A. POLITICAL LAW : 1. Scope 2.

Basis/History
B. NATURE OF CONSTITUTTION
(Definition, Purpose/Classification, Essential Qualities/Parts)
 The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines is Essential Characteristics of A Good Written Constitution
that written instrument by which the fundamental powers of the
 Broad. Embodies the past, reflects the present, anticipates
government are established, limited, and by which these powers are
the future
distributed among the several departments or branches for their safe and
 Brief. Confines with the basic principles in accordance with
useful exercise for the benefit of the people.
the formal changes – more adjustable to change and easier
(Malcolm, Laurel) to amend
 Definite. Clear, less ambiguity – conflict among people
That body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of
svereignty are habitually exercised. Other basis of CONSTITUTION:
(J. Cooley) 1. Malolos Constitution
2. 1935 Constitution
3. 1973 Constitution
PURPOSE OF CONSTITUTION 4. Freedom Constitution
1. To prescribe the PERMANENT FRAMEWORK of a system of
5. US Organic Laws
government  Phil. Bill of 1902
2. To assign to the several BRANCHES their RESPECTIVE  Jones Law 1916
POWER AND DUTIES  Tydings McDuffie Law
3. To establish certain FIXED FIRST PRINCIPLES on which 6. US Constitution
government is founded 7. Statutes, PDs, RAs, Judicial Decisions
February 2, 1987 – Date of Ratification of 1987 Constitution
PURPOSE OF 1987 CONSTITUTION
KINDS OF CONSTITUTION
Replace the FREEDOM CONSTITUTION
1. ORIGIN/HISTORY
 Conventional. Enacted by legislature
 Cumulative. Result of political evolution
Essential Parts of A Written Constitution 2. FORM
 Constitution of Liberty. Series of prescription setting forth the  Written. Embodied in document
fundamental rights of the people and imposing certain limitations  Unwritten
on the powers of the government as a means of securing the 3. MANNER OF AMENDING THEM
enjoyment of these rights (Art 3)  Rigid. Can be amended by formal process
 Constitution of government. Outlines the organization of the  Flexible. Can be changed by ordinary legislation
government enumerating its power to certain rule. (Art 6,7,8,9)
 Constitution of sovereignty. Pointing out the mode or procedure
for amending or revising the constitution (Art 17)
 MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS

[267 SCRA 408; G.R. No. 122156; 3 Feb 1997]

Facts:

The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to
the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50 dated 8 December
1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of
respondent Manila Hotel Corporation. In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (2)
bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered
to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian
firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per
share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.

Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder/strategic partner and the execution
of the necessary contracts, matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad.

On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent GSIS has disregarded the tender of the
matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent GSIS and
consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner came to this Court on prohibition and mandamus.

In the main, petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that
the Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical
monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. It is a proud legacy of an
earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in the nobility and sacredness of independence and its
power and capacity to release the full potential of the Filipino people. To all intents and purposes, it
has become a part of the national patrimony. 6 Petitioner also argues that since 51% of the shares of
the MHC carries with it the ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by respondent GSIS,
a government-owned and controlled corporation, the hotel business of respondent GSIS being a part
of the tourism industry is unquestionably a part of the national economy.

Issue:

Whether or Not the sale of Manila Hotel to Renong Berhad is violative of the Constitutional provision
of Filipino First policy and is therefore null and void.

Held:

The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the MHC, is not just any commodity to be sold to the
highest bidder solely for the sake of privatization. The Manila Hotel has played and continues to play
a significant role as an authentic repository of twentieth century Philippine history and culture. This is
the plain and simple meaning of the Filipino First Policy provision of the Philippine Constitution. And
this Court, heeding the clarion call of the Constitution and accepting the duty of being the elderly
watchman of the nation, will continue to respect and protect the sanctity of the Constitution. It was
thus ordered that GSIS accepts the matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL
CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation at P44.00
per share and thereafter to execute the necessary clearances and to do such other acts and deeds
as may be necessary for purpose.
CONSTRUCTION At all events, courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's suit should be
entertained. This Court opts to grant standing to most of the petitioners, given their allegation that any
THE NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS RELATION WITH THE COURTS impending transmittal to the Senate of the Articles of Impeachment and the ensuing trial of the Chief
Justice will necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds.
FRANCISCO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
As for a legislator, he is allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which he claims
[415 SCRA 44; G.R. No. 160261; 10 Nov 2003] infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. Indeed, a member of the House of Representatives has
standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his
Facts: office.83

