Immunities
sentence, as a single unit,
without distinction or separation
between them. This unitary a. Immunity from Arrest
treatment is emphasized by the
fact that the provision speaks of A Senator or Member of the House
the "expiration of the full term" of of Representatives shall, in all
the Senators and Representatives offenses punishable by not more
that approved the measure, than six years imprisonment, be
using the singular form, and not privileged from arrest while the
the plural, despite the difference Congress is in session. No Member
in the terms of office (six years shall be questioned nor be held
for Senators and four for liable in any other place for any
Representatives thereby speech or debate in the Congress or
rendering more evident the intent in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11,
to consider both houses for the Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
purpose as indivisible
components of one single
Legislature. The use of the word  This applies to offenses
"term" in the singular, when punishable by not more than 6
combined with the following years of imprisonment. If the
phrase "all the members of the crime is punishable by more than
Senate and of the House", six (6) years, then the member
underscores that in the can be arrested;
application of Article VI, Section  Privilege applies while
14, the fundamental Congress is in session.
consideration is that the terms of  The penalty of prision
office of all members of the coreccional shall be imposed
Legislature that enacted the upon any public officer or
measure (whether Senators or employee who shall, while the

Page 79 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Assembly is in regular or special Restrictive Construction of the

session, arrest or search any Constitutional Provision of
member thereof, except in case “Immunity from Arrest and
such member has committed a Detention”
crime punishable under this
Code by a penalty higher than
prision mayor. (Article 145, The immunity from arrest or
Revised Penal Code)  detention of Senators and members
of the House of Representatives is a
special privilege which cannot be
Ratio: To enable the lawmakers to extended beyond the ordinary
perform legislative duty without fear meaning of its terms. It may not be
of criminal prosecution. However, extended by intendment,
the provision does not protect them implication, or equitable
from possible disciplinary actions considerations. The 1973
that their colleagues might impose. Constitution – Sec. 9, Art. VIII –
broadened the privilege of immunity
as follows:
 Membership in Congress does
not exempt an accused from
statutes and rules which apply to A Member of the Batasang
validly incarcerated persons. It Pambansa shall, in all
would amount to the creation of offenses punishable by not
a privileged class, without more than six years
justification in reason, if imprisonment, be privileged
notwithstanding their liability for from arrest during his
a criminal offense, they would be attendance at its sessions and
considered immune from arrest in going to and returning from
during their attendance in the same.
Congress and in going to and
returning from the same.
Moreover, the accused-appellant For offenses punishable by
is provided with an office at the more than six years
House of Representatives with a imprisonment, there was no
full complement of staff, as well immunity from arrest. The
as an office at the Administration restrictive interpretation of
Building, New Bilibid Prison, immunity and the intent to
where he attends to his confine it within carefully
constituents; he has, therefore, defined parameters is
been discharging his mandate as illustrated by the concluding
member of the House of portion of the provision, to
Representatives. (People of the wit:
Philippines v. Jalosjos, G.R. No.
132875, February 3, 2000) x x x  but the Batasang
Pambansa shall surrender the
member involved to the

Page 80 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

custody of the law within  Privilege applies only while

twenty four hours after its Congress is in session and not
adjournment for a recess or when it is in recess.
for its next session, otherwise Scope: While parliamentary
such privilege shall cease immunity guarantees the legislator
upon its failure to do so. complete freedom of expression
without fear of being made
responsible in criminal or civil
 The present Constitution actions before the courts or any
adheres to the same restrictive other forum outside of the
rules minus the obligation of Congressional Hall, however, it does
Congress to surrender the not protect him from responsibility
subject Congressman to the before the legislative body itself
custody of the law. The whenever his words and conduct are
requirement that he should be considered by the latter disorderly
attending sessions or committee or unbecoming a member thereof.
meetings has also been removed. For unparliamentary conduct,
For relatively minor offenses, it is members of Congress can be
enough that Congress is in censured, committed to prison,
session. (People of the Philippines suspended, and even expelled by the
v. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875, votes of their colleagues.
February 3, 2000)

DISQUALIFICATIONS
b. Freedom of Speech and
Debate Clause
No Senator or Member of the House
of Representatives may hold any
No member shall be questioned nor other office or employment in the
be held liable in any other place for Government, or any subdivision,
any speech or debate in Congress or agency, or instrumentality thereof,
in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, including government-owned or
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)  controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries, during his term
 This privilege insulates the without forfeiting his seat. Neither
member concerned from suits shall he be appointed to any office
that may be filed against him for which may have been created or the
a speech, utterance or other form emoluments thereof increased
of expression made in Congress during the term for which he was
or in any of its committees in the elected. (Sec. 13, Art. VI, 1987
discharge of legislative duty. The Constitution)
provision does not protect
members of the Congress from INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE – a
possible disciplinary measures member cannot accept any other
that his colleagues in Congress office employment in government
may impose on him. 

Page 81 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

during his term unless he waives or elected but lasts even if he

forfeits his seat in Congress. resigns from Congress before the
 Forfeiture of the seat in end of his term.
Congress or cessation of his
tenure shall be automatic upon
the member’s assumption of INHIBITIONS
such other office deemed
incompatible with his seat in 1. Legislators shall not
Congress. personally appear as counsel
 However, no forfeiture shall before any Court of Justice, or
take place if the member of before the Electoral Tribunals, or
Congress holds the other quasi-judicial or other
government office in an ex officio administrative bodies.
capacity.  2. Legislators cannot be
 The purpose of the prohibition interested financially, either
is to prevent him from owing directly or indirectly, in any
loyalty to another branch of the contract, franchise or special
government to the detriment of privilege granted by the
the independence of the government.
legislature and the impairment of 3. Legislators cannot intervene
the doctrine of separation of in any matter before any office of
powers.  the government:
 Exempted from this provision
is the holding of a second office
which is an extension of his a. For his pecuniary benefit; or 
legislative duties or is in aid of b. Where he may be called upon
his legislative position.  to act on account of his office.

FORBIDDEN OFFICE – a member of  Upon assumption of office,

Congress cannot be appointed to legislators must make a full
any office which may have been disclosure of financial and
created or the emoluments thereof business interests.
increased during the term for which  Must notify the House
he was elected. concerned of a potential conflict
of interest that may 
arise from the filing of a proposed
 The ban against such legislation of which they are
appointment to the office shall authors. 
however last only for the
duration of the term for which
the member of Congress was
D. QUORUM AND VOTING MAJORITIES
ACT PARTIES VOTING
REQUIREMENT

Page 82 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Initiate impeachment proceeding House of 1/3

Representatives
Impeach an impeachable officer Senate 2/3
Proposal to amend or revise the Both Houses ¾
Constitution (Constituent
Assembly)
Constitutional Convention Both Houses ¾
Concur in Treaties Senate 2/3
Override the veto of the President Both Houses,
2/3
in the passage of a Bill voting separately
Declare the existence of war Both Houses,
voting separately
2/3
Joint session
assembled
Concur in Executive’s power to
Both Houses Majority
grant amnesty
Submit to the electorate the
question of calling a Constitutional Both Houses Majority
Convention
Declare that the President is
Both Houses,
unable to discharge the powers 2/3
voting separately
and duties of his office
Revoke or extend the President’s
suspension of the privilege of the
Both Houses Majority
Writ of Habeas Corpus or
proclamation of Martial Law
Call a Constitutional Convention Both Houses 2/3
To put the yeas and nays in the Each House 1/5
journal
To elect a Senate President Senate 2/3
To elect the Speaker of the House House of 2/3
of Representative Representatives
To suspend for at most sixty (60) Each House 2/3
days or expel a member of such
House
 A majority of each House shall 16[2], Art. VI, 1987
constitute a quorum to do Constitution)
business, but a smaller  The quorum required to
number may adjourn from conduct business is a majority
day to day and may compel (1/2 + 1) of all the members. 
the attendance of absent To pass a law, only the votes of
Members in such manner, the majority of those present in
and under such penalties, as the session, there being a
such House may provide. (Sec. quorum, are required.  This is
known as the Shifting Majority. 

Page 83 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 The basis in determining the These rules include the procedure to

existence of a quorum in the be followed in "inquiries in aid of
Senate shall be the total number legislation." The Senate or the House
of Senators who are in the of Representatives or any of its
country and within the coercive respective committees may conduct
jurisdiction of the Senate. inquiries in aid of legislation in
(Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17, accordance with its duly published
March 4, 1949)  rules of procedure.  The rights of
 In its Resolution on the persons appearing in or affected by
Motion for Reconsideration, in such inquiries shall be respected.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia (G.R. No. (Sec. 21, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
127255, June 26, 1998), the
Supreme Court declared that the
question of quorum cannot be The House may set aside the rules it
raised repeatedly, especially adopted as it sees fit, because these
when a quorum is obviously rules are only of a temporary
present, for the purpose of nature.
delaying the business of the  
House.  These rules include the mode and
manner of conducting the business
of the body. They are intended for
the orderly and proper disposition of
Rules of Proceedings the matters before it.

Each House may determine the  Parliamentary rules are

rules of its proceedings, punish its merely procedural, and with their
Members for disorderly behavior, observance, the courts have no
and with the concurrence of two- concern. They may be waived or
thirds of all its Members, suspend disregarded by the legislative
or expel a Member.   A penalty of body. Consequently, “mere
suspension, when imposed, shall failure to conform to
not exceed sixty days. (Sec. 16[3], parliamentary usage will not
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) invalidate the action (taken by a
deliberative body) when the
requisites number of members
have agreed to a particular
measure.” (Arroyo vs. De Venecia,
G.R. No. 127255, August 14,
1997) 
Journal and Congressional
Records 

Each House shall keep a Journal of

its proceedings, and from time to
time publish the same, excepting
Page 84 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

such parts as may, in its judgment, amendment proposed by Senator

affect national security; and the Tolentino (regarding the powers
yeas and nays on any question of the Vice-Mayor of Manila)
shall, at the request of one-fifth of when the house bill was raised to
the Members present, be entered in the Senate, the Senate President,
the Journal. Each House shall also withdrew his signature and
keep a Record of its proceedings.” notified the President of the
(Sec.16[4], Art. VI, 1987 mistake, who then likewise
Constitution]  withdrew his signature.  In short
because of the withdrawal, there
was no occasion, then, to apply
Enrolled Bill Theory  the enrolled bill theory. 

 Once a Bill has been approved Q: What happens if there is a

by both houses, the Bill is discrepancy between the enrolled
enrolled, and this Enrolled Copy copy of the bill, and any other
of the Bill bears the certification copy of the bill?
of the Presiding Officer of the
house (either Senate President or
Speaker of the House) that this A: The enrolled bill will prevail
Bill as enrolled is the version (Mabanag v Lopez Vito, G.R. No. L-
passed by each house.  The 1123, March 5, 1947)
purpose of the certification is to Probative Value of the Journal:
prevent attempts at smuggling in The journal is conclusive on the
“riders”. The enrolled copy is courts as to its contents (US V Pons,
then sent to the President for his G.R. No. L-11530, August 12, 1916) 
action.   
Matters Required to be Entered in
the Journal 
 The Supreme Court, in
upholding the enrolled bill,
explained that its basis is the a. Yeas and nays on third and
separation of powers, so that the final reading of a bill  (Sec.
remedy of an aggrieved party is 26[2], Art. VI, 1987
not a judicial decree but a Constitution);
legislative amendment or curative b. Veto Message of the President
legislation. (Morales vs. Subido, (Sec. 27[1], Art. VI, 1987
G.R. No. L-29658, November 29, Constitution); 
1968) c. Yeas and nays on the
repassing of a bill vetoed by
the President (Sec. 27[1],
 Note however the case of [Link], 1987 Constitution);
Astorga v Villegas (G.R. No. L- and 
23475, April 30, 1974), upon d. Yeas and nays on any
being informed that the enrolled question at the request of 1/5
bill did not contain the

Page 85 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

of members present (Sec. 16[4],

[Link], 1987 Constitution) 
Each House shall also keep a
 A record, on the other hand, Record of its proceedings. (Sec.
contains the verbatim transcript 16[4], art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
of all proceedings of the house or
its committees.  The Constitution Sessions
is silent as to what the record
must contain. Note however, in
Sec. 3(3) of Art. XI, the The Congress shall convene once
Constitution speaks of the vote of every year in the fourth Monday of
each member of the House either July for its regular session, unless
affirming a favorable or a different date is fixed by law, and
overriding its contrary resolution shall continue to be in session for
of the impeachment complaint to such number of days as it may
be "recorded."  determine until thirty (30) days
before the opening of its next regular
session, exclusive of Saturdays,
Journal Entry Rule vs Enrolled Sundays and legal holidays. The
Bill Theory  President may call a special session
at any time. (Sec. 15, Art. VI, 1987
In Astorga vs. Villegas, by way of Constitution) 
obiter dictum, the Supreme Court
indicated that the journal might Neither House during the sessions
really prevail over the enrolled bill, of the Congress shall, without
since a journal is required by the consent of the other, adjourn for
Constitution, while the enrollment of more than three (3) days, nor to any
a bill is just a legislative practice other place than that in which the
that is not even mentioned in the two Houses shall be sitting. (Sec.
Constitution. Further, enrollment 16[5], Article VI, 1987 Constitution) 
does not add to the validity of the
bill, for what makes it valid are the
votes of the members. This ruling a. Regular Sessions
however seem to contradict the
ruling in Morales v Subido that the
enrolled copy prevails over the Congress shall convene every fourth
journal. Reconciling these two (4th) Monday of July for its regular
decisions, as to matters required by session unless a different date is
the Constitution to be placed in the fixed by law, and shall continue to
journal, the journal is conclusive.  be in session for such number of
But aside from these matters, any days as it may determine until thirty
other matter does not enjoy such (30) days before the opening of its
conclusiveness.  next regular session. (Sec. 15, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution) 

Congressional Record 
Page 86 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

b. Special Sessions Called by  When Congress, acting as a

the President Board of Canvassers, breaks the
tie between two or more
candidates for President and
 May be called at any time by Vice-President (Sec. 4, Art. VII,
the President, at his absolute 1987 Constitution) 
discretion, to consider such  When Congress decides on the
subjects as he may determine. question of the President’s
 Congress, however, inability to discharge the powers
determines the number of days and functions of his office. (Sec.
it needs for such session. 11[4], Art. VII, 1987 Constitution) 
 When there is a vacancy in
c. Special Sessions Called by the Office of the Vice-President,
Congress without Need of Call and Congress has to confirm the
nomination made by the
President. (Sect. 9, Art. VII, 1987
 To pass a bill calling for the Constitution) 
holding of a special election  When Congress declares the
when there is a vacancy in the existence of a state of war (Sec.
office of the President and Vice 23[1], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
President. (Sec. 10, Art. VII,  Proposing   constitutional
1987 Constitution)  amendments (Sec. 1, Art. XVII,
 To determine by 2/3 vote 1987 Constitution) 
whether the President is
unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office. (Sec.  The members of Congress
11, Art. VII, 1987 cannot compel absent members
Constitution)  to attend sessions if the reason
 To canvass the Presidential for the absence is a legitimate
elections one. The confinement of a
 To exercise the power of Congressman charged with a
impeachment crime punishable by
 To extend or revoke the imprisonment of more than six
proclamation of martial law or years is not merely authorized by
suspension of the Writ of law, it has constitutional
Habeas Corpus. (Sec. 18[2], foundations. One rationale
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution).  behind confinement, whether
pending appeal or after final
conviction, is public self-defense.
Joint Sessions and Separate It is the injury to the public
Voting   which State action in criminal
The following are the instances law seeks to redress. It is not the
when Congress meets jointly but injury to the complainant.
votes separately:  (People of the Philippines v.
Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875,
February 3, 2000)

