BATCH 2018 Consti I Reviewer
Short Description
Consti reviewer...
Description
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
BATCH 2018
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
PREAMBLE
!
RON ROA
ARTICLE I: NATIONAL TERRITORY ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICY ARTICLE VI: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
!
RON ROA
!
RON ROA
!
JOED MARICE ZAMORA
ARTICLE VII: EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
!
MONICA MICIANO AND ELAINE CEPEDA
ARTICLE VIII: JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT ARTICLE IX: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS ARTICLE X: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS ARTICLE XII: NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY ARTICLE XIII: SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS ARTICLE XIV: EDUCAION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS ARTICLE XV: THE FAMILY
!
GLENNA DUCH AND NUBBIN LAGUMBAY
!
NIKITA LORETTE AGUILAR
!
RAY ARNAIZ
!
KAREN DUNGOG
!
ROLANDO ENQUIG
!
JOSE ARVIN MIRANDA
!
KIEFER JOHN SAGA
!
JOSEA PALMA BITO-‐ON
ARTICLE XVI: GENERAL PROVISIONS
!
JOSEA PALMA BITO-‐ON
ARTICLE XVII: AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
!
JOSEA PALMA BITO-‐ON
ARTICLE XVIII: TRANISTORY PROVISIONS
!
JOSEA PALMA BITO-‐ON
Subject Head MONICA MARIE TEVES MICIANO Chairperson ATTY. EDUARDO T. SEDILLO Associate Professor, SU Law
NIKITA LORETTE MARTINEZ AGUILAR
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace, do ordain and promulgate this constitutions •
• • • • • •
The change from “general welfare” to “common good” was intended to project the idea of a social order that enables every citizen to attain his or her fullest development economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually. The rejection of the phrase “general welfare” was based on the apprehension that the phrase could be interpreted as meaning “the greatest good for the greatest number” even if what the greater number wants does violence to human dignity. It was thought that the “common good” would guarantee that mob rule would not prevail and that the majority would not persecute the minority. The phrase “Almighty God” was chosen as being more personal than “Divine Providence” and therefore more consonant with Filipino religiosity. “Just and humane society” added the notion that a constitution not merely sets up a government but is also an instrument for building the larger society of which government is merely a part. “Equality” to reflect the mounting wave of protests against basic social inequalities. The introduction of the word “love” serves as a momentum to the love that prevented bloodshed in the February revolution of 1986. “Truth” is a protest against the deception that characterized the Marcos regime. The Preamble is not a source of power or right for any department of government. But because it sets down the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution, it is useful as an aid in ascertaining the meaning of ambiguous provisions in the body of the Constitution.
ARTICLE I THE NATIONAL TERRITORY
SECTION 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territory over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, or aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breath and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. •
• •
Scope: 1. The Philippine archipelago, 2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, 3. Terrestrial, aerial, and fluvial domains under numbers 1 and 2. A constitution is a municipal law. As such, it is binding only within the territorial limits of the sovereignty promulgating the constitution. An archipelago is a body of water studded with islands. The Philippine archipelago is that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of Paris (1898), as amended by the Treaty of Washington (1900) and the Treaty of Great Britain (1930). It is a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features from an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically gave been regarded as such.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• •
• •
•
• •
An archipelagic state means a state constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands. The territorial sea of ta state, as distinct from its inland and internal waters, consists of a marginal belt of maritime waters adjacent to the base lies extending twelve nautical miles outward. Outside territorial sea are the high seas. A state exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea subject to the right of innocent passage by other states. The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago. Irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. Important distances with respect to the waters around the Philippines 1. Territorial sea -‐ 12 nautical miles (n.m.) 2. Contiguous zone -‐ 12 n.m. from the edge of the territorial sea 3. Exclusive economic zone -‐ 200 n.m. from the baseline [includes (1) and (2)] Methods used for fixing the starting point or baseline from which the territorial belt is measured seawards: 1. Normal baseline method – under which the breadth of the territorial seas is measured from the low water-‐line. Following the indentations of the coast. 2. Straight baseline method – under which instead of the baseline following the sinusitis of the coast, it is drawn as straight lines connecting appropriate points on the coast, without departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast. Baseline is the low-‐water line along the coast as marked on large scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State. Contiguous zone is the maritime zone adjacent to the territorial seas where the coastal state may exercise certain protective jurisdiction.
Indonesia v. Malaysia Issue: Who has sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan? Ruling: Malaysia. Based on actual activities and continued exercise of authority over these islands. Us v. Netherlands Issue: Is there positive international law of terra firma, or title based on contiguity, where the nearest continent or island of considerable size gives title to the land in dispute? Ruling: No. The title of contiguity, understood as a basis of territorial sovereignty, has no foundation in international law. Malaysia v. Singapore Issue: Is there positive international law of acquisitive prescription over neighbouring territories? Ruling: Yes. Acquisitive Prescription is capable of accounting for the process whereby a state acquires sovereignty that did don’t originally belong to it and without the express consent of the original sovereign. Magalona v. Ermita Issue: Whether or not RA 9522 “dismembers a large portion of national territory” because it discards the pre-‐ UNCLOS III demarcation of the Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and related Treaties? Ruling: No. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-‐use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. Magalona v. Ermita
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Issue: that RA 9522’s use of UNCLOS III’s regime of islands framework to draw the baselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones of the KIG, “weakens our territorial claim” over that area? Ruling: No. Petitioners’ assertion of loss of “about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters” under RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of base points, increased the Philippines’ total maritime space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles Magalona v. Ermita Issue: Whether or not RA 9522 failed to textualize the Philippines’ claim of Sabah in North Borneo? Ruling: No. Petitioners claim is untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah.
ARTICLE II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES BDCA v. COA Issue: Which of the provisions under Art. II of the 1987 are self-‐executing? Which are enabling? Ruling: Most of the sections are enabling, they require legislative action before rights are enforced. Only sections 4, 6, 15, and 16 are self-‐executing
SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. •
• • •
A state is a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. o Elements: " People " Territory " Government " Sovereignty People simply means a community of persons sufficient in number and capable of maintaining the continued existence of the community and held together by a common bond of law. The extent of territory is discussed in Article I. Government is that institution or aggregate institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them. o Functions: " Constituent -‐ compulsory functions which constitute the very bonds of society. " Ministrant – optional functions of government intended for achieving a better life for the community. o Determinants whether or not a government shall exercise certain of these optional functions are: " That a government should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would not naturally undertake. " That a government should do those things which by its very nature it is better to equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
•
On the basis of legitimacy, governments are classified into de jure governments and those which are de facto merely. It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto government are good and valid. Sec. 1, Article II says: “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” Sovereignty therefore can be understood as the source of ultimate legal authority. Legal sovereignty means the power to adapt or alter a constitution. This power resides in the “people” understood as those who have a direct hand in the formulation, adoption, and amendment or alteration of the Constitution.
