-1-

Conditions governing the way straight baselines may be drawn:

1. must not depart t any appreciable extent from the general direction of the
ARTICLE I: NATIONAL TERRITORY coast, & the sea areas lying w/in the lines must be sufficiently closely linked
to the land domain to be subject to the regime of internal waters
2. straight baselines may not be drawn to & from low-tide elevations, unless
lighthouses or similar installations w/c are permanently above sea level
BASELINES
have been built on them
3. A state may not draw straight baselines in such a way as to cut off form the
I. Introduction
high seas the territorial sea of another state
4. a state utilizing a straight baseline system must clearly indicate the lines on
A. Baseline
charts to w/c ‘due publicity’ must be given
• line from w/c the outer limit of the territorial sea & other coastal State
Art. 7(2) – deals w/ exceptional geographical situation
zones is measured
o where because of the presence of a delta & other natural conditions the
• forms the boundary bet. internal waters & territorial sea
coastline is highly unstable, the appropriate points ay be selected along the
• demarcation bet. that maritime area where other States enjoy no general
furthest seaward extent of the low-water line
rights (internal waters), and those maritime areas where other States do
o not very well drafted
enjoy certain general rights (territorial sea & other zones)
o no state appears to have drawn straight baselines utilizing this provision
B. Art 3-11 & 13: set out the current law dealing w/ baselines
C. State Practice
• not only binding, but are also considered as rules of customary international
• States have drawn straight baselines along or part of their coasts
law
• 14 states have adopted enabling legislation to draw straight baselines but
have not yet drawn them
II. Straight Baselines
• The rules governing the use of straight baselines laid down in customary &
conventional law are relatively imprecise, thus allows States a considerable
A. Customary Rules
latitude in the way they draw straight baselines
• Norway used as a the baseline a series of straight lines connecting the
Some states have gone beyond the spirit & vague wording of these rules
outermost points on the skaergaard (countless islands, islets, rocks, reefs)
o some have drawn straight baselines along coasts w/c are not deeply
• UK objected to this method because it extended farther seawards the outer
indented
limit of the Norwegian territorial sea, thus reducing the are of high seas
o the drawing of a straight baseline along coasts w/c posses some offshore
open to fishing by British vessels
islands but w/c do not form a fringe in the immediate vicinity of the coast
• International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the Norwegian straight baseline
o to draw a straight baseline w/ depart to a considerable extent from the
system was in conformity w/ IL
general direction of the coast
o baselines are sometimes drawn so that the sea areas inside the lines are
Conditions governing the drawing of straight baselines:
insufficiently closely linked to the land to be subject to the regime of
1. must be drawn so that they don’t depart to any appreciable extent from the
internal waters
general direction of the coast
o Some states accept the use of low-tide elevations as base points, regardless
2. must be drawn so that the seas lying w/in these lines are sufficiently closely
of whether lighthouses have been built on them
linked to the land domain to be subject to the regime of internal waters
o some haven’t followed the obligation not to draw straight baselines in such
3. it is legitimate to take into account certain economic interests peculiar to a
a way as to cut off the territorial sea of another state from the high seas or
region, the reality & importance of w/c are clearly evidence by long usage
EEZ
o in spite of the obligation to publicize baselines, some have drawn the outer
B. Conventional Rules
limit of their territorial sea in a way w/c presupposes that it is measured
from straight baselines, even though such lines haven’t been published
• The court’s judgment was widely regarded as a piece of legislation
o some states have located base points for straight baseline in the sea
Territorial Sea & Law of the Sea Conventions
• The effect of drawing straight baselines is often to enclose considerable
o a system of straight baselines MAY be used in localities where the coastline
bodies of sea as internal waters
is deeply indented & cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast
I its immediate vicinity
o a state has a choice as to whether it uses straight baselines or not

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 -2-
III. Bays • They cannot be closed by a line drawn across their mouth
• Instead the baseline is constituted by the low-water mark around the shores
A. Pre-1958 customary rules of the bay

• Customary IL recognized that the baseline could be drawn across the mouth IV. River Mouths
of bays, enclosing them as internal waters
• If a river flows directly into the sea, the baseline shall be a straight line
Customary IL failed to provide clear rules on 2 essential points: across the mouth of the river between points on the low-water line of its
1. criteria by w/c an indentation of the base would be recognized as a bay banks
2. the max length of the closing line across the bay • No limit is placed on the length of such a river closing line

B. Conventional Rules A. Estuaries

Geometric test to establish whether an indentation is a bay: • Art. 13 & 19 apply only to rivers that flow directly into the sea
1. line should be drawn bet. the natural entrance points of the indentation • Most large rivers don’t flow directly into the sea, but enter into it via
2. semicircle having the diameter of this line should be constructed & its area estuaries – question of the baseline should be governed by the provisions
measured concerning bays
3. the area of water bet. the line across the indentation & the low-water mark
around the indentation should be calculated (if the area of water is larger B. Deltas
than the are of the semicircle, the indentation is a bay, thus a closing line
can be drawn across it • Art. 13 & 19 are unlikely to be applicably where a river enters the sea via a
4. if the length of the line bet. the natural entrance points of the bay is less delta
than 24 miles, this line is the closing line, & therefore the baseline • Instead the baseline is likely to be constituted by the low-water mark or in
some cases by straight baselines
• Main difficulty: often it isn’t obvious w/c are the ‘natural entrance points’ • The provisions on low-tide elevations & islands will be applicable in many
of an indentation instances
• Even where the application of Art. 7 of the Territorial Sea Convention (TSC)
is free from difficult, some sates parties t the Convention have still failed to V. Harbour Works
act in conformity w/ it
• Outermost permanent harbour works w/c form an integral part of the
C. Historic Bays harbour system are to be regarded as forming part of the coast & hence can
serve as the baseline
• Are not dealt w/ by either the TSC or the LOSC • Harbour works must be attached to the coast if they’re to be used as
• The general IL does not provide for a single regime for ‘historic waters’ or baselines
‘historic bays’
• A state may validly claim title to a bay on historic grounds if it can show VI. Low-Tide Elevation
that it has for a considerable period of time claimed the bay as internal
waters & effectively exercised its authority therein, & that during this time • Naturally formed area of land w/c is surrounded by & above water at low
the claim as received acquiescent of other states tide but submerged at high tide
• Where title to an historic bay has been acquired, a closing line may be • “drying rocks” or “banks”
drawn across the mouth of the bay w/c will then form the baseline • Where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly/partly at a distance not
• Developing states argue that its impossible for them to produce evidence of exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the mainland/an island, the
an uninterrupted exercise of authority low-water line on that elevation may be used as the baseline for measuring
• Theory of ‘vital bays’ – vital security or economic interests would justify the breadth of the territorial sea
title to a bay independently of any true historic title • Where a low-tide elevation is wholly situated at a distance exceeding the
• The question of whether a state has acquired good title to a claimed historic breadth of the territorial sea from the mainland or an island it has not
bay is likely to depend largely on whether other States have acquiesced in territorial sea
its claim • In limited cases, low-tide elevations can be used as basepoints in
constructing a straight baseline system
D. Bays bordered by more than one State

• Are also not dealt w/ by either the Territorial Sea Convention or the LOSC

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 -3-
VII. Islands • Requirement of publicity - help to reduce past abuse of straight baselines &
river mouth & bay closing lines
• A naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, w/c is above water
at high tide X. Present-day customary int’l law relating to baselines
• Every island has a territorial sea, no matter what its size
• Today, the customary rules on baselines are identical w/ the conventional
A. Archipelagos rules
• Only a dozen have legislation w/c refers to most or all of the types of
• Archipelagic Baselines - straight lines may be drawn around the baseline dealt w/ by the Territorial se Convention (generally in accordance
outermost points of the archipelago itself; such archipelagic baselines form w/ the Convention’s provisions)
the baseline from which the territorial sea & other zones are measured • Majority of states simply refer in their legislation to the low-water mark
and/or straight baselines
B. Artificial Islands
XI. Validity of baselines
• No artificial island is entitled to a territorial sea, or therefore, to serve as a
basepoint • The coastal State’s action in exercising its discretion & constructing lines
• Art. 11 – the offshore installations & artificial islands shall not be remains subject to I.L.
considered as permanent harbour works and therefore do not form part of • Delimitation of sea areas has always an international aspect
the baseline • Validity of the delimitation w/ regard to other States depends upon I.L.
• Art. 60(8) & 80 – artificial islands & installations constructed in the EEZ or • A baseline is invalid when it is contrary to I.L.
on the continental shelf have no territorial sea of their own
• The prohibition on states from subjecting any part of the high seas to their ARCHIPELAGOS
sovereignty prevents the establishment of any maritime zones around
artificial islands on the high seas I. Dev’t of a special regime for archipelagos

VIII. Reefs • 1985 conference – deals with ‘coastal’ archipelagos

• It is possible to draw straight baselines around the outermost points of a
• Coral reefs may be continuously submerged or, if exposed at low tide, may coastal archipelago & ‘tie’ it to the mainland coast
be situated from the islands of the atoll at a distance greater than the • In general terms, its easy to see the difference between ‘coastal’ & ‘mid-
breadth of the territorial sea: in neither case could such reefs serve as the ocean’ archipelagos, but it is difficult in practice to apply the distinction
baseline • The great geographical diversity of archipelagos, even win each broad
group, ha made it difficult to draw up a set of agreed rules of general
Art. 6 – the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the seaward application
low-water line of the reef • Main advocates of a special regime for archipelagos: Indonesia & Philippines
o it isn’t limited in its application to atolls or coral reefs o The 2 States announced that they would enclose the whole of their
o it suggests that only reefs exposed at low tide & not wholly submerged archipelagos by straight lines & treat the waters this enclosed as
reefs, may be used as baseline internal waters
o it isn’t clear how far from the island the fringing reef may lie before it o Reason for claims: security & to stress unity & integrity of its vast
ceases to be eligible to serve as the baseline & heterogenous island territory
o many atolls form part of archipelagos • Principle opposition: major maritime states
• feared that such a regime would result in areas w/c had previously been
IX. Charts & Publicity high seas or territorial seas becoming internal waters, w/ the consequent
loss of navigational rights for both their naval & commercial vessels
• Straight baselines - the only baselines w/c the coastal State is required to • Since 1958, may archipelagic states have become independent, thus
indicate in charts & publicize increasing the pressure for adoption of a special regime for mid-ocean
• Under the LOSC, this was extended to the closing lines across river mouths archipelagos to meet the interests of archipelagic states
& bays o Interests: economic (fishing & the control of inter-island traffic),
• Obligation to deposit a copy of chart showing baselines to the UN Sec. Gen. political (promoting the unity of the archipelago), security,
• List of baselines to be indicated in charts & publicized not extended to the preventing smuggling & illegal entry, control of pollution
low-water line & low-tide elevations - such features are constantly changing • Essential features of the new regime:
because of tides & currents

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 -4-
o permits straight ‘archipelagic baselines’ to be drawn around the 6. must not be draw in such a way as to cut off the territorial se of another
outermost islands of archipelagos, thus meeting the wishes of State from the high seas or its exclusive economic zone
archipelagic States 7. the archipelagic state must clearly indicate its archipelagic baseline system
o it creates a new legal concept of ‘archipelagic waters’ for the on charts of an adequate scale (a copy of each chart must be deposited w
waters thus enclosed of such a nature that it should accommodate the UN Sec. Gen)
the navigational interests of maritime States
• An archipelagic states can consist of a number of archipelagos, hence
II. Definition of an archipelago & an archipelagic state archipelagic baselines can be draw around each of the archipelagos making
up the archipelagic State
• Archipelago – a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting
waters & other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such IV. Archipelagic waters
islands, waters & other natural features form an intrinsic geographical,
economic & political entity, or w/c historically have been regarded as such • Comprise all the maritime waters w/in archipelagic baselines
• Archipelagic State – a State constituted wholly by one or more • Neither internal waters nor territorial sea
archipelagos and may include other islands • An archipelagic state has sovereignty over its archipelagic waters, including
• Only an archipelagic state can draw archipelagic baselines around an their superadjacent air space, subjacent sea bed & subsoil, & the resources
archipelago contained therein
• Archipelagic states do not include mainland States w/c possess non-coastal • This sovereignty is subject to a number of rights enjoyed by third states:
archipelagos (Denmark, Ecuador, Norway & Portugal) o 1st - must respect rights enjoyed by third states deriving from
• Definition embraces a number of States w/c do not normally consider existing agreements
themselves t be archipelagic States (Japan, New Zealand, UK) o 2nd – must recognize traditional fishing rights & other legitimate
• States have an option as to whether they draw archipelagic baselines activities of the immediately adjacent neighbouring states in
• An archipelagic States MAY draw straight archipelagic baselines certain areas falling w/in archipelagic waters
• There are 25-35 states w/c fall w/in the definition of an archipelagic State o 3rd – respect existing submarine cables laid by other States and
but no do not consider themselves to be as such passing through its waters w/o making a landfall. An archipelagic
state shall permit the maintenance & replacement of such cables
III. Archipelagic baselines upon receiving due notice of their location and the intention to
repair/replace them.
• Art. 47(1) – an archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines o 4th – there are the navigational rights of other states . the ships of
joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the all states enjoy in archipelagic waters the same right of innocent
archipelago passage as they enjoy in the territorial sea. This right may only be
o these lines serve as the baseline from w/c the breadth of the suspended, temporarily and in specified areas, for security reasons.
archipelagic State’s territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive o the Convention in its provisions on pollution gives the coastal state
economic zone & continental shelf is measured addition enforcement jurisdiction in respect of pollution over
foreign vessels in its territorial sea & straits (but this doesn’t apply
Drawing of archipelagic baselines is subject to a number of conditions: in archipelagic waters)
1. ratio of land to water w/in the lines is not more than 1:1 (maximum ratio • If an archipelagic state doesn’t designate sea lanes or air routes, the right of
prevents archipelagic States w/c consist predominantly of one large island archipelagic sea lanes passage may be exercised through routes normally
or a few large islands close together from drawing archipelagic baselines) used for international navigation
and not less than 1:9 (minimum ratio prevents archipelagic baselines being
drawn around very distant islands in an archipelago or being drawn at all V. Recent State practice
around widely dispersed archipelagos consisting of small islands)
2. Must not exceed 100 miles in length, except that up to 3% of the total • DIVERSE
number of lines maybe between 100 & 125 miles in length • not always in accordance w/ the LOSC
3. Main islands of the archipelago must be included w/in the archipelagic o 1st – several archipelagic states have drawn archipelagic baselines
baselines & accorded the enclosed waters the status of archipelagic waters in
4. It is the archipelagic baselines themselves, by being drawn around the accordance w/ the provisions of the Convention (Antigua &
outermost islands of the group, which largely determine the configuration of Barbadua, Fiji, Papa New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Sao Tome e
the archipelago Principe)
5. shall not be drawn to and from low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses o 2nd – there are 3 states w/c have enacted legislation for an
permanently above sea level have been built on them archipelagic regime whose provisions appear to be in conformity w/
the Convention as regards the status of archipelagic waters but

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 -5-
which have not yet drawn the necessary archipelagic baselines
(Kiribati, St. Vincent, Tuvalu) A. Delimitation of the Phil. Archipelago
o 3rd - some archipelagic States have adopted archipelagic legislation
w/c is not in conformity w/ the Convention (Cape Verde, Comoros, • Archipelago: group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting
Indonesia, Mauritius, Philippines) waters & other natural features w/c are so closely interrelated that such
o 4th - some archipelagic states haven’t utilized archipelagic islands, waters & other natural features form an intrinsic geographical,
baselines in their recent maritime zones legislation economic, & political entity, or w/c have historically regarded as such
o 5th – some states not falling w/in the definition of archipelagic • RA 3046 (amended by RA 5446): establish the baselines w/c embrace the
states claim to draw baselines enclosing mid-ocean archipelagos Phil. archipelago
(Denmark, Ecuador, Spain, Australia); while some rejected the • 8175.8974 miles: total length of the Phil.’s 80 archipelagic baselines
opportunity, when enacting maritime legislation, to draw lines • PD 1596: considers the Kalayaan Island Group part of Phil. territory by
enclosing mid-ocean archipelagos (US, New Zealand) virtue of historic title & effective occupation
• an archipelagic claim will be valid vis-à-vis those states that acquiesce in • PD 1599: establishes the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to be
the claim or definitely accept it; the claim will not be valid as against states measured from the baseline
w/c have persistently objected it • Treaty of Paris: Spain ceded to the US the archipelago, “Phil. Islands”. A
• Hodgson & Smith – question whether the concept of an archipelagic state is line was drawn around the whole archipelago w/c now marks the outer
really necessary w/ the introduction of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) limits of the territorial sea of the Phil.
because the use of archipelagic baselines will only marginally increase the • Treaty of Washington: Spain clarified all ambiguities in the Treaty of
size of the EEZ, & the gain in the waters enclosed by baselines becoming Paris, & other islands lying outside the lines drawn were included in the Phil.
archipelagic rather than territorial sea or EEZ may be more psychological territory
than real • Treaty bet. US and UK: used the same method of delimiting the boundary
bet. Phil. & North Borneo
THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE CONCEPT OF ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS
UNDER THE 1982 LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION ON PHIL. TERRITORIAL B. Phil. Waters as Shipping Routes
SOVEREIGNTY OVER ITS INTERNAL WATERS
• Philippines: “Pearl of the Orient” – strategic geographical location
BY: AILEEN SARAH TAPIA TOLOSA • Waters between its islands play a significant role in global affairs
• Waters of the Phil. act as trade routes bet. Japan and NE Asia, Australia, &
ABSTRACT New Zealand
• A number of major normal shipping routes through the SE Asian region run
• To protect its claim over waters, the Philippines campaigned for the through the waters bet. the islands of the Phil. archipelago
international acceptance of the “archipelagic principle”
• After 3 UN conventions, the int’l community consented to giving them the II. THE DEV’T OF THE ARCHIPELAGIC PRINCIPLE
right to draw straight baselines connecting the outermost points of their
outermost islands • International acceptance of the “archipelagic principle”
• Contrary to Phil. claim, the Convention classified the waters w/in the • Allows archipelagic states to draw imaginary lines connecting the outermost
baselines as archipelagic waters and NOT as internal waters islands, thus forming a single entity
• Archipelagic waters are subject to the twin rights of innocent passage &
archipelagic sealane passage A. Studies of International Bodies
• Phil. Constitution: claims that all waters w/in these baselines are internal
waters & all alien vessels may pass through these waters only w/ prior • Have no legal force but are essential because they provide the framework &
permission from Phil. Govt foundation for the principles governing the regime of archipelagos
• Result: conflict between the Phil. constitution & the 3rd Convention on the
Law of the Sea 1. Institute de Droit International
• Solution most beneficial: for Phil. to adopt the regime of archipelagic 2. Int’l Law Association
waters by amending its constitution, but be very vigilant to effectively 3. American Institute of Int’l Law
control the entry of vessels into Phil. waters 4. Harvard Research in Int’l Law

B. The Hague Codification Conference of 1930

C. The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case

I. THE PHIL. ARCHIPELAGO

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 -6-

D. 1st UN Conference on the Law of the Sea 2. Bays

• Bay: a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such
1. Preparatory work proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked
2. The Conference Proper, 1958 waters & constitute more than over a mere curvature of the coast

E. The 2nd UN Convention o the Law of the Sea, 1960 3. Ports

• The final text of the Convention didn’t reflect all the amendments
F. The 3rd UN Conference on the Law of the Sea submitted by the Phil
• Members of the int’l community struck a balance between the
1. Preparatory Work demands of the major maritime powers & the needs of the
2. Response of regional groups archipelagic states
3. objections to the Archipelagic Principle • Although not all of the proposals submitted by the archipelagic
4. Philippine Position on the Proposals states were accepted by the int’l community, the Phil. still signed &
ratified the Convention
G. The Informal Negotiating Text & the Proposed Amendments of the Phil • concept of “package deal” – encouraged each state to bargain for
provisions in the Convention that were most desirable
1. Length of Baselines
• Max length of the baselines: 80 nautical miles III. THE PHIL. RATIFICATION OF THE CONVENTION
• a certain percentage of the baselines may reach until 125 nautical
miles • EO 738 – Pres. Created a Cabinet Committee on the Law of the Sea
composed of men who were experts in their respective fields
2. Innocent Passage • w/o the archipelagic principle, the Philippines in the eyes of the int’l
• The amendment submitted by the Phil. stated that the innocent community would be a dismembered nation due to the pockets of high seas
passage of ships may not be enjoyed over the archipelagic waters in between its islands
as a whole, but shouldn’t be limited to all routes used for int’l • w/ the creation of the regime the Phil. is now a unified whole
navigation • additional benefit: the EEZ is bigger than the territorial sea

3. Archipelagic Sealanes A. Declaration of the Phil.

• Philippines sought to limit the passage through sealanes designated
by the archipelagic state • In approving the final text of the Convention, the framers were aware that
some of these provisions were contrary to municipal law
4. Overflight • Framers provided a mechanism (embodied in Art. 309 & 310) by which a
• Phil. proposed to limit this passage to creation classes of aircraft signatory may draft reservations for the purpose of harmonizing its own
• Intended that vessels w/c are potentially dangerous to the security, laws w/ the rules set forth in the Convention
environment or other interests of the archipelagic state shall be • Cabinet Committee reached a general assessment that the benefits to be
confined to sealanes designated by it gained from adopting the Law of the Sea treaty far outweigh the obligations
arising from it
H. The Final Text • Resolution No. 633: endorsing the Law of the Sea & further
recommending that it be approved w/o amendment
• w/ the approval of the archipelagic principle came the creation of the
archipelagic waters w/c are the bodies of water located inside or w/in the B. Proceedings at the Batasan
archipelagic baselines
• Members of the Batas expressed their concern: Phil. stands to lose a part of
• internal waters – located w/in the archipelagic waters the territorial waters embraced w/in the limits prescribe by the Treaty of
Paris due to the non-acceptance by the int’l community of the historic
1. Mouth of Rivers waters of the Phil
• If a river flows directly into the sea, the baseline shall be a straight • Members eventually understood the benefits & obligations embodied it he
line across the mouth of the river between points on the low-water Convention. Their doubts & fears were laid to rest by the exhaustive
line of its banks discussions & speeches delivered by Tolentino
• The ratification made by the Batasang Pambansa embodied & contained the
declaration earlier made by the Phil. delegation upon signing the Convention

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 -7-
C. Objections to the Declaration Made by the Phil. Upon Signing the • Delegate Quintero: it must be expressly agreed upon that the def. of the
Convention Phil. territory must be embodied in the Constitution itself
• Def. of the national territory was necessary to claim ownership over the
• Several nations claimed that the declaration contravenes & is incompatible pockets of waters w/in & connecting the islands of the Phil. archipelago
w/ Art. 310 of the Convention • A claim that the waters w/in the archipelago are considered internal waters
• Australia: “This indicates, in effect, that the Philippines does not consider was of utmost importance
that it is obliged to harmonize its laws w/ the provisions of the Convention.
By making such an assertion, the Phil. is seeking to modify the legal effect C. The 1987 Constitution
of the Convention’s provisions.”
• Objecting nations expressly announced that the declaration of the Phil. • The “nebulous” definition of the Phil. internal waters contributed to the
cannot be considered as valid & as having any legal force & effect reason why Commissioner Nolledo endorsed Committee Report No. 3 w/c
• It can be argued that the Phil. declaration doesn’t necessarily imply a non- “decided to adopt the definition of the national territory…”
conforming conduct • The framers of the 1987 Constitution didn’t take into consideration the
concept of archipelagic waters introduced by the 1982 Law of the Sea
IV. THE PHIL. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ON PHIL. WATERS & THE 3RD U.N. Convention, and insisted that even after the 1982 Law of the Sea, the
CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA waters w/in the Phil. archipelago remain to be internal waters

• It is not the constitution w/c definitely fixes the extent of Phil. territory D. Internal Waters under the 1987 Constitution vs. Archipelagic Waters
• The constitution is a municipal law & is only biding w/in the territorial limits Under the Law of the Sea
of the sovereignty
• A constitutional definition of territory does not have the effect of legitimizing • Philippines: the provisions of the Law of the Sea governing archipelagic
a territorial claim not founded on some legal right protected byIL waters are wholly unacceptable & therefore cannot be embodied in its
• Binding power of the constitution is limited only to its domestic/local municipal law
affairs/controversies • Int’l Community: objected to the non-conformity of the Phil w/ the Law of
the Sea
A. The 1935 Constitution • Internal Waters: no overflight rights, no freedom of navigation,
requirement of prior authorization
• Absence of an express declaration on the status of the waters w/in the Phil. • Archipelagic Waters: overflight rights, right of innocent passage
archipelago
• 1935 Convention included an article on national territory to use the V. THE TWIN RIGHTS: INNOCENT PASSAGE & ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES
Constitution as an int’l document binding on the US PASSAGE
• Tydings-McDuffie Law: the effectivity of the Phil. constitution depended
partly on the acceptance of its provisions by the US A. The Right of Innocent Passage
• Treaties: Treaty of Paris, Treaty in Washington, Treaty bet. US & Great
Britain • Allows states to pursue their various policies of national sovereignty, while
at the same time, maintaining global freedom of navigation by w/c other
B. The 1973 Constitution nations may pursue their economic & political objectives

• Debate on whether the upcoming Constitution should contain a definition of 1. Definition

Phil. territory
• Delegate Voltaire Garcia: argued for the deletion of the entire article on PASSAGE – navigation through the territorial sea for any of the ff.
National Territory because the territorial definition of the Phil. was a subject purposes: traversing that sea w/o entering internal waters or calling at a
of int’l law, not municipal law roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or proceeding to or from
• Delegate Sorsogon: advocated “nationalistic” arguments; the mention of internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility
the Treaty of Paris was a reminder of the indignity of the Philippines’ o GR: requires that the movement of the vessel be continuous &
colonial past expeditious
• Delegate Gunigundo: inclusion of that provision will only legitimize an o Exceptions: (when stopping/anchoring is permitted)
otherwise illegal act of Spain 1. it is incidental to ordinary navigation
• Delegates Roco & Nolledo: Definition of the national territory was 2. its rendered necessary by force majeure or distress
necessary for the preservation of national wealth, strengthening of national 3. assistance is essential to persons
security, protection of natural resources & manifestation of solidarity of 4. ships/aircraft are in danger or in distress
Filipino People

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 -8-
• Passage is considered INNOCENT when it is not prejudicial to the Protective measures
peace, good order or security of the archipelagic state 1. demand that the guilty vessel leave the archipelagic waters
• Right of innocent passage: grants any type of foreign ship 2. settle through diplomatic or other agreed means
unhampered passage through archipelagic waters w/o prior 3. third party settlement
authorization from the archipelagic state. This is available at all 4. the archipelagic state may, w/o discrimination in form or in fact, suspend
times to ships of all states & cannot be denied/impaired by the temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters the innocent
archipelagic state passage of foreign ships if it is essential for the protection of its security
• The right of innocent passage cannot be made dependent on the
discretion of the archipelagic state. • settlement of disputes shouldn’t be made through the use of force (i.e.
• Strict & literal application of the Convention leads to the conclusion “bumping” the guilty vessel)
that in exercise of the right of innocent passage, no distinction is
made between commercial or merchant ships, oil tankers, C. Environmental Pollution
warships, submarines, nuclear-powered vessels & those carrying
nuclear or dangerous materials • Increasing concern over the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes,
• While merchant vessels are neutral in character, warships are goods & materials
identified as belonging to the naval forces of the State and may • Greatest source of tanker-related pollution is the discharge of tank washings
pursue an “aggressive policy” • Main concern of the Phil: vulnerable & valuable marine resources w/c
• The major maritime powers are strong proponents adhering to the coexist w/ the occurrence of pollution or its threatened occurrence
strict interpretation • Basel Convention- regulates the export of hazardous wastes & ensures that
states of import have appropriate mechanisms to deal w/ the disposal of
2. How “innocent” should innocent passage be? such wastes upon arrival
• There is very little int’l law that actually regulates vessels that are shipping
• The burden of identifying & proving the non-innocent act lies w/ hazardous cargoes
the enforcement authority, the coastal state • Art. 19 of the Convention: denies the archipelagic State the legal authority
• The Law of the Sea provides a framework w/c aids states in to prohibit passage of vessels actually discharging pollution unless the
determining whether the passage through their waters is truly discharge is “willful”
innocent • However, pollution presents a threat w/c can occur w/o any element of
• Convention prescribes that in archipelagic waters, submarines & intent
other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface • “serious” standard – before action may be taken against pollution, the
& to show their flag pollution must be serious (ambiguous and dangerous because it doesn’t
provide a precise definition of the adjective “serious”)
Non-innocent activities of foreign ships: • The passage may be denied only when the threatening “activity” actually
1. Exercise/practice w/ weapons of any kind occurs
2. Any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense/security of the coastal
State D. Response to the Threat of Pollution
3. The launching, landing or taking onboard of any aircraft
4. The launching, landing or taking onboard of any military device • Strengthen & make more effective the laws & regulations for the prevention,
5. The loading/unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the reduction and control of pollution but must never impair the right of
customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws & regulations of the Coastal innocent passage
state
6. Any act of wilful & serious pollution contrary to this Convention E. The Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage
7. Any fishing activities
8. The carrying out of research/survey activities • Clarified that submarines & other underwater vehicles be given the right to
9. Any act aimed at interfering w/ any systems of communication or any other pass through the archipelagic waters in their normal mode, meaning,
facilities or installations of the coastal state submerged
10. Any other activity w/c doesn’t have a direct bearing on passage • Submerged passage of submarines & the flight of military aircraft in
archipelagic waters are permitted provided that these activities are don w/in
B. Responding to Non-Innocent Passage the designated archipelagic sea lanes

• The archipelagic state may take the necessary steps to prevent the non- 1. Designation of Archipelagic Sea Lanes
innocent passage through its archipelagic waters

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 -9-
• Archipelagic states have the right to designate archipelagic sea lanes accdg Philippine National Marine Policy:
to the guidelines set by the convention, but the power given is superficial 1. emphasize the archipelagic nature of the Phil in dev’t planning
o the guidelines to be followed are so numerous & detailed that little 2. view coastal marine areas as locus of community, ecology & resources
choice is left 3. Implement UNCLOS win the framework of the Nat’l marine Policy
o the failure of the archipelagic state to designate sea lanes allows 4. coordinate & consult w/ concerned & affected sectors through the Cabinet
foreign submarines & military aircraft to exercise the passage Committee on Maritime & Ocean Affairs
through routes normally used for int’l navigation 5. Address the ff. priority concerns:
o the choice of sea lanes by the archipelagic state is subject to a. extent of the national territory
approval of the competent IO (IMO) b. protection of the marine ecology
c. management of the marine economy & technology
2. Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage vs. Transit Passage d. maritime security

Point of Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage Transit • Expansion of powers of the Cabinet Committee on the LOTS (w/c was
Difference Passage renamed as the Cabinet Comm. On Maritime & Ocean Affairs
Regulation The archipelagic stat has the right to make rules No restrictions • Expanded powers: formulation of practical & viable policies & addressing
& regulations, including special requirements for may be imposed the various concerns w/c affect the implementation of the UN Convention on
nuclear & hazardous substances the LOTS & other marine related matters
Passage Continuous, expeditious, & unobstructed Continuous, • DFA conducted consultations asking citizens for suggestions on how to
expeditious, & resolve the conflict
unimpeded • Majority said the Treaty of Paris shouldn’t be set aside because it is the
Manner of Sea lane must be indicated on a chart, w/ an No such national heritage of the Filipino People
Delimiting axis & a max width of 50 nautical miles & must requirements • A balance of interests of both the Filipino people & the int’l community
Lanes be approved by the Int’l Maritime Org. should be maintained

3. Security Dimension C. Requirement of Prior Permission & Illegal Entry Report

• This right cannot be suspended • There have been cases of illegal entry into the Phil. internal waters, and
• Possible solution to the security problem is the establishment of a most of these apprehended illegal entrants used force majeure as their
nuclear-free zone in SE Asia defense
• There have been instances when vessels w/o prior authorization have
VI. THE PHIL. RESPONSE TO THE LAW OF THE SEA successfully passed through the Phil. internal waters & have evaded arrest
• The Phil. appears to conform in practice w/ the navigational regime set forth
A. Philippine Senate Bill No. 206 in the Convention by allowing foreign warships/ships to pass w/o
notification/authorization
• Sponsored by former Senator Leticia Ramos Shahani • As early as the time when the US Bases Agreement was in force, the Phil
• Most significant move of the Phil. towards harmonizing its laws w/ the allowed the Americans to navigate through Phil. internal waters w/o need of
Convention prior authorization
• The bill sought to delineate the archipelagic baselines in accordance w/ the • clear derogation of Philippine sovereignty
special mode set forth in the Convention • The Phil. doesn’t regard the status of its internal waters as something to
• Was met w/ opposition by some gov’t agencies, especially the DFA perpetually fight for as the end all and be all of Phil. territory
• DFA objects because it totally abandons the Treaty of Paris to conform w/
the Convention of the Law of the Sea, meaning our territorial sea will only VII. AN EVALUATION OF THE PHIL. SITUATION
be 12 nautical miles & not 250
• Shahani Bill was archived and has remained a mere proposal ever since A. The Phil. Declaration

B. National Marine Policy • Fails to harmonize Phil. Law w/ the Convention by stating that the Phil.
maintains its present Constitutional Law & reserves the right to amend the
• A “developmental & management program” designed to respond to the provisions of the Convention to conform to its municipal law
obligation set forth by the Convention • Ignores the rights established under the Convention
• Objections filed by Russia, Australia, Bulgaria & others are VALID, and their
pronouncement that they will treat the waters w/in the archipelagic baseline
of the Philippines as archipelagic waters, is binding on the Philippines

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 10 -
• With regard to said states, the Declaration has no legal effect o The Treaty of Paris cannot be invoke in claiming the present delimitation of
the internal & territorial waters of the Phil
B. The Phil. Ratification
• Another theory suggests that the conflict bet. the Phil. Constitution & the
• The Phil, as a ember of the int’l community, is required to comply w/ its Convention is merely superficial based on the phrase “may draw straight
obligations established under the system of laws regulating the relations of archipelagic baselines” (merely directory and not mandatory
the members of the int’l community w/ one another
• The Convention is a system of law w/c the Phil. must comply with Conservatives: the ratification made by the Phil. is null & void since it ran contrary
• The Phil. ratification of the Convention was the formal act by w/c it to the Phil. constitution, hence the Phil exists on its own & loses instead of gains
manifested its consent to the provisions & promised to adhere to the more rights
responsibilities found therein
• The Phil. cannot plead its own law or deficiencies in that law as an excuse • Others opt to abandon the Convention & rely on customary int’l law wherein
for non-compliance or as a justification for a breach of the Convention each island will have its own 12mile territorial sea
o an abandonment of the Convention will give other countries reason
2 SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT W/C DOMINATE THE RELATIONSHIP OF to pull out their investment
MUNICIPAL & INT’L LAW: o reliance on the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries doctrine w/c considered
1. MONISM – asserts the supremacy of int’l law over municipal law even w/in as internal waters the waters w/in the baselines
the domestic sphere o non-applicability of the doctrine
2. DUALISM – believes that int’l law & municipal law differ in the fact that the o Norway – coastal archipelago – those situated so close to
2 systems regulate diff. subject matter (int’l law is a law bet. sovereign mainland they may reasonably considered as part & parcel thereof
states while municipal law applies win a state &regulates the relations of o Phil. – outlying archipelago - groups of islands situated out it the
citizens w/ each other & w/ the executive) ocean to be considered independent whole rather than forming part
of the mainland
• The Phil can insist o its claim of internal waters, but cannot compel the
other states to honor such claim Liberalists: propose an amendment to the Constitution & other Phil. laws
• The Phil. must observe the principle of pacta sunt servanda (every treaty in o w/o the Treaty of Paris to rely on, the present claim of the Phil over its
force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith) internal & territorial waters is no more than an empty right based only on
& must amend/repeal its laws in order to conform to the Convention municipal law bereft of legal force b4 the int’l community
• Continued failure to do so will amount to bad eventually amount to bad faith o It is wiser for the Phil to sacrifice a part of its sovereignty by
• Continued non-compliance may amount to a material breach of the classifying its present internal waters into archipelagic waters &
Convention subjecting them to the rights of innocent passage & archipelagic sea
• Net effect: bodies of water between & surrounding the islands of the Phil will lanes passage, than risk losing a large portion of said waters by
be treated as high seas & all foreign nations will have the freedom to exploit having pockets of high seas between the Phil. islands
& explore the natural resources of the Phil.
VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
C. Phil. Response to the UN Order
• The framers of the 1987 Constitution weren’t ready tot abandon the
• Prof. Haydee Yorak, Philippine Candidate to the Int’l Tribune on the Law of convention
the Sea, announced to the int’l community that the Phil. is taking steps • Since the Phil. isn’t willing to relinquish its rights under the Convention, it
towards the harmonization of its laws w/ that of the Convention has no other option but to comply w/ the obligations established therein
• She requested that due to complexities & the highly-sensitive issues • The Phil. must stop skirting the issue and meet the problem head on
involved, the Phil. be given more time in achieving the task set before it • This continuous hesitation to face the problem has led to inconsistent
practices adopted by the Phil
D. Theories on How to Resolve the Conflict • The Phil must take a firm stand by taking into consideration the interests of
both the Filipino people & the int’l community
Most popular view: Phil. cannot be compelled by the int’l community to adopt the • It is proposed that the Phil, at an opportune time, should amend its present
regime of archipelagic waters due to delimitation of Phil. waters established under constitution & adopt the regime of archipelagic waters
the Treaty of Paris • The amendment should provide thus: “The waters around, between, &
o The US adheres to the 3mile limit of territorial sea. The Treaty of Paris connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth &
didn’t transfer any waters, only land areas. dimension, form part of the archipelagic waters of the Philippines, and w//in
o The Phil cannot claim more than what the US had possessed these archipelagic waters are the internal waters delimited in accordance w/
the rules set by international law.”

