CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. POLITICAL LAW- A branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the

relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory.

B. BRANCHES OF POLITICAL LAW1. Constitutional Law - constitution + jurisprudence2. Administrative Law3. Law on Public Administration4. Law on Public Corporations5. Law on Elections

C. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Constitutional law is a term used to designate the law embodied in the constitution and the legal principles growing out of the

interpretation and application made by courts of the constitution in specific cases.

TYPES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW1. English type - Characterized by the absence of a written constitution.2. European continental type – A written constitution w/c gives the court no power to declare ineffective statutes repugnant to it.3. American type - Legal provisions of the written constitution are given effect through the power of the courts to declare ineffective

or void ordinary statutes repugnant to it.

D. CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY- A form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.- A system of government based on popular sovereignty in which the structures, powers, and limits of government are set forth in a

constitution.

CONSTITUTIONALISM- Constitutionalism refers to the position or practice that government be limited by a constitution.- The doctrine or system of government in which the governing power is limited by enforceable rules of law and concentration of

power is limited by various checks and balances so that the basic rights of individuals and groups are protected.

E. CONSTITUTION- That body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the power of sovereignty are habitually exercised.- Puts limitations to the powers of government rather than being the source of powers.

Subordinates:- Acts of Congress- Acts of the President- Decisions of the Congress

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY- We obey laws because we have a covenant or agreement between the people.- It is with consent.

*Theory - is trying to explain something; is trying to answer a question or query

1. Thomas Hobbes- true state of nature is warlike, nasty etc.- surrender our rights to people higher than us for them to establish governance- totalitarian- authoritarian

2. John Locke- true state of nature is not warlike, nasty etc.- man is supposed to be governed by natural laws- concerned about property rights- political authority is conditional- we can use our inherent rights to replace our government- government should be limited

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL Page 1

3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau- The contract liberates people from the rude state of nature.- Socialistic view of the relationship between the individual and society.- The contract does not change people or their rights, but rather it offers guarantees.- It guarantees “individualism” by prohibiting excessive individualism or self-interest.- People empower the state by their contract with the ruler.- The citizens give the state (and society) complete control over themselves and their (individual) possessions.

MEANING, PURPOSE AND ROLE OF A CONSTITUTION- To prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign to the several departments their respective powers

and duties, and to establish certain first principles on which government is founded.

THE DOCTRINE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION- It is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all

public authority administered.- If a law violates any norm of the constitution, that law is null and void; it has no effect. (This is an overstatement, for a law held

unconstitutional is not always wholly a nullity)- It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it.- Constitutional supremacy produced judicial review.

CLASSIFICATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONSA. (1) Rigid - is one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process; cumbersome; subject to ratification

(2) Flexible - is one that can be changed by ordinary legislation; easier

B. (1) Written - is one whose precepts are embodied in one document or set of documents; codified(2) Unwritten - consists of rules which have not been integrated into a single, concrete form but are scattered in various sources, such as statutes of a fundamental character, judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs and traditions, and certain common law principles; uncodified

C. (1) Evolved - or cumulative is the result of political evolution, not inaugurated at any specific time but changing by accretion rather than by systematic method(2) Enacted - or conventional constitution is enacted, formally struck off at a definitive time and place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler

D. (1) Normative - adjusts to norms(2) Nominal - not yet fully operational(3) Semantic - perpetuation of power

*The Constitution of the Philippines is written, conventional and rigid.

ESSENTIAL QUALITIES OF A GOOD WRITTEN CONSTITUTION1. Broad - it provides for the organization of the entire government and covers all persons and things within the territory of the State

and also because it must be comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency2. Brief - must confine itself to basic principles to be implemented w/ legislative details more adjustable to change and easier to amend3. Definite - to prevent ambiguity in its provisions which could result in confusion and divisiveness among the people

ESSENTIAL PARTS OF A GOOD WRITTEN CONSTITUTION1. Constitution of Government - The series of provisions outlining the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its administration and defining the electorate.2. Constitution of Liberty - The series of proscriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.3. Constitution of Sovereignty - The provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about. It has to be changed through the instrumentality of the people.

METHODS OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTIONWell-settled principles of constitutional construction, namely:

1. Verba Legis - plain meaning rule- whenever possible the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except when technical terms are employed (Francisco, Jr. vs. House of Rep.)- textualist approach or intent


2. Ratio legis et anima - interpretation according to spirit- words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers (Francisco, Jr. vs. House of Rep.)- originalism (intent of the framers; original understanding of the people)

3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat - the constitution has to be interpreted as a whole

PRESUMPTIONS IN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION1. Constitution is Self-Executing - a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the

liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action. (Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS)

2. Constitution is Mandatory – obligatory; compulsory; fixed; binding3. Constitution is Prospective – not retroactive; looks forward

AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS

METHODS OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION

1. Constituent Assembly - amendments and revisions- 3/4 of all its members voting separately- there were instances in which the Senate and HP will convene and vote as a whole (during the Martial Law)- since nothing is said about a joint session, it is submitted that each House may separately formulate amendments by a vote of ¾ of all its members, and then pass it on to the other House for a similar process, and disagreement can be settled through a conference committee

2. Constitutional Convention - amendments and revisions- calls for a constituent assembly first before Constitutional Convention- 2/3 of all its members

3. People's Initiative - amendments only- proposal by the people themselves- 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. (Santiago vs. COMELEC)- The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside the power of the people's initiative. (Santiago vs. COMELEC)

(a) The proper parties who may file the petition,(b) the appropriate agency before whom the petition is to be filed,(c) the contents of the petition,(d) the publication of the same, (e) the ways and means of gathering the signatures of the voters nationwide and 3% per legislative district,(f) the proper parties who may oppose or question the veracity of the signatures,(g) the role of the COMELEC in the verification of the signatures and the sufficiency of the petition,(h) the appeal from any decision of the COMELEC,(i) the holding of a plebiscite, and(g) the appropriation of funds for such people's initiative.

*Since the Constitution is about what method to be used, under the “political questions” doctrine, the Congress shall decide on what method is to be used.

AMENDMENT VS. REVISIONAmendment - an alteration of one or a few specific provisions of the Constitution. Its main purpose is to improve specific provisions of the Constitution. The changes being brought about by amendments will not affect the other provisions of the Constitution.Revision - an examination of the entire Constitution to determine how and to what extent it should be altered. A revision implies substantive change, affecting the Constitution as a whole.

* Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended. (Lambino vs. COMELEC)


STEPS/STAGES IN AMENDMENT/REVISION PROCESS1. Proposal (3 methods) - there is a process of proposing a change in the Constitution

2. Ratification - held in a plebiscite conducted under the election law- supervised by the COMELEC- where only registered voters take part- all proposed amendments/revision made by the constituent assemblies must be submitted for ratification in a single plebiscite- there cannot be a piece-meal ratification of amendments/revisions

Doctrine of Fair and Proper Submission- sufficiently inform the people of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon and to express their will in a genuine manner

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS/REVISIONS- the power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota (the cause of the suit or action, commencement of the controversy, beginning of the suit presented) (Tolentino vs Comelec)

THEORIES ON THE POSITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN RELATION TO THE REGULAR DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT1. Theory of Conventional Sovereignty- where the Constitutional Convention is supreme over the other departments of the government because the powers it exercises are in the nature of sovereign powers2. Inferiority of Constitutional Convention- Constitutional Convention is considered inferior to the other departments of the government and with very limited power purely delegated by the people or by a regularly constituted legislature3. Independence and Co-equality- so long as the Constitutional Convention exists and confines itself within the sphere of its jurisdiction, it must be considered an independent and a coordinate department of an existing government

F. THE CONSTITUTION AND THE JUDICIARY

JUDICIAL POWER- includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, it is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

a. Judicial Power Proper - power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal on certiorari ... final judgments and orders of the courts in cases ... constitutionality of a treaty ... lawb. Judicial Review - only power of the Supreme Court that enables it to check the prerogative and acts of the powers of executive and legislative department

i. Ordinary Judicial Review (Constitutional Review)- the role and function of the Supreme Court under the Constitution has been characterized as that of being the arbiter in allocating the boundaries of powers under the Constitution- discretion, but about validity based on Constitution- if it is a question of wisdom, policy etc, courts will hands off- Political Question Doctrine is strictly followed- act is valid if it contravenes the Constitutionii. Expanded Judicial Review (Extraordinary Certiorari Review)- the Supreme Court, together with the ordinary courts, the power and duty to determine, in actual justiciable cases, whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government- involves discretion

Judicial Review- Constitution- Statute- Doctrine/Principle of Law- voting requirements- schedule of plebiscite


- procedure

Political Question - It is a question which, under the Constitution, is to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure. To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government.- discretion- wisdom- policy- efficiency- practicability- substance (exc: "Jus Cogens" - preemptory norms in the international law which cannot be derogated, should bind all states)

THE DOCTRINE OF SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION- “The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however nobly intentioned, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty of the law by the pretenders to illegitimate power.”

- The Constitution is the basis of the validity of all laws and governmental acts. It is the basis of the legitimacy of the very existence of government. It is the basis of the legitimacy of the exercise by government of powers that interfere with personal autonomy and liberty. It is the anchorage of all legitimacy.

- The Constitution does not become legitimate just because it is a constitution and while it cannot be unconstitutional, it can however be illegitimate. Constitutionality therefore is one thing and legitimacy is another. Constitutionality is an attribute of governmental acts and laws that do not contravene the Constitution; legitimacy is an attribute of governmental acts and laws, including the Constitution, that makes them at the least, juridically right, acceptable, and necessary.

- As the anchorage of all legitimacy, the Constitution must itself be legitimate. Its legitimacy cannot rest on mere conjectures or shaky theories. It cannot simply be assumed. It must rest on solid ground if it is to the basis of the legitimacy of all governmental acts and laws that depend on it for their own legitimacy.

Doctrine of Separation of Powers- It operates to maintain the legislative powers to the legislative department, executive powers to the executive department, and those which are judicial in character to the judiciary. Through this allocation of powers, the person entrusted shall not be permitted to encroach upon the power confided to the others, but that each shall, by the law of its creation, be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other. There must be independence and equity of the several departments.

The separation of powers however should not be interpreted as complete separation and absolute exclusion. The doctrine carries that although the three branches are not subject to the control by either of the others and each is supreme within its own sphere, they are still equal and coordinate. Equal because they all derive their powers from the same common sovereign through the constitution. And coordinate because they cannot simply ignore the acts done by other departments as nugatory and not binding.

HOW JUDICIAL REVIEW IS EXERCISED- All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. (Sec. 4(2), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)- manner: (1) Supreme Court en banc; (2) majority of the members who participated in the deliberation and voted thereon

WHO MAY EXERCISE JUDICIAL REVIEW- judicial power shall be vested in 1 Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Const.)- All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Sec. 5(2)(A), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW


1. Checking - it allows justice to be served by striking down erroneous decisions by lower courts- the reading of the constitutional map, as it were, and the allocation of constitutional authority among the major structures of government

2. Legitimating - appellate courts monitor the performance of lower courts; lower courts have an incentive to apply the law correctly ifthe possibility exists that their decisions may be overturned- the determination of whether the particular agency or department concerned has stayed within its own sphere of authority observing the constitutional limitations projected for actions within such sphere, or whether it has trespassed into the zone of immunity or privacy guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution

3. Symbolic - important controversies regarding the law are examined and resolved for the future guidance of courts and individuals- it is this function that the Supreme Court discharges when it acts, as it should, as the "pronouncer and the guardian" of the more fundamental values that the community seeks- "sui generis" (of its own kind/genus or unique in its characteristics); whether the Supreme Court be invalidating or validating a legislative or executive measure, the demand of the community is that the resulting decision shall embody and implement its basic values

REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. Actual Case or Controversy; Ripeness of Controversy- a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial determination- no commitment to adversorial system; the court has no authority to pass upon issues of constitutionality through advisory opinions; there should be an actual case or controversy- ripeness for adjudication - governmental act challenged should have direct adverse effect on individual challenging the act

* premature case: hypothetical, give advisory opinion, pool a problem in abstract* actual case: ripeness for adjudication* moot and academic

Doctrine of Operative Fact (David vs. Arroyo)The courts will decide if the cases otherwise become moot and academic if: there is a grave violation of the Constitution the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public the case is capable of repetition yet evading review

2. Legal Standing (Locus Standi)- standing in law- complainant/challenger should have personal or substantial interest in the case

* real-party-in-interest party who stands to be benefited/injured by judgment in the suit; the party entitled to the avails of the suit civil / private law cases rigid; strict

* legal standing public / constitutional law cases personal and substantial interest; if the person is the party who suffers or will suffer the injury pursuant to the application of governmental act broader concept apply the “direct injury test”

i. Suits Requisites for Taxpayers Suit - there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is

unconstitutional Requisites for Lawmakers Suit - there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as

legislators Requisites for Voters Suit - there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question Requisites for Concerned Citizens Suit - there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which

must be settled early

ii. The Paramount Importance DoctrineWe find the instant petition to be of transcendental importance to the public. The issues it raised are of paramount public interest and of a category even higher than those involved in many of the aforecited cases. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social, economic, and moral well-being of the people even in the remotest barangays of the country and the counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering as the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. The legal


standing then of the petitioners deserves recognition and, in the exercise of its sound discretion, this Court hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the respondents tried to take advantage of. (Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, Jr.)

iii. A facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech. The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of other may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. But in criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan)

Doctrine of Strict Scrutiny - The statute is absolutely unconstitutional under no circumstance. But the only time a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is when it operates in the area of freedom of expression. Invalidation of the statute “on its face”, rather than “as applied” is permitted in the interest of preventing a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Doctrine of Over Breadth - permits a party to challenge the validity of a statute even though as applied to him, it is not unconstitutional, but it might be if applied to others not before the Courts whose activities are constitutionally protected. (applicable to any statute)

Doctrine of Void-for-Vagueness - subject to the same principles governing over breadth doctrine … also an analytical tool for testing ‘on their faces’ statutes in free speech cases- applies to criminal laws, not merely those that regulate speech or other fundamental constitutional right

(The 3 doctrines are applicable only on freedom of expression, not on penal statutes.)3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; Exceptions

General Rule:The question must be raised in the pleadings.

Exceptions: In criminal cases, the question can be raised at any time at the discretion of the court; In civil cases, the question can be raised at any stage of the proceedings if necessary for the determination of the case itself; & In every case, except where there is estoppel, it can be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.

2 kinds of estoppel:o A person is barred from questioning a particular act after where he has benefited from the same act.o Where a person is prevented from exercising a right, after a certain period he has slept that right.

4. The decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of the case itself (const’l question must be the very lis mota)- lis mota - essence of the subject matter of the case; existing or anticipated litigation- determination of the constitutionality of the act is inevitable, cannot be avoided- the court should respect the act of the other 2 branches

EFFECTS OF DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

1. The Orthodox View - The law is void if on its face it does not enjoy any presumption of validity because it is patently offensive to the Constitution. It produces no effect, creates no effect, and produces no duty.

- if the law is inconsistent with the Constitution, then the latter shall govern- if the law has been declared unconstitutional, it is presumed that no law existed at all- traditional view

- An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. (NORTON vs. SHELBY COUNT 118 U.S. 425, 442 [1886], ARTICLE 7 NCC)

2. The Modern View - The law is voidable if on its face it enjoys the presumption of unconstitutionality. The law becomes inoperative only upon the judicial declaration of its invalidity. The declaration produces no retroactive effect.

- Under this view, the court in passing upon the question of constitutionality does not annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses to recognize it and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no existence. (CRUZ, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1991, 32-33, citing NORTON vs. SHELBY, 118 U.S. 425 and SHEPARD vs. BARREN, 194 U.S. 553) But certain legal effects of the statute prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be recognized. (PELAEZ vs. AUDITOR GENERAL 15 SCRA 569)

* Doctrine of Operative Fact – if the law has been declared unconstitutional

PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY; CONDITIONS


Requisites for partial unconstitutionality:(1) The Legislature must be willing to retain the valid portion(s), usually shown by the presence of a separability clause in the law; and(2) The valid portion can stand independently as law. (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 Phil. 534, SALAZAR vs. ACHACOSO 183 SCRA 145)

G. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

- took effect on February 2, 1987 (date of ratification)- above-mentioned date is the date of plebiscite

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE

A. STATE, defined

* State - is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory,independent of external control, and possessing a government to which a great body of the inhabitants render habitual obedience- a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by ties of nationhood,legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime of law.(CIR v. Campos Ruedas, 42 SCRA 23)

* 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States- was a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933, during the Seventh International Conference of American States- the Convention codified the declarative theory of statehood as accepted as part of customary international law

Primary Sources of International Laws: treaties and conventions customary international laws general principle

Secondary Sources International Laws: opinions of highly qualified publicists or decisions of courts

Elements of a State: People Territory Government Sovereign/Capacity to enter into relations with other states

* Doctrine of Self Auto-Limitation- A principle under which any state may by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a plenary power.- There is no limitation on the sovereignty but there is a limitation on the exercise of sovereignty.

B. STATE, distinguished from NATION, from GOVERNMENT

* State is a political and geopolitical entity; while, Nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity.

State -is a legal or juristic concept

Nation-is an ethnic or racial concept

State-possesses a government to which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience

Government -merely an instrumentality of the State through which the will of the State is implemented and realized

C. TERRITORY

Article I, 1987 Constitution” The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarines areas. The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.”

* It is important to know the territory in order to know over which the State can exercise its jurisdiction.


Two (2) Parts of the National Territory:1. The Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters embraced therein; and2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

Modes of acquiring territories:1. Discovery and Occupation—which are terra nullius (land belonging to no one)

*Doctrine of Effective Occupation—discovery alone is not enough. Mere discovery gives only an inchoate right to the discoverer. For title to finally vest, discovery must be followed by effective occupation in a reasonable time and attestation of the same.

2. Cession by Treaty.Examples are Treaty of Paris, treaty between France and US ceding Louisiana to the latter and treaty between Russia and US ceding Alaska to the latter;

3. Prescription—which is a concept under the Civil Code. Territory may also be acquired through continuous and uninterrupted possession over a long period of time. However, in international law, there is no rule of thumb as to the length of time for acquisition of territory through prescription. In this connection, consider the Grotius Doctrine of immemorial prescription, which speaks of uninterrupted possession going beyond memory.