Page 87 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 The determination of the acts

which constitute disorderly
Voting Jointly: To revoke or extend behavior is within the full
a proclamation suspending the discretionary authority of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus House concerned, and the Court
or placing the Philippines under will not review such
martial law. (Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987 determination, the same being a
Constitution)  political question.”(Osmena vs.
Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144,
OFFICERS (Sec. 16[1], Art. VI, 1987 October 28, 1960) 
Constitution)
 The order of suspension
 Senate President prescribed by Republic Act No.
 Speaker of the House of 3019 is distinct from the power of
Representatives Congress to discipline its own
 Such other officers as they ranks. The situation
deem each house necessary contemplated in the Constitution
(Section 16 [1], Article VI, 1987 is a punitive measure that is
Constitution)  imposed upon determination by
the Senate of the House of
Representatives, as the case may
E. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS be, upon an erring Member. The
doctrine of separation of powers
Each House may determine the by itself may not be deemed to
rules of its proceedings, punish its have effectively excluded
Members for disorderly behavior, members of Congress from
and with the concurrence of two- Republic Act No. 3019 nor from
thirds of all its Members, suspend its sanctions. (Defensor-Santiago
or expel a Member. A penalty of vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
suspension, when imposed, shall 126055, April 19, 2001)
not exceed sixty days. (Sec. 16[3],
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) 
F. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
AND THE COMMISSION ON
 The power to punish and APPOINTMENTS
expel a member of Congress is a
necessary and incidental power
of the legislative body to enable it ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
to perform its high functions and
is necessary to the safety of the Two Types:
State. It is a power of protection.
(Cooley, Constitutional
Limitations, 7th ed. Vol. I, p. 190, a. Senate Electoral Tribunal
1868)  (SET) 

Page 88 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

b. House Electoral Tribunal Appointments can the party-list

(HRET) representatives seek recourse
from the Court through judicial
review. Under the Doctrine of
Nature Primary Administrative
Jurisdiction, prior recourse to
 Although the Electoral the House is necessary before the
Tribunals are predominantly case may be brought to Court.
legislative in membership and the (Pimentel vs. House of
provision creating them is found Representatives Electoral
in Art. VI on the Legislative Tribunal, G.R. No 141489,
Department, it is not correct to November 29, 2002)
say that they are mere adjuncts
of the Congress of the  The HRET was created as a
Philippines. In fact, in the non-partisan court. It must be
discharge of their constitutional independent of Congress and
duties, they are independent of devoid of partisan influence and
the legislature, and also of the consideration. Hence, “disloyalty
other departments for that to the party” and “breach of party
matter. (Cruz, Philippine Political discipline” are not valid grounds
Law, 2014) for the expulsion of a member.”
(Bondoc vs. Pineda, G.R. No.
Composition:  97710, September 26, 1991) 

 Three (3) Justices of the Powers

Supreme Court designated by the
Chief Justice;  The Electoral Tribunals of the
 The Senior Justice shall be its Houses of Congress shall be the
Chairman; and  sole judge of all contests relating
 Six (6) members of the Senate to the election, returns and
(SET) or House of qualifications of their members.
Representatives (HRET) (Sec. 17,
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) 
 The decisions of the Electoral
Tribunals may be reviewed by the
Basis: Proportional representation Supreme Court only upon
from the Political Parties and Party- showing of grave abuse of
Lists.  discretion in a petition for
certiorari filed under Rule 65 of
 Only if the House fails to the Rules of Court.
comply with the directive of the
Constitution on proportional  The HRET may assume
representation of political parties jurisdiction only after the
in the HRET and Commission on

Page 89 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

winning candidate (who is a Nature: Revived in the 1987

party to the election controversy) Constitution to limit, once again, the
shall have been duly proclaimed, President’s appointing power. (Sec.
has taken his oath of office, and 18, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
has assumed the functions of the
office, because it is only then that
he is said to be a member of the Composition:
House.” (Aquino vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 120265, a. Senate President as ex-officio
September 18, 1995) chairman 
b. 12 Senators
 The proclamation divests the c. 12 Members of the House of
Commission on Elections of Representatives
jurisdiction over the question of
disqualifications pending before  The 12 Senators and 12
it at the time of the proclamation. members of the House of
Any case pertaining to questions Representatives are elected by
over the qualifications of a each house on the basis of
winning candidate should be proportional representation.
raised before the House of  The Senate President shall not
Representative Electoral vote except in case of a tie
Tribunal. (Jalosjos, Jr. v. (Section 18, Article VI, 1987
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. Constitution). 
192474, June 26, 2012)

 A political party must have at

 The power of HRET does not least two (2) elected senators for
carry with it the authority to every seat in the Commission on
delve into the legality of the Appointments. It is not
judgment of the naturalization of mandatory to elect 12 Senators
respondent’s father, in the to the Commission. What the
pursuit of disqualifying Rep. Constitution requires is that
LimKaichong. To rule otherwise there must be at least a majority
would be an impermissible attack of the entire membership.
on the citizenship of respondent’s (Guingona vs. Gonzales, G.R. No.
father. (Vilando vs. House of 106971, October 20, 1992) 
Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, G.R. No. 192147,
August 23, 2011). Powers

a. The Commission shall act on

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS all appointments submitted to
it within 30 session days of
Congress from their
submission.

Page 90 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

b. The Commission shall rule by

majority vote of its members.
c. The Commission shall meet  It is the power to propose,
only while Congress is in enact, amend and repeal laws.
session, at the call of its
Chairman or a majority of all  Any law duly enacted by
its members. Congress carries with it the
d. The Commission on presumption of Constitutionality.
Appointments is independent Before a law may be declared
of the two Houses of unconstitutional by this Court,
Congress. Its employees are there must be a specific provision
not, technically, employees of of the fundamental law has been
Congress. It has the power to violated or transgressed xxx. To
promulgate its own rules of doubt is to sustain. (Senator
proceedings. Benigno Simeon C., Aquino and
Mayor Jesse Robredo vs.
REGULAR APPOINTMENTS – takes Commission on Elections, GR No.
place when the President appoints 189793, April 7, 2010)
an officer whose appointment
requires confirmation by the Power of Appropriation
Commission, while Congress is in
session.
  No money shall be paid out of the
AS INTERIM or RECESS Treasury except in pursuance of an
APPOINTMENT –happens when appropriation made by law. (Sec.
Congress is not in session. Unlike 29[1], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) 
regular appointments, an ad-interim
appointment made by the President
is complete in itself and effective at  The power to appropriate
once, even without confirmation.  must be exercised only through
G. POWERS OF CONGRESS legislation.
To understand what constitutes
1. Legislative Power an act of appropriation, the
Supreme Court, in Bengzon v.
Secretary of Justice and Insular
General Plenary Power Auditor (G.R. No. L-42821,
January 18, 1936) held that the
power of appropriation involves (a)
The legislative power shall be vested the setting apart by law of a
in the Congress of the Philippines certain sum from the public
which shall consist of a Senate and revenue for (b) a specified
a House of Representatives, except purpose. Essentially, under the
to the extent reserved to the people 2013 PDAF Article, individual
by the provision on initiative and legislators are given a personal
referendum. (Sec. 1, Art. VI, 1987 lump-sum fund from which they
Constitution). 
Page 91 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

are able to dictate (a) how much of the entire government during one
from such fund would go to (b) a fiscal period.
specific project or beneficiary that
they themselves also determine.
As these two (2) acts comprise the The President shall submit to the
exercise of the power of Congress, within thirty days from
appropriation as described in the opening of every regular session,
Bengzon and given that the 2013 as the basis of the general
PDAF Article authorizes individual appropriations bill, a budget of
legislators to perform the same, expenditures and sources of
undoubtedly, said legislators have financing, including receipts from
been conferred the power to existing and proposed revenue
legislate which the Constitution measures. (Section 22, Article VII,
does not, however, allow. 1987 Constitution) 
 
 Thus, keeping with the Special Appropriations Law –
principle of non-delegability of designed for a specific purpose.
legislative power, the Supreme
Court hereby declares the 2013
PDAF Article, as well as all other A special appropriations bills shall
forms of Congressional Pork specify the purpose for which it is
Barrel which contain the similar intended, and shall be supported by
legislative identification feature funds actually available as certified
as herein discussed, as by the National Treasurer, or to be
unconstitutional. The power to raised by a corresponding revenue
determine what kind of proposal therein. (Section 25(4),
infrastructure to prioritize and Article VI, 1987 Constitution) 
fund is a power to determine the
purpose of the appropriation and
is an undue delegation of the  The spending power, called
power to appropriate. (Belgica v. the Power of the Purse belongs
Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 208566, to Congress, subject only to the
November 19, 2013). veto power of the President.
While it is the President who
proposes the budget, still, the
APPROPRIATION LAW – a statute final say on the matter of
the primary and specific purpose of appropriation is lodged in
which is to authorize the release of Congress. The power of
public funds from the Treasury appropriation carries with it the
power to specify the project or
activity to be funded under the
Classes: appropriation law. It can be as
detailed and broad as Congress
General Appropriations Law – wants it to be. (Philippines
passed annually, intended to Constitution Association vs.
provide for the financial operations Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506) 

Page 92 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

budget accountability reports;

(3) review of agency
Philippine Budget Cycle performance; and (4) audit
1. Budget Preparation - conducted by the Commission
commenced through the on Audit (COA). (Araullo vs.
issuance of a Budget Call by Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July
the DBM and the DBM next 1, 2014)
consolidates the recommended
agency budgets into the
National Expenditure Program Legislative Inquiries and the
(NEP)a Budget of Expenditures Oversight Functions
and Sources of Financing
(BESF). The NEP provides the
details of spending for each IN AID OF OVERSIG
department and agency by LEGISLAT HT
program, activity or project ION FUNCTIO
(PAP), and is submitted in the NS
form of a proposed GAA.  Who Any Departme
2. Budget Legislation - covers may person nt Heads
the period commencing from appear?
the time Congress receives the Who Anyone, No one.
President’s Budget, which is may be except the
Each
inclusive of the NEP and the summon PresidentHouse
BESF, up to the President’s ed? and the
may only
approval of the GAA. members request
3. Budget Execution - primarily of the
the
the function of the DBM, Supreme appearan
which is tasked to perform the Court ce of the
following procedures, namely: Departme
(a) to issue the programs and nt Heads
guidelines for the release of Subject Any Matters
funds; (b) to prepare an matter matters for related to
Allotment and Cash Release purposes the
Program; (c) to release of pending Departme
allotments; and (d) to issue legislation nt only
disbursement authorities. Obligato Mandatory Discretio
4. Accountability– allows DBM ry force nary
to assess the performance of of
agencies during the fiscal year appearan
for the purpose of ce
implementing reforms and
establishing new policies. An
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT –
agency’s accountability may be
embraces all activities undertaken
examined and evaluated
by Congress to enhance its
through (1) performance
understanding of and influence over
targets and outcomes; (2)

Page 93 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

the implementation of legislation it 1. Scrutiny – Congress may

has enacted. It concerns post- request information and report
enactment measures undertaken by from the other branches of
the same. It includes the following: government. It can give
recommendations or pass
resolutions for considerations
a. To monitor bureaucratic of the agency involved.
compliance with program Legislative scrutiny is based on
objectives. the power of the Congress and
b. To determine whether exercised this power thru its
agencies are properly power of confirmation.
administered. 2. Congressional Investigation
c. To eliminate executive waste – This is recognized under Sec.
and dishonesty. 21, Art. VI of the 1987
d. To prevent executive Constitution. But even in the
usurpation of legislative absence of an express
authority provision in the Constitution,
e. To assess executive congressional investigation has
conformity with the been held to be an essential
congressional perception of and appropriate auxiliary to
public interest. the legislative functions.
3. Legislative Supervision –
 The power of oversight has connotes a continuing and
been held to be intrinsic in the informed awareness on the
grant of legislative power itself part of a congressional
and integral to the checks and committee regarding executive
balances inherent in a operations in a given
democratic system of administrative area. Allows
government. It has also been Congress to scrutinize the
used to ensure the accountability exercise of delegated law-
of regulatory commissions like making authority, and permits
the Securities and Exchange Congress to retain part of that
Commission. Unlike other delegated authority. Congress
ordinary administrative agencies, exercises supervision over the
these bodies are independent executive agencies through its
from the executive branch and veto power (Makalintal vs.
are outside the executive Commission on Elections, G.R.
department in the discharge of No. 157013, 2003)
their functions. (Makalintal vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. Power to Conduct Question Hour
157013, 2003) 

The heads of departments may,

Categories of Congressional upon their own initiative, with the
Oversight consent of the President, or upon

Page 94 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

the request of either House, as the appearances in the question

rules of each House shall provide, hour, is valid on its face. Under
appear before and be heard by such Sec. 22, Art. VI of the
House on any matter pertaining to Constitution, the appearance of
their departments. Written department heads in the
questions shall be submitted to the question hour is discretionary on
President of the Senate or the their part. Sec. 1, cannot be
Speaker of the House of applied to appearances of
Representatives at least three days department heads in inquiries in
before their scheduled appearance. aid of legislation. Congress is not
Interpellations shall not be limited bound in such instances to
to written questions, but may cover respect the refusal of the
matters related thereto. When the department head to appear in
security of the State or the public such inquiry, unless a valid
interest so requires and the claim of privilege is subsequently
President so states in writing, the made by the President or by the
appearance shall be conducted in Executive Secretary. On the other
executive session. (Sec. 22, Art. VI, hand, other executive officials
1987 Constitution)  cannot properly refuse to testify
before congressional inquiries in
aid of legislation. (Senate of the
 The requirement for cabinet Philippines, et al., vs. Eduardo
members to secure presidential Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April
consent under Sec. 1 of E.O. 464, 20, 2006)
which is limited only to

Question Hour vs. Inquiry in Aid of Legislation

INQUIRY IN AID OF QUESTION HOUR (Sec.

LEGISLATION (Sec. 21) 22)
Relates to? Relates to the power to Pertains to the power to
conduct inquiries in aid of conduct a question hour.
legislation.
Purpose To elicit information that may To obtain information in
be used for legislation. pursuit of Congress’
oversight function.
Nature of Attendance is compulsory. Attendance is discretionary.
attendance
Persons Any person. Only Department Heads.
required to
attend
Who Committees Entire body
conducts?

Page 95 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Subject Any matter for the purpose of Only matters related to the
matter legislation. Departments.
Basis Grounded on the necessity of Congress merely seeks to
information in the legislative be informed on how
process (the power of inquiry) Department Heads are
being co-extensive with the implementing the statutes
power to legislate. which it has issued.

 Secs. 21 and 22, therefore, pertaining to the same power

while closely related and of Congress. (Senate of the
complementary to each other, Philippines, et al., vs. Eduardo
should not be considered as Ermita, GR No. 169777, April
20, 2006)
Bicameral Conference Committee

BICAMERALISM UNICAMERALISM
Definition The practice of having two The practice of having only one
legislative or legislative or parliamentary
parliamentary chambers. chamber.