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 11 -
• The Phil. stands to gain more by adhering to the Convention PVTA v CIR
• Giving more navigational & maritime rights to foreigners doesn’t necessarily • Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration performs governmental and not
& automatically deprive the Phil. of sovereignty over its waters propriety functions.
• The Phil is permitted to enact rules & regulations concerning the twin rights • Court of Industrial Relations determine labor controversies by gov’t-owned
of innocent passage & archipelagic sea lanes passage. To have a very or controlled corporations.
effective enforcement mechanism, committee should be formed to study the • Eight hour labor law applies both to private and government employees.
rules & regulations imposed, and to implement said rules. • Function of government to provide for general welfare, seeking to realize
• Phil. should enter into agreements w/ other SE Asian nations concerning the common good of its members.
measures to prevent pollution of their waters & enforce their individual • The growing complexities of modern society have rendered the traditional
legislations re: environmental & security concerns classification of the functions of the gov’t (constituent and ministrant) are
• IL is not sacrosanct, nor static. It is open to developments & amendments obsolete.
• What may be applicable today may not necessarily be applicable tomorrow
Republic v Judge CFI of Rizal
• Regarding corporations, the Rice and Corn Administration is a government
agency without a distinct separate legal personality from that of Republic of
Philippines.
ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES & STATE POLICIES • The mercantile activity of RCA in buying and selling palay and corn is ONLY
• INCIDENT TO ITS PRIMARY GOVERNMENT FUNCTION which is to carry out
its declared policy of subsidizing and stabilizing the price of palay and corn
to make it accessible to average consumers as part of gov’t objective of
Section 1: Philippines as a Democratic and Republic State
serving the well-being of people.
• RCA is exempt from paying legal fees and posting of appeal bond.
People
Territory
VFP v Reyes
Government
• It is crystal clear that our constitutions explicitly prohibit the regulation by
special laws of private corporations, with the exception of government-
Functions of Government
owned or controlled corporations. Hence, it would be impermissible for the
law to grant control of the VFP to a public official if it were neither a private
Bacani v NACOCO
government entity or GOCC. Said constitutional provisions can be read to
• “Government of the Republic of the Philippines” (used in sec 2 Revised
prohibit the creation itself of the VFP if it were neither of the three
Administration Code) refers only to that government entity through which
mentioned above.
the function of the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty,
included those arms through which political authority is made effective
MIAA v CA
(whether municipal, provincial, or other local gov’t). These are the municipal
• MIAA is NOT a GOCC but an instrumentality of the Nat’l government and
corporations. They do not include government entities with corporate
thus exempt from local taxation
personality governed by Corporation Law separate and distinct from the
• A GOCC must be an organized stock or non stock corp.
government.
• MIAA is NEITHER
• Functions of Gov’t: CONSTITUENT and MINISTRANT.
• MIAA has no capital stock to divide into shares.
• Constituent-compulsory functions which binds the society (keeping order,
• MIAA has NO members
protection) COMPULSORY.
• MIAA remits 20% of its annual income to the gov’t
• Ministrant-optional functions, what to do for public welfare, better equipped
• It is an instrumentality of the Gov’t
than private individual or groups. OPTIONAL.
• INTSRUMENTALITY – any agency of the National Gov’t not integrated
within the department framework, vested with special functions or
ACCFA v CUGCO
jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate power.
• Agricultural credit and cooperative financing administration versus
• Sec 234a of LGC exempts from real estate tax any real property owned by
Confederation of Unions in Government corporations and offices.
RP.
• ACA (formerly ACCFA) is a government office engaged in governmental
• Real properties of MIAA are owned by RP, exempt from real estate tax.
duties geared in the implementation of the Land Reform program of the
State as a government instrumentality.
Ramiscal v Sandiganbayan
• As a government office, its personnel are subject to Civil Service Laws and
• Crimes committed by public officers and employees in relation to their
to rules of standardization with respect to positions and salaries, and
offices penalized under anti-graft law DO NOT EXCLUDE prosecution for
therefore, any doubt to its governmental character disappears.
felonies defined and penalized under RPC & vice versa

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 12 -
• Determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is a Letter of Associate Justice Puno
function of the Office of the Ombudsman as it is empowered to determine • A revolution is a complete overthrow of the established government in a
whether probable cause exists. state or country by those who were previously subject to it or a “sudden,
• Courts should not interfere with the ombudsman in its investigatory power radical fundamental change in the government or political system usually
in determining presence of probable cause. affected with violence or at least some act of violence”.
• The right to revolution is defined as “inherent right of the people to cast out
Alzaga v Sandiganbayan their rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms in their system of
• AFP-RSBS is a gov’t owned and controlled corp. government institutions by force or a general uprising when legal and
• It was established by virtue of PD 361 (1973) providing for armed forces constitutional methods of making change are inadequate or unavailable.”
retirement and separation benefits system. AFP-RSBS is imbued with public • Though Aquino’s rise to presidency was unconstitutional, it was met by little
interest, a government entity and its funds are in the nature of public funds. resistance.
Under RA 9182AFP-RSBS is a GOCC. • Aquino can still disregard, modify or repeal any part of BPB129 in her
exercise of the joint power of the executive and legislative during her
De Jure and De Facto Government revolutionary government.
• Gov’t under Cory was DE JURE since it was established by authority of
Co Kim Cham v Valdez Tan Keh legitimate sovereign, the people. It was a revolutionary gov’t by being in
• Based on legal truism and Intl’ law, all acts and proceedings of the defiance of 1973Constitution.
legislative, exec, and judicial departments of a de facto government are
good and valid. Philippine executive commission during the Japanese regime Sovereignty
was a de facto government being established and maintained by military
forces who invade and occupy. People v Gozo
• De Facto government • Phil has jurisdiction even if there was a treaty agreed by US and Phil (US
o its existence is maintained by active military power with territories, naval base)US has preferential jurisdiction but not exclusive.
and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful • Doctrine of Auto-limitation–any state may, by its consent, express or
gov’t. implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights:
o that while it exists it was necessarily obeyed in civil matters by o a state has exclusive capacity of legal-determination and self-
private citizens who, by obedience in the submission to such force, restriction
do not become responsible for those acts, though not warranted by o a state may choose to refrain from the otherwise is illimitable
the laws of the rightful gov’t. competence
• Powers and duties of De Facto gov’t is regulated in Sec 3 of Hague o there is at most diminution of jurisdictional rights, NOT
Convention of1907 that provides “the authority of the legislative power disappearance
having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take
steps in his power to reestablish and insure, as far as possible, public order
and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force Section 2: International Law and Philippine Municipal Law
in the country.”
• According to well-known principles of int’l law, all judgments and judicial Adoption of International Law and the Doctrine of Incorporation
proceedings which are not of political complexion, of the de facto
government during the Jap military occupation were good and valid before Tañada v Angara
and remained so after the occupied territory had come again into power as • Principles in ART II are not intended to be self-executing principles, used by
a sovereign. judiciary as aids for judicial review.
• Although in theory the authority of the local civil and judicial administration • Doctrine of Incorporation–the country is bound by generally accepted
is suspended as military occupation take place, in practice the invaders does principles of int’l law which are automatically considered as part of our own
not usually take the administration in their own hands but continues the laws.
administering of the laws of the country unless absolutely prevented. • A treaty creates legally binding obligation on the parties. Inherent in its
• As a consequence, enabling laws or acts providing that proceedings pending nature, it limits the absoluteness of sovereignty.
in one court be continued by or transferred to another court, are not • Nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for
required by the mere change of gov’t. greater benefits.
• Kinds of De Facto govt: • The SENATE by giving its consent to the WTO agreement, it makes it part of
o Gov’t gets possession and control by force or by voice of majority the law of the land as a legitimate exercise of its sovereign power and duty.
o Established and maintained by invading military forces
o Established as an independent gov’t by inhabitants of a country
who rise in insurrection against the parent state

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 13 -
Bayan v Zamora Kilosbayan v Morato
• Senate has power to ratify treaties. 2/3 vote. • The charter of the PCSO does not absolutely prohibit it from holding or
• “Recognized as a treaty”–means that the other contracting party accepts or conducting lottery in “collaboration, association or joint venture” w/ others
acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. or “by itself.” Pursuant to RA No. 1169, the PCSO has the authority to hold
• US treats VFA only as an executive agreement because under int’l law, the or conduct charity sweepstakes races, lotteries & similar activities, and/or to
executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. Thus in int’l law, there is no invest—whether by itself or in collaboration, association or joint venture w/
difference between treaties and exec agreements in their binding effect any other person, association, company or entity—in any health & welfare-
upon states concerned as long as negotiating functionaries have remained related investments, programs, projects & activities w/c may be profit
in power. oriented except w/ competing activities.
• In our jurisdiction, we have recognized the binding effect of the executive
agreements even without the concurrence of the Congress. Section 6: Separation of Church and State

Lim v Executive Secretary Section 7: Independent Foreign Policy

• Balikatan exercise rooted in Mutual Defense Treaty.
• VFA permits the US to engage in “activities” but not in activities inconsistent Lim v Executive Secretary
with the spirit of the agreement (mutual anti-terrorism advising, assisting, • The VFA permits US personnel to engage in “activities”, but not in activities
and training are allowable). inconsistent w/ the spirit of this agreement, & in particular, from any
• The word “activities” is used to give both parties leeway in negotiation for political activity. The use of the word “activities” is meant to give both
non-military activities. parties leeway in negotiation, and US forces can engage in non-military
• US participants may not engage in combat except in self-defense. activities in the Philippines. Combat-related activities—as opposed to
combat itself—are indeed authorized.
Adherence to Peace, Freedom, Amity • The US exercise participants may NOT engage in combat except in SELF-
DEFENSE.
Section 3: Civilian Supremacy
Section 8: Freedom from Nuclear Weapons
IBP v Zamora
• The deployment of the Marines doesn’t constitute a breach of the civilian Bayan v Zamora
supremacy. The calling of the Marines in this case constitute permissible use • In both provisions of Sec. 21, Art. VII and Sec 25, Art. XVIII, the
of military assets for civilian enforcement. The order was to deploy the concurrence of the Senate is indispensable to render the treaty or
Marines to aid the PNP in patrolling the metropolis and thus applies to the international agreement valid & effective. However, Sec. 21, Art VII
term “call out” as stated in the Constitution. It must be noted that no other specifies the requirement of at least 2/3 of the Senate to make the treaty
order other than aid was stated in the LOI and that main authority was valid & binding. A special provision or law prevails over a general one.
vested in the PNP and not the Marines in this order thus, limiting the role of • This Court held that the phrase “recognized as a treaty” means that the
the Marines as an aid in civilian affairs. The order was for the aid of the other contracting party accepts/acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.
Marines in assisting civilian affairs and nothing more. Such orders resemble Under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty.
the functions of aid by the armed forces already present and existent within There is no difference between treaties &executive agreements in their
the functions of society such as elections, national examinations, relief and binding effect upon states concerned. We have recognized the binding effect
rescue operations and projects of the Red Cross. of executive agreements even w/o the concurrence of the Senate or
• The deployment of the marines to assist the PNP doesn’t unmake the civilian Congress.
character of the police force. The Marines render nothing more than • The President in ratifying the VFA & submitting it to the Senate for
assistance required in conducting the patrols. As such, there an be no concurrence, acted w/in the confines & limits of the power vested in him.
“insidious incursion” of the military in civilian affairs nor can there be a The negotiation & ratification of the VFA are exclusive acts w/c pertain
violation of the civilian supremacy clause. What we have here is MUTUAL solely to the Pres. He merely performed a constitutional task.
SUPPORT & COOPERATION bet. the military & civilian authorities, not
derogation of civilian supremacy. Moreover, not a single citizen has Section 9: Social Order
complained that his political and civil rights have been violated as a result of
the deployment of the Marines. Section 10: Social Justice

Section 4: Duty of the Government to the People Section 11: Personal Dignity and Human Rights

Section 5: Maintenance of Peace and Order Section 12: Family Life, Mother, Unborn

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 14 -
Family Wisconsin v Yoder
• The State’s interest in universal education is not totally free from a
Unborn balancing process when it impinges on other fundamental rights, such as
those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st
Roe v Wade Amendment & the traditional interest of parents w/ respect to the religious
• State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that exempt from upbringing of their children.
criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf w/o regard to • The Amish have introduced convincing evidence that accommodating their
the stage of her pregnancy &other interests involved violate the Due religious objections by foregoing 1 or 2 additional years of compulsory
Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, w/c protects against state action education will not impair the physical/mental health of the child. Nor will it
the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her result in an inability to be self supporting or to discharge the duties &r
pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materially detract from
interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the the welfare of society.
potentiality of human life, each of w/c grows & reaches a “compelling” point
at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Ginsberg v New York
• The statute DID NOT invade the area of freedom of expression
Rights and Duties of Parents, Aid from Government constitutionally secured to minors. The parents’ claim to authority in their
own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure
Meyer v Nebraska of society. The legislature could properly conclude that parents who have
• • Mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded this primary responsibility for their children’s well-being are entitled to the
as harmful. Granted, the state of Nebraska enacted this law to “promote support of the laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility. The
civic development by inhibiting training and education of the immature in State has an interest to protect the welfare of children & see that they’re
foreign tongues and ideals before they could learn English and acquire safeguarded from abuses w/c might prevent their growth into free &
American ideals” because they are being reared in the US. However, the law independent well-developed citizens.
infringes upon one’s fundamental rights and is, therefore, not justified. The
protection of the Constitution extends to all – to those born with English on Section 13: Vital Role of the Youth
the tongue and those who speak other languages as well. A desirable end
cannot be promoted by prohibited means. The statute, as applied, is Section 14: Role of Women and Equality of Men and Women
arbitrary & w/o reasonable relation to any end within the competency of the
state. It is well known that proficiency in a foreign language is not injurious Section 15: Right to Health
to the health, morals or understanding of the ordinary child.
Section 16: Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology
Pierce v Society of Sisters
• The Compulsory Education Act unreasonably interferes w/ the liberty of Oposa v Factoran
parents/guardians to direct the upbringing & education of children under • The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right – the right to
their control. Rights guaranteed in the Constitution may not be abridged by a balanced &healthful ecology which is solemnly incorporated in the
legislation w/c has no reasonable relation to some purpose w/in the fundamental law. This right carries w/ it the correlative duty to refrain from
competency of the state. impairing the environment. The right of the petitioners to a balanced and
• The respondents as corporations have business & property for w/c they can healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR’s duty – under its mandate and by
claim protection. These are threatened w/ destruction through the virtue of its power & functions under EO No. 192 & the Administrative Code
unwarranted compulsion w/c the appellants are exercising over present & of 1987 to protect & advance the said right.
prospective patrons of their schools. Appellees asked protection against • Timber license is not a contract, property or a property right protected by
arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful interference with their patrons and the due process clause of the Constitution. Since timber licenses are not
the consequent destruction of their business and property. The suits were contracts, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. All licenses may
not premature. Their interest is clear and immediate and injury was not a thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. The non-impairment
mere possibility in the remote future. The inevitable result of enforcing the clause must yield to the police power of the state.
act would be the destruction of appellees' primary schools, and perhaps all
other private primary schools in the state of Oregon. In addition, they are LLDA v Court of Appeals
engaged in undertakings that are useful and meritorious and there is also • The power of the LGU’s to issue fishing privileges was clearly granted for
nothing that indicates that they have failed to discharge their obligations to revenue purposes. On the other hand, the power of LLDA to grant permits,
patrons, students, or the state. fish cages, & other aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively
regulating & monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay region & for lake
quality control & management. It partakes of the nature of police power w/c

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 15 -
is the most pervasive, the least limitable, & the most demanding of all the • Practically nothing is shown to justify the transfer to Batangas except a
State powers, including the power of taxation. near-absolute discretion given by BOI to investors not only to freely choose
• The LLDA has express powers as a regulatory & quasi-judicial body in the site but to transfer it from their own 1st choice for reasons. No cogent
respect to pollution cases w/ authority to issue a “cease & desist order” and advantage to the government has been shown by this transfer.
on matters affecting the construction of illegal fish pens, fish cages, & other • It is the duty of the state to regulate & exercise authority over foreign
aqua-culture structures in Laguna de Bay. investments w/in national jurisdiction & in accordance w/ its national goal &
• When there is a conflict bet. a general law & a special statute, the latter priorities (Sec 10, Art XII).Investors will raise greater portion of capital
should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the FROM LOCAL SOURCES BY WAY OFLOAN. Capital requirements would be
general statute. The special statute is to be taken as an exception to the greatly minimized if BPC did not have to buy new land and if they did not
general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary have to use LPG & does not have to be imported. If the plant is maintained
conclusion. A special law cannot be repealed, amended, or altered by a in Bataan, PNOC will be a partner in the venture which, in turn, would
subsequent general law by mere implication. benefit the government.

Section 17: Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports Section 20: Role of Private Sector

Section 18: Labor Protection Section 21: Promotion of Comprehensive Rural and Agrarian Policy

Standard Chartered Bank Employees v Confessor Section 22: Promotion of Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities
• Art 248(a) of the Labor Code considers it an unfair labor practice (ULP)
when an employer interferes/restrains/coerces employees in the exercise of Section 23: Community-Based Private Organizations
their right to self organization or the right to form association. The right to
self-organization necessarily includes the right to collective bargaining. Section 24: Vital Role of Communications
Substantial evidence is required to support the claim that the employer
committed ULP under the Labor Code. Section 25: Local Autonomy
• Surface bargaining is defined as going through the motions of negotiating
w/o any legal intent to reach an agreement. The Union has not been able to Section 26: Equal Access to Political Opportunities & Political Dynasties
show that the Bank had done acts, both at & away from the bargaining
table, w/c tend to show that it didn’t want to reach an agreement w/ the Pamatong v COMELEC
Union or to settle the differences between it & the Union. Admittedly, the • There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office, but merely a
parties weren’t able to agree & reached a deadlock. However, the duty to privilege subject to limitations. Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is
bargain doesn’t compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the not self-executing, and is not a judicially enforceable right, but merely a
making of a concession. Hence, the parties’ failure to agree didn’t amount to guideline for legislative or executive action.
ULP under Art 248 for violation of the duty to bargain. • The limitations set by COMELEC, found in the provisions of the Omnibus
• The Bank failed to show that the economic demands made by the Union Election Code on “Nuisance Candidates” and its Resolution 6452 are valid.
were exaggerated or unreasonable. The Union based its economic proposals As long as the limitations apply to everybody without discrimination, the
on data of rank &file employees & the prevailing economic benefits received equal access clause is not violated.
by bank employees from other foreign banks doing business in the Phil & • The rationale behind prohibiting nuisance candidates is obvious. The State
other branches of the Bank in the Asian region. has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational,
objective, & orderly. For one, the more candidates there are, the greater the
Section 19: Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy logistical strain. The COMELEC has been given the authority to conduct
elections, and hence has the authority to also adopt means and methods to
Garcia v BOI promote free, orderly and honest elections. Moreover, the Constitution
• BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in approving the transfer of the guarantees that only bona fide candidates for public office shall be free from
petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas & authorizing the change of any form of harassment & discrimination.
fuel from naptha only to naptha and/or LPG for the main reason that the
final say is in the investor all other circumstances to the contrary Section 27: Honesty and Integrity in Public Service
notwithstanding. In doing so, it failed to consider Section19 of Article 2 of
the 1987 Constitution which states that “The state shall develop a self Section 28: Full Public Disclosure
reliant& independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos”.
Its decision was contrary to the development plan of having an export-
processing zone in Bataan.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 16 -
• The authority of the Treasurer to cancel a certificate or permit is expressly
conditioned upon a finding that such cancellation “is in the public interest”.
ARTICLE VI: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Such is a sufficient standard to guide the Insular Treasurer in reaching a
decision on the matter pertaining to issuance or cancellation of certificates
or permits.
Section 1: Legislative Power
Araneta v Gatmaitan
• Executive Order No. 22 is an issuance by the President that prohibits trawl
Grant of Quasi-Legislative Power
fishing in San Miguel Bay, made in accordance with the Fisheries Law.
• If the act is a law unto itself, and within itself, and it does nothing more
Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro
than to authorize the delegate to make rules and regulations to carry it into
• Provincial Governor Morente issued Res.25, relocating the Mangyan tribe for
effect, then the Legislature created the law. There is no undue delegation.
permanent settlement to sitio of Tigbao. Rubi challenged the validity of this
• The Fisheries Act is complete in itself, leaving to the Secretary of Agriculture
resolution stating that the governor has no power to issue such resolutions.
and Natural Resources the promulgation of rules and regulations to carry
It was held that local government units also have quasi-legislative power as
into effect the legislative intent.
it is traditionally lodged to them – immemorial practice.
People v Maceren
Antipolo Realty Corp. v NHA
• Administrative Order No. 84 from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
• Mr. Yuson stopped paying his monthly instalments for the house he
Resources prohibited electro fishing in all Philippine waters.
purchased from ARC because the latter failed to abide by clause no.17 of
• The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to
the contract regarding the beautification of the subdivision. Upon complying
declare what acts constitute a criminal offense. It can authorize the issuance
with the clause, ARC demands for the payment of the instalments including
of regulations and the imposition of penalty provided in the law itself.
the accrued account covered by the beautification period. Yuson argues that
• “To declare what shall constitute a crime and how it shall be punished is a
the accrued period should not be paid and thus, should only cover the
power vested exclusively in the legislature, and it may not be delegated to
period before and after the compliance of clause 17. ARC threatened to
any other body or agency.”
forfeit the instalments and so Yuson filed a petition to NHA. NHA held that
• The (rule-making) power cannot be extended to amending or expanding the
Yuson is correct. ARC filed a petition to the SC contending that NHA has no
statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.
jurisdiction. It was held that NHA has been vested exclusive jurisdiction to
regulate the real estate trade and business (PD 957)
Agustin v Edu
• Letter of Instruction No. 229 of President Marcos directed motor vehicle
PITC v Angeles
owners to equip their cars with early warning devices. Land Transportation
• Remington (manufacturing tools and machinery) and Firestone (bricks)
Commissioner Edu issued a Memorandum Circular in pursuance of the LOI.
assert that LOI 444 and PD 1071 was already repealed by EO 133 and thus,
• The test of delegability is expounded on: “To avoid the taint of unlawful
PITC has no power to demand guarantee from the said company for the
delegation, there must be a standard which implies at the very least that
goods they export to China. It was held that EO 133 did not repeal LOI 444
the legislative itself determines matters of principle and lays down
for it covers only non-traditional products. Also, it was held that PITC has
fundamental policy…A standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its
the exclusive jurisdiction with regard to this matter.
limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It
indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be
Atitiw v Zamora
effected. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out.
• Petitioner contests the validity of sec.1 of the Gen. Appropriations Act 2000,
Thereafter, the executive or administrative office designated may in
asserting that the decrease of CAR’s budget was a means to abolish the CAR
pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and
and thus, repealing EO 220, the law creating CAR.. It was held that the
regulations…”
budget was not a means to abolish CAR and that the legislation could only
do so by promulgating or enacting a law. SC could not pass questions of
Free Telephone Workers v Ministry of Labor
political nature with regard to the budget.
• The constitutionality of the delegation of power in labor disputes causing or
likely to cause strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest to
Valid Delegation
the Minister of Labor was questioned in this case.
• With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar
People v Rosenthal
problems, the national legislature has found it more necessary to entrust to
• The Blue Sky Law or Act No. 2581 requires those who sell speculative
administrative agencies the authority to issue rules and to carry out the
securities to have the latter inspected and approved by the Insular
general provisions of the statute. This is called the “power of subordinate
Treasurer. A question of valid delegation was raised as there was allegedly
legislation”.
no specific standard to be followed.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 17 -
Eastern Shipping Lines v POEA • The LGC expressly provided that the board of directors may “create such
• The widow of an OFW sought to claim death compensation from Eastern positions as may be deemed necessary for the management of the
Shipping Lines. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2 expressly provided for chapters.” This embodies a fairly intelligible standard. Moreover, the
death benefits, and prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by creation of the National Liga of the positions…in line with Art. 210 (g)(2) of
employers of Filipino seamen. Such memorandum’s validity was assailed, on the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of
the grounds that it was violative of the principle of nondelegation of 1991 to the Barangay National Assembly to “formulate uniform constitution
legislative power. and by-laws applicable to the national liga and all chapters.”
• The ruling of subordinate legislation was reiterated.
• NOTE: In class, Sir mentioned that this case is important in the sense that Marcos v CA
even in the absence of a contract between Saco (OFW who died) and the • Circular No. 960 of the Central Bank mandated those who habitually earn or
shipping company, the law still favored in its application Saco so as to receive foreign exchange from invisibles locally or abroad to submit reports
adhere to the standard of “fair and equitable employment practices”. of such. Among the people concerned is Imelda Marcos.
• Related case: Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v POEA • Administrative bodies have the authority to issue administrative regulations
which are penal in nature where the law itself makes the violation of the
Tablarin v Gutierrez administrative regulation punishable and provides for its penalty.
• Petitioners sought admission into colleges of medicine. However, they either
did not take or failed the NMAT required by the Board of Medical Education. Fernandez v Sto. Tomas
• Similar doctrine of delegates non potest delegare, or what has been • A resolution was passed & implemented w/in the CSC that reorganized &
delegated may not be further delegated, such pertaining to legislative restructured its internal offices. Such is the object of complaint of the
powers. petitioner.
• The standards set for subordinate legislation in the exercise of rule making • Legislative authority had expressly authorized the Commission to carry out
authority by an administrative agency like the Board of Medical Education “changes in the organization,” “as the need [for such changes] arises”. Such
are necessarily broad and abstract. “The standard does not have to be legislative authority was validly delegated to the Commission. The
spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of legislative standards to be observed and respected in the exercise of such
the act considered as a whole.” (quoted Edu v Ericta) authority are set out in the Administrative Code.

Guingona v Carague Chiongbian v Orbos

• General Appropriations Act of 1990 allocated P 86.6 Billion to debt service, • What is assailed is the validity of a provision that authorized the President
only P 27 Million to education by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 81 and to “merge” by administrative determination the regions remaining after the
other pertinent laws providing for auto-allocation to debt service. establishment of the Autonomous Region.
• No undue delegation to the president. The intent of the law is to enable the • “While the power to merge administrative regions is not expressly provided
government to make prompt payment and/or advances for all loans to for in the Constitution, it is a power which has been traditionally lodged with
protect and maintain the credit standing of the country. Although the the President to facilitate the exercise of power of general supervision over
subject presidential decrees do not state specific amounts to be paid, local governments.” There is, therefore, no abdication by Congress of its
necessitated by the very nature of the problem being addressed, the legislative power in conferring on the President the power to merge
amounts nevertheless are made certain by legislative parameters provided administrative regions.
in the decrees. • As to standards, the Congress provided a sufficient standard by which the
President is to be guided in the exercise of power—to promote simplicity,
Osmeña v Orbos economy and efficiency in the government to enable it to pursue programs
• A law created a trust fund that was supposed to abate the worsening deficit consistent with national goals…improve the service in the transaction of
of the country to oil suppliers. national business.
• For there to be valid delegation of power, it is essential that the law
delegating the power must be: Rodrigo v Sandiganbayan
1. complete in itself: that is it must set forth the policy to be • Petitioner was charged with graft and corruption. Alleged that there was
executed by the delegate, and undue delegation of legislative powers resulting in the executive branch,
2. it must fix a standard: limits of which are sufficiently through the DBM, determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
determinate or determinable—to which the delegate must conform. • “Filling in details” elaborated: Power should be delegated where there is
agreement that a task must be performed and it cannot be effectively
Viola v Alunan performed by the legislature without the assistance of the delegate or
• Petitioner is assailing that the addition of positions by the Liga ng mga without an expenditure of time so great as to lead to neglect of equally
Barangay is in excess of those provided in the Local Government Code. important business. Delegation is commonly indicated where the relations to

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 18 -
be regulated are highly technical or where their regulation requires a course determined. Hence, we was charged under Art.558 of the RPC and not
of continuous decision. under RA 1760.

Abakada v Ermita People v Dacuycuy

• RA 9337 pertains to the VAT system. The Act contains a proviso that • Teachers were convicted in violation of RA 4670, Magna Carta of Public
authorizes the President to raise the rate of VAT upon the occurrence of any School Teachers. However, the said act did not specify the term (min and
of two conditions. max) of imprisonment for the violation and gave the court the discretion.
• The Congress did not exercise undue delegation in assigning the Secretary Therefore, the said RA was invalid but the teachers were still charged under
of Finance to look into the conditions that will enable the President to RA 3828 and the court remanded the case to the MTC of Leyte
increase the rate. It is merely a power to ascertain facts. The power to
ascertain facts is such a power which may be delegated. There is nothing Cebu Oxygen v Drilon
essentially legislative in ascertaining the existence of conditions as the basis • RA 6640 was passed increasing the minimum wage. In pursuant to this,
of taking into effect a law. DOLE issued implementing rules which its sec.8 prohibits the employer from
crediting anniversary wage increase negotiated under CBA against such
Beltran v Secretary of Health wage increase. Cebu Oxygen was then remanded to pay its employees
• RA 7719 seeks to provide an adequate supply of safe blood by promoting additional compensation. The company appealed to the SC. SC held that
voluntary blood donation and by regulating blood banks in the country. DOLE cannot provide for a prohibition not contemplated by the law it seeks
• The power to ascertain the existence of facts and conditions upon which the to implement. Hence, sec.8 was held invalid.
Secretary may effect a period of extension for the said phase-out can be
delegated. The Secretary did not do beyond he powers granted to him by Ynot v Intermediate Appellate Court
the Act when said phase-out period was extended in accordance with the • EO 626 was issued to prohibit the inter-provincial transportation carabaos
Act. (Same premise as Abakada—discretion as to the execution, to be and orders the outright confiscation thereof. The confiscated carabaos shall
exercised under and in pursuance of the law may be delegated.) be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the
Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission sees it fit. SC held
Bayan v Ermita that this is invalid in so far as it violates the right to due process and the
• Batas Pambansa No. 880 is a law on the calibrated preemptive response law was incomplete and gave the chairman the discretion to distribute
that revolves around the “no permit, no rally” rule. confiscated goods to anyone who he deemed ‘fit.’
• As to the delegation of the powers to the mayor to issue permits, the law
provides a precise and sufficient standard—the clear and present danger Executive Misapplication
test stated in the law.
Tatad v Secretary of Energy
Undue Delegation • RA 8180 sets two standards for the President to fully deregulate the oil
industry – declining price of oil in the world market and appraisal of the
People v Vera Philippine Peso. However, to accelerate the deregulation, the President used
• Probation Act 4221 is incomplete because it did not law down rules or the depletion of the OSF funds as another standard to deregulate the oil
standards by which the administrative officer maybe guided. It gave the industry. The executive misappropriated his power in using the depletion of
provincial board the discretion whether or not to implement the law. the OSF to deregulate the oil industry. In the end, the whole law was struck
down because it runs contrary to the purpose of the law which is to
United States v Barrias encourage the entry of new players in the oil market.
• The bureau of customs apprehended Barrias for transporting goods across
the Pasig river without the use of any mechanical or external power which is Section 2: Composition of Senate
in violation of Circular No. 397. However, the law did not specify the
punishment for the said act and left Customs to determine the fine to be Section 3: Qualifications of Senators
imposed. It was held that the penalties for such rules and regulations are
matters purely in the hands of the legislature. Section 4: Terms of Senators

United States v Panlilio Section 5: Composition of the House of Representatives

• Panlilio’s carabao said to have acquired the rinderpest disease and under
Act 1760 (Bureau of Agriculture), it has to be quarantined. However, Panlilio Apportionment and Representation
still used his carabao for tilling the soil inside the hacienda. He was charged
but no violation of Act 1760 could be found and the penalty was not

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 19 -
Veterans Federation Party v COMELEC still be increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of
• Congress was vested with the broad power to define and prescribe the 250,000.
mechanics of the party-list system of representation. The Constitution
explicitly sets down only the percentage of the total membership in the Samson v Aguirre
House of Representatives reserved for party-list representatives. According • Every statue is presumed valid. Every law is presumed to have passed
to Section 11(b) of RA 7941, Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution is through regular congressional processes. A person asserting the contrary
not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for party-list seats in Congress. has the burden of proving his allegations clearly and unmistakably.
• In imposing a 2% threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that only those
parties, organizations & coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents Montejo v COMELEC
deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress. The 3- • The Constitutional Commission denied to the COMELEC the major power of
seat limit ensures the entry of various interest-representations into the legislative apportionment as it itself exercised the power. The COMELEC,
legislature; thus, no single group, no matter how large its membership, however, was given the power to make minor adjustments i.e. there would
would dominate the party-list seats, if not the entire House. be no change in allocations per district.