Impeachment proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its ordinary meaning. Thus when a
justiciable controversy poised in front of the Court was the constitutionality of the subsequent filing of proposal reached the floor proposing that "A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House
a second complaint to controvert the rules of impeachment provided for by law shall be necessary… to initiate impeachment proceedings," this was met by a proposal to delete the
line on the ground that the vote of the House does not initiate impeachment proceeding but rather the
Issue: filing of a complaint does.

Whether or Not the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. To the argument that only the House of Representatives as a body can initiate impeachment
Davide, Jr. with the House of Representatives falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution proceedings because Section 3 (1) says "The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive
and whether the resolution thereof is a political question – has resulted in a political crisis. power to initiate all cases of impeachment," This is a misreading of said provision and is contrary to
the principle of reddendo singula singulis by equating "impeachment cases" with "impeachment
Held: proceeding."

In any event, it is with the absolute certainty that our Constitution is sufficient to address all the issues Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the
which this controversy spawns that this Court unequivocally pronounces, at the first instance, that the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of
feared resort to extra-constitutional methods of resolving it is neither necessary nor legally the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House, the meaning
permissible. Both its resolution and protection of the public interest lie in adherence to, not departure of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated,
from, the Constitution. another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year period.
In passing over the complex issues arising from the controversy, this Court is ever mindful of the
essential truth that the inviolate doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative, executive or The Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the
judicial branches of government by no means prescribes for absolute autonomy in the discharge by main issue of whether the impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice transgressed
each of that part of the governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign people. the constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about assuming
jurisdiction where it had none, nor indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly political
At the same time, the corollary doctrine of checks and balances which has been carefully calibrated questions. Because it is not at all the business of this Court to assert judicial dominance over the other
by the Constitution to temper the official acts of each of these three branches must be given effect two great branches of the government.
without destroying their indispensable co-equality. There exists no constitutional basis for the
contention that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system No one is above the law or the Constitution. This is a basic precept in any legal system which
of checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not recognizes equality of all men before the law as essential to the law's moral authority and that of its
to be allowed to defeat another." Both are integral components of the calibrated system of agents to secure respect for and obedience to its commands. Perhaps, there is no other government
independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government act beyond the powers branch or instrumentality that is most zealous in protecting that principle of legal equality other than
assigned to it by the Constitution. the Supreme Court which has discerned its real meaning and ramifications through its application to
numerous cases especially of the high-profile kind in the annals of jurisprudence. The Chief Justice is
When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court. But just because he is the Chief
be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, Justice does not imply that he gets to have less in law than anybody else. The law is solicitous of
but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its every individual's rights irrespective of his station in life.
enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the
person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully
entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or Thus, the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of
act complained of. In fine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact Representatives on November 28, 2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment
that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article
XI of the Constitution.
In the case of a taxpayer, he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally
disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is a wastage
of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Before he can invoke
the power of judicial review, however, he must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in
preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he would sustain a direct injury
as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is not sufficient that he has
merely a general interest common to all members of the public.
 CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, petitioner, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, respondent AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS, Article XVII
G.R. No. 83815 February 22, 1991
FACTS: 1.PROCEDURE
 The two petitions in this case sought to declare unconstitutional Executive Order No. 284
issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino. A. Section 1-3
 The petitioners alleged that Section 1, 2 and 3 of EO 284 contravenes the provision of Sec.
13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed
 The assailed provisions of EO 284 are as follows: by:
Section 1: A cabinet member, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive officials of
the Executive Department may in addition to his primary position, hold not more than two positions in (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
the government and government corporations and receive the corresponding compensation therefor. (2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2: If they hold more positions more than what is required in section 1, they must relinquish
the excess position in favor of the subordinate official who is next in rank, but in no case shall any
official hold more than two positions other than his primary position. SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by
Section 3: AT least 1/3 of the members of the boards of such corporation should either be a secretary, the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total
or undersecretary, or assistant secretary. number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under
13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, meanwhile, states that: this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this
Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any
other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. SECTION 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a
constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President electorate the question of calling such a convention.
shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office
of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices,
Lambino vs COMELEC
including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
 PETITIONERS CONTENTION: EO 284 adds exceptions to Section 13 of Article VII other than
those provided in the constitution. According to the petitioners, the only exceptions against FACTS:
holding any other office or employment in government are those provided in the Constitution
namely: 1. The Vice President (may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite
3 par.2 of Article VII: “The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such that will ratify their initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution under Section 5(b)
appointment requires no confirmation.”) and the secretary of justice (as an ex-officio member and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act.
of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec. 8 of article VIII: “A Judicial and Bar Council is
hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals
ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex
officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member
constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative
of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.”) district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino
Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 284 is unconstitutional 6.3 million individuals.