Passing of Every Bill must pass two Every Bill must pass by only a
the Bill (2) Houses of Congress to single House of Congress to
become a law. become a law.
Organization There is an Upper House Simplicity of organization
that looks at problems resulting in economy and
which form the national efficiency.
perspective and, thus,
serves as a check on the
parochial tendency of a
body elected by District.
Legislation Allows for a more careful Facility in pinpointing
study of legislation. responsibility for legislation,
avoidance of duplication, and
strengthening of the Legislature
in relation to the Executive.

Page 96 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Vulnerability Less vulnerable to Drawing from the recent

attempts of the Executive experience with People power,
to control the Legislature. there is greater responsiveness
to the needs of the masses
because the Representatives are
forced to interact more intensely
with their limited and clearly
identifiable constituencies.

 A bill can be passed jointly or one house amends a proposal

separately. The former is done originating in either house by
by a joint session, while the striking out everything following
latter is passed the enacting clause and
simultaneously (when a bill is substituting provisions which
taken up by both Houses make it an entirely new bill. The
separately but at the same versions are now altogether
time), or sequentially (when a different, permitting a conference
bill originates from one house committee to draft essentially a
and goes to the other house). new bill.
If passed separately, the bill
approved by one house goes to
the other House, which can  At the end of the process, the
amend such bill. Once the Committee comes up with a
other House approves the bill, “Conference Committee Report”
this is called the other which is then submitted to the
House’s version of the bill.  respective Houses for approval. 
 A Conference Committee is
then organized, composed of  A conference committee may
equal number of members from deal generally with the subject
the Senate and the House, to matter or it may be limited to
make recommendations of the resolving the precise differences
bill. The respective members are between the two houses. Even
usually granted blanket authority where the conference committee
to negotiate and reconcile the is not by rule limited in its
bills. jurisdiction, legislative custom
 Under the congressional rules severely limits the freedom with
of procedure, conference which new subject matter can be
committees are not expected to inserted into the conference bill.
make any material change in the But occasionally a conference
measure at issue, either by committee produces unexpected
deleting provisions to which both results, results beyond its
houses have already agreed or by mandate. These excursions occur
inserting new provisions. But even where the rules impose
this is a difficult provision to strict limitations on conference
enforce. Note the problem when

Page 97 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

committee jurisdiction. This is one subject as expressed in the title

symptomatic of the authoritarian thereof. (Sec. 26[1], Art. VI, 1987
power of conference committee.” Constitution) 
(Philippine Judges Association v.
Prado, G.R. No. 105371,
November 11, 1993)   The title is not required to be
an index of the contents of the
bill. It is sufficient compliance if
 The result is a third version, the title expresses the general
which is considered an subject, and all the provisions of
“amendment in the nature of a the statute are germane to the
substitute,” the only requirement subject. (Chiongbian vs. Orbos,
for which being that the third G.R. No. 96754, June 22, 1995) 
version be germane to the subject
of the House and Senate bills
(Tolentino vs. Secretary of  A law having a single, general
Finance, G.R. No. 1154545, subject indicated in its title may
August 25, 1994). contain a number of provisions,
no matter how adverse they may
be, so long as they are not
Officers of the Senate and the inconsistent with or foreign to
House of Representatives the general subject. (Tatad vs.
Secretary of Energy, G.R. No.
124360, November 5, 1997)
1. Senate President or Speaker of
the House
2. Senate President/Speaker Pro  The presidential certification
Tempore dispensed with the requirement
3. Majority Floor Leader not only of printing but also that
4. Minority Floor Leader of reading the bill on separate
5. Chairman of Standing days. (Tolentino vs. Secretary of
Committees Finance, GR No. 115455, October
6. Chairman of Special 30, 1995)
Committees
7. Secretary
8. Sergeant-at-Arms On appropriation (Secs. 25 and
29[1] and [2], art. VI, 1987
Constitution) 
Limitations on Legislative Power
Express Substantive Limitation
Limitations on Revenue
Appropriations and Tariff
Bill of Rights  Measures

Procedural limitations on the Implied Limitations on

legislative power: Every bill passed Appropriation Measures
by the Congress shall embrace only

Page 98 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 Appropriation must be benefit. (Section 29[2], Article VI,

devoted to a public purpose.  1987 Constitution) 
 The sum authorized must be
determinate, or at least
determinable. Constitutional Rules on General
Appropriations law (Sec. 25, Art.. e
VI, 1987 Constitution) 
Constitutional limitations on
appropriation measures
 All appropriations, revenue or a. Congress cannot increase the
tariff, bills authorizing increase of appropriations recommended
the public debt, bills of local by the President as specified
application and private bills shall in the budget.
originate in the House of b. The form, content, and
Representatives. (Section 24, manner of preparation of the
Article VI, 1987 Constitution)  budget shall be prescribed by
law.
c. No provision or enactment
 The exclusivity of the shall be embraced unless it
prerogative of the House means relates specifically to some
simply that the House can particular appropriation
initiate the passage of a revenue therein. Any such provision or
bill, such that the House does enactment shall be limited in
not initiate one, no revenue law its operation to the
will be passed. But once the appropriation to which it
House has approved a revenue relates. (Reason: Intended to
bill and passed it on to the prevent riders, or irrelevant
Senate, the Senate can provisions included in the bill
completely overhaul it, by to ensure its approval).
amendment of parts or by
amendment by substitution, and
come out with one completely d. Procedure for approving
different from what the House appropriations for Congress
approved.” (Tolentino vs. Sec. of shall strictly follow the
Finance, G.R. No. 115455, procedure for approving
October 30, 1995)  appropriations for other
departments and agencies.
(Ratio: Intended to prevent
 Disbursements of sub rosa appropriation by
discretionary funds must only be Congress).
for a public purpose to be
supported by appropriate
vouchers and subject to such GENERAL RULE: No law shall be
guidelines as may be prescribed passed authorizing any transfer of
by law. appropriations.
 Prohibition against
appropriations for sectarian
Page 99 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

EXCEPTION: The President, the Strict construction on the

President of the Senate, the Speaker accumulation and utilization of
of the House of Representatives, the savings (DAP case)
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
and the heads of Constitutional
Commissions may, by law, be  The exercise of the power to
authorized to augment any item in augment shall be strictly
the general appropriations law for construed by virtue of its being
their respective offices from savings an exception to the general rule
in other items of their respective that the funding of PAPs shall be
appropriations. (Sec. 25[5], Art. VI, limited to the amount fixed by
1987 Constitution)  Congress for the purpose.
Necessarily, savings, their
utilization and their management
 The existence of will also be strictly construed
appropriations and the against expanding the scope of
availability of funds are the power to augment. Such a
indispensable requisites to, or strict interpretation is essential
conditions sine qua non for the in order to keep the Executive
execution of government and other budget implementors
contracts. (Commission on within the limits of their
Elections vs. Judge Quijano, GR prerogatives during budget
No. 151992, September 18, 2002) execution, and to prevent them
from unduly transgressing
Congress’ power of the purse.
 The members of Congress only Hence, regardless of the
determine the necessity of the perceived beneficial purposes of
realignment of savings in the the DAP, and regardless of
allotments for their operational whether the DAP is viewed as an
expenses, because they are in the effective tool of stimulating the
best position to do so, being national economy, the acts and
knowledgeable of the savings practices under the DAP and the
available in some items of the relevant provisions of NBC No.
operational expenses, and which 541 cited in the Decision should
items need augmentation. remain illegal and
However, it is the Senate unconstitutional as long as the
President or the Speaker of the funds used to finance the
House of Representatives, as the projects mentioned therein are
case may be, who shall approve sourced from savings that
the realignment. (Philippine deviated from the relevant
Constitution Association vs. provisions of the GAA, as well as
Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, the limitation on the power to
August 19,1994) augment under Sec. 25(5), Article
VI of the Constitution. In a
society governed by laws, even
the best intentions must come

Page 100 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

within the parameters defined Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287,

and set by the Constitution and February 03, 2015) 
the law. Laudable purposes must
be carried out through legal
methods.” (Araullo, vs. Aquino III, Automatic Re-appropriation: If by
G.R. No. 209287, February 03, the end of any fiscal year, the
2015) Congress shall have failed to pass
the general appropriations bill for
the ensuing fiscal year, the general
The following acts and practices appropriations law for the preceding
under DAP were declared to be fiscal year shall be deemed
unconstitutional: reenacted and shall remain in force
and effect until the general
appropriations bill is passed by the
a. The withdrawal of unobligated Congress” (Sec. 25[7], Art. VI, 1987
allotments from the Constitution). 
implementing agencies, and
the declaration of the
withdrawn unobligated Appropriation reserves (Sec. 37,
allotments and unreleased Administrative Code)
appropriations as savings  The Budget Secretary is
prior to the end of the fiscal authorized to establish reserves
year and without complying against appropriations to provide
with the statutory definition of for contingencies and
savings contained in the GAA; emergencies which may arise
b. The cross-border transfers of during the year.
the savings of the executive to  This is merely expenditure
augment the appropriations of deferral, not suspension since
other offices outside the the agencies concerned can still
executive;  draw on the reserves if the fiscal
c. The funding of programs, outlook improves.
activities and projects (PAPs)
that are not covered by any
appropriation in the GAA IMPOUNDMENT – the refusal by the
since augmentation can only President for whatever reason to
be made from one existing spend funds made available by
item to another existing item Congress. It is the failure to spend
in the budget; and (eventually or obligate budget authority of any
became valid upon granting of type. (Philippine Constitution
MR) Association vs. Enriquez, G.R. No.
d. The use of unprogrammed 113105, August 19, 1994) 
funds in the absence of a
legally required certification Constitutional Limitations on
by the whole revenue Special Appropriations Measures:
collection exceeded the total
revenue targets. (Araullo, vs.

Page 101 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 Must specify the public actually, directly, and

purpose for which the sum was exclusively used for religious,
intended. charitable, or educational
 Must be supported by funds purposes shall be exempt from
actually available as certified to taxation. (Sec. 28[3], Art. VI,
by the National Treasurer, or to 1987 Constitution) 
be raised by a corresponding d. Law granting exemption shall
revenue proposal included be passed only with the
therein (Section 25[4], Article VI, concurrence of the majority of
1987 Constitution).  all members of Congress. (Sec.
28[4], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution) 
Power of Expropriation: Private e. All revenues and assets of
property shall not be taken for non-stock, non-profit
public use without just educational institutions used
compensation” (Sec. 9, Art. III, 1987 actually, directly and
Constitution).  exclusively for educational
purposes shall be exempt from
3. On taxation (Sec. 4[3], Art. XIV, taxes and duties. (Sec. 4[3],
1987  Constitution) Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution) 
  f. On constitutional appellate
Limitations: jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. (Sec. 30, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution) 
a. Rule of taxation shall be g. No law granting a title of
uniform and equitable. royalty or nobility shall be
Congress shall evolve a passed. (Sec. 31, Art. VI, 1987
progressive system of taxation. Constitution) 
(Sec. 28[1], Art. VI, 1987 h. On Congressional Override of
Constitution)  veto power.
b. The Congress, may by law,
authorize the President to fix
within specified limits, and Presidential veto and
subject to such limitations and congressional override
restrictions as it may impose,
tariff rates, import and export The bill becomes a law in any of
quotas, tonnage and wharfage the following cases:
dues and other duties or
imposts. (Sec. 28[2], Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)  a. When the President approves
c. Charitable institution, the same and signs it.
churches and personages or b. When Congress by 2/3 votes,
convents appurtenant thereto, overrides the Presidential veto.
mosques, non-profit  If the President does not
cemeteries, and all lands, approve the bill, he shall veto the
buildings and improvements,
Page 102 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

same and return it to the House same to the House where it

from which it originated. originates together with his “veto
 To override the veto, at least message”
2/3 of ALL the members of each Pocket Veto - One by which the
House must agree to pass the President secures disapproval of a
bill. In such case, the veto is bill of congress by mere inaction
overridden and the bill becomes after the adjournment of Congress.
law without need of Presidential In the Philippines, an inaction by
approval. the President within 30 days from
date of receipt of the bill shall
become law as if he signed it.
N.B.: The President must decide to
approve or veto a bill and
communicate his decision to veto Partial or Selective Veto
within 30 days from the date of the
receipt thereof. If he fails to do so,
the bill shall become law as if he GENERAL RULE: A partial veto is
signed it. This last rule eliminates invalid
the “pocket veto,” whereby the EXCEPTION: Particular items in an
President would simply refuse to act appropriation, revenue or tariff bill
on the bill. Hence, there is no (Sec. 27[2], Art. VI, 1987
“pocket veto” in the Philippines. Constitution)

c. Upon failure of the President EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:

to vote and return with Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions,
objections, the bill within 30 which is a provision that is
days upon the date of receipt constitutionally inappropriate for an
(Section 27[1], Article VI, 1987 appropriation bill may be singled
Constitution).  out for veto even if it is not an
appropriation or revenue “item”.
(Gonzales vs. Macaraig, Jr., G.R. No.
N.B.: In case of vacancy in the 87636, November 19, 1990)
offices of President and Vice
President, a bill calling for special
election to elect a President and Vice Basis:
President shall become a law upon 1. No provision or enactment
its approval on third reading by the shall be embraced in the
Congress (Sec. 10, Art. VII, 1987 general appropriations bill
Constitution) unless it relates specifically to
some particular appropriation
therein. Any such provision or
KINDS OF VETO enactment shall be limited in
its operation to the
appropriation to which it
Presidential Veto – the President relates. (Section 25[2], Article
disapproves the bill and returns the VI, 1987 Constitution)

Page 103 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

2. The President shall have the a. Emergency powers. (Sec.  23,

power to veto any particular Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) 
item or items in an b. Certain taxing powers, i.e.
appropriation, revenue, or tariff rates, import and export
tariff bill, but the veto shall not quotas, tonnage and wharfage
affect the item or items to dues, other duties and
which he does not object. imports. (Sec. 28[2], Art. VI,
(Section 27[2], Article VI, 1987 1987 Constitution) 
Constitution) 2. Delegation to Local
Governments: It is sufficient
Legislative Veto – a means whereby that the statute indicates the
the legislature can block or modify subject matter over which the
administrative action under a local law-making agency may
statute. The form may either be legislate.
negative (i.e. subjecting the 2. Delegation to Administrative
executive action to disapproval by Agencies
Congress) or affirmative (i.e. 2. Delegation to the Supreme
requiring approval of the executive Court
action by Congress). a. Rules of Court
b. Rules on admission to the bar
c. Creation and operation of the
4. On constitutional appellate integrated bar
jurisdiction of the Supreme d. Rules on legal assistance to
Court (Sec. 30, Art. VI, 1987 the under-privileged
Constitution)
4. No law granting a title of
royalty or nobility shall be 5. Delegation to Constitutional
passed (Sec. 31, Art. VI, 1987 Commissions
Constitution)  a. The Commissions on
Elections, Civil Service
Commission and the
Implied Substantive Limitations Commission on Audit have
been granted by the
Prohibition against delegations of constitution rule-making
legislative powers powers. (Sec. 6, Art. IX-A;
Sec. 3, Art. IX-C; and Sec.
2[2], Art. IX-D, 1987
GENERAL RULE: Legislative powers Constitution) 
cannot be delegated. What can be b. The Commission on Human
delegated is the execution of the Rights is empowered by the
laws under acceptable standards constitution to adopt its
limiting discretion of the executive  operational guidelines and
rules of procedure and cite
for contempt in violations
EXCEPTIONS: thereof in accordance with
1. Delegation to the President:

Page 104 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

the Rules of Court. (Sec. 18, crimes, or betrayal of public

Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution)  trust. All other public officers
and employees may be removed
from office as provided by law,
6. Prohibition against passage of but not by impeachment. (Section
irrepealable laws: It is 2, Article XI, 1987 Constitution)
axiomatic that all laws, even
the Constitution itself, may be
repealed or amended. No one IMPEACHMENT – the power of the
can bind future generations to Congress to remove a public official
a law that is no longer for serious crimes or misconduct as
responsive. provided in eth Constitution.
Non-Legislative Power (Corona vs. Senate of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 200242, July 17, 2012) 
Informing Function
Officials Who Are Subject to
Impeachment
 The power of Congress, when
it investigates, is either in aid of
legislation or by way of oversight. a. President;
What appear to have been b. Vice President;
forgotten is an equally important c. Justices of the Supreme
and fundamental power and duty Court;
of Congress and that is its d. Members of the Constitutional
informing function by way of Commissions; and
investigating for the purpose of e. Ombudsman
enlightening the electorate.”
(Akbayan Citizens Action Party,
Pambansang Kati-Punan Ng Mga  The enumeration in the
Samahan Sa Kanayunan, et al. Constitution of the impeachable
vs. Thomas G. Aquino, et al., G.R. officers is exclusive. The
No. 170516, July 16, 2008) Ombudsman is only one man,
not including his Deputies.
(Office of the Ombudsman vs.
Power of Impeachment Court of Appeals, GR No. 146486,
  March 4, 2005)
 The President, the Vice
President, the Members of the
Supreme Court, the Members of Grounds for Impeachment
the Constitutional Commissions,
and the Ombudsman may be
a. Culpable violation of the
removed from office on
Constitution
impeachment for, and conviction
b. Treason
of, culpable violation of the
c. Bribery
Constitution, treason, bribery,
d. Graft and Corruption
graft and corruption, other high

Page 105 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

e. Other High Crimes

f. Betrayal of Public Trust
a. Act as Board Canvasser in
election of President (Sec. 4,
N.B.: No impeachment proceedings Art. VII, 1987 Constitution) 
shall be initiated against the same  Congress may validly delegate
official more than once within a the initial determination of the
period of one year.” (Sec. 3 [5], Art. authenticity & due execution
XI, 1987 Constitution) The House of of the certificates of canvass to
Representatives shall have the a joint congressional
exclusive power to initiate all cases committee, composed of
of impeachment, while the Senate members of the House of
shall have the sole power to try and Representative & of the
decide all cases of impeachment. Senate.
b. Declare existence of a State of
War (Sec. 23, Art. VI, 1987
JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDEPOSTS Constitution) 
 From the records of the  By Virtue of 2/3 of both
Constitutional Commission, to Houses in joint session
the amicus curiae briefs of two assembled, voting separately,
former Constitutional declare the existence of a State
Commissioners, it is without a of war.
doubt that the term “to initiate” c. Delegation of Emergency
refers to the filing of the Powers (Sec. 23, Art. VI, 1987
impeachment complaint coupled Constitution) 
with Congress’ taking initial c. Call special election for
action of said complaint. President and Vice President
(Francisco vs House of (Sec. 10, Art. VII, 1987
Representatives, G.R. No 160261, Constitution) 
November 10, 2003) c. Give concurrence to treaties
and amnesties (Sec. 21, Art.
 The ‘initiation’ takes place by VII, 1987 Constitution)  
the act of filing and referral or c. Propose constitutional
endorsement of the impeachment amendments constituent
complaint to the House power (Secs. 1 and 2, Art.
Committee on Justice or, by the XVIII, 1987 Constitution)
filing by at least one-third of the c. Confirm certain appointments
members of the House of c. Decide disability of the
Representatives with the President because majority of
Secretary-General of the House the Cabinet dispute his
(Gutierrez v. House Committee on assertion that he is able to
Justice, G.R. 193459, February discharge his duties (Sec. 11,
15, 2011) Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) 
c. Revoke or extend
proclamation of suspension of
Other Non-Legislative Powers privilege of writ of habeas

Page 106 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

corpus or declaration of admitted, during the oral

martial law (Sec. 18, Art. VII, arguments, that at the time
1987 Constitution) petitioner was found, the majority of
c. Power with regard to the population in Iloilo was Filipino.
utilization of natural Also, the Court pronounced that
resources (Sec. 2, Art. XII, foundlings were considered citizens
1987 Constitution) based on the 1934 Constitutional
c. Approval of presidential Convention deliberations and are
amnesties (Sec. 19, Art. VII, presumed under international law to
1987 Constitution)  have been born of citizens of the
c. Constituent Power (Secs. 2-4, place where they are found. 
Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution)  
Residency 

Module 4 Cases In Romualdez-Marcos vs.

Comelec, the Court held that
Citizenship petitioner Marcos was a resident of
the First District of Leyte and
therefore, satisfied the one- year
In Llamanzares v. Comelec, the residency requirement to be eligible
Supreme Court declared that to run for the position of
petitioner Mary Grace Natividad S. Representative. In the said case,
Poe Llamanzares is considered there should be made a distinction
natural born Filipino Citizen between domicile and residence.
because of the circumstantial Where domicile is the individual’s
evidence of the nationality of “permanent home”, a place to which
petitioner’s parents such as the fact whenever absent for business or for
that she was abandoned as an pleasure, one intends to return
infant in a Roman Catholic Church while residence is the physical
in Iloilo City. There is also high presence of a person in a given area,
probability that petitioner’s parents community or country. However, a
are Filipinos because she possessed man can have only one domicile but
typical Filipino features: height, flat he may have numerous places of
nasal bridge, straight black hair, residence. The absence from legal
almond shaped eyes and an oval residence or domicile to pursue a
face. Moreover, the Solicitor profession, to study or to do other
General, in this case offered official things of a temporary or semi-
statistics from the Philippine permanent nature does not
Statistics Authority (PSA) from 1965 constitute loss of residence. Also, it
to 1975, provides the statistical is the fact of residence, not a
probability that any child born in statement in a certificate of
the Philippines in that decade is candidacy that determines whether
natural-born Filipino was 99.83% or not an individual has satisfied the
while Commissioner Arthur Lim

Page 107 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

constitution’s residency qualification a collective allocation since after the

requirement.  GAA is passed, intermediate
appropriations are made by
legislators to their own discretion.
In Aquino vs. Comelec, the Thus, actual items of PDAF
Court dismissed the petition filed by appropriation would not have been
the petitioner, agreeing with written in the General
Comelec’s contention that in order Appropriations Bill. The
for the petitioner to qualify as a appropriation law leaves actual
candidate for Representative of the amounts and purposes of the
Second District of Makati City, the appropriation for further
latter “must prove that he has determination and does not readily
established not just residence but indicate a discernible item which
domicile of choice. The Constitution may be subject to President item
requires that a person seeking veto. the Court agrees with
election to the House of petitioners that the phrase "and for
Representatives should be a resident such other purposes as may be
of the district in which he seeks hereafter directed by the President"
election for a period of not less than under Section 8 of PD 910
one year prior to the elections. The constitutes an undue delegation of
COMELEC, in its disputed legislative power insofar as it does
Resolution noted, “The intention not not lay down a sufficient standard to
to establish a permanent home in adequately determine the limits of
Makati City is evident in his leasing the President‘s authority with
a condominium unit instead of respect to the purpose for which the
buying one. While a lease contract Malampaya Funds may be used.
maybe indicative of respondent's
intention to reside in Makati City it The said phrase gives the President
does not engender the kind of wide latitude to use the Malampaya
permanency required to prove Funds for any other purpose he may
abandonment of one's direct and, in effect, allows him to
original domicile especially since, by unilaterally appropriate public
its terms, it is only for a period of funds beyond the purview of the
two (2) years, and respondent law. While Section 8 of PD 910 may
Aquino himself testified that his have passed the completeness test
intention was really for only one (l) since the policy of energy
year because he has other development is clearly deducible
"residences" in Manila or Quezon from its text, the phrase "and for
City.” such other purposes as may be
hereafter directed by the President"
Cross Border Transfer of Funds under the same provision of law
should nonetheless be stricken
In Belgica vs. Ochoa, the Court down as unconstitutional as it lies
ruled that under the 2013 PDAF independently unfettered by any
Article, the 24.79B appears only as sufficient standard of the delegating

Page 108 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

law. The phrase,"to finance energy regarding the 2004 Presidential

resource development and elections. Following the said
exploitation programs and projects invitation was an executive order
of the government," remains legally issued by GMA, which refrained the
effective and subsisting. the phrase heads of departments of the
"to finance the priority executive branch from appearing
infrastructure development projects" before either house of the congress
must be stricken down as without securing the consent of the
unconstitutional since – similar to President. Several cases were filed
the above-assailed provision under before the Court asking the latter to
Section 8 of PD 910 – it lies declare the EO unconstitutional for
independently unfettered by any it violates the right to information
sufficient standard of the delegating and directly interferes with the valid
law. As they are severable, all other exercise of the Senate’s powers. The
provisions of Section 12 of PD 1869, Supreme Court, in declaring the EO
as amended by PD 1993, remains partly unconstitutional, stated that 
legally effective and subsisting. executive privilege may only be
invoked for serious matters, and
The Court‘s pronouncement anent that it cannot make officers exempt
the unconstitutionality of (a) the from a mandatory legislative inquiry
2013 PDAF Article and its Special that is in aid of legislation, solely
Provisions, (b) all other because they are part of the
Congressional Pork Barrel executive department.
provisions similar thereto, and (c)
the phrases (1) "and for such other In Gudani vs. Senga, the ruling is
purposes as may be hereafter that the President has constitutional
directed by the President" under authority to prevent a member of
Section 8 of PD 910, and (2) "to the armed forces from testifying
finance the priority infrastructure before any Congressional or Senate
development projects" under Section hearing without President’s prior
12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD approval, by virtue of her power as
1993, must only be treated as commander-in-chief. Hence, a
prospective in effect in view of the military officer who defies such
operative fact doctrine.  injunction is liable under military
justice. On the other hand, any
military official whom Congress
Question Hour summons to testify before it may be
compelled to do so by the President.
In Senate vs. Ermita, several If the President is not so inclined,
officers from the executive the latter may be commanded by
department were invited by the judicial order to compel the
legislature for a legislative inquiry attendance of the military officer. 
that has something to do with the
unlawful provisions of the contract Power of the Senate to Concur in
covering the North Rail Project and Treaties
the wire-tapping controversy

Page 109 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

constitute grave abuse in the

In Tanada v. Angara, the Court exercise of our own judicial power
ruled that there are other equally and duty. Ineludibly, what the
fundamental constitutional Senate did was a valid exercise of its
principles relied upon by the Senate authority. As to whether such
which mandate the pursuit of a exercise was wise, beneficial or
“trade policy that serves the general viable is outside the realm of judicial
welfare and utilizes all forms and inquiry and review. That is a matter
arrangements of exchange on the between the elected policy makers
basis of equality and reciprocity” and the people. As to whether the
and the promotion of industries nation should join the worldwide
“which are competitive in both march toward trade liberalization
domestic and foreign markets,” and economic globalization is a
thereby justifying its acceptance of matter that our people should
said treaty. So too, the alleged determine in electing their policy
impairment of sovereignty in the makers. After all, the WTO
exercise of legislative and judicial Agreement allows withdrawal of
powers is balanced by the adoption membership, should this be the
of the generally accepted principles political desire of a member.
of international law as part of the
law of the land and the adherence of Parliamentary Immunity
the Constitution to the policy of
cooperation and amity with all In Pobre vs. Santiago, the
nations. Respondent Santiago, in one of her
privilege speeches before the Senate
was questioned by Petitioner Pobre
That the Senate, after deliberation and asks that disbarment
and voting, voluntarily and proceedings or other disciplinary
overwhelmingly gave its consent to actions be taken against the Senator
the WTO Agreement thereby making Santiago for such speech being a
it “a part of the law of the land” is a total disrespect on the part of Chief
legitimate exercise of its sovereign Justice Panganiban and other
duty and power. We find no “patent members of the Court and therefore,
and gross” arbitrariness or alleged that it constituted direct
despotism “by reason of passion or contempt of court. Senator/Atty.
personal hostility” in such exercise. Santiago, as a member of the Bar
It is not impossible to surmise that and officer of the court is bound to
this Court, or at least some of its uphold the dignity and authority of
members, may even agree with the Court and to maintain the
petitioners that it is more respect due to its members.
advantageous to the national However, a lawyer holding a
interest to strike down Senate government office may not be
Resolution No. 97. But that is not a disciplined as a member of the Bar
legal reason to attribute grave abuse for misconduct committed while in
of discretion to the Senate and to the discharge of official duties,
nullify its decision. To do so would

Page 110 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

unless said misconduct also A. PRIVELEGES, INHIBITIONS,

constitutes a violation of his/her AND DISQUALIFICATIONS
oath as a lawyer. Although, there
was no express admission on the
part of Senator Santiago that she Presidential Immunity
did not indeed say those words,
there was no categorical denial  Rationale for the immunity is
either, which the Court regarded as to assure exercise of presidential
an implied admission.  duties and functions free from
any hindrance or distraction
considering that it is a job that
Power of the Congress to Impeach requires the Chief Executive’s
time as well as undivided
In Francisco vs. House of attention.  (Soliven vs. Makasiar,
Representatives, On June 2, 2003, G.R. No. 82585, November 14,
then President Estrada filed an 1988) 
impeachment complaint against
Chief Justice Hilario Davide and
seven Associate Justices of the  While the President is immune
Supreme Court for culpable from suit, she may not be
violation of the Constitution, prevented from instituting it.
betrayal of public trust and other However, such privilege may be
high crimes. Said complaint was waived solely on the President’s
endorsed by some members of the prerogative. (Soliven vs.
HOP in line with their power that Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585,
has been vested by the Constitution. November 14, 1988) 
The first impeachment complaint
was dismissed for being insufficient.
Few months after, another  A non-seating President
impeachment complain was filed. cannot enjoy immunity from suit
The Supreme court granted the for criminal acts committed
several cases filed regarding said during his incumbency. (Estrada
matter and declared the vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-
impeachment proceedings approved 15, March 2, 2001)
by the HOP and the second
complaint unconstitutional, as it  The questioned act of the
violates the provision of Section 5 of alter-ego is not the act of the
Article XI of the Constitution that President. Furthermore,
“no impeachment proceedings shall presidential decisions may be
be initiated against the same official questioned before the courts
more than once within a period of where there is a grave abuse of
one year”.  discretion or that the President
acted without or in excess of
MODULE 5 jurisdiction. (Gloria vs. Court of
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Page 111 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Appeals,  G.R. No. 119903, the President, e.g commander-in-