Ang Bagong Bayani v COMELEC Herrera v COMELEC

• The purpose of the party-list provision in the Constitution was to give • Under COMELEC Resolution No. 2950, the towns of Buenavista and San
genuine power to our people in Congress. Section 2 of RA 7941 mandates a Lorenzo were grouped together to form the first district and the second
state policy of promoting proportional representation by means of the district is composed of the municipalities of Jordan, Nueva Valencia, and
Filipino-style party-list system, which will enable the election to the House Sibunag. RA 7166 requires that each district must cover a compact,
of Representatives of Filipino citizens who belong to marginalized and contiguous and adjacent territory. The municipalities of Buenavista and San
underrepresented sectors, organizations, and parties, who lack well-defined Lorenzo touch along boundaries and are connected throughout by a
constituencies, but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment common border.
of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. The party-
list organization or party must factually and truly represent the marginalized Section 6: Qualifications of District & Party-List Reps.
and underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5.
Citizenship
AKLAT v COMELEC
• To qualify for party-list candidacy, a party or sector must represent the Bengzon v Cruz
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA • Repatriation consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of
7941. In other words, it must show through its constitution, articles of the Philippines & registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry.
incorporation, by-laws, history, platform of government and track record Repatriation reinstates the original citizenship of the person being
that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented repatriated.
sectors. Majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented. Aklat has no track record to speak of concerning its Domicile and Residence
representation of marginalized and underrepresented constituencies
considering that it has been in existence for only a month prior to the filing Aquino v COMELEC
of its petition for re-qualification. • The abandonment of original domicile should be proven and not merely
asserted. The absence of clear & positive proof showing a successful
Tobias v Abalos abandonment of domicile under the conditions in the instant case w/ the
• The Constitution clearly provides that the House shall be composed of 250 area & the suspicious circumstances under w/c a lease agreement was
members “unless otherwise provided by law.” This means that the present effected all belie petitioners claim of residency for the period required by the
composition of Congress may be increased, if Congress itself so mandates Constitution.
through a legislative enactment. Therefore, the increase in congressional
representation mandated by RA 7675 is not unconstitutional Marcos v COMELEC
• Reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law, • Domicile of origin is not easy to lose. Although Imelda resided in different
such as in the charter of a new city. places during her marriage to Marcos, she has always returned to the place
where she grew up, & therefore, has not lost her domicile of origin.
Mariano v COMELEC
• According to the Constitution, a city w/ a population of at least 250,000 Domino v COMELEC
shall have at least one representative. Even granting that the population of • The ownership of a residence in a certain place is not sufficient proof of
Makati as of the 1990 census stood at 450,000, its legislative district may domicile. Intent to stay and/or return and physical presence must be
satisfied to run.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 20 -
Perez v COMELEC Privilege from Arrest
• Once there has been established proof that one has a domicile in a certain
place is not easy to disprove. The lack of domicile should not be merely People v Jalosjos
asserted but should be proven as fact. Lack of evidence to disprove domicile • In cases where the penalty is more than six months or in criminal conviction
means that the will of the electorate should and must be upheld. as in the case at bar, not even Representatives are exempt from the law. In
this case, everyone is deemed equal.
Section 7: Term of Representatives
Parliamentary Freedom of Speech and Debate
Dimaporo v Mitra
• Once an elected official files a Certificate of Candidacy for another position Jimenez v Cabangbang
other than the one he is holding, it means that he is resigning from his • A Representative’s speech is privileged only when done in consonance with
present office, notwithstanding the results of the elections. Term of office is his public duties. This is to make sure that the members of Congress have
different from tenure. The term means that time that the law attaches to his all the leeway to do their work and to pass laws that would benefit their
office. Tenure, on the other hand pertains to the length of time he hold constituents.
office
Section 12: Finance and Business Interests
Section 8
Section 13: Disqualifications
Section 9: Filling-in Vacancies
Section 14: Prohibitions for lawyer Legislators/Conflict of Interests
Lucero v COMELEC
• There are two requisites for the holding of special elections under Sec. 6 of Puyat v De Guzman
the Omnibus Election Code: • Intervention, in this case, is equated to appearing as counsel, which is
1. that there is a failure of election, and prohibited by the Constitution. Even to appear as intervenor is not allowed
2. That such failure would affect the results of the election. This because doing so would just negate the logic behind this provision.
“result of the election” means the net result of the election in the
rest of the precincts in a given constituency, such that if the Section 15: Sessions of Congress
margin of a leading candidate over that of his closest rival in the
latter precincts is less than the total number of votes in the Section 16: Officers and Internal Business
precinct where there was failure of election, then such failure would
certainly affect the result of the election; hence, a special election Officers of Congress
must be held.
Defensor-Santiago v Guingona
Tolentino v COMELEC • Majority – number of greater than half or more than half of any total. (In
• In case a vacancy arises in Congress at least one year before the expiration this case, the number of Senators)
of the term, COMELEC is required to call a special election, in this case • Minority – smaller number of votes compared to the majority. The Senate
concerning a Senate seat, simultaneously with the next national elections. President must obtain the votes of more than one-half of all the senators.
The non-announcement of the special election does not nullify the results. While the Constitution mandates that the President of the Senate must be
elected members thereof, it does not provide that the members who will
Ocampo v HRET NOT vote for him shall ipso facto constitute the “minority”, who could
• Only the candidate garnering the highest number of votes in an election thereby elect the minority leader.
contest has the right, given by the electorate, to assume public office. In
case of a disqualification after the elections have ended, the second-placer Meaning of “A Quorum to do Business” and “Compulsion to Attend”
cannot assume public office because this would undermine and
disenfranchise the will of majority of the electorate. No matter which way Avelino v Cuenco
you look at it, losers are just that – losers. • This case pertains to the controversy which arose during a session when the
Senate
• President along, with six other senators walked out of the hall, leaving only
Section 10: Salary of Senators and Representatives 12 senators to do business.
• The Senate President was replaced during the session continued by the 12
Section 11: Immunities and Privileges senators. A question of Quorum is raised.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 21 -
• The court held that there is a quorum. “When the Constitution declares a requisites to the validity of a statute have been complied with; it is their
majority of ‘each House’ shall constitute a quorum, ‘the House’ does not right, as well as their duty, to take notice of the legislative journals.
mean ‘all’ members. Even a majority of all the members constitute ‘the • No such thing as ignorance of the law, think Official Gazette.
House’…There is a difference between a majority of ‘all members if the • In this case, any objections to the validity of a statute must have sufficient
House’ and a majority of ‘the House’, the latter requiring less number than proof. Pons’ counsel has the burden of proof to prove that the legislative
the last. Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all members of the Senate session did not pass Act No. 2381 before 12mm.
less one (23), constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the
purpose of the quorum.” Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v Gimenez
• The enrolled bill is conclusive upon courts as regards to the tenor of the
People v. Jalosjos measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. If there has
• Privilege has to be granted by law, not inferred from the duties of a been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by officers
position. of Congress and approved by the Executive, the remedy is by amendment
• The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by or curative legislation, not by judicial decree.
imprisonment more than 6 years is not merely authorized by law, it has • Remember it is urea formaldehyde (by product of urea AND formaldehyde)
constitutional foundations. and not urea and formaldehyde.
• Jalosjos absence from sessions is a legitimate one. Lawful arrest and
confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all. Morales v Subido
• In all cases, the journals must yield to the enrolled bill. To be sure there are
Internal Rules and Discipline certain matters which the Constitution expressly requires MUST be entered
on the journal of the house. To what extent the validity of a legislative act
Arroyo v De Venecia may be affected by a failure to have such matters entered on the journal, is
• This petition challenges the validity of RA 8240 as its deliberations were a question which the Supreme Court cannot now decide. With respect to
“railroaded”, due to the fact that Sen. Arroyo’s comments were not heard. matters not expressly required to be entered on the journal, the enrolled bill
• “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings” and therefore, prevails in the event of any discrepancy.
they are judicially enforceable. The courts cannot declare an act of
legislature void on account of mere compliance with rules of procedure. In Astorga v Villegas
the absence of showing that there was a violation of a constitutional • The enrolled bill theory is based mainly on “the respect due to the coequal
provision or the rights of a private individual, the courts do not have the and independent departments”, which requires the judicial department “to
power to inquire into allegations that in enacting a law, a House of Congress accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner
failed to comply with its own rules. stated.”
• Certification made by the presiding officers is merely a mode of
Osmeña v. Pendatun authentication. The certification does not affect the validity of the bill, nor
• Parliamentary immunity of members, not absolute, it does not protect him does it cure any DEFECT already present upon its passage.
from responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words and • It is the approval of the Congress, and not the signatures of the presiding
conduct are considered disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof. officers which is essential.
• For unparliamentary conduct, members of Congress can be censured, • Both the President and the Congress withdrew their signatures after
committed to prison, suspended, and even be expelled by the votes of their knowing that the copy sent to the President was not the one approved by
colleagues. Congress.

Santiago v. Sandiganbayan Philippine Judges Association v Prado

• Sec 13 of RA 3019 does not state that the public officer must be suspended • Sec 35 of RA 7354 is unconstitutional as it was passed after the third
only in the office where he is alleged to have committed that acts with reading.
which he has been charged – the term “office” would indicate that it applies • Three readings on separate days, think Statutory Construction. No
to any office which the officer charged may be holding, and not only the amendment must be made on the third reading! The Philippine Postal
particular office under which stands accused. Service they can’t take out the Franking privilege.
• Therefore, Miriam is not excluded.
Abakada v Ermita
Duty to Keep Journals and Records • The case revolves on the passing of RA 9337, or the VAT Law.
• Issue on journals?
United States v Pons
• The courts of the Philippine Islands are bound, judicially, to take notice of Section 17: Senate & House of Rep. Electoral Tribunal
what the law is and, to enable them to determine whether the legal

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 22 -
Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns [Section 241,
Omnibus Election Code].
Angara v Electoral Commission • For purposes of the elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and
• The conflict in this case is determining the jurisdiction of the Electoral Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall
Commission and the Legislature, wherein both independent bodies have be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt,
powers vested in the Constitution. custody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificate of
• The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the canvass, as the case may be. HOWEVER, this does not preclude the
subject matter of the present controversy for the purpose of determining authority of the appropriate canvassing body to correct manifest errors in
the character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.
Commission as “the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly” Aquino v COMELEC
• The transfer of the power of determining the election, returns and • The Electoral Tribunal clearly assumes jurisdiction over all contests relative
qualifications of the members of the Legislature long lodged in the to the election, returns and qualifications of candidates for either the Senate
legislative body, to an independent, impartial and non-partisan tribunal, is or the House of Representatives only when the latter become members of
by no means a mere experiment in the science of government. either the Senate or the House of Representatives. A candidate who has not
• The Electoral Commission is a constitutional creation, invested with the been proclaimed and who has not taken his oath of office cannot be said to
necessary authority in the performance and execution of the limited and be a member of the House of Representatives subject to Section 17 of
specific function assigned by the Constitution. All intents and purposes, Article VI of the Constitution.
when acting within the limits of its authority, an independent organ.
• The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests Perez v COMELEC
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the National Assembly, • The COMELEC no longer has jurisdiction over the complaint of Perez as
is intended to be as complete and impaired as if it had remained originally Aguinaldo has already been sworn in as the representative of the third
in the Legislature. district of Cagayan Valley.
• The creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex necessitate rei • HRET has exclusive original jurisdiction over the petition for the declaration
(necessary) the power regulative in character to limit the time within which of Aguinaldo’s “ineligibility”.
protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed. Therefore, the date set
by the Electoral Commission for the last day of filing Election protests (Dec. Garcia v COMELEC
9) is valid since it is NECESSARY for them to exercise their exclusive power. • The cash deposit required in quo warranto (by what warrant; that requires
the person to whom it is directed to show what authority he has for
Vera v Avelino exercising some right or power he claims to hold) cases is fixed 5,000 php,
• Election contest, “relates only to statutory contests in which the and is required to be paid together with the filing fee at the time the petition
contestant seeks not only to oust the intruder, but also to have himself is filed.
inducted into the office” • The HRET may dismiss a quo warranto petition for failure to pay the
• Alejandrino Doctrine – a senator appointed by the Governor-General required cash deposit – it is the judgment call which is clearly authorized
cannot be suspended, in this case, the court exceeded its jurisdiction as it under its Rules. The exercise of discretion is based on well-founded factual
believed that the suspension is legally wrong because Senator Alejandrino and legal basis, as in this case, no abuse of discretion can be imputed to the
was appointed. *related to the case as the Court disputes W/N the Tribunal.
Alejandrino case should be applied. The Court said NO, it can no longer be
applied. Rasul v COMELEC
• Senate has the authority to defer oath-taking of any member against whom • The Court ruled in Pangilinan v. COMELEC that, “where the candidate has
protest had been lodged. already been proclaimed winner in the congressional elections, the remedy
• Senate needs to take action to make sure that its prestige and dignity is of the petitioner is to file an electoral protest with the Electoral Tribunal of
preserved and that Democratic institutions are filled with people who are the House of Representatives.”
mandated by the people and not those who gained their seat through
coercion, violation of the law and lastly form contradicting the principle of Guerrero v COMELEC
freedom of choice. • COMELEC is vested with the power to declare valid or invalid a certificate of
candidacy, its refusal to exercise that power following the proclamation and
Chavez v COMELEC assumption of the position by Fariñas is a recognition of the jurisdictional
• Pre-proclamation controversy – any question pertaining to or affecting boundaries separating the COMELEC and the Electoral Tribunal of the House
the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers which may be raised by any of Representatives (HRET).
candidate before the Board or the Commission or any matter raised under • Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and
Sections 223, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, assumed office as a member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 23 -
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and Bondoc v Pineda
qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins. • The Electoral Tribunal was created to function as a nonpartisan court
although 2/3 of its members are politicians. It is a non-political body in a
Villarosa v COMELEC sea of politicians.
• The HRET then committed no error in not applying in favor of VILLAROSA • To be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, the House Electoral Tribunal
Rule 13, Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code (use of nickname) must be independent. Its jurisdiction to hear and decide congressional
• Therefore, the JTV nickname of Amelita is to be considered as stray votes election contests is not be shared by it with the Legislature nor with the
since they do not sufficiently identify the candidate for whom the votes are Courts.
intended. • As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non- partisan. They must
discharge their functions with complete detachment, impartiality and
Aggabao v COMELEC independence – even independence from the political party to which they
• HRET has jurisdiction in this case since Miranda has already been belong. Therefore, DISLOYALTY TO PARTY and BREACH OF PARTY
proclaimed. DISCIPLINE are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the
tribunal.
Barbers v COMELEC • In expelling Cong. Camasura from the HRET for having cast a CONSCIENCE
• Election, returns and qualifications – should be interpreted in its totality VOTE in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result of the examination and
as referring to all matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s title. appreciation of the ballots and the recount of votes by the tribunal, HRET
• “Election” referred to the conduct of polls, including the listing of voters, committed grave abuse of discretion, an injustice, and a violation of the
the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes Constitution. ITS RESOLUTION OF EXPULSION AGAINST CONGRESSMAN
• “Returns” to the canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the CAMASURA IS, THEREFORE, NULL AND VOID.
winners, including questions concerning the composition of the board of • Membership in the HRET is co-extensive.
canvassers and the authenticity of the election returns.
• “Qualifications” to matters that could be raised in a quo warranto Action/Decision
proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or
ineligibility or the inadequacy of his certificate of candidacy. Robles v HRET
• SET has SOLE jurisdiction over election contests relating to members of the • Mere filing of a motion to withdraw election protest, without any action on
Senate. The authority conferred upon the SET is categorical and complete. the part of the electoral tribunal, did not divest the latter of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction once acquired, is not lost upon instance of the parties, and
Composition continues until the case is terminated.
• HRET has the authority to deny or grant the Motion, and the withdrawal
Abbas v Senate Electoral Tribunal becomes effective only when the Motion is granted.
• The SET cannot function as such, absent its entire membership of Senators • The Tribunal retains the power and the authority to grant or deny
and no amendment of Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone Protestant’s (ROBLES) motion to withdraw, if only to insure that the
the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial election contest. Tribunal retains sufficient authority to see to it that the will of the electorate
• Every Member of the Tribunal may, as his conscience dictates, refrain from is ascertained.
participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his
personal interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective and Arroyo v HRET
impartial judgment. But this doesn’t mean he can DISQUALIFY himself from • The rule in an election protest is that the protestant or counter-protestant
the Tribunal. must stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended
pleading filed prior to the lapse of statutory period for filing of protest or
counter protest. In this case, Syjuco filed his protest after the sufficient time
Pimentel v HRET period which is 10 days. This is under RULE 16 of the HRET Rules.
• The Constitution expressly grants to the House of Representatives the • A party is bound by the theory he adopts and by the cause of action he
prerogative, within constitutionally defined limits, to choose from among its stands on and cannot be permitted after having lost thereon to repudiate his
districts and party-list representatives those who may occupy the seats theory and cause of action and adopt another and see to re-litigate the
allotted to the House in the HRET and CA. matter anew either in the same form or on appeal.
• The discretion of the House to choose its members to the HRET and the CA • Syjuco’s PRECINT-LEVEL DOCUMENT-BASED ANOMALIES/EVIDENCE
is not absolute, being subject to the mandatory constitutional rule on THEORY – this is to locate most relevant electoral documents used not only
proportional representation. during the actual balloting/voting stage, but also those availed of even
much earlier, as early as the time of the registration of voters. Syjuco
Independence argues that the ballots themselves bear only incidental significance in our
chosen approach, because, in our world of cause and effect, the ballots are

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 24 -
mere effects of the document-based anomalies. (In this case, this theory • Changes in the composition of the Commission on Appointments must be
was not accepted because it undermines traditional means which have been permanent and do not included the temporary alliances or factional
tested through years of experience and there must be uniformity of divisions.
procedure (rules) which is essential to procure truth and exactness in
elections.) Coseteng v Mitra
• Two mandatory requisites for the annulment of election returns by the • The provision on proportional representation is mandatory in character.
Electoral Tribunal, based on fraud, irregularities or terrorism, namely 1) that • The Constitution does not require that the Commission on Appointments
more than 50% of the total number of votes in the precincts were involved, include 12 Senators and 12 Congressmen in order to function. What it
and 2) that the votes must be shown to have been affected or vitiated by requires is that there is at least a majority of the entire membership. The
such fraud, irregularities or terrorism. Commission on Appointments may perform its functions even if only 10
senators are elected as long as a quorum exists.
Lerias v HRET
• In an election contest where the correctness of the number of votes is Guingona v Gonzales
involved, the best evidence and most conclusive evidence are the ballots • The support of other representatives from a different party does not qualify
themselves. Where the ballots cannot be produced or are not available, the a lone member of a political party to sit in the Commission on Appointments
election returns would be the best evidence. simply because they are not members of the lone member’s party.
• It has to be duly determined that actual voting and election by the
registered voter had taken place in the questioned precincts or voting Section 19: Electoral Tribunals & COA – When Constituted
centers, the election returns cannot be disregarded and excluded with the
resulting disfranchisement of the votes, but must be accorded prima facie Notes on Section 9
status as bona fide reports of the results of voting. • Commission on Appointments
• 25 Members elected on the basis of proportional representation
Sandoval v HRET - Senate President (ex-officio Chairman)
• Judicial guidance is appropriate where jurisdictional issues are involved or - 12 Senators
charges of grave abuse of discretion are presented, in order that they may - 12 Members of the House of Representatives
vindicate established claims of denial of due process or correct veritable • Although formed by the two houses of Congress, it is independent of
abuses of discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the Constitution Congress. Its powers do not come from Congress, but directly from the
itself calls for remedial action. Constitution.
• Compliance with the rules on the service of summons is both concern of • Functions are purely executive in nature - Confirm nominations or
jurisdiction as it is of due process. appointments submitted to it by the President
• It is well-established that summons upon a respondent or dependent must • (Executive Heads, Ambassadors, Public Ministers, Consuls, Officers of the
be served by handing a copy thereof to him in person or, if he refuse to Armed Forces, etc.)
receive it, by tendering it to him. Personal service of summons most
effectively ensures that notice desired under the constitutional requirement Note! The Ombudsman & SC Justices do not need confirmation by the CA.
of due process is accomplished. If however, efforts to find him personally • The Judicial Bar Council prepares a list of nominees and the President
would make prompt service impossible, service may be completed by appoints someone from the list.
substituted service, by leaving copies of the summons at his dwelling or • Formed within 30 days after the election of the Senate President and
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing Speaker of the House
therein or by leaving copies at his office or regular place of business with • May meet only while congress is in session
some competent person in charge thereof.
• Section 20: Access to Records
Section 18: COA - Composition, Nature, Functions
Section 21: Legislative Investigations
Daza v Singson
• If the representation of the political parties in the House is materially Power of Inquiry
changed, the House can declare vacant the necessary number of seats in
the commission on Appointments held by members of Said house affected Negros Oriental Electric Coop v Sangguniang Panlungsod
by the change and then fill said vacancies in conformity with Constitution. • Contempt and Subpoena power cannot be implied from delegation of
• Internal disagreements within a party are to be expected in a political party. powers.
It may not be deduced that a party with internal disagreement is merely • Local legislative bodies such as the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Dumaguete
temporary. cannot correctly claim to possess contempt power for the same reasons that
the national legislature does. Contempt power attaches not to the discharge

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 25 -
of legislative functions per se but to the character of the legislature as one • The President has constitutional authority to prevent a member of the
of the three independent and coordinate branches of government. armed forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry by virtue of her
• Local Legislative bodies may only invite resource persons who are willing to power as commander-in-chief.
supply information relevant to a proposed ordinance. • If the Congress seeks the appearance before it of a military officer against
• No provision in the Constitution or in the Local Government Code granting the consent of the President, a judicial order may compel the attendance of
local legislative bodies, the power to subpoena witnesses and the power to the military officer.
punish nonmembers for contempt. • Where a military official is torn between obeying the President and obeying
• Contempt power if possessed may only be exercised where the subject the Senate, the Court will without hesitation affirm that the officer has to
matter of the investigation is within the jurisdiction of the legislative body. choose the President.

Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Power to Punish a Person Under Investigation
• The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation is not absolute or unlimited. The exercise must be “in aid of Arnault v Nazareno
legislation”, “in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure” and • The power to punish is essential to the legislative function
that “the rights of persons appearing in or affected by the inquiries shall be • No person can be punished as a witness before either House unless his
respected.” testimony is required in a matter into which that House has jurisdiction to
• The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body making it, inquire.
must be material or necessary to its exercise of power found in the • Once the inquiry is established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative
Constitution such as to legislate and to expel a member. body, the committee has power to require a witness to answer any question
pertinent to the inquiry.
Senate v Ermita • The fact that the Constitution expressly gives to Congress the power to
• Attendance in aid of legislation is compulsory as compared with attendance punish its Members for disorderly behavior, does not by necessary
during question hour (Article 6, Section 22) which is discretionary. implication exclude the power to punish for contempt any other person.
• Even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still recognized • There is no limit as to time to the Senate’s power to punish for contempt in
exemptions to the power of inquiry, which exemptions fall under the cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted as in the present
tradition of “executive privilege”. case.
• Executive Privilege – the power of the Government to withhold
information from the public, the courts, and the Congress. Sabio v Gordon
• State secrets privilege – information that upon disclosure would subvert • Senate committees must carry all powers necessary to be able to obtain the
crucial military or diplomatic objectives. knowledge and information to base legislation.
• Informer’s privilege – privilege of the Government not to disclose the • When the framers of the Constitution adopted the principle of separation of
identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law. powers, it must have intended each department’s authority to be full and
• Generic privilege – for intragovernmental documents reflecting opinions, complete, independently of the other’s authority or power. How could the
recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which authority and power become complete if for every act of refusal, every act
governmental decisions and policies are formulated. of defiance, the legislative body must resort to the judicial department for
• A claim of privilege, being a claim of exemption from an obligation to the appropriate remedy, because it is impotent by itself to punish or deal
disclose information to the public, must, therefore, be clearly asserted. It therewith.
should not be likely invoked. It must be supported by precise and certain
reasons for preserving their confidentiality. Section 22: Congress and Heads of Departments
• The legislative inquiry is actually a power of Congress in terms of its own
lawmaking. Senate v Ermita
• The aim of legislative inquiry is to obtain information that may be used for • Attendance in question hour is discretionary as compared with attendance
legislation. during a legislative inquiry (Article 6, Section 21) which is mandatory.
• In the context of the parliamentary system of government, the question
Gudani v Senga hour is a period of confrontation initiated by Parliament to hold the Prime
• As the commander-in-chief, the President has absolute authority over the Minister and the other ministers accountable for their acts and the operation
persons and actions of the members of the armed forces. Such authority of the government.
includes the ability of the President to restrict the travel, movement and • The objective of the question hour is to obtain information in pursuit of
speech of military officers. Congress’ oversight function.
• Soldiers are constitutionally obliged to obey a President they may dislike or
distrust. Section 23: Declaration of the Existence of a State of War

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 26 -
Delegation of Emergency Powers • The bill originating from the House of Representatives may undergo such
extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be rewriting of the
Sanlakas v Executive Secretary whole. As a result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced.
• The power of the president to declare a state of rebellion is not limited to • To insist that the bill originated from the House of Representatives must be
those provided under Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution. substantially be the same as the enacted law would deny the Senate’s
• Calling out power of the Armed Forces by the President does not require a power to concur and to propose amendments. It would violate the
declaration of a State of Rebellion because it is in the exercise of the coequality of the legislative power of both houses of Congress.
President of his power as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces.
• The President’s authority to declare a state of rebellion springs in the main Alvarez v Guingona
from her powers as chief executive and, at the same time, draws strength • RA 7720 or “An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago, Isabela into an
from her Commander-in-Chief powers. independent Component City to be known as the City of Santiago” did not
• The powers of the commander-in-chief are broad enough more so when originate exclusively in the House because the Senate version of the Act,
take together with his executive powers. which was a substitute bill, was passed as an enrolled bill.
• The President serves as Chief of State, commander-in-chief, Chief of Foreign • RA 7720 is valid even though it did not originate exclusively from the House
Relations, Chief of Public Opinion. of Representatives because the filing of Senate of a substitute bill in
anticipation of the receipt of the bill from the House, does not contravene
Section 24: Origin of Money Bills, Private Bills and Bills of Local Application the constitutional requirement that the bill of local application should
originate in the House of Reps for as long as Senate does not act on
Bills of Local Application - Origin thereupon until it receives the House bill.
• The initiative for filing the bills must come from the Representatives on the
Guingona v Carague theory that elected as they are from the districts, the members of the House
• The automatic appropriation of debt service in the 1990 budget which is can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems.
authorized under the PD 81. PD 81 or “Amending Certain Provisions of Senators on the other hand are expected to approach the same problems
Republic Act 4860 as amended by PD 1177 entitled, “Revising the Budget from the National perspective.
Process in Order to Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of the New
Society” and by PD 1967, entitled “An Act Strengthening the Positions of the Southern Cross Cement v Philippine Cement
Republic of the Philippines on its Contingent Liabilities Arising Out of Relent • RA 8800, also known as the Safeguard Measures Act (SMA) provides the
and Guaranteed Loans by Appropriating Funds For the Purpose” issued by structure and mechanics for the imposition of emergency measures
President Marcos provides that “all expenditures for… (b) Principal and including tariffs to protect domestic industries and producers from increased
interest on public debt, (c) national government guarantees of obligations imports which inflict or could inflict serious injury on them.
which are drawn upon are automatically appropriated…” • Courts must give effect to the general legislative intent that can be
• The decrees as petitioners pointed out are inconsistent with Section 24 of discovered from the or is unravelled by the four corners of the statute and
Article 6 of the not only a particular provision thereof should be considered.
• Constitution, whereby bills have to be approved by the President, then a law • Such legislative intent should be given full force and effect, as the executive
must be passed by Congress to authorize the said automatic appropriations. power to impose definitive safeguard measures is a delegated power, the
• Section 24 of Article 6 of the Constitution refers to bills that are yet to be power of taxations, by nature and by command of the fundamental law,
passed by Congress after the enactment of the present Constitution and not being a preserve of the legislature.
those that have been passed before its enactment. • The power of taxation being legislative, all the incidents are within the
control of the legislature. It is said in Article 6 Section24 that all revenue or
Tolentino v Secretary of Finance tariff bills must originate exclusively on the House of Reps and amended by
• RA 7716 or the Expanded Value-added Tax Law seeks to widen the tax base the Senate
of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the
National Internal Revenue Code. H. No. 1197 is the version of the RA 7716 Pascual v Secretary of Public Works
which originated from the House of Representatives but not passed by the • The RA 920, entitled “An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works”
Senate. contained a provision that appropriates “P85,000 for construction,
• It was simply consolidated with the Senate version, S.No. 1630, in the reconstruction, repair and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminals.”
Conference Committee that produced the bill which was signed by the • The land which projected feeder roads are to be constructed belongs to a
President as a law. private person and that appropriation made by Congress for that purpose is
• Though the said bill was did not originate exclusively from the House of null and void.
Representatives, the bill is nevertheless valid. This is because it is not the • The legislature is without power to appropriate public revenues for anything
law – but the revenue bill – which is required by the Constitution to but a public purpose. It is the essential character of the direct object of
“originate exclusively” from the House of Representatives. expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax and not the

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 27 -
magnitude of the interests to be affected nor the degree to which the Fariñas v Executive Secretary
general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare may be • Section 14 of RA 9006, “An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly,
ultimately benefited by their promotion. Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections” so far as it repeals section 67 of
the Omnibus Election Code is not a rider.
Section 25: Rules on Appropriation • An act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain
any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as
Limits on the Power to Appropriate they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be
considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and
Brillantes v COMELEC means of carrying out the general subject.
• The COMELEC Resolution contravenes the Constitutional provision that no
money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an Transfer of Funds
appropriation made by law.
• The electronic transmission and tabulation of the election results as Demetria v Alba
projected under Resolution 6712 is unofficial in character, meaning “not • Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of PD 1177 being repugnant to Section 16(5) of
emanating from or sanctioned or acknowledged by the government or the Article 8 of the 1973 Constitution (Sec25 (5) Article 6 of the 1987
government body. Any disbursement of public funds to implement this Constitution) is null and void because it unduly over extends to the privilege
project is contrary to the provisions of the 2003 GAA. granted under the said provision in the Constitution.
• Neither can the money be taken from the savings of COMELEC, if any, • It empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one
because it would be violative of Art 6 Section 25(5) of the Constitution. The department, bureau, office or agency of the Executive Department to any
power to augment from savings lies dormant until authorized by law. No law program, project or activity of any department, bureau or office in the
authorizes that COMELEC can transfer savings from other item in its General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment, without regard
appropriation to fund the assailed resolution. as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the
item from which the same are to be taken, or whether the transfer is for the
Prohibition to Increase purpose of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made.

Prohibition of “Riders” in Appropriation Bills Liga v COMELEC

• The COMELEC scheme, if there was any, which is to augment the
Garcia v Mata appropriated amount by sourcing from the executive and legislative
• Paragraph 11 of the Special Provisions for the Armed Forces of the departments to defray the cost of holding the said elections is allowed by
Philippines is unconstitutional because it is an insertion of a non- Sec. 25(5) of Article 6 of the Constitution.
appropriation item in an appropriation measure, therefore a rider. • As long as there is a law that authorizes such, the transfer of funds is valid.
• While RA 1600 appropriated money for the operation of the Government for Sections 17 and 19 of the General Appropriations Act of 1994 authorize
the fiscal year 1956-1857, the said paragraph refers to the fundamental such transfer of funds.
governmental policy matters of the calling to active duty and reversion to
inactive status of reserve officers in AFP. This is entirely irrelevant to the PHILCONSA v Enriquez
Republic Act which is inconsistent with Sec 25(2). • The Special Provision which allows the Chief of Staff to use savings to
augment the pension fund of the AFP violates the Section 25(5) of Article 6
Atitiw v Zamora of the Constitution.
• Paragraph 1 in the 2000 GAA, which discusses the use of funds wherein the • Such right must and can be exercised only by the President pursuant to a
amounts appropriated for CAR “will be used to wind up activities and specific law.
operations of the region, including the payment of separation and
retirement benefits of all affected officials”, is not a rider. Section 26: Subject & Title of Bills — Prohibition of Riders
• A rider is a provision which is not germane or is alien to the subject or
purpose of the bill in which it is incorporated. Cordero v Cabatuando
• Section 25(2) of Article 6 says that “no provision or enactment shall be • If the law amends a section or part of a statute, it suffices that reference be
embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to made to the legislation to be amended. There is no need to state the precise
some particular appropriation...” nature of the amendment, the title not being obliged to be a complete
• In order that a provision in a general appropriations bill may comply with index.
the test of germaneness, it must be particular (relates to a distinct item in
appropriations bill), unambiguous (application/operation is apparent on the PHILCONSA v Gimenez
face of the bill) and appropriate (subject matter does not have to be treated • The requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title is
in a separate legislation). not a mere rule of legislative procedure directory to the Congress. It is

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 28 -
mandatory. It is the duty of the courts to declare void any statute not concurrence or amendment. Thus, Article 6, Section 26 (2) cannot be taken
conforming to the constitutional provision of the prohibition of riders. to mean that the introduction by the Bicameral Conference Committee of
amendments and modifications to disagreeing provisions in bills that have
Alalayan v NAPOCOR been acted upon by both Houses of Congress is prohibited.
• Where the title is comprehensive enough to reasonably to include the
general object which the statute seeks to effect without each and every Section 27: Procedure in Law-Making
means necessary for its accomplishment, mere details need not be set
forth. Passage of Bills

Insular Lumber Company v CTA Arroyo v De Venecia

• The proviso in Section 5 (exemption to additional taxation) of RA 1435 • What is alleged to have been violated in the enactment of RA 8240 are
(additional taxation) has reference to specific tax on oil and fuel, and is not merely INTERNAL RULES OF PROCEDURE of the House rather than the
deviation from the general subject of the law. Constitutional requirements for the enactment of law. The rules adopted by
deliberative bodies (such as the House) are subject to revocation,
Tio v Videogram Regulatory Board modification, or waiver by the body adopting them. Parliamentary rules are
• An act having a single general subject indicated in its title may contain any merely PROCEDURAL, and with their observance, the Court has no concern.
number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Mere failure to
are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be conform to parliamentary usage will NOT invalidate the action, when the
considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure.
means of carrying out the general subject. • The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of
proceedings. The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is
Philippine Judges Association v Prado exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the
• A repealing clause need not be included in the title as long as the content is House, and within the limitations suggested, and absolutely beyond the
germane to the subject. This is because repealed statutes are the effects challenge of any other body. The failure to regard the rule is NOT a subject
and not the subject of a statute. matter of judicial inquiry. A legislative act will not be declared invalid for
non compliance with internal rules. No court has ever declared an act of the
Tolentino v Secretary of Finance legislature void just because of non-compliance with rules of procedure
• The title need not mirror, fully index, or catalogue all contents and minute made by itself.
detail of a law. Section 5 (b) providing for tariff differential is germane to • In this case, there is no rule in the House which specifically requires that in
the subject of RA 8180 which is the deregulation of the downstream oil approving the Bicameral Conference Committee Report, the Chair must
industry. restate motion and conduct nominal voting. The manner by which the report
was approved has a basis in LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE.
Tobias v Abalos • The Constitution does NOT require that the yeas and nays of the Members
• The separation of Mandaluyong and San Juan is the logical, natural, and be taken every time the House has to vote. Only in the following instances
inevitable consequence of the creation of the City of Mandaluyong. were yeas and nays are mandatory:
a. last and 3rd reading of a bill;
De Guzman v COMELEC b. request of 1/5 of the members present;
• Section 44, which provides for the reassignment of election officers, is c. repassing of a bill over the veto of the President.
relevant to the subject matter of registration as it seeks to ensure the
integrity of the registration process by providing a guideline for the Abakada v Ermita
COMELEC to follow in the reassignment of election officers. • The final output from the bi-cameral conference committee can be
completely different from the versions of the house and the senate. The SC
Cawaling v COMELEC also held that it is without power to declare whether or not the bicameral
• The creation of the City of Sorsogon is the logical, natural, and inevitable committee exceeded its powers, because such powers are governed by the
consequence of the merger of the municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon. internal rules of the Congress, whose violation can only be determined by
Therefore, the merging of the two said municipalities is not a rider in this Congress itself.
case. • As long as the house of representatives passes a revenue bill, the Senate,
even if the house has not yet transmitted the approved house revenue bill,
Abakada v Ermita can already pass its own version. To say otherwise would curtail the power
• The “no-amendment rule” refers only to the procedure to be followed by of the Senate to introduce amendments.
each house of Congress with regards to the bills initiated in each of said
respective houses, before said bill is transmitted to the other House for Presidential Veto