HELD: Yes. EO 284 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Lambino Group’s initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying
The court said, by allowing Cabinet members, undersecretaries or assistant secretaries to hold at Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of Article VII
least two positions in the government and government corporations, EO 284 actually allows them to (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions.” These
hold multiple offices or employment which is a direct contravention of the express mandate of Article
VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits them from doing so, unless otherwise provided
proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-
in the 1987 Constitution itself. Parliamentary form of government.
The explained that the phrase “unless otherwise provided in this constitution” must be given a literal
interpretation to refer only to those particular instances cited in the constitution itself which are Section On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC
3 of Article VII (for VP) and Section 8 of Article VIII (for Secretary of Justice). indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their
Thus, the PETITION is GRANTED. initiative.
 this Court a copy of a signature sheet after the oral arguments of 26 September 2006 when
The COMELEC denied the petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA 6735 they filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006.
inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
2. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary
ISSUES:
The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the basic requirements
1. Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and scope of a people’s
the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative; initiative to amend the Constitution. There is no need to revisit this Court’s ruling in
Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete, conditions” to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution. An affirmation or
inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative clause reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition. Thus, this Court
on proposals to amend the Constitution; and must decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not comply with
the requirements of the Constitution to implement the initiative clause on amendments to
HELD: the Constitution.
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People
Imbong vs COMELEC G.R. No. L-32432 September 11, 1970
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that RAUL M. GONZALES vs COMELEC G.R. No. L-32443 September 11, 1970
Ponente: Makasiar
allows a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This section states:
Facts:
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people These two separate but related petitions for declaratory relief were filed pursuant to Sec. 19 of R.A.
through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of No. 6132 by petitioners Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales, both members of the Bar, taxpayers
registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three and interested in running as candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Both impugn
per centum of the registered voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis supplied) the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, claiming during the oral argument that it prejudices their rights
as such candidates.
The framers of the Constitution intended that the “draft of the proposed constitutional
On March 16, 1967, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. XV of the
amendment” should be “ready and shown” to the people “before” they sign such proposal. Constitution, passed Resolution No. 2 which among others called for a Constitutional Convention to
The framers plainly stated that “before they sign there is already a draft shown to them.” propose constitutional amendments to be composed of two delegates from each representative district
The framers also “envisioned” that the people should sign on the proposal itself because who shall have the same qualifications as those of Congressmen, to be elected on the second
the proponents must “prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature.” Tuesday of November, 1970 in accordance with the Revised Election Code. On June 17, 1969,
Congress, also acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4 amending the aforesaid
The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a Resolution No. 2 of March 16, 1967 by providing that the convention “shall be composed of 320
petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two delegates apportioned among the existing representative districts according to the number of their
respective inhabitants: Provided, that a representative district shall be entitled to at least two
essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire
delegates, who shall have the same qualifications as those required of members of the House of
proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon Representatives,” 1 “and that any other details relating to the specific apportionment of delegates,
a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. election of delegates to, and the holding of, the Constitutional Convention shall be embodied in an
implementing legislation: Provided, that it shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is Resolution.” 2
first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a
petition. Thus, an amendment is “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a On August 24, 1970, Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted Republic Act No. 6132,
petition” only if the people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed implementing Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly repealing R.A. No. 4914.
Petitioner Raul M. Gonzales assails the validity of the entire law as well as the particular provisions
amendments.
embodied in Sections 2, 4, 5, and par. 1 of 8(a). Petitioner Manuel B. Imbong impugns the
constitutionality of only par. I of Sec. 8(a) of said R.A. No. 6132 practically on the same grounds
There is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional requirements in advanced by petitioner Gonzales.
gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied
with the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures – that the petition Issue:
contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments. 1. Whether the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional Convention;
2. Whether the parameters set by such a call is constitutional.
The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this Court a copy of the
Decision:
paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. The Lambino Group submitted to
The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional Convention as a Constituent Assembly. d.) Petitioner PHILCONSA, as a civic, non-profit and non-partisan corporation, assails the
Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the petitioners are deemed as constitutional.
Ratio: constitutionality not only of Republic Act 4913 but also of Resolutions of Both Houses Nos. 1 and 3 of
– Sec 4 RA 6132: it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of Constitution March 16, 1967.
-Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132:
Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to propose amendments, or call for
convention for the purpose by votes and these votes were attained by Resolution 2 and 4 Issues:
WHETHER RA 4913 is unconstitutional.
– Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Resolution 4 and is enough that the basis employed
for such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied by Gonzales is not reasonable for that case WHETHER the submission of the amendments to the people of the Philippines violate the spirit of the
granted more representatives to provinces with less population and vice versa. In this case, Batanes Constitution.
is equal to the number of delegates I other provinces with more population.

– Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualify members thereof. Held:
Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. This is a safety mechanism to prevent political NO. RA 4913 is constitutional.
figures from controlling elections and to allow them to devote more time to the Constituional
Convention. NO. Said Act and R.B.H. 1 and 3 do not violate the spirit of the Constitution.

– Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also to assure candidates equal Ratio:
opportunity since candidates must now depend on their individual merits, and not the support of
political parties. This provision does not create discrimination towards any particular party/group, it 1. The measures undertaken by RA 4913 to inform the populace about the amendments are sufficient
applies to all organizations. under the Constitution. The Constitution does not forbid the submission of proposals for amendment

Dissenting Opinion: to the people except under certain conditions.

Justice Fernando “ I find it difficult to reconcile the decision reached insofar as the aforesaid ban on
political parties and civic, professional and other organizations is concerned with the explicit provision 2. People may not be really interested on how the representatives are apportioned among the
that the freedom to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged. 2 The right of an individual to join others of a like persuasion to pursue common objectives provinces of the Philippines as per R.B.H. 1. Those who are interested to know the full details may
and to engage in activities is embraced within if not actually encouraged by the regime of liberty enlighten themselves by reading copies of the amendments readily available in the polling places. On
ordained by the Constitution. This particular freedom has an indigenous cast, its origin being traceable
the matter of R.B.H. 3, the provisions of Article XV of the Constitution are satisfied so long as the
to the Malolos Constitution.
electorate knows that it permits Congressmen to retain their seats as legislators, even if they should
run for and assume the functions of delegates to the Convention.
Gonzales vs. COMELEC

Facts (The majority voted that the RBH and the Act were unconstitutional but they did not reach specific
a.)On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions: number of votes to invalidate under their Constitution)

R.B.H. (Resolution of Both Houses)

No. 1- Increase the number of the House of Representatives from 120 to 180 members. Plebiscite; Comelec; Justiciable Question
No.2- Call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. JAVELLANA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
No.3- Senators and Congressmen are permitted to be members of the Constitutional Convention
JOSUE JAVELLANA, petitioner,
without forfeiting their sits. vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE
b.) Republic Act 4913- effective June 17, 1967, is an Act submitting to the Filipino people for approval SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, respondents.

the amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Congress in R.B.H 1 and 3, adopted on March
16, 1967 .
Facts:

c.) Petitioner Gonzales, as taxpayer, voter and citizen, and allegedly in representation thru class suit The Plebiscite Case
of all citizens of this country, filed this suit for prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain On March 16, 1967, Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. 2, which was amended by
COMELEC from implementing Republic Act 4913 assailing said law as unconstitutional. Resolution No. 4 of said body, adopted on June 17, 1969, calling a Convention to propose
amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines.
Said Resolution No. 2, as amended, was implemented by Republic Act No. 6132, approved on Chairman, Guillermo de Vega; their deputies, subordinates and substitutes, and all other officials
August 24, 1970, pursuant to the provisions of which the election of delegates to the said and persons who may be assigned such task, from collecting, certifying, and announcing and
Convention was held on November 10, 1970, and the 1971 Constitutional Convention began to reporting to the President or other officials concerned, the so-called Citizens’ Assemblies
perform its functions on June 1, 1971. referendum results allegedly obtained when they were supposed to have met during the period
comprised between January 10 and January 15, 1973, on the two questions quoted in paragraph 1
While the Convention was in session on September 21, 1972, the President issued Proclamation of this Supplemental Urgent Motion.”
No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law.
On the same date January 15, 1973 the Court passed a resolution requiring the respondents in said
On November 29, 1972, the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the case G.R. No. L-35948 to file “file an answer to the said motion not later than 4 P.M., Tuesday,
Philippines. The next day, November 30, 1972, the President of the Philippines issued Presidential January 16, 1973,” and setting the motion for hearing “on January 17, 1973, at 9:30 a.m.” While the
Decree No. 73, “submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the case was being heard, on the date last mentioned, at noontime, the Secretary of Justice called on
Republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and appropriating the writer of this opinion and said that, upon instructions of the President, he (the Secretary of
funds therefor,” as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the Proposed Justice) was delivering to him (the writer) a copy of Proclamation No. 1102, which had just been
Constitution on January 15, 1973. signed by the President. Thereupon, the writer returned to the Session Hall and announced to the
Court, the parties in G.R. No. L-35948 inasmuch as the hearing in connection therewith was still
On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a case against the Commission on Elections, the going on and the public there present that the President had, according to information conveyed by
Treasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin said “respondents or their agents the Secretary of Justice, signed said Proclamation No. 1102, earlier that morning.
from implementing Presidential Decree No. 73, in any manner, until further orders of the Court,”
upon the grounds, inter alia, that said Presidential Decree “has no force and effect as law because The Ratification Case
the calling … of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the
prescription of the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite
appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in cases, Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from implementing any of
Congress …,” and “there is no proper submission to the people of said Proposed Constitution set for the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitution. This is a
January 15, 1973, there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for
sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof.” himself and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated. Javellana also alleged that the
President had announced the immediate implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet,
On December 17, 1972, the President had issued an order temporarily suspending the effects of respondents including.
Proclamation No. 1081, for the purpose of free and open debate on the Proposed Constitution.
Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed
On December 23, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for the ratification or constitution upon ground that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority
rejection of the Proposed Constitution. No formal action to this effect was taken until January 7, to create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution; without power to
1973, when General Order No. 20 was issued, directing “that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed constitution; and the election held to
January 15, 1978, be postponed until further notice.” Said General Order No. 20, moreover, ratify the proposed constitution was not a free election, hence null and void.
“suspended in the meantime” the “order of December 17, 1972, temporarily suspending the effects
of Proclamation No. 1081 for purposes of free and open debate on the proposed Constitution.” Following that, petitioners prayed for the nullification of Proclamation No. 1102 and any order,
decree, and proclamation which have the same import and objective.
Because of these events relative to the postponement of the aforementioned plebiscite, the Court
deemed it fit to refrain, for the time being, from deciding the aforementioned cases, for neither the
date nor the conditions under which said plebiscite would be held were known or announced
officially. Then, again, Congress was, pursuant to the 1935 Constitution, scheduled to meet in Issues:
regular session on January 22, 1973, and since the main objection to Presidential Decree No. 73