August 15, 2000) chief, appointing, pardoning, and
diplomatic powers; (2)
Operational Proximity Test: it
Presidential Privilege must be authored, solicited, and
received by a close advisor of the
 The President shall have an President or the President
official residence. The salaries of himself. The judicial test is that
the President and Vice-President an advisor must be in
shall be determined by law and “operational proximity” with the
shall not be decreased during President (i.e. officials who stand
their tenure. No increase in said proximate to the President, not
compensation shall take effect only by reason of their function,
until after the expiration of the but also by reason of their
term of the incumbent during positions in the Executive’s
which such increase was organizational structure); (3) No
approved. They shall not receive adequate need: The privilege may
during their tenure any other be overcome by a showing of
emolument from the Government adequate need, such that the
or any other source (Sec. 6, Art. information sought “likely
VII, 1987 Constitution).  contains important evidence,”
and by the unavailability of the
information elsewhere by an
 Executive privilege is properly appropriate investigating
invoked in relation to specific authority. (Neri v. Senate, G.R.
categories of information and not No. 180643, September 4, 2008)
to categories of persons—it
attaches to the information and
not the person. Only the Presidential
President (and the Executive Prohibitions/Inhibitions (Secs. 6 &
Secretary, by order of the 13, Art VII, 1987 Constitution) 
President) can invoke the
privilege. (Senate v. Ermita, G.R. a. Shall not receive any other
No. 169777, April 20, 2006) emolument from the
government or any other
 The following are the source.
requisites for validity of claim b. Unless otherwise provided by
needed to be complied with in the condition, shall not hold
order for the claim to executive any other office or
privilege to be valid. These are: — employment.
(1) Quintessential and non-  The Vice President may be
delegable presidential power- appointed as a member of
power subject of the legislative the cabinet, without
inquiry must be expressly confirmation from the
granted by the Constitution to Commission on

Page 112 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Appointment; the Secretary power is the power of carrying out

of Justice is an ex-officio the laws into practical operation and
member of the Judicial and enforcing their due observance.
Bar Council. Under Section 17, Article VII, the
 This prohibition must not be President shall have control of all
construed as applying to the executive departments, bureaus,
posts occupied by the and offices (Power of Control). He
Executive officials without shall ensure that the laws be
additional compensation in faithfully executed.
an ex-officio capacity, as
provided by law and as
required by the primary Power of Appointment
functions of the said
officials’ office. In general

B. POWERS APPOINTMENT – the unequivocal

act of designating or selecting by
Executive and Administrative one having the authority therefore of
Powers, in general  an individual to discharge and
perform the duties and functions of
an office or trust. (Bermudez vs.
 The power to enforce and Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
administer laws. 131429, August 4, 1999)
 Vested in the President of the
Philippines (Sec. 1, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)   The power to appoint is an
executive function, legislature
may not usurp this function. The
The Faithful Execution (Take appointing authority of the
Care) Clause  president however, should not be
confused with the authority of
the legislature to impose
The President shall have control of additional duties on existing
all the executive departments, offices. (Bernas, The 1987
bureaus, and offices. He shall Constitution of the Philippines A
ensure that laws be faithfully Commentary, 1987)
executed. (Sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution) 
Classifications of Appointment
The administrative head of the
government, the President is vested a. Permanent and Temporary
with the power to execute,
administer and carry out laws into
practical operation. Impressed upon On one hand, Permanent
us, then, is the fact that executive Appointment is extended to persons

Page 113 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

possessing the requisite eligibilities. by reason of illness, absence, or any

It has security of tenure. Some other cause; or (b) There exists a
positions require Commission on vacancy. (Sec. 17, Book III,
Appointment’s confirmation. On the Administrative Code of 1987) . In no
other hand, Temporary Appointment case shall designation exceed one (1)
is given to person without eligibility. year.
It is revocable at will and without
the necessity of just cause or valid
investigation. It is not subject to b. Regular Appointment and
Commission on Appointment’s Ad-Interim or Recess
confirmation. Appointment

APPOINTMENT – the selection by On one hand, ad interim

the authority vested with the power appointment is extended only during
of an individual who is to exercise a recess of Congress. The names are
the functions of a given office. submitted to the Commission on
Appointments for confirmation or
rejection. It is effective immediately
DESIGNATION – an indication of until disapproval of the Commission
nomenclature to the appointive on Appointments or until the next
position. It may be an imposition of adjournment of Congress. On the
(additional) duties, usually by law, other hand, Appointment in an
on a person already in the public Acting Capacity may be extended
service. any time there is a vacancy. It is not
submitted to the Commission on
Appointments for confirmation or
Appointments solely by the rejection. It is effective for a
President (Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 maximum of one (1) year from date
Constitution)  of appointment.

a. Those whom he may be  Ad interim appointments

authorized by law to appoint. must be distinguished from
b. Those whose appointments appointments in an acting
are not otherwise provided by capacity. Both of them are
law. effective upon acceptance. Acting
appointments are a way of
Designation: The President may temporarily filling important
designate an officer already in the offices but, if abused, they can
government service or any other also be a way of circumventing
competent person to perform the the need for confirmation by the
functions of any office in the Commission on Appointments.
executive branch, when: (a) The (Pimentel Jr. vs. Ermita, G.R. No.
officer regularly appointed to the 164978, October 13, 2005). 
office is unable to fulfill his duties

Page 114 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 Sections 4(1) and 9 of Art. VIII 1. With the consent of the

simply mean that the President is Commission on Appointments
required to fill vacancies in the
courts within the time frames
provided therein, unless a. Heads of executive
prohibited by Sec. 15 of [Link]. departments;
While the filling of vacancies in b. Ambassadors and other public
the judiciary is undoubtedly in ministers and consuls;
the public interest there is no c. Officers of the AFP from the
showing in this case of any rank of colonel or naval
compelling reason to justify the captain and up;
making of the appointments d. Other ministers whose
during the period of the ban. (In appointments are vested in
Re Mateo Valenzuela, A.M. No. him by the Constitution 
98-5-01-SC, November 9, 1998) e. Chairman and members of
Constitutional Commissions
f. Regular members of the
 The constitutional provision Judicial and Bar Council
on midnight appointments, Art.
VII, Sec. 15, applies only to
presidential appointments are  The list is exclusive; it may
correctly ruled by the Civil not be expanded by statutory
Service Commission. In truth and legislation. (Sarmiento vs. Mison,
in fact, there is no law that G.R. No. 79974, December 17,
prohibits local elective officials 1987)
from making appointments
during the last days of his 2. Prior recommendation or
tenure. (De Rama vs. CA, G.R. nomination by the Judicial
No. 131136, February 28, 2001) and Bar Council 
 
Modes of terminating ad-interim a. Members of the Supreme
appointments: Court and all lower courts
(Sec. 9, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution); 
a. Disapproval by the b. Ombudsman and his 5
Commission on Appointments deputies.
b. Adjournment of Congress
prior to Commission action on
appointment 3. Requiring nominations by
multi-sectoral groups

Commission on Appointments’
Confirmation a. Regional consultative
commission (Sec. 18, Art. X,
1987 Constitution) 

Page 115 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

b. Party-list representatives, defense of the State under Article

before the Party-list Law (Sec. II. (Lacson vs. Romero, 84 Phil
7, Art. XVIII, 1987 740, October 14, 1949)
Constitution) 

 Generally, the power to

4. Appointment of Vice appoint vested in the President
President as member of the includes the power to make
Cabinet; temporary appointments, unless
4. Appointment solely by the he is otherwise specifically
President. prohibited by the Constitution or
by the law, or where an acting
a. Those vested by the appointment is repugnant to the
Constitution on the President nature of the office involved.
alone; (Cabiling v. Pabualan, G.R. Nos.
b. Those whose appointments L-21764 and L-21765, May 31,
are not otherwise provided for 1965, 14 SCRA 274)
by law;
c. Those whom he may be
Midnight Appointments
authorized by law to appoint;
d. Those other officers lower in
rank whose appointment is MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENT –
vested by law in the President During the period state in Sec. 15,
alone. Art. VII of the Constitution, which is
two months immediately before the
next presidential elections and up to
Appointing Procedure for those
the end of his term, the President is
that Need CA Confirmation 
neither required to make
appointments to the courts nor
1. Nomination by the President allowed to do so.
2. Confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments
GENERAL RULE: Prohibition
3. Issuance of commission
against midnight appointments.
4. Acceptance by appointee

EXCEPTIONS: Midnight
 An appointment is deemed
appointments may still be made
complete only upon its
under the following conditions:
acceptance. Pending such
acceptance, which is optional to
the appointee, the appointment  They are temporary
may still be validly withdrawn. appointments to executive
Appointment to public office positions; and
cannot be forced upon any
citizen except for purposes of the

Page 116 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 The continued vacancies will  Members of the Cabinet and

prejudice public service or such officers whose continuity in
endanger public safety. office depends upon the pleasure
of the President may be replaced
at any time, but legally speaking,
 During this period, the their separation is effected not by
President is neither required to removal but by expiration of
make appointments to the courts term. (Alajar vs. Alba, G.R. Nos.
nor allowed to do so. Sections L-10360 and L-10433, January
4(1) and 9 of Article VIII simply 17, 1957) 
mean that the President is
required by law to fill up
vacancies in the courts within
the time frames provided therein, Power of control and supervision
unless prohibited by Sec. 15 of
Article VII. While the filing up of
vacancies in the judiciary is The power of control is the power of
undoubtedly in the public an officer to alter or modify or set
interest, there is no showing in aside what a subordinate officer had
this case of any compelling done in the performance of his
reason to justify the making of duties and to substitute the
the appointments during the judgment of the former for that of
period of the ban. (In Re: Mateo the latter. The officer in control lays
Valenzuela, AM No. 98-01-SC, down the rules in the doing of an
November 9, 1998) act. If they are not followed, he may,
in his discretion, order the act
undone or re-done by his
Power of Removal subordinate or he may even decide
to do it himself.
The President cannot remove
officials appointed by him where the On the other hand, the power of
Constitution prescribes certain supervision means “overseeing or
methods for separation of such the authority of an officer to see to it
officers from public service (i.e. that the subordinate officers
Constitutional Commissioners). perform their duties. If the
subordinate officers fail or neglect to
fulfill their duties, the official may
take such action or step as
prescribed by law to make them
perform their duties.

 Essentially, the power of

supervision means no more than
the power of ensuring that laws
are faithfully executed, or that
Page 117 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

subordinate officers act within CONTROL – power to alter or modify

the law. The supervisor of or nullify or set aside what a
superintendent merely sees to it subordinate officer had done in the
that the rules are followed, but performance of his duties and to
he does not lay down the rules, substitute the judgment of the
nor does he have discretion to former for that of the latter.
modify or replace them. (Ambil,
Jr., vs SB, G.R. No. 175457, July
6, 2011)  The Cultural Center of the
Philippines (CCP) does not fall
under the Legislative or judicial
a. Doctrine of Qualified branches of the government. The
Political Agency (Alter-Ego CCP is also not one of the
Principle) independent constitutional
bodies. Neither is the CCP a
quasi-judicial body nor a local
 Recognizes the establishment government unit. Thus, the CCP
of a single executive, all executive must fall under the Executive
and administrative organizations branch. Under the Revised
are adjuncts of the Executive Administrative Code of 1987, any
Department, the heads of the agency “not placed by law or
various executive departments order creating them under any
are assistants and agents of the specific department” falls under
Chief Executive, and except in the Office of the President.” Since
cases where the Chief Executive the President exercises control
is required by the Constitution to over all the “executive
act in person or the exigencies of departments, bureaus, and
the situation demand that he act offices,” the President necessarily
personally, the multifarious exercises control over the CCP
executive and administrative which is an office in the
functions of the Chief Executive Executive Department. (Rufino
are performed by and through vs. Endriga, G.R. No. 139554,
the executive departments, and July 21, 2006)
the acts of the Secretaries of
such department performed and
promulgated in the regular Extent of the Power of Control
course of business are, unless
disapproved or reprobated by the
Chief Executive presumptively  The power of control of the
acts of the Chief Executive. President may extend to the
(DENR vs. DENR Region XII power to investigate, suspend or
Employees, GR No. 149724, remove officers and employees
August 19, 2003) who belong to the executive
b. Executive Departments and branch if they are presidential
Offices appointees or do NOT belong to
the classified service for such can
be justified under the principle
Page 118 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

that the power to remove is their cooperation in solving

inherent in the power to appoint. economic difficulties, he cannot
(Ang-Angco vs. Castillo, G.R. No. prevent them from performing
L-17169, November 30, 1963) their tasks and using available
resources to achieve their
goals.  He may not withhold or
N.B.: GOCCs are placed under the alter any authority or power
control of the executive when their given them by the law. (Pimentel
functions “partake of the nature of v. Aguirre, G.R. 132988, July 19,
government bureaus or offices.” 2000)
 The Office of the President is
without any power to remove
SUPERVISION - power of the elected officials, since the power
superior interest to ensure that laws is exclusively vested in the proper
are faithfully executed. courts as expressly provided for
in the last paragraph of Section
 Supervision means 60 of the Local Government
“overseeing, or the power or Code. It further invalidated
authority of an officer to see that Article 125, Rule XIX of the Rules
subordinate officers perform their and Regulations Implementing
duties and to take such action as the Local Government Code of
prescribed by law to compel his 1991. (Pablico vs. Villapando, G.
subordinates to perform his R. No. 147870, July 31, 2002).
duties. (Mondano vs. Silvosa, et
al., G.R. No. 7708, May 30, 1955) Military Powers
 Supervisory power, when
contrasted with control, is the
power of mere oversight over an COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF CLAUSE:
inferior body; it does not include The President shall be the
any restraining authority over Commander-In-Chief of all armed
such body. (Taule vs. Santos, forces of the Philippines and
G.R. No. 90336, August 12, 1991) whenever it becomes necessary, he
may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless
c. Local government units violence, invasion or rebellion. (Sec.
18, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
 The Constitution vests the
President with the power of POWERS AS COMMANDER-IN-
supervision, not control, over CHIEF
local government units
(LGUs).  Such power enables him
to see to it that LGUs and their
officials execute their tasks in
accordance with law.  While he
may issue advisories and seek

Page 119 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

a. Calling-Out Power – to call- Secretary, G.R. No. 159085,

out such armed forces to February 3, 2004)
prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion, or
rebellion.   The Court finds G.O. No. 5
valid. It is an Order issued by the
President – acting as
 The Calling-Out Power is the Commander-in-Chief-  addressed
most benign of all powers and is to subalterns in the AFP to carry
solely discretionary on the part of out the provisions of PP 1017,
the President. Courts may only Significantly, it also provides a
examine whether it is exercised valid standard – that the military
within permissible constitutional and the police should take only
limits. Unlike in the powers to the “necessary and appropriate
suspend the writ or to declare actions and measures to
martial law, there is no provision suppress and prevent acts of
in the Constitution which allows lawless violence.” But the words
Congress to revoke or the “acts of terrorism” found in G.O.
Supreme Court to review the No. 5 have not been legally
sufficient of the factual basis defined and made punishable by
thereof. (Integrated Bar of the Congress and should thus be
Philippines vs. Zamora, G.R. No. deemed deleted from the said
141284, August 15, 2000)  G.O. While “terrorism” has been
denounced generally in media, no
law has been enacted to guide
 In calling out the armed the military, and eventually the
forces, a declaration of a state of courts, to determine the limits of
rebellion is an utter superfluity. the AFP’s authority in carrying
At most, it only gives notice to out this portion of G.O. No. 5.
the nation that such a state (David vs. Arroyo, GR No.
exists and that the armed forces 171390, May 3, 2006)
may be called to prevent or
suppress it. The mere declaration
of a state of rebellion cannot b. Suspension of the privilege
diminish or violate of the writ of habeas corpus
constitutionally protected rights. In case of invasion or rebellion,
Indeed, if a state of martial law when the public safety requires it,
does not suspend the operation he may, for a period not exceeding
of the Constitution or sixty days, suspend the privilege of
automatically suspend the the writ of habeas corpus or place
privilege of the writ habeas the Philippines or any part thereof
corpus, then it is with more under martial law. Within forty-eight
reason that a simple declaration hours from the proclamation of
of a state of rebellion could not martial law or the suspension of the
bring about these conditions. privilege of the writ of habeas
(Sanlakas vs. Executive corpus, the President shall submit a