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 29 -
CIR v CTA veto a condition or qualification but allowing the appropriation itself to
• An “item” in a revenue bill does not refer to an entire section imposing a stand. However, for these to apply, THERESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE SUCH
particular kind of tax, but rather to the subject of the tax and the tax rate. IN THE REAL SENSE OF THE TERM, not some matters which are more
In the portion of a revenue bill which actually imposes a tax, a section properly dealt with in a separate legislation. Restrictions or Conditions must
identifies the tax & enumerates the persons liable therefore with the exhibit a CONNECTION WITH MONEY ITEMS IN A BUDGETARYSENSE IN THE
corresponding tax rate. To construe the word “item” as referring to the SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES.• Thus the test is one of APPROPRIATENESS.
whole section would tie the President’s hand in choosing either to approve Section 55 appears to be a condition but actually they are GENERAL LAW
the whole section at the expense of also approving a provision therein MEASURES more appropriate for a substantive, separate legislation.
which he deems unacceptable or veto the entire section at the expense of
foregoing the collection of the kind of tax altogether. The evil which was Bengzon v Drilon
sought to be prevented in giving the President the power to disapprove • The general fund adjustment is an ITEM which appropriates P500M to
items in a revenue bill would be perpetrated rendering that power inutile. enable government to meets its obligations. The general fund adjustment is
the item itself. This was not vetoed by the President. What were vetoed
Gonzales v Macaraig were METHODS AND SYSTEMS placed by Congress to insure that permanent
• Sec 27 of the Constitution Paragraph 1 refers to the general veto power of and continuing obligations to certain officials (such as retirement pensions)
the President. If exercised, it would result to the veto of the ENTIRE BILL. would be paid as they fall due. The vetoed portions are NOT ITEMS, they
• Sec 27 of the Constitution Paragraph 2 refers to the ITEM VETO power or were PROVISIONS. There was no specific appropriation of money involved.
LINE VETO. It allows the exercise of veto over particular items in an It can be seen that portions of the item have been chopped up into vetoed
APPROPRIATION, REVENUE OR TARIFF BILL. The power given to the and unvetoed parts.
President to disapprove any item in an Appropriations Bill does not grant the • The general rule is that the president must veto the bill in its entirety. The
authority to veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of exception is that in appropriation, revenue & tariff bills, item-veto is allowed
the same item. to avoid riders being attached to appropriations measures, but only a
• The terms ITEM and PROVISION are different. An ITEM refers to the particular item may be vetoed (ITEM refers to particulars, details, the
particulars, details, the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It is the distinct and severable parts). The constitution provides that only a particular
indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose. It obviously means item or items may be vetoed. The power to disapprove any item or items in
an item which in itself is a SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION of money, not some an appropriations bill does not grant the authority to veto a part of an item
general provision of law, which just happens to be put in an appropriation and to approve the remaining portion of the same item.
bill. • Additionally, the President cannot set aside or reverse a final and executory
• The claim of the petitioners that the President may not veto a provision judgment by the Court through the exercise of veto power.
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 PHILCONSA v Enriquez
also overlooks the constitutional mandate that any PROVISION in the • The general rule is that the President has to veto the entire bill, and not
general appropriations bill shall relate specifically to some particular merely parts thereof. The exception is the power of the President to veto
provision therein, and that any such provision shall be limited in its any particular item (item veto) in an appropriations bill. Here, the president
operation to the appropriation to which it relates. must veto the entire item.
• In short, a PROVISION in an appropriation bill is limited in its operation to • A general appropriations bill is a special type of legislation whose content is
some particular appropriation, and DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ENTIRE BILL. limited to specified sums of money. Because the Constitution requires that
The President may veto provisions. provisions in an appropriation bill must relate specifically to some particular
• Even assuming that provisions are beyond veto powers, Sec 55 may still be appropriation to which it relates, any provision which does not relate to any
vetoed following the DOCTRINE OF INAPPROPRIATE PROVISIONS. That is, if particular item or which extends its operation beyond the item will be
Sec 55: considered an INAPPROPRIATE PROVISION, which can be vetoed separately.
a. is a provision that does not relate to any particular appropriation; • Thus the scope of this item veto (inappropriate provision) should be any
b. the disapproved or reduced items are nowhere to be found on the provision:
face of the bill; a. which does not relate to any particular item
c. the vetoed sections are more an expression of Congressional policy b. which extends the operation beyond the item of appropriation; and
regarding augmentation powers rather than a true budgetary c. an unconstitutional provision which are intended to amend other
appropriation. laws.
• Sec 55 is thus an inappropriate provision that should be treated as ITEMS
FOR PURPOSES OF VETO POWERS. Section 28
• It cannot be denied that Legislature has the power to provide qualifications
and conditions in Appropriation Bills as to limit how the money shall be
spend, etc. Also, it cannot be denied that the Executive is not allowed to

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 30 -
Tan vs Del Rosario exempt from real estate tax. Dominant use and principal use can’t be
• All subjects/objects of taxation similarly situated are to be taxed or treated substituted for used exclusively.
equally:
A.) standards used are substantial, not arbitrary Abakada vs. Ermita 469 SCRA 1 (2005)
B.) categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose • RA 9337 is a consolidation of 3 legislative bills which amends secs 106 to
C.) law applies to both present and future conditions 108 of the NIRC. It also contains a uniform proviso authorizing the
D.) classification applies equally well to all belonging in the same class president, upon recommendation of the Sec of Finance to raise the VAT rate
from 10% to 12% after any of the two conditions of the law has been
CIR vs Lingayen Gulf Electric Company satisfied. The issue is WON RA 9337 is an unconstitutional delegation of
• RA 3843 is not unconstitutional and discriminatory in providing the company legislative power as it constitutes an abandonment of congress of its
a different tax rate as contended by CIR because it merely transferred exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Art 6 § 28 ¶ 2. The SC held
Lingayen Electric to another class in which a different tax rate is imposed. that, while power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies, details
as to the enforcement and administration of an exercise of power shall be
Abra Valley College vs Aquino let to them, including the power to determine the existence of facts on
• The term “exclusively for educational purposes” also extended to those which its operation depends. The preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis
circumstances that are for the institution’s incidental use as well. Thus, for the enactment of legislation is not of itself a legislative function but is
since only the second floor of the building was used for said purpose (house simple auxiliary to legislation. Thus, the duty of correlating information and
of the director) then the assessed tax would only be half of the original making recommendations is the kind of subsidiary activity that the
amount which includes the payment for the first floor of the building leased legislature may delegate to others to perform.
for commercial purposes.
Constantino vs. Cuisia GR 106064, October 13, 2004
John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition vs. Lim GR 119775, October 24, 2003 • The petitioners are questioning an agreement that was entered into by the
• Contrary to public respondents suggestions, the claimed statutory Philippine Debt Negotiating Team. The agreement is characterized as a multi
exemption of the John Hay SEZ from taxation should be manifest and option financing package. Petitioners alleged that even prior to the
unmistakable from the language of the law on which it is based. It must be execution of the program, respondents had already implemented its
expressly granted in a statute and stated in a language too clear to be “buyback component”. The issue WON the debt-relief contracts entered into
unmistaken. Tax exemption cannot be implied as it must be categorically pursuant to the Financing Program are beyond the powers granted to the
and unmistakably expressed. If it were the intent of the legislature to grant president under § 20 art. 7 of the constitution. The SC held that it is within
the John Hay SEZ the same exemption and incentive given to the Subic the power of the president to contract and guarantee foreign loans. It
SEZ, it would have so expressly provided in RA 7227. makes no prohibition on the issuance of certain kinds of loans or distinctions
as to which kinds of debt instruments are more onerous than others. The
Southern Cross Cement vs. Philippine Cement GR 158540, July 8, 2004 only restriction, aside from the concurrence of the Monetary Board, is that
• After the GATT & WTO membership, the Philippines enacted the Safeguard the loans must be subject to the limitations provided by law.
Measures Act along with the Anti-dumping Act & the imposition
countervailing duties to protect local industries. The power of the executive Republic vs. City of Kidapawan 477 SCRA 324 (2005)
to impose safeguard measures is actually just delegated by the legislature • The City sent PNOC-EDC a notice of delinquency for non payment of real
in its exercise of taxing power. The congress may impose limitations & property tax and warrant of levy against MAGRA. PNOC filed for injunction
guidelines to the exercise of these measures which must be complied with which was granted, but the RTC held that PNOC-EDC is not exempt from
by the executive in its implementation. In this case, it must have the real property tax. The land which they occupy is of public domain but the
positive factual determination of the Tariff Commission before it can be improvements (MAGRA) on it are subject to tax. PNOC’s exemption was
imposed. In the absence of such and for other causes, the DTI is enjoined withdrawn by the LGC. Only congress can grant tax exemptions. DOE
from enforcing. The DTI must follow the guidelines laid down by the cannot grant it even if it was provided in the contract.
legislature in its enforcement, otherwise it would be violative of the
constitution. Section 29: Restrictions on Use of Public Fund

Lung Center of the Philippines vs. Quezon City GR 144104, June 29, 2004 Fiscal Powers of Congress
• The lot owned by the petitioner and its hospital building are subject to
assessment for purposes of real estate tax. Petitioner claims that they are a Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works 110 PHIL. 331 (1960-61)
charitable institution. The SC held that it has parts which are not actually, • Sen. Zulueta owns a subd. in Rizal w/c he said he will donate to the
directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes, hence, those are not provincial govt. RA 920 appropriated funds for road construction inside that
exempt. Only portions of the hospital which are used by the patients are subd. Petitioner filed a petition to enjoin the respondent from constructing
the said road. The SC held that congress cannot appropriate funds which is

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 31 -
not for public purpose. Mere incidental interest to the public will not justify was released through the ministry of energy. The OPSF is not a trust fund
such use of public money for private interest. It also violates the prohibition but is actually a special fund & was established to protect consumers.
against legislators to have any interest in govt contracts. Payments for losses and under recovery from sales was sustained but not
the reimbursement w/c is not authorized by law.
MIAA vs. Mabunay GR 126151, January 20, 2000
• MIAA entered into a security contract with Lanting Security Agency. When Section 30
PASSCOR was organized, MIAA terminated their contract with Lanting.
Lanting challenged the termination alleging that it violates the procedure on First Lepanto Ceramics v. CA (1994)
public biddng. MIAA invokes Sec 68 of the GAA w/c allows govt to enter • SC issued Circular no. 1-91 which is a procedural rule regarding the
into service contracts through public bidding or negotiated contracts. The SC jurisdiction of CA over appeals from the decision of the BOI and for that
held that nothing in the said provision allows the govt to do away w/ bidding petitioner contends that said circular cannot supersede Art. 82 of Omnibus
requirement. The bidding requirement is a mechanism to avoid anomalies in Investment Code because it is a substantive right which cannot be modified
the execution of contracts and disbursement of funds. by rule of procedure.
• The appealing procedure provided for in Art. 82 of Omnibus Code which
Guingona vs. Carague 196 SCRA 221 (1991) states that appeals can be made to the SC is unconstitutional because it
• GAA of 1990 allocated P86 billion for debt servicing and only P27B for violates Sec 30 of Art 6 because no consent was acquired regarding the
education by virtue of PD 81 and other related laws for auto debt service. increase in appellate jurisdiction.
The consti provision which states that education will receive the highest
budget is not self executing. PD 81 and other laws concerning auto debt Fabian v. Desierto (1998)
service was not repealed by the new consti. Further, the consti provision • Fabian was major stockholder for PROMAT, a construction company, on the
which states that all appropriations & bills authorizing public debt, etc must other hand private respondent Agustin was incumbent District Engineering.
be passed again by congress is untenable. This provision pertains to future They had a relationship which resulted to the project giving gifts. After
debts to be contracted and not those which are already in effect. misunderstanding, Fabian filed complaint against respondent for violating
Ombudsman Act RA 6770. Same law provides that a direct appeal can be
COMELEC vs. Quijano GR 151992, September 18, 2002 made directly to the SC for decisions of the OMB.
• Private respondent want to enforce the contract it entered with COMELEC • Court held that said law was unconstitutional as it violates the power of the
for the computerization of the elections, although congress did not provide SC by increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the SC. However the SC may
adequate funds. COMELEC wants to reengineer the project which private transfer the appellate jurisdiction to the CA regarding appeals from
respondent opposes. Private respondent filed a petition for mandamus in administrative decision as it is merely procedural only, these is shown
order to compel the petitioner to enforce the contract. The SC held that through rule 45 of the rules of court. The OMB is not independent that it can
mandamus can’t be used at the case at bar because the contract was not make its own independent rule especially that of the appellate jurisdiction of
perfected, illegal and against public policy. The contract is not binding and SC. CASE REMANDED
considered void. Art. 6 § 29 states that no money shall be paid out of the
treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Villavert v. Desierto (2000)
• The case is about petitioner being dismissed as a Sales & Promotion
Special Funds Supervisor of PCSO Cebu Branch responsible for the sale and disposal of
PCSO sweepstakes tickets, petitioner Villavert incurred a total of
Gaston vs. Planters Bank 158 SCRA 626 (1988) P997,373.60 worth of unpaid PCSO tickets. He was dismissed from his job
• Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus before the SC, w/c seeks the by the Ombudsman thus this questioned appeal.
transfer & distribution of their shares of stock in RBR. Respondent answer is • Following the case of Fabian which provided appeal by way of petition for
that no trust was entered & the money was used for the stabilization of the review from a decision of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, or
sugar industry, hence it is now govt fund. The shares of stock belongs to the special civil action relative to such decision, resolution or order filed with the
govt. Stabilization fees are specials funds. The excess will be transferred to Court after 15 March 1999 shall no longer be referred to the Court of
gen. funds of the govt. To allow the transfer will be a clear violation of the Appeals but must be forthwith DENIED or DISMISSED, respectively. The
constitution. case was filed prior to such deadline finding thus it is still triable. Case
remanded to CA.
Osmena vs. Orbos 220 SCRA 703 (1993)
• PD 1956 created the OPSF fund w/c was designed to reimburse oil Tirol v. COA (2000)
companies from resulting world oil price adjustments. Additional ad valorem • Petitioner is the incumbent Regional Director of DECS, he and other officials
taxes, duties on imported petroleum and other increase in taxes was where charged with the violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019
imposed. They are taxes collected in the exercise of police power. The state for entering to contracts in acquiring school equipments grossly
converted the fund into t “trust liability account” by virtue of EO 1024 and

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 32 -
disadvantageous to the government. Audit conducted and showed that • PIRMA was initiated to gather signatures to amend the Constitution.
there was overpricing. Petitioner argued it was for emergency. However people’s initiative in amending the Constitution provided for by
• Court ordinarily does not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to Section of Art. 17 of the Constitution was not self-executory, such right of
determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the
has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. Also system of initiative would remain effectiveless until the Congress provides
this is also an appeal under Section 27 of the of the Ombudsman Act of for its implementation
1989 which was declared unconstitutional by the SC and even if it was not
unconstitutional section mentioned that “all administrative disciplinary Lambino v. COMELEC
cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman.” Case • These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of
will not prosper because it is a criminal case. the COMELEC denying due course to an initiative petition to amend the
1987 Constitution. Lambino group started to gather signature they alleged
Cabrera v. Lapid (2006) that they were able to acquire the required number of signatures by the
• Petitioner was seeking for the reconsideration of the resolution of the Constitution. It was denied by the COMELEC on the ground that there was
Ombudsman declaring her fishpond a nuisance per se thus it was destroyed, lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution.
petitioner was contesting that the destruction of the fishpond was done in Cited case of Defensor vs. COMELEC.
bad faith by the respondent. Petitioner appealed it to the SC invoking Sec • Failed to comply with the requirement because they failed to present the
27 of RA 6770 which allowed direct appeals in administrative disciplinary proposed amendment to the people to inform them before they sign the
cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court. Sec. 27 of initiative. Also the proposed “amendment” was already a revision which the
R.A. No. 6770 was declared unconstitutional in Fabian v. Hon. Desierto. Constitution provides for specific people and procedure which will enable a
• However petitioner is not without any recourse. Where grave abuse of revision to take place.
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction taints the findings of
the Ombudsman on the existence of probable cause, the aggrieved party
may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
ARTICLE VII: EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 31

Section 32
Section 1
SBMA V. COMELEC 1996
Executive Power
• Republic Act No. 7227 provided for the creation of the Subic Special
Economic Zone and created petitioner to implement the declared national
Philconsa v. Enriquez
policy of converting the Subic military reservation into alternative productive
• General Appropriations Act of 1994 RA 7663 was passed and approved
uses. Sangguniang Bayan of Morong passed an “ordinance” complying with
by Congress. This Act authorizes members of Congress to propose and
the requirements of the RA. Respondent petitioned for the annulment of the
identify projects in “Pork Barrels”, allotted to them and to realign their
said “ordinance” but was only given assurance that petition was being
respective operating budgets. Petitioners assail the Constitutionality of the
studied by the government already. Not satisfied with the respondents
Act because it gives the Congress the power to augment (such power is
resorted to their power of initiative under the Local Government Code.
vested in the President). The Court states that the proposals and
COMELEC denied the initiative, instead prepared for a referendum.
identifications made by Congress are merely recommendatory. The
• In initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises administration and
President must still examine whether the proposals submitted by
supervision of the process itself, akin to its powers over the conduct of
the members of Congress fall within the specific items of
elections. COMELEC cannot control or change the substance or the content
expenditures for which the Fund was set up, and if qualified, he next
of legislation. In the exercise of its authority, it may issue relevant and
determines whether they are in line with other projects planned for
adequate guidelines and rules for the orderly exercise of these "people-
the locality. Thereafter, if the proposed projects qualify for funding
power" features of our Constitution.
under the Fund, it is the President who shall implement them.
• Initiative is entirely the work of the electorate, referendum is begun and
consented to by the law-making body. Initiative is a process of law-making
Webb v. de Leon
by the people themselves without the participation and against the wishes
• Vizconde Massacre case, Witness Protection Program (RA 6981),
of their elected representatives, while referendum consists merely of the
power of the DOJ to discharge state witness (immunity from prosecution).
electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a
Jessica Alfaro was not included in the information based on RA No. 6981 w/c
legislative body.
mandates non-inclusion of state witness in the criminal complaint & grants
immunity from prosecution. It grants the DOJ the power to determine who
Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC (1997)
can qualify to said program & become immune from suit. Not an intrusion of

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 33 -
the judicial prerogative to discharge an accused as a state witness. The Chavez v. PCGG
power to prosecute crimes is vested in the Executive Branch in its power to • Compromise Agreement with the Marcoses to recover the ill-gotten
implement & execute the laws. The power to execute the law includes the wealth. PCGG’s Compromise Agreement with the Marcoses contains the
power to prosecute; hence RA No. 6981 w/ its affirmation of executive following Constitutional infirmities:
discretion is valid. • It compromises BOTH civil & criminal liability. EO No. 14 allows the
grant of immunity for witnesses only, but not for the principals of the
Marcos v. Manglapus crime. The Marcoses are principal defendants before the
• Marcos’ return to the Phils. After being deposed & exiled to Hawaii, Pres. Sandiganbayan.
Marcos, in his deathbed, signified his desire to return to the Phils & die in • It exempts from all forms of taxes the properties retained by the
his country. Circumstances during that time include frequent coup d' etats, Marcos heirs. The power to tax & to grant tax exemptions is vested in
economic problems, etc. Pres. Aquino deemed such return to be dangerous Congress.
to the safety of the nation. Right to return to one's country not expressly • It binds the Gov't to dismiss the cases before the Sandiganbayan. This
granted by the Bill of Rights but recognized in Int'l Law. Powers of the Pres. is a clear encroachment upon the judiciary. Dismissal of the case is at
are not restricted to those expressly granted by the Consti such as the discretion of the court.
appointing power, commander-in-chief powers, pardoning power, treaty- • The Gov't waives any claims, whether past, present, or future, mature
making power, etc. but includes such inherent & residual unstated powers or inchoate, against the Marcoses. This violates the Civil Code provision
necessary to the exercise of executive power & implicit to the paramount that an action for future fraud cannot be waived. It is a license to
duty to protect the people. In this case, the residual power of the Pres. to perpetuate future fraud and crime w/ immunity.
serve & protect the general welfare of the people is exercised as mandated • It does not provide for a period w/in w/c the Marcoses must satisfy
by the Constitution. their prestations & lays no standards as to what assets are to be
retained by them and those forfeited to the Gov't.
Laurel v. Garcia • It lacks the approval of the President FVR.
• Roponggi Case and E.O. 296 (authorize sale to non-Filipino
citizens/entities. The Philippines acquired some properties through Pontejos v. Ombudsman
reparations from Japan after WW2 under the Reparations Agreement and • Power of Ombudsman to grant immunity to state witnesses. Pontejos
listed under the “Government Sector.” Petitioners are asserting that E.O. charged with estafa and direct bribery for exacting money from Aquino in
296 is unconstitutional since it authorizes the sale of government properties order to obtain a favourable decision of a case against Roderick Ngo. Atos, a
to non-Filipino citizens/entities. Said property is of public domain outside subordinate of Pontejos and acted only upon the prodding of Pontejos, was
the commerce of man. It is dedicated for the public use & cannot be given immunity for testifying against Pontejos. Her testimony was necessary
appropriated or alienated w/o a formal declaration from the government to to build a case against Pontejos. The OMB is granted with the power to
convert it to patrimonial property. E.O. 296 does not have force of law grant immunity from prosecution persons whose testimony or in whose
because Pres. Aquino has already lost her revolutionary powers by then. possession and production of document or other evidence that may be
There must be a law authorizing its conveyance; the concurrence of necessary in the proceedings of the case, under such terms and conditions
Executive & Legislative is necessary. as it may determine.

Djumantan v. Domingo Executive Privilege

• Muslim wife case and Deportation power of Executive. Bernard Bañez
is an OCW to Indonesia and married to Marina Cabael. Then, he married US v. Nixon
Djumantan in Indonesia & had 2 children. He brought them to Phils. and • General Executive Privilege/Privilege Communication of the
pretended to be friends (show his appreciation for the kindness shown to President (President’s need for confidentiality). Pres. Nixon was
him in Indonesia and have them as guests only) & passed immigration charged for conspiracy to defraud the United States & obstruction of justice.
through such misrepresentation. Cabel, upon discovering that Djumantan is Pursuant thereto, the court issues sub poena duces tecum for the
her husband’s mistress and is living at her husband’s house, filed for production of taped conversations bet. Nixon & other exec. officials. Nixon
concubinage but was dismissed. His son Leonardo filed complaint before the invokes the General Executive Privilege, protection of communications
Ombudsman. Djumantan was later detained at Commission on Immigration among high government officials & those who advise & assist them in the
& Deportation. The deportation proceedings ensued. The President's power performance of their duties. He also invokes the separation of powers. Both
to deport is as absolute & unqualified as the power to prohibit entry into the cannot sustain absolute, unqualified Presidential Immunity. He must allege
country. Alien's admission is a matter of pure permission, not as a matter of it on the basis of military or diplomatic secrets. President’s generalized
right. Likewise, an alien does not possess right to an indefinite stay. assertion of privilege in confidentiality will not hold against the demands of
However, the deportation of Djumantan is barred by prescription (5 yrs +) due process & fair administration of criminal justice.
accdg. to Immigration Act of 1940.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 34 -
Almonte v. Vasquez must not demonstrate malicious intent. Both must be present. Case was
• Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau case and ghost remanded for further proceedings based on the standards laid down.
agents. Ombudsman received anonymous letter, presumed to be from
employee of EIIB alleging corruption w/in such as ghost employees, Clinton v. Jones
anomalous disbursement of public funds, etc. Ombudsman investigates & • Clinton’s sexual escapade and claiming immunity. Paula Corbin Jones
issues sub poena duces tecum to Accounting Division & Records Section of was working w/ Arkansas Industrial Development Commission. State Police
EIIB requiring production of documents relating to Personal Service Funds. Officer Danny Ferguson orders her to leave desk to visit then Governor Bill
Supra. Nixon. The Court also stated that EIIB’s fxns are confidential in Clinton in his hotel suite where the latter made "abhorrent" sexual advances
nature but not their documents. upon her w/c she rejected. She was later treated in a hostile manner at
• In both cases, even if the documents or testimonies of public officials work. She filed suit for damages. Federal Trial Court deferred trial until
are treated as presumptively privileged, their confidentiality will not be expiration of term of Clinton as President of the US. The President's
prejudiced for they will be examined in camera (closed-door immunity from suit does not extend to acts committed outside of official
trial/session); thus, their non reproduction will not be tolerated. duties. The rationale of the rule is to allow the Pres. to perform his DUTIES
w/o being hampered. The protected action must be related to the
Senate v. Ermita immunity's purpose. Unofficial acts do not fall w/in the privilege of immunity
• E.O. 464 case. supra Nixon (leading case). The Court ruled that the from suit. The Federal Court erred in deferring due course & must assume
extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates that the presumption jurisdiction to try the case. The non granting of immunity does not violate
inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favour of disclosure. The separation of powers. Case is remanded.
privilege extends only to matters necessary to the discharge of highly
important executive responsibilities involved in maintaining governmental Gloria v. CA
operations, and extends only to military and diplomatic secrets but also to • DECS reassignment case and complaining about reassignment. DECS
documents integral to an appropriate exercise of the executive domestic Sec. Ricardo Gloria recommended to the Pres. the re-assignment of
decisional and policy making functions, that is, those documents reflecting Bienvenido Icasiano from being Schools Div. Superintendent of QC to
the frank expression necessary in intra-governmental advisory and Superintendent of Marikina Inst. of Science & Technology (MIST) to fill up a
deliberative communications. temporary vacancy. Such was approved by FVR. Icasiano sues for violation
of security of tenure due to indefinite duration of assignment. Presidential
Immunity from Suit immunity from suit is not violated because it is directed against Sec. Gloria
& not the President. Even so, presidential decisions may be assailed in court
Soliven v. Makasiar if there is grave abuse of discretion. The reassignment clearly violated
• President’s prerogative whether or not to avail of the immunity. Luis security of tenure.
Beltran and other petitioners who are also writers/columnists were charged
with libel by Pres. Aquino. Beltran argues that the presidential immunity Estrada v. Desierto
from suit carries with it a correlative disability to file suit because she may • Impeachment of Estrada and invocation of immunity from
have to be a witness for the prosecution & subjected to pain of perjury; prosecution under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
hence, circumventing the said principle. The court ruled that the immunity Supreme Court considers Estrada to be resigned on the basis of the totality
may only be invoked by the President, not by anyone else in her behalf. of his acts and the attending circumstances present during the volatile
Should she so desire, she may shed the immunity, but it is her prerogative period. Pres. Arroyo was sworn into office and was considered by the SC as
to do so. Privilege works to protect the Pres. from being hampered in the the incumbent President because of the confirmation of Congress as a co-
performance of duties & functions by lawsuits & allows the Pres. to give equal branch was given great weight. Pres. Estrada was then prosecuted by
governance her undivided attention. the Ombudsman based on the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act, Sec. 15
thereof provides that separation or cessation of a public official from office is
Harlow v. Fitzgerald not a bar to prosecution under this Act. In this case, the impeachment
• Presidential aides’ claiming derivative immunity. Bryce Harlow & proceedings became moot due to resignation of the President. The proper
Alexander Butterfield are aides of Pres. Nixon who conspired to have criminal (plunder, bribery, graft & corruption) & civil actions may proceed
Earnest Fitzgerald removed from his employment in the White House, against him in ordinary courts. Conviction in Impeachment is not a requisite
allegedly violating his constitutional rights. Fitzgerald files suit for damages. to criminal prosecution before the Ombudsman. Unlawful acts of public
Presidential aide does not enjoy the same degree of immunity. He must officials are not acts of the State; hence they stand on the same footing as
establish that his office performs such sensitive functions that would require any other trespasser. They are not protected by Executive Immunity from
immunity & that the act alleged was in the performance of said functions. suit.
The case also laid down the two tests namely the objective test: must have
reasonable knowledge & respect for basic rights and the subjective test:

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 35 -
David v. Arroyo the sole and exclusive authority to canvass the votes for the election of the
• PP 1017 and implead President as respondent. The Court held that it is President and Vice-President. The resolution directly infringes the authority
not proper to implead the President as respondent. Settled is the doctrine of Congress, considering Sec. 4 thereof allows the use of third copy of the
that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not Election Returns for the positions of President, Vice-President, Senators and
be sued in any civil and criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it Members of the House of Representatives, intended for the COMELEC, as
in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the basis for the encoding and transmission of advanced precinct results, and in
President, the Head of the State, if he can be dragged into court litigations the process, canvass the votes for the President and Vice-President, ahead
while serving as such. of the canvassing of the same votes by Congress.

The Cabinet Pimentel v. Joint Committee

• Joint Committee to determine the authenticity and due execution of the
Constantino v. Cuisa certificates following the adjournment of Congress. The petitioners contend
• Financing Program and Secretary of Finance as alter ego of the that “all pending matters and proceedings terminate upon the expiration of
President. The Financing Program was formulated during the term of Pres. … Congress.” The Court ruled that even though the legislative functions of
Aquino in order to manage the country’s external debt problem through the Congress may have come to a close, this doesn’t affects its non-
negotiation-oriented debt strategy involving cooperation and negotiation legislative functions, such that of being the National Board of Canvassers.
with foreign creditors. The petitioners are contending that it is only the Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution to canvass the votes for and to
President who may exercise the power to enter into these contracts and proclaim the newly elected President and Vice-President has not, and
such power may not be delegated. The Court ruled that the Secretary of cannot, adjourn until it has accomplished its constitutionality mandated
Finance is authorized by law, with the approval of the President of the tasks. For only when a board of canvassers has completed its functions is it
Philippines, after consultation with the Monetary Board, to borrow on the rendered to be functus officio. Its membership may change but it retains its
credit of the Phils. and to issue therefore evidence of indebtedness of the authority as a board until it has accomplished its purposes.
Philippine Government. The law allows the Sec. of Finance to act as alter
ego of the President in order to have a sound and efficient management of Breaking Presidential or Vice-President Tie
the financial resources of the Government. Presidential or Vice-Presidential Controversies

Section 2 Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos

• Miriam files election protest for presidency but while case is pending, files
Section 3 cert. of candidacy as senator and won. Such act of Miriam is tantamount to
withdrawal/abandonment of her claim to the Presidency. It is a political
Section 4 contract w/ the electorate to serve her constituency for the term for w/c she
was elected. Only 3 yrs left in the Presidency, 6 yrs to serve as Senator. The
Election of the President and VP action becomes moot upon the expiration of the contested term. She also
Term of the President and VP waived the revision of the remaining unrevised ballots signifies intent to
abandon her claim.
Anson-Roa v. Arroyo
• Incumbent Arroyo runs for Presidency. Senatorial candidates Elisa Tecson v. COMELEC
Anson-Roa & Amina Rasul-Bernardo challenge her candidacy & allege use of • Questioning the eligibility of FPJ to run for Presidency; not natural-born. The
public funds for campaign. According to the Constitution, the President shall “contest” is in reference to a post-election scenario. According to the law,
not be eligible for RE-ELECTION. No person who has succeeded the Pres. & only the registered candidate for President, Vice-President of the Philippines
has served for more than 4 yrs shall be qualified for election to the same receiving the second or third highest number of votes may contest the
office anytime. Arroyo was not elected as President & has not served for election of the President or Vice-President; thus, the jurisdiction of the
more than 4 yrs. She does not have to resign & can run w/ all the tribunal is limited only to returns, qualifications of the “President”, “Vice-
concomitant powers & duties of the Presidency. COMELEC has jurisdiction. President” and not of “candidates.” The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction would
Alleged use of funds is question of fact, not of law. not include cases directly brought before it questioning qualifications of a
candidate for presidency because the character of a contest is to dislodge
Congress as National Board of Canvassers the winning candidate from office.

Brillantes v. COMELEC Section 5

• RA 8436 (Authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election system for
the process of voting, counting of votes and canvassing/consolidating the Section 6
results of the national and local elections), unofficial count, and Congress as

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 36 -
Section 7 • Art. 9 applies to appointive officials in the Civil Service (Asst. Secretary &
below) as a general rule, but as for Cabinet Members, Pres, & VP, they may
Section 8 only hold other office when the Constitution itself so provides. It does not
include positions held in an ex-officio capacity & w/o additional
Estrada v. Desierto compensation for services rendered in such ex-officio capacity they are not
• Estrada’s overt acts leave no doubt to the Court that the petitioner has other offices but merely other duties part of their principal office. EC No.
resigned. In the light of this finding that petitioner has resigned before 12 284 is declared NULL & VOID.
o’clock noon of January 20, 2001, the claim that the office of the President
was not vacant when Arroyo took her oath at half past noon of the same De la Cruz v. COA
day has no leg to stand on. • Alternatives not entitled to additional compensation case. NHA
Resident Auditor disallowed payment to petitioners of their representative
Section 9 allowances and per diems. Power of the petitioners is merely derivative The
Court held that the acts of alternates are considered to be acts of principals;
Section 10 thus, if the principal is not entitled to compensation then the agent is also
not entitled to compensation. The agent can never be larger than the
Section 11 principal. In addition, ex-officio positions being actually and in legal
contemplation part of the principal office, it follows that the official has no
Estrada v. Desierto right to receive additional compensation for his services in the said position.
• Supra. Estrada on Sec.7-8 The reason is that these services are already paid for and covered by the
compensation attached to his principal office.
Section 12
Bitonio v. COA
Section 13 • Supra De la Cruz.

Prohibition against Holding Another Office or Employment National Amnesty Com. v. COA
• Supra Bitonio (regarding ex-officio positions).
Rafael v. Embroidery and Apparel Control Board
• Creation of Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board Other Prohibitions
and appointments to the Embroidery Board case. RA No. 3137 created
the Embroidery & Apparel Control & Inspection Board, Sec. 2 thereof defines Doromal v. Sandiganbayan
membership: representatives from Bureau of Customs, Central Bank, Dept. • Indirect interest of Public Official case. Quintin Doromal, as
of Commerce & Industry, Nat'l Econ. Council as ex-officio members, & Commissioner of the PCGG & at the same time, president / shareholder of
member from the private sector from Assoc. of Embroidery & Apparel the Doromal Int'l Trading Corp. entered into the bidding process for supply
Exporters of the Phils. The appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of of equipment for the DECS & Nat'l Manpower & Youth Council. Preventively
the Pres. upon w/c no limitations may be imposed except by the Com. on suspended pending litigation by the Sandiganbayan (ordered lifted bec. it
Appointments. No new appointments were made, they were merely exceeded the 90 day duration under Civil Service Law). As an incorporator /
designated new duties as ex-officio members in addition to their original director of family business, he was at least, INDIRECTLY INTERESTED in the
duties. Hence, it does not infringe upon the appointing power of the transaction. Art. 7 Sec. 13 of the Consti: "The Pres, VP, members of the
President. Cabinet, deputies or assistants xxx shall not, during their tenure, directly or
indirectly xxx participate in business w/ or be interested in any contract or
CLU v. Exec. Secretary franchise granted by the Gov't. Remanded to Ombudsman for preliminary
• Can’t hold two positions case. EO No. 284 promulgated by Pres. Aquino investigation.
(revolutionary legislative powers) stating that "members of the Cabinet,
under-secretary, asst. secretary, other appointive officials of the Exec. Section 14
Branch may not hold more than 2 other positions in the Gov't." According to
the Constitution, Art. 7 unless provided in the Consti, Pres, VP, Cabinet, Section 15
deputies & assistants may not hold ANY OTHER OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT
during tenure. However, under Art. 9 states "Unless otherwise allowed BY Appointments by Acting President
LAW or the primary functions of his position xxx" Intent of the Consti was to Temporary Appointments
impose stricter prohibition on the Pres, his official family, in so far as
holding public position. In re Appointment of Valenzuela

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 37 -
• Midnight appointments case. Mateo Valenzuela appointed to the RTC of
Bago City, while Placido Vallarta to RTC Cabanatuan City w/in the period of Kinds of Presidential Appointments
ban on appointments 2 months before elections accdg. to Art. 7 Sec. 15 of
the Consti. Exception: appointments to vacant EXECUTIVE positions when Pimentel v. Ermita
the public safety so demands. Pres. also demanded the nominations of the • President issued appointments then made ad interim appointments;
JBC for the vacancy on the SC resulting from the retirement of Assoc. Congress not in session “daw.” The power to appoint is executive in
Justice Ricardo Francisco, but the Chief Justice (Chair of the JBC) refused on nature and the legislature may only prescribe the qualifications to an
the basis of said prohibitory period. Note: Under Art. 8 Sec. 4 & 9, appointive office. The President’s appointment of acting secretaries doesn’t
vacancies in the Judiciary must be filled w/in 90 days from occurrence upon need COA’s approval (acting appointments don’t exceed 1 year). Congress
recommendation of the JBC. Conflict is resolved as follows: can’t impose who the President may appoint because EO 292 vests in the
President that power to temporarily designate an officer already in the
General Rule: vacancies must be filled (Appointment of judicial officials falls here) government or any other competent person to perform the fxns of an office
Exception: the ban on appointments upon 2 months prior to date of election. in the executive branch. Also, acting appointments may anytime there is a
Exception to the exception: appointment of EXECUTIVE officials when public vacancy and don’t need the approval of COA. Acting appointments are a
safety requires way of temporarily filling important offices.