4. Conquest or Subjugation (conquistadores)—this is no longer recognized, inasmuch as the UN Charter prohibits resort to threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state; and

5. Accretion—another concept in the Civil Code. It is the increase in the land area of the State, either through natural means, or artificially, through human labor.

“xxx The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.”

* This second sentence of Article I is not the Archipelago Doctrine. This is only our restatement/reaffirmation of our adherence to the Archipelago Doctrine simply because we are an archipelago consisting of 7,107 islands. It is essential for our national survival that we adhere to the archipelago principle.

* Archipelago Doctrine—merely emphasizes the unity of lands and waters. It is a body of waters interconnected with other natural features. Under the United Nation Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS), it consists of drawing imaginary baseline connecting the outermost islands of the archipelago in which all waters, islands is considered as one integrated whole.

An archipelago is defined as group of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economical and political entity, or which historically been regarded as such.Correlate this doctrine to right of innocent of passage, right of arrival under stress and UNCLOS requiring the designation of archipelagic seaways so that foreign vessels may pass through an archipelago.

2 Kinds of Archipelago:1. Coastal Archipelago—situated close to a mainland and may be considered a part thereof.2. Mid-Ocean Archipelago—situated in the ocean at such distance from the coasts of firm land. The Philippines is classified as mid-ocean archipelago just like Indonesia. The Philippines is not in any way connected physically with the Asia mainland.

Components of National Territory:I. Terrestrial – land mass on which the inhabitants live;II. Fluvial – maritime;

a. Internal or national waters – bodies of water within the land mass, among them are:i. Rivers

* Thalweg Doctrine – for boundary rivers, in the absence of an agreement between the riparian states, the boundary line is laid on the middle of the main navigable channel.* Middle of the Bridge Doctrine –where there is a bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the middle or center of the bridge.

ii. Bays and gulfsiii. Straitsiv. Canals

b. Archipelagic waters – are the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.c. Territorial Sea – the belt of the sea located between the coast and the internal waters of the coastal state on the other hand, and the high seas on the other, extending up to 12 nautical miles from the low-water mark, or in the case of archipelagic states, from the baselines.


d. Contiguous Zone – extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea; this shall not exceed 24 nautical miles from the archipelagic baselines.e. Exclusive Economic Zone – shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the archipelagic baselines.* Baseline – is a line from which the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone is measured in order to determine the maritime boundary of the coastal state.* Types of baseline: Normal Baseline Method; Straight Baseline methodf. Continental shelf – it is the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas extending beyond the Philippine territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of the land territory. It extends up to:

i. The outer edge of the continental margin; orii. A distance of 200 nautical miles from the archipelagic baselines, whichever is the farthest.

* The continental shelf does not form part of the Philippine territory. The Philippines has the sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.g. High Seas – treated as res communes, thus, not territory of any particular State. These are the waters which do not constitute the internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zones of a state. They are beyond the jurisdiction and sovereign rights of States.

* Philippines – territorial sea 12 nautical miles from the baseline- contiguous zone 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea- exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles from the baseline- high seas after the E.E.Z., no state can exercise jurisdiction

D. PEOPLE

1. Different Concepts of “People”

People – the inhabitants of the State; the number of which is capable for self sufficiency and self-defense; of both sexes for perpetuity.a. Inhabitants;b. Citizens;c. Electors.

* Citizen - a person member or democratic political community; they exercise political rights* National - a person relating to ethnic or racial concept* Subject - a member of a non-democratic political community

2. Citizenship

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

Nationality - is membership in any class or form of political community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if member of a democratic community] or subjects [if members of a monarchial community]. It does not necessarily include the right or privilege of exercising political and civil rights.

* Citizenship is political in character; nationality refers to a racial or ethnic relationship.

Section 1, Article III, 1935 Constitution:The following are citizens of the Philippines -(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution(2) Those born in the Philippines Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Section 1, Article III, 1973 Constitution:The following are citizens of the Philippines-(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of 1935.(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Section 1, Article IV, 1987 Constitution now provides:The following are citizens of the Philippines-(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.


(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.(3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.Citizenship Laws and Important Dates:

Before 11 April 1899 (Treaty of Paris), no “Citizens of the Philippines” (only Spanish “subjects”);* December 11, 1898 date of signing of Treaty of Paris.

From 11 April 1899 to 01 July 1902 (Phil. Bill of 1902), some judges applied “Jus Soli” (as it was and still is the one followed in the United States);

On 01 July 1902, the Phil. Bill of 1902 defines “Citizens of the Philippines” as those who wereo (1) Spanish subjects (native or otherwise) on 11 April 1899 (including their children born thereafter),o (2) who remain inhabitants of the Philippines, ando (3) did not becomes citizens of another state. [excluding those who declared to remain under Spain];

On August 29, 1916, Jones Law of 1916 reiterated Phil. Bill of 1902; On March 22, 1920, Act No. 2927 (old Naturalization Law) was enacted; On May 14, 1935, the 1935 Constitution took effect which provided for “jus sanguinis”. But only those born of Filipino Father

can be Filipinos by birth. Those born of Filipino Mother and alien father had to elect citizenship upon reaching the age of majority (meaning, the child was alien during minority), but decision of courts still applying jus soli in certain cases would have to be respected because of res judicata;

On June 17, 1939, C.A. No. 473 (new Naturalization Law) took effect; On June 7, 1941, C.A. No. 625 was enacted provided for the manner of electing Phil. Citizenship as required by the 1935

Constitution (sworn statement to be filed with the Civil Registry accompanied by oath allegiance to the Constitution and Government);

1973 Constitution took effect on January 17, 1973 which makes “jus sanguinis” fully applicable (to either father or mother). It also recognized as natural-born those who elected Phil. Citizenship under the 1935 Constitution;

1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, adopting the same provisions in the 1973 Constitution; Republic Act No. 9139 was enacted on June 8, 2001 which provides for “Administrative Naturalization” in certain cases; Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) was enacted on August 29, 2003.

April 11, 1899 Phil. Bill of 1902 / Jones Law of 1916

May 14, 1935 January 17, 1973 February 2, 1987

* Spanish subjects* Treaty of Paris

3 conditions for mass naturalization:* a subject of Spain on April 11, 1899* residing in the Phils on said date* since that date, not a citizen of foreign country

* mentioned in Section1, Article III, 1935 Constitution* a native-born inhabitant of the Phils.* naturalized under Act. No. 2927

* mentioned in Section1, Article III, 1973 Constitution* must be a Filipino since 1935 Constitution

* mentioned in Section1, Article IV, 1987 Constitution* must be a Filipino since 1973 Constitution

*Res Judicata – “a matter already judged”- no amount of act can grant your citizenship; not applicable in citizenship

* Obiter dictum – if not material to the solution of the case- an expression or opinion by the court or judge on a collateral questions not directly involved or not necessary for the decision

2.1 Importance

- Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent membership in a political community. It denotes possession within that particular community of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications such as minority.

- Citizenship is a man’s basic right for it is nothing less than the right to have rights. Remove this priceless possession and there remains a stateless person, disgraced and degraded in the eyes of his countrymen.

The sale of the land in question was consummated sometime in March 1936, during the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution which prohibits alien to acquire private agricultural lands, save in cases of hereditary succession. Thus, Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, was disqualified to acquire the land in question.The fact that the Court did not annul the sale of the land to an alien did not validate the transaction, for it was still contrary to the constitutional proscription against aliens acquiring lands of the public or private domain. However, the proper party to assail the illegality of the transaction was not the parties to the transaction. “In sales of real estate to aliens incapable of holding title thereto by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution both the vendor and the vendee are deemed to have committed the constitutional violation and being thus in pari delicto (equally in the wrong) the courts will not afford protection to either party.” The proper party to assail the sale is the Solicitor General. This was what was done in this


case when the Solicitor General initiated an action for annulment of judgment of reconstitution of title. While it took the Republic more than sixty years to assert itself, it is not barred from initiating such action. Prescription never lies against the State. In this case, subsequent circumstances militate against escheat proceedings because the land is now in the hands of Filipinos. The original vendee, Lee Liong, has since died and the land has been inherited by his heirs and subsequently their heirs, petitioners herein. Petitioners are Filipino citizens, a fact the Solicitor General does not dispute.

The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.

(Lee vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 128195, October 3, 2001).

2.2 Modes of Acquisition; Citizens of the Philippines

Modes of Acquisition:

By birth Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth Jus Sanguinis – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship

By naturalization – the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of native-born citizen By acts of Congress – “expensive” Judicial – residency requirement; time consuming; go to court to file a petition Administrative – go to a special committee on naturalization

(not included anymore) By marriage – but still acquiring the conditions in naturalizationGeneral Rule: The Filipino retains Philippine citizenship.Exception: If, by their act or omission they are deemed under the law to have renounce it.

The following are citizens of the Philippines:[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and (a reasonable period of 3 years after reaching the age of majority)[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

The Court took note of the fact that Lorenzo Poe (grandfather of FPJ), who died in 1954 at the age of 84 years of age, would have been born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines was under the Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Poe would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill of 1902 effected. That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Poe, if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ).The 1935 Constitution, during which regime FPJ had seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate. (Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3,2004)

The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to the spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. Historically, this was a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal organic acts by which the United States governed the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known as the Jones Law. Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children were deemed to be Philippine citizens. By virtue of the same laws, Telesforo's daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines

Thus, herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of foreign passport do not constitute effective renunciation.

(Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, GR 137000, August 9, 2000)

Vicente Ching, a legitimate child, having been born on April 11, 1964 of Filipino mother and an alien father, was already 35 years old when he complied with the requirements of CA 625 on June 15, 1999, or over 14 years after he had reached the age of majority. By any reasonable yardstick, Ching’s election was clearly beyond the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege. All his acts (passing the CPA and Bar Exams) cannot vest in him citizenship as the law gives him the requirement for election of Filipino citizenship which he did not comply with. (He


was not allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath)

The proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the Department of State of the US government to the effect that the election should be made within a “reasonable time” after attaining the age of majority. The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the election should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority except when there is justifiable reason to delay. The span of 14 years that lapsed from the time he reached 21 until he finally expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement of electing “upon reaching the age of majority”.

(Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999)

The present Constitution, however, now considers those born of Filipino mothers before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the majority age as natural-born. It is apparent from the enumeration of who are citizens under the present Constitution that there are only 2 classes of citizens: (1) those who are natural-born and (2) those who are naturalized in accordance with law. A citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino, i.e., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization to obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a natural-born Filipino. Noteworthy is the absence in said enumeration of a separate category for persons who, after losing Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquire it. The reason therefore is clear: as to such persons, they would either be natural born or naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of their citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law for the reacquisition thereof. Repatriation would result in the recovery of the original nationality. He will be restored to his former status as a natural-born citizen. Cruz recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen because of his repatriation.

(Bengson III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001)

Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 17: the HRET and SET shall be the sole judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. The authority conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete. The use of the word sole emphasizes the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of these Tribunals. In the opinion of the Court it is not necessary for Ong, Jr. to formally or in writing elect citizenship when he came of age as he was already a citizen since he was nine by virtue of his mother being a natural-born citizen and his father a naturalized Filipino. The private respondent did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has established his life here in the Philippines.

(Co vs. HRET, 199 SCRA 692)

Deportation proceedings are administrative in character, summary in nature, and need not be conducted strictly in accordance with the rules of ordinary court proceedings. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met.

(Go, Sr. vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 167569, September 4, 2009)

Having taken their oath of allegiance as Philippine citizens, petitioners, however, failed to have the necessary documents registered in the civil registry as required under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625 (An Act Providing the Manner in which the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen). It was only on 27 July 2005 or more than thirty (30) years after they elected Philippine citizenship that Balgamelo and Felix, Jr. did so. On the other hand, there is no showing that Valeriano complied with the registration requirement.Having a Filipino mother is permanent. It is the basis of the right of the petitioners to elect Philippine citizenship. Petitioners elected Philippine citizenship in form and substance. The failure to register the election in the civil registry should not defeat the election and resultingly negate the permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother. The lacking requirements may still be complied with subject to the imposition of appropriate administrative penalties, if any. The documents they submitted supporting their allegations that they have already registered with the civil registry, although belatedly, should be examined for validation purposes by the appropriate agency, in this case, the Bureau of Immigration. Other requirements embodied in the administrative orders and other issuances of the Bureau of Immigration and the Department of Justice shall be complied with within a reasonable time.Petitioners are given ninety (90) days from notice within which to COMPLY with the requirements of the Bureau of Immigration embodied in its Judgment of 2 February 2005. The Bureau of Immigration shall ENSURE that all requirements, including the payment of their financial obligations to the state, if any, have been complied with subject to the imposition of appropriate administrative fines; REVIEW the documents submitted by the petitioners; and ACT thereon in accordance with the decision of this Court.(Ma, et al. v. Fernandez, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 183133, July 26, 2010)

2.3 Naturalization: Judicial, Administrative, and Congressional

Judicial – Commonwealth Act 473: Revised Naturalization Law; for aliens; courts will handle Administrative – Republic Act 9139: The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000 grants

Philippine citizenship to aliens born and residing in the Philippines; aliens born in the Philippines; handled by the Solicitor General


Congressional - Special Act of Legislature this is discretionary on Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made an outstanding contribution to the country

Effects of naturalization:1. On the wife: - The wife would also become a Filipino citizen provided that she does not have any disqualification that would bar her from being naturalized.

- Vests citizenship on the wife who might herself be lawfully naturalized. She need not prove her qualifications but only that she is not disqualified. (Moya Lim Yao v. Comm. Of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292)

2. On the minor children:i) if born in the Philippines – automatically becomes a citizen;ii) If born abroad before the naturalization of the father

a) residing in RP at the time of naturalization – automatically becomes citizens.b) if not residing in RP at the time of naturalization – considered citizen only during minority, unless begins to reside permanently in the Phils.

iii) If born outside the Philippines after parents’ naturalization considered Filipino, provided registered as such before any Phil. Consulate within 1 year after attaining majority age and takes oath of allegiance.

Under Sec. 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, become ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Sec. 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes hisoath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any disqualifications under said Sec. 4. “Ipso Facto” as here use doesnot mean that all alien wives and all minor children of Philippine citizens, from the mere fact of relationship, necessary become such citizens also. Those who do not meet the statutory requirements do not ipso facto become citizens; they must apply for naturalization in order to acquire such status. Under the second paragraph of Sec. 15, a minor child of a Filipino naturalized underthe law, who was born in the Philippines, becomes ipso facto a citizen of the Philippines from the time the fact of relationship concurs with the fact of a citizenship of his parent, and the time when child become a citizen does not depend upon the time that he is able to prove that he was born in the Philippines.

(Moya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner, 41 SCRA 292)

He should comply w/ all requirements of the Revised Naturalization Law. He can’t choose requirements to follow. It’s immaterial that he was a former Filipino citizen. Irregularities: heard case ahead of scheduled hearing w/o publication of such order, heard w/in 6 mos from last publication of petition, allowed to take oath of allegiance before finality of judgment (which comes 30 days after Sol Gen receives his copy of the decision & w/o opposition) and took oath w/o observing the 2-year waiting period.

Waiting period seeks to observe if applicant has left country, dedicated himself continuously to any lawful calling/profession, not convicted of any offense/violation of government promulgated rules and committed acts prejudicial to the interest of country or against government policies. Hence, Frivaldo has not acquired his citizenship.

(Republic vs. dela Rosa, G.R. No. 104654, June 6, 1994)

Solicitor General filed a motion to cancel the certificate of naturalization of Yao on the ground that it was fraudulently and illegally obtained. Lower court cancelled his certificate of naturalization on the basis that he evaded payment of taxes due to the government by under declaration of his income. Yao filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.

Based on section 18(a) of Com. Act no. 473 known as the Revised Naturalization Act, which provides that a naturalization certificate may be cancelled if it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally. Even if Li Yao paid his tax liability via the tax amnesty program its legal effect would merely remove any civil, criminal or administrative liability on the part of the taxpayer, only insofar as his tax case is concerned. Tax amnesty does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct which are grounds for denaturalization.

Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced in favour of the government and against the applicant. When the applicant failed to meet the qualifications required for naturalization, the latter is not entitled to Filipino citizenship.

(Republic vs. Liyao, 214 SCRA 748)

Limkaichong is allegedly not a natural born citizen of the Philippines because when she was born her father was still a Chinese and that her mom, though Filipino lost her citizenship by virtue of her marriage to Limkaichong’s dad.

Resolution No. 8062 adopting the policy-guidelines of not suspending the proclamation of winning candidates with pending disqualification cases which shall be without prejudice to the continuation of the hearing and resolution of the involved cases.


(Limkaichong vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178831-32, April 1, 2009)

2.4 Loss of Citizenship Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section 1

a. By naturalization in a foreign country- However, this was modified by RA 9225—An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent— September 15, 2003 which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.➢ They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance➢ Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country, may reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance➢ Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of RA 9225 shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.➢ Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Phils. and the ff. conditions:

– Meet the requirements of RA 9189, The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, and other existing laws– For those seeking elective public office and appointive office, meet the qualifications, make personal and sworn renunciation, subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the RP– For those intending to practice their profession, apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice

b. By express renunciation of citizenship➢ Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation➢ Express renunciation means a renunciation made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference or implication or presumption.➢ Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of foreign passport do not constitute effective renunciation.

c. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining the age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this manner while RP is at war with any country. –an application of the principle of Indelible Allegiance.— by virtue of RA 9225

d. By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country EXCEPT:➢ If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; and➢ The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine territory with the consent of RP

e. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization.

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

g. In the case of a woman, upon marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband’s country, she acquires his nationality. (Under 1973 and 1987, she remains a Filipino)

Cruz enlisted in the US Marine Corps without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines. He took an oath of allegiance to the US and as a consequence he lost his Filipino Citizenship because under the Commonwealth Act no. 63 a Filipino may lose his citizenship by rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country. Any doubts as to his citizenship was settled by his naturalization as a US citizen on June 5, 1990.