Page 120 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

report in person or in writing to the neither the state nor society would
Congress. The Congress, voting exist without it.
jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in
regular or special session, may Requisites:
revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall a. There must be an invasion or
not be set aside by the President. rebellion;
Upon the initiative of the President, b. Public safety requires the
the Congress may, in the same proclamation of martial law all
manner, extend such proclamation over the Philippines or any
or suspension for a period to be part thereof.
determined by the Congress if the
invasion or rebellion shall persist
and public safety requires its. (Sec. Limitations on the Military
18, Article VII, 1987 Constitution).  Powers of the President

 Applies only to persons a. He may call out the armed

“judicially charged” for rebellion forces only in cases when it
or offenses inherent in or directly becomes necessary to prevent
connected with the invasion or or suppress lawless violence,
rebellion. invasion or rebellion.
b. The grounds for the
suspension of the privilege of
Requisites: the writ of habeas corpus and
the proclamation of martial
a. There must be an invasion or law are not limited only to
rebellion; invasion or rebellion when the
b. The public safety requires the public safety requires it.
suspension. c. The duration of such
suspension or proclamation
shall not exceed 60 days
c. To impose martial law following which it shall be
automatically lifted.
d. Within 48 hours after such
Founded upon the principle that the suspension or proclamation,
state has the right to protect itself the President shall personally
against those who would destroy it or in writing, report his action
and has therefore been linked to the to Congress. If not in session,
right of the individual to self- Congress must convene within
defense. It is invoked as an extreme 24 hours without need of a
measure, and rests upon the basic call.
principle that every state has the e. The Congress may then, by
power of self-preservation, a power majority vote of all its
inherent in all states, because

Page 121 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

members voting jointly, revoke corpus shall apply only to

the action of the President. persons facing charges of
f. The revocation may not be set rebellion or offenses inherent
aside by the President. in or directly connected with
g. By majority vote of all its invasion.
members voting jointly, the k. Any person arrested for such
Congress may, upon initiative offenses must be judicially
of the President, extend his charged within 3 days.
suspension of proclamation Otherwise, he shall be
for a period to be determined released.
by Congress in the invasion or
rebellion shall continue and
public safety requires the Role of Congress when the
extension. President declares martial law or
h. The action of the President suspends the privilege of the writ:
and the Congress shall be
subject to review by the a. When the President proclaims
Supreme Court which shall martial law or suspends the
have the authority to privilege of the writ, such
determine the sufficiency of proclamation or suspension
the factual basis of such shall be effective for a period
action (proclamation of of 60 days, unless sooner
martial law, suspension of the revoked by the Congress. 
privilege of the writ, or b. Upon such proclamation or
extension thereof). This matter suspension, Congress shall
is no longer considered a convene at once.  If it is not in
political question and may be session, it shall convene in
raised in an appropriate accordance with its rules
proceeding by any citizen. without need of a call within
Moreover, the Supreme Court 24 hours following the
must decide the challenge proclamation or suspension. 
within 30 days from the time c. Within 48 hours from the
it is filed. proclamation or the
i. Martial law does not suspension, the President
automatically suspend the shall submit a report, in
privilege of the writ of habeas person or in writing, to the
corpus or the operation of the Congress (meeting in joint
Constitution. The civil courts session of the action he has
and the legislative bodies shall taken). 
remain open; Military courts d. The Congress shall then vote
and agencies are not jointly, by an absolute
conferred jurisdiction over majority. Either:
civilians. [Link] revoke such proclamation
j. The suspension of the or suspension. NOTE: When
privilege of the writ of habeas it so revokes, the President

Page 122 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

cannot set aside (or veto) the review, in an appropriate proceeding

revocation as he normally filled by any citizen, the sufficiency
would do in the case of of the factual basis of (a) the
bills.  If Congress does not proclamation of martial law or the
do anything, the measure suspension of the privilege of the
will expire anyway in 60 writ, or (b) the extension thereof.  It
days.  So the revocation must promulgate its decision
must be made before the thereon within 30 days from its
lapse of 60 days from the filing.  (Sec. 18 par. 3, Art. VII, 1987
date the measure was Constitution)  
taken. 
5. Pardoning power 
To extend it beyond the 60-
day period of its validity.
NOTE: Congress can only so Nature
extend the proclamation or
suspension upon the  There are certain presidential
initiative of the President.  powers which arise out of
The period need not be 60 exceptional circumstances, and if
days; it could be more, as exercised, would involve the
Congress would determine, suspension of fundamental
based on the persistence of freedoms, or at least call for the
the emergency.  If Congress supersedence of executive
fails to act before the prerogatives over those exercised
measure expires, it can no by co-equal branches of
longer extend it until the government. The declaration of
President again re-declares martial law, the suspension of
the measure. the writ of habeas corpus, and
the exercise of the pardoning
If Congress extends the measure, power, notwithstanding the
but before the period of extension judicial determination of guilt of
lapses, the requirements for the the accused, all fall within this
proclamation or suspension no special class that demands the
longer exist, Congress can lift the exclusive exercise by the
extension, since the power to confer President of the constitutionally
implies the power to take back.  If vested power. The list is by no
Congress does not review or lift the means exclusive, but there must
order, this can be reviewed by the be a showing that the executive
Supreme Court.  power in question is of
similar gravitas and exceptional
import. (Angeles vs. Gaite G.R.
Role of the Supreme Court in No. 176596 March 23, 2011)
declaration of martial law or
suspension of writ of habeas
corpus: The Supreme Court may
Page 123 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

LIMITATIONS ON THE EXERCISE d. Remission of fines and

(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in forfeitures– prevents the
Political Law, 2016) collection of fines or the
confiscation of forfeited
property and it cannot have
a. Cannot be granted in cases of the effect of returning properly
impeachment owing to its which has been vested in
political nature third parties or money ion the
b. Cannot be granted in cases of public treasury.
violations of election laws e. Pardons – act of grace which
without favorable exempts the individual on
recommendation from the whom it is bestowed from the
Commission on Elections punishment which the law
(Sec. 5, Art. IX-C, 1987 inflicts for the crime he has
Constitution)  committed.
c. Can be granted only after
conviction 
d. Cannot be granted in cases of
legislative contempt or civil
contempt
e. Cannot absolve the convict of
civil liability
f. Cannot restore public offices Pardon vs. Amnesty
forfeited
PARDON AMNEST
Forms of Executive Clemency Y
President Private act Public
ial Act of the act of the
a. Commutation – reduction or President President
mitigation of the penalty; upon that
remission of a part of the which courts
punishment; substitution of there can may take
less penalty than the one be no judicial
imposed. judicial notice of.
b. Amnesty – an act of grace scrutiny.
concurred in by the
Granting Granted Granted
legislature, usually extended
to one to classes
to groups of persons who
after of
committed political offense
conviction persons
which puts into oblivion the
.  or
offense itself.
communi
c. Reprieves – withholding of a
ties who
sentence for an interval of
may be
time; a postponement of the
guily of
execution.
political

Page 124 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

offenses,
before the
institutio PARDON PROBATIO
n of N
criminal Who Granted by Granted by
prosecuti Grants the the courts
on or ? President upon due
sometime after final application.
s after conviction
convictio of the
n. accused.
Concurre No need Need the Effect Offender is Offender is
nce by for the concurre relieved of not entirely
the concurren nce of the rrelieved of
Congress ce of the the sentence. the
Congress. Congress sentence
. which the
law inflicts
Acceptan Acceptanc No need
but placed
ce e is for distice
under the
necessary. act of
legal
acceptan
custody of
ce.
the
Offense Generally Addresse
probation
granted s to
officer.
for political
Offens Any act, Penalty of
common offenses.
e except in the offense
crimes.
cases of must not
Effect Looks Looks
impeachm exceed six
forward backwar
ent or (6) years
and d and
violation of and one (1)
relieve the abolishes
election day
offender and puts
laws. imprisonme
from the into
nt.
conseque oblivion
nces of an the
offense of offense Kinds of Pardon
which he itself, as
has been if no
convicted. offense a. Absolute – one extended
was without any strings attached.
commite This may not be rejected by
d. the pardonee.
b. Conditional – one under
which the convict is required
Pardon vs. Probation to comply with certain

Page 125 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

requirements. The offender

has the right to reject it since
the conditions imposed may  The President can grant
be more onerous than the executive clemency in
penalty sought to be remitted. administrative cases, in the
c. Plenary – extinguished all the Executive Branch, but NOT in
penalties imposed upon the the Judicial of Legislative
offender, including accessory branches of the government.
disabilities. (Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA
d. Partial – does not extinguish 844, October 15, 1991)
all the penalties. 
Limitations on the Exercise of the  The constitutional provision
Power of Executive Clemency: granting the President the power
to grant reprieves cannot be
a. No pardon, amnesty, parole, interpreted as denying the power
or suspension of sentence for of courts to control the
violation of election laws, enforcement of their decisions
rules and regulations, shall be after their finality. For instance, a
granted by the President convict who becomes insane after
without the favorable his final conviction cannot be
recommendation of the executed while in a state of
COMELEC. insanity. The suspension of such
b. Cannot be granted in cases of a death sentence is an exercise of
impeachment. judicial power. (Echegaray vs.
c. Can be granted only after Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA
conviction by final judgment. 96, January 19, 1999)
d. Cannot be granted in case of
legislative contempt, or civil  The “conviction by final
contempt. judgment” limitation under Sec.
e. Cannot absolve the convict of 19, Art. VII of the Constitution
civil liability. prohibits the grant of pardon
f. Cannot restore public office whether full or conditional, to an
forfeited. accused during the pendency of
g. A grant of amnesty must be his appeal from his conviction by
made with the concurrence of the trial court. Any application
a majority of all the Members therefor, if one is made, should
of Congress (Article VII, not be acted upon or the process
Section 19) toward its grant should not be
begun unless the appeal is
Sanctions for violation of withdrawn. Accordingly, the
Conditional Pardons  agencies or instrumentalities of
the Government concerned must
require proof from the accused
a. Arrest that he has not appealed from
b. Re-incarceration his conviction or that he has
Page 126 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

withdrawn his appeal. (People of agreement agreements

the Philippines vs. Casido, G.R. s, involving embodying
No. 116512, March 7, 1997) political adjustments
issues or of detail
changes of carrying out
national well
policy, and established
Doctrine of Non-Diminution or those national
Non-Impairment of the involving policies and
President’s Power of Pardon internation traditions
al and those
 Any act of Congress by way of arrangeme involving
statute cannot operate to delimit nts of a arrangemen
the pardoning power of the permanent ts of a more
President (Risos-Vidal vs character. or less
COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, temporary
January 21, 2015) nature.

6. Diplomatic power  The role of the Senate,

No treaty or international agreement however, is limited only to giving
shall be valid and effective unless or withholding its consent, or
concurred in by at least two-thirds concurrence, to the ratification
of all the Members of the Senate. [of the treaty]. Hence, it is within
(Sec. 21, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution) the authority of the President to
refuse to submit a treaty to the
Senate or, having secured its
Treaties vs. Executive Agreements consent for its ratification, refuse
to ratify it. Although the refusal
of a state to ratify a treaty which
TREATIES EXECUTIV
has been signed in its behalf is a
E
serious step that should not be
AGREEMEN
taken lightly, such decision is
TS
within the competence of the
Bindi Formal Become President alone, which cannot be
ng documents binding encroached by this Court via a
effect , which through writ of mandamus. (Pimentel, Jr.,
require executive et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et
ratification action al., GR No. 158088, July 6, 2005)
with the without
approval of need of a
2/3 of the vote by the Other Foreign Affairs Powers
Senate. Senate or
Congress.
Natur Internation Internationa
e al l

Page 127 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

a. The power to appoint General Appropriations Act, any

ambassadors, other public savings in the regular
ministers and consuls. appropriations authorized in the
b. The power to receive General Appropriations Act for
ambassadors and other public programs and projects of any
ministers duly accredited to department, office or agency, may,
the Philippines. with the approval of the President,
c. Power of deportation although be used to cover a deficit in any
the Legislature may limit the other item of the regular
substantive grounds for such. appropriations: Provided, that the
creation of new positions or increase
of salaries shall not be allowed to be
In Bagong Alyansang Makabayan funded from budgetary savings
vs. Zamora (G.R. No. 138570, except when specifically authorized
October 10, 2000), the Supreme by law: Provided, further, that
Court treated the Visiting Forces whenever authorized positions are
Agreement as a treaty which transferred from one program or
required the concurrence of the project to another within the same
Senate. In this respect, as a treaty, department, office or agency, the
the Philippines was bound to comply corresponding amounts
with it in keeping with the principles appropriated for personal services
of international law.  The VFA is an are also deemed transferred,
agreement which defines the without, however increasing the
treatment of United States troops. total outlay for personal services of
the department, office or agency
7. Powers relative to appropriation concerned. (Sec. 39, Ch. 5, Book VI,
measures Administrative Code)

No law shall be passed authorizing  Section 39 is evidently in

any transfer of appropriations; conflict with the plain text of
however, the President, the Section 25(5), Article VI of the
President of the Senate, the Speaker Constitution because it allows
of the House of Representatives, the the President to approve the use
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, of any savings in the regular
and the heads of Constitutional appropriations authorized in the
Commissions may, by law, be GAA for programs and projects of
authorized to augment any item in any department, office or agency
the general appropriations law for to cover a deficit in any other
their respective offices from savings item of the regular
in other items of their respective appropriations. As such, Section
appropriations. (Sec. 25[5], Art. VI, 39 violates the mandate of
1987 Constitution) Section 25(5) because the latter
Authority to Use Savings in expressly limits the authority of
Appropriations to Cover Deficits.— the President to augment an item
Except as otherwise provided in the in the GAA to only those in his

Page 128 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

own Department out of the  By providing that the

savings in other items of his own President, the President of the
Department’s appropriations. Senate, the Speaker of the House
Accordingly, Section 39 cannot of Representatives, the Chief
serve as a valid authority to Justice of the Supreme Court,
justify cross-border transfers and the Heads of the
under the DAP. Augmentations Constitutional Commissions may
under the DAP which are made be authorized to augment any
by the Executive within its item in the GAA "for their
department shall, however, respective offices," Section 25(5),
remain valid so long as the has delineated borders between
requisites under Section 25(5) their offices, such that funds
are complied with. appropriated for one office are
prohibited from crossing over to
another office even in the guise of
1. Validity of augmentation of a deficient item
Transferring Savings or items. Regardless of the
between Departments variant characterizations of the
cross-border transfers of funds,
the plain text of Section 25(5),
supra, disallowing cross border
transfers was disobeyed. Cross-
border transfers, whether as
augmentation, or as aid, were
prohibited under Section 25(5).
(Araullo vs. Aquino, G.R. No.
209287, July 1, 2014)

Borrowing power (Sec. 20, Art. VII,

1987 Constitution)

The President may contract or

guarantee foreign loans on behalf of
the Republic of the Philippines with
the prior concurrence of the
Monetary Board, and subject to
such limitations as may be provided
by law. The Monetary Board shall,
within thirty days from the end of
every quarter of the calendar year,
submit to the Congress a complete
report of its decision on applications
for loans to be contracted or
guaranteed by the Government or
government-owned and controlled

Page 129 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

corporations which would have the a. General Veto Power – if

effect of increasing the foreign debt, exercised, would result to the
and containing other matters as veto of the entire bill;
may be provided by law. b. Item Veto/Line Veto – it
allows the exercise of the veto
over a particular item in an
Budgetary Power (Sec. 22, Art. VII, appropriation, revenue or
1987 Constitution) tariff bill.