• The intent of the Consti is to prevent "midnight appointments" as well as Scope of the Power of the COA
influence of appointments upon elections. 2 months prior to election, the
Pres is deprived of appointing power subject to the only exception. Hence Sarmiento III v. Mison
the appointments of Valenzuela & Vallarda are NULL & VOID. • 1st Sentence case. Appointment of Salvador Mison as Commissioner of
Bureau of Customs and Guillermo Carague as Sec. of the Dept. of Budget
Section 16 assailed on the basis of lack of approval of the Commission on
Appointments. Consti provides as follows:
Nature of the Appointing Power • 1st Sentence: The Pres shall nominate & with the consent of the Com. On
Appointments, appoint heads of the Exec. Dept, ambassadors, other public
Government v. Springer ministers & consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel
• Appointment for GOCC's case. The Nat'l Coal Co. became Gov't-owned or naval captain, & other officers whose appointment is vested in him in this
(more than 99% of shares of stock); it was created under Act. NO. 2705 as Constitution.
amended by Act No. 2822 w/c created a Voting Committee composed of • 2nd Sentence: He shall appoint all other offices of the Govt whose
Senate Pres, Speaker of the HR, & the Gov. Gen. w/c proceeded to vote in appointments are not otherwise provided by law, & those he may be
favor of 5 persons as directors of said company in absence of the Gov. Gen. authorized by law to appoint.
who challenges constitutionality of voting committee. Organic Acts vest • 3rd Sentence: Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other lower
supreme executive power on the Gov. Gen. & appointment is an executive officers in the Pres alone, in the courts, heads of depts., agencies,
function. Legislature has power to create the office, define it powers, & commissions, or boards.
annex compensation but has nothing to do w/ the man to fill the office. • Only those in the 1st Sentence require consent of the Commission on
Such vestige of power in Voting Committee is a violation of separation of Appointments. Word "alone" in 3rd Sentence is a mere lapse in
powers. Administration of GOCC's is not germane to legislative function. draftsmanship. Intent of the Const is to strike a middle ground bet. the
1935 (very restrictive) and 1973 (very permissive) Constitutions.
Appointment of Mison & Carague fall under 2nd Sentence, hence no approval
is necessary from Com. on Appointments.
Bermudez v. Exec. Secretary
• Recommendation of DOJ case. Vacancy for the office of Provincial Bautista v. Salonga
Prosecutor of Tarlac emerged. Oscar Bermudez was recommended by DOJ • CHR 1st Sentence case. Mary Concepcion Bautista appointed to the CHR
Sec. Teofisto Guingona, while Conrado Quiaoit was recommended by Rep. w/o approval of Com. on Appointments (COA). COA summons her to
Jose Yap of 2nd Leg. Dist. of Tarlac. Quiaoit prevailed; Bermudez challenges present credentials for review, but refuses to submit to its jurisdiction. Pres.
citing Revised Admin. Code of 1987 w/c provides that "Provincial & city Aquino appoints Hesiquito R. Malilin as ad interim Chair of CHR pending
prosecutors & their assistants shall be appointed by the Pres upon MaryCon's dispute w/ COA. Position of Chair of CHR falls under 2nd Sentence
recommendation of the Secretary. Lack of recommendation is not fatal to (xxx those he [Pres] may be authorized by law to appoint xxx), just as in
the appointment & is merely persuasive & discretionary but NOT mandatory. Sarmiento vs. Mison, hence, no approval of the COA is necessary. CHR is a
Appointment entails DISCRETION on the part of the appointing power. constitutionally created body, w/c the Pres appoints the Chair w/o express
Personality of the Sec. of Justice is merely extension to that of the condition of prior COA approval. Bautista cannot be removed from office w/o
President. just cause & is affirmed as the true appointed Chairman of CHR.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 38 -
decree authorizing BOD to appoint officers is unconstitutional. The President
Quintos-Deles v. CA shall appoint the trustees of the CCP Board because the trustees fall under
• Sectoral reps. confirmation case. The following. are appointed by Pres. the third group of officers.
Aquino as Sectoral Reps. for the HR during recess: Teresita Quintos-Deles
(Women), Al Ignatius Lopez (Youth), Bartolome Arteche (Peasant), & Rey Appointment of Officers “Lower in Rank”
Magno Teves (Urban Poor). Pres. submitted their appointment to the May Congress require other appointments to be confirmed by the COA
Commission on Appointments for confirmation, but they refused to submit
themselves to its jurisdiction. Oath taking was suspended by Speaker Mitra. Calderon v. Carole
Appointment of Sectoral Reps is vested in the Pres. by virtue of the Consti & • COA approval of NLRC appointments case. RA No. 6715 (Herrera-
falls under 1st Sentence w/c requires COA approval. Sarmiento vs. Mison Veloso Law) amended Labor Code & provides that the Pres. shall appoint
doctrine was reiterated. Moot due to COA approval. the Chairman & other Commissioners of the NLRC SUBJ. TO CONFIRMATION
BY COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS. Labor Sec. Drilon issues Admin Order
Pobre v. Mendieta No. 161 s. 1989 pursuant thereto designating assignments. Said law is
• PRC Chairman appointment case. PRC Chairmanship becomes vacant unconstitutional bec. it expands the powers of the COA. It falls w/in the 2nd
upon expiration of term of Julio Francia. Assoc. Commissioner Hermogenes Sentence of Art. 7 Sec. 16 such other officers that he (Pres.) may be
Pobre appointed by Pres. Senior Assoc. Commissioner Mariano Mendieta authorized by law to appoint. Only those in the 1st Sentence (Heads of the
challenges such appointment argues succession by operation of law citing Exec. Dept, ambassadors, other public ministers & consuls, or officers of the
PD No. 223 & also argues for required COA approval. It falls under 2nd armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, & other officers
Sentence of Art. 7 Sec. 16 (He shall appoint all other offices of the Govt whose appointment is vested in him in this Constitution) exclusively require
whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law, & those he may be COA approval. It attempts to amend by legislation the Constitution, hence
authorized by law to appoint) w/c requires no prior approval of the COA. said provision is NULL & VOID.
The argument of succession by operation of law is untenable as the Pres.
could not have enacted said PD to curtail his own powers of appointment. U-Sing v. NLRC
History of the PRC reflects that filling up of such vacancies upon expiration • Another NLRC appointment case. Fortunato Naya worked as
of term are filled up by appointment. maintenance man for U-Sing, who stopped working & died of illness. His
wife Cecilia Naya sues for separation pay & incentive leave & alleges
Flores v. Drilon underpayment. U-Sing alleges indebtedness of Naya as well as contributions
• Olongapo Mayor as SBMA Chair case. RA No. 7227 (Bases Conversion & for sickness & death. NLRC dismisses underpayment but grants separation
Dev't Act) w/c provides that for the 1st year of effectivity, the Pres. shall pay. U-Sing challenges jurisdiction of NLRC alleging that the appointment of
appoint the Mayor of Olongapo (Gordon) as Chairman & CEO of SBMA. Art Commissioners was not approved by the Commission on Appointments.
9-B Sec. 7 of Consti: No ELECTIVE official shall be eligible for appointment Appointment of NLRC Commissioners falls under 2nd Sentence of Art. 7 Sec.
or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his 16 of the Consti (those whom the President may be authorized to appoint
tenure. Only appointive officials may be authorized to hold other offices in by law) w/c does not require approval by the COA. Hence, their acts are
an ex-officio capacity when allowed by law or the primary functions of his valid. Estoppel applies for they already submitted to jurisdiction of NLRC.
office. Congress stipulated APPOINTMENT, not ex officio capacity hence it Termination pay due to illness granted by the SC.
violates the Consti. It falls w/in the 2nd Sentence of Art. 7 Sec. 16 (those
whom the President may be authorized to appoint by law) however, the Tarrosa v. Singson
power of whom to appoint is the prerogative of the appointing power • Banko Sentral appointment case. Gabriel Singson was appointed as Gov.
Congress deprived the Pres. of discretion bec. only 1 person qualifies for of the Banko Sentral by FVR w/o confirmation by the COA as required by RA
said office. He must 1st resign his post before he can be appointed to other No. 7653. As Jesus Tarrosa does not claim entitlement to the said office, he
office. Public policy: his previous acts as SBMA Chair are not necessarily null has no locus standi. Congress cannot, by law, expand the confirmation
& void as he acted as a de facto officer whose acts redounded to the benefit powers of the COA as provided in Art. 7 Sec. 16 of the Consti. Only those in
of community. the 1st Sentence (Heads of the Exec. Dept, ambassadors, other public
ministers & consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel
Rufino v. Endriga or naval captain, & other officers whose appointment is vested in him in this
• BOD to appoint officers. EO 1058 was created increasing the number of Constitution) require COA approval.
trustees to 11. The Court ruled that the law may not validly confer on the
CCP trustees the authority to appoint or elect their fellow trustees, for the Manalo v. Sistoza
latter would be officers of equal rank and not of lower rank. Since the law • PNP appointments case. RA No. 6975 was enacted creating the DILG w/c
provides that the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other provides that the Pres. shall appoint the PNP Chief from among the senior
officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of officers down to the rank of chief superintendent, as well as Senior
departments, agencies, commissions, or boards; thus, the presidential Superintendent & Deputy Director Gen. subject to approval by the

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 39 -
Commission on Appointments. Pursuant thereto, Exec. Sec. Drilon promoted Drilon v. Lim
15 police officers to the rank of Chief Superintendent to Director in a • The Secretary of Justice declared Manila Revenue Code null and void for
permanent capacity but w/o approval of the COA. Only appointees falling non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax
w/in the 1st Sentence of Art. 7 Sec. 16 require approval of the COA, hence ordinances. Such power to do so was vested to the Sec. under the LGC. It
said provisions extending the scope of appointing power of the COA are was held that the provision in the LGC is not violative of the local autonomy
VOID. The PNP cannot fall under the classification of Armed Forces under of LGUs. The action of Drilon was not an act of control but of mere
the 1st Sentence bec. the PNP is an entity entirely separate & distinct from supervision. Hence, he can only determined if the officials were performing
the AFP. Hence it falls under the 2nd Sentence & does not require COA their functions in accordance with the law and not replace it with his own
approval. Under RA No. 6975, no element of the police force shall be version of what the Code should be.
military, nor shall any position thereof be occupied by members of the AFP.
Joson v. Torres
Soriano III v. Lista • DILG conducted an investigation on the charge that Gov. Joson barged into
• Phil. Coast Guard appointments case. PGMA appoints 8 persons to diff. the municipal hall and threatened the Sanggunian members who were
positions in the Coast Guard w/o approval of the Commission on apparently not in favor of the loan he was proposing. The DILG Secretary
Appointments. History of PCG: under PD No. 601, PCG was placed under found him guilty based on position papers submitted by both parties and
DND, by EO No. 292, placed under Phil. Navy, by EO No. 475 placed under suspended him for 6 months. However the SC ruled that the petitioner has
DND, then later to the DOTC. It is no longer part of the Armed Forces hence the right to a formal investigation since he is an elective official. The power
no longer subj. to the 1st Sentence of Art. 7 Sec. 16 of the Consti (xxx to investigate is given to the DILG while the authority to discipline is lodged
officers of the armed forces w/ rank of colonel or naval captain xxx) w/c to the President.
requires approval by the COA. It refers to military officers alone the PCG is
now under the Office of the President. Petitioner likewise has no standing to Domingo v. Zamora
sue. • EO 81, transferring sports programs and activities of the DECS to the Phil.
Sports Commission (PSC) and Memo #01592 reassigning all Bureau of
Section 17: Power of Control Physical Education and School Sports (BPESS) to other offices within DECS,
were held valid. The subsequent enactment of RA 9155 has rendered the
Power of Control issue moot since the law abolished BPESS and transferred the DECS’
functions relating to sports to PSC. Likewise, the PSC is already attached to
Lacson v. Magallanes the Office of the President and hence, he has the power to reorganize its
• Executive Secretary Pajo, by the authority of the President decided the activities.
controversy involving a parcel of land, modifying the decision of the Director
of Lands as affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. DENR vs. DENR Region 12 employees
It was held that the Executive Secretary has the power to do so, acting by • The DENR Secretary, as the alter ego of the President, has the authority to
the authority of the President. This power is defined to “the power to alter, transfer DENR XII Regional Office from Cotabato City to Koronadal South
modify, nullify, or set aside a subordinate’s action and to substitute the Cotabato. As was held in EIIB v. Zamora, the President has the authority to
judgment of the former for the latter. carry out the reorganization in any branch or agency of the executive
department.
Ang-Angco v. Castillo
• the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint. But this power KMU v. Dir. Gen. of NEDA
cannot extend to those in the classified service. President’s power to • “National ID System.” EO 420 applies only to government entities that
suspend or remove extends only to presidential appointees, or those not already maintain ID system and issue ID cards pursuant to regular function
belonging to the classified service. This case should be referred to the CSC. under existing laws. It does not establish a National ID System as the
To allow the president to dismiss those in classified service would defeat the petitioners are assailing as usurpation of legislative functions, but merely
aim of the service system – security of tenure. make existing sectoral ID’s uniform, reliable, efficient, and user friendly.

NAMARCO v. Arca Section 18

• Arrive was dismissed from service (Manager of the Traffic-Storage
Department of NAMARCO) and appealed to the President for reinstatement, Commander-in-Chiefship
which was acted upon favorably. Although it was true that the NAMARCO
charter did not mention any appeal to the President, this did not take it out Lansang vs. Garcia
of the executive power of the President. NAMARCO was a GOCC and as • Proclamation no.889 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus for person
such, the President has the power not only to supervise but also to control. detained and those who would be detained for insurrection or rebellion is
valid. The Supreme Court has the power to check whether the decision of

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 40 -
the Executive to issue such is grounded on the 2 conditions provided in the be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation
constitution (existence of invasion/insurrection/rebellion and public safety of the COMELEC.
requires it). In this regard, the SC clarified that its function was merely to
check, not supplant the President’s decision. Llamas vs Orbos 202 SCRA 581 [1995]
• Mariano Un Ocampo III was convicted of RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt
Aberca vs. Ver Practices Act) and imposed a penalty of suspension for 90 days. Ocampo
• The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not bar civil action for was then granted executive clemency and resumed office without any
damages for illegal searches conducted by the military and other violations notification made to the incumbent vice governor (Llamas). Petitioner then
of rights and liberties guaranteed under the constitution. assails the power of president to grant executive clemency on
administrative cases.
Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary • The court denied the petition. The constitution does not distinguish between
• During the oakwood mutiny, several petitioners argued that the president’s which cases executive clemency may be exercised by the President, with
declaration of a state of rebellion is void in so far as it disregarded the the sole exclusion of impeachment cases. If those already adjudged guilty
constitutional power of the Congress to declare such. SC held that it is criminally in court may be pardoned, those adjudged guilty administratively
under the power of the President to declare such and call out the armed should likewise be extended the same benefit.
forces as enshrined in her in this article of the constitution as the
commander-in-chief. People vs Salle 250 SCRA 581 [1995]
• Ricky Mengote was convicted of the compound crime of murder and
David vs. Arroyo destructive arson. One of the appellants filed an appeal although Mengote
• SC held that none of the petitioners has shown that PP1017 has no factual was granted conditional pardon by the President. Mengote has not filed any
basis and that the calling out of the armed forces is under the full motion to withdraw the appeal nor acceptance of the conditional pardon.
discretionary power of the President. However, GO #5 was held The issue raised is the enforceability of a pardon granted to an accused
unconstitutional for it has failed to define what terrorists are and at the during the pendency of his appeal from judgment of conviction by the trial
same time it order the armed forces to implement decrees promulgated by court.
the President which she apparently cannot do because such would • The requirement of after conviction operated as one of the limitations on
tantamount to usurpation of the legislative’s function. the pardoning power of the president. The court held that an appeal brings
the entire case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the appellate court. There
Section 19 could be a risk not only of failure of justice but also of a frustration of the
system of administration of justice in view of the derogation of the
Purpose of Executive Clemency jurisdiction of the trial or appellate court.

Cristobal vs Labrador 71 PHIL 844 [1991] Drilon vs CA 202 SCRA 378 [1991]
• Teofilo Santos was convicted of the crime of estafa. With the enactment of • In 1973, Rodolfo Ganzon was convicted of double murder before the Military
RA 357 (Election Code) which disqualifies the respondent from voting for Commission. Ganzon served the sentence and placed under house arrest. In
having been convicted of crimes against property. Santos was granted 1988, the administration changed and directed a new preliminary
conditional pardon wherein he shall receive his full civil and political rights, investigation for the above murders. Ganzon stated that he had been given
except that with respect to the right to hold public office or employment, he absolute pardon by President Marcos and he, having been previously
will be eligible for appointment on to positions which are clerical or manual convicted cannot be tried anew.
in nature and involving no money or property responsibility. Petitioner • Pardon if granted after conviction, removes all the penalties and disabilities
Cristobal assails the pardon granted by the Executive. attached thereto and restores the felon to all his civil rights. It makes him a
• The court denied the petition. It was held that imprisonment is not the only new man and gives him a new credit and capacity. Therefore, the court
punishment which law imposes upon those who violate its command. There cannot tolerate a new investigation.
are accessory and resultant disabilities, and the pardoning power likewise
extends to such disabilities. When granted after the term of imprisonment Torres vs Gonzales 152 SCRA 272 [1987]
has expired, absolute pardon removes all that is left of the consequences of • Wilfredo Torres was convicted of 2 counts estafa and was granted
conviction. conditional pardon by the President on the condition that Torres would not
• Constitutional Limits on Executive Clemency “violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. Should this condition be
1. cannot be exercised over cases of impeachment violated, he will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law.”
2. amnesty must be given with concurrence of a majority of the However Torres was again charged with wide assortment of crimes. The
Congress petitioner states that a conviction of a final judgment of a court is necessary
3. Art 9, Sec 5 – no pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of for the violation of his conditional pardon.
sentence for violation of election laws, rules and regulations shall

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 41 -
• A convict granted conditional pardon, MUST be convicted of a final judgment Garcia vs COA
of a court of the subsequent crime with which he was charged before the • COA denied Garcia for his claim of backwages after being reinstated to the
criminal penalty for such subsequent offenses. However the Executive service pursuant to an executive clemency. Thus this petition.
Department has 2 options: to proceed against him under sec 64 of the • Pardon has been generally been regarded as blotting out the existence of
revised administration code and revoke his pardon or using Art 159 of the guilt so that in the eyes of the law the offender is as innocent as though he
RPC. never committed the offense does not operate for all purposes. Unless
• With the case at bar the President chose the executive prerogative (Sec 64 expressly grounded on the person’s innocence, it cannot bring back lost
of the Revised Administration Code.) reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing. If the pardon is based on
the innocence of the individual, it affirms this innocence and makes him a
People vs Casido 269 SCRA 360 [1997] new man and as innocent as if he had not been found guilty of the offense
• William Casido and Franklin Alcorin was granted conditional pardons charged. When a person is given pardon because he did not truly commit
however the court ruled that these pardons are void for having been the offense, the pardon relieves him from all punitive consequences of his
extended during the pendency of their instant appeal. The accused- criminal act, thereby restoring to him his clean name, good reputation and
appellants then filed for amnesty under the National Amnesty Commission unstained character prior to the finding of guilt.
and was granted the said amnesty. The court ruled that the amnesty is
valid. Section 21
• Amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty
of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal Senate concurrence in international agreements
prosecution and sometimes after conviction. Pardon looks forward and
relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense which he has Gonzales v. Henchanova
been convicted, that is, it abolishes or forgives the punishment, and for that • May not enact executive agreements contrary to law. Executive Sec.
reason it does “not work the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or authorized the importation of foreign rice to be purchased from private
the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms sources. Gonzales, a rice planter, contends that such is violative to RA 3552
of pardon and it in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil which prohibits importation of rice and corn by the Rice and Corn Admin or
indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. Amnesty looks backward and any other gov’t agency. The President may not, by executive agreements,
abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and enter into a transaction indirectly which is prohibited by statutes enacted
obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by prior thereto. Under the Const., the main function of the Executive is to
amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no enforce the laws enacted by Congress. He may not defeat legislative
offense. enactments by indirectly repealing the same through an executive
agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said
Pardon: Nature and Legal Effects laws.

Monsanto vs Factoran Jr. 170 SCRA 190 [1989] USAFFE Veterans Association v. Treasurer
• Monsanto was convicted of the complex crime of estafa and was granted • Romulo-Snyder Agreement of 1950. Pres. Quirino thru Central Bank
absolute pardon. She would like to be reinstated to her former position as Governor proposed to US officials the retention of the $35M as a loan.
assistant treasurer. According to the SC, exec agreements may fall under these two classes: (1)
• The issue is then whether or not an absolute pardon, given to a public agreement made purely as exec acts affecting external relations and
officer, is entitled to reinstatement to her former position without a new independent of or needs no leg authorizations (Presidential
appointment. agreements); (2) agreement entered into in pursuance of acts of
• Pardon does not blot out the guilt of an individual and that once he is Congress (Congressional Exec Agreements. The Agreement in this case
absolved. He should be treated as if he were innocent. Pardon albeit full and may fall under any of these two. The Congress granted authority to the
plenary cannot preclude the appointing power from refusing appointment to President to obtain loans and incur indebtedness with the Gov’t of the US.
anyone deemed to be of bad character, a poor moral risk or who is Even assuming that there was no leg authorization, the agreement may still
unsuitable by reason of pardoned conviction. The pardon granted removed be entered into purely as exec acts (which usu. Relates to money
her disqualification from holding public employment but it cannot go beyond agreements for settlement of pecuniary claims of citizens). Senate
that. Furthermore civil liability arising from crime is governed by the revised Resolution # 15 admitted the validity and binding force of the agreement.
penal code. In order to extinguish one’s civil liability it is through payment The act of Congress appropriating funds for the yearly installments (under
of loss of the thing due, remission of the debt, merger of the rights of the Agreement) constitute ratification thereof.
creditor and debtor, compensation and novation.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 42 -
Tanada v. Angara adjudication of cases but all matters necessary in the administration of
• WTO Agreement. Senate was well aware of what it was concurring in as justice.
shown in the deliberations. What was submitted to the Senate for
ratification is not the Final Act but the Agreement on the WTO as well as the In Re: Wenceslao Laureta 148 SCRA 382 (1987)
Ministerial Declarations and Decisions and the Understanding and • Ilustre filed a complaint against some members of the court before the
Commitments in Financial Services. Also, the doctrine of pacta sunt ombudsman which Atty. Laureta circulated to the members of the press.
servanda applies in this case. The complaint was regarding the “unjust” minute resolution. SC can take
disciplinary action against Laureta to preserve its honor against the attacks
Bayan v. Zamora of an irate lawyer. Lawyers are primarily officers of the court, lack of respect
• The concurrence of Senate is made mandatory before any foreign military, exposes the judiciary to ridicule. The lawyers’ primary duty is not to his
troops, or facilities be allowed to enter in the Phils. The nature of the client but to the administration of justice.
agreement is that of a treaty.
In Re: Joaquin Boromeo 341 SCRA 405 (1995)
Section 22 • Boromeo who is not a lawyer has been suing people left and right. He
circulated flyers, “circulars,” leaflets attacking members of the court and its
Section 23 judgment as “ignorant, corrupt, oppressors and violators of the
constitution.” Boromeo can be cited for contempt of court due to gross
disrespect. His actions degraded the administration of justice. His incessant
suing is wasting the time of the courts.
ARTICLE VIII: JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio 33 SCRA 494 (1970)
• Ang Cho Kio has been convicted of various offenses and sentenced to
imprisonment but was granted a conditional pardon. He violated the pardon
Section 1
by entering Manila and was recommitted to prison. The CA affirmed the
decision to recommit him in prison and recommended to be allowed to leave
Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch 137 (1803)
the prison. The CA cannot make recommendations to the Executive.
• Commissions appointing Marbury et al. as justices were withheld by
Recommendatory power of judiciary limited to “acts deemed proper to be
Madison, Marbury requested him to deliver them their commissions.
repressed.” The recommendation violates the separation of powers.
Madison did not comply. The SC cannot issue a mandamus to delver the
commission. SC’s does not have original jurisdiction over the issuing of
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999
mandamus.
• The SC can restrain the execution of Echegaray. The court is not changing
the final decision of the courts. The court in restraining the execution is not
Santiago v. Bautista 32 SCRA 188 (1970)
amending or altering the decision. The postponement of the execution is
• Committee on the rating for students awarded Santiago 3rd honors. The
within the jurisdiction of the SC. Power to control execution of its decision is
committee of teachers do not have a judicial function. The exercise of
an essential aspect of its jurisdiction. The suspension of the death sentence
judicial function means to determine what the law is and what the legal
is a judicial function and not an executive function.
right of the parties are.
PCGG v. Desierto G.R. No. 132120, February 10, 2003
Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transit Co. 57 Phil. 60 (1932-1933)
• Disini was charged of bribery and violation of Anti-Graft Law for his
• The SC may not sit as a board of arbitrators pursuant to Act No. 1146. Only
participation in the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. The Ombudsman
judicial power is exercised by SC. It cannot exercise any other power or
exonerated Disini of the crimes. The SC can review and reverse the decision
duty not related to the administration of justice. Being a board of arbitrators
of the Ombudsman. The investigatory and prosecutory powers of the
is not a “court.”
ombudsman is not absolute. The constitution has tasked the SC to
determine w/n any branch of government has acted in GADLEJ.
Noblejas v. Teehankee 23 SCRA 405 (1968)
• Noblejas was alleging that as the Commissioner of the Land Regulation, he
Domingo v. Scheer 421 SCRA 408 (2004)
enjoyed the privileges as a Court of First Instance Judge. The SC and
• Scheer, a German citizen who has permanent resident status is being
judiciary can’t exercise as non-judicial functions.
deported by the Bureau of Customs, it also seeks to cancel his permanent
residence visa and to be blacklisted relying solely on its speculation that the
Radiowealth, Inc. v. Agregado 36 Phil. 429 (1950)
German embassy will not issue him a new passport for allegedly committing
• Clerk of SC purchased teletalk & telegraph speakers that were denied by the
“insurance fraud and illegal activities” in Palawan. The Supreme Court may
Auditor General. The courts independence is not limited to the exercise of
review the actions of the Bureau of Customs because it is vested with the
judicial function because security against interference not only to

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 43 -
power to resolve questions whether or not a judgment has been made with Mariano v. COMELEC 242 SCRA 211 (1995)
GADLEJ. • Makati was converted from a municipality into a highly urbanized city.
According to Mariano the new corporate existence of the new city restarts
Justiciable Controversy the term of present officials in particular Binay. The challenge of
constitutionality on the act converting Makati into a city is not based on
Angara v. Electoral Commission 63 Phil. 134 (1936) actual controversy. It is based on occurrence of contingent events such as
• Ynsua and Angara were candidates in the 1935 National Assembly elections. Binay running again. Because the events are purely hypothetical there is no
The National Assembly passed a resolution confirming the election of actual controversy.
Angara. Judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies. Judiciary
does not pass questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. Philippine Press Institute, Inc. v. COMELEC 244 SCRA 272 (1995)
There was an actual controversy between the National Assembly and the • COMELEC wrote letters to various newspaper publishers to provided free
Electoral Commission. print space for the dissemination of candidates qualifications and other
election information. PPI has failed to allege that it has sustained actual or
U.S. v. Nixon 418 US 683 (1974) imminent danger. Not ripe for judicial review for lack of an actual case or
• Pres. Nixon was subpoenaed to produce certain recordings and documents controversy.
relating to his conversations with his aides and advisers regarding the
Watergate Scandal. According to Nixon, the issue is non-justiciable because Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. COMELEC 262 SCRA 492 (1996)
it is an “intra-executive” conflict and the judiciary lacked the authority to • Congress enacted Bases Conversion Development Act. The Sangguniang
review the president’s assertion of executive privilege. Contrary to his Bayan of Morong Bataan wanted to join the Subic SEZ and passed
position, the dispute between the president and the special prosecutor Pambansang Kapasyihan Blg. 10 expressing their concurrence. COMELEC
presents a justiciable controversy. The issue of production vs. non- denied their petition for a local initiative and promulgated a resolution
production of evidence is a justiciable controversy. Both officers being providing for rules for referendum and proposal to annul PK Blg. 10. A
officers of the executive branch is not a barrier to justiciability. resolution at proposal stage cannot be challenged for being unconstitutional.
It is not a law yet and a mere proposal. Courts may only decide on actual
Marcos v. Manglapus 177 SCRA 668 (1989) controversies.
• Marcos signified in his deathbed that he wished to die and return to the
Philippines. Art. 8 Sec. 1 empowers the courts to determine whether there Tanada v. Angara 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
ahs been a GAD on the part of any branch of government. The exercise of • The DTI Sec. signed in Marrakesh the final act embodying the results of the
powers of the president as “protector of the peace” vs. the alleged right of Uruguay Round of the WTO. The case presents a justiciable controversy
the Marcoses to return to the Philippines guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and because it involves an action of the legislature which is alleged to have
International Law presents a justiciable controversy. infringed the constitution. The judiciary is the final arbiter whether or not a
branch of government has acted in GADLEJ. Court will not review wisdom of
Daza v. Singson 180 SCRA 496 (1989) entering into the WTO, just GADLEJ.
• 24 members from the Liberal Party joined the LDP which resulted to a
political realignment in the House of Representatives. The issue is not Arroyo v. De Venecia 277 SCRA 268 (1997)
beyond the jurisdiction of the SC because what is involved is the legality • Joker Arroyo seeks to declare unconstitutional RA 8240 on “sin taxes” for
and not the wisdom of removing Daza from the Committee on Appointment. violating the rules of the house. The Judiciary does not have power to
inquire on allegations in enacting a law. There was no violation of
Garcia v. Board of Investments 191 SCRA 288 (1990) constitutional provision or fights of private individuals.
• The Board of Investments allowed the transfer of the site of the proposed
petrochemical plant fro Bataan to Batangas. There is an actual controversy Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Santos 277 SCRA 617 (1997)
in the case because the BOI in yielding to the investors and not the national • RTC declared inoperative and without force provisions of Tariff and Customs
interest resulted to GAD. There was GAD because there was no cogent Code based on a study on position paper on tax rates on jewelry in other
advantage to the government resulting from the transfer. Asian countries. The RTC judge cannot declare a law as inoperative and
without force and effect on the basis of the wisdom of the law. Using the
Djumantan v. Domingo 240 SCRA 746 (1995) studies as basis encroaches on matters within a legislative function.
• Banez a married man went to Indonesia as an OCW. After converting to
Islam he married Djumantan and brought him to the Philippines. The SC Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio 278 SCRA 337 (1998)
may review deportation proceedings. A marriage by an alien to a Filipino • Florencio Rueda underwent a surgical operation and subsequently died from
does not exclude here from immigration laws because the entry of aliens is complications. According the NBI autopsy, Florencio’s death is due to lack of
not a matter of right. An alien has no right to an indefinite stay. care by the anesthesiologist. It was raffled to several judges. Garcia-Rueda
filed graft charges against the prosecutors with the Ombudsman which

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 44 -
dismissed it for lack of evidence. The SC can review the Ombudsman’s Cawaling, Jr. COMELEC G.R. No. 146319, October 23, 2001
findings. • Estrada signed RA8806 creating the City of Sorsogon by merging the
municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon. Petitioner submits that there is no
Defensor-Santiago v. Gunigona G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1997 “compelling” reason for merging the municipalities. This argument goes into
• Fernan won for the Senate Presidency and with the agreement of Senator the wisdom of the law. The judiciary does not pass upon questions of
Santiago, Tatad manifested that he was assuming the position of minority wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation.
leader explaining that those who had voted for Fernan comprised the
majority. The court has jurisdiction over the case because it is within its Montesclaros v. COMELEC G.R. No. 152295, July 9, 2002
jurisdiction and power to inquire whether the Senate or its official • Petitioners claim that they are in dancer of being disqualified to vote and be
committed a violation of the Constitution or acted in GADLEJ. voted for in the SK elections if RA 9164 is passed. RA 9164 has yet enacted
into law, hence the petitioners cannot attack its constitutionality.
Tatad v. DOE 281 SCRA 330 (1997)
• Petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of RA8180 “An act Deregulating John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v. Lim G.R. No. 119775, October 24,
the Downstream Oil Industry and for Other Purposes.” The Courts can 2003
review RA8180 because they are the guardians of the constitution and have • Petitioners assail the constitutionality of PP420 creating a SEZ in Camp John
inherent authority to determine whether a statue transcends constitutional Hay. There is an actual controversy in the case there being a real clash of
limits. interests arising from PP420. The other insists that such proclamation
contains unconstitutional provisions, the latter claiming otherwise.
TELEBAP v. COMELEC 289 SCRA 337 (1998)
• COMELEC required radio and television to give them free time. The Velarde v. Social Justice Society G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004
petitioner’s rights are not violated because airwave frequencies are limited • A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is
and have to be allocated. Any franchise or right granted may be subject to appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or
amendment of congress. It is a mere temporary privilege which may be merely anticipatory. The SJS Petition for Declaratory Relief fell short of this
burdened by the grant of some form of public service. test. It failed to allege n existing controversy or dispute between the
petitioner and the respondents. It d also did not state what specific legal
Miranda v. Aguirre 314 SCRA 603 (1999) right was violated.
• RA8528 converted Santiago, Isabela from an independent component city to
a component city. Respondents assail that the courts do not have Panganiban v. Philippine Shell, G.R. No. 131471, January 22, 2003
jurisdiction because it is a political question. The SC said the courts have • Panganiban entered into a sublease and dealer agreement with shell. He
jurisdiction because it is a purely justiciable issue. The rights involved in this later received a letter from Shell that the agreement would soon expire.
case are the right to approve or disapprove RA8528. The requisites of a There is no actual controversy in the case because the abuse of right is a
purely justiciable issue are: feared hypothetical abuse.
(1) a given right legally demandable
(2) an act violative of that right Smart v. NTC G.R. No. 151908, August 12, 2003
(3) remedy for breach of right. • The National Telecommunications Commission promulgated rules and
regulations on the billing of telecommunications services and measures to
Cutaran v. DENR 350 SCRA 697 (2001) minimize the incidence the stealing of cellular phone units. The doctrine of
• Relatives of Cutaran applied for Certificates of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency excises its
over the land they occupy inside Camp John Hay. Cutaran sought to enjoin quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. In cases involving specialized
DENR from processing the application for ancestral land by another party. disputes, the practice has been to refer it to a competent agency. The
There is no actual controversy in this case because the CALC of the other courts will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within
party has not been issued yet. The SC cannot rule based on speculations of the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that
being evicted. Because Cutaran has not suffered under law, no relief may be question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the
granted to him. exercise of special knowledge, experience and services.