1987 Constitution does not provide a separate category for persons who after losing Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquires it because they are either natural born or naturalized depending on the reason for the loss of their citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law for reacquisition.

( Bengson vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001)

The term “residence” is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or “habitation,” but rather to “domicile” or legal residence, that is, “the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi).”

A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place where the child’s parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice).

In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1965.


From then on and until November 10, 2000, when he reacquired Philippine citizenship, petitioner was an alien without any right to reside in the Philippines save as our immigration laws may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or as a resident alien. The status of being an alien and a non-resident can be waived either separately, when one acquires the status of a resident alien before acquiringPhilippine citizenship, or at the same time when one acquires Philippine citizenship.

As an alien, an individual may obtain an immigrant visa under Sec 13 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1948 and an Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR) and thus waive his status as a non-resident. On the other hand, he may acquire Philippine citizenship by naturalization under C.A. No. 473, as amended, or, if he is a former Philippine national, he may reacquire Philippine citizenship by repatriation or by an act of Congress, in which case he waives not only his status as an alien but also his status as a non-resident alien.

( Coquilla vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2001)

2.5 Reacquisition

a. By naturalization- judicial- administrative- congressional

b. By direct Act of Congress

c. By repatriation-mode for reacquisition for those who lost their citizenship-governed by various statutes-consists of taking of an oath of allegiance to the RP and registering said oath in the LCR of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided

Effect of repatriation:- It allows the person to recover or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, therespondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the USMarine Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural-born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenshipthrough repatriation.

The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following:a) Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; andb) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political (ex: Marcos Regime) or economic (ex: OFW’s) necessity.

Repatriation Laws: Sec. 4, C.A. No. 63 Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth of

the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry. deserter of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Certificate of Registration

Sec. 1, R.A. 965 (1953) Any person who, being a citizen of the Philippines on December eight, nineteen hundred forty-one, had lost said citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of an allied foreign country, and taking an oath of allegiance incident thereto, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with the Local Civil Registry in the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines within one year from the date of the approval of this Act. The said oath of allegiance shall contain, in addition, a renunciation of any other citizenship.

service in the Allied Forces during World War II Certificate of Registration

Sec. 1, R.A. 2630 (1960) Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with the Local Civil Registry in the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other citizenship.

service in the Armed Forces of the U.S. at any given time Certificate of Registration

Sec. 1, R.A. 8171 (1995) Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor children, on account of political or economic necessity,


may reacquire Philippine citizenship through repatriation in the manner provided in Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended.

marriage of a Filipina political or economic necessity Certificate of Registration + Bureau of Immigration

Article XI, Section 9, of the Constitution that all public officials and employees owe the State and the Constitution "allegiance at all times". Section 42 of the Local Government Code that a candidate for local elective office must be inter alia a citizen of the Philippines and a qualified voter of the constituency where he is running. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be, among other qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution.

Frivaldo described himself as a "natural-born" citizen of the Philippines, omitting mention of any subsequent loss of such status. He was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1983. The Court sees no reason not to believe that the petitioner was one of the enemies of the Marcos dictatorship. Even so, it cannot agree that as a consequence thereof he was coerced into embracing American citizenship. His feeble suggestion that his naturalization was not the result of his own free and voluntary choice is totally unacceptable and must be rejected outright. This Court will not permit the anomaly of a person sitting as provincial governor in this country while owing exclusive allegiance to another country.

If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state. It is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the natural-born citizen is favored by the Constitution and our laws, which is all the more reason why it should be treasured like a pearl of great price. But once it is surrendered and renounced, the gift is gone and cannot be lightly restored. This country of ours, for all its difficulties and limitations, is like a jealous and possessive mother. Once rejected, it is not quick to welcome back with eager arms its prodigal if repentant children. The returning renegade must show, by an express and unequivocal act, the renewal of his loyalty and love. Petition Dismissed. Petitioner JUAN G. FRIVALDO is hereby declared not a citizen of the Philippines and therefore disqualified from serving as Governor of the Province of Sorsogon. Accordingly, he is ordered to vacate his office and surrender the same to the duly elected Vice-Governor of the said province once this decision becomes final and executory.

( Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 731)

Petitioner was a natural born citizen who lost his citizenship by naturalization in the US. On March 11, 1996, he filed a petition with the RTC to regain his status as a citizen of the Philippines. The court thereafter repatriated Petitioner.

A petition for repatriation should be filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization and not with the RTC which has no jurisdiction thereover. The court’s order was thereby null and void. The Special Committee on Naturalization was reactivated on June 8, 1995, hence, when Petitioner filed his petition on March 11, 1996, the Committee constituted pursuant to LOI No. 270 under PD No. 725 (a Decree providing for repatriation of Filipino women who had lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and of natural born Filipinos) was in place.

(Angat vs. Republic, G.R. No. 132244, September 14, 1999)

"Repatriation shall be effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration. The Bureau of Immigration shall thereupon cancel the pertinent alien certificate of registration and issue the certificate of identification as Filipino citizen to the repatriated citizen." Altajeros took his Oath of Allegiance on 17 December 1997, but his Certificate of Repatriation was registered with the Civil Registry of Makati City only after 6 years or on 18 February 2004, and with the Bureau of Immigration on 1 March 2004. Altajeros, therefore, completed all the requirements of repatriation only after he filed his certificate of candidacy for a mayoralty position, but before the elections. The Court’s ruling in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections that repatriation retroacts to the date of filing of one’s application for repatriation subsists. Accordingly, Altajeros’s repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his application in 1997. He was, therefore, qualified to run for a mayoralty position in the government in the 10 May 2004 elections. However, considering that Altajeros failed to prove before the COMELEC that he had complied with the requirements of repatriation, as he submitted the necessary documents proving compliance with the requirements of repatriation only during his motion for reconsideration, when the COMELEC en banc could no longer consider said evidence.Wherefore, the petition seeking the nullification of the Resolution of the COMELEC en banc of May 7, 2004 (denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration), affirming the Resolution of its First Division dated March 22, 2004, is hereby DENIED.( Altarejos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163256, November 10, 2004)

2.6 Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance

Dual Citizenship– arises as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of 2 or more states, a person is simultaneously considered as a national of said states; involuntary

Dual Allegiance– refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to 2 or more states; voluntary/positive acts


Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE: an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality even if he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second State whose nationality he has acquired.Instances when a citizen of the Philippines may possess dual citizenship:1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli;2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their father’s country suchchildren are citizens of that country;3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.

The filing of a COC suffices to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as dual citizen. This is so because in the COC, one declares that he is a Filipino citizen and that he will support and defend the Constitution and will maintain true faith and allegiance to the same. Such declaration under oath operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. In this case, the Court adopted the liberal interpretation of the rule. Manzano is not really prohibited to run due to dual citizenship. Dual allegiance is the one prohibited. Dual citizenship referred to under Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code refers to dual allegiance under Section 5 of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.

(Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630)

What RA 9225 (Citizen Retention and Reacquisition Act) does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces its foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, RA 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of RA 9225.

(Calilung vs. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007)

E. SOVEREIGNTY- is the power of the State to regulate matters within its own territory.

Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. This power resides in the “people” understood as those who have a direct hand in the formulation, adoption, and amendment or alteration of the Constitution.

Sovereign authority, moreover, is not always directly exercised by the people. It is normally delegated by the people to the government and to the concrete persons in whose hands the powers of government temporarily reside. Such authority continues with the consent of the people.

Finally, is recognition by other states a constitutive element of a state such that even it has all four elements of the Montevideo Convention it is not a state if it has not been recognized? In International law, there are two views on this. One view, the constitutive theory, is that recognition “constitutes” a state. The other view, “the declaratory theory”, is that recognition is merely “declaratory” of the existence of the state. In practice, however, whether recognize or not is largely a political decision.

* Westphalian Sovereignty Concept is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on two things: territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures; there is a monopoly of power; all states are equal; this is outmoded

Kinds of Sovereignty: legal sovereignty the supreme power to make laws

the power to issuance final commands or orders in the form of laws political sovereignty the sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and non-legal, which determine the

course of law the power behind legal sovereign

internal sovereignty the supreme power or authority of the state or the government ability to command obedience, ability to pass, implement and carry out laws inherent element of government

external sovereignty authority of the state to conduct its affairs domestically and internationally withoutthe interference of external forces should not be bound by other states; freedom from external control

Dual Capacities: Imperium the authority to govern; governmental Dominium capacity of the state to own properties; proprietary


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-state

* Regalian Doctrine if there is a doubt as to the ownership of the land, all the properties belong to the government

Jurisdiction: Territorial – authority of the state over its territory such as all act, events or persons within its territory are subject to its jurisdiction but

subject to limitations Personal – authority of the state over it constituents and citizens wherever they are found Extraterritorial – authority of the state outside its territory

Republican State - It is one wherein all government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by representatives chosen by the people.Democratic State – This merely emphasizes that the Philippines has some aspect of direct democracy such as initiative and referendum.

Characteristics:a. Permanenceb. Exclusivenessc. Comprehensivenessd. Absolutenesse. Indivisibilityf. Inalienabilityg. Imprescriptibility

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty.

(Reagan vs. CIR, 30 SCRA 968)

On the rationale that the Philippines has adopted the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution. Such waiver does not amount to an unconstitutional diminution or deprivation of jurisdiction of Philippine courts.

(Bayan Muna vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618)

F. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

1. Basis

* Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.

* Gen. Rule: The State may not be sued without its consent.Basis: Sec. 3, Art. XVI of the Constitution.Reason: There can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends.

* The State immunity from suit is not based on constitutional provisions but based on jus cogens in international law.

Basis of State immunity from suit: Positivist theory – no legal right as against which makes the law or where the right is based Sociological theory – if you are deprived of the right to suit then the inconvenience of not able to sue should be subordinated by the

higher interest of the public Consent theory – the state cannot be sued when we approved the 1987 Constitution Equality among states – a state is banned from suing another state

Consent to be sued does not include consent to the execution of judgment against it. Such execution will require another waiver, because the power of the court ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment, unless such disbursement is covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law.

(Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83)

2. Suit against State

Framework of Analysis:1.) Is it a suit against the State?

If No We don’t apply the rules on state immunity.


If Yes Question: 2.) Is the act jure gestiones (proprietary) or jure imperii (governmental)?o If jure gestiones the state is suableo If jure imperii Question: 3.) Is there consent to be sued? (consider: incorporated vs. uninc. agency)

If there is none suit will not prosper Is there is consent suit will prosper (to determine liability), Question: 4.) Has the State consented to be liable?

- if the State acts through its special agent- then go to COA for claims of payment

* Consider: Incorporated agency – has separate and distinct personality

- has a governmental function, but if it is exercising a governmental task, then it still may be sued Unincorporated agency – has no separate personality; subsumes to be a part of the state, therefore can be sued as a state Ex contractor – it has stepped down to a level of individual and therefore An officer – accused of bad faith (personal capacity of the person, not of the state) State initiates the suit – that is already consent because the state here impliedly submits to the jurisdiction of the court Has the State already appropriated an amount? – if yes, there is no problem of suing the State because it has already appropriated the

money (Appropriation Law) Will the invocation of the State immunity result to justice? Violation of law? -

When considered a suit against the State:1. The Republic is sued by name;2. Suits against an unincorporated government agency;3. Suits are against a government official, but are such that ultimate liability shall devolve on the government:

a. When a public officer acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority, he can be held personally liable for damages.b. BUT: If he acted pursuant to his official duties, without malice, negligence, or bad faith, he is not personally liable, and the suit is really one against the State.

Application / Prohibition of the rule:1. This rule applies not only in favor of the Philippines but also in favor of the foreign states.2. The rule likewise prohibits a person from filing for interpleader, with the State as one of the defendants being compelled to interplead.

Q. When is a suit against a public official deemed to be a suit against the State?A. The doctrine of State Immunity from suit applies to complaints filed against public officials for acts done in the performance of their duties within the scope of their authority. The rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the state where the satisfaction of the judgment against the public official concerned will require the state to perform a positive act, such as disbursement of public funds or public property. The rule does not apply where the public official is charged in his official capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights of others. Public officials are not exempt, in their personal capacity, from liability arising from acts committed in bad faith.

Feliciano was holding property title to which was evidenced by an informacion posesoria. Proclamation no. 90 of President Magsaysay included it among properties for subdivision and distribution. Feliciano sued the Republic, represented by the LandAuthority, to recover possession of the land. The plaintiff has impleaded the Republic as defendant in an action for recovery ofownership and possession of a parcel of land, bringing the State to court just like any private person who is claimed to be usurping a piece of property. The State pleaded immunity from suit. The suit against the State which under settled jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a showing that the State has consented to be sued. Informacion posesoria had not been shown to have been converted into a record of ownership. It is nothing more than prima facie evidence of possession. Feliciano must pursue to prove title. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority. Waiver of State Immunity can only be made by an act of legislative body.

(Republic vs. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424)

....a charge against the Government where the money involved is part of the public funds, is a suit against the Government, and the happenstance that the action is directed against the PVA as an entity and not against the Republic of the Philippines is of no moment. Perforce, the Republic of the Philippines, on matters of administration of all benefits due to the veterans of revolutions and wars, and to their heirs and beneficiaries, acts and has to act through its agency and instrumentality, the PVA. The suit should therefore be regarded as one against the Republic of the Philippines; the PVA is therefore exempt from the filing of an appeal bond.

(Del Mar vs. PVA, 51 SCRA 340)

By engaging in business through the instrumentality of a corporation, the government divests itself of its sovereign character so as to render the corporation subject to the rules governing the private corporations. Garnishment is a proper remedy for a prevailing party to proceed against the funds of a corporate entity even if owned or controlled by the government. It is well settled that when a government enters into commercial business it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated just like any other corporation


(PNB vs. CIR, 81 SCRA 314)Neither does it apply where the public official is clearly being sued not in his official capacity but in his personal capacity, although the acts complained of may have been committed while he occupied a public position.

In this case, petitioner was sued for allegedly “personal motives” in ordering the ejectment of the general Assembly of the Blinds, Inc. (GABI) from the Rizal Park; thus, the case was not deemed a suit against the state.

(Lansang vs. CA, G.R. No. 102667, February 23, 2000)

Well established is the doctrine that the State may not be sued without its consent. And a suit against a public officer for his official acts is, in effect, a suit against the State if its purpose is to hold the State ultimately liable. However, the protection afforded to public officers by this doctrine generally applies only to activities within the scope of their authority in good faith and without willfulness, malice or corruption. In the present case, the acts for which the petitioners are being called to account were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties. The acts in question are clearly official in nature. In implementing and enforcing Sections 78-A and 89 of the Forestry Code through the seizure carried out, petitioners were performing their duties and functions as officers of the DENR, and did so within the limits of their authority. There was no malice nor bad faith on their part. Hence, a suit against the petitioners who represent the DENR is a suit against the State. It cannot prosper without the State’s consent.

(Calub vs. Court of Appeals)

Shell claims that it cannot be sued without the State’s consent under the doctrine of state immunity from suit. But, to begin with, Shell is not an agent of the Republic of the Philippines. It is but a service contractor for the exploration and development of one of the country’s natural gas reserves. While the Republic appointed Shell as the exclusive party to conduct petroleum operations in the Camago-Malampayo area under the State’s full control and supervision, it does not follow that Shell has become the State’s “agent” within the meaning of the law. An agent is a person who binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. The essence of an agency is the agent’s ability to represent his principal and bring about business relations between the latter and third persons. An agent’s ltimate undertaking is to execute juridical acts that would create, modify or extinguish relations between his principal and third persons. It is this power to affect the principal’s contractual relations with third persons that differentiates the agent from a service contractor. Consequently, Shell is not an agent of the Philippine government, but a provider of services, technology and financing for the Malampaya Natural Gas Project. It is not immune from suit and may be sued for claims even without the State’s consent. Notably, the Philippine government itself recognized that Shell could be sued in relation to the project. This is evident in the stipulations agreed upon by the parties under Service Contract 38.

(Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. vs. Jalos et al., G.R. No. 179918, September 8, 2010)

3. Consent

Forms of Consent:

1. Express consent – When the law expressly grants the authority to sue the State or any of its agencies.Examples:a. A law creating a government body expressly providing that such body “may sue or be sued.”b. Art 2180 of the Civil Code, which creates liability against the State when it acts through a special agent.

2. Implied consent – When the State enters into a private contract. The contract must be entered into by the proper officer and within the scope of his authority. UNLESS: the contract is merely incidental to the performance of a governmental function.

- When the State enters into a business contract. UNLESS: The operation is incidental to the performance of a governmental function (e.g. arrastre services). Thus, when the State conduct business operations through GOCC, the latter can be generally be sued, even if its charter contains no express “sue or be sued” clause.

By consenting to be sued, the State simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in its favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court. Subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. The Government of the Philippines is only liable for the acts of its agents, officers, and employees when they act as special agents. A special agent is one who receives a definite and fix order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official.

(Meritt vs. GPI, 34 Phil. 311)

The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are


constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them — between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii. A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. The rule does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions and is not for commercial or business purposes.

(USA vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487)

The case of Commissioner of Public Highways vs Burgos, 96 SCRA 831, simply implemented the ruling in Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360. In the earlier case, the question raised was the right of the plaintiff to sue the govt. for recovery of the value of her property which had been converted into public streets without payment to her of just compensation. Although it was shown that she had not previously filed her claim with the Auditor General as normally required, the SC decided in her favor. The SC held that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. In this instant case, the SC fixed just compensation based on the market value of the land at the time of the taking.

Art. 1250 applies only to cases where a contract or agreement is involved. It does not apply where the obligation to pay arises from law, independent of contract. The taking of private property by the Government in the exercise of its power of eminent domain does not give rise to a contractual obligation. The value of the property at the time the govt took possession of the land in question, not the increased value resulting from the passage of time, w/c invariably brings unearned increment to real estate, represents the value to be paid as just compensation for the property taken.

(Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Burgos, 96 SCRA 831)

G. GOVERNMENT

1. Government in general, defined- comes from the term “gubernare (rudder of a vessel or boat)”, it sets the direction- is the agency of instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed, realized and carried out

- elements: must be organized must be able to command obedience and carry out its policy

* Administration – is distinguished from government, as the aggregate of persons in whose hands the reigns of government are for the time being (the Chief ministries or heads of departments). But the terms are often interchanged.