Bayan Muna v. Romulo Issue: Is the RP-‐US Non-‐Surrender Agreement violative of the Rome Statute and Philippine sovereignty? Ruling: No. Article 1 of the Rome Statute expressly says that the ICC’S jurisdiction will be complementary to the criminal jurisdiction of the country, which has original jurisdiction.
SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations. •
• • •
•
•
Parts: o Renunciation of war o Adoption of the principles of international law o Adherence to a policy of peace, freedom, and amity with all nations The pact renounced war or aggression and this is all that the Constitution renounces, for the power to wage a defensive war is of the very essence of sovereignty. The Constitution makes defense of the state a duty of government and of the people and gives to Congress the power to declare a state of war. Implicit in this provision is the acceptance of the dualist view of legal systems, namely that domestic law is distinct from international law. Since dualism holds that international law and municipal law belong to different spheres, international law becomes part of municipal law only if it is incorporated into municipal law. What the second part of section 2 does is to make international law part of the law of the land. Incorporation is the doctrine that considers the general or customary norms of international law as part of municipal law and are to be enforced as such, without regard as to whether they are enacted as statutory or legislative rules or not. Jus cogens is a norm which states cannot derogate or deviate from their agreements in international law.
Vinuya et. al. v. Executive Secretary Issue: What is “jus cogens”? Is the Philippines under a non-‐derogable obligation to prosecute international crimes? Ruling: “Jus cogens” literally means “compelling law”. It refers to norms that command peremptory authority, superseding conflicting treaties and customs. They are mandatory, which do not admit derogation and can be modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority.
SECTION 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The armed forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the state. Its goals is to secure the sovereignty of the state and the integrity of the national territory. SECTION 4. The prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the people. The government may call upon the people to defend the state and, in the fulfilment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
The National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes compulsory military service, does not go against this constitutional provision but is, on the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.
SECTION 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. •
The provision recognized a hierarchy of needs: o First: life o Second: liberty o Third: property
SECTION 6. The separation of church and state shall be inviolable. •
Discussed under the non-‐establishment clause of the Bill of Rights.
Imbong et. al. v. Ochoa Issue: Does R.A. No. 10354. “The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, violate the principle of separation of the church and the state? Ruling: No. One religious group cannot be allowed to impose its beliefs on the rest of the society. Thus, with this stipulation, it does not violate the principle.
SECTION 7. The state shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-‐determination. SECTION 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. • •
The Philippines is a nuclear free country. No portion of its territory shall be used for the purpose of storing or stockpiling nuclear weapons, devices, or parts thereof. The ban is clearly on nuclear arms only. This provision is not a ban on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, nor is it a ban on all “nuclear-‐capable vessels”. For a vessel to be banned, it is not enough that it is capable of carrying nuclear arms; it must actually carry nuclear arms.
ICJ Advisory Opinion Issue: Is there customary or conventional international law specifically authorizing the threat or use of nuclear weapons? Ruling: No. At face value, the threat or use of nuclear weapons is against international laws of armed conflict.
SECTION 9. The state shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all. SECTION 10. The state shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
PKSMMN v. Cocofed Issue: Are the laws on coco-‐levy fund consistent with social justice? Ruling: No. As per meaning the term levy. Thus, the main reason of the coco-‐levy funds was similar to that of taxes. As such, the fund is considered public funds. Considering its nature as public funds, there are some provisions in the coco-‐levy fund that were contrary to social justice. Such provisions included those that appropriated portion of funds to private interests. By doing so, these provisions violated the rights of the citizens to substantive due process and as such, were inconsistent with social justice.
SECTION 11. The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. SECTION 12. The state recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the government. •
•
The unborn’s entitlement to protection begins from conception, that is, from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization. The 1987 provision has added the adjective “primary” to modify the right of parents. It imports the assertion that the right of parents is superior to that of the state.
Imbong et. al. v. Ochoa Issue: Does R.A. No. 10354. “The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, violate the constitutional right of the unborn. Ruling: No. The court considers life from the moment of fertilization.
SECTION 13. The state recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-‐building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-‐being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. SECTION 14. The state recognizes the role of women in nation-‐building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Garcia v. Drilon Issue: Is R.A. 9262, An Act Defining Violence against Women and their Children, violative of the fundamental equality between men and women? Ruling: No. Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The classification should be based on substantial distinctions which makes for real differences.
SECTION 15. The state shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instil health consciousness among them. SECTION 16. The state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
•
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is found under the declaration of Principle and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
Imbong et. al. v. Ochoa Issue: Does R.A. No. 10354. “The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, violate the constitutional right to health and the right to protection against hazardous products? Ruling: No. The contraceptives it will procure shall be from a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and that the actual distribution of these contraceptive drugs and devices will be done following a prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.
SECTION 17. The state shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development. SECTION 18. The state affirms labour as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. Cercado v. UNIPROM Issue: Is an employee’s passive acquiescence to the early retirement age option sufficient? Ruling: No. Considering that a retirement plan is a contract between two parties, i.e. Employer and employee and that the assailed revised retirement plan was not embodied in a CBA, or any employment contract or agreement between the company and the employees, such retirement plan could not be unilaterally and compulsorily be imposed to the employees.
SECTION 19. The state shall develop a serf-‐reliant and independent national economic effectively controlled by Filipinos. SECTION 20. The state recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. SECTION 21. The state shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. SECTION 22. The state recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. CMU v. Nat’l. Anti-‐Poverty Com. Issue: Is Presidential Proclamation 310 that takes 670 hectares from CMU’s registered lands for distribution to indigenous peoples and cultural communities in Maramag, Bukidnon, valid and constitutional? Ruling: No. the lands by their character have become separate from the moment President Garcia dedicated the land for scientific and technological research in the field of agriculture. The have ceased to be alienable public lands.