was that the President does not have the legislative authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate Whether or not the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 is a justiciable question.
funds therefor, which Congress unquestionably could do, particularly in view of the formal
postponement of the plebiscite by the President reportedly after consultation with, among others, the Whether or not the constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention has been ratified
leaders of Congress and the Commission on Elections the Court deemed it more imperative to defer validly conforming to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.
its final action on these cases.
Whether or not the proposed Constitution has been acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification)
by the people.
“In the afternoon of January 12, 1973, the petitioners in Case G.R. No. 
 L-35948 filed an “urgent
motion,” praying that said case be decided “as soon as possible, preferably not later than January Whether or not the petitioners are entitled for relief.
15, 1973.”
Whether or not the proposed Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention in force.
The next day, January 13, 1973, which was a Saturday, the Court issued a resolution requiring the
respondents in said three (3) cases to comment on said “urgent motion” and “manifestation,” “not
later than Tuesday noon, January 16, 1973.” Prior thereto, or on January 15, 1973, shortly before
noon, the petitioners in said Case G.R. No. L-35948 riled a “supplemental motion for issuance of Rulings:
restraining order and inclusion of additional respondents,” praying: “… that a restraining order be
issued enjoining and restraining respondent Commission on Elections, as well as the Department of It is a justiciable and a non-political question.
Local Governments and its head, Secretary Jose Roño; the Department of Agrarian Reforms and its
head, Secretary Conrado Estrella; the National Ratification Coordinating Committee and its
To determine whether or not the new constitution is in force depends upon whether or not the said restricted, (they) have no means of knowing, to the point of judicial certainty, whether the people
new constitution has been ratified in accordance with the requirements of the 1935 Constitution. It is have accepted the Constitution.”
well settled that the matter of ratification of an amendment to the constitution should be settled
applying the provisions of the constitution in force at the time of the alleged ratification of the old The Court is not prepared to concede that the acts the officers and offices of the Executive
constitution. Department, in line with Proclamation No. 1102, connote recognition of or acquiescence to the
proposed Constitution.
The issue whether the new constitution proposed has been ratified in accordance with the provisions
of Article XV of the 1935 Constitution is justiciable as jurisprudence here and in the US (from whom A department of the Government cannot “recognize” its own acts. Recognition normally connotes
we patterned our 1935 Constitution) shall show. the acknowledgment by a party of the acts of another. Individual acts of recognition by members of
Congress do not constitute congressional recognition, unless the members have performed said
The Constitution was not validly ratified as held by six (6) members of the court. acts in session duly assembled. This is a well-established principle of Administrative Law and of the
Law of Public Officers. The compliance by the people with the orders of martial law government
The Constitution does not allow Congress or anybody else to vest in those lacking the qualifications does not constitute acquiescence to the proposed Constitution. Neither does the Court prepared to
and having the disqualifications mentioned in the Constitution the right of suffrage. declare that the people’s inaction as regards Proclamation No. 1102, and their compliance with a
number of Presidential orders, decrees and/or instructions, some or many of which have admittedly
The votes of persons less than 21 years of age render the proceedings in the Citizen’s assemblies had salutary effects, issued subsequently thereto, amounts to a ratification, adoption or approval of
void. Proceedings held in such Citizen’s Assemblies were fundamentally irregular, in that persons said Proclamation No. 1102. The intimidation is there, and inaction or obedience of the people,
lacking the qualifications prescribed in Article V Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution were allowed to under these conditions, is not necessarily an act of conformity or acquiescence.
vote in said Assemblies. And, since there is no means by which the invalid votes of those less than
21 years of age can be separated or segregated from those of the qualified voters, the proceedings As regards the applicability to these cases of the “enrolled bill” rule, it is well to remember that the
in the Citizen’s Assemblies must be considered null and void. same refers to a document certified to the President for his action under the Constitution by the
Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Reps, and attested to by the respective
Viva voce voting for the ratification of the constitution is void. Article XV of the 1935 Constitution Secretaries of both Houses, concerning legislative measures approved by said Houses. Whereas,
envisages with the term “votes cast” choices made on ballots – not orally or by raising hands – by Proclamation No. 1102 is an act of the President declaring the results of a plebiscite on the
the persons taking part in plebiscites. This is but natural and logical, for, since the early years of the proposed Constitution, an act which Article X of the 1935 Constitution denies the executive
American regime, we had adopted the Australian Ballot System, with its major characteristics, department of the Government.
namely, uniform official ballots prepared and furnished by the Government and secrecy in the voting,
with the advantage of keeping records that permit judicial inquiry, when necessary, into the accuracy In all other respects and with regard to the other respondent in said case, petitions therein should be