* Succession of State – rule pertains to whether or not the new state succeeds/inherits/assumes the rights and obligation of the old state- the successor states inherits all the rights of the predecessor state but the obligations the state has the option to choose or assume or not at all assume the obligations of the predecessor state

* Succession of Government – the rule pertains to whether or not the government succeeds/inherits/assumesthe rights and obligations of the old government- if revision is done peacefully, all obligations are assumed/inherited by the new government- if revision is done violently, the successor state will not assume or inherit the obligations of the predecessor government, only those are incurred in the regular running of the government

We understand, in modern political science... by the term “government”, that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them. Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a society. By “administration”, we understand... the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being (the chief ministers or heads of departments). But the Court adds that the terms “government” and “administration” are often used interchangeably.

(US vs. Dorr, 2 Phil. 322 [at 339])

2. “Government of the Philippines”, defined—refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of the government are exercised throughout the Philippines,

including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government. [Administrative Code of 1987, Sec. 2(1)]

- National Government (Legislative + Executive + Judiciary) + Political Subdivisions


exclude: entities with separate personality; unless exercising governmental functions* entities: - with special charters

- created pursuant to a general law (Corp. Code of the Phils.) (GOCC=51%)3. Kinds of Government

a. Number of Rules: Monarchy – “mono” which means one; held by one person only Aristocracy – few people posses the power of government; seen during the times of feudal state Democracy – “demos” (people); “kratos” (power); the people are the rulers and leaders (Direct; Republican)

b. Distribution of Powers: horizontal Presidential – separation of powers; residual powers are vested on the President

Parliamentary – fusion between executive and legislative vertical Unitary – local governments derived their powers from national government

- the power of the government are centralized in the national government- lesser power given to the local government

Federal – opposite of unitary- national government is a creation on the local government

* Powers are distributed through the instrumentality of the Constitution.* Residual powers of the government – not enumerated by the Constitution, its distribution is not impliedly or expressly stated on the Constitution; all other law not mentioned in the law and to be exercised by the President

c. Legitimacy: De Jure - has a rightful title but no power or control, either because the same has been withdrawn from it or because it has not

yet actually entered into the exercise thereof. De Facto - actually exercises power or control but without legal or legitimate authority

i. De facto proper – government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the vice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter,ii. Government of paramount force – established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war; andiii. Independent government – established by the inhabitants of the country who rise in insurrection against the parent state

It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial department of a de facto government are good and valid. There are several kinds of de facto governments. The first, or government de facto in a proper legal sense, is that government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter, such government of England under the Commonwealth, first by Parliament and later by Cromwell as Protector. The second is that which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a government of paramount force, as the cases of Castine, in Maine, which was reduced to British possession in the war of 1812, and of Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the war with Mexico, by the troops of the United States. And the third is that established as an independent government of the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Union during the war of secession.

(Co Kim Cham vs. Tan Keh, September 17, 1945)

The people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of Pres. Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government.

(Lawyer’s League for a Better Philippines vs. Aquino)

4. Functions of Governmenta. Constituent—compulsory because constitutive of the society;b. Ministrant—undertaken to advance the general interest of the society; merely optional.

5. Doctrine of Parens Patriae—the government as guardian of the rights of the people may initiate legal actions for and in behalf of particular individual. (Government

of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 SCRA 738; Cabañas vs. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94)

The court held the right of the government to file the case for the State as parens patriae in representation of the legitimate claimants.

Effect of laws on transfer of sovereignty: There is abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substitute sovereign (political law); great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic rights continues in force until abrogated or changed by new ruler.


(Government of the Philippines vs. Monte de Piedad, G.R. No. 9959, December 13, 1916)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

1. NATURE OF:

a. The Preamble- The Preamble is not a source of power or right for any department of government. It sets down the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. It bears witness to the fact that the Constitution is the manifestation of the sovereign will of the Filipino people.

- The identification of the Filipino people as the author of the constitution calls attention to an important principle: that the document is not just the work of representatives of the people but of the people themselves who put their mark approval by ratifying it in a plebiscite.

1. It does not confer rights nor impose duties.2. Indicates authorship of the Constitution; enumerates the primary aims and aspirations of the framers; and serves as an aid in the construction of the Constitution.

b. The Declaration of Principles and State Policies

* State Principles – Sections 1 to 6* State Policies – Sections 7 to 28

- The first part enumerates the principles of the State such as the democratic and republican nature of the Philippine State; the supremacy of civilian authority over the military; the people's duty to defend the State; separation of Church & State; and renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. While the second part stipulates the State policies such as the promotion of an independent foreign policy; recognition of the youth's and women's role in nation-building; promotion of a comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform; & the promotion of social justice.

• No, the court rules that The City government of Manila has no power to impose taxes on PAGCOR.

Reason:• The principle of Local autonomy does not make local governments sovereign within the state; the principle of local autonomy within the constitution simply means decentralization. It cannot be an “Imperium in imperio” it can only act intra sovereign, or as an arm of the National Government.• PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and to regulate gambling casinos. The latter role is governmental, which places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality of the Government. Being an instrumentality of the Government, PAGCOR should be and actually is exempt from local taxes.• The power of local government to "impose taxes and fees" is always subject to "limitations" which Congress may provide by law. Since PD 1869 remains an "operative" law until "amended, repealed or revoked" (Sec. 3, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution), its "exemption clause" remains as an exception to the exercise of the power of local governments to impose taxes and fees. It cannot therefore be violative but rather is consistent with the principle of local autonomy.

(Basco vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 9169, May 14, 1991, 197 SCRA 52)

2. STATE PRINCIPLES

a. Sovereignty of the People and Republicanism

1. Essential features: Representation Renovation

2. Manifestations: Ours is a government of law and not of men (Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil 778). Rule of the majority (plurality in elections) Accountability of public officials Bill of rights Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws Separation of powers

What is a republican form of government?


- It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, a representative government wherein the powers and duties of government are exercised and discharged for the common good and welfare. One constructed on this principle, is that the supreme power resides in the body of people.

Against 2 extremes: against monarchy and oligarchy against pure democracy

Characteristics of a republican form of government:1. The people do not govern themselves directly but through their representatives;2. It is founded upon popular suffrage;3. There is the tripartite system of the government; the mutual interdependence of the 3 departments of the government.

“Government of Laws and Not of Men.”—sovereignty of the people also includes the concept that government officials have only the authority given them by law and defined by law, and such authority continues only with the consent of the people.

* sovereignty /will of the people is expressed through the ballot: election referendum initiative, recall (in the case of local officials) plebiscite

While Art. II, par. 1 of the Constitution says that "sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them," it also says that "the Philippines is a democratic and republican state." This means that ours is a representative democracy — as distinguished from a direct democracy — in which the sovereign will of the people is expressed through the ballot, whether in an election, referendum, initiative, recall (in the case of local officials) or plebiscite. Any exercise of the powers of sovereignty in any other way is unconstitutional.

(Concurring Opinion of Justice Mendoza in Estrada vs. Arroyo)

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. In this case of first impression, however, the distance between existing jurisprudence and the resolution of the issue presented to the Court cannot be negotiated through a straight and direct line of reasoning. Rather, it is necessary to journey through a meandering path and unearth the root principles of democracy, republicanism, elections, suffrage, and freedom of information and discourse in an open society. As a first step in this indispensable journey, we should traverse the democratic and republican landscape to appreciate the importance of informed judgment in elections.

(Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno in Tolentino, et al. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004)

b. Adherence to International Law

- Domestic law is distinct from international law. International law becomes part of municipal law only if it is incorporated into municipal law.

* The second part of section 2 accepts the Doctrine of Incorporation. This provision makes the Philippines one of the states which make a specific declaration that international law has the force also of domestic law. The principle of incorporation applies only to customary law and to treaties which have become part of customary law.

*Principle of Pacta sunt servanda – “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”- the conditions in the treaties must be complied in good faith

* Generally Accepted Principles of International Law- primary subjects of international law:

states (entities and persons that have rights and duties under international law) international organizations individuals (objects)

* Primary Sources of International Law: Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)Aglipay vs. Ruiz, G.R. 45459

international conventions whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states customary international law as evidence of a general practice accepted as law

- elements: state practice (objective element) continuous repetition of the same or similar kind of acts or norms by

States- elements:o generality


o uniformity and consistencyo duration

opinio juris sive necessitates (subjective element) psychological element; the state practice or norm "be carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of a belief that this practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it

general principles of law recognized by civilized nations subject to the provisions of Article 59 judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the

various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law

* Secondary Sources of International Law: opinions writings by publicists

* Domestic Law Constitution; statutes*GAPIL = Statute* GAPIL ≠ Constitution

"Adopts the generally accepted principles of international law" means the Philippines uses the incorporation theory. Without need of statute, these principles of international law become part of the Philippine body of laws from the municipal point of view. "Adherence to the principles of international law" was adopted from the Kellogg Brian Pact.

The fact that the international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere.

(Philip Morris vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91332, July 16, 1993)

Lex posterior derogate priori—in States where the “constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the Constitution”- if the later law has the same subject matter with the earlier law, the later law prevails

Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.

(Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000)

Doctrines of Incorporation and Transformation

* Doctrine of Incorporation

- is the doctrine where the generally accepted principles of international law are made part of the law of the land either by express provision of the Constitution or by means of judicial declaration or fiat. The doctrine is applied whenever municipal tribunals or local courts are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the Constitution or statute of a State. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them so as to give effect to both. In case of conflict between international law and municipal law, the latter shall prevail. However, the doctrine dictates that rules of international law are given equal standing with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments.- international law forms part with domestic law automatically without the need of positive act of government

* Doctrine of Transformation

- International law can become part of municipal law only if it is transformed into domestic law through the appropriate constitutional machinery such as an act of Parliament.- international law becomes a part of the law of the land when there is a positive act on the part of the government (like legislation)

- Views: monist view incorporates the international law as part of the law of the land dualist view domestic laws are manifestations of the international law; 2 systems of law; positive act in order for

international law to become part of the law of the lan

Doctrine of Autolimitation— It is the doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international law as a limitation to the exercise of its sovereignty.


No one shall be deprived of x x x liberty x x x without due process of law. We iterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard but, at the same time, point out that the doctrine does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. Where the circumstances -- such as those present in an extradition case -- call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. In the present case, respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently, when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. Hence, there is no violation of his right to due process and fundamental fairness.

(Gov’t. of USA vs. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, December 17, 2002)

The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights.

United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which the right to life, liberty and all the other fundamental rights of every person were proclaimed. While not a treaty, the principles contained in the said Declaration are now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the international community.

The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of nations, committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our Constitution which provides: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights." The Philippines, therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if justified. In other words, the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail.

(Gov’t. of Hong Kong vs. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153657, April 19, 2007

The serious crimes adverted to cover those considered grave under international law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

When the [GRP] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the [USA] to a third country, the [GRP] will not agree to the surrender or transfer of that person by the third country to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council, absent the express consent of the Government of the [US].

(Bayan Muna vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011

c. Civilian Supremacy

Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.

Supremacy clause:1st sentence The Constitution provides that the head of the armed forces is a civilian president and the primary purpose of AFP is to serve and to protect the people.2nd and 3rd sentences Positively, the military is the guardian of the people and of the integrity of the national territory and therefore ultimately of the majesty of the law. Negatively, it is an expression against military abuses.

Sec. 18, Art. VII—installation of the President as the highest civilian authority, as the commander-in-chief of the AFP—external manifestation that civilian authority is supreme over the military.

Sec. 5(1), Art. XVI—members of the AFP swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the civil government. Civilian supremacy is not a guaranteed supremacy of civilian officers who are in power but of supremacy of the sovereign people. The Armed Forces, in this sense, “is the protector of the people and the State”.

Sec. 6, Article XVI—The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.

d. Government as Protector of the People, and People as Defenders of the State

- The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.


- According to Commissioner Ople: “The purpose of a military establishment is to secure the sovereignty of the people and the integrity of the national territory and to serve the general welfare.

* “protector of the people” – to make it act as corrective to military abuses experienced during martial rule

2 thoughts in the constitutional provision: disapproval of military abuses guardianship of state sovereignty

Does the Philippines renounce defensive war?No, because it is duty bound to defend its citizens. Under the Constitution, the prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the people.

* Posse Commitatus—it is the power of the state to require all able-bodied citizens to perform civic duty to maintain peace and order.

e. Separation of Church and State

Separation of the Church and the State will be inviolable.1. Art. III, Sec. 5 non-establishment clause2. Art. III, Sec. 5 free exercise of religion3. Art. IX, Sec. 2(5) religious denominations and sects shall not be registered4. Art VI, Sec. 5(2) religious sectors are not included in the party list representatives

* Art. VI, Secs. 28(3) & 29(2) churches & other institutions used for religious purposes shall be exempt from taxation no property or public money shall be given for use or support of any church or religious sectors; except when they are assigned to the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium

* Art. XIV, Secs. 3(3) & 4(2) religion shall be allowed to be taught to children; religious instruction in schools educational institutions or any religious groups etc. shall be owned solely by citizen of the Phils.

The State should not use its money and coercive power to establish religion. It should not support a particular religion. The State is prohibited from interfering with purely ecclesiastical affairs. But it does not mean that there is total or absolute separation. The better rule is symbiotic relations between the church and State.

Constitutional provisions evidencing the Separation of Church and State:1. Sec. 6, Art. II – The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.2. Sec. 5, Art. III—No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights.3. Sec. 2 (5), Art. IX-C—religious sect cannot be registered as political party4. Sec. 5 (2), Art. VI—no sectoral representative from the religious sector5. Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI—Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.6. Sec. 29 (2), Art. VI—No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penalinstitution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.7. Sec. 3 (3), Art. XIV—At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.8. Sec. 4 (2), Art. XIV—Filipino ownership requirement for educational institutions, except those established by religious groups and mission boards.

3. STATE POLICIES

a. Independent Foreign Policy and Nuclear-Free Philippines

* Independent Foreign Policy – national sovereignty; territorial integrity; national interest; right to self-determination- closest reference to military bases that a dominant majority in the Constitutional Commission would allow in the body of the Constitution- this states a principle which no one will dispute but fidelity to which will always be a matter of dispute

Paramount Considerations in its relation with other states: national sovereignty


territorial integrity national interest right to self-determination

* Nuclear-Free Philippines – a policy of freedom from nuclear weapon in its territory, consistent w/ the national interest- the ban is on nuclear arms — that is the use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, devices and parts thereof; not only possessing, controlling and manufacturing nuclear weapons, but also nuclear tests in our territory, as well as the use of our territory as dumping ground for radioactive wastes- however, it is not a ban on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy nor is it a ban on all “nuclear-capable” vessels

Policy of freedom from nuclear weapons:1. The policy prohibits:

the possession, control and manufacture of nuclear weapons nuclear arm tests

2. The policy does not prohibit: the peaceful use of nuclear energy

b. Just and Dynamic Social Order

The State shall promote just and dynamic social order that will:- ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation- free the people from poverty- promote full employment- rising standard of living- improved quality life for all

- original proposal said: The prime concern of the State is the promotion and establishment of a socio-political and economic system that will ensure the independence of the nation and aims to secure for the people the benefits of full employment; a high standard of living; equality in economic opportunities; security in old age; and other basic human rights

* It reflects a preoccupation with poverty as resulting from structures that mire the people in a life of dependence.

b.1 Social Justice (Sec. 10)

Sections 1&2 of Article XIII: Section 1—The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the

people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments.

Section 2—The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance. The Constitution covers all phases of national development but with more emphasis not only on economic inequities but also on political and cultural inequities.

* Doctrine of Laissez faire – non-governmental interference in business or economic affairs- the right to contract about one’s affairs is a part of the liberty of the individual guaranteed by this due process clause

* “equality of one’s right principle” – in all such particulars the employer and employee have equality of right, and any legislation that disturbs the equality is an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract, which no government can legally justify in a free land

"Social Justice is 'neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,' but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the component elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex."

(Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726)

b.2 Human Rights (Sec. 11)


Art. XVI, Sec. 5(2) – The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military, and respect for people's rights in the performance of their duty.

Art. XIII, Sec. 17 – Commission on Human Rights.

b.3 Equality of Men and Women (Sec. 14)

- Women do have a role in nation-building, the provision makes the more important assertion that there exists a fundamental equality of men and women before the law.

b.4 Promotion of Health and Ecology (Sections 15, 16)

- promote the right of people to health and instill health consciousness among them- “right to a balanced and healthful ecology” and “the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology is not less important than any civil and political rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it an intergenerational responsibility to care for and protect the environment.

(Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792)

b.5 Priority of Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports (Sec. 17)

- It sees education and total human development as the gateway not only to intellectual and moral development but also to economic advancement and the cultivation of the yearning for freedom and justice.

b.6 Urban Land Reform and Housing (Art. III, Secs. 9-10)

Sec. 9, Article III – Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.- eminent domain may impair obligation of contracts

Sec. 10, Article III – No law impairing the obligation of contract shall be passed.- The freedom to contract is not absolute; all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only

may regulations which affect them be established by the State, but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to time, as the general well-being of the community may require, or the circumstances may change, or as experience may demonstrate the necessity. The purpose of the impairment clause is to safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements against unwarranted interference by the State. As a rule, they should be respected by the legislature and not tampered with by subsequent laws that will change the intention of the parties or modify their rights and obligations. The will of the obligor and the obligee must be observed; the obligation of their contract must not be impaired. However, the protection of the impairment clause is not absolute. There are instances when contracts valid at the time of their conclusion may become invalid, or some of their provisions may be rendered inoperative or illegal, by virtue of supervening legislation.

b.7 Reform in Agriculture and Other Natural Resources (Sec. 21)

- rural development is not just agricultural development but rather it encompasses a broad spectrum of social, economic, human, cultural, political and even industrial development.

- The basic philosophy behind agrarian reform is "land to the tiller" if one is a regular farm worker and "profit sharing" in other cases. But "just compensation" and a "reasonable retention limit" are guaranteed the land owner.