The President shall submit to the  The restrictive  interpretation

Congress, within thirty days from urged by petitioners that the
the opening of every regular session President may not veto a
as the basis of the general provision without vetoing the
appropriations bill, a budget of entire bill not only disregards the
expenditures and sources of basic principle that a  distinct
financing, including receipts from and severable part of a bill may
existing and proposed revenue be the subject of a separate veto
measures. but also over looked the
constitutional mandate that any
GENERAL RULE: The President provision in the general
may not veto a provision without appropriations bill shall relate
vetoing the entire bill. specifically to some particular
EXCEPTIONS: Selective Veto is appropriation therein and that
allowed for (a) Appropriation Bills, any such provision shall be
(b) Revenue Bills, and (c) Tariff Bills limited in its operation to the
appropriation to which it relates.
A provision in an Appropriations
 The President shall have the Bill is limited in its operation to
power to veto any particular item some particular appropriation to
or items in an appropriation, which it relates, and does not
revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto relate to the entire bill. (Gonzales
shall not affect the item or items vs. Macaraig, Jr., G.R. No. 82585,
to which he does not object (sec. November 14, 1988) 
27[2], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

 As the Constitution is explicit

8. Delegated Power that the provision which
Congress can include in an
appropriations bill must relate
9. Veto powers ‘specifically to some particular
appropriation therein,’ and be
VETO POWERS OF THE ‘limited in its operation to the
PRESIDENT appropriation to which it relates,’
It follows that any provision
which does not relate to any

Page 130 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

particular item, or which extends  The President upon whom

to any particular item, or  which executive power is vested, has
extends in its operation beyond unstated residual powers which
an item of appropriation, is are implied from the grant of
considered ‘an inappropriate executive power and which are
provision’ which can be vetoed necessary for her to comply with
separately from an item. Also to her duties under the
be included in the category of Constitution. The powers of the
inappropriate provision are President are not limited to what
unconstitutional provisions and are expressly enumerated in the
provisions which are intended to article on the Executive
amend other laws, because Department and is scattered
clearly these kinds of laws have provisions of the Constitution.
no place in an appropriations This is so, notwithstanding the
bill. (Philippine Constitution avowed intent of the members of
Association vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. the Constitutional Commission of
113105, August 19, 1994)  1986 to limit the powers of the
President as a reaction to the
abuses under the regime of Mr.
10.  Residual powers Marcos, for the result was a
limitation of specific powers of
the President particularly those
 Executive power is more than relating to the commander-in-
the sum of specific powers chief clause, but not a
enumerated in the diminution of the general grant of
Constitution. executive. (Marcos vs.
 Reserved powers of the Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211,
President.  October 27, 1989) 

 Powers which are not found in  Whatever is not judicial,

the Constitution but may be whatever is not legislative, is
validly exercised. The duty of residual power exercised by the
the government to serve and President. (Marcos vs.
protect the people as well as to Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211,
see the maintenance of peace October 27, 1989) 
and order, the protection of
life, liberty and property, and
the promotion of general  The President – in the course
welfare is the basis of the of conducting peace negotiations
existence of “residual unstated – may validly consider
powers. (Marcos vs. Manglapus, implementing even those policies
G.R. No. 88211, October 27, that require changes to the
1989). Constitution, but she may not
unilaterally implement them
without the intervention of

Page 131 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Congress, or act in any was as if c. Information between inter-

the assent of that body were government agencies prior to
assumed as certainty. (The the conclusion of treaties and
Province of North Cotabato vs. executive agreements;
Government of the Republic of the d. Discussion in close-door
Philippines Peace Panel on Cabinet meetings; and 
Ancestral Domain, GR No. e. Matters affecting national
183591, et. Al., October 14, 2008) security and public order.
(Chavez vs Philippine
Commission on Good
11. Executive Privilege Government, G.R. No. 130716,
December 9, 1998)
 It is the right of the President
and high-level executive branch 12. Emergency Powers
officials to withhold information
from Congress, the Courts, and
ultimately, the public. (Senate vs In times of war or other national
Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April emergency, the Congress may, by
20, 2006) law, authorize the President, for a
limited period and subject to such
restrictions as it may prescribe, to
 The necessity for withholding exercise powers necessary and
the information must be such a proper to carry out a declared
high degree as to outweigh the national policy. Unless sooner
public interest in enforcing that withdrawn by resolution of the
obligation in a particular case. Congress, such powers shall cease
(Senate vs Ermita, G.R. No. upon the next adjournment thereof.
169777, April 20, 2006) (Sec. 23[2], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution) 
Sec 2(a) of E.O. 464 enumerated
the following as privileged:
President is granted emergency
a. Conversations and powers by Congress subject to
correspondence between the certain conditions:
President and the public a. There must be a war or other
official covered by this emergency.
executive order (Chavez vs. b. The delegation must be for a
Public Estates Authority, G.R. limited period only.
No. 133250, July 9, 2002) c. The delegation must be
b. Military, diplomatic and other subject to such restrictions as
national security matters the Congress may prescribe.
which in the interest of d. The emergency powers must
national security should not be exercised to carry out a
be divulged; national policy declared by

Page 132 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Congress. (David vs. Arroyo, d. Discipline his/her deputies

GR No. 171390, May 3, 2006) (Sec. 2[8], Art. IX-C, 1987
Constitution)
C. RULES OF SUCCESSION
Limitation on Emergency Powers

The President does not need the 1. Vacancy at the beginning of the
authorization of Congress before he term
can declare a state of national In case of death or permanent
emergency. But the exercise of disability of the President-elect: The
emergency powers, such as taking Vice President elect shall become
over of privately-owned public utility President
or business affected with public If the President-elect fails to qualify:
interest, is a different matter. This The Vice President-elect shall act as
requires a delegation from Congress. President until a President shall
have been chosen and qualified

Section 17, Article XII must be

understood as an aspect of the If a President shall not have been
emergency powers clause. The chosen: The Vice-President-elect
taking over of private business shall act as President until a
affected with public interest is just President shall have been chosen
another facet of the emergency and qualified
powers generally reposed upon a. If no President and Vice
Congress. Thus, when Section 17 President were chosen nor
states that the "the State may, shall have qualified, or both
during the emergency and under shall have died or become
reasonable terms prescribed by it, permanently disabled: The
temporarily take over or direct the President of the Senate or, in
operation of any privately owned case of his inability, the
public utility or business affected Speaker of the House of
with public interest," it refers to Representatives shall act as
Congress, not the President. (David President until a President or
vs. Arroyo, GR No. 171390, May 3, Vice President shall have been
2006) chosen or qualified.

13. OTHER POWERS OF THE  In the event of inability of the

PRESIDENT: official mentioned, Congress
shall, by law, provide for the
manner in which one who is to
a. Call Congress to a special act as President shall be selected
session (Sec. 15, Art. VI, 1987 until a President or a Vice
Constitution) President shall have qualified.
b. Deport aliens
c. Consent to deputization 
2. Vacancy During the Term

Page 133 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Malacañang. His resignation has to

be determined from his acts and
Instances on Presidential omissions, before, during and after
Succession (where the President January 20, 2001, or by the totality
is not merely Acting-President) of prior contemporaneous and
posterior facts and circumstantial
a. Death evidence bearing a material
b. Permanent Disability relevance on the issue. And using
c. Removal from office  the totality test, the President
resigned. It was confirmed by his
leaving Malacañang. In the press
NOTE: The President can only be release containing his final
removed by means of statement: 
impeachment [Section2, Article XI,
1987 Constitution]) 
d. Resignation a. He acknowledged the oath-
taking of the respondent as
President of the Republic
Elements albeit with reservation about
its legality; 
b. He emphasized he was leaving
a. There must be intent to the Palace the seat of the
resign; and presidency for the sake of
b. It must be coupled with acts peace and in order to begin
of relinquishment (Estrada v. the healing process of our
Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, nation. He did not say he was
March 2, 2001) leaving the Palace due to any
kind inability and that he was
 The validity of resignation is going to re-assume the
not governed by any formal presidency as soon as the
requirement as to form. It can be disability disappears; 
oral. It can be written. It can be c. He expressed his gratitude to
express. It can be implied. As the people for the opportunity
long as the resignation is clear, it to serve them. Without doubt,
must be given legal effect. he was referring to the past
(Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. opportunity given him to serve
146710-15, March 2, 2001) the people as President; 
d. He assured that he will not
shirk from any future
TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES challenge that may come
TEST AND CONSTRUCTIVE ahead in the same service of
RESIGNATION (Estrada vs. our country. Petitioner’s
Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, reference is to a future
March 2, 2001 challenge after occupying the
Estrada did not write any formal office of the President which
letter of resignation before leaving he has given up; and 

Page 134 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

e. He called on his supporters to  Despite receipt of the letter

join him in the promotion of a from the President that he is
constructive national spirit of merely “on leave”, the House of
reconciliation and solidarity. Representatives passed, on
Certainly, the national spirit January 24, 2001, House
of conciliation and solidarity Resolution No. 176 which
could not be attained if he did expresses support for the
not give up the presidency.  assumption into office of
President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo. Later both Houses
The press release was petitioner’s confirmed the nomination of
valedictory, his final act of farewell. Teofisto Guingona as Vice-
His presidency is now in the past President. Bills were then sent to
tense. In case of death, permanent the President by Congress which
disability, removal from office, or she had signed. Congress, as a
resignation of the President, the Vice co-equal branch of government,
President shall become the has recognized Arroyo as de jure
President. President and not merely as
Acting President. (Estrada v.
3. Temporary disability Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March
2, 2001)

Ways by which the inability of the

President to discharge functions 4. Serious Illness of the President
may be made known or determined: (Art. VII, Sec. 12)

a. By a written declaration made Under Section 12, the serious illness

by the President himself as to does not result to vacancy because
his inability. the Cabinet members in charge of
b. By a written declaration by national security and foreign
the Cabinet that the President relations can still access the
is unable to discharge the President. Its purpose is to allow the
functions of his office. President to make important
c. In the event of disagreement decisions.
between the President and the
Cabinet, by a finding of VICE PRESIDENT
Congress by 2/3 vote that the
President is disabled.
The Vice President shall have the
same qualifications and term of
NOTE: In all these cases, the office as the President. He may be
President takes a “leave of absence” removed from office in the same
and the Vice-President temporarily manner as the President. (Sec. 3,
acts as the President. Art. VII, 1987 Constitution) 

Page 135 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

The Vice President has essentially

no executive function except as a
reserved President unless he is In Marcos vs. Manglapus,  the
appointed as a Cabinet member or Supreme Court dismissed the
given an executive function. His petition, after finding that the
appointment as Department Head President did not act arbitrarily or
does not need the consent of the with grave abuse of discretion in
Commission on Appointments in prohibiting the return of Marcoses
deference to his office. Family to the Philippines because it
pose a threat to national interest
and welfare of the people. It is
In case of vacancy, the President stressed in this case, that the
shall nominate a Vice President from President upon whom executive
among the members of the Senate power is vested, has unstated
and the House of Representatives residual powers which are implied
who shall assume office upon from the grant of executive power
confirmation by a majority vote of all and which are necessary for her to
the Members of both House of comply with her duties under the
Congress voting separately. (Sec. 9, Constitution. The executive unlike
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)  the Congress, could exercise power
from sources not enumerated, as
long as it is not prohibited by the
The appointment of the Vice constitutional text. That whenever
President as Chairman of the in the judgement of the President,
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission there exist a grave emergency or a
was not an appointment to a threat or whenever the Batasang
Cabinet position nor to a position Pambansa or the regular National
constituting an intimate element of Assembly fails to act adequately on
his duties as Vice –president. But any matter for any reason that in
the appointment’s validity was never his judgement requires immediate
challenged. The only possible action, he may, in order to meet the
explanation for the tolerance of the exigency, issue the necessary
situation must be the assumption decrees, orders, or letters of
that the prohibition is meant to instruction, which shall form part of
prevent the enhancement of the the law of the land. 
powers of one who is already
powerful or busy with other duties.
The Vice President, by nature of his Vacancies
office, is neither powerful nor busy. In the case of Estrada vs.
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Disierto, the Supreme Court’s
Philippines A Commentary, 1987) decision was Joseph Estrada was no
longer President and that Gloria
Macapagal- Arroyo was. Estrada
Module 5 Cases contended that he was a President
on leave under the terms of Section
Residual power 11 of Article VII and that Arroyo was

Page 136 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

merely an acting President, however, resume its proceedings for the

resignation of the petitioner cannot nomination of candidates to fill the
be doubted. It was confirmed by his vacancy to be created by the
leaving Malacanang. In the press compulsory retirement of CJ
release containing his final Reynato Puno and submit a short
statement, (1) he acknowledged the list of nominees to the incumbent
oath-taking of the respondent as President.  Several motions for
President of the Republic albeit with reconsideration were filed, stating
reservation about its legality; (2) he that said appointment would violate
emphasized he was leaving the the Constitution’s ban on midnight
Palace, the seat of the presidency, appointments stated in Section 15,
for the sake of peace and in order to Article VII, as the next Presidential
begin the healing process of our election is about to happen. The
nation. He did not say he was Supreme Court in denying the
leaving the Palace due to any kind motions for reconsideration with
inability and that he was going to finality stated that with the absence
re-assume the presidency as soon of an express extension of the ban
as the disability disappears: (3) he on appointments to the Judiciary,
expressed his gratitude to the people Section 15, Article VII does not
for the opportunity to serve them. apply to appointments in the
Without doubt, he was referring to Judiciary. 
the past opportunity given him to
serve the people as President (4) he
assured that he will not shirk from Calling out Powers
any future challenge that may come In Sanlakas vs. Executive
ahead in the same service of our Secretary, Certain elements of the
country. Petitioner's reference is to a AFP, armed with high-powered
future challenge after occupying the firearms and explosives, seized a
office of the president which he has building in makati and
given up; and (5) he called on his subsequently caused chaos and
supporters to join him in the fear. With the said issue, then
promotion of a constructive national President Arroyo called out the AFP
spirit of reconciliation and to suppress the rebellion. Several
solidarity. Certainly, the national cases were filed before the court,
spirit of reconciliation and solidarity challenging the validity of the
could not be attained if he did not President’s declaration, stating that
give up the presidency. The press there existed  no sufficient factual
release was petitioner's valedictory, basis for the said proclamation of a
his final act of farewell. His state of rebellion. The SC, in
presidency is now in the part tense. dismissing the petitions, stated that
the President, in declaring a state of
Midnight Appointments rebellion and in calling out the AFP,
In De Castro vs. JBC, On March was merely exercising a wedding of
17, 2010, the SC promulgated a her Chief Executive and
decision which directed the JBC to Commander-in-Chief powers; where