of the election returns. given due course, there being more than prima facie showing that the proposed Constitution has not
been ratified in accordance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, either strictly, substantially, or
The plebiscite on the constitution not having been conducted under the supervision of COMELEC is has been acquiesced in by the people or majority thereof; that said proposed Constitution is not in
void. The point is that, such of the Barrio Assemblies as were held took place without the force and effect; and that the 1935 Constitution is still the Fundamental Law of the Land, without
intervention of the COMELEC and without complying with the provisions of the Election Code of prejudice to the submission of said proposed Constitution to the people at a plebiscite for its
1971 or even of those of Presidential Decree No. 73. The procedure therein mostly followed is such ratification or rejection in accordance with Articles V, X and XV of the 1935 Constitution and the
that there is no reasonable means of checking the accuracy of the returns filed by the officers who provisions of the Revised Election Code in force at the time of such plebiscite.
conducted said plebiscites. This is another patent violation of Article X of the 1935 Constitution
which form part of the fundamental scheme set forth in the 1935 Constitution, as amended, to insure Being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being
the “free, orderly, and honest” expression of the people’s will. For this, the alleged plebiscite in the considered in force and effect.
Citizen’s Assemblies is null and void, insofar as the same are claimed to have ratified the revised
Constitution Four (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra hold that
it is in force by virtue of the people’s acceptance thereof; 4 members of the Court, namely, Justices
No majority vote has been reached by the Court. Makalintal, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their
votes on the third question that they could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have
Four (4) of its members, namely, Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra hold that “the accepted or not accepted the Constitution; and 2 members of the Court, voted that the Constitution
people have already accepted the 1973 Constitution.” proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention is not in force; with the result, there are not enough
votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force.
Two (2) members of the Court hold that there can be no free expression, and there has even been
no expression, by the people qualified to vote all over the Philippines, of their acceptance or SANIDAD VS. COMELEC
repudiation of the proposed Constitution under Martial Law. Justice Fernando states that “(I)f it is [78 SCRA 333; G.R. No. 90878; 29 Jan 1990]
conceded that the doctrine stated in some American decisions to the effect that independently of the
validity of the ratification, a new Constitution once accepted acquiesced in by the people must be
accorded recognition by the Court, I am not at this stage prepared to state that such doctrine calls Facts:
for application in view of the shortness of time that has elapsed and the difficulty of ascertaining
what is the mind of the people in the absence of the freedom of debate that is a concomitant feature This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No.
of martial law.” 2167 on the ground that it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of
the press. On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN
Three (3) members of the Court express their lack of knowledge and/or competence to rule on the ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. Pursuant
question. Justices Makalintal and Castro are joined by Justice Teehankee in their statement that to said law, the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras which consist of the provinces of Benguet, Mountain
“Under a regime of martial law, with the free expression of opinions through the usual media vehicle Province, Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-Apayao, all comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region, shall
take part in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act originally scheduled last December 27, they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to the public concerned because they are
1989 which was, however, reset to January 30, 1990 by virtue of Comelec Resolution No. 2226 dated limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television times.
December 27, 1989. The Commission on Elections, by virtue of the power vested by the 1987
Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), said R.A. 6766 and other pertinent election laws, The instant petition is GRANTED. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and
promulgated Resolution No. 2167, to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for void and unconstitutional.
the Cordillera Autonomous Region. In a petition dated November 20, 1989, herein petitioner Pablito
V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND
COURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras, assailed the Bautista v. Salonga, 172 SCRA 150
constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167, which provides:
FACTS
Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers. — During Then President Corazon Aquino designated Bautista as the acting chairman of the Commission on
the plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on the plebiscite day, no Human Rights. Later she decided to make the appointment permanent, but this time she forwarded
mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or personality shall use his the appointment to the Commission on Appointments (COA) for confirmation. Bautista has
column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite Issue. completed her oath and started the discharge of her appointed duty. COA later on sent her a letter