Common limitations to land reform (urban or agrarian):- It must not impair the rights of small agricultural land owners, small homestead settlers, and small property owners; the idea of reform is to benefit the poor and other peasants and the landless. It would therefore, be self-defeating for the Constitution to make no reservation in favor of small property owners and homestead settlers.

- The basic philosophy behind other natural resources is the principle of "stewardship" --- anyone who is given the chance to cultivate public land must use in trust for the succeeding generations, and so must exercise prudence in its use.

b.8 Protection to Labor (Sec. 18)

- labor as primary social economic force- protects the rights of workers and promote their welfare- promote full employment and equality in employment; ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed


- assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work

b.9 Independent People’s Organization (Sec. 19)

- The Constitution does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the international community”.- Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on “equality and reciprocity”, the fundamental law encourages industries that are “competitive in both domestic and foreign markets,” thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust industries that can compete with the best in the foreign markets. (Tañada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18)

b.10 Family (Sec. 12)

- The family here is to be understood as a stable heterosexual relationship whether formalized by civilly recognized marriage or not. Calling the family “a basic social institution” is an assertion that the family is anterior to the State and is not a creature of the State. The categorization of the family as “autonomous” is meant to protect the family against instrumentalization by the State.

Protection of the Unborn- The unborn’s entitlement to protection begins “from conception”, i.e., from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization.

Natural Right and Duty of Parents- Parents are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid them in the discharge of their responsibility. The provision also highlights the inherent duty of the State to act as parens patriae and to protect the right of persons and individuals who, because of age or inherent incapacity, are in an unfavorable position vis-à-vis other parties.

b. 11 Self-reliant and Independent Economic Order (Sec. 19-20)

- Sec. 19 commands an independent and nationalist approach to economic development- Sec. 20 affirms that the private sector is an indispensable engine of development

b.12 Communication and Information (Sec. 24)

- 1986 Constitutional Commission refused to “a impose social responsibility” on media on the reasoning that imposing such duty will open the door for the state to require media to follow a certain line

Art. XVI Sec. 10. The State shall the provide the policy environment for the full development of Filipino capability and the emergence of

communication structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country, in accordance with a policy that respect the freedom of speech and of the press.

Sec. 11 (1). The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly owned and managed by such citizens. The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed.

(2) The advertising industry is impressed with public interest, and shall be regulated by law for the protection of consumers and the promotion of general welfare. Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per cent of the capital of which is owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such industry shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines.

Art. XVIII Sec. 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph 2, Section 11 of Article XVI of this Constitution shall have five years from its ratification

to comply on a graduated and proportionate basis with the minimum Filipino ownership requirement therein.

- Both ownership and management of mass media must be in the hands of Filipinos, 100%.- While monopolies in mass media may be regulated or prohibited, combinations in restraint of and unfair competition in information matters are absolutely prohibited.- Commercial advertising is now defined as being vested with public interest, and can thus be owned and managed only by 70% Filipino corp.

b.13 Autonomy of Local Governments (Sec. 25)

- salient criteria for autonomy: Autonomy should be compatible with national goals;


Autonomy should ensure widest participation and initiative to the local government unit Autonomy should assure the development of self-reliant communities

b. 14 Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities (Sec. 22)

- objectives: “banning & rectifying of erroneous allusions to ethnic minorities in books, museums, other institutions & records of govt.

b. 15 Honest Public Service and Full Disclosure (Sec. 27)

- “principle of transparency”- constitutional confession of the prevalence of graft and corruption- the right of access to information on matter of public concern- the right of people to demand information- this provision is not self-executory

The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public disclosure * and honesty in the public service. **It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in government.Yet, like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. As stated in Legaspi, the people's right to information is limited to "matters of public concern," and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." Similarly, the State's policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions involving public interest," and is "subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law."It is further contended that since the loan function of the GSIS is merely incidental to its insurance function, then its loan transactions are not covered by the constitutional policy of full public disclosure and the right to information which is applicable only to "official" transactions.When we declare a "policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions" — referring to the transactions of the State — and when we say the "State" which I suppose would include all of the various agencies, departments, ministries and instrumentalities of the government....(Valmonte vs. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256)

It is well-established in jurisprudence that neither the right to information nor the policy of full public disclosure is absolute, there being matters which, albeit of public concern or public interest, are recognized as privileged in nature.

(Akbayan vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – POWERS AND STRUCTURE OF PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL

A. Doctrine of Separation of Powers

- It operates to maintain the legislative powers to the legislative department, executive powers to the executive department, and those which are judicial in character to the judiciary. Through this allocation of powers, the person entrusted shall not be permitted to encroach upon the power confided to the others, but that each shall, by the law of its creation, be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other. There must be independence and equity of the several departments.

- The separation of powers however should not be interpreted as complete separation and absolute exclusion. The doctrine carries that although the three branches are not subject to the control by either of the others and each is supreme within its own sphere, they are still equal and coordinate. Equal because they all derive their powers from the same common sovereign through the constitution. And coordinate because they cannot simply ignore the acts done by other departments as nugatory and not binding.

Purpose The doctrine of separation of powers is intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions. More specifically, according to J. Laurel, the doctrine is intended to secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and to obtain efficiency. Xxx

Principle of Blending of Powers There are instances under the Constitution when powers are not confined exclusively w/in one dept but are in fact assigned to or shared by several departments. As a result of this blending of powers, there is some difficulty now in classifying some of them as definitely legislative, executive or judicial.

Principle of “Checks-and-Balances” This allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogative or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments.

• The first and safest criterion to determine whether a given power has been validly exercised by a particular department is whether or not the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming its exercise—since the conferment is usually done expressly. However,


even in the absence of express conferment, the exercise of the power may be justified under the doctrine of necessary implication. The grant of express power carried with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

B. Doctrine of Non-delegation of Legislative Powers- As a general rule, legislative powers cannot be delegated, what can be delegated is the execution of the laws under acceptable standards limiting discretion of the executive. The Constitution, however, provides certain specific exemptions.

Exceptions:- necessity- pragmatism- tradition- initiative and referendum- emergency powers of the President- tariff power on the part of the President

1. Secs. 23(2) and 28(2) delegation to the President Sec. 23(2) – In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period

and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

Sec. 28(2) – The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the National Development Program of the government.

2. Secs. 32, Art. VI delegation to the people The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom,

whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefore signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.

3. Sec. 5, Art. X delegation to LGUs Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own source of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges

subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local government.

3 inherent powers police power, eminent domain, taxation

4. Delegation to administrative agencies- function performed by administrative agency is not law-making but law-execution

* Discretion about the “Law” what the law should be; how the law should be

Tests of Valid Delegation

1. Completeness Test Under the COMPLETENESS TEST, a law must be complete in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the legislature that nothing is left to the judgment of the delegate. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. However, a delegation of power to make the laws which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be may not constitutionally be done. (Edu v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-32096, October 24, 1970) COMPLETENESS TEST. The law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it.(ITS v. Ang Tang Ho, G.R. No. L-17122, February 27, 1922)

2. Sufficient Standard Test Under the SUFFICIENCY OF STANDARDS TEST, the statute must not only define a fundamental legislative policy, mark its limits and boundaries, and specify the public agency to exercise the legislative power. It must also indicate the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. (Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor, G.R. No. L-58184, October 30, 1981) SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST. A sufficient standard is intended to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected; intended to prevent a total transference of legislative power from the legislature to the delegate. The standard is usually indicated in the law delegating legislative power. (Ynot u. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987)


The Doctrine of “Potestas delegata non delegari potest”; Exception Delegata potestas non potest delegari is a Latin phrase which states that “no delegated powers can be further delegated.” It is also known as delegatus non potest delegare which means “one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that power.” One who has the power or authority from another to do an act must do it himself/herself as this is a trust or confidence reposed in that person personally. It cannot be assigned to stranger whose ability and integrity might not be known to the principal.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT: STRUCTURE

A. COMPOSITION

a.1. Senate – upper house- tasks on the national and international interest- 24 members

a.2. House of Representatives – lower house- functions are generally localized on districts- not more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided for by law- district representatives- party-list representatives- 20% are party list representatives- 80% are district representatives

Inviolable parameters to determine the winners in Party-List election:1. The Twenty Percent (20%) Allocation —the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total membership of the House of Representative, including those elected under the party-list;2. The Two Percent (2%) Threshold —only those garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the HOR;3. The T hree (3) Seat Limit —each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of 3 seats; that is, one (1) qualifying and two (2) additional seats.4. The Proportional Representation —the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of votes”. (Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 136781, October 6, 2000)

* prohibition of “gerrymandering” gerrymandering means the creation of representative districts out of separate portions of territory in order to favor a candidate

B. QUALIFICATIONS AND TERM OF OFFICE

b.1. Residence requirement Senator resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years immediately preceding the day of the election House of Representatives resident of the district for a period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of the election

b.2. Term vs. Tenure Term the period during which the elected officer is legally authorized to assume his office and exercise the powers thereof

the time during which the officer may claim to hold office as of right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another cannot be reduced

Tenure the period during which such officer actually holds his position may, by law, be limited

C. ELECTION

Article VI, Section 8 Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May.

Article VI, Section 9 In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.

Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections. – x x x In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House of Representatives at least one (1) year before the expiration of the term, the Commission shall call and hold a special election to fill the vacancy not earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than ninety (90) days after the occurrence of the vacancy. However, in case of such vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election. (Emphasis supplied)


Thus, in case a vacancy arises in Congress at least one year before the expiration of the term, Section 2 of R.A. No. 6645, as amended, requires COMELEC: (1) to call a special election by fixing the date of the special election, which shall not be earlier than sixty (60) days nor later than ninety (90) after the occurrence of the vacancy but in case of a vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election; and (2) to give notice to the voters of, among other things, the office or offices to be voted for.

D. ORGANIZATION & SESSIONS

d.1. Election

Article VI, Section 16(1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.

d.2. Quorum

Article VI, Section 16(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.

* quorum – number of members required to deliberately decide to do business in a legislative assembly but cannot proceed to voting; without this,the body cannot legally transact business- A majority of each House, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as such house may determine.

d.3. Rules of Proceedings

Article VI, Section 16(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of 2/3 of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

Article VI, Section 21 The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.

d.4. Discipline of Members

Article VI, Section 16(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of 2/3 of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

d.5. Journal and Congressional Boards

* record – refers to the verbatim transcript of all that was said and done during the legislative session* journal – refers to the official report; summary of transcription; it contains the resume or the substance of what transpired during the session

- official copy of approved legislation and bears the certifications of the presiding officers of each house- regarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the Constitution to be recorded therein

* enrolled bill – refers to a bill which has been duly introduced, finally enacted by both Houses, signed by the proper officers of each House, and approved by the President- an enrolled copy of a bill is conclusive not only of its provisions but also of its due enactment- prevails over the contents of the journal

d.5.a. The Enrolled Bill Theory- It is one duly introduced and finally passed by both houses, authenticated by the proper officer of each, and approved by the President. It is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President.- Once the bill becomes an enrolled bill, it is conclusive upon the court of its due enactment. Courts may no longer validly inquire into the bill because of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Rationale of the Enrolled Bill Theory

The rationale of the enrolled bill theory is set forth in the said case of Field vs. Clark as follows:

The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, by the President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress. It is a declaration by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to the President, that a bill, thus attested, has received, in due form, the sanction of the legislative branch of the


government, and that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. And when a bill, thus attested, receives his approval, and is deposited in the public archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the President of the United States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution.

It may be noted that the enrolled bill theory is based mainly on "the respect due to coequal and independent departments," which requires the judicial department "to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated." Thus it has also been stated in other cases that if the attestation is absent and the same is not required for the validity of a statute, the courts may resort to the journals and other records of Congress for proof of its due enactment. This was the logical conclusion reached in a number of decisions, although they are silent as to whether the journals may still be resorted to if the attestation of the presiding officers is present.

d.5.b Probative Value of Journal

The journal is conclusive on the courts as to its contents, so the SC ruled in US V Pons, 34 Phil. 729 (1916). Pons, in this case was prosecuted under a criminal statute. He contended, however, that the statute was passed past the midnight after February 28, 1914, the last day of session of the legislative body, but that the members stopped the clock at mid-night, to pass the law. The SC rejected this claim, ruling that the probative value of the journal could not be questioned, otherwise proof of legislative action would be uncertain and would now have to depend on the imperfect memory of men.

d.5.c. Matters to be entered in the Journal

yeas and nays on 3rd and final reading (Article VI, Sec. 26 par. 2)- No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

veto message of the President (Article VI, Sec. 27 par. 1)- Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it. yeas and nays on repassing on vetoed bill yeas and nays on any question upon request of 1/5 of members present (Article VI, Sec. 16 par. 4)- Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.

d.5.d. Journal Entry Rule vs. Enrolled Bill Theory

In the Astorga v Villegas case, the SC, by way of obiter, indicated that the journal might really prevail over the enrolled bill, since a journal is required by the Constitution while the enrollment of a bill is just a legislative practice that is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Further, enrollment does not add to the validity of the bill, for what makes it valid are the votes of the members.

But this view is mere dictum. It contradicts the ruling in Morales v Subido that the enrolled copy prevails over the journal. It also contradicts the ratio in Marshall Field & Co. v Clark, 143 US 649 (1891) that the parties were not competent to show from the journal that the bill in the custody of the Secretary of State was against the contents of the journal, because journals are just kept by clerks who could be mistaken, while the certified bill is made by the highest officer of the chamber.

To reconcile these two views, it may be said that, as to matters required by the Constitution to be placed in the journal, the journal is conclusive. But aside from these 4 matters, any other matter does not enjoy such conclusiveness. [Astorga v Villegas, 56 SCRA 714 (1974)]

In Morales vs. Subido, 27 SCRA 131


HELD: The petitioner wholly misconceives the function of the judiciary under our system of government. [T]he enrolled Act in the office of the legislative secretary of the Pres. of the Phils. Shows that sec. 10 is exactly as it is in the statute as officially published in slip form by the Bureau of Printing. We cannot go behind the enrolled Act to discover what really happened. The respect due to the other branches of Government demands that we act upon the faith and credit of what the officers of the said branches attest to as the official acts of their respective departments. Otherwise, we would be cast in the unenviable and unwanted role of a sleuth trying to determine what actually did happen in the labyrinth of law-making, w/ consequent impairment of the integrity of the legislative process. The investigation w/c the petitioner would like this Court to make can be better done in Congress.

[W]e are not to be understood as holding that in all cases the journals must yield to the enrolled bill. To be sure, there are certain matters w/c the Const. expressly requires must be entered on the journal of each house. xxx [W]ith respect to matters not expressly required to be entered on the journal, the enrolled bill prevails in the event of any discrepancy.

E. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

Article VI, Section 16(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.

F. SESSIONS

f.1. Regular sessions

Article VI, Section 15 The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time.

Article VI, Section 16(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

- "Place" as here used refers not to the building but to the political unit where the two Houses may be sitting.

f.2. Special sessions

Article VI, Section 15 The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time.

Article VII, Secs. 10-11 To call a special election due to a vacancy in the offices of President and Vice-President in w/c Congress shall convene at 10 a.m. of the third day after the vacancy, without need of a call.

To decide on the disability of the President because the Cabinet (majority) has "disputed" his assertion that he is able to dispose his duties and powers. (This takes place not when the Cabinet first sends a written declaration about the inability of the President, but after the President has disputed this initial declaration.)

Article VII, Sec. 18(3) To revoke or extend the Presidential Proclamation of Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

- Congress, if not in session, shall, within 24 hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene, without need of a call.- In 2nd and 3rd cases, Congress convenes without need of a call. These are exceptions to the general rule in the 1st case that when Congress is not in session, it can only meet in special session call by the President.

f.3. Joint sessions

When both houses meet jointly, they generally vote separately. The reason is obvious: there are only 24 senators, while there are 250 representatives. It would be bad policy to give one vote to a Senator, who was elected "at large", and the same weight of vote to a representative, who is either elected only by one legislative district or a party-list.

Regular Session Recess (can be a Special Session)(2011) 4th Monday of July (2011) 4th Monday of July

f.3.a. Voting Separately


a) When Congress, while acting as the canvasser of votes for the President and Vice-President, has to break the tie between two or more candidates for either position having an equal and the highest number of votes (Art. VII, Sec. 4, par. 5).

b) When it decides (by 2/3 vote) on the question of the President's inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office (Art. VII, Sec. 11, par. 4).

c) Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the VP, when it confirms the nomination of a VP by the President from among the members of Congress; such person shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the members of both Houses, voting separately (Art. VII, Sec. 9).

d) When it declares (by 2/3 vote) the existence of a state of war [Art. VI, Sec, 23(1)].e) When it proposes to amend the Constitution (3/4 vote of the members) [Art. XVII, Sec. 1(1)].

f.3.b. Voting Jointly

But there is one exceptional instance when the two houses meet and vote jointly: When, there has been a proclamation of Martial law or a suspension of the writ by the President, and Congress has to decide whether to revoke or to extend such proclamation or suspension (majority vote of all members, voting jointly) (VII, Sec. 18).

VV: There is an illogical inconsistency here. To declare a state of war, the vote is taken separately. But to decide on an internal disorder (which is short of war) which spurred the proclamation of Martial Law or suspension of the writ, the vote is taken jointly. If the voting is made "joint" due to the emergency character of the situation brought about by the invasion or rebellion, there is no reason why it should not be so to declare the existence of war (which among others, empowers the President to extend the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff), the danger to national security and the emergency nature being the same, if not graver.

G. CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANS WITHIN CONGRESS

g.1. Electoral Tribunals

Article VI, Section 17 The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

Article VI, Section 19 The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.