Estrada v. Desierto G.R. No. 146740-15, March 2, 2001 Buac v. Comelec 421 SCRA 92 (2004)
• Estrada questions the constitutionality of the assumption of Arroyo. The • Plebiscite of Taguig regarding its conversion to a city was conducted but
case involves interpretation of the constitution in order to settle the matter petitioners wanted to annul the results because of fraud. The plebiscite does
and to establish the legality of her assumption. Hence, it presents a not involve any violation of any legally demandable right and just the
justiciable controversy o f the most paramount nature that the SC must ascertainment of the vote of the electorate. The enforcement and
resolve as a matter of duty. administration of plebiscites is under the jurisdiction of the COMELEC.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 45 -
Information Technology v. COMELEC 460 SCRA 291 (2005) Mantruste Systems v. CA 179 SCRA 136 (1989)
• COMELEC seeks permission to use the Automated Counting Machines in the • Mantruste Systems seeks the annulment of the decision and resolution of
ARMM elections. The previous decision by the SC voided the contract the CA. Generally, the exercise of sound judicial discretion by the lower
entered by COMELEC with Mega Pacific. There is no actual controversy in court will not be interfered with.
the motion because there is no assertion of a legal right, no parties with
adverse legal interests, no clash of legal claims and is a mere request of Malaga v. Penachos 213 SCRA 516 (1992)
advisory opinion which the court has no jurisdiction to grant. • PD 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving
infrastructure projects of the government. The court cannot judge
Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169659, April 20, 2006 controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases.
• Arroyo promulgated E0464 requiring heads of departments to secure her These matters could not be because it would disturb the smooth functioning
consent first before appearing before the legislature. According to of the administrative machinery. Issues outside of this dimension and
respondents, there is no controversy because there is no showing that involving questions of law, courts could not be prevented by PD 1818 from
Arroyo withheld her consent. The officials merely said the they “have not exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
yet secured consent.” Respondents claim that is based on an unfounded
apprehension that the president will abuse its power. There is an actual Section 3
controversy in the case. Because the implementation of EO464 had already
resulted in the absence of officials invited to the hearings. Re: Clarifying and strengthening… the Philippine Judicial Academy 481
SCRA 1 (2006)
David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 • The Department of Budget and Management downgraded several positions
• Arroyo promulgated PP1017 and GO No. 5 declaring a state of emergency. and their corresponding salary grades. The authority of the DBM to review
The case is moot and academic but during its implementation officers SC issuances relative to court personnel on matters of compensation is
violated rights of individuals. “Moot and Academic” does not bar course in limited. Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control. It
resolving a case if: contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their
1) it violates the constitution resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require.
2) of exceptional character or situation and paramount public
interest is involved Section 4
3) constitution issue requires formulation of guide
4) case may be repeated Fortich v. Corona G.R. No. 131457, August 19, 1999
• Only cases where the required number of votes is not obtained are referred
to the Court en banc. The ruled does not apply where the required 3 votes
Macasiano v. NHA 224 SCRA 236 (1993) is not obtained in the resolution of a MR. The 2nd sentence of the 3rd
• Macasiano seeks to declare unconstitutional the Urban Development and paragraph speaks only of “case” and not “matter” because it pertains to the
Housing Act. He said the sections contain “ripening controversies” that serve disposition of cases by a division. If there is a tie in the voting, there is no
as drawbacks to his tasks regarding demolition of illegal structures. The decision. If a case has already been decided by the division and the losing
court cannot determine the constitutionality of a state unless the question is party files a MR, the failure of the division to resolve the motion because of
properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary for its a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. There is still the
determination. decision which must stand in view of the failure to get the necessary vote
• The essential requisites of a declaratory relief are: for the reconsideration.
1) there must be a justiciable controversy
2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are People v. Dy G.R. No. 115326-37, January 16, 2003
adverse • Dy and Bernardino were found guilty of rape and acts of lasciviousness. He
3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in contends that the decision of the SC is merely recommendatory because the
the controversy Supreme Court has to sit en banc over cases of death penalty. The decision
of the divisions of the SC are not to be considered as separate and distinct
Tano v. Socrates 278 SCRA 154 (1997) courts. Decisions considered in the divisions of court are decisions of the
• Tano et al. were criminally charged for violating an ordinance which banned same court.
the shipment of live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa. 77 fishermen
wanted to declare unconstitutional the ordinance. Supreme Court does not Section 5
have original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief.
Macasiano vs. National Housing Authority 224 SCRA 326 (1993)
Section 2 • Justiciable Controversy distinguished from declaratory relief

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 46 -
• Requisites for Judicial Review and that if he could attain his aim there may not be a need for declaring PD
1. The existence of an actual case or controversy/ ripe for 1315 null and void. He has no privilege to assail the constitutionality of PD
adjudication 1315 to serve his own petty purpose
2. Constitutional question must be raised by the proper party/ locus
standi Pimentel vs. HRET (supra Art. 6 Sec. 17) GR NO. 14189
3. It must be raised at earliest opportunity • Only if the house fails to comply with the directive of the Constitution on
4. The resolution of the constitutionality must be necessary for the proportional representation of political parties in the HRET and the CA can
decision/ Constitutionality is the very lis mota the party-list representatives seek recourse to SC under its Judicial Review

Essential Requisites of a Declaratory Relief Constantino vs. Cuisia (supra Art. 6) 472 SCRA 505
1. There must be a judicial controversy • Transcendental Importance. From the viewpoint of civil law, what
2. Controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse petitioners present as the Republic’s “Right to repudiate” is yet a contingent
3. Party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy right which cannot be allowed an anticipatory basis for annulling debt relief
contracts
Note: an action for declaratory relief does not fall within the jurisdiction of the SC
Senate vs. Ermita (EO 464) 488 SCRA 1
1st Ripe For Adjudication • The senate including its legislative members, has substantial and direct
interest over the outcome of the controversy and is the proper party to
PACU vs. Secretary of Education (hypothetical scenarios) 97 PHIL 806 assail the validity of EO 464. Legislators have legal standing to maintain
(1955) inviolate prerogative, powers and privileges vested by Constitution in their
• School owners contend that requiring previous governmental approval office and are allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action
before they could exercise their right to own and operate a school amounts which they claim infringes their prerogatives as legislators
to censorship of prior constraint and deprivation of due process and liberty. • Party List members are allowed to sue as it infringe on their constitutional
Is there a Judicial Controversy? rights and duties as members of the congress to conduct investigation in aid
• HELD: None. As a general rule the constitutionality of a statute will be of legislation
passed on only if it is directly and necessarily involved in a justiciable • The allegations that EO 464 hampers a political party’s legislative agenda is
controversy and is essential to the protection of the parties concerned. Mere vague and uncertain and at best is only “generalized interest” which it
apprehension that the Secretary might under the law withdraw the permit of shares with the rest of the political parties; Concrete injury whether actual
the petitioners does not constitute justiciable controversy or threatened is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part
The court does not entertain hypothetical scenarios to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution

Tan vs. Macapagal (Also Taxpayer’s suit) 43 SCRA 678 David vs. Arroyo (PP 1017) 489 SCRA 162
• Assailing the validity of the Laurel Leido Resolution • Yes Petitioners have legal standing. Transcendental Importance
• Held: The rule is “any person who impugns the validity of the statute must • Locus Standi is defined as “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a
have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has or will given question”
sustain direct injury from the enforcement” • Taxpayers – must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds
• There is no room for judicial review when the Constitutional Convention only • Voters – must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the
did was merely to propose an amendment election law in question
• Citizens – there must be a showing that the issues raised are of
Solicitor General vs. MMA GR NO. 102782 transcendental Importance
• Confiscation of License and plate by its municipal ordinance in contravention • Legislators – there must be a claim that official action complained of
with PD 1605A municipal ordinance must bit contravene the constitution or infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators
any statute
• Validity of the law must be attacked directly and not collaterally; except if it 2nd “Standing”
is of “Transcendental importance”
Legislators and Government Officials
Militante vs. CA (expropriation) GR NO. 107040
• Petitioner filed for Prohibition and Mandamus with declaration as Inexistent Gonzales vs. Macaraig jr. (Presidential Veto) 191 SCRA 452
and Unconstitutional PD 1315 with the Court of Appeals Read with Philconsa vs Enriquez 235 SCRA 506, Del Mar vs. PAGCOR GR NO.
• HELD: He is not entitled to Mandamus or Prohibition 138298, Sandoval vs. PAGCOR GR NO. 138982, and Jaworski vs. PAGCOR
• The procedure for assailing unconstitutionality of PD 1315 is flawed since he 419 SCRA 420
himself admitted that his principal concern is the relocation of the squatters

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 47 -
• There is an actual case or justifiable controversy between members of the Pimentel vs Ermita (midnight appointments) 472 SCRA 587
executive and legislative may be taken by this court. Where the 2 branches • Members of Congress has no legal standing
acting within the limits of its own authority, the judiciary cannot and ought • The power to appoint is purely an Executive act and may not be interfered
not to interfere but in cases where their acts are beyond the scope of its by an other branch of government unless the Constitution provides
constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare void • It is the Commission on Appointments which has Legal Standing since this
what the other branches of government assumed valid may infringe their power to appoint
• In Del Mar case (Jai-alai case) the court adopted a liberal policy regarding
locus standi when constitutional issues are raised. As members of the House Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works (feeder roads) 110 PHIL 331
of Representative they have legal standing. • Requirements of Taxpayer’s Suit
• In Jaworski Case (internet gaming) the court brush aside technicalities 1. That he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure if money
considering the petition involves legal questions that may have serious raised by taxation
implications on public interests 2. That he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the
questioned statute
SANLAKAS vs Executive Secretary (Oakwood mutiny case) GR NO. 159085
• Only petitioners Rep. Suplico and Sen. Pimentel as members of the congress Gonzalez vs. Marcos (CCP) 65 SCRA 624
has legal standing • EO 30 trust fund with the view to establish the CCP pursuant to the
• Taxpayers may bring suit where the act complained of directly involves the agreement with US
illegal disbursement of public funds derived from Taxation • NO legal standing since the money raised was not raised by taxation but
• Citizen only when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual from contributions of US banks and war damage funds by US.
or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the
government Gonzales vs. Narvasa (Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform by
ERAP) GR 140385
Farinas vs. Executive Secretary (Fair Elections Act) GR NO. 147387 • No legal standing as a taxpayer as the case does not involve the taxing or
• A person who impugns the validity of the statute must have a personal and spending power of Congress
substantial interest in the case such that he has or will sustain direct injury
from the enforcement Information Technology Foundation vs. COMELEC (adopt automated election
system) GR 159131
Transcendental Importance • Yes Petition has legal standing as they seek to restrain respondents form
implementing the contract and making unwarranted expenditure of
Province of Batangas vs. Romulo (GAA 1999, 2000, 2001 and LGSEF) 429 unwarranted funds
SCRA 736
• Province of Batangas through their Governor clearly has “a plain, direct, Velarde vs. SJS 428 SCRA 283
and adequate interest” in the manner and distribution of funds among LGU. • No. there is no allegations in the case that taxpayer’s money was illegally
Petitioner has locus standi disbursed. The allegedly keen interest of its “thousands of members who
are citizen-taxpayers-registered voters” is too general and beyond the
Disomangcop vs. Datumanong 404 SCRA 203 contemplation of the standards set by our jurisprudence
• Assailing Constitutionality of RA 8999 and DO 119. Creation of Marawi Sub-
District Engineering office. Petitioners have locus standi as two offices is Brillantes vs. COMELEC (automated elections system) 432 SCRA 269
endowed with the same functions and is in danger of being eased out of • Same as Information Technology Foundation
their duties
Domingo vs. Carague 456 SCRA 450
CHR-Employees vs. CHR 444 SCRA 300 • COA providing for Organizational Restructuring Plan. Divested of
• CHR upgrading and reclassification scheme. They would have a personal and designation/rank as Unit head, team leader, or team supervisor without just
substantial interest in the case such that he has or will sustain direct injury cause and deprivation of RATA.
from the enforcement. • No legal Standing. They have not shown any direct and personal interest
• They also admitted that they do not seek any affirmative relief not impute
Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary 462 SCRA 622 any improper or improvident act against the respondents and are not
• Rome Statute – International Criminal Court motivated by any desire to seek affirmative relief from COA or from
• Senator Pimental has legal standing “to the extent the powers of Congress respondents that would redound to their personal benefit or gain
are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office
confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that
institution.” Infringes their prerogatives as legislators

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 48 -
Republic vs. Nolasco 457 SCRA 400 • Only natural and juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be
• No Legal Standing since DPWH being a government agency enjoys immunity parties in a civil action
from suit and also cannot be sued without its consent
Anti Graft League of the Phil vs. San Juan 260 SCRA 250
Constantino vs. Cuisia (supra Art. 6) 472 SCRA 305 • No illegal disbursement and unlawful spending. They are also not a privy to
• Taxpayer-citizen has no legal standing since the rule allowing taxpayers to the contract.
assail executive or legislative acts has been applied only to cases where • The disbursement that was made was only in 1975 and petitioner never
constitutionality of a statute is involved referred the purchase as illegal disbursement

Citizens TELEBAP vs. COMELEC 289 SCRA 337

• They are only given temporary privilege to use airwaves and frequencies so
Legaspi vs. CSC (access to records) 150 SCRA 530 it can be burdened by grantee government. They also have no interest as
• Has legal standing. Citizens has the right to information to access the registered voters or taxpayers since this does not concern the right of
records of employees (sanitary) of the CSC to see if they are qualified and suffrage or taxation
has passed the examinations
Chavez vs. PCGG (validity of compromise agreement by PCGG and Marcoses,
Oposa vs. Factoran (supra Art. 2) 224 SCRA 792 enforcement of a public right) GR NO. 130716
• Minors represented by their parents have legal standing since every • The court held that there being no Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and proper party, the PCGG, the decision has become final and executory. They
harmony for the full employment of a balanced and healthful ecology, were also only incidental parties and not indispensable parties to the suit
together with this right is the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the involving the authority of the PCGG to enter into a compromise agreement
environment that violates the law

PASEI vs. Torres(recruitment agencies) 225 SCRA 417 IBP vs. Zamora GR NO. 141284
• Can EO 450 repeal LOI 1190 – yes • No legal Standing, IBP anchors its standing on its alleged responsibility to
• The court views the proliferation of recruitment agencies as a means to uphold the rule of law and constitution. Did not satisfy the specific and
compel agencies to seek better terms and conditions for overseas workers substantial interest. Transcendental importance
as a result of stiffer competition
Bayan vs. Zamora GR NO. 138570
Joya vs. PCGG (ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, Master paintings and silverware) • Same as IBP vs. Zamora, Transcendental Importance
225 SCRA 568
• Only the true owners of the artworks may have legal standing in the case Cruz vs. Sec of DENR (Indigenous Peoples’ Right Act) GR NO. 135385
and as taxpayer also no legal standing since there are not illegal • Transcendental Importance. The said lands to be granted to the indigenous
disbursement of public funds but only disposition of public property peoples are lands of public domain and can be argued as falling within the
purview of public property the disposition of which may be questioned by
Kilosbayan vs. Morato (Contract lease bet. PCSO & PGMC) 246 SCRA 540 the taxpayer
• Petitioners states that in the previous case (Kilosbayan vs. Guingona) they
were given legal standing and should also have legal standing in the present Lozano vs. Macapagal-Arroyo (legality of the Presidency) GR NO. 146579
case. The court disagrees. No stare decisis. The parties are the same but • No legal standing since they haven’t shown any direct or personal injury as
the case is not. Hence, it is not a continuation. a result of President’s Arroyo oath taking

Tatad vs. Garcia (BLT for EDSA Light Rail Transit) 243 SCRA 436 Lim vs. Executive Secretary (Balikatan Exercises) GR NO. 151445
• Courts ruled that petitioners have standing to file present suit as taxpayers. • Under Section 5 of Article VIII the SC is authorized to nullify a treaty, not
Prevailing Doctrines is to allow taxpayers to question contracts entered into only when it conflicts with the Fundamental Law but also when it runs
by National Government or GOCC’s allegedly in contravention of law and to counter to an act of Congress
disallow the same when only municipal contracts are involved.
Chavez vs. PEA GR NO. 133250
Board of Optometry vs. Colet 26O SCRA 88 • Petitioner has standing because the citizens has a right to information on
• No Legal standing so not have the requisite and substantial interest to since matters of public concern and provision ensuring the equitable distribution
COA and ACMO are not registered associations and two president are not of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipinos
registered optometrist

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 49 -
Tolentino vs. COMELEC 420 SCRA 438 Francisco vs. Fernando (wet flag scheme) 507 SCRA (2006)
• The Court gave a relaxed requirement of standing and exercised discretion • As an exception to the standing requirement, the transcendental importance
to give due course to voters’ right of suffrage. Transcendental Importance of the issues raised relates to the merits of the petition.
• A citizen can raise a constitutional question only when (1) he can show that
Agan vs. PIATCO (BOT NAIA IPT III) 420 SCRA 575 he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the
• Legal standing is not purely a procedural issue but also involves a allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable
preliminary consideration of the merits of the case. Employees with legal to the challenged action; and (3) a favorable action will likely redress the
standing because they will sustain a direct injury upon implementation of injury.
the contract.
Other Rules: 3rd and 4th: “Raise at Earliest Opportunity” & “Constitutionality
Tichangco vs. Enriquez 433 SCRA 324 is the Very Lis Mota”
• Legal Standing validity of the two 2 titles may still be impugned but
petitioners does not have legal standing because they are not claimants People vs. Vera 65 Phil 56 November 16, 1937
over preferential rights over the land • What is assailed is the constitutionality of Act No. 4221, a law on probation.
The general rule of raising the issue of constitutionality at the earliest
AIWA vs. Romulo 449 SCRA 1 opportunity was expounded on. It was ruled that the question of
• No legal Standing not as taxpayer or citizen. The scope of authority of the constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity, so that if not
Secretary of Labor does not extend to the power of the NLRC in the exercise raise by the pleadings, ordinarily it may be raised at the trial, and if not
of its quasi-judicial powers. And Administrative in nature the subject does raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.
not pass beyond the limits of the departments to which it is directed hence Exceptions to the rule are as follows: (a) in criminal cases, the question
it has not created any rights in third persons may be raised for the first time at any stage of the proceedings; (b) in civil
cases, it has been held that it is the duty of a court to pass on the
David vs. Arroyo(PP 1017) 489 SCRA 162 constitutional question, though raised for the first time on appeal, if it
• Yes Petitioners have legal standing. Transcendental Importance appears that a determination of the question is necessary to the decision of
• Locus Standi is defined as “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a the case; and (c) where it involves the jurisdiction of the court below.
given question”
• Taxpayers – must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds Political Questions; Requisites
• Voters – must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the
election law in question Baker vs. Carr 369 US 169 March 26, 1962
• Citizens – there must be a showing that the issues raised are of • The plaintiffs argue that the apportionment in Tennessee is unconstitutional
transcendental Importance because of a gross disproportion to the voting population. It was argued if
• Legislators – there must be a claim that official action complained of this issue was a political question or not. The Court resolved the issue by
infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators defining political questions. A political question involves a textually
demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a political
Purok vs. Yupico 489 SCRA 382 department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards
• Associations has the legal personality to represent its members and the for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
outcome of the case that will affect their vital interests determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; or the
impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without
Holy Spirit vs. Defensor 497 SCRA 581 expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government; or an
• Associations have legal standing even if petitioner Association recognized unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already
association of homeowner in NEC. They may benefit or be injured by RA made; or the potentiality of embarrassment form multifarious
9207 pronouncements by various departments on one question.

Henares vs. LTFRB 505 SCRA 104 “Textually Demonstrable Commitment”

• The Court held that the writ of mandamus is unavailing because it is
available only to compel the performance of an act specifically provided for International Catholic Migration Commission vs. Calleja
by law as a duty. The petitioners were unable to pinpoint the law that 190 SCRA 130 September 28, 1990
imposes an indubitable duty on respondents that will justify a grant of the • ICMC and IRRI are international organizations afforded immunity by the
writ, the Court said. It added there is no law that mandates respondents executive. Their respective unions filed a complaint because the
LTFRB and DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. organizations allegedly violate labor laws. The issue in this case is whether
or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC and IRRI
extends to immunity from the application of the Philippine labor laws. The

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 50 -
Court rules that under the system of separation of powers, the grant of from a question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference arises as
immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.
beyond a determination by the executive branch of government, and where
a plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive Change of Venue; par. 4
branch of government, then it is the duty of the courts to accept the claim
of immunity. People vs. Gutierrez 36 SCRA 172 November 26, 1970
• The issue is whether the transfer of the case from one court to another is
“Judicially Discoverable and Manageable Standards” valid. The courts “can by appropriate means do all things necessary to
preserve and maintain every quality needful to make the judiciary an
Liang vs. People 355 SCRA 125 March 26, 2001 effective institution of government”. One of the incidental and inherent
• The case involved a criminal complaint against Liang, an ADB official, for powers of courts us that of transferring the trial of cases from one court to
oral defamation. Appeal was made to the political character of Liang as an another of equal rank in a neighboring site, whenever the imperative of
agent of international organization. The Court ruled that the immunity securing a fair and impartial trial, or of preventing a miscarriage of justice,
granted to officers and staff of the ADB was not absolute but limited to acts so demands.
performed in an official capacity and could not cover the commission of a
crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name of official duty. Power to Promulgate Rules; par. 5

Effect of Unconstitutionality; par. 2(a) Bustos vs. Lucero 81 Phil 648 (1948)
• It was expounded that the Supreme Court has no power to alter
De Agbayani vs. Philippine National Bank 38 SCRA 429 April 29, 1971 substantive rights. Substantive rights are those which one enjoys under
• Because of the Moratorium Law, PNB was not able to collect from De the legal system prior to the disturbance of normal relations. Substantive
Agbayani. However, the Moratorium Law was declared unconstitutional. The law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or
application of the law and rights vested by it are discussed in the case. The which regulates rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that
Court ruled that the actual existence of a statute, prior to such a part of the law which courts are established to administer.
determination of unconstitutionality, is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past cannot always be Lina v. Purisima 82 SCRA 344 April 14, 1978
erased by a new judicial decision. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to • The petitioner was dismissed from her job because of the president’s LOI.
invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects—with respect to The Court decided on the matter ruling in favor of the petitioner, however,
particular relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private the procedural validity is assailed. The Supreme Court under certain
and official. conditions may, at its option, dispense with the usual procedure of
remanding a case to the lower court for trial on merits, and instead, render
Automatic Review, par. 2(d) final judgment thereon.

Garcia vs. People 318 SCRA 434 November 18, 1999

• Garcia was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Garcia argued that there was In Re: Cunanan, et al. 94 Phil 534 March 18, 1954
no need for him to apply for an appeal because his case ought to be a • The Bar Flunkers’ Act was passed by the Congress—such will admit those
subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that it is who failed the bar examination into the Bar during the post-war period due
only in cases where the penalty actually imposed is death that the trial court to several circumstances then. The Court, however, ruled against it. It said
must forward the records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic theta the Congress did not have the power to do so. This is because in the
review of the conviction. judicial system the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of
attorneys-at-law in the practice of the profession and their supervision
Question of Law; par. 2(e) have been indisputably judicial function and responsibility.

Cebu Woman’s Club vs. De la Victoria 327 SRA 533 March 9, 2000 People vs. Vera (exception to the rule on earliest opportunity, Probation
• For the construction of a building, the petitioner entered into an agreement Act) 65 PHIL 56
with CAMSAC, which entered into a sub-contract agreement with Senoron. • Exception to the rule on earliest opportunity
But Senoron sought to enjoin the petitioner to release money to CAMSAC. • Courts in the exercise of sound control, may determine the time when a
The issue was whether the allegation of fact in the petitioner’s complaints question affecting the constitutionality of a statute should be presented
are baseless. As to questions of law, the Court ruled that a party may • In Criminal Cases – it is said that the question may be raised for the first
directly appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the trial court only time at any stage of the proceedings either in the trial court or in appeal
on pure questions of law. A question of law arises when the doubt or • In Civil Cases – it has been held that it is the duty of a court to pass on
difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts distinguished the constitutional question, though raised for the first time on appeal if it

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 51 -
appears that a determination of the question is necessary to a decision of 1. “Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a
the case coordinate political department;” as an example of this, Brennan cited
• And it has been held that a constitutional question will be considered by an issues of foreign affairs and executive war powers, arguing that cases
appellate court at any time where it in involves the jurisdiction of the court involving such matters would be “political questions”
below 2. “A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;”
3. “The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a
Mirasol vs. CA 351 SCRA 44 kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;”
• The CA correctly ruled that the issue of PNB’s obligation to render an 4. “The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without
accounting can be determined without having to rule on the constitutionality expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;”
of PD 579. In fact, there is nothing in the PD 579 which is applicable to 5. “An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already
PNB’s refusal to give an accounting. The governing law should be the law on made;”
agency, given that PNB acted as petitioner’s agent. The Requisite that the 6. “The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by
constitutionality of the law in question be the very lis mota of the case is various departments on one question.”
absent
Textually Demonstrable commitment
Matibag vs. Benipayo (ad interim appointment) 380 SCRA 49
• Raised at the earliest possible opportunity Osmena vs. Pendatun (privileged speech, serious imputations of bribery
• The earliest possible opportunity is to raise it in the pleadings before a against the president) 109 PHIL 863
competent court that can resolve the same such that, “If it is not raised in • The House can discipline is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior
the pleadings, it cannot be considered at trial, and if it cannot be considered not only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction but the matter
on trial , it cannot be considered on appeal depends mainly on factual circumstance which the house knows best.
• Constitutional issue is the lis mota of the case • There is no provision authorizing the courts to control, direct, supervise or
• The legality of Petitioner’s reassignment hinges on the constitutionality of forbid the exercise by either house of the power to expel a member. These
Benipayo’s ad interim appointment and assumption of office unless there powers functions of the legislative department.
are resolved; the legality of petitioner’s reassignment from the EID to the
law department cannot be determined. Clearly it is the lis mota of the case Arroyo vs. De Venecia (Sin taxes) 277 SCRA 268
is the very constitutional issue raised by petitioner • The court cannot intervene in the case because the matter of formulating
house rules and implementing those rules has been textually conferred to
La Bugal vs. Ramos 421 SCRA 148 the by the Constitution on Congress itself and because of Separation of
• The 3rd requisite or raise at the earliest opportunity should not be taken to Powers.
mean that the question of constitutionality must be raised immediately after • The SC cannot encroach upon the Congress to look into its internal
execution of the act. It was actually filed after 2 years proceedings for as long as no apparent constitutional violations are
committed. It is pursuant to Separation of Powers
Arceta vs. Mangrobang 432 SCRA 136
• Did not satisfy both 3rd and 4th requisite of judicial review Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona GR NO. 134577
• Earliest opportunity means that the question of unconstitutionality of the act • There is nothing in the Constitution that it states how minority leader is
in question should have been immediately raised in the proceedings in the selected. The SC has jurisdiction (1) to inquire if the senate committed
lower court GADLEJ, (2) over questions on the validity of the legislative or executive
• Constitutionality is the lis mota. Every law has in its favor the presumption acts that are political in nature, (3) for the interpretation of the court as
of constitutionality and to justify its nullification, there must be clear and final arbiter
unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful,
speculative or argumentative ICMC vs. Calleja (Immunity) GR NO. 85750
• The Secretary of Labor did not committed GAD in affirming the grant of
Estarja vs. Ranada 492 SCRA 652 specialized agency status to ICMC and IRRI by agreement with the
• Constitutionality raised in the Motion for Reconsideration of Ombudsman Government and PD 1620 and granting immunity from legal process. Also,
Decision. Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain questions or each specialized agency shall make a provision for appropriate modes of
constitutionality of the law. settlement dispute. The grant of immunity is textually conferred by the law.

Political Questions; requisites Tanada vs. Angara (GATT-WTO) 272 SCRA 18

• The Phils. entered into the WTO w/c was concurred with by the Senate for
Baker vs. Carr 369 US 169 the purpose of promoting globalization. It was assailed on the basis of the
• Cases which are political in nature are marked by: state principles & policies w/c the court held to be non-self executing, as

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 52 -
well as on the basis of an undue limitation upon the national sovereignty. has been GAD in making said findings by reason of the total absence of
Still, where acts of the Senate are assailed on the ground that it competent evidence in thereof
contravenes the Constitution, no doubt a justiciable controversy arises & it
is the duty of the courts to settle the dispute. However, the court cannot People vs. Mateo 433 SCRA 640
look into the wisdom of the acts but merely to its legality to safeguard that • Article VIII Sec. 5 gives the SC the power to promulgate rules concerning
they do not contravene the Constitution. There is, of course, still a strong the procedure in all courts
presumption of constitutionality as a law is the enactment of a co-equal • The rule in this case regarding the additional intermediate review by the CA
branch of government. The courts must be careful but vigilant in the is a procedural matter
exercise of judicial review. • Allowing an intermediate review by CA before the case is elevated to SC on
automatic review is a procedural matter within the rule making prerogative
Garcia vs. Corona (full deregulation of the oil industry) GR NO. 132451 of the SC than the law making powers of Congress
• The judiciary cannot render judgments based on the wisdom of legislature.
The said RA 8479 was enacted because of the very evils of unfair Question of Law
competition and oligopoly. Whether or not this was the best course of action
to take for the legislature is not for the courts to decide Cebu Women’s Club vs. De la Victoria GR NO. 120060
• Under the Rules of Court may directly appeal to the SC from a decision of
Judicially discoverable and manageable standards the Trial Court only on Pure Questions of Law.
• A question of law arises when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
Liang vs. People (Immunity from suit) GR NO. 125865 law is on certain set of facts
• Immunity is not absolute. Only acts done in official capacity are covered by • A question of facts occurs when the doubt or difference arises as to the
the immunity. Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by truth or falsehood if the alleged facts
immunity. • SC is not a trier of facts
• Under the Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent
enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in Change of Venue
the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity
exercised outside his official capacity People vs. Gutierrez 36 SCRA 172
• There are sufficient reasons to transfer the case in the interest of truth and
Effect of unconstitutionality justice
• AO221 of the DOJ is not mandatory but only directory.
De Agbayani vs. PNB 38 SCRA 429 • The petitioner wants to transfer the case because the witness would not
• The lower courts decision based on the inflexible view is reversed. A statute give his testimony because his life would be in danger
prior to determination of its unconstitutionality is an operative fact since • With AO 221 the accused is not prejudiced by transfer of trial to another
every statute enjoys the presumption of validity prior to determination of its place
unconstitutionality
Power to promulgate rules
Automatic Review
First Lepanto vs. CA (power to promulgate rules; effects of SC circular) 231
Garcia vs. People GR NO. 106531 SCRA 30
• Automatic review comes in when the penalty imposed is death. Only then • Sec. 82 of Omnibus Investment Code is unconstitutional since it
must the trial court forward the records of the case to the SC for automatic contravenes Art. VI Sec 30 as it increases the appellate jurisdiction of the
review. SC without its advice and concurrence
• According to the primer, such automatic review should now pass to the CA • Circular No. I-91 in pursuant with the rule making power of SC gives the
for determination of the factual issues before the case is elevated to the SC authority of the CA to decided cases appealed to it from BOI must be in
accordance with this circular.
Pearson vs. IAC GR NO. 74454
• The court held that the lower court has no jurisdiction over mining dispute. Lina vs. Purisima 82 SRCA 344
As a general rule an interlocutory order is not appealable until after the • The court can disregard its own rules. In the case although there was no
rendition of the judgment on merits, an exception is made where the trial held in the lower court the pleadings before the SC portray all the vital
remedy of appeal cannot afford an adequate and expeditious relief issues between the parties
• The rule is that findings of fact made in the decision of the Minister of • The SC can rule upon the issue with no need to of remanding the case to
Natural resources appealed from will not be reviewed by the SC unless there lower court as it disregarded its own rules

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 53 -
In Re: Cunanan 94 PHIL 534 PNB vs. Asuncion 80 SCRA 321
• SC said that the admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of • Judge’s reliance on Sec. 6 Rule 86 is erroneous, nothing in the rule prevents
attorneys is the practice of the profession and their supervision is a judicial creditors from going after surviving solidary creditors
function • Art. 1216 of the Civil code prevails over Sec. 6 Rule 86
• Congress may repeal, alter, and supplement the rules promulgates by this • A procedural law the Revised Rules of Court cannot diminish a substantive
court but the authority and responsibility remain vested in the SC rule and right, the New Civil Code. Rules promulgated by the Supreme court
cannot diminish, increase or modify substantive rights
In Re: Admission to the Bar: Argosino 712, 246 SCRA 14
• Profession of law is not a natural, absolute or conditional it is a personal Damasco vs. Laqui 166 SCRA 214
privilege limited to citizens of good moral character with special educational • Philippine jurisprudence considers prescription of a crime or offense as a
qualification duly ascertained and certified loss or waiver by the state of its rights to prosecute an act prohibited and
• SC has the power and function in admission to take the oath punished by law
• Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code Substantive law strengthened by Sec 8
Javellana vs. DILG 212 SCRA 475 Rule 117 of the Rules of Court which is a procedural law as it added
• Right of a public official to engage in the practice of law while employed in extinction of offense to general rule regarding failure to assert a motion to
the Government quash
o Permission from regional director of the DILG
o Asked to have a calendar of activities to avoid conflicts of schedule Carpio vs. Sulu Resources GR NO. 148267
o No conflict of interest • RA 7942 is unconstitutional as it increases the appellate jurisdiction of the
• Provincial Governors and City and Municipal Mayors can not practice SC
profession of law as said officials needs to be focused in running their area • When the SC in the exercise of its rule making power transfers to CA
• It is prohibited to pending cases involving quasi judicial body decisions such transfer only
o Act as a counsel wherein government is an adverse party relates to procedure hence it does not impair ant substantive rights. The
o To be counsel in a criminal case involving government employee aggrieved party’s right to appeal is preserved; what is changed is only the
• Collecting fees for appearance in administrative cases involving local procedure which the appeal is to be made or decided
government • The revised Rules of Procedure shall apply as it states that appeal from
quasi-judicial bodies decision are now required to be brought to CA for
Bustos vs. Lucero 81 PHIL 648 review
• Defendant cannot as a matter of right, compel witnesses to repeat in his
presence what they had said in the preliminary examinations before the LBP vs. De Leon GR NO. 143275
issuance of the order of arrest. • RTC as special agrarian courts
• Constitutional right of an accused to be confronted by the witnesses against • A petition for review, not an ordinary appeal is the procedure in effecting an
him does not apply to preliminary hearings; nor will the absence of a appeal from decisions of the RTC as SAC in cases regarding just
preliminary investigation be an infringement of his right to confront compensations
witnesses
• He has substantial right to compel witness testify but not during the People vs. Lacson 400 SCRA 262
preliminary hearing • Sec. 8 Rule 117 if revised rules of criminal procedure states that the case
• Substantive Rights – term which includes those rights which one enjoys may be provisionally dismissed following the requisites
under the legal system prior to the disturbance of normal relations • One of the requisites is consent of the accused must be expressed and in
• Substantive law – is the part of the law which creates, defines, and writing. Lacson argues that the motion for determination of probable cause
regulates, or which regulates the rights and duties which gives rise to a tantamount to consent
cause of action • Court disagrees. And in assuming Lacson is right, The new rule should be
applied prospectively and not retroactively since the new rules benefits both
Santero vs. CFI of Cavite 153 SCRA 728 the accused and the State
• The Civil code is a substantive law and such rights were vested by the Civil
Code cannot be impaired by the New Rules of Court which is procedural law Planters vs. Fertiphil 426 SCRA 214
• Substantive law prevails over procedural law • 1997 rules of civil procedure was effected on July 1, 1997 which required
• The controlling provision of this case is not Rule 83 of the New Rules of the payment of docket fees should not apply to this case since the appeal
Court but rather Art. 290 and 188 of the Civil Code was already perfected in 1992

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 54 -
Re: 2003 Bar Examinations BAR MATTER NO. 1222 • The Chief Justice has previously issued a directive to the Fiscal Management
• The court has the power to promulgate rules and to discipline its members and Budget Office to continue to deduct withholding taxes from the salaries
and also disbarring members. of the Justices of the Supreme Court and other members of the judiciary.
• The court resolved the participation on the leakage and would reprimand The salaries of members of the Judiciary are subject to the general income
and punish those who participated according to the courts findings tax applied to all taxpayers. Although such intent was somehow and
inadvertently not clearly set forth in the final text of the 1987 Constitution,
People vs. Mateo 433 SCRA 640 the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission negate the
• Article VIII Sec. 5 gives the SC the power to promulgate rules concerning contention that the intent of the framers is to revert to the original concept
the procedure in all courts of “non-diminution” of salaries of judicial officers. Hence, the doctrine in
• The rule in this case regarding the additional intermediate review by the CA Perfecto v. Meere and Endencia vs. David do not apply anymore. Justices
is a procedural matter and judges are not only the citizens whose income have been reduced in
• Allowing an intermediate review by CA for review of factual issues before accepting service in government and yet subject to income tax. Such is true
the case is elevated to SC on automatic review is a procedural matter within also of Cabinet members and all other employees.
the rule making prerogative of the SC than the law making powers of
Congress Security of Tenure

Tan vs. Bauch 478 SCRA 115 Vargas vs. Rilloraza 80 Phil 297 February 28, 1948
• The constitution empowers SC to promulgate riles concerning pleading, • The case arose out of Sec. 14 of the People’s Court Act which disqualified
practice and procedure in all courts. There are limitations to this rule Justices of the Supreme Court who had held any office or position under the
making powers. The rule must: Japanese sponsored Philippine Executive Commission from sitting in any
o Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy case under Sec. 13 of the Act. The question was whether the Congress
disposition of cases could create grounds for disqualification other than those already existing.
o Be uniform to all courts of the same grade The Court ruled in the negative, saying that what matters here is not only
o Not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights that the Justice affected continue to be a member of the Court and to enjoy
the emoluments as well as the exercise of powers and fulfill his duties of his
Republic vs. Gingoyon 478 SCRA 474 office, but that he be left unhampered to exercise all the powers and fulfill
• The court held that if Section 2 of Rule 67 were to apply PIATCO would not all he responsibilities of said office in all cases properly coming before his
receive any just compensation Court under the Constitution, again without prejudice to proper cases of
• Appropriate standard of just compensation is a substantive matter disqualification under Rule 126. Note that security of tenure here is not just
• It is well within the powers of legislature to fix the standard which it did in a guarantee against actual removal, but also of uninterrupted continuity in
RA 8974 tenure.