SECTION 23. The state shall encourage non-‐governmental, community-‐based, or sectorial organizations that promote the welfare of the nation. SECTION 24. The state recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-‐building. SECTION 25. The state shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
The principle of local autonomy under the Constitution simply means decentralization. It does not make the local governments sovereign within the state or an imperium in imperio. The local government is autonomous in the sense that it is given more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources.
Belgica v. Alcantara Issue: Does the Congressional Pork Barrel go against the constitutional principles on local autonomy since it allows district representatives, who are national officers, to substitute their judgement in utilizing public funds for local development? Ruling: Yes. Insofar as individual legislators are authorized to intervene in purely local matters and thereby subvert genuine local autonomy, the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other similar forms of Congressional Pork Barrel is deemed unconstitutional.
SECTION 26. The state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. •
The establishment of political dynasties is an effective way of monopolizing and perpetuating power. Hence, the state is commanded to prohibit political dynasties.
SECTION 27. The state shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption Ombudsman v. Racho Issue: Must public officials declare their SALN? Ruling: Yes. Our public servants that public service demands utmost integrity and discipline. A public servant must display at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
SECTION 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the state adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. RE: Request for Copy of 2008 SALN and Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Issue: Are the information contained in the SALN matters of public necessitating public disclosure? Ruling: Yes. Section 7 of Article III of the Constitution is relevant in the issue of public disclosure of SALN and other documents of public officials, which provides that the right of the people to information on matters and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
ARTICLE VI THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senator and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
• •
Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them, and is vested by the Constitution to the Congress Congress as a Bicameral Body:
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
• • • • •
-‐ Senate (elected by the nation at large) -‐ House of Representatives (elected by the district) Separation of powers: 1. legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines 2. executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines 3. judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as maybe established by law -‐ each is prevented from invading the domain of the others, but not absolute for the system still allows for "checks and balance" (no one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other departments) Blending of power – confluence of 2 or more powers of the 3 branches of the government Limits of legislative power of Congress: (1) substantive – limitations on content of laws, and (2) procedural – limitations on the manner of passing laws. Holders of legislative power: (1) Congress, (2) people through initiative and referendum, and (3) President in emergency. Non-‐delegability of legislative power, except (1) delegation of legislative power to local governments, and (2) instances when the Constitution itself allows for such delegation. Congress can only delegate Rule-‐Making Power and Law Execution.
Banda vs. Ermita (2010): Issue: Is the issuance of E.O. 378 an invalid exercise of legislative power? Ruling: No. It is a well-‐settled principle in jurisprudence that the President has the power to reorganize the offices and agencies in the executive department in line with the President’s constitutionally granted power of control over executive offices and by virtue of previous delegation of the legislative power to reorganize executive office under existing statutes. Pichay vs. Ochoa (2012): Issue: Is E.O. 13 unconstitutional for usurping the power of the legislature to create a public office? Ruling: No. The President has continuing authority to reorganize the Executive Department under E.O. 292 in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency. The abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its functions to a division specially created within the ODECLA is properly within the prerogative of the President under his continuing “delegated legislative authority to reorganize” his own office. Pimentel vs. Senate (2011): Issue: Will the invocation of the doctrine of separation of powers preclude the Supreme Court from resolving the legal issues of a petition? Ruling: No. The doctrine of separation of powers does not prescribe absolute autonomy in the discharge of the separate department’s duties assigned to them by the sovereign people. Therefore, the Supreme Court is not precluded from resolving the legal issues raised by the petitioner more so that such issues do not require the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of administrative bodies for their resolution. Belgica vs. Alcantara (2013): Issue: Are post-‐enactment measures which govern the areas of project identification, fund release and fund alignment not related to functions of congressional oversight and not violative of separation of powers? Are these measures violative of the non-‐delegability of legislative functions? Ruling: Yes. These post-‐enactment measures violate the separation of powers. The enforcement of the national budget, as primarily contained in the GAA, is indisputably a function both constitutionally assigned and properly
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
entrusted to the Executive branch. The Legislative branch, much more any of its members, should not cross over the field of implementing the national budget. The court held that “from the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional.” Yes. The 2013 PDAF Article violates the principle of non-‐delegability since legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation. Francisco vs. TRB (2010): Issue: Can Congress delegate its franchising power and prerogative? Ruling: Yes. As stressed in Alabano vs. Reyes, there is nothing in the Constitution which provides that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress does not necessarily imply that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization. Congress may validly delegate its legislative authority under the power of subordinate legislation, to issue franchises of certain public utilities to some administrative agencies. Lokin vs. COMELEC (2010): Issue: Is Sec. 13 of COMELEC Res. No. 7804 a valid subordinate legislation as it implements Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941? Ruling: Yes. The administrative IRRs must comply with the following requisites to be valid: (1) its promulgation must be authorized by the Legislative; (2) it must be within the scope of the authority given by the Legislative; (3) it must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; and (4) it must be reasonable. The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7804 pursuant to its powers under the Constitution, Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, and the Party-‐List System Act. Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission (2010): Issue: Is there a valid delegation of power from Congress empowering the President to create a public office? Ruling: No. The court ruled that the Constitution ever remains the supreme power and that the inclusion of recognition of the past presidents in creating public offices should not be an upfront to the Constitution and that it is still the Judiciary who has the advanced interest in the quest for truth and should not be retarded by any other branches. Vivas vs. Monetary Board (2013): Issue: Is Sec. 30 R.A. 7653 an undue delegation of legislative power to the Monetary Board? Ruling: No. The Court denied the petition as RA 7653 was complete in itself and the act imposed sufficient standards and parameters the Monetary Board ha to follow. The Senate
Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-‐four senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law. •
The numerical composition of the Senate can only be changed by constitutional amendment, and the phrase, “as may be provided by the law”, refers to the mechanics for electing the Senators at large.
Section 3. No person shall be a senator unless he is a natural-‐born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-‐five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• •
The residence requirement is satisfied if one is domiciled in the Philippines during the two-‐year period even if not physically present in the Philippines during the two-‐year period. The age qualification must be possessed on the day votes are cast as fixed by law and not on the day of proclamation.