* election contests/protest – filed by the losing candidate to question the eligibility of the opponent* qoarantum proceeding – can be filed by any person (registered voter) to question the eligibility of the winning candidate

* Valid Proclamation + Assumption of Office (Beginning of Term)

COMELEC (all Officials) Election Contests- Petition for Disqualification- Petition to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy- Petition to Deny Due Course of Certificate of Candidacy

* President/Vice-President Presidential Electoral Tribunal* Senator Senate Electoral Tribunal* House of Representatives House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal* Regional/Provincial/City COMELEC* Municipal Regional Trial Court* Barangay Municipal Trial Court/MTCC/MCTC

g.1.a. Composition

The Senate and the House shall each have an Electoral Tribunal, to be composed of 9 members, 3 shall be justices of the SC to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining 6 shall be members of the respective houses chose on the basis of "proportional representation" from the political parties, and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system. The senior justice shall be the Chairman. The use of proportional representation to fill up the 6 slots reserved for members of the particular house is different from the rule under the 1935 Constitution, which reserved 3 seats for the majority party and another 3 seats for the minority party.

The SC ruled that the slot reserved for the minority party should not be filled up by the majority party, even if there was only one member from the minority party (in the person of Tanada). For to fill it up would offset the balance of the tribunal, and this would defeat its neutrality when acting as the sole judge of all election contests. This could not be done under the present set-up of the lower house because of the party-list system, which


makes a fixed representation impossible. On the other hand, by making the composition proportional, the very nature of the Electoral Tribunal as a neutral judge of election contests has been destroyed. In the Senate, for instance, if only one senator comes from the minority party, there is no way that he would be represented in the tribunal. At least, 2 senators are required of the 24 members of the Senate in order to have one representative in the tribunal. And even if this single representative vote together with the 3 justices, there is no way for them outvote the 5 from the majority party. The case then is one of a majority preserving its advantage. Under the system in the 1935 Constitution, so long as there is one minority senator, there is always a clause that he could outvote the majority, and that is when the 3 justices vote with him.

(Tanada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051, 1957)

g.1.b. Function

The Electoral Commission is a constitutional creation, invested with the necessary authority in the performance and execution of the limited and specific function assigned to it by the Constitution. Though its composition is constituted by a majority of members of thelegislature, it is a body separate from and independent of the legislature.

The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the legislature, is intended to be complete and unimpaired. The SC held that the Electoral Commission was an independent body, although attached to Congress.

(Angara vs Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 134)

g.1.c. Judicial Review

Facts: Co, Balinquit & Ong ran for representative of the 2nd legislative district of Northern Samar in the May 11, 1987 elections. Ong won but pets (Co & Balanquit) protested Ong's election on the ground of noncitizenship. The HRET found for Ong.

Held:1. Judgments of electoral tribunal are beyond judicial interference save only in the exercise of the Court's so-called extraordinary jurisdiction, x x x upon a determination that the tribunal's decision or resolution was rendered without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion or upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power as constitutes a denial of due process of law, or upon a demonstration of a very clear unmitigated ERROR, manifestly constituting such grave abuse of discretion that there has to be a remedy for such abuse.2. In the absence of a showing that the HRET has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the Court cannot exercise its corrective power.

(Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 199 SCRA 692, July, 1991)

g.2. Commission on Appointments

Section 18 There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.

Section 19 The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.

Composition by proportional representation has always been the rule even under the 1935 Constitution. And rightly so. For unlike the Electoral Tribunal which performs the essentially neutral function of adjudication, the Commission on Appointments performs the essentially political function of appointment. The distribution of political parties in the two Houses must thus be reflected proportionately in the Commission.

Since membership in the Commission on Appointments is based on party affiliation, then a defection from one party to another changes the proportion in the respective houses (which) is a valid ground for the reorganization of the commission.

However, a mere temporary alliance, an agreement between and among members coming from different parties to act in a concerted manner only on some issues, but without a change in party affiliation, does not justify a call to reorganize the commission on the ground that there is no longer proportional representation. So the SC ruled in Cunanan v Tan, 115 Phil 7 (1962).

Facts: As a result of the 1992 Senatorial elections, the LDP was entitled to 7.5 seats in the CA, the NPC to 2.5, the LAKAS-NUCD to 1.5 and the LP-


PDP-LABAN to .5. The problem arose as to what to with the 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. The LDP majority converted a fractional half-membership to a whole membership (7.5 + .5) to be able to elect Senator Romulo. In so doing, one other party's fractional representation in the CA was reduced. This is clearly a violation of Sec. 18, Art. VI because it is no longer based on proportional representation of the political parties. Senator Tanada claimed that he has a right to be elected as member of the CA because of the physical impossibility of dividing a person (need to round off .5 to one senator) and because as the sole representative of his party, his party is entitled to representation.

HELD: The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does not leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation. No party can claim more than what it is entitled to under such rule. Section 18 also assures representation in the CA of any political party who succeeds in electing members to the Senate, provided that the number of senators so elected enables it to put a representative in the CA. Therefore, in the Senate, a political party must at least have 2 duly elected senators for every seat in the CA.

The SC does not agree that it is mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the CA. What the Constitution requires is that there be at least a majority of the entire membership. The Constitution does not require the election and presence of 12 senators and 12 members of the House in order that the Commission may function. The election of Senator Romulo and Tanada as members of the CA was clearly a violation of Art. VI, Sec. 18.

(Guingona, Jr. vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, October 20, 1992)

Facts: During the 1987 Congressional elections, Coseteng was the only candidate elected under the KAIBA party. Of the 12 elected to the Commission on Appointments, Roque Ablan of the KBL, represented the Coalesced Minority. When the LDP was organized a year later, the House Committees including the House representation in the Commission on Appointments had to be reorganized. Coseteng requested Mitra that she be appointed a member of the CA as a representative of KAIBA. Ablan was however retained as the 12th member representing the House minority. Coseteng filed a petition to declare null and void the appointment of the members of the CA on the theory that their election to the CA violated the constitutional mandate of proportional representation.

Held : The petition should be dismissed not because it raises a political question, which it does not, but because the revision of the House representation in the CA is based on proportional representation of the political parties therein.

The issue is justiciable. The legality, and not the wisdom, of the manner of filling the CA, is justiciable. Even if it were a political question, such would still come within judicial review on the issue of whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.

The composition was based on proportional representation of the political parties therein. The other minority parties are bound by the majority's choices. Even if KAIBA were an opposition party, its lone member represents only .4% of the House, thus she is not entitled to one of the 12 seats. The other representatives to the CA were duly elected by the House (not by their party) as provided in Art. VI, Sec. 18. The validity of their election to the CA - eleven from the Coalesced Majority and one from the Coalesced Minority - is unassailable.

(Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377)

The petitioner questioned his replacement in the Commission on Appointments, insisting that his designation thereto as a representative of theLiberal Party was permanent and could not be withdrawn. For his part, the respondent contended that he could be validly be named in the petitioner's place in view of the political realignment in the House following the reorganization of the LDP to which he belonged. Both invoked the earlier Cunanan vs. Tan case, where the SC had held that the political affiliations in the two Houses of Congress should be reflected in their respective representations in the Commission of Appointments. The petitioner claimed that the formation of the LDP was merely a temporary development whereas the respondent claimed that it had permanently altered the political composition of the House. Ruling in favor of the respondent, the SC declared that petitioner's argument is based on the non-registration of the LDP, which he claims has not provided the permanent political realignment to justify the questioned reorganization. However, the COMELEC then granted the petition of the LDP for registration as a political party. Petitioner then claims that registration is not sufficient and that the political party must pass the test of time. Under this theory, a registered party obtaining the majority of the seats will not be entitled to representation in the Commission on Appointments as long as it was organized only recently and has not yet aged. If such argument is to be followed, only the Liberal Party shall pass such test.

The House of Representatives therefore has the authority to change its representation in the Commission of Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership. It is understood that such changes must be permanent and do not include the temporary alliances or fractional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party to another.

(Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496)

H. SALARIES

Article VI, Section 10 The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase.


Article XVIII, Sec. 17 annual salary President – 300,000; Vice-President, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives & Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – 240,000 each; Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court & Chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions – 204,000 each; Members of the Constitutional Commissions – 180,000 each

While it is Congress, through a salary law, that determines the salary to be received by its members, the Constitution mandates that no increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the members of the two houses approving such increase.

- Determined by the Congress themselves; legislative in nature- Increase cannot take effect until after the term of those who have approved (those who have participated in the voting even those who voted for “No”)

I. PRIVILEGES- both of which are necessary for effective functioning of our lawmakers

i.1. Freedom from arrest

Article VI, Section 11 A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.

- does not mean freedom from criminal liability- immunity here only means freedom from arrest- scope refers to the nature of the offense that the member of the Congress is accused for committing- penalty is imprisonment- cannot be arrested while that Congress is in session; it doesn’t matter if they attend or not- beginning the 4th Monday of July up to 30 days before the next regular session- if the penalty is more than 6 years, the privilege can’t be availed

i.2. Privilege of Speech and Debate

This privilege protects the member concerned from any libel suit that may be filed against him for a speech made "in" the halls of Congress or in any of its committees. Speech is not confined to traditional speech but even to the casting of votes, the making of reports, a debate or discussion, even communicative actions, and any other form of expression. The speech, however, must be made "in" Congress in the discharge of legislative duty.

The place where the utterance is made is irrelevant. What matters is whether at the time of the utterance, the officer is performing a legislative function. (within and without the session hall) e.g. committee hearingMisnomer: The place where it is delivered should be the basis, it is irrelevant.* “in any other place” – place that punishes the members of the Senate, not where he delivered his speech

Facts: This is an ordinary civil action for the recovery by plaintiffs Jimenez, et al., of several sums of money, by way of damages for the publication of an allegedly libelous letter of defendant Bartolome Cabangbang. An open letter of the President, published in several newspapers of general circulation saying that certain members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines had been preparing for a coup and working for the candidacy of the Secretary of Defense for the Presidency.

Upon being summoned, the Cabangbang moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the letter in question is not libelous, and that, even if it were, said letter is a privileged communication.

Issues: Whether the publication in question is a privileged communication; and, if not, (2) whether it is libelous or not.

(1) The determination of the first issue depends on w/n the publication falls w/in the purview of the phrase "speech or debate therein"-- that is to say, in Congress-- used in this provision.

Scope of Parliamentary Freedom of Speech and Debate.-- "Said expression refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, such as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the same is in session, as well as bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is in session or not, and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such, at the time of the performance of the acts in question."

The publication involved in this case does not belong to this category. According to the complaint herein, it was an open letter to the Pres. dated


11/14/58, when Congress presumably was not in session, and def. caused said letter to be published in several newspapers of gen. circ. in the Philippines, on or about said date. It is obvious that, in thus causing the communication to be so published, he was not performing his official duty, either as a member of Congress of as officer or any Committee thereof.

(2) Letter was not libelous.-- The letter was not libelous because it mentions that herein appellants as possibly "unwitting tools of a plan of which they have absolutely no knowledge." In other words, the very document upon w/c plaintiffs' action is based explicitly indicates that they might be absolutely unaware of the alleged operation plans, and that they may be unwitting tools of the planners. The statement is not derogatory to plaintiffs to the point of entitling them to recover damages.

The provision protects the Member of Congress only from being held liable outside of Congress ("in any other place"); it does not protect him from liability "inside" Congress, i.e., from possible disciplinary measures that his peers may impose upon him. For as mentioned above, his speech may constitute disorderly behavior as in Osmena v Pendatun (109 Phil 863), and this may be penalized with censure, suspension for 60 days, or expulsion, the latter two upon concurrence of 2/3 of the membership.

It is important to note that this privilege is not absolute. The rule provides that the legislator may not be questioned "in any other place," which means that he may be called to account for his remarks by his own colleagues in Congress itself, and when warranted, punished for disorderly behavior. Thus, in the case of Osmena v Pendatun, the President himself who had been vilified by the petitioner could not file any civil or criminal action against him because of this immunity. Nonetheless, the majority of the members of the House of Representatives in which the questioned speech was delivered were not precluded from demonstrating their loyalty to the chief executive by declaring Osmena guilty of disorderly behavior and suspending him in the exercise of their disciplinary power [now Art. VI, Sec. 16(3)].

(Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876, 1966)

J. RESTRICTIONS

Article VI, Section 13 No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.

Article VI, Section 14 No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. (financial restrictions on business interests of the Members of the Congress)

Article VI, Section 12 All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors. (financial restrictions on business interests of the Members of the Congress)

Article VI, Section 20 The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member. (financial restrictions on business interests of the Members of the Congress)

* An “incompatible office” is a post which a member cannot accept unless he waives or forfeits his seat in Congress. A sensu contrario, if he waives or forfeits his seat, he may accept the other post, since the incompatibility arises only because of his simultaneous membership in both.- It is an office that has a function incompatible with lawmaking.- It must be an office in the government.- This office is an existing office.- That nature of the function of office is relevant.- Appointment is valid and acceptance of which is forfeiture of office.

* A “forbidden office” is one to which a member cannot be appointed even if he is willing to give up his seat in Congress. The effect of his resignation from the Congress is the loss of his seat therein but his disqualification for the forbidden office nevertheless remains. The prohibition lies in the "fiduciary" nature of the relationship involved.- Such a member cannot resign in anticipation of the passage of the law creating such office or increasing its emolument as a way of circumventing the prohibition. However, the prohibition is not forever (as in the Jones Law); it is for the term for which he was elected.- The nature of the function of office is irrelevant.- The appointment to that office is invalid and it cannot be done.

j.1. Appearance as Counsel- What is limited is only an aspect of the whole concept of practice of law.- What is prohibited is “personally” appearing as counsel. But it does not prohibit appearance in paper.


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT: POWERS

General Rule: Either House can initiate except for those provided by law which should originate exclusively from the House of Representatives.

Art. VI, Sec. 24:1. Appropriation Bill2. Revenue Bill – tax measures3. Tariff Bill – same as tax but imposed on imported goods4. Bills authorizing increase in public borrowing – involves borrowing5. Bills of local application – creation of local governments6. Private Bills – bill applicable only to an individual

A. GENERAL PLENARY POWERS- main power is to legislate

Article VI, Section 1 The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

B. LEGISLATIVE MILL (How does a bill become a law?)

Example:

* by the House of Representatives:1. 1st reading referral to the proper committee2. 2nd reading Committee Report

Sponsorship Speech Turno en C... Speech (opposition) Debate/Discussion Amendments

Committee Individual

Voting3. 3rd reading voting; House Version of the Bill passed to the Senate

* by the Senate:1. 1st reading2. 2nd reading3. 3rd reading Bill Bicameral Conference Committee Version of Bicameral Conference Committee President

Bicameral Conference Committee:- if there is conflict with the versions of the 2 houses, it will come up with its own version- functions when both houses pass a bill simultaneously covering the same subject- Abakada Guro case: has the power for the purpose of reconciling the Senate version and HR version by creating an entirely new version- the new version will be passed to the President: Enrolled Bill

Legal Concerns:- 1st, 2nd, 3rd reading cannot be dispensed with

o Urgency: What is being dispensed with is the reading in separate days.- 3rd reading: No more amendment, but mere reading only.- Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance: EVAT BILL

o Senate has its own version while HR is still making its own versiono Senate version was submitted to the Bicameral Conference Committeeo role of Senate concur or propose amendmentso Supreme Court concur and propose should not be taken literally as they cannot revise it


C. REQUIREMENTS AS TO BILLS

c.1. Subject and Title

Article VI, Section 26(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

- The purpose is to prevent "log-rolling" or the smuggling in of "riders", that is, items that are unrelated to the bill itself and would not have been passed had they not been sneaked into the bill.

- The purposes of this rule are:(1) To prevent hodgepodge or log-rolling legislation. This is defined as "any act containing several subjects dealing with unrelated matters

representing diverse interests, the main object of such combination being to unite the members of the legislature who favor any one of the subjects in support of the whole act."

(2) To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature.(3) To fairly apprise the people, through such publications of its proceedings as are usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are being

considered in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon, by petition or otherwise, if they should so desire.

- But the title need not be a complete catalogue of a bill.- In any case, a title must not be "so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, or w/c is misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject where another or different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any expression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act."

- Which should control, the title or the text of the statute? In Cruz v Paras, infra. the SC referred to the title of the bill to fix the meaning of the text or the substantive portion of the bill. The title provided for the "regulation" of nightclubs and other places for entertainment, while the text, as amended, gave local governments the authority to "prohibit" these places altogether. The Court ruled that Bocaue, could not, under this law, prohibit these places but only regulate them, first because the title was controlling over the text The Court stood the principle on its head), and second, because the nightclubs were not nuisances per se that could be summarily evicted. To construe the amendatory act as granting municipal corporations the power to prohibit the operation of nightclubs would be to construe it in a way that it violates the constitutional provision that "every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof."

Facts: The petitioners are operators or nightclubs in Bocaue, Bulacan. they filed prohibition suits to stop the Mun. of Bocaue from enforcing an ordinance prohibiting the operation of nightclubs, cabarets, and dance halls in that mun. or the renewal of licenses to operate them. The CFI upheld the validity of the ordinance and dismissed the petition. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Held: A mun. corp. cannot prohibit the operation of nightclubs. Nightclubs may be regulated but not prevented from carrying on their business. RA 938, as orginally enacted, granted municipalities the power to regulate the establishment, maintenance and operation of nightclubs and the like. While it is true that On 5/21/54, the law was amended by RA 979 w/c purported to give municipalities the power not only to regulate but likewise to prohibit the operation of nightclubs, the fact is that the title of the law remained the same so that the power granted to municipalities remains that of regulation, not prohibition. To construe the amendatory act as granting mun. corporations the power to prohibit the operation of nightclubs would be to construe it in a way that it violates the constitutional provision that "every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof." Moreover, the recently-enacted LGC (BP 337) speaks simply of the power to regulate the establishment, and operation of billiard pools, theatrical performances, circuses and other forms of entertainment. Certiorari granted.

(Cruz vs. Paras, 123 SCRA 569, 1983)

c.2. As to specific laws

Article VII, Section 22 The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty days from the opening of every regular session as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.

Article VI, Section 24 All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

Section 25 1. The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as

specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.


2. No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.

3. The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies.

4. A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein.

5. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

6. Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.

7. If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.

Article VI, Section 29 1. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.2. No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.3. All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.

Article VI, Sec. 28 1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.2. The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government.3. Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.

Article XIV, Section 4(3) and (4) 3. All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly,and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law.Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may likewise be entitled to such exemptions, subject to the limitations provided by law, including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment. 4. Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, donations, or contributions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax.

c.3. Procedure for Passage of bills

Article VI, Section 26 1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only 1 subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.2. No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

- On "first reading," the title of the bill, without the provisions, is read before the body. The presiding officer then refers the bill to the proper committee e.g., "To the Committee on Local Governments". (Congress generally works through its committees, not as one body.)