Page 137 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

such powers are purely granted by Petitions were filed, challenging the
the Constitution.  factual basis of the said declaration
stating that there really is no
rebellion or invasion in any parts of
In IBP vs. Zamora, In view of Mindanao. The SC, in declaring the
the eminent increase of violent proclamation constitutional and
crimes in Manila, then President dismissing the petitions, stated that
Estrada, in a verbal directive, the President has issued concrete
ordered the PNP and the marines to issues which served as sufficient
conduct joint visibility patrols for basis for declaring martial law.
the purpose of crime prevention and Further, as a Commander-in-chief,
suppression, invoking his powers as granted with a calling out power and
Commander in Chief under section implied powers to protect the state,
18, Article VII of the constitution. he couldn’t just disregard the
The IBP filed an instant petition to insurgency in Mindanao that has
annul and declare the deployment of been ongoing for decades.
the Philippine marines, null, void
and unconstitutional, arguing that MODULE 6
no emergency situation would
justify the deployment of soldiers, Judicial Department
and that the admin is unwittingly
making the military force more Section 1. The judicial power shall
powerful than it is under the be vested in one Supreme Court and
Constitution. The SC, in dismissing in such lower courts as may be
the said petition, stated that IBP has established by law.
no legal standing to file the case and Judicial power includes the duty of
that it is the PNP who has direct the courts of justice to settle actual
supervision over the matter, and controversies involving rights which
that the soldiers do not control nor are legally demandable and
direct the operation. Further as per enforceable, and to determine
the institution of the joint patrol, whether or not there has been a
not a single citizen has complained grave abuse of discretion amounting
that his political or civil rights have to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
been violated by the deployment of the part of any branch or
the Marines. instrumentality of the Government.
(Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

Martial Law According to the above provision,

In Lagman vs. Medialdea, the Judicial Power shall be vested
Effective on May 23, 2017, President not only in the Supreme Court but
Duterte issued a proclamation in such lower courts as may be
declaring a state of martial law and established by law. “Lower courts”
suspending the privilege of the writ as here used is to be understood as
of habeas corpus in the whole of referring to all other courts below
Mindanao, stating several cases of the Supreme Court. The Supreme
crimes and rebellion in the place. Court is only the Constitutional
Page 138 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

court, all the lower courts being of The existence of grave abuse of
statutory creation.  discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of
As the Constitution speaks only of government, Judicial power may be
one Supreme Court, it is not exercised “where there are serious
competent for the legislature to allegations that a law has infringed
create even a temporary Supreme the Constitution”, where in such
Court to sit in special cases.  case, “it becomes not only the right
but the duty of the court to look into
Duty of the courts of justice such allegations and when
(Adjudicatory Power) warranted, uphold the supremacy of
the Constitution.” This duty
includes the power to set aside acts
a. Adjudicatory Powers: To of government, even if not tainted
settle actual controversies with grave abuse of discretion
involving rights which are amounting to lack or excess of
legally demandable and jurisdiction.
enforceable. Represents the
settlement of conflicting rights
as conferred by law.  It should also be noted that judicial
b. Expanded Power of Judicial power includes the power of the
review: To determine whether courts to alter, modify or set aside
or not there has been a grave their decisions before they become
abuse of discretion amounting final and unalterable especially
to lack or excess of when, in its honest opinion, it has
jurisdiction on the part of any committed an error or mistake in
branch or instrumentality of judgement. Hence, Court is not
the Government (Sec. 1[2], Art. precluded from examining its own
VIII, 1987 Constitution). ruling and rectifying errors of
Represents a broadening of judgement. 
Judicial Power to enable the
courts of justice to review
what was before forbidden Jurisdiction
territory which is the
discretion of the political
departments of government. It As provided for in the first
is the power to review even the paragraph of Section 2:
political decisions of the
executive and the legislative
departments and to declare “The Congress shall have the power
their acts invalid for lack or to define, prescribe, and apportion
excess of jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the various courts
tainted with grave abuse of but may not deprive the Supreme
discretion.  Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

Page 139 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

who can dispense justice wisely and

impartially.
Jurisdiction is defined as the power Supreme Court: Natural born
to hear and decide a case. The citizen of the Philippines, at least 40
appellate jurisdiction of the years of age, for fifteen years or
Supreme Court may be increased by more a judge of a lower court or
law provided it is upon advice and engaged in the practice of law in the
with the concurrence of the Philippines. (Sec. 7(1), Art. VIII)
Supreme Court itself.  Lower Collegiate Courts: Natural
born citizen of the Philippines, a
Procedure for Appointment  member of the Philippine Bar, but
Congress may prescribe other
qualifications. (Sec 7(1) and (2), Art.
Section 9. The Members of the VIII)
Supreme Court and judges of the Lower Courts: Citizen of the
lower courts shall be appointed by Philippines, member of the
the President from a list of at least Philippine Bar, but Congress may
three nominees prepared by the prescribe other qualifications. (Sec.
Judicial and Bar Council for every 7 (1) and (2), Art. VIII)
vacancy. Such appointments need These qualifications having been
no confirmation. enumerated in an exclusive manner,
For the lower courts, the President may not be reduced or increased by
shall issue the appointments within the Congress through ordinary
ninety days from the submission of legislation. However, the Congress
the list. shall in accordance with Section 7(2)
The reason for requiring at least “prescribe the qualifications of
three nominees for every vacancy is judges of lower courts, but no
to give the President enough leeway person may be appointed judge
in the exercise of the discretion thereof unless he is a citizen of the
when he makes his appointment. If Philippines and a member of the
the nominee where limited to only Philippine bar.”
one, the appointment would in effect It should be noted that natural born
be made by the Judicial and Bar citizenship is not required for courts
Council with the President lower than collegiate courts.
performing only the mechanical act The Judicial and Bar Council 
of formalizing the commission.  The Judicial and Bar Council takes
the place of the Commission on
Qualifications Appointments in the matter of
Article VIII, Section 7(3) provides judicial appointments. 
that every member of the judiciary
must be a person of “proven A. ) Composition [Sec. 8(1), Art.
competence, integrity, probity and VIII]:
independence”. This general
qualification is intended to improve A Judicial and Bar Council is
the quality of the judiciary by created under the supervision of the
admitting only deserving persons
Page 140 of 146
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Supreme Court, which shall be A. ) En banc: All cases involving

composed of: the Constitutionality of a
treaty, international or
i. ) Ex-officio members: Chief executive agreement or law;
Justice, as Chairmain; and all other cases which,
Secretary of Justice and a under the rules of court, are
representative of Congress. to be heard en banc, including
ii. ) Regular members: A those involving the
representative of Integrated constitutionality, application
Bar of the Philippines, a or operation of presidential
professor of law, a retired decrees, proclamations,
justice of the Supreme Court orders, instructions,
and a representative of the ordinances and other
private sector.  regulations. These cases are
iii. ) Secretary ex-officio: The decided with the concurrence
Clerk of the Supreme Court. of majority of the members
B. ) Appointment: The regular who actually took part in the
members shall be appointed deliberations on the issues
by the President for a term of and voted thereon.
four years, with the consent of B. ) Division: Other cases or
the Commission on matters may be heard in
Appointments. They shall division, and decided or
receive such emoluments as resolved in the concurrence of
may be determined by the a majority of the members
Supreme Court. who actually took part in the
B. ) Powers/Functions: The deliberations on the issues
Council shall have the and voted thereon, but in no
principal function of case without the concurrence
recommending appointees to of at least three such
the Judiciary. May exercise members. 
such other functions and
duties as the Supreme Court Powers [Sec. 5, Art. VIII]:
may assign to it.  1.) Original jurisdiction: Over cases
affecting ambassadors, other public
Composition of the Supreme ministers and consuls, and over
Court  petitions for certiorari,
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court prohibition, mandamus, quo
shall be composed of a Chief Justice warranto, and habeas corpus.
and fourteen Associate Justices. It
may sit en banc or in its discretion,
in division of three, five, or seven 2.) Appellate jurisdiction: Review,
Members. Any vacancy shall be revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
filled within ninety days from the appeal or certiorari, as the law or
occurrence thereof. the Rules of Court may provide, final
En Banc/Division Cases judgments and orders of lower
courts in:

Page 141 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

(a) All cases in which the 2. The question of

constitutionality or validity of any constitutionality must be raised
treaty, international or executive by the proper party;
agreement, law, presidential decree, 3. The constitutional question
proclamation, order, instruction, must be raised at the earliest
ordinance, or regulation is in possible opportunity; and
question. 4. The decision of the
(b) All cases involving the legality of constitutional question must be
any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, necessary to the determination of
or any penalty imposed in relation the case itself. 
thereto. 1. Actual Case 
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction An actual case or controversy
of any lower court is in issue. involves a conflict of legal rights, an
(d) All criminal cases in which the assertion of opposite legal claims
penalty imposed is reclusion susceptible of judicial resolution. A
perpetua or higher. controversy must be one that is
(e) All cases in which only an error appropriate for judicial
or question of law is involved. determination. It must be definite
Tenure of Judges/Justices and concrete, touching the legal
1. Supreme Court: Justices may relations of parties having adverse
be removed only by legal interest. 
impeachment. (Sec. 2, Art. XI) A request for advisory opinion
2. Lower Courts: Judges shall cannot come under the category of
hold office during good behavior an actual case or controversy since
until they reach the age of 70 the issue raised does not involve any
years or become incapacitated to conflict in law that has assumed the
discharge the duties of their proportions of a full blown dispute.
office. The court in this case is being asked
A. The Supreme Court en banc  only to counsel and not to decide. 
shall have the power to It is not the function of the
discipline judges of lower Judiciary to give advisory opinions.
courts, or order their The function of the courts is to
dismissal by a vote of majority determine controversies between
of the members who actually litigants. They do not give advisory
took part in the deliberations opinions. 
on the issues and voted 2. Proper party
thereon.  Proper party is one who has
Requisites of a Judicial Review sustained or is in immediate danger
Judicial review is the power of of sustaining an injury as a result of
the courts to test the validity of the the act complained of. Until and
executive and legislative acts.  unless such actual or potential
1. There must be an actual case injury is established, the
or controversy; complainant cannot have the legal
personality to raise the
constitutional question. 

Page 142 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

3. Earliest Opportunity capacity; or 2.) In regard of which,

The rule is that the full discretion authority has been
constitutional question must be delegated to the legislative or
raised at the earliest possible executive branch of the government.
opportunity, such that if it is not
raised in the pleadings, it cannot be
considered at the trial, and, if not Two Species of Political
considered at the trial, it cannot be Questions:
considered on appeal. 
This general rule, however, is A. Truly political questions; and
subject to the following exceptions: B. Those which are not truly
1. In criminal cases, the political questions
constitutional question can be
raised at any times in the
discretion of the court. Truly political questions are beyond
2. In civil cases, the judicial review, the reason being is
constitutional question can be the respect of the doctrine of
raised at any stage, if it is Separation of powers. On the other
necessary to the determination of hand, courts can review questions
the case itself. which are not truly political in
3. In every case, except where nature. 
the is estoppel, the constitutional
question may be raised at any
stage, if it involves the Moot Questions
jurisdiction of the court.  An action is considered moot
  when it no longer presents a
4. Necessity of Deciding justiciable controversy because the
Constitutional Question issues involve become academic or
The constitutional issue must be dead, as when subsequent events
the lis mota of the case. Lis mota have overtaken the petition and the
literally means the “cause of the suit court has nothing left to resolve. 
or action.” The petitioner who claims
the unconstitutionality of the law
General Rule: Courts will not decide
has the burden of showing first that
moot and academic issues.
the case cannot be resolved unless
the constitutional question he raised
is decided.  Exceptions:
1. There is grave violation of the
Constitution;
Limitations of Judicial Power 2. There is an exceptional
character of the situation and
1. Political Questions paramount public is involved;
Those questions which: 1.)Under 3. The constitutional issues
the Constitution, are to be decided raised require formulation of
by the people in their sovereign controlling principles to guide the

Page 143 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

bench, the bar and the public;

and
4. The case is capable of
repetition yet evasive review.

Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy

When the Judiciary allocates

constitutional boundaries, it neither
asserts superiority nor nullifies an
act of the legislature. It only asserts
the solemn and sacred obligation
assign to it by the Constitution to
determine conflicting claims of
authority under the Constitution REFERENCES:
and to establish for the parties in an
actual controversy, the rights which
that instrument secures and  Manguera, A. S. (2009).
guarantees to them. Manguera Outline
Constitutional Law I. Quezon
City, Metro Manila
Grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of Jurisdiction
 Nachura, A. E. (2014). Outline
Reviewer in Political Law
It is the capricious and
2014. Quezon City, Metro
whimsical exercise of judgement.
Manila Philippines: VJ
The abuse of discretion must be
Graphic Arts, Inc. 
patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty  Cruz, I. & Cruz, C. (2014).
enjoined by law, or to act at all in Philippine Political Law.
contemplation of law, as where the Quezon City, Philippines:
power is exercised in an arbitrary Central Book Supply Inc.
and despotic manner by reason of
passion or hostility
 Arellano Bar Operations
Commissions. (2018). Political
Law Purple Notes.

 San Beda College of Law

Centralized Bar Operations.
(2017)

Page 144 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 Arellano Law Foundation. The

LawPhil Project.
[Link]
[Link]. Cases Retrieved
on 18 November 2020.

 Williams, R. (2016). Tribunal

Issues Landmark Ruling in
South China Sea Arbitration.
[Link]
/tribunal-issues-landmark-
ruling-south-china-sea-
arbitration. Retrieved on 18
November 2020.

Junior Bedan Law Circle

Oplan AMAL (Access to Materials for Alternative Learning)

In this set of reviewers, we would like to extend our gratefulness to the following:

Page 145 of 146

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

ACADEMIC COMMITTEE:

MIGUEL TEJERO|AILA ASUELO|RUTH DAVID|RENZO LECAROZ |SHEA LLORENTE|

JULLIANA YABUT|KATLEEN EVANGELISTA|LOREN LICUDO|CHENIE CORONEL|JULIA SAN JOSE

JBLC OFFICERS:

MIGUEL TEJERO|MONICA FERIL|JULIAN MARQUES|AILA ASUELO| MARIKIT ADMANA|ALBERT

BAYLON|UNNO LAURON|MARGA DELA PEÑA|KIMSEY DEVOMA|MICHAELA GAÑA|MARIANE

BUSTOS

LEGAL MANGEMENT PROFESSORS:

ATTY. MICHAEL DAGUINOD|[Link] VOLTAIRE FORMILLEZA|ATTY HARRIET LINSANGAN|

ATTY. JEFF DATINGALING|ATTY. MAAN VANESSA DOCTOR| ATTY. OLIVER CACHAPERO JR.|

ATTY. KARLO ANTONIO

Page 146 of 146