Tan vs. COMELEC 507 SCRA 352 Section 12

• Since the election anomalies alleged in the petition should have been raised
in the election protest and not is a petition to declare a failure of election Section 13
• Election Protest in COMELEC
Section 14
Administrative Supervision of Inferior Courts
Section 15
Maceda vs. Vasquez 221 SCRA 464 (1993)
• The Court ruled that the Ombudsman may not investigate a judge
independently of any administrative action of the Supreme Court. The
Constitution vests exclusively in the Supreme Court supervision over all ARTICLE X: LOCAL GOVERNMENT
courts and court personnel. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme
Court that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all
laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit
GENERAL PROVISIONS
any violation thereof. No other branch of the government may intrude into
this power, without running afoul the doctrine of separation of powers.
Section 1
Diminution of Salary
Section 2
Nitafan vs. Commission of Internal Revenue 152 SCRA 284 July 23, 1987
Local Autonomy

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 55 -
San Juan v. CSC 196 SCRA 69 (1991) (power of governor to recommend) Joson v. Torres 290 SCRA 279 (1998) (disciplining v. investigating authority)
• The DBM may appoint provincial budget officers, only from the list of • Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective local
qualified recommendees nominated by the governor. If none is qualified, he officials is lodged in 2 authorities: the Disciplining Authority (DA) and the
must return the list of nominees to the Governor explaining why no one Investigating Authority (IA). The DA is the President of the Philippines,
meets the legal requirements and ask for new recommendees who have the whether acting by himself or through the Executive Secretary. The
necessary eligibilities and qualifications. Secretary of the DILG is the IA, who may act by himself or constitute an
Investigating Committee. The Sec of DILG is not the exclusive IA. The DA
Drilon v. Lim 235 SCRA 135 (1994) (supervision) may designate a Special Investigating Committee.
• Where the Sec. of Justice reviews, pursuant to law, a tax measure enacted
by a local government unit to determine if the officials performed their Bito-onon v. Fernandez 350 SCRA 732 (2001)
functions in accordance with law, that is, with the prescribed procedure for • In authorizing the filing of the petition for review of the decision of the
the enactment of tax ordinances and the grant of powers under the Local Board of Election Supervisors with the regular courts the DILG in effect
Government Code, the same is an act of mere supervision, not control. mended and modified the GUIDELINES promulgate by the National Liga
Board and adopted by the LIGA which provides that the decision of the BES
Judge Leynes v. COA G.R. No. 143596, December 11, 2003 shall be subject to review by the National Liga Board. The amendment of
• By upholding the power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges and leaving the GUIDELINES is more than an exercise of the power of supervision but is
to their discretion the amount of allowances they may want to grant, an exercise of the power of control, which the President does not have over
depending on the availability of local funds, the genuine and meaningful the LIGA.
local autonomy of the LGUs is ensured.
National Liga v. Paredes 439 SCRA 130 (2004)
Section 3 • President’s power of general supervision, as exercised by the DILG
Secretary as his alter ego, extends to the Liga ng mga Barangay. When
Local Government Code respondent Judge appointed the DILG as interim caretaker to manage and
administer the affairs of the Liga, she effectively removed the management
Garcia v. COMELEC 227 SCRA 100 (1993) (recall of governor) from the National Liga Board and vested control of the Liga to the DILG. The
• Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by the people before the end DILG’s authority over the Liga is limited to seeing to it that the rules are
of his term of office. The LGC provided for a 2nd mode of initiating the recall followed, but it cannot lay down such rules itself, nor does it have the
process through a PRA which in the provincial level is composed of all discretion to modify or replace them.
mayors, vice-mayors and sanggunian members of the municipalities and
component cities. Section 5
• There is nothing in the Constitution that will remotely suggest that the
people have the sole and exclusive right to decide on whether to initiate a Sources of Revenue
recall proceeding. Powers of the Local Government

Malonzo v. COMELEC 269 SCRA 380 (1997) (recall of mayor) LTO v. City of Butuan 322 SCRA 805 (2000)
• The Liga ng mga Barangay is undoubtedly an entity distinct from the • LGUs indubitably now have the power to regulate the operation of tricycles-
Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA). It just so happens that the personalities for-hire and to grant franchises for the operation thereof. The power of
representing the barangays in the Liga are the very members of the (PRA). LGUs to regulate the operation of tricycles and to grant franchises for the
Thus, the Punong Barangays and Sanggunian Barangay members convened operation thereof is still subject to the guidelines prescribed by the
and voted as members of the (PRA) and not as members of the Liga. Department of Transportation and Communications.

Malonzo v. Zamora 323 SCRA 875 (2000) (recall) Acebedo Optical v. CA G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000
• The law simply requires that the matter of adopting or updating the internal • The power to issue licenses and permits necessarily includes the corollary
rules of procedure be taken up during the 1st day of session. The law does power to revoke, withdraw or cancel the same, and the power to revoke or
not require the completion of the updating or adoption of the internal rules cancel, likewise includes the power to restrict through the imposition of
of procedure before the Sanggunian could act on any other matter like the certain conditions.
enactment of an ordinance. • A license or permit to do business is usually granted by the local authorities.
It authorizes the person, natural or otherwise, to engage in business or
Section 4 some form of commercial activity. The issuance of business licenses and
permits by a municipality/city is essentially regulatory in nature. On the
The President and Local Governments other hand, a license to engage in the practice of a profession is issued by
the Board or Commission tasked to regulate the particular profession.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 56 -
• A business permit is issued primarily to regulate the conduct of business from performing this duty. To hold that the executive branch may disregard
and the City Mayor cannot, through the issuance of such permit, regulate constitutional provisions which defines its duties, provided it has the backing
the practice of a profession, like that of optometry. of a statute, is virtually to make the Constitution amendable by a statute –
a proposition which is patently absurd.
Lina v. Pano G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001
• While a policy statement expressing the local government’s objections to Section 7
the lotto is valid as it is party of the local government’s autonomy to air its
views which may be contrary to that of the national government’s, this Section 8
freedom to exercise contrary views does not mean that local governments
may actually enact ordinances that go against laws duly enacted by Term of Local Officials
Congress. The power of LGUs to legislate is merely a delegated power from
Congress. David v. COMELEC 271 SCRA 90 (1997) (term of barangay officials)
• The intent and design of the legislation to limit the term of barangay
PLDT v. City of Davao G.R. No. 143867, March 25, 2003 officials to only 3 years as provided under the LGC emerges as bright as the
• The rule is that tax exemptions should be granted only by clear and sunlight.
unequivocal provisions of law expressed in a language too plain to be
mistaken. They cannot be extended by mere implication or inference. Borja v. COMELEC 295 SCRA 157 (1998)
• It is not enough that an individual has served 3 consecutive terms in an
Section 6 elective local office – he must also have been elected to the same position
for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply.
Share in the National Taxes (IRA)
Adormeo v. COMELEC 376 SCRA 90 (2002)
Pimentel v. Aguirre G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000 • Talaga was not elected for 3 consecutive terms because he did not win the
• Fiscal autonomy means that local government units have the power to May 1998 elections. His victory in the recall elections was not considered a
create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in term of office and is not included in the 3 term disqualification. His loss in
the national taxes released by the national government. 1998 is considered an interruption in the continuity of service.
• Local fiscal autonomy does not, however, rule out any manner of national
government intervention by way of supervision, in order that local Socrates v. COMELEC G.R. No. 154152, November 12, 2002
programs, fiscal and otherwise, are consistent with national goals. • Francis Ong’s contention that he was only a presumptive winner in 1998
• The withholding of 10& of the LGUs IRA pending the assessment and mayoralty derby as his proclamation was under protest did not make him
evaluation by the Development Budget Coordinating Committee, although less than a duly elected mayor.
temporary, is equivalent to a holdback, which means “something held back”
or withheld, often temporarily,” and contravenes the Constitution.

Province of Batangas 429 SCRA 736 (2004) Latasa v. COMELEC G.R. No. 154829, December 10, 2003
• The LGU’s are not required to perform any act to receive the “just share” • While a new component city which was converted from a municipality
accruing to them from the national coffers – the “just share” of the LGU’s acquire a new corporate existence separate and distinct from that of the
shall be released to them “without need of further action”. municipality, this does not mean, however, that for the purpose of applying
• The entire process involving the distribution and release of the Local the constitutional provision on term limits, the office of the municipal mayor
Government Service Equalization Fund is constitutionally impermissible – to would now be construed as a different local government post as that of the
subject its distribution and release to the vagaries of the implementing rules office of the city mayor.
and regulations, including the guidelines and mechanisms unilaterally
prescribed by the Oversight Committee from time to time, makes the Ong v. Alegre 479 SCRA 473 (2006)
release not automatic. The Oversight Committee exercising discretion, even • After 3 consecutive terms, an elective official cannot seek immediate
control, over the distribution and release of the portion of the IRA, the reelection for a 4th term. Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is
LGSEF is an anathema to and subversive of the principle of local autonomy no longer covered by the prohibition.
as embodied in the Constitution. • A recall election is mid-way in the term following the 3rd consecutive term is
a subsequent election but not an immediate re-election after the 3rd term.
Alternative Center v. Zamora 459 SCRA 578 (2005)
• As the Constitution lays upon the executive the duty to automatically Section 9
release the just share of local governments in the national taxes, so it
enjoins the legislature not to pass laws that might prevent the executive Section 10

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 57 -
Creation, division of boundaries Section 15

Tan v. COMELEC 142 SCRA 727 (1986) (creation of a province) Purpose, and how many Autonomous Regions
• A plebiscite for creating a new province should include the participation of
the residents of the mother province for the plebiscite to conform to the Disomangcop v. Sec. of DPWH G.R. No. 149848, November 25, 2004
constitutional requirements. When the law says the “plebiscite shall be • The idea behind the Constitutional provisions for autonomous regions is to
conducted in areas affected” this means that residents of the political entity allow the separate development of peoples with distinctive cultures and
who stand to be economically dislocated by the separation of a portion traditions. Autonomy, has a national policy, recognizes the wholeness of the
thereof have the right to participate in said plebiscite. Philippine society in its ethnolinguistic, cultural, & even religious diversities.
• Regional autonomy refers to the granting of basic internal government
Tobias v. Abalos 239 SCRA 106 (1986) (metes and bounds) powers to the people of a particular area or region with at least control and
• The inhabitants of San Juan, which used to be part of the congressional supervision from the central government. The objective of the autonomy
district together w/ Mandaluyong, were properly excluded from the system is to permit determined groups, with a common tradition & share
plebiscite on the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city social-cultural characteristics, to develop freely their ways of life and
since the matter of separate district representation was only ancillary heritage, exercise their rights, and be in charge of their own business.
thereto. Regional autonomy implies the cultivation of more positive means for
• Petitioners’ argument that the subject law has resulted in “gerrymandering,” national integration.
which is the practice of creating legislative districts to favour a particular
candidate or party is not worth of credence. Rep. Zamora, the author of the Section 16
assailed law, is the incumbent representative of the former San
Juan/Mandaluyong district, having consistently won in both localities. By Section 17
dividing San Juan/Mandaluyong, Rep. Zamora’s constituency has in fact
been diminished, w/c development could hardly be considered as favourable Section 18
to him.
Section 19
Mun. of Jimenez v. Judge Baz 265 SCRA 182 (1996) (de jure corporation)
• Where a municipality created as such by executive order is later impliedly Organic Act for the Autonomous Regions
recognized and its acts are accorded legal validity, its creation can no longer
be questioned. A municipality has been conferred the status of at least a de Abbas v. COMELEC 179 SCRA 287 (1989)
facto municipal corporation where its legal existence has been recognized • A plebiscite will determine: (1) whether there shall be an autonomous
and acquiesced publicly and officially. region in Muslim Mindanao and (2) which provinces and cities, shall
• The plebiscite requirement for the creation of municipalities applies only to compromise it.
new municipalities created for the first time under the Constitution. • The creation of the autonomous region is made to depend, not on the total
majority vote in the plebiscite, but on the will of the majority in each of the
Cawaling v. COMELEC G.R. No. 146319, October 26, 2001 constituent units. What is required by the Constitution is a simple majority
• The phrase “a municipality or a cluster of barangays may be converted into of votes approving the organic act in individual constituent units.
a component city” is not a criterion but simply one of the modes by which a • The power to merge administrative regions is a power which has
city may be created. traditionally been lodged with the President to facilitate the exercise of the
• The creation of an entirely new local government unit through a division or power of general supervision over local governments. There is no conflict
merger of existing local government units is recognizes under the between the power of the President to merge administrative regions with
constitution, provided that such merger or division shall comply with the the constitutional provisions requiring a plebiscite in the merger of local
requirements prescribed by the Code. government units because the requirement of a plebiscite in a merger
expressly applies only to provinces, cities, municipalities or barangays, not
Section 11 to administrative regions.

Section 12 Ordillo v. COMELEC 192 SCRA 100 (1990)

• According to Art. X, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution, “There shall be
Section 13 created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras
consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, & geographical areas…” The
Section 14 keywords – provinces, cities, municipalities & geographical areas connote
that “region” is to be made up of more than one constituent unit. The sole
AUTONOMOUS REGIONS

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 58 -
province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute the Cordillera Autonomous Almario v. Resus A.M. No. P941076, November 22, 1999
Region. • To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be serious,
important, weighty, momentous and not trifling. It must also have direct
Badua v. CBA 194 SCRA 101 (1991) relation to, and be connected with, the performance of official duties
• The Maeng Tribal Court is an ordinary tribal court under the customs and amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect or
traditions of an indigenous cultural community. It is not part of the failure to discharge duties of office.
Philippine judicial system and does not posses judicial power. They do not • A clerk of court is specifically mandated to safeguard the integrity of the
possess judicial power and are only advisory and conciliatory bodies. court and its proceedings, and to maintain the authenticity and correctness
of court records.

Atitiw v. Zamora 471 SCRA 329 (2005) Juan v. People G.R. No. 132378, January 18, 2000
• The Cordillera Autonomous Region was not abolished, as concluded by the • Under Sec. 13 of RA 3019, the suspension of a public officer is mandatory
petitioners, with the reduction of the budgetary allocation; what took place after the determination of the validity of the information.
was only a discontinuance of its programs and activities.
Re: AWOL of Antonio Makalintal A.M. 99-11-06-SC, February, 15, 2000
Section 20 • By his habitual absenteeism, Mr. Malicantal has caused inefficiency in the
public service. Any act which falls short of the exacting standards for public
Section 21 office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the
judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Public office is a public trust. Public
officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Estrella v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 125160, June 20, 2000
• To justify conviction for malversation of public funds, the prosecution has
only to prove that the accused received public funds or property and that he
Section 1
could not account for them or did not have them in his possession and could
not give a reasonable excuse for the disappearance for the same. An
Public office is a public trust
accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is
no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is
Hipolito v. Mergas 195 SCRA 6 (1991)
a shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to explain
• “Moonlighting”, although not normally considered as a serious misconduct
satisfactorily.
on the part of a public servant, may amount to a malfeasance in office,
considering the nature of the position held by such public servant. In sum,
he is bound, virtute officii, to bring to the discharge of his duties that
Malbas v. Blanco A.M. P-99-1350, December 12, 2001
prudence, caution and attention which careful men usually exercise in the
• The failure of sheriffs to verify complainants’ allegation that they were not
management of their own affairs.
parties to the case in which the writ of execution was issued manifests
blatant irresponsibility, for which they must be meted with the appropriate
Bornasal v. Montes 280 SCRA 181 (1997)
penalty – by their acts, the sheriffs committed grave misconduct,
• The act of a deputy sheriff of signing the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale apparently
oppression, and conducted themselves in a manner highly prejudicial to the
for and in behalf of his superior, the Clerk of Court, despite the latter’s
best interest of the service.
earlier advice to the mortgagor to file the petition for extrajudicial
• A sheriff must know what is inherently right and wrong and is bound to act
foreclosure in the Office of the Clerk of Court that has jurisdiction over the
with prudence and caution.
property constitutes a clear case of insubordination and gross misconduct.
• It is well to remind all persons serving the Government through its Judicial
Manaois v. Leomo A.M. MTJ-03-1492, August 26, 2003
Arm that the conduct and behaviour of every person connected with an
• The Code of Judicial Conduct directs a judge to refrain from influencing in
office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to
any manner the outcome of any litigation or dispute pending before another
the lowest clerk, is tasked with a heavy burden of responsibility.
court or administrative agency.
• Sheriffs and deputy-sheriffs, as officers of the Court and therefore, agents
of the law, must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence
Re: Mr. Gideon Alibang A.M. 2003-11-SC June 15, 2004
because in serving the courts writs and processes and in implementing the
• An employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness,
orders of the court, they cannot afford to err without affecting the efficiency
regardless of the number of minutes, 10 times a month for at least 2
of the enforcement of the administration of justice.
months in a semester or at least 2 consecutive months during the year.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 59 -
Section 2 Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan 111 SCRA 433 (1982) (creation of
Sandiganbayan)
Impeachment: Who can be impeached; Grounds for impeachment • The validity of the Presidential Decree creating the Sandiganbayan is
assailed here for being violative of due process and equal protection. It was
Office of the Ombudsman v. CA 452 SCRA 714 (2005) held that the Sandiganbayan was provided in the Constitution in response to
• The impeachable officers are the President of the Philippines, the Vice- the problem of dishonesty in public office. Innocence or guilt is passed upon
President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of the by the three-judge court which requires a unanimous vote, failing which
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. The list is exclusive and “the Presiding Justice shall designate two other justices from among the
may not be increased or reduced by legislative enactment. members of the Court to sit temporarily, forming a division of five justices,
and the concurrence of a majority shall be necessary for rendering
Section 3 judgment”. If convicted, SC has the duty, if seek, to review to see if error
was committed. In that sense, it cannot be said that on the appellate level
Procedure and Penalty there is no way of scrutinizing whether the quantum of evidence required
for a finding of guilt has been satisfied.
In Re: Gonzales 160 SCRA 771 (1988)
• A public officer whose membership of the Philippine Bar is a qualification for Lecaros vs. Sandiganbayan 128 SCRA 324 (1984) (crimes in relation to
the office held by him and removable only by impeachment cannot be public office)
charged with disbarment during his membership; Nor can he be charged • A mayor was charged for grave coercion for taking over a gasoline station
criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other Court where the penalty is with threat and force. The mayor assails that Sandiganbayan lack
removal. jurisdiction and it should be filed on ordinary courts. It was held, citing Art
13 Sec 5 of the Constitution that Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction as a special
Romulo v. Yniguez 141 SCRA 260 (1986) court over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and
• The Supreme Court cannot compel the Batasan to conduct an impeachment such other offenses committed by public officers.
trial. The Batasan can always modify its own rules. They do not have the
force of law but are merely in the nature of by-laws prescribed for the Cunanan vs. Arceo 242 SCRA 88 (1995) (averment of the nature of the
orderly and convenient conduct of proceedings before the Batasan. They are crime committed)
merely procedural and not substantive. They may be waived or disregarded • Cunanan, a member of the Philippine National Police fired a warning shot in
by the Batasan and with their observance the Courts have no concern. a fight outside his office which resulted to the death of a person. It was
brought to the RTC. The SC ordered that it be transferred to
Estrada v. Desierto G.R. No. 146740-15 and 146748, March 2, 2001 and MR- Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan has exclusive and sole jurisdiction over
G.R. No. 146710-15 and 146738, April 3, 2001 offenses committed by public officials where the penalty imposed is prision
• Judgment in impeachment cases shall not extend further than removal from correcional or higher or a fine of P6,000 or higher.
office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the
Philippines, but the party convicted should nevertheless be liable and Binay vs. Sandiganbayan GR No. 120681-83 (October 1, 1991)
subject to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law. • Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan a case against
• The impeachment proceedings were closed only after the petitioner had Binay for illegal use of public funds and violation of the Anti-Graft and
resigned from presidency, thereby rendering the impeachment court functus Corrupt Practices act. Petitioner contends that this is outside the jurisdiction
officio. By resigning from the presidency, petitioner more than consented to of Sandiganbayan since RA 7975 grants Sandiganbayan the jurisdiction over
the termination of the impeachment case against him, for he brought about executive branch officers classified as Grade 27 or higher. The petitioner’s
the termination of the impeachment proceedings. salary was grade 22. SC held that Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction since the
official’s Grade, considering the nature of responsibility and qualifications
Francisco v. HRET G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003 required for the position is what defines the salary not the other way
• Father Bernas concludes that when Section 3(5) says, “No impeachment around.
proceedings shall initiated against the same official more than once within a
period of one year”, it means that no second verified complain may be Mayor Layus vs Sandiganbayan GR No. 134272 December 8, 1999
accepted and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. “To initiate” • Same with the Binay case about jurisdiction based on salary grade.
refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with Congress’
taking initial action of said complaint. Once an impeachment complain has Abbot vs. Mapayo GR 134102 July 6, 2000
been initiated, another impeachment complain may not be filed against the • It is assailed here whether it is the Sandiganbayan or the CA who has
same official within a period of one year. jurisdiction on Malversation cases. SC held that Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction outlined in PD 1606 that created it and RA 7975. The authority
Section 4 to issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus involves the exercise

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 60 -
of original jurisdiction. Thus such authority has always been expressly Tirol v COA GR 133954 August 3, 2000
conferred, either by the Constitution or by law. • Deputy OMB of Visayas found the petitioner criminally liable for violation of
RA 3019 in not following bidding procedures
Section 5
Mamburao vs. Ombudsman GR 139141-42, November 15, 2000
Section 6 • A complaint was filed against an officer of Landbank for slander and libel
and for the denial of the loan acting in GADLEJ. Ombudsman dismissed the
Baluyot vs. Hulganza GR 136374, February 9, 2000 case. SC held that it is the duty of the Ombudsman to find out whether
• An officer of the Philippine National Red Cross was complained in the there is sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime has
Ombudsman for malversation of funds. The officer assailed that been committed. Under RA 6770, the Ombudsman has the power to
Ombudsman has no jurisdiction since it was not a government owned and investigate and conduct preliminary investigation. Courts will not interfere
controlled corporation. SC held that PNRC is a GOCC. The test to determine absent any grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman has the power to
if it is a GOCC is whether it is created by its won charter for the exercise of dismiss a complaint outright without going through preliminary investigation
a public function, or by incorporation under the general corporation law. if it finds the petition to be without merit.
Those with special charter are government corporations subject to its
provisions, and its employees are under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Salvador v. Desierto 420 SCRA 76 (Ombudsman’s discretion whether or not
Commission and are compulsory members of the GSIS. criminal case should be filed)
• Ombudsman has discretion whether or not criminal case should be filed.
Garcia vs. Ombudsman GR 127710 February 16, 2000 Same with Mamburao case
• Garcia an officer of the National Development Company availed an early
retirement tax-exempt benefit program and NDC approved her application. Section 7
The disbursing officer of NDC deducted withholding tax. Garcia complained
to the Ombudsman but the Ombudsman dismissed her complaint because Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan 160 SCRA 843 (1988) (powers)
the disbursing officer merely complied with her duty guided by the BIR that • Governor Zaldivar sought to restrain Tanodbayan Raul Gonzales from
provident fund benefits above the employees’ personal contribution were proceeding the criminal case against him as it was the Ombudsman who has
taxable. Furthermore, it was held that there were no violations following RA the authority to file cases with the Sandiganbayan. Tanodbayan claims that
3019 that specify the elements for violation: he remains to be the Ombudsman. SC ruled that Tanodbayan is clearly
1) the accused of a public officer or a private person charged in without authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to direct filing of
conspiracy with the former;] criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the
2) the said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the Ombudsman. Tanodbayan never became the Ombudsman inn the first
performance of his/her official duties or in relation to his/her place. Furthermore Art11 Sec7 specifies what is the Tanodbayan.
public position
3) that he/she causes undue injury to any part, whether the Quimpo vs. Tanodbayan 146 SCRA 137 (1986) (jurisdiction)
government or the private party; • The issue here is whether or not the Tanodbayan has jurisdiction over
4) such undue injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, companies which were originally privately owned but was subsequently
advantage or preference to such parties; and bought by the government. Petrophil although having no special law was
5) that the public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad bought by PNOCC, a GOCC, using public money. It was acquired by the
faith or gross inexcusable negligence government to perform functions related to government program and
policies in oil. Therefore, its employees are considered as public employees
Lapid vs. A GR 142261 June 29, 2000 falling within Tanodbayan jurisdiction.
• Lapid was accused of illegal quarrying endorsed in the Ombudsman that
ordered a preventive suspension for a period of 6months without pay and Acop vs. Ombudsman 248 SCRA 566 (1995) (prosecutory powers:
afterwards issued a suspension of 1year wihtout pay. It was questioned distinction in preliminary investigation and duty to investigate)
whether the order was final and executory. The court held that the • This case is regarding the Kuratong Baleleng shootout. Acting Ombudsman
decision of the Ombudsman was not yet final and executory based ordered Military ombudsman to monitor investigation who ordered PNP
on the Ombudsman Act that provides that “directive or decision director to submit a report. SC held that Ombudsman has jurisdiction to
imposing penalty of public censure or suspension of not more than conduct preliminary investigation. It was given authority by the legislature
one month’s salary is final and executory”. It is clear that Lapid’s by enacting the Ombudsman Act. It was contended that PNP was a civilian
penalty are not among those mentioned, therefore the decision was not yen and was therefore outside the power of Military ombudsman. SC held that
final and executory. Ombudsman may utilize his personnel and or designate or deputize any
fiscal/prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain
cases.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 61 -
Camanag vs. Guerero 268 SCRA 472 (1997) (powers as ‘provided by law’) case the Constitution authorizes the Ombudsman to act promptly on
• Same with Acop case in the Ombudsman’s power to investigate and complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees
undertake criminal prosecution given by the legislature through the
Ombudsman act, specifically in its Sec 15 and Sec 17. Roxas vs. Vasquez GR 114944 June 19, 2004
• Ombudsman was accused of GADLEJ for holding a reinvestigation on a case
Macalinao vs. Sandiganbayan 376 SCRA 452 regarding alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices act. SC
• Petitioner, an employee of Philippine National Construction Corp. was held that Ombudsman is not and should not be limited in its review by the
charged with estafa in the Ombudsman. The Petitioner moved to dismiss the action or inaction of complainants. It is clear from Sec 15 of RA 6770 that
case since PNCC is not a GOCC. SC help that the petitioner as an employee the Ombudsman may motu propio conduct a reinvestigation to assure that
of PNCC is not a public employee since PNCC has no original charter. OMB the guilty do not go unpunished.
can only investigate public officials and employees. Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over private individuals only when the complaint charges him Kara-an vs. Ombudsman GR 119990 June 21, 2004
either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer who has • The issue here is whether or not the Ombudsman committed GADLEJ in
been charged with a crime within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan dismissing a complain regarding certain criminal acts of some members of
the Board of Directors of the Islamic Bank of the Philippines, The SC ruled
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Valera 471 SCRA 715 (2005) that Ombudsman did not commit GADLEJ since it has the sole power to
• In a case where the issue was whether Special prosecutor can order a investigate and prosecute any act or commission of any public officer or
preventive suspension in connection with administrative case, the SC ruled employee when such act or commission appears to be illegal or unjust, It is
that Special prosecutor is merely a component of the Office of the beyond the SC to review the discretion of Ombudsman in prosecuting or
Ombudsman and may act only under the supervision and control and upon dismissing a case filed before it. Sc is not a trier of facts the Ombudsman is.
authority of the Ombudsman. Sec 24 of RA 6770 grants the power to
preventively suspend only to the Ombudsman and the Deputy Ombudsman. People v. Sandiganbayan 451 SCRA 413 2005
• Philippine Postal and Savings Bank (PPSB) questions the jurisdiction of the
Perez v. Sandiganbayan 503 SCRA 252 Sandiganbayan in taking cognizance of the case against it. It was held that
• The delegation of the power to authorize the filing of information was only even if PPSB is created under the Corporation Code, it is still a government-
made to Deputy Ombudsman and not to Special Prosecutor owned or controlled corporation in as much as more than 99 % of its capital
stock is owned by the government. GOCC’s, whether created by special law
Section 8 or under the Corporation Code, come under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
Section 9
Laxina v. Ombudsman 471 SCRA 542 (2005)
Section 10 • In this case 2 separate informations were filed against Laxina, one in the
Ombudsman and the other one in City Council. The SC ruled that both
Section 11 tribunals have concurrent jurisdiction. This is because LGC grants
jurisdiction to the City Council; the Ombudsman Act grants jurisdiction to
Section 12 the Ombudsman.

Almonte vs. Vasquez 244 SCRA 286 (1995) (form and manner of complaint Section 13
– unsigned letter)
• The validity of the Ombudsman to require the production of certain Cruz v. Sandiganbayan 194 SCRA 474 (1991) (concurrent jurisdiction with
document of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau in PCGG)
response to an anonymous complaint letter is questioned. SC ruled that • This is case is about an Information filed against Cruz, being a subordinate
Ombudsman can ask for this document and respond to the anonymous and close associate of former President Marcos, illegally conducted a
complaint letter as part of requirement of the Constitution that authorize it transaction at the expense of the government. The court ruled that the
to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public authority of the Ombudsman over the cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan is
officials or employees not exclusive but concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies of the
government. The PCGG had the authority to investigate and prosecute such
Bautista vs. Sandiganbayan GR 136082 May 12, 2000 ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. Nevertheless, in the case at bar, the
• A mayor was charged of violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices act for evidence showed that the alleged violation is not crony related, committed
hiring casuals for political consideration. The charge came from an unsigned by the petitioner taking advantage of his public office, and was not
and unverified letter-complaint. SC held that there was no procedural flaw committed in relation with the ill-gotten wealth being sought to be
despite the nature of the source of charges since similar to the Almonte recovered.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 62 -
Maceda v. Vasquez 221 SCRA 464 (1993) (judiciary, supra art8) ombudsman has the authority and this is provided in not just in the
• In cases where the person complained of is a judge, the proper tribunal to Ombudsman Act but in the Constitution as well. It does not require that the
hear the case is the Supreme Court, and not the Office of the ombudsman act or omission be related to or be connected with or arise from the
performance of official duty.
Macalinao v. Sandiganbayan 376 SCRA 452
• This case presents the issue of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. PNCC is OMB vs. CA 491 SCRA 92
not a public corporation- Macalinao is an employee of PNCC- since it was • The issue here is whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman can suspend
incorporated under the general law on corporations. The only instance when employees of an administrative agency, DENR. The ratio here is that the
the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual is when the mandatory character of the Office of the Ombudsman is not usurpation of
complaint charges the person either as principal, accomplice, or accessory the authority of the head of office or any officer concerned since the power
of a public officer who has been charged with a crime that is within the of the OMB to investigate and prosecute any illegal act or omission of any
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. public official is not an exclusive authority but a SHARED or CONCURRENT
authority in respect of the offenses charged.
Honasan v. Panel of Investigators GR 159747, April 13, 2004 • * Other cases from OMB v. Madriaga to OMB v. Lucero have similar
• The case of Honasan is about the investigation of the suspects behind doctrines with the previous ones.
Oakwood Mutiny. Petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Department of
Justice for issuing an affidavit-complaint with subpoena against Honasan et Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases
al. The power of the ombudsman is concurrent with other similarly
authorized agencies of the government. In addition, the ombudsman, in the Natividad v. Felix 229 SCRA 680 (1994) (amount)
exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan, • The ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction is dependent on the cases cognizable
may take over, at any stage, from any investigating agency of the by the Sandiganbayan. The law P.D. 1861 on Sandiganbayan shows that 2
government, the investigation of such cases. requirements must concur for an offense to fall under its jurisdiction. First is
that the offense committed by the public officer must be in relation to his
Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties office. Second is that the penalty prescribed be higher that prision
correccional or imprisonment for 6 years or a fine of P6,000.00. There is no
Buenaseda v. Flavier 226 SCRA 645 (1993) (when to suspend) first requisite in this case.
• In this case, the petitioner seeks to nullify the order of the Ombudsman
directing preventive suspension of petitioners who are employees of the Lastimosa v. Vasquez 243 SCRA 497 (1995) (prosecutor’s assistance)
National Center for Mental Health. The court held that in upholding the • The case sis about the extent to which the Ombudsman may call upon the
powers of the Ombudsman, preventive suspension is imposed after government prosecutors for assistance in the investigation and prosecution
compliance with the requisites as an aid in the investigation of the of criminal cases cognizable by his office and the conditions under which he
administrative charges. In order for the Ombudsman to conduct may do so. The ombudsman has the power to call on the Provincial
investigation in an expeditious and efficient manner, he may need to Prosecutor to assist in the prosecution of the case for attempted rape
suspend the respondents. against the mayor in this case.

Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole 251 SCRA 243 (1995) (nature of preventive Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation
suspension)
• Preventive order of suspension was issued to Mayor, Vice Mayor and Raro vs Sandiganbayan GR 108431, July 14, 2000
Sangguniang Panglungsod of Mandaue City. Petitioners question the order • Repeat case. Refer to Sec 12.
of preventive suspension which was sustained by Judge Gozo-dadole. They
assail that it was granted in GADLEJ since it was ordered without any Serapio v. Sandiganbayan. GR 148468, Jan 28, 2000
hearing. The order of the preventive suspension was issued after the filing • Serapio as one of the co-accused of the plunder case against Erap is
of the opposition on the motion by the respondent officials and the primarily contesting in this case the Information filed against him before the
memorandum of the Mayor. A preventive suspension, not being the nature Sandiganbayan. The court ruled that the information was sufficient and that
of a penalty, can be decreed on an official under investigation after charges matters of evidence need not be alleged in the Information. The right to
are brought and even before the charges are heard. It is also considered as preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, but is merely a right
a preventive measure in aid of investigation. conferred by statute.