Section 4. The term of office of the senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. • •
Senators shall have a six year term with one immediate re-‐election. A senator could run again for office three years after the expiration of his second term. The House
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-‐list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (2) The party-‐list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-‐half of the seats allocated to party list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except religious sector. (3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative. (4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this section. • • • • •
•
The total membership of the House may be raised from time to time by statute (through reapportionment due to the creation of new districts or new provinces). Kinds of representatives: (1) district representatives elected by districts, (2) party representatives elected through the party-‐list system, and (3) sectoral representatives which only last for three consecutive terms. A city with a population of at least 250,000 shall have at least one representative. A province is entitled to one representative no matter what its population size. Parties, coalitions participating in the system are required to obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-‐list system in order to be entitled to a party-‐list seat, with a three-‐seat limit. (R.A. No. 7941) The party-‐list nominees “must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors.”
Section 6. No person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-‐born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election. • •
The qualifications mentioned must be possessed, by the candidate, on the day of the election. Natural-‐born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.
Section 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. • •
• •
The three-‐year term set by the Constitution may not be changed by Congress. Elective official whether national or local running for any office other than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity except for the President and Vice-‐President shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Term is the period of time allotted to the office by law. Tenure is the period during which the official actually holds office.
Aquino vs. COMELEC (2010): Issue: Is the 250 thousand population requirement applicable to both the province and the city? Ruling: No. The plain and clear distinction between a city and a province was explained under the second sentence of Section 5(3) of the Constitution. It states that a province is entitled a representative, and nothing was mentioned about population. Ladlad vs. COMELEC (2010): Issue: Are only those sectors specifically enumerated in R.A. 7941 or related to said sectors may be registered under the party-‐list system? Ruling: No. As mentioned in Ang Barangay Bayani OFW vs. COMELEC that marginalized and underprivileged is not exclusive. It is not whether a sector is stipulated specifically but whether a particular organization complied with the requirements of the Constitution and the requirements set forth in R.A. 7941. Guardians vs. COMELEC (2010): Issue: Is the Minero ruling a correct application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941? Ruling: No. According to the court, the Minero ruling is an erroneous application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941, hence, it cannot stand PGBI’s delisting from the roster of registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions under the party-‐list system. A delisting based on a mixture of fusion of these two different and separate grounds for delisting is therefore a strained application of the law. BANAT vs. COMELEC (2009): Issue: How are the party-‐list seats computed and allocated under the BANAT ruling as compared to the Veterans ruling? Ruling: To summarize, in Veterans, the court allocated party-‐list seats of those party-‐lists ranked 2 and higher in reference to the number of seats allocated to the rank 1party-‐list. This method of allocation will never reach the full number of seats as mandated by the Constitution as a consequence to the formula used by the courts.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
In Banat, the court allocated the party-‐list in the following manner: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Rank the party-‐list organization from highest votes to lowest. Obtain the percentage of the votes received by each party-‐list. Allocate a guaranteed seat for those party-‐lists garnering at least 2%. Determine the maximum number of party-‐list representations in the House of Representatives by using the 20%/80% multiplier to the number of legislative districts. 5. the number of guaranteed seats to be re-‐allocated as additional seats to the party-‐lists by subtracting the number of guaranteed seats from the maximum party-‐list seats as obtained in No. 4 above. 6. Multiplying the excess seats to be re-‐allocated (No.5) to the party-‐list percentage (No.2), determine the number of additional seats to be awarded to the party-‐list following their ranked order. 7. No party-‐list should receive more than 3 seats total. This includes the guaranteed seat and any additional seats. Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC (2013): Issues: (1) Does the party-‐list system include only sectoral parties? (2) Should the national and regional parties or organizations represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors? (3) Must the nominees of the sectoral party either belong to the sector or must have a track record of a draft for the sector represented? (4) Can major political parties participate in party-‐list elections? Rulings: (1) No. The framers of the Constitution intended the party-‐list system to include not only sectoral parties but also non-‐sectoral parties. The framers intended the sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the entirety of the party-‐list system. (2) Not necessarily. To require all national and regional parties under the party-‐list system to represent the marginalized and underrepresented is to deprive and exclude by judicial frat, ideology-‐based and cause oriented parties from the party-‐list system. (3) No. It is sufficient that one of his or her sector is below the advocated class. (4) No. They cannot directly participate because they neither lack well defined political constituencies nor represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Election and Vacancy
Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May. •
As stated in the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, the date of election may be postponed to a date which should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended, or which resulted to elect but not later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause for such postponement or suspension of the election.
Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or the Member of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. • •
The holding of special elections has not been made mandatory, and, if held, no set date is prescribed for it. The right and duty to hold special election emanates from the statute and not from a call for the election by some authority like the COMELEC.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Perks and Privileges
Section 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase. • •
•
The term “salary” refers only to the fixed annual amount due to a legislator. The annual salary of the Members of Congress has been initially fixed by Art. XVIII, Sec. 17 at PhP204,000 and that of the Senate President and of the Speaker of the House at PhP240,000, and are subject to change by law. The retirement benefits of a legislator must be based on the salary in effect during his term and not on the increased salary of the subsequent term.
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committed thereof. • • •
This provision covers only immunity from civil arrests. Members of Congress are not exempt from detention for crime. The speech and debate clause prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the House in the performance of official duties and the motivation of those acts. Full Disclosure
Section 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors. •
This provision does prohibit a legislator to file a bill that may result in possible conflict of interest, provided that there is advance disclosure of such interest. Disqualification and Prohibition
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-‐owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which he may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased thereof during the term for which he was elected. • •
The prohibited offices include membership in the board of regents, board of trustees, or board of directors of state universities and colleges. The prohibition is only during a legislator’s tenure, he is not prevented from accepting an appointment.
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-‐judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any government-‐owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• •
“Intervene” only includes an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject proceedings. Legislators cannot be members of the board of corporations with contract with the government.
Liban vs. Gordon (2011): Issue: By accepting the PNRC Chair, did Gordon forfeit his senate seat? Ruling: The court once more ruled in favor of the respondent Gordon, changing its decision of declaring void the sections of RA 95 in question and modifying said decision to declare only that respondent Gordon is not forfeited of his seat in the senate as of the office of the chairman of the PNRC is not a government office or a government-‐ owned or controlled corporation. Sessions, Officers & Rules
Section 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time. • •
The session mentioned in this provision may last as long as Congress wishes but only “until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.” The President may call a special session anytime to consider general legislation or only such subjects as he may designate.