- After consideration of the bill or resolution, the Committee returns the same to the body together with its amendments, objections or recommendations. Where the report is favorable, the bill is placed on the proper calendar. If the report is unfavorable, the matter shall be laid on the table, unless the body on the whole decides otherwise.

- On "second reading", the bill or resolution is read in full before the floor, with such amendments as the committee may have proposed. Then, it is subjected to debate, discussion and amendments. When this is through, a motion to close the general debate is made, then a vote is taken by the membership on whether to pass the bill or not on the basis of the amendments or discussions.

- The bill as amended and approved is the "printed in final form" and its copies are, as a general rule, distributed to the members at least 3 days before its passage. [Sec. 26(2)] [The purpose of the 3-day requirement is to enable the members to check if the bill reflects the text and amendments approved on second reading, and to see if riders have been introduced.]


- As an exception, however, the Constitution allows the 3-day and printed copy requirement to be dispensed with when the President certifies to the necessity of the immediate enactment of the bill to meet a public calamity or emergency. [Sec. 26(2).] In this case, therefore, the three readings may be made in less than 3 days without the bill being printed.

- On the "third and final reading", the bill is called by its name or title, then a vote is taken right away, with the "yeas" and "nays" entered in the Journal. No more amendment is allowed. [Sec. 26(2).]- As a general rule, the three readings must be conducted on separate days, [Sec. 26(2).] The exception is found in Art. VII, Sec. 10: When Congress convenes to call a special election to elect the President and Vice-President, "the bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under par. 2, Sec. 26, Art. VI", meaning, the three readings can be done on the same day.

c.4. Presidential Veto

Article VI, Section 27 Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it. The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

- partial veto: (not allowed) inappropriate provision “item veto”

- The bill as approved by Congress and certified by its presiding officers is then presented to the President.

- Generally, there are 3 ways for the bill to become a law:1) When it is approved by the President;2) When the vote of the President is overridden by 2/3 vote of all the members of both houses;3) Upon failure of the President to veto the bill and to return it with his objections, to the House where it originated, within 30 days after

the date of receipt. [Sec. 27(1).]

- But there are 2 cases when a bill becomes a law without the signature of the President:1) When the veto of the President is overridden by 2/3 vote of all the members of both houses; and2) When the bill is one calling a special election for President and Vice-President under Art. VII, Sec. 10. Here the bill becomes law upon 3rd

and final reading. The Acting President is not required to sign, for he may have an interest in the question.

- Veto Message : When the President vetoes a measure, he should return the measure to the House of origin, indicating his objections thereto in what is commonly known as a "veto message" so that the same can be studied by the members for possible overriding of his veto.

- Is partial veto allowed under the Constitution? The general rule is that the President must approve entirely or disapprove in toto. The exception applies to appropriation, revenue and tariff bills, any particular item or items of which may be disapproved without affecting the item or items to which he does not object.

In Bolinao Electronics Corp. vs. Valencia, 11 SCRA 486, a public works bill contained an item appropriating a certain sum for assistance to television stations, subject to the condition that the amount would not be available in places where there were commercial television stations in operation. Pres. Macapagal approved the appropriation but vetoed the condition. When his act was subsequently challenged in the SC, it was held that the veto was ineffectual and that the approval of the item carried w/ it the approval of the condition attached to it. xxx

In this case, the SC further held that the veto power is "destructive" in nature, not creative, and so the President is limited to approving or disapproving the bill, in toto. He cannot choose only the parts that he likes and vetoes the rest. Thus, in this case, the President was prohibited from vetoing only the part prohibiting the Philippine Broadcasting System from operating outside a certain radius, while approving the rest of the appropriation for this government radio station.

Thus, when the President approves one part and vetoes another, the veto is ineffective: it is as though there is no veto.

But in the case of appropriations, revenue or tariff bills, the President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items, without vetoing the other item or items to which he does not object. The reason is, these items are really independent of each other, and so every item is deemed a bill in itself. But as to each item, he cannot approve part and disapprove the other part.


In Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452, the President of the Philippines vetoed a provision in the 1989 General Appropriations Bill and later a similar provision in the 1990 General Appropriations Bill [providing for a prohibition against the restoration or increase of recommended appropriations disapproved and/or reduced by Congress]. In her veto message, Pres. Aquino said that such provision violates Art. VI Sec. 25(5) and that it nullifies her power and that of the Senate President, Speaker, Chief Justice and Heads of Constitutional Commissions, to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations, even in cases of calamity or in the event of urgent need to accelerate the implementation of essential public services. In rejecting the challenge to the veto, the SC declared that the restrictive interpretation urged by the petitioners that the President may not veto a provision without vetoing the entire bill not only disregards the basic principle that a distinct and severable part of a bill may be subject of a separate veto but also overlooks the Constitutional mandate that any provision in the general appropriations bill shall relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein and that any such provision shall be limited in its operate to the appropriation to which it relates [Art. VI, Sec. 25(5).] In other words, a provision in an appropriation bill is limited in its operation to some particular appropriation to which it relates, and does not relate to the entire bill.

In this case, the challenged provisions do not relate to any particular or distinctive appropriation. They apply generally to all items disapproved or reduced by Congress in the Appropriations Bill. Also, such provisions are more of an expression of Congressional policy rather than a budgetary appropriation. They should be treated as items for the purpose of the President's veto power.

c.5. Effectivity of Laws

Executive Order 200 Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.

- When a bill becomes a law through any of the 3 means mentioned above, the law does not become effective at once. According to the ruling upon reconsideration in Tanada v Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985), in addition to the date fixed either by the effectivity clause of the statute, or, in its absence, by Art. 2 of the Civil (15 days after its publication), there must first be a publication of the law either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation [EO 200]. Otherwise, there is a violation of due process.

- This requirement for publication applies to any kind of law, even laws which are not of general application, private laws (e.g. law granting citizenship to X), laws of local application, and rules and regulations of substantive character.

Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)

Facts: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in the Constitution, as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the OG or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the OG of various PDs, LOIs, general orders, proclamations, EOs, letters of implementation and administrative orders. Respondents contend, among others that publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the OG is indispensable for their effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Art. 2 of NCC.

Held: The interpretation given by respondent is in accord w/ this Court's construction of said article. In a long line of decisions, this Court has ruled that publication in the OG is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-- for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, w/c is the 15th day following its publication-- but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect.

Respondent's argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws w/ the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Art. 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the OG, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity.

xxx The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. The clear object of the law is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws w/c are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. W/o such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat. It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of w/c he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. It is needless to say that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.

c.6. Initiative and Referendum

- Initiative is the power of the people to propose bills and laws, and to enact or reject them at the polls, independent of the legislative assembly. It is the right of a group of citizens to introduce a matter for legislation either to the legislature or directly to the voters.


- Referendum is the right reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body and which in most cases would without action on the part of the electors become a law. It is a method of submitting an important legislative measure to a direct vote of the whole people, the submission of a law passed by the legislature for their approval or rejection.

D. LIMITATIONS TO POWER OF LEGISLATION

d.1. Express Limitations (Substantive)

Bill of Rights (Article III); On Appropriations (Sections 25 and 29 paragraphs 1 and 2, Article VI); On taxation (Sections 28 and 29, paragraph 3, Article VI); On Constitutional appellate jurisdiction of SC (Section 30, Article VI); No law granting title of royalty or nobility shall be passed (Section 31, Article VI); No specific funds shall be appropriated or paid for use or benefit of any religion, sect, etc., except for priests, etc., assigned to AFP, penal

institutions, etc. (Sections 29, paragraph 2, Article VI). Article XIV, Section 4(3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly, and exclusively

for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law.

Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may likewise be entitled to such exemptions, subject to the limitations provided by law, including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment.

d.2. Implied Substantive Limitations

d.2.a. Non-delegation of legislative powers- As a general rule, legislative powers cannot be delegated, what can be delegated is the execution of the laws under acceptable standards limiting discretion of the executive. The Constitution, however, provides certain specific exemptions.

Exceptions:- necessity- pragmatism- tradition- initiative and referendum- emergency powers of the President- tariff power on the part of the President

1. Secs. 23(2) and 28(2) delegation to the President Sec. 23(2) – In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period

and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

Sec. 28(2) – The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the National Development Program of the government.

2. Secs. 32, Art. VI delegation to the people The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom,

whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefore signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.

3. Sec. 5, Art. X delegation to LGUs Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own source of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges

subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local government.

3 inherent powers police power, eminent domain, taxation

4. Delegation to administrative agencies function performed by administrative agency is not law-making but law-execution

d.2.b. Prohibition against passage of irrepealable laws- Congress cannot pass irrepealable laws.


- Presumption of statutes against irrepealable laws.

d.3. Procedural Limitations

Article VI Section 26.1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.2. No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies

thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal. Section 27.

1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.

2. The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

a. Only one subject, to be stated in the title of the bill (Sec. 26, par. 1, Article VI);b. Three (3) readings on separate days; printed copies of the bill in its final form distributed to members 3 days before its passage, except if President certifies to its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency; upon its last reading, no amendment allowed and the vote thereon taken immediately and the yeas and nays entered into the Journal (Section 26, paragraph 2, Article VI;c. Appropriation, revenue and tariff bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives.

d.4. Prohibition against Legislative Veto

* Legislative Veto - a congressional veto is a means whereby the legislature can block or modify administrative action taken under a statute. It is a form of legislative control in the implementation of particular executive action. The form may either be:

a. Negative—subjecting the executive action to disapproval by Congress; orb. Affirmative—requiring approval of the executive action by Congress.

- The Congress cannot deem a draft submitted by an executive agency passed as law by it mere inaction within a certain period. It must go through the 3 readings and the submission of the bill to the President, as required by the Constitution.

E. AIDS TO LEGISLATION

e.1. Question Hour

Article VI, Section 22 The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

- This section deals with delicate relationship.

- 1986 Constitutional Commission (Legislative Committee) adoption of the “question hour” “the Member of the Cabinet and their deputies may be required to appear and answer questions and interpellations by Members of the National Assembly”

- The heads of department shall provide, appear before, and be heard, by any house, on any matter pertaining to their departments: upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President; or upon request of either house, as the rules of that house shall provide.

(This is a carryover of the 1973 Constitution, a feature of a parliamentary system.)


- Written questions shall be submitted to the presiding officer of the house at least 3 days before the scheduled appearance. The purpose is to enable the cabinet member to prepare. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto.

- It is submitted that a member of the Cabinet may not refuse to appear before the house. If he refuses a summons, he can be cited for contempt. If the President forbids his appearance, still he must appear if asked by Congress. Under 1935, it was an excuse for the President to certify that the interest of public security justifies the refusal; under 1987, the remedy is an executive session not refusal to appear.

- When the security of the State or the public interest so requires, and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session. (It must be noted then that the President cannot disallow the appearance but can only ask for a closed door session).

- “Oversight function” of Congress intended to enable Congress to determine how laws it has passed are being implemented

- Department Heads are alter egos of the President may be summoned, they may not appear without the permission of the President.e.2. Legislative Investigations

Article VI, Section 21 The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.

* compelled to attend = compelled to answer questions? Not necessarily. Why? => Limitations to legislative investigation

- This requirement is essential element for establishing the jurisdiction of the legislative body.- Each house or any of its committees may conduct "inquiries in aid of legislation" according to its duly published rules of procedures.- To enforce this right, the SC upheld the power of Congress to hold in contempt a person required to appear before Congress or its committee and answer questions relevant to a matter of legislative interest.- However, the rights of the persons (a) appearing in, or (b) affected by such inquiries shall be respected.- Notable among these rights is the right against "self- incrimination". Usually, immunity is granted to those who are compelled to appear.

- Limitations on the power of legislative investigation: It must be “in aid of legislation”.

Congress cannot conduct an investigation merely for the purpose of investigation. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress. Investigation of purely private affairs of people cannot be made, as Congress cannot legislate on them. However Congress can inquire into private affairs if they affect matters on which Congress can legislate.27 Moreover, Congress cannot conduct an investigation to find out if someone should be prosecuted criminally, or to determine if someone is guilty or innocent of a crime, or to decide what the rights of parties to a controversy are. Congress is not a law enforcement agency or a court. It is difficult to define any limits by which the subject matter of its inquiry can be circumscribed. It is not necessary that every question propounded to a witness must be material to a proposed legislation. Materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation. In determining the propriety of the question propounded to a witness, thus, the following matters are to be considered:

(1) the definition of the inquiry found in the authorizing resolution or statute;(2) the opening remarks of the committee chair;(3) the nature of the proceedings;(4) the question itself; and(5) the response of the committee to a pertinency objection.

It must be “in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure”. These rules of procedure are subject to change or even suspension by Congress at any time except if it will affect the substantive rights of the witness and other persons involved.

“The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.” It must be “subject to limitations placed by the Constitution. This 3rd limitation really creates no new constitutional right. But it emphasizes such fundamentals as the right against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to demand, under due process, that the Congress observe its own rules. Like all other forms of governmental actions, the Bill of Rights is applicable to congressional investigations. Witnesses at such investigations, hence, cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves, they cannot be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, and their freedoms of speech, press, religion and political belief and association cannot be abridged. The right against self-incrimination applies to any witness in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, or investigative, who is being compelled to give testimony that may be used against them in a subsequent criminal case. The privilege against self-incrimination not only extends to answers that will, in themselves support a conviction but likewise, embrace "those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence to prosecute the claimant for a (crime)." The privilege, nevertheless, is operative and available only where the compelled testimony or communication possesses a potential for incrimination. For potential incrimination to exist there must be a showing that:


(1) there is a threat of criminal liability;(2) that such threat of criminal liability concerns the witness himself; and(3) that such threat is real and appreciable and not imaginary and unsubstantial.

In a legislative investigation, a witness cannot claim his right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer before any question is propounded on him. He must wait until he is asked an incriminatory question.

- In addition to the above express limitations on the power of Congress is the implicit limitation that the power on Congress to commit a witness for contempt terminates when the legislative body ceases to exist upon its final judgment.

Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee 203 SCRA 767

In this case, the petitioners sought to restrain the respondent from investigating their participation in the alleged misuse of govt. funds and the illicit acquisition of properties being claimed by the PCGG for the Republic of the Philippines. The SC granted the petition, holding that the petitioners are impleaded as defendants in a case before the Sandiganbayan, which involves issues intimately related to the subject of contemplated inquiry before the respondent Committee, and that no legislation was apparently being contemplated in connection with the said investigation.

However, the decision failed to consider that the proceeding before the Sandiganbayan was criminal in nature and that the purpose of the legislative investigation was to ascertain the disposition of funds and properties claimed to be public in nature. Its findings on this matter could be the subject of legislation although it may not have been expressly stated that such was the purpose of the inquiry.

- Question Hour (Art. VI, Sec. 22) and Legislative Investigation (id., Sec. 21)a. As to persons who may appear:

22: Only a department head21: Any person

b. As to who conducts the investigation22: Entire body21: Committees

c. As to subject-matter22: Matters related to the department only21: Any matter for the purpose of legislation.

F. OTHER POWERS

f.1. As Board of Canvassers in Elections for President and Vice-President

Article VII, Section 4 The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time. No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May. The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes. The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

* canvassing – means more than just counting; counting refers to ballots- it includes evaluating ballots to identify those that are invalid, blank, cast, for illegal nominees, illegible, abstaining and the like, and reporting the total results to the presiding officer for his announcement of the results- election returns; tallied votes per precinct- Board of Canvassers determine the authenticity of the election returns and by virtue of the results, proclaim the winner

f.2. Call Special Election for President and Vice-President


Article VII, Section 10 The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article VI of this Constitutionand shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article VI of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.

- When a vacancy occurs in the offices of the President and Vice-President, more than 18 months before the date of the next regular presidential election, the Congress shall convene at 10AM of the 3rd day after the vacancy, in accordance with its rules, without need of call. The convening of Congress cannot be suspended.

- Within 7 days after it convenes, it shall enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and Vice- President, to be held between 45 to 60 days from the day of such call. The holding of the special election cannot be postponed.

- Not later than 30 days after the election, Congress shall again act as Board of Canvasser, since Art. VII, Sec. 4 par. a talks of every election for President and Vice-President.

- Thus, the timetable is: Day 0 - vacancy occurs Day 3 - Congress convenes without need of call Day 10 - Congress passes the special election law, if it has not passed before this date Day 55 to 70 - election is held Day 85 to 100 - as the case may be - canvassing by Congress, if it has not done so earlier.

- Under the Constitution then a vacancy is filled by the 100th day from the vacancy at the latest.

- The law so passed is exempted from the following:a) Certification under VI, 26, par. 2. Thus, the three readings can be done all on the same day.b) Approval by the President (for obvious reasons). The bill automatically becomes a law, then, upon its approval on 3rd and final reading.c) Certification by the National Treasurer of the availability of funds, or revenue raising measure under Art. VI, Sec. 25(4). Appropriations for

the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations.

- What bill becomes a law without the approval of the President? special elections for President and Vice-President

f.3. Revoke/extend suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus, declaration of martial law

Article VII, Section 18 The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.


- When the President suspends the privilege of the writ or proclaims martial law, then Congress shall convene within 24 hours form the proclamation or suspension in accordance with its rules, without need of a call, if it is not in session. The President shall then submit a report in person or in writing to Congress, within 48 hours from the proclamation or suspension.- By a joint majority vote of all the members of both houses in a joint meeting, the Congress has 2 possible courses of action:

1) To revoke (or disapprove) the proclamation or suspension, which revocation cannot be set aside (vetoed) by the President, or2) To extend the proclamation after 60 days, for a period to be determined by Congress, if the causes persist.

- It must be noted that the Congress does not approve the proclamation or suspension, but either disapproves it or extends it, because the proclamation or suspension is valid in itself for 60 days already, and so does not require the approval of Congress for its effectivity. What it needs is the extension that may be granted by Congress beyond the 60-day period when it expires, which extension need not be for another 60 days only.