requiring her to send information and documents in connection with confirmation of her appointment.
It is alleged by petitioner that said provision is void and unconstitutional because it violates Bautista then wrote a letter to the COA and explained that her position as chairwoman of CHR does
the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press enshrined in
not require confirmation by COA as laid down in case of Sarmiento vs Mison. pending the issue of
the Constitution. Unlike a regular news reporter or news correspondent who merely reports
Bautista’s appointment with the COA, Cory designated Hesiquio Mallilin as the acting chairman of
the news, petitioner maintains that as a columnist, his column obviously and necessarily
contains and reflects his opinions, views and beliefs on any issue or subject about which he the CHR. COA later sent a letter disapproving Bautista appointment due to her refusal to submit
writes. Petitioner likewise maintains that if media practitioners were to express their views, herself to the jurisdiction of the Commision.
beliefs and opinions on the issue submitted to a plebiscite, it would in fact help in the
government drive and desire to disseminate information, and hear, as well as ventilate, all ISSUE
sides of the issue. Whether or Not CA has constitutional authority to review President’s apoointment to Bautista as
CHR Chairwoman.
Issue:
RULING
Whether or not Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is unconstitutional. NO.
Exercise of political options that finds no support in the Constitution cannot be sustained. Even if the
Held: president voluntarily submit to COA an appointment that under the Constitution solely belongs to
her, still there was no vacancy to which appointment could be made. By virtue of Bautista’s
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is unconstitutional. It is appointment by President and Bautista’s acceptance thereof made her a duly appointed
clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the Comelec was the power to chairwoman and she may only be removed for a cause.
supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued for the
operation of transportation or other public utilities, media of communication or information to the end Separate Opinion
that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates Serious student of the Constitution will continue to be disturbed until the meaning of the consent
therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured. The evil sought power of the COA is straightened out either through re-examination of ruling or amendment of the
to be prevented by this provision is the possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give any undue Constitution.
advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising space or radio or television time. This is also the
reason why a "columnist, commentator, announcer or personality, who is a candidate for any elective SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC
office is required to take a leave of absence from his work during the campaign period (2nd par.
Section 11(b) R.A. 6646). It cannot be gainsaid that a columnist or commentator who is also a [270 SCRA 106; G.R. No.127325; 19 Mar 1997]
candidate would be more exposed to the voters to the prejudice of other candidates unless required
to take a leave of absence. Facts:

However, neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section 11 (b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and
construed to mean that the Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of
exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods. Media elective officials, through People’s Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987
practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose
holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section
amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the
19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has no statutory basis.
publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the
Plebiscite Issue are matters of public concern and importance. The people's right to be informed and hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law
to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be better served by access to an Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco
unabridged discussion of the Issue, including the forum. The people affected by the Issue presented filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the
in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression COMELEC. The petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this
may be exercised. Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression but civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin
petition rising the several arguments, such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on
people’s initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by
Congress. No such law has been passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the
Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is
outside the power of people’s initiative. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention.

Issue:

Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.

Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to
the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of
such initiative.

Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an amendment of
the Constitution.

Held:

Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus, without implementing legislation the
same cannot operate. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the right, the people
cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation.

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

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

RATIFICATION, Section 4, XVII

Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under

Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than
ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.