Vasquez vs. Hobilla-Alinio 271 SCRA 243 (1995) (not in relation to duties) Section 14
• Respondents contend herein that the Office of the Ombudsman had no
authority to file the Informations because the crime was not committed in Section 15
relation to the respondent’s office. The court ruled that the office of the

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 63 -
Heirs of Gregorio Licaros v. SB GR 157438 Oct 18, 2004 1902 but only those claims over which their locators had failed to obtain a
• The case is about the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. The patent. Mere location does not mean absolute ownership over affected land
heirs of Gregario Licaros are contending that the recovery is barred by or mining claim. It merely segregates the located land from would-be
prescription. The doctrine in this case is that as the 1987 Constitution was locators. The decree is in accord with Art 12, Section 2 of the Constitution.
promulgated, it was made by the drafters of the constitution that the action
to recover ill-gotten wealth is outside the purview of the ordinary rules on San Miguel Corporation v. CA
prescription. The case made it clear that “ any action involving the recovery • San Miguel Corporation seeks the reversal of the CA decision which denied
of unlawfully acquired properties against Licaros or his transferees may not its application for registration of a parcel of land in view of its failure to
be deemed to have prescribed. show entitlement thereto. The CA decision is affirmed. Open, conclusive and
undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by
Section 16 law allows the land to cease as a public land and becomes a private
property without judicial declaration of such. Such open, continuous,
Section 17 exclusive and notorious occupation of the disputed properties for more than
30 years must be conclusively established. This quantum proof is necessary
Section 18 to avoid the erroneous validation of fictitious claims of possession over the
property in dispute. Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership or right of possession over a piece of land.
Sampayan v. Daza 213 SCRA 807 (1992) (foreign citizen)
• Petitioners in this case contest the legitimacy of having elected Daza, as the Utilization
congressman of the same congressional district of the petitioners on the
ground that he is a greencard holder and a lawful permanent resident of the Miners Association of the Philippines v. Factoran
U.S. Though the case was deemed moot and academic for having been filed • Miners Association of the Philippines challenges the validity and
2 months before the expiration of the term of the congressman, another constitutionality of the Administrative Orders Nos. 57 and 82 which are the
contention to debunk the arguments raised by the petitioner is that the implementing rules and regulations for EO 211 and 279 issued by President
HRET should be the proper tribunal to hear the case. Being a greencard Cory Aquino. Miners Association of the Phils contends that the AO’s violate
holder is indicative of permanent residency in the U.S. the non-impairment clause of the Constitution and have an effect of
repealing or abrogating existing mining laws, like PD 463, which are not
Caasi v. CA 191 SCRA 229 (1990) (foreign citizen) inconsistent with the provisions of EO 279. EO 211 prescribes the interim
• Same as Sampayan v. Daza procedures in the processing and the approval of the applications for the
exploration, development and utilization of minerals pursuant to 1987
Constitution in order to ensure the continuity of mining operations and
activities and to hasten the development of mineral resources. EO 279
ARTICLE XII: NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY authorizes the DENR Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint venture, co-
production, or production-sharing agreements for the exploration,
development and utilization of mineral resources, and prescribing guidelines
for such agreements and those agreements involving technical or financial
Section 1
assistance by foreign-owned corporations for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals. PD 463 pertains to old system of
Section 2
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources through
license, concession or lease which is not allowed by Art 12, Sec 2 of the
Alienation
Constitution. It does not apply retroactively to license, concession or lease
granted by the government before the passage of the 1987 Constitution.
Sta. Rosa Mining v. Leido
The effectivity of the Executive Orders applies only to existing mining claims
• Sta. Rosa Mining Co. questions the constitutionality of PD 1214 so far as it
after the passage of the present constitution. The agreements can be
required holders of subsisting and valid patentable mining claims located
modified, altered, or amended by a statute passed by Congress to achieve
under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 to file a mining lease
the purposes of Article 12.
application within 1 year from the approval of the Decree. Sta. Rosa
contends that it violates the Constitution for it amounts to a deprivation of
Tano v. Socrates
property without due process of law. PD 1214 is constitutional because it is
• Certain fishermen claim that they have rights since they are subsistence
a valid exercise of the sovereign power of the State, as owner, over lands of
fishermen and challenge the constitutionality of the ordinances issued by
the public domain, of which Sta. Rosa’s mining claims still form a part, and
Acting City Mayor Lucero and Sangguniang Panlalawigan Provincial Governor
over the patrimony of the nation, of which mineral deposits are a valuable
which required mayor’s permit to carry out a profession or business and
asset. The decree does not cover all mining claims located under Phil. Bill of

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 64 -
prohibited the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipping • The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) grants the indigenous
of aquatic organisms. Petitioners invoke the right of subsistence fishermen cultural communities (ICC) or indigenous peoples (IP) the ownership and
under Section 2 of Art 12 wherein they failed to show they were such. possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral domains and defines
Marginal fishermen are individuals engaged in fishing whose margin of the extent of these lands and domains, and the ownership given is the
return or reward in his harvest of fish as measured by existing price levels is indigenous concept of ownership given is the indigenous concept of
barely sufficient to yield a profit or cover the cost of gathering fish. ownership under customary law which traces its origin to native title. There
Subsistence fishermen are those whose catch yields but the irreducible is nothing in IPRA that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over natural
minimum for their livelihood. resources within their ancestral domain. The inclusion of natural resources
in Sec 1, Part II, Rule II of the Implementing Rules goes beyond the
Villaflor v. CA parameters of Section 7 of the law and is contrary to Art 12, Sec 2 of the
• It is not difficult to understand that legal basis urged by petitioner does not Constitution. The right to negotiate the terms and conditions over the
support his allegation that the contracts to sell and the deed of natural resources covers only their exploration which must be for the
relinquishment are simulated and fictitious. Properly understood, such rules purpose of ensuring ecological and environmental protection of, and
on interpretation even negate petitioner’s thesis. Failure to pay is not even conservation measures in the ancestral domains and does not extend to
a breach but merely an event which prevents the vendor’s obligation to exploitation and development of natural resources. The limited rights of
convey title from acquiring binding force. Generally, in a contract of sale, management and use must be taken to contemplate small-scale utilization
payment of the price is a resolutory condition and the remedy of the seller of natural resources as distinguished from large-scale. Small-scale
is to exact fulfillment or, in case of a substantial breach, to rescind the utilization is expressly allowed in the Constitution.
contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code.
Chavez v. PRA GR 133250, July 19, 2002
Public Domain • AMARI seeks to acquire from PEA, a public corporation, reclaimed lands and
submerged areas for non-agricultural purposes by purchase under PD No.
Land Management Bureau v. CA GR 112567 1084 (charter of PEA) and Title II of CA No. 141.
• Director of Land Management Bureau questions the CA decision which • The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is
confirmed and ordered the registration of the land in favor of Carino. The rooted in the Regalian doctrine which holds that the State owns all lands
court ruled that possession of public lands, however long, never confers title and waters of the public domain. Upon the Spanish conquest of the
upon the possessor unless the occupant can prove possession or occupation Philippines, ownership of all “lands, territories and possessions” in the
of the same under a claim of ownership for the required period to constitute Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown. The King, as the sovereign ruler
a grant from the State. The phrase, “adverse, continuous, open, public, and representative of the people, acquired and owned all lands and
peaceful and in concept of owner” are mere conclusions of law requiring territories in the Philippines except those he disposed of by grant or sale to
evidentiary support and substantiation. private individuals.
• Until now, the only way the government can sell to private parties,
Republic vs. De Guzman GR 105630, February 7, 2000 government reclaimed and marshy disposable lands of the public domain is
• Director of Lands not barred to an investigation as to how title has been for the legislature to pass a law authorizing such sale. In order for PEA to
acquired, if purpose of such investigation is to determine whether or not sell its reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public
fraud had been committed in securing such a title. domain, there must be legislative authority empowering PEA to sell these
• We rule that the State can assail a patent fraudulently issued by the lands, though any legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its reclaimed
Director of Lands. “Where public land is acquired by an applicant through alienable lands of the public domain would be subject to the constitutional
fraud and misrepresentation, the State may institute reversion proceedings ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public
event after the lapse of one year.” “The indefeasibility of a title does not domain, such legislative authority could only benefit private individuals.
attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation. • The rationale behind the constitutional ban on corporations from acquiring,
except through lease, alienable lands of the public domain is not well
Cruz v. Secretary of DENR GR 135385, December 6, 2000 understood; In actual practice, the constitutional ban strengthens the
• The Regalian Doctrine or jura regalia is the capacity of the State to own or constitutional limitation on individuals from acquiring more than the allowed
acquire property and the State’s power of dominium. The Public Land Act are of alienable lands of the public domain; The constitutional intent, under
operated on the assumption that the title to public lands in the Philippines the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, is to transfer ownership of only a limited
remained in the government and that the government’s title to public land are of alienable land of the public domain to a qualified individual.
sprung from the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent treaties. The term • The mere reclamation of certain areas by PEA does not convert these
public land referred to all lands of the public domain whose title still inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable or disposable lands
remained in the government and the friar lands. Another act placed all of the public domain—there must be a law or presidential proclamation
public and private lands in the Philippines under Torrens system. officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and
open to disposition or concession.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 65 -
• Under Spanish Law of Waters, a private person reclaiming from the sea department of the government and not of the courts. A positive act of the
without permission from the State could not acquire ownership of the government is needed to declassify a forest land into alienable or disposable
reclaimed land which would remain property of public dominion like the sea land for agriculture.
it replaced.
Republic v. CA 160 SCRA 228 1988
La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v. Ramos GR 127872, 2004 • This is an application of the Regalian Doctrine which is intended for the
• The first sentence of Section 2 embodies the Regalian doctrine or jura benefit of the State and not of private persons. The rule simply reserves the
regalia. Introduced by Spain into these Islands, this feudal concept is based State all minerals that may be found in public and even private land devoted
on the State’s power of dominium, which is the capacity of the State to own to “agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential” or any purpose other
or acquire property. In its broad sense, the term “jura regalia” refers to than mining. If a person is the owner of agricultural land where minerals are
royal rights which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives. In Spanish law, discovered, his ownership of such land does not give him the right to extract
it refers to a right which the sovereign has over anything in which a subject or utilize the said minerals without the permission of the State to which
has a right of property or propriedad . These were rights enjoyed during such minerals belong.
feudal times by the king as the sovereign.
• The Regalian doctrine extends not only to land but also to “all natural Director of Lands v. IAC 146 SCRA 509
wealth that may be found in the bowels of earth.” The Regalian doctrine and • A judicial confirmation proceeding should at most be limited to ascertaining
the American system, therefore, differ in one essential respect—under the whether the possession claimed is of the required character and length of
Regalian theory, mineral rights are not included in a grant of land by the time as it is not so much one to confer title as it is to recognize a title
state while under the American doctrine, mineral rights are included in a already vested.
grant of land by the government. • The 1973 Constitution cannot impair vested rights. Thus where land was
• The State, being the owner of the natural resources, is accorded the acquired in 1962 when corporations were allowed to acquire lands not
primary power and responsibility in the exploration, development and beyond 1,024 hectares, the same may be registered in 1982 although under
utilization thereof. As such, it may undertake these activities through four 1973 Constitution corporations cannot acquire lands of the public domain.
modes: The State may directly undertake such activities. (2) The State may There can be no serious question of Acme’s right to acquire the land at the
enter into co-production, joint venture or production sharing agreements time it did, there also being nothing in the 1935 Constitution that might be
with Filipino citizens or qualified corporations. (3) Congress may, by law, constructed to prohibit corporations from purchasing or acquiring interests
allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino-citizens. (4) For in public land to which the vendor had already acquired that type of so-
the large scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, called “incomplete” or “imperfect” title.
petroleum and other mineral oils, the President may enter into agreements • A corporation that acquired private land in 1962 may have it registered in
with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance. 1982 despite the prohibition in the 1973 Constitution which cannot be given
retroactive effect as to impair vested rights.
Section 3
Dipidio v. Gozun 485 SCRA 586
Lands of Public Domain • “Taking” under the concept of eminent domain as entering upon private
property for more than a momentary period, and, under the warrant of color
Director of Lands v. Aquino 192 SCRA 296 of legal authority, devoting it to a public use, or otherwise informally
• Petitioners question the validity of the decision of the lower court which appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as to substantially oust
granted the application for registration of the parcels of land the owner and deprive of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.
notwithstanding its finding that they are within the forest zone. The District • Power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the state (and of those
Forester’s failure to object to the exclusion of the area sought to be entities to which the power has been lawfully delegated) to condemn private
registered from the forest reserve was not enough justification for property to public use upon payment of just compensation. On the other
registration because under Commonwealth Act 141, the power to exclude an hand, police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by
area from the forest zone belongs to the President of the Philippines, upon restraining and regulating the power of eminent domain have the general
the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, welfare for their object, and recent trends show a mingling of the two with
and not the District Forester or even the Director of Forestry. Forest or the latter being used as an implement of the former, there are still
forest reserves are incapable of private appropriation and possession traditional distinctions between the two.
thereof, however long, cannot convert them into private properties. This is • A thorough scrutiny of the extant jurisprudence leads to a cogent deduction
premised on the regalia doctrine enshrined in the Constitution. According to that where a property interest is merely restricted because the continued
Art 12, Section 2, the land must first be released from its classification as use thereof would be injurious to public welfare or where property is
forest land and reclassified as agricultural land in accordance with eh destroyed because its continued existence would be injurious to public
certification issued by the Director of Forestry. This is because the interest, there is no compensable taking. However, when a property interest
classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the executive

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 66 -
is appropriated and applied to some public purpose, there is compensable • Art XII Sec 6 of the Constitution provides that the property in question
taking. bears a social function and all economic agents shall contribute to the
• In the exercise of its police power regulation, the state restricts the use of common good. With the prohibition on media advertising by candidates
private property, but none of the property interests in the bundle of rights themselves, the COMELEC time and COMELEC Space are about the only
which constitute ownership is appropriated for use by or for the benefit of means through which the candidates can advertise their qualifications and
the public. programs of government. More than merely depriving candidates of time for
• Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material their ads, the failure of broadcast stations to provide air time unless paid by
impairment of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses the government would clearly deprive the people of their right to know.
for which property was intended such as the establishment of an easement.
Section 7
Section 4
Private Lands
Section 5
Ramirez v. Vda de Ramirez 111 SCRA 704
Ancestral Lands and Domain • This is an appeal with regard to the manner of partitioning the testate
estate of Jose Ramirez among the principal beneficiaries which include his
Cruz v. Secretary of DENR GR 135385, December 6, 2000 widow, Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez, a French citizen who lives in Paris.
• Petitioners contend that by providing for an all-encompassing definition of The court ruled that the constitutional provision which enables aliens to
“ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands” which might even include private acquire private lands does not extend to testamentary succession for
lands violate the rights of private landowners otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless. Any alien
• Ancestral domains are all areas belonging to ICCs/IPs held under a claim would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine
of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs by themselves or through landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land.
their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial,
continuously until the present, except when interrupted by war, force Halili v. CA 287 SCRA 337
majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of • A land was sold to an American citizen, David Rey Guzman. He then sold it
government projects. They comprise lands, inland waters, coastal areas and to a Filipino. The petitioners are questioning for its validity. The court ruled
natural resources therein and includes ancestral lands, forests, pasture, that non-Filipinos cannot acquire or hold title to private lands or to lands of
residential, agricultural and other lands individually owned whether the public domain, except only by way of legal succession. If land is
alienable or not, hunting and burial grounds, worship areas, and bodies of invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or
water, mineral and other resources. Ancestral lands are lands held by the transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered
ICCs/IPs under the same conditions of ancestral domains except that these cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.”
are limited to lands and that these lands are not merely occupied and
possessed but are also utilized by them under claims of individual or Muller v. Muller 500 SCRA 65
traditional group ownership. • A property inherited by an alien was registered under the name of his
• Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public Filipina wife. Upon the petition of separation of property, the court ruled
domain, they are private belong to the ICCs/IPs. To classify them as public that the alien spouse cannot recover or ask for a reimbursement of such
lands under any one of the four classes will render the entire IPRA law a property.
nullity. The spirit of the IPRA lies in the distinct concept of ancestral • Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states: Save in cases of
domains and ancestral lands. The right of ownership and possession of the hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains is held under the indigenous concept of except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or
ownership which maintains the view that ancestral domains are the ICCs/IPs hold lands of the public domain. Hence, they are also disqualified from
private but community property. It introduces a new concept of ownership, acquiring private lands. The primary purpose of the constitutional provision
concept that has long existed under customary law. Customary law is a is the conservation of the national patrimony.
primary and not secondary source of rights under the IPRA and uniquely • Save for the exception provided in cases of hereditary succession, an alien’s
applies to ICCs/IPs. disqualification from owning lands in the Philippines is absolute—not even
an ownership in trust is allowed; Where the purchase is made in violation of
Section 6 an existing statue and in evasion of its express provision no trust can result
in favor of the party who is guilty of fraud.
Common Good • The distinction made between the transfer of ownership as opposed to
recovery of funds is futile exercise on alien spouse’s part—to allow
Telebap vs. Comelec 289 SCRA 337 reimbursement would in effect permit respondent to enjoy the fruits of a
property which he is not allowed to own.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 67 -
Section 8 Section 11

Republic v. CA 235 SCRA 567 (1994) Bagatsing vs. Committee on Privatization 246 SCRA 344 [1995]
• Spouses who became naturalized Canadian Citizens can still can still register • The question is whether PETRON is a public utility. A “public utility” under
lands which under the Regalian doctrine are public lands according to Art. the constitution and Public Service Law is one organized “for hire or
XII Sec. 8 and also according to BP 185 sec. 2 “ Any natural-born citizen of compensation” to serve the public which is given the right to demand its
the Philippines who has lost his Filipino Citizenship and who has legal service. PETRON is not engaged in oil refining for hire and compensation to
capacity to enter into contract under the Philippine laws may be a transferee process the oil of other parties.
of a private land…”
Albano vs. Reyes 175 SCRA 264
Section 9 • Even if the MICP be considered a public utility, or a public service on the
theory that it is a “wharf” or a “dock” as contemplated under the Public
Section 10 Service Act, its operation would not necessarily call for a franchise from the
Legislative Branch. Franchises issued by Congress are not required before
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS 267 SCRA 408 (1997) each and every public utility may operate
• Manila Prince hotel invoking Art. XII Sec. 10 went to SC on the ground since • The Law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant
the Manila Hotel is part of the National Patrimony, its ownership should be licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities.
retained in Filipino hands as much as possible. • E.O. No. 30 has tasked the PPA with the operation and management of the
• SC held that Art. XII Sec. 10 is self-executing since it is already complete in MICP, in accordance with P.D. 857 and other applicable laws and
itself and does not require any establishing legislation. It is also part of the regulations. However, P.D. 857 itself authorizes the PPA to perform the
National Patrimony because it had been the site of many historic events in service by contracting it out, or through other means. Reading E.O. No. 30
the past. It distinguished between the hotel and ownership of the hotel in and P.D. 857 together, the inescapable conclusion is that the lawmaker has
the context of Filipino-first policy is hairsplitting empowered the PPA to undertake by himself the operation and management
of the MICP or to authorize its operation and management by another by
Army Navy Club v. CA 271 SCRA 36 (1997) contract or other means, at its option. The latter power having been
• A person may be ejected from a historical landmark property and it will not delegated to the PPA, a franchise from Congress to authorize an entry other
affect its historical significance. Nowhere in the law does it state that such than the PPA to operate and manage the MICP becomes unnecessary.
recognition grants possessory rights over the property. The law merely
states that it shall be the policy of the state to preserve and protect the Telebap vs. Comelec 289 SCRA 337
important cultural properties and National Cultural Treasures of the nation • All broadcasting, whether by radio or television stations, is licensed by the
and to safeguard their intrinsic value. government. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more
individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to assign. A
Tanada v. Angara 272 SCRA 18 (1997) franchise is thus a privilege subject, among other things, to amendment by
• Art. XII Sec. 10 and 12 should be read with Sec. 1 and 13. The constitution Congress in accordance with the constitutional provision that “any such
did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign franchise or right granted… shall be subject to amendment, alteration or
investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires.”
Economy
PTC vs. NTC GR 138295, August 28, 2003
Republic v. CA 299 SCRA 199 • PHILTEL questions the Provisional Authority issue to install, operate and
• The provisions of law and equity that not even Government shall maintain telephone exchanges and public calling offices issued by NTC to
unjustifiably enrich oneself/itself at the expense of the other International Communications Corporation in locations which have also been
• It is fervently hoped that after the end of our sojourn in this valley of tears, issued to PHILTEL. The court ruled that neither NTC nor Congress can grant
the court,, for its historic disposition, will be exalted by the future an exclusive franchise, certificate of any form of authorization to operate a
generations of Filipinos, for the preservation of the national patrimony and public utility. A franchise to operate a public utility is not an exclusive
promotion of our cultural heritage private property of the franchisee. Under the Constitution, no franchise can
demand or acquire exclusivity in the operation of public utility.
J.G. Summit Holdings v. CA GR No. 124293, November 20, 2000
• A public utility shall be owned by at least 60% of its capital should be owned Royal Cargo Corporation vs. Civil Aeronautics Board (421 SCRA 21)
by Filipinos and the participation of foreign investors in the governing body • Royal Cargo Corporation questions the validity of Resolution 209(90) by the
of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in Civil Aeronautics Board which imposed certain fines and asked for the
its capital and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or immediate transfer of the position of the company President to a Filipino
association shall be citizens of the Philippines. before the permit is to be given. Royal Cargo Corporation is a public utility

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 68 -
therefore it is subject to Section 11 of Article 12 which states that “The Terminal, and/or Terminal Complex) obligates the government in the
participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility exercise of it police power to compensate Heirs of Suguitan v. Mandaluyong
enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all City to justify its claim for reasonable compensation for the Government’s
the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must temporary takeover of NAIA IPT III in times of national emergency is
be citizens of the Philippines.” erroneous. As what is involved in that case is eminent domain and not
police power, hence, just compensation was awarded. The Cases at her will
Section 12 not involve the exercises of the power of eminent domain.

Tanada vs. Angara 272 SCRA 18 David v. Arroyo (Supra. Article 7 Sec 18)
• The principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and some sections • During existence of state of national emergency, PP 1017 purports to give
of Article XII are not self-executing provisions, the disregard of which can the President, without authority/delegation from Congress, to take over or
give rise to a cause of action in the courts. They do not embody judicially direct the operation of any privately owned public utility/business affected
constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation with public interest However, since emergency are reposed in Congress, sec
• Trade Liberation; “Filipino First” Policy; While the Constitution indeed 17 (“State”) refers to Congress, not President. If the President wants to
mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, exercise such power, it must be delegated by Congress. PP 1017 therefore
at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest does not authorize take-over without authority from Congress.
of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of
Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that Section 18
are unfair—the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy.
• It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the Republic vs. PLDT 26 SCRA 620
development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not • The Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent
encourage the limited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the
the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact it allows an exchange government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the
on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign government service may require, subject to the payment of just
competition that is unfair. compensation to be determined by the court. Normally, of course, the
power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to,
Section 13 and possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears
why the said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the
Section 14 owner of condemned property, without loss of title and possession. It is
unquestionable that real property may, through expropriation, be subjected
Section 15 to an easement of right of way. The use of the PLDT’s lines and services to
allow interservice connection between both telephone systems is not much
Section 16 different. In either case private property is subjected to a burden for public
use and benefit. If, under section 6, Article XIII, of the Constitution, the
NDC v. PVB GR 84132-33, December 10, 1990 State may; in the interest of National welfare, transfer utilities to public
• PD 1717 violates Sec 16 because it was passed to rehabilitate the Agrix ownership upon payment of just compensation, there is no reason why the
Group of Companies which was not a GOCC. As part of the rehabilitation State may not require a public utility to render services in the general
process, the Agrix Group was dissolved by the decree and the decree interest, provided just compensation is paid therefore. Ultimately, the
created New Agrix, Inc. which was not a GOCC as well. beneficiary of the interconnecting service would be the users of both
telephone systems, so that the condemnation would be for public use.
Section 17
PLDT. vs. NTC 190 SCRA 717
Agan v. PIATTCO (420 SCRA 575) • PLDT cannot justifiably refuse to interconnect. Rep. No. 6849, or the
• The right to take over is an exercise of police power which is one of the Municipal Telephone Act of 1989, approved on February 8, 1990, mandates
inherent powers of the State. Police power means “state authority to enact interconnection providing as it does that “all domestic telecommunications
a legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to carriers or utilities x x x shall be interconnected to the public switch
promote general welfare. Unlike eminent domain, police power is exercised telephone network.” Such regulation of the use and ownership of
without the provision for just compensation for his paramount consideration telecommunications system is in the exercise of the plenary police power of
of is public welfare. In relation, Sec 5, 10 Art V of the ARCA (PIATCO shall the State for the promotion of the general welfare. x x x The interconnection
be entitled to reasonable compensation for the duration of temporary which has been required of PLDT is a form of “intervention” with property
takeover by the Government of the Rep. of the Philippines which rights dictated by “the objective government to promote the rapid
compensation shall take into account the reasonable cost for the use of expansion of telecommunications services in all areas of the Philippines, x x

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 69 -
x to maximize the use of telecommunications facilities available in nation proscription against "reasonable restraint of trade or occupation." The
building x x x and to ensure that all users of the the public restraint of trade or occupation embraces acts, contracts, agreements, or
telecommunications service have access to all other users of the service combinations which restrict competition or obstruct due course of trade.
wherever they may be within the Philippines at an acceptable standard of • Contracts requiring exclusivity are not per se void - each contract must be
service and reasonable cost” viewed vis-a-vis all the circumstances surrounding such agreements in
• The NTC, as the regulatory agency of the State, merely exercised its deciding whether a restrictive practice should be prohibited as imposing an
delegated authority to regulate the use of telecommunications networks unreasonable restrain on competition.
when it decreed interconnection • Public policy is that principle of the law which holds that no subject or
• Free competition in the industry may also provide the answer to a much citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the
desired improvement in the quality and delivery of this type of public utility, public or against the public good. Only those arrangements whose probable
to improved technology, fast handy mobile service, and reduced user effect is to foreclose competition in a substantial share of the lone of
dissatisfaction. commerce affected can be considered as void for being against public policy.
• State is empowered to decide whether public interest demands the
monopolies be regulated or prohibited. Section 20

PLDT v. Eastern Telecom 213 SCRA 16 Section 21

• Eastern Telecom was not allowed to interconnect with PLDT because it had
no existing franchise in the Philippines. PLDT has existing gateway facilities Section 22
which are used by its own domestic telephone subscribers. The records do
not show any urgency for another company, especially a non-franchised
one, to operate a similar facility for exactly the same people without having
spent a single centavo to build up the domestic system. The proposed ARTICLE XVII: AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
international gateway will not add a single telephone unit to existing phones
in the country. It is not shown that a non-franchised telephone system will
improve telephone services in the Philippines through the proposed scheme.
Section 1
Section 19
Imbong vs. COMELEC 35 SCRA 28 (1970)
• This case is regarding the creation of the Constitutional Convention to
Tatad v. Secretary of DENR
propose constitutional amendments to be composed of two delegates from
• The 3 major provisions of RA8180 (Deregulation Act) intended to promote
each legislative district. The Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly
free trade by encouraging new players in the oil industry proved to achieve
passed Resolution No. 4 providing that the composition of the Constitutional
the opposite effect. Instead of promoting free trade, the provisions on Tariff
Convention shall be 320 delegates apportioned among the existing
Differential, Inventory, and Predatory Pricing, were shown to encourage
legislative districts. The Congress as a Constituent Assembly has the
monopolistic power, in violation of Art.12 Sec.19 of the Constitution. RA
power to enact implementing details for the Constitutional
8180 was struck down as invalid because three key provisions intended to
Convention. So as long as the rules do not clash with any specific provision
promote free competitor were shown achieve the opposite result.
of the Constitution, they are valid.
EASCO v. LTFRB 413 SCRA 75
Section 2
• This is a petition questioning the circulars issued by LTFRB wherein all
insurance companies who would like to participate must inform the LTFRB
Lambino vs. COMELEC
who shall divide such into two groups. The court ruled that the circulars
• A resolution by COMELEC dated 31 August 2006 denied due course to an
were valid. While embracing free enterprise as an economic creed, the
initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution. There are two essential
Constitution does not totally prohibit the operation of monopolies. However,
elements before allowing initiative and referendum to amend the
it mandates the State to regulate them public interest so requires.
Constitution (1) the people must author and this sign the entire proposal.
NO agent or representative can sign on their behalf (2) as an initiative upon
Avon Cosmetics Inc. v. Luna 511 SCRA 377
a petition; the proposal must be embodied in a petition. Therefore, there
• This is a complaint to determine the constitutionality of the exclusivity
must be a full text of the proposed amendments FIRST shown to the people
clause of the supervisor's agreement made by Avon Cosmetics, Inc. and
who express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition.
Luna. In business parlance, the term "exclusivity clause" refers to an
Although the Constitution does not expressly provide these elements, the
agreement which prohibits the obligor from engaging in "business with
deliberations of the of the Constitutional Commission show the true intent of
competition with the obligee. This critical clause is more often the subject of
the statute, the petition to amend must have a full text of the intended
critical scrutiny when it is perceived to collide with the Constitutional
amendments. The petition is denied. To uphold direct democracy at the

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 70 -
expense of the fundamental law is to sanction, not a constitutional, but MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. 328 SCRA 836 March 27, 2000
extra-constitutional recourse. • Bel-Air is a village association which owns Neptune St. inside Bel-Air Village
(this is near Kalayaan, former International School side). The Chairman of
Section 3 MMDA asked to open Neptune Street to accommodate Traffic, in the same
day, the wall separating Bel-Air from the public roads were also to be
Section 4 demolished. In this case, the petition was dismissed. The Court ruled that
the MMDA is not a political unit of the government. Its main role and
Gonzales vs. COMELEC 21 SCRA 774 November 9, 1967 function is to the formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation,
• This case is about a petition to stop COMELEC from performing any act that preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a
will result in the holding of the plebiscite for the ratification of constitutional system and administration, in essence, a DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
amendments which the Congress of the Philippines passed as RA 4913. The
power to amend the Constitution or to propose the amendments thereto is Section 9
not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is part
of the inherent powers of the people. Therefore, the Senate and the Section 10
Congress act not as members of their respective Houses, but as a
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (It is not part of their ordinary plenary Section 11
legislative power). When the act as such, they derive their authority from
the Constitution, and is only under the conditions set in Article 17 of the Section 12
Constitution.
Section 13
Tolentino vs. COMELEC 41 SCRA 702 October 16, 1971
• This case is about a petition to stop COMELC from holding a plebiscite on Section 14
November 8, 1971, at which the proposed constitutional amendment
“reducing the voting age” in § 1 of Article V of the Constitution to eighteen Section 15
years “shall be submitted” for ratification by the people pursuant to
Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971. Section 16
There should be only one “election” or plebiscite for the ratification of all
amendments the Convention may propose. In which case, the ruled that if Dario vs. Mison 176 SCRA 84 August 8, 1989
they allowed more than one election or plebiscite for every amendment, • Pres. Aquino promulgated Proclamation No. 3, declaring the need for
then that would result to hundreds, if not thousands of proposals to amend reform, to protect the basic rights of the people and adopting a provisional
the existing Constitution. constitution, for an orderly transition to a government under a new
constitution. Total REORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT was intended
so as to eradicate unjust and oppressive structures.
• The Ministry of Finance as well as the Bureau of Customs was reorganized.
ARTICLE XVIII: TRANSITORY PROVISIONS Commissioner of Customs Mison issued a memorandum prescribing
personnel placement.
• What was envisioned in § 16 is not a remedy for arbitrary removal of civil
servants enjoying security of tenure but some form of relief for members of
Section 1
the career service who may have been or may be legally but involuntarily
“reorganized out” of the service or may gave voluntarily resigned pursuant
Section 2
to the reorganization policy. The relief offered is the alternative one of
either separation pay and other retirement benefits or, at the option of the
Section 3
government, reemployment.
Section 4
Mendoza vs. Quisumbing 186 SCRA 110 June 4, 1990
• Concern of “Hold-over” status of every single employee of the department
Section 5
as a result of the reorganization (Proclamation No. 3, Dario vs. Mison)
• 400,000 school teachers, janitors, clerks, principals, supervisors etc of
Section 6
DECS were placed on hold-over status.
• Hold-over status defined as, the terms have expired or his services
Section 7
terminated but he should continue holding his office until his successor is
appointed or chosen and has qualified.
Section 8

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 71 -
the late President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and
Section 17 close associates; (3) who took undue advantage of their public office and/or
used their power, authority, influence, connections or relationship.
Section 18
Romualdez v Sandiganbayan – 244 SCRA 152 [1995]
Section19 • The power of the PCGG to investigate and prosecute offenses committed in
the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth does not extend to other acts or
Section 20 omissions not involving “ill-gotten wealth” penalized by the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
Section 21
Republic v Sandiganbayan – 240 SCRA 376 [1995]
Section 22 • The purpose of the constitutional requirement that the corresponding
judicial action or proceeding be filed within a definite period as regards
Section 23 orders of sequestration, freezing, provisional takeover, is not difficult to
discern. Sequestration, freezing, provisional takeover are fundamentally
Section 24 remedies which are temporary, interim, provisional. They are severe, radical
measures taken against apparent, ostensible owners of property, or parties
Section 25 against whom, at the worst, there are merely prima facie indications of
having amassed “ill-gotten wealth,” indications which must still be shown to
Section 26 lead towards actual facts in accordance with the judicial procedures of the
land. The judicial action or proceeding contemplated to be filed is one for
Joya v PCGG – 225 SCRA 568 [1993] the final substantiation or proof of the prima facie showing on the basis of
• When the Marcos administration was toppled by the revolutionary which a particular order of sequestration, freezing or takeover was issued.
government, paintings and silverware were taken from Malacañang and the
Metropolitan Museum of Manila and transferred to the Central Bank Republic v Sandiganbayan – 255 SCRA 438 [1996]
Museum. The confiscation of these properties by the Aquino administration • The PCGG has no authority to issue search warrants in the first place. Only
however should not be made to mean that the ownership of these paintings a judge and such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law
has automatically passed on to the government without complying with were empowered by the Freedom Constitution to issue such an order, and
constitutional and statutory requirements of due process and just the PCGG is neither.
compensation. If these properties were already acquired by the
government, any constitutional or statutory defect in their acquisition and Republic v Sandiganbayan – 258 SCRA 685 [1996]
their subsequent disposition must be raised only by the proper parties – the • The powers, functions, and duties of the PCGG amount to the exercise of
true owners thereof – whose authority to recover emanates from their quasi-judicial functions. The exercise of such functions cannot be delegated
proprietary rights which are protected by statutes and the Constitution. by the Commission to its representatives or subordinates.

Republic v Sandiganbayan – 221 SCRA 189 [1993]

• The transfer of management from PIMECO to MPCP made by the PCGG is Republic v Sandiganbayan – 269 SCRA 316 [1997]
equivalent to the performance of an act of ownership which the PCGG • In all cases involving alleged ill-gotten wealth brought by or against the
cannot exercise. The PCGG is merely a conservator or caretaker which can Presidential Commission on Good Government, it is the policy of the Court
exercise only powers of administration over property sequestered, frozen or to set aside technicalities and formalities that serve merely to delay or
provisionally taken over. In the exercise of its functions, it must consistently impede their judicious resolution.
bear in mind that it can only do acts and things necessary to fulfill its
mission to conserve and preserve sequestered assets. PCGG v Sandiganbayan – GR 125788, June 5, 1998
• The suit against certain shareholders cannot be ipso facto a suit against the
Cojuangco v Roxas – 195 SCRA 797 [1991] unimpleaded corporation itself without violating the fundamental principle
• PCGG has no power to vote the sequestered shares of San Miguel that a corporation has a legal personality distinct and separate from its
Corporation. Voting sequestered shares is tantamount to exercising acts of stockholders.
ownership, which is clearly not within the ambit of power of the PCGG.
Republic v Saludares – 327 SCRA 449
Araneta v Sandiganbayan – 242 SCRA 482 [1995] • Where a collection suit is filed against a sequestered company by its
• For a penal violation to fall under the jurisdiction of the PCGG, the following supplier, the PCGG evidently could not be the proper party to defend
elements must concur: (1) it must relate to alleged ill-gotten wealth; (2) of

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

 - 72 -
against such claim, and jurisdiction belongs to regular courts, not the
Sandiganbayan.

Jalandoni v Secretary of Justice – GR 115239-40, March 2, 2000

• The Secretary of Justice has the power to review resolutions or decisions of
provincial or city prosecutors or the Chief State Prosecutor upon petition by
a proper party. The Secretary of Justice exercises the power of direct
control and supervision over the prosecutors. He may thus affirm, nullify,
reverse, or modify their rulings as he may deem fit.

Antiporda v Sandiganbayan – GR 116941, May 31, 2001

• Complaints for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth which merely identify and/or
allege corporations or enterprises to be the instruments, repositories or the
fruits of ill-gotten wealth, without more, come within the meaning of the This compilation was made by the following sisters:
phrase, “corresponding judicial action” contemplated by the constitutional
provision referred to. Normally, said corporations, as distinguished from Aster Ancheta
their stockholders or members, are not generally suable for the latter’s Eir Antig
illegal or criminal actuations in the acquisition of the assets invested in them Kara Chua
by the former. Samantha David
Sienna Flores
PCGG v Sandiganbayan – GR 119609-10, September 21, 2001 Maryl Go
• A suit against individuals as shareholders in a corporation is not a suit Kae Supnad
against the corporation. Failure to implead the corporations as defendants
and merely annexing a list of such corporations to the complaints is a
violation of their right to due process for it would in effect be disregarding Special thanks to the friends of Aleitheia who helped contribute
their distinct and separate personality without a hearing. to this compilation of case doctrines:

Section 27 Marianne Lagasca

PJ Baluyut
De Leon v Esquerra – 152 SCRA 602 [1997] Mark Calida
• The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By AC Castaneda
that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have Miguel Ilagan
been superseded. Having become inoperative, respondent OIC Governor Joseph Pinon
could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III thereof, to designate
respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners.

ATTY. CANDELARIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I