- The grounds in revocation/suspension of privilege of habeas corpus, declaration of martial law. normal duration is 60 days

- Basis for revocation: The Supreme Court determines the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law. [Art. Vi, Sec. 18(3)] The President can declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in case of invasion or rebellion, whent eh public safety

requires it.

- Basis for suspension: If the invasion or rebellion shall persist. If public safety requires it.

f.4. Approve Presidential Amnesties

Article VII, Section 19 Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.

- The President has the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress.

- pardoning powers of the President: reprieves commutations amnesty remit fines and forfeitures after conviction by final judgment

f.5. Confirm certain appointments

Article VII, Section 9 (by Congress) Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

Article VII, Section 16 (by Commission on Appointments) The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

- The following officers appointed by the President require confirmation by the CA:a) Heads of departments (VII, 16)b) Ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls (VII, 16)c) Officers of the AFP from the rank of colonel and naval captain (VII, 16)d) Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions (IX, B, C, & D, 1[2])e) Members of the Judicial and Bar Council (VIII, 8[2])

- In Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549, the Commissioner of Customs was held not to be subject to confirmation, being of the rank of the bureau director, who was purposely deleted from the listing of those whose appointments had to be approved by the Commission on Appointments. It was the clear and express intent of the framers of the Constitution to exclude presidential appointments from confirmation by the CA, except


appointments to offices expressly mentioned in Art. VII, Sec. 16. The power to appoint is already vested in the President, without need of confirmation by the CA.

Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549

Facts: Petitioners brought this suit for prohibition in their capacity as taxpayers, members of the Bar and law professors, to enjoin respondent Commissioner of Customs from performing his functions on the ground that his appointment, w/o confirmation by the CA, is unconstitutional.

Held: Art. VII, Sec. 16, as originally proposed by the Committee on Executive Power of the 1986 Con Com read:“Sec. 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of a Commission on Appointment, shall appoint the heads of executive departments and bureaus, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain and all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may by law vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments.

However, on motion of Comm. Foz, 2 changes were approved in the text of the provision. The first was to delete the phrase "and bureaus," and the second was to place a period (.) after the word "captain" and substitute the phrase "and all" w/ the phrase "HE SHALL ALSO APPOINT ANY." The first amendment was intended to exempt the appointment of bureau directors from the requirement of confirmation on the ground that this position is low and to require confirmation would subject bureau directors to political influence. On the other hand, the 2nd amendment was intended to subject to confirmation only those mentioned in the first sentence, namely:

The heads of the exec. departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the Constitution, i.e.,(1) Regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(2)](2) Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission [Art. IX-B, Sec. 1 (2)];(3) Chairman and Commissioners of the COMELEC [Art. IX-C, Sec. 1 (2)];(4) Chairman and Commissioners of the COA [Art. IX-D, Sec. 1 (2)];(5) Members of the regional consultative commission (Art. X, Sec. 18.)

The rest of the appointments mentioned in sec. 16 are not subject to confirmation. These are: (1) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law; (2) those whom the Pres. may be authorized by law to appoint; and (3) officers lower in rank whose appointments Congress may by law vest in the Pres. alone.

f.6. Concur in treaties

Article VII, Section 21 No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

* This is true, although it is the President who is the chief spokesman in foreign relations. Executive agreements do not need concurrence.

- Treaty an international instruments concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in asingle instrument or in 2 or more related instruments, and whatever its particular designation become normally effective after ratification

- elements of Treaty:1. International agreement2. States3. Written4. Governed by international law

- requirements of treaties involving military bases of the Philippines; rust be in a form of a treaty Recognized by the other contracting party as a treaty

f.7. Declare war and delegate emergency powers

Article VII, Section 23 The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at any other time.

- The Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in joint session assembled but voting separately shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. [Art. VI, Sec. 23(1)]


- In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may authorize the President, for a limited period and subject such restrictions as the law may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment of Congress, unless sooner withdrawn by its resolution. [Art. VI, Sec. 23(2).]- Although the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the AFP should not exceed 3 years, the President may extend such tour of duty in times of war or other national emergency declared by Congress. [Art. XVI, Sec. 5(7).]

- grounds for delegating emergency powers of the President: economic crisis calamities war, rebellion or other instances of national emergency

- However, emergency powers are subject to restrictions which Congress may provide, and must be authorized by the Congress.

f.8. Judge President’s fitness

Article VII, Section 11(4) If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office.

- There are 3 ways in which the President may be declared unable to discharge his functions under this article:a) Upon his own written declarationb) Upon the first written declaration by majority of his Cabinetc) Upon determination by Congress by 2/3 vote of all its members voting separately, acting on the 2nd written declaration by the Cabinet

- When the President himself transmits to the Senate President and Speaker of the House his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, there is no problem. The Vice-President shall discharge such powers and duties as Acting President, until the President transmits to the Senate President and Speaker a written declaration that he is no longer unable to discharge his powers and duties.

- The problem arises when a majority of all members of Cabinet transmit to the Senate President and Speaker their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge his office. Upon such transmittal, the Vice-President shall "immediately" assume the office as Acting President.

- The President can contest this by transmitting to the Senate President and Speaker his written declaration that no inability exists. Upon such transmittal, he shall reassume his office.

- But if the majority of all the members of the Cabinet really believe otherwise, they can contest this "declaration of non-inability" by again sending a second written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker, within 5 days from the time the President transmitted his written declaration of non-inability.

- It is this second cabinet written "declaration of inability" that brings in the Congress as judge of the President's ability to discharge his office.

- (The Vice-President in this second instance does not act as President: the President having spoken as against his Cabinet, his declaration entitles him to stay until Congress says otherwise. But if the Cabinet submits the declaration more than 5 days after the President reassumes office, this may be viewed as a new declaration, and so the Vice-President can immediately act as President.)

- Congress must convene (a) within 10 days after receipt of the 2nd written declaration by the Cabinet, if it is in session, or (b) within 12 days after it is required to assemble by its respective presiding officer, if it is not in session.

- In a joint session, the Congress shall decide the President's ability. Two-thirds vote by each house, voting separately, is required to declare the President's inability. In other words, if 2/3 of each house vote that the President must step down, the Vice-President shall act as President. But if less than 2/3 of each House votes that the President is unable, the President shall continue in office.

f.9. Power of Impeachment

f.9.a. Who may be impeached

Article XI, Section 2 The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

- Who are subject to impeachment:


a) Presidentb) Vice-Presidentc) Justices of the Supreme Court

d) Members of the Constitutional Commissionse) Ombudsman

f.9.b. Grounds


- Grounds for impeachment:a) Culpable violation of the Constitutionb) Treason (RPC)c) Bribery (RA 3019)d) Graft and corruption (RA 3019)e) Other high crimesf) Betrayal of public trust

* Limitation: No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. [Art. XI, Sec. 3(5)]* Forum: The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. [Art. XI, Sec. 3(1)]

f.9.c. Procedure

Article XI, Section 3(1) to (6) 1. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.2. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.4. In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

- One Year Bar Rule No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of 1 year Article XI, Section 3(5) Question: “When is the proceeding initiated by the 1st complaint?” The proceeding is initiated when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action.

- The House impeaches the impeachable officer while the Senate tries and convicts the impeachable officer.* In cases on the impeachment of President the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside; the Senate/HOR will

prosecute

- Procedure for impeachment:

A) Initiation stage:1) If initiated by less than 1/3 [Secs. 3(2)-(4)]

(a) A verified complaint for impeachment is filed with the House of Representative by :(i) a member of the House of Representatives, or(ii) any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any member of the House.

(b) The complaint must be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days upon receipt thereof. (the purpose is to prohibit any delay)(c) Not later than 3 session days after, including the complaint in the Order of Business, it must be referred (by the Speaker) to the proper committee (usually, the Committee on Justice and Order).


(d) The Committee has 60 session days from receipt of the referral to conduct hearings (to see if there is probable cause), to vote by an absolute majority, and to submit report and its resolution to the House.(e) The resolution shall be calendared for consideration and general discussion by the House within 10 session days from receipt thereof.(f) After the discussion, a vote is taken, with the vote of each member recorded. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House is needed to "affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or to override its contrary resolution."

- If the Committee made a favorable recommendation (i.e., it recommended that the complaint be sent over to the Senate), 1/3 of all the members are needed to approve such recommendation. If the Committee made a contrary recommendation (i.e., it recommended the dismissal of the complaint), 1/3 of all the members are needed to disapprove or override this report.- In other words, so long as 1/3 of the lower house votes to proceed with the trial, then the case would be sent to the Senate, regardless of the committee recommendation, and regardless of the number who vote (which, could even be as high as 66% of the entire House), that it should not be sent to the Senate for trial.- The reason is that the initiation stage does not determine the guilt or innocence of the officer being impeached. It merely determines whether there is a prima facie case against the officer that merits a full blown trial in the Senate.- It is similar to a preliminary investigation. Its analogy in US Constitutional Law is the vote of 4 justices of the US Supreme Court on whether to give due course to a petition for certiorari. Once the 4 justices believe that the petition is on its face meritorious, the Court must give due course to it, even if 5 believe that it should not hear the case. Anyway, the grant of due course does not mean a favorable judgment in the end.

2) If initiated by 1/3 [Art. XI, Sec. 3(4)]- If the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least 1/3 of all the members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

- This means that the entire process is cut short. There is no need for a Committee report and discussion anymore, since the end result is that 1/3 of the members of the House have decided to send the case for trial.

B) Trial Stage:a) The Articles of Impeachment of the Committee is forwarded to the Senate, which has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment, for trial.b) When sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment case, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation.c) As a general rule, the President of the Senate presides over an impeachment trial. But when it is the President of the Philippines who is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be the presiding officer, but he shall not vote.d) To carry out a conviction, the vote of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate (16 Senators) is required. If less than 2/3 vote that the officer is guilty, the effect is acquittal.e) The judgment of the Senate (like the judgment of the House on whether to initiate) is a political question that cannot be reviewed by the court (Romulo vs. Yniguez). (Unlike a law that can be reviewed by the courts because of the existence of constitutional standards, this judgment cannot be reviewed, for the Constitution itself has granted the discretion to this co-equal branch to appreciate the case as presented.)

f.9.d. Effect

Article XI, Section 3(7) 7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.

- In case of acquittal: The President continues in office, because pending the impeachment trial, he remains in office. Acquittal does not only mean the dismissal of the impeachment case, but also a bar from any criminal action on the same offense that may be filed later on.

- In case of conviction: Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than (i) removal from office and (ii) disqualification to hold any office under RP. But a person convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law (RPC, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and other penal laws). (The courts cannot review the judgment on the impeachment case, and ultimately the removal from office and the disqualification, because these are political questions. But it can review the judgment in the criminal case.)

f.10. Power to change the constitution


- Amendment or revision of the Constitution may be proposed in 3 ways:

1. By Congress acting as a constituent body (XVII, 1) A vote of 3/4 of all its members is required.

2. By a constitutional convention (XVII, 1)a) Congress calls a Con Con by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, orb) Congress submits to the electorate the question of calling such convention, by an absolute majority vote.

3. By the people (Art. XVII, Sec. 2) Through initiative upon petition by 12% of all registered voters, of whichever legislative district is represented by at least 3% of its registered voters. But this cannot be resorted to (i) within 5 years from February 2, 1987, nor (ii) more often than once every five years.

- Any amendment or revision shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be held between 6o to 90 days from, the approval of the amendment or revision in the case of Congress or the Con Con, or the certification by COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition in the case of the people.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT: THE PRESIDENT

A. QUALIFICATIONS, ELECTION, TERM, OATH

Article VII, Section 2 No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

Article VII, Section 4 The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time. No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May. The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes. The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

Article VII, Section 5 Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." (In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.)

- Qualifications of President:1) Natural-born citizen of the Philippines2) Registered voter3) Able to read and write4) 40 years of age on the day of election5) Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the election

- Regular Election and Term: The President and Vice-President (who shall be elected with and in the same manner as the President) shall be elected by direct vote of

the people for a term of 6 years, which shall begin on the noon of June 30 next following the day of election. The regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the 2nd Monday of May. (Art. VII, Sec. 4 pars. 1 & 3).

The six year term for the incumbent President and Vice- President elected in the February 7, 1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30, 1992. The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this Constitution shall be held on the 2nd Monday of May, 1992. (Art. XVIII, Sec. 5.)


- Special Election and Term: If a vacancy occurs in the offices of President and Vice- President more than 18 months before the date of the next regular presidential

election, a special election to elect the President and Vice-President shall be called by Congress, pursuant to VII, 10. A conditional resignation by the incumbent President is not a real resignation that creates a vacancy for the purpose of calling a special

election. The Constitution is silent as to whether the persons elected in the special election shall serve only for the unexpired portion of the term,

and whether the new President can run for reelection if he has not served more than 4 years, which depends on the construction of the phrase "has succeeded as the President," discussed in the next section.

- Re-election: The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. Furthermore, no person who has "succeeded" as President and has served as such

for more than 4 years shall be qualified for any election to the same office (the Presidency) at any time. (Art. VII, Sec. 4, par. 1) The person who succeeds as President and not just in an acting capacity, could either be (i) the Vice-President, or (ii) one who was

elected President in a special election. In both cases, if he has served for more than 4 years, he is ineligible for re-election as President. If he served for 4 years or less, he can run for re- election, it is submitted, since (a) the term "succeeded" encompasses election and (b)

the general rule prohibiting the President to run for re-election refers to the President elected during the regular election. Furthermore, it is submitted that this person may resign on the 4th year so as to be qualified to run for President, since there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits this.

In view of the wording of Art. XVII, Sec. 5, however, President Aquino can run for the 1992 election as President without violating the rule against re-election since the February 7, 1987 election was not conducted under the present Constitution, the 1992 Presidential election being the "first regular elections" to be held under this Constitution. Furthermore, although she may have served for more than 4 years as President by then, she will have done so not as successor to the Presidency. If Vice-President Laurel is the one who serves as President for more than 4 years, then he cannot run for the Presidency in 1992.

The Vice-President on the other hand, shall not serve for more than 2 successive terms. And for this purpose, a voluntary (but not involuntary) renunciation of office for any length of time, shall not be considered an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full terms for which he was elected. (Art. VII, Sec. 4, par. 2). This is applicable, however, beginning 1992, because of the Transitory Provisions. (This prohibition is similar to that applicable to Senators.)

- Canvassing of Election Returns: As already noted in the Other Powers of the Legislature, supra, it is the Congress that acts as Board of Canvassers of every election for

President and Vice-President. The provision reads:o "The returns of every election for President and Vice-President duly certified by the Board of Canvassers of each province or

city, shall be submitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than 30 days after the date of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in a joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof, in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case 2 or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the members of the Congress, voting separately.The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates." (Art. VII, Sec. 4, pars. 4 - 6).

- Electoral Tribunal for the Election of the President and Vice- President: The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the

President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for that purpose. (Art. VII, Sec. 4, par. 7.) Note that while election controversies in the Congress are under the exclusive jurisdiction of their respective Electoral Tribunals, those in

the Executive are under the Supreme Court itself.

- Oath of Office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting

President) of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate to myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." (In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.)

B. PRIVILEGE AND SALARY

- The salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law. Unless the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of P 300,000 and the Vice-President, the salary of P 240,000.

b.1. Executive Immunity- does not refer to immunity from liability but immunity from suit- immunity granted to officers of the executive branch of government from personal liability for tortuous acts or omissions done in the course of carrying out their duties


b.2. Executive Privilege- power of the President to withhold certain types of information- a certain information must, as a matter of necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of public interest

C. PROHIBITIONS

- Prohibitions against the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants:(a) They shall not hold any other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided by this Constitution(b) They shall not practice any other profession.(c) They shall not participate in any business.(d) They shall not be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted.

Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317, the petitioner challenged Ex. Order No. 284 which in effect allowed Cabinet members, their undersecretaries and asst. secretaries and other appointive officials of the Executive Department to hold other positions in the govt., albeit, subject of the limitations imposed therein. The respondents, in refuting the petitioners' argument that the measure was violative of Art. VIII, Sec. 13, invoked Art. IX-B, Sec. 7, allowing the holding of multiple positions by the appointive official if allowed by law or by the pressing functions of his positions.

In declaring the EO unconstitutional, the SC held that by ostensibly restricting the no. of positions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or asst. secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not more than 2 positions in the govt. and GOOCs, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Art. VIII, Sec. 13 prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.

If maximum benefits are to be derived from a dept. head's ability and expertise, he should be allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities without the distraction of other govt. offices or employment.

Compare with prohibitions against other officials: Article VI, Section 13 No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in

the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.

Article IX, A, Section 2 No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of any business which, in any way, may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Article IX, B, Section 7 No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.

Article VIII, Section 12 The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function.

Exceptions to the Rule: Vice-President – Article VII, Section 3(2) The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such

appointment requires no confirmation. Secretary of Justice – Article VIII, Section 8(1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the

Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as 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 of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

Ex oficio positions It refers to an authority derived from official character merely, not expressly conferred upon the individual character, but rather annexed to the official position.

One who is a member by virtue of his title to a certain office, and without further warrant or appointment.

D. SUCCESSIONa) At the beginning of the term

Article VII, Section 7 The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms.

If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified.

If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified.

If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President.


Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified.

The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.

Article VII, Section 10 The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.

- This provision refers to the President and Vice-President elected in the regular election, and so the term referred to begins on June 30 next following the election on the 2nd Monday ofv1992, and every 6 years thereafter.

b) During the term Article VII, Section 8 In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President,

the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.

The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President.

Article VII, Section 10 The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.

c) Temporary disability Article VII, Section 2 No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a

registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

Article VII, Section 3 There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President.

The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.

E. REMOVAL


Article XI, Section 3 1. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. 2. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution

or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.

3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.

4. In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.


5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. 6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be

on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.

8. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT

A. EXECUTIVE POWER

B. POWER OF CONTROL

C. POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

D. POWER OF APPOINTMENT

E. PARDONING POWER

F. MILITARY POWERS

G. EMERGENCY POWERS

H. CONTRACTING AND GUARANTEEING FOREIGN LOANS

I. POWER OVER FOREIGN AFFAIRS

J. POWER OVER LEGISLATION


Documents

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I