Section 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary. (2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide. (3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-‐thirds of all its members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days. (4) Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-‐fifth of the members present, be entered in the journal. Each house shall also keep a record of its proceedings. (5) Neither House during the session of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. •
• • • •
The only officers prescribe by the Constitution are the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, both of whom are elected by a majority vote of all the Members of their respective Houses. Inherent in any legislative body is its power of internal regulation and discipline. Journals and records: publicity and probative value. The Constitution exempt from publication only such matters as may (in each House’s) judgment, affect national security. Each House may adjourn for a voluntary recess; but neither House may adjourn, without the consent of the other, for more than 30 days nor to any place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Electoral Tribunals
Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their respective members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be members of the Senate or the House of the Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-‐list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. •
The HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives and has the power to promulgate procedural rules to govern proceedings brought before it. And such controversies are not subject to appeals to the Supreme Court.
Banat vs. COMELEC (2009): Issue: Do Sections 37 and 38 of RA 7166 violate Section 17, Article VI? When does the jurisdiction of the COMELEC end and when does the jurisdiction of the HRET begin? Ruling: The jurisdiction of the COMELEC ends once a candidate has been proclaimed and has taken oath of office as a member of Congress. Jurisdiction is then passed the HRET. This is true even if there is allegation on the proclamation is invalid. Vilando vs. COMELEC (2011): Issue: Can the HRET can look into the eligibility of Limkaichong even if, as an incident thereto, it would mean looking into the validity of the certificate of naturalization? Ruling: The court is of the view that the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that Limkaichong is not disqualified to sit as a member of the House of Representatives. The HRET has jurisdiction over quo warranto to petitions, specifically over cases challenging ineligibility on the ground of lack of citizenship, such powers of the HRET, no matter how complete and exclusive does not carry with it the authority to delve into the legality of the judgment of naturalization in the pursuit of disqualifying Limkaichong. Commission on Appointments
Section 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex-‐officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Member of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-‐list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule a majority vote of all the members. • •
•
The HR has the authority to change its representation in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time changes in the political alignments of its membership. The membership of the Commission on Appointments is confined to members of Congress, however, said Commission is independent of Congress. Its powers do not come from the Congress, but emanate directly from the Constitution. The Commission, as an independent body, can promulgate its own rules and the Supreme Court cannot pass upon the correctness of the interpretation placed by the Commission of its own rules.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission of Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. •
The Commission’s function is to consent to or confirm nominations or appointments submitted to it by the President.
Madrigal vs. Villar (2009): Issue: Can a senator challenged before the Supreme Court that she was denied presentation with the Commission on Appointments? Ruling: No. Sen. Madrigal’s primary recourse rests with the House of Representatives and not with this court. The Constitution expertly grants to the House the prerogative within constitutionally defined limits to choose from among its distinct and party-‐list representative.
Section 20. The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each member. •
Legislations enacted by the Congress are public in nature; hence, the records and books of accounts of Congress are as well preserved and are open to public. Question Hour & Investigation
Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of person appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. • •
This provision deals with the inherent power of legislative investigation in aid of legislation for which Congress or its committees are authorized to summon witnesses. Limits on the power of legislative investigation: (1) in aid of legislation, (2) in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure, (3) the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected, and (4) the power of Congress to commit a witness for contempt terminates upon final adjournment.
Section 22. The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive sessions. • •
The department heads could appear but the legislature is not obliged to entertain them; reciprocally the legislature could request their appearance but could not oblige them especially if the President objected. The exemption from summons applies only to Department Heads and not to everyone who has Cabinet rank.
Pimentel vs. Enrile (2011): Issue: Should the Rules of the Senate Committee of the whole be published to be effective?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: Section 12, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the Senate or House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its published rules of procedure. The right of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. The constitution does not require publication of the Internal Rules of the House of Senate. Philcomstat vs. Senate (2012): Issue: Is the power to conduct legislative inquiries vested only on the Senate or also on its committees? Ruling: The respondents Senate committees power of inquiry relative to PSR No. 455 has been passed upon and upheld in the consolidated cases of “In the matter of the petition for Habeas Corpus of Camilo L. Salao which cited Art. VI Sec. 21 of the Constitution as follows: The Senate or the House of Representative or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.
Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-‐thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise such powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment. • • •
Even without congressional authority the President can declare a state of national emergency. The Congress, as vested by the Constitution, in joint session assembled voting separately, has the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. Limitations of the President’s emergency powers: (1) for a limited period, and (2) restrictions as may be provided by Congress.
Ampatuan vs. Puno (2011): Issue: Was the President’s exercise of emergency powers pursuant to Proclamation 1946 violative of Section 23, Article VI of the Constitution? Ruling: No. The President did not proclaim a national emergency, only a state of emergency in the places mentioned. She did not act pursuant to any law encoded by the Congress that authorizes her exercises extraordinary powers. She did not need congressional authority to exercise the same. Power of the Purse
Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of a public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. • • • • •
Appropriation bill is one whose purpose is to set aside a sum of money for public use. Revenue or tariff bills are those which are strictly for the raising of revenues. Bills of local application are those whose reach is limited to specific localities, such for instance as the creation of a town. The constitutional rule is that revenue bills must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives. The Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
Section 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates. (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the national treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein. (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer or appropriations; However, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of the Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the3e general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. (6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law. (7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations law for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-‐enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress. • • •
•
Congress cannot increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. But the following may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations -‐ President -‐ President of the Senate -‐ Speaker of the House of Representatives -‐ Chief of Justice of the Supreme Court -‐ Heads of the Constitutional Commissions Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be: (1) disbursed only for public purposes, (2) should be supported by appropriate vouchers, and (3) subject to guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission (2010): Issue: Does E.O. No. 1 transgress on the power of the Congress to appropriate funds for the operation of a public office? Ruling: No. E.O. No. 1 does not transgress on the power of the Congress to appropriate funds for the operation of a public office. In the said EO, there will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations existing funds already appropriated. Lamp vs. DBM Secretary (2012): Issue: Is allowing the direct allocation and release of PDAF funds to the Members of Congress based on their own list of proposed projects, did the implementation of the PDAF provision under GAA of 2004 violate the Constitution or the laws? Ruling: No. The court cited the principle of separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judiciary and ruled that the said provision is not unconstitutional. Every statute is presumed valid.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Kida vs. Senate (2011): Issue: Did the passage of RA No. 10153 violate Section 26 (2), Article VI of the Constitution? Ruling: No. The Presidential certification dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill or separate days. The phrase, “except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment, etc.” in Article VI, Section 26 (2) qualifies the two stated conditions before a bill can become a law; the bill has passed three readings on separate days and it has been printed in its final form and distributed 3 days before it is finally approved.
Section 29. (1) No public money or property shall be paid out of Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied , paid or employed , directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government or orphanage or leprosarium. (3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. • •
Presidential budget may be decreased but not increased, to prevent big budget deficits. Limitations of the congressional power to enact appropriation laws: a) Appropriations must be for a public purpose b) Cannot appropriate public funds or property, directly or indirectly, in favor of (i) Any sect, church, denomination, or sectarian institution or system of religion or (ii) Any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such. Except if the priest, etc is assigned to: -‐ the Armed Forces; or -‐ any penal institution; or -‐ government orphanage; Legislative Mill
Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. (2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal. •
•
The title does not have to be a complete catalogue of everything stated in the bill. It is sufficient if the title expresses the general subject of the bill and all the provisions of the statute are germane to that general subject. In order to become a law, each bill must pass three (3) readings in both Houses: First reading – only the title is read; the bill is passed to the proper committee. Second reading – Entire text is read and debates are held, and amendments introduced. Third reading – only the title is read, no amendments are allowed. Vote shall be taken immediately thereafter and the yeas and nays entered in the journal.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-‐thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-‐thirds of all the Members of the House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The president shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he has signed it. (2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object. • • • • • • • •
Ordinary bills have to be vetoed by the President in its entirety. Appropriation bills can be vetoed per item. Executive Veto – when an executive refuses to sign a bill and returns it to the legislature with a veto message explaining why Legislative Veto – a statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative agency to present the proposed implementing rules & regulations of a law to Congress for approval Heckler’s Veto – occurs when an acting party’s right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party’s behavior. The President may veto particular items in an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill. And this veto will not affect items to which he does not object. A rider is a provision which does not relate to a particular appropriation stated in the bill, and since, it is an invalid provision under Section 25(2), the President may veto it as an item. Executive impoundment – refers to a refusal by the President, for whatever reason, to spend funds made available by Congress.
Section 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. (2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties and imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. (3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-‐profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings and improvements, actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. (4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress. •
Limitations of the power to tax: 1) The rule of taxation should be uniform 2) It should be equitable 3) Congress should evolve a progressive system of taxation. 4) The power to tax must be exercised for a public purpose because the power exists for the general welfare 5) The due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution should be observed.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• • •
•
Uniformity in taxation means that persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. Equitable taxation also means that the tax burden must be imposed according to the taxpayer’s capacity to pay. Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix the following: a) Tariff rates b) Import and Export Quotas c) Tonnage and wharfage dues d) Other duties and imposts Within the framework of the national development program of the Government The following properties are exempt from real property taxes a) Charitable institutions b) Churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto c) Mosques d) Non-‐profit cemeteries; and e) All lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly
Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence. •
Section 2 Article VIII vests upon Congress the power to apportion the jurisdiction of Courts, the former is free to add to or subtract from the powers of the courts except in so far as these have been fixed by the Constitution. In response to the concern that the Supreme Court might be swamped with jurisdictional concerns, this provision was created.
Section 31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted. •
No Filipino could accept “honors, decorations or orders or titles of honor and nobility from foreign nations without authorization of the government”. The government was also forbidden from establishing or granting them to any Filipino. (Malolos Constitution, Art. 32, Title IV)
Section 32. The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof. • •
Through the system of initiative and referendum, the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body. Required Petition: a) Should be signed by at least 10% of the total number of registered voters b) Every legislative district should be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters c) Petition should be registered
ARTICLE VII THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• • •
Executive power vested in the President Executive power – power to enforce and administer laws Immunity from suit o granted to President during his tenure of office or actual incumbency o assures the exercise of duty free from any hindrance or distraction President can only be removed from office by impeachment
• Boac v. Cadapan, G.R. no. 184461-‐62
Issue: May the President of the Philippines be named as party defendant in habeas corpus and amparo proceedings? Ruling: No. Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. • •
•
Executive privilege -‐ Power of the President to withhold certain types of information from the Courts, the Congress, and ultimately the public. It must be kept confidential in the pursuit of public interest. Types of information include: o Military or diplomatic objectives o Information about the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law o Information about internal deliberations comprising the process by which government decisions are made It is crucial to the fulfillment of the unique role and responsibilities of the executive branch
Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-‐ born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election. •
•
Qualifications of the President: o Natural born citizen or the Philippines o A registered voter o Able to read and write o At least 40 years of age on the day of the election o A resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election Residence -‐ Domicile (temporary physical absence is allowed)
Section 3. There shall be a Vice-‐President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President. The Vice-‐President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation. • • •
Vice-‐President has the same qualifications of a President He may be appointed as a member of the cabinet (but must always be prepared to assume office should there be a vacancy) An appointment does not need consent from the Commission on Appointments – the President is free to choose Cabinet members as his trusted personal choices
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 4. The President and the Vice-‐President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-‐ election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time. No Vice-‐President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-‐President shall be held on the second Monday of May. The returns of every election for President and Vice-‐President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes. The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-‐President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. • • • • •
• •
President and Vice-‐President is directly elected by the people The President has a fixed term of 6 years to begin at noon on June 30th. He is not eligible for re-‐election. Vice-‐President may not serve for more than 2 successive terms. If he successes the presidency for less than four years, he can run for election as President (not considered re-‐election) The Congress is the national board of canvassers. It is given the authority to make a “determination of the authenticity and due execution” of the returns from provincial and city board of canvassers. Congress breaks the tie in case there are two or more equal or highest number of votes in the Presidential or Vice-‐Presidential election. It is broken by a vote of majority of all the members of both Houses, voting SEPARATELY. Only the 2nd and 3rd placers in a presidential election can contest it. The power of the Court as tribunal includes the power to correct manifest errors on the statement of votes (SOV) and certificate of canvass (COC).
Pormento v. Estrada, G.R. no. 191988 Issue: What is the proper interpretation of the following provision of Sec. 4, Art. VII, Constitution: “[t]he President shall not be eligible for any re-‐election?”
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: Since the issue on the proper interpretation on the phrase, any “re-‐election” will be premised on a person’s second election as President, there is no clear case or controversy to be resolved in this case. There is no definite, real or substantial controversy that touches on the legal relation of parties having adverse legal interests. Petition was denied. BANAT v. Comelec, G.R. no. 177508 Issue: Are pre-‐proclamation cases involving the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass allowed in elections for President and Vice-‐President? Ruling: Yes they are allowed in elections for President, Vice-‐President, Senators, House Representatives. The general rule is that these matters relate to preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns or certificate of canvass are still prohibited. There are exceptions: (1) correction of manifested errors; (2) questions affecting the composition of proceeding of the board of canvassers; and (3) determination of the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass as provided in Sec 30, RA 7166 amended by RA 9369. Makalintal v. PET, G.R. no. 191618, Nov. 23, 2010 & June 7, 2011 Issue: Is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal an illegal and unauthorized progeny of Sec. 4, Art. VII of the Constitution? Ruling: No, the Court said that the provision does not specify the establishment of the PET, neither does it preclude, much less, prohibit the same. Ruling: No, The SC said “We reiterate that the abstraction of the SC acting as a PET from the unequivocal grand of jurisdiction in the last paragraph of Sec 4, Art VII of the Constitution is sound and tenable what we have done is to constitutionalize what was statutory but it was not an infringement of the separation of powers because the power given to the SC is a judicial power. ”
Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-‐President, or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-‐President or Acting President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." [In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted]. Section 6. The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the President and Vice-‐President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such increase was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source. • • •
Salaries of President and Vice-‐President shall be determined by law and cannot be decreased during tenure. Increase in salary will take effect after expiration of the term, as approved. No emoluments shall be received during tenure.
Section 7. The President-‐elect and the Vice President-‐elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms. If the President-‐elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-‐elect shall act as President until the President-‐elect shall have qualified.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice President-‐elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified. If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-‐elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled, the Vice President-‐elect shall become President. Where no President and Vice-‐President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as President until a President or a Vice-‐ President shall have been chosen and qualified. The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-‐President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph. Vacancy occurs at the start of term President-‐elect fails to qualify A President not been chosen
Vice President-‐elect sits as acting President until one has been chosen and qualifies
President-‐elect died or is permanently disabled
Vice-‐President becomes President
Both President and Vice-‐President was not chose, Senate President èSpeaker of House of not qualified, died, or is permanently disabled Representatives shall hold required position until one has been chosen and qualified
•
Congress provides the manner on how one is temporarily elected into position
Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-‐President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-‐President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-‐President shall have been elected and qualified. The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-‐President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President. Vacancy occurs in the middle of the term Death, permanent disability, removal from office or resignation of President Death, permanent disability, removal from office or resignation of President and Vice-‐ President •
Vice-‐President shall serve unexpired term Senate President of Speaker of the House becomes acting President until one is elected and qualified
Congress provides, by law, who shall serve as President (subject to same restrictions as Acting President) in case of death of Acting President.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-‐ President during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-‐President from among the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. • •
The President is authorized to nominate a member of Congress (either house) to fill the vacated Vice-‐ President seat. It must be confirmed by a majority vote of both Houses voting SEPARATELY
Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-‐ President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-‐ President to be held not earlier than forty-‐ five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election. The actions Congress must take in the event of a vacancy of the office of both the President and Vice-‐President: 1) Congress shall convene at 10:00am 3 days after the vacancy in the office of both the President and the VP, without need of a call. The convening of Congress cannot be suspended. 2) Within 7 days after convening, Congress shall enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a VP. The special election cannot be postponed.
•
3) The special election shall be held not earlier than 45 days not later than 60 days from the time of the enactment of the law. 4) The 3 readings for the special law need not be held on separate days. 5) The law shall be deemed enacted upon its approval on third reading. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within 18 months before the date of the next presidential election.
Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-‐President as Acting President. Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-‐President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-‐ eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call. If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-‐thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-‐ President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. • • •
The President has the power to declare himself disabled making the Vice-‐President the Acting President When majority of the members of the Cabinet transmits to both Houses that the President has inability to discharge power – the Vice-‐President sits as Acting President When President transmits to both Houses that no inability exists he resumes as President
Section 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health. The members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the President during such illness. •
•
The purpose of access to the President in times of illness is in order for the President to make the important decisions in those areas of Government. The people are guaranteed the right to know about the President’s health and condition.
Section 13. The President, Vice-‐President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-‐owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-‐owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. • •
• • • •
The President, Vice-‐President, the members of the Cabinet and their deputies and assistants is prohibited from holding any other office or employment during their tenure. Exceptions: (proscribed from receiving additional compensation though) o The Vice-‐President however is allowed to be appointed to the Cabinet o The Secretary of Justice is also allowed to be appointed as ex officio member of the JBC These officials may be given additional functions which are intimately related to their primary office. It is assumed that this prohibition was made to prevent the enhancement of the powers of one who is already powerful or busy of other duties. Prohibition to enter into a contract with the Government is made in order: (1) to avoid conflict of interest, and (2) to force the officials to devote full time to their official duties. Second paragraph: Anti-‐nepotism prohibition
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
What is prohibited is appointment or reappointment and not uninterrupted continuance in office. Chief Presidential Legal Counsel shall not occupy incompatible other positions in order to deliver independent and impartial legal advice Funa v. Bautista, G.R. no. 184740 • •
Issue: Was the designation of Bautista as OIC of MARINA, concurrent with the position of DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime Transport violative of Sec. 13, Art. VII? Ruling: While the designation was in the nature of an acting or temporary capacity, the words “hold the office” were employed. Such holding of office pertains to both appointment and designation because the appointee or designate performs the duties and functions of the office. The Constitution is prohibiting dual or multiple offices, as well as incompatible offices, refers to the holding of the office; and not to the nature of the appointment or designation. Betoy v. NPC, G.R. nos. 156556-‐57 Issue: Do Secs. 11(27), 48(28) and 52 (29) of the EPIRA are unconstitutional for violating Sec 13, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution? Ruling: No. The designation of members of Cabinet to form NPB does not violate the prohibition contained in our constitution as the privatization and restructioning of the electric power industry involves the close coordination and policy determination of various gov’t agencies. The concerned Cabinet Secretaries were merely imposed additional duties, and their post in the NPB did not constitute “any other office” within the contemplation of constitutional prohibition. PEZA v. Villar, G.R. No. 189767 Issue: Does the PEZA have legal basis in granting per diems to the ex officio members of its Board? And if there is no legal basis, was there good faith in PEZA’s grant and the ex officio members’ receipt of the per diems? Ruling: The lack of legal basis to grant per diems to ex-‐officio members of the PEZA Board including their representatives, has already been settled by no less than the Court en banc holding that the amendatory law, RA 8748, purposely deleted the last paragraph of Sec. 11 of RA 7916 that authorized the grant of per diems to PEZA Board Members as if it was in conflict with the proscription laid down in the 1987 Constitution.
Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President within ninety days from his assumption or re-‐assumption of office. Section 15. Two months immediately before the next Presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice service or endanger public safety. •
•
•
Nature of the appointing power. Whatever power is not properly legislative or judicial must be attributed to the executive (Government v. Springer). Appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act… “Indeed, the filling up of an office created by law is the implementation or execution of that law (Conception v. Paredes). The power to appoint is Executive function. The legislature may create an office and prescribe the qualifications of the person who may hold the office, but it may neither specify the person who shall be appointed to such office nor actually appoint him. The appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of the President. No limitations may be imposed by the Congress except those resulting from the need of securing the concurrence of the Commission on Appointments and from the exercise of the limited legislative power to prescribe the qualifications to a given appointive office.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• •
Appointing authority in essence is the power to choose who among the various qualified choices is the best suited. Prerogative of the President to appoint the members of the Supreme Court. However, in Roxas v. Lopez, it upheld the authority of Congress to create a Presidential Electoral Tribunal consisting of the Chief Justice and the Justices of the Supreme Court. The SC held that the act did not create a new office nor specify who should hold office but merely imposed additional duties and powers upon the SC.
Was the nomination and appointment of CJ Corona covered under the ban set forth in Section 15, Article VII? (De Castro v. JBC) – No. Prohibitions made explicit in section 5, Art. VII reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting President making appointments within 2 months before the next Presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s term does not refer to the members of the Supreme Court.
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive department, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. • • • • • •
• •
•
Sec. 14, 15, 16 speak of four different kinds of Presidential Appointments. Sec. 14. Deals with appointments made by acting President. Sec. 15 deals with appointments made by President within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term. Section 16 deals with regular presidential appointments, with or without confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, and with “recess” or “ad-‐interim appointments. COA restored by the 1987 Constitution as a check on the President’s appointing authority Only those coming under the first sentence of Section 16 need the consent of the Commission on Appointments. These are: “The heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. Three step appointment rule: nomination, consent, and appointment. It should be noted that not every officer of Cabinet rank come under the three step appointment rule. Only the heads of executive departments do. Appointment of VP if appointed head of an executive dep’t, his appointment does not need Commission confirmation. “Others whose appointments are vested in this Constitution”: Chairmen and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission, COMELEC, COA, and the regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council (the representative of the IBP, Professor of Law, a retired member of the SC, and a representative of the private sector.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• •
•
• • • • • • •
May the Congress pass a law requiring that other appointments should pass through the Commission on Appointments? – Congress may not expand the list Recess refers to the period when Congress is not in session either because it has voluntarily declared a recess under Article VI or because it is not allowed BY THE Constitution to be in session (30 day period between sessions during which Congress may not meet that is 30 days before the fourth Monday of July or the period between the beginning of the new term and the beginning of a regular session). Voluntary recess starts the moment one of the two houses adjourns because Congress cannot be considered in session when only one of them is meeting. For a recess or ad-‐interim appointments to be effective, it does not have to wait for action by the Commission on Appointments. It becomes effective once it is delivered to and accepted by the appointee. If they are the type which require Commission concurrence, they are “effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.” An ad-‐interim appointment is not a temporary appointment. It is permanent. When the Congress is in session, the President nominates , and only upon the consent of the Commission on Appointments may the person thus named assume office. Not so with an ad-‐interim appointments because it takes effect at once. Effective until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. An ad-‐interim appointment cannot be withdrawn or revoked at the President’s pleasure. When a vacancy occurs in the office of a Department Secretary while Congress is in session, a temporary appointment may be made by the President to fill the vacant position. Two entities which can terminate a recess appointment: the Commission on Appointments, through its disapproval.
Assigned Cases Can the President appoint OICs to govern the ARMM during the pre-‐synchronization period pursuant to Sections 3,4 and 5 of RA No. 10153? (Kida v. Senate)-‐ Yes. The third class of appointments the President is allowed to make includes, “those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint,” is where his power to appoint OICs of interim officials in the ARMM. These appointments are just part of the interim process in order to synchronize ARMM elections with that of the National elections.
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. • • • • •
The president is given control “of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices.” His control is not just over the department heads but also over all subordinate officers of the department. The express grant of the 2power of control to the President justifies an executive action to carry out the reorganization of an executive officer under a broad authority of law. Reorganization can involve the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or even abolition of positions by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. The authority of the President to reorganize the executive branch, which may include such abolition, is permissible under present laws. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency recognizes that the Constitution has established a single and not a plural executive, postulates that “all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• • •
the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person of the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally. A decision of a department secretary, when not reprobated by the Executive, is the last step in the process of “exhausting administrative remedies.” An Executive Secretary, or even as Assistant Executive Secretary, when acting “by authority of the President,” may reverse the decision of a department head. The President cannot refuse to carry out a law for the simple reason that in his judgment it will not be beneficial to the people.
Did Memo Circular No.58 diminish the power of control of the President and bestowed upon the upon the Secretary of Justice, a subordinate officer, unfettered power? (Angeles v. Gaite)-‐ No. It does not diminish the power of the President of the President. The President’s act of delegating authority to the Secretary of Justice by virtue of said memorandum Circular is well within the purview of the doctrine of qualified political agency, long been established in our jurisdiction. Does control power allow the President to create the Truth Commission? (Biraogo v. Phil. Truth Com.) –Yes. The President’s power to conduct investigations to aid him in ensuring the faithful execution of laws in this cse, fundamental laws on public accountability and transparency and creating bodies to execute this power, is inherent in the President’s powers as the Chief Executive even if it’s not explicitly mentioned. Did the President comply with the “faithful execution clause” of the Constitution when she conferred the Order of National Artists to those who were not recommended by the NCCA and the CCP Boards? (National Artists v. Exec. Sec.)-‐ The Presidents discretion in the conferment of the order of National Artist should be exercised in accordance with the duty to faithfully execute the relevant laws. The faithful execution clause is best construed as an obligation imposed on the President and not a separate grant of power.
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-‐in-‐Chief of all the armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion . In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-‐eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. The Congress, if not in session, shall within twenty-‐four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. The suspension of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released. • • • • • •
• • • • • •
•
The President is not a member of the Armed Forces but remains a civilian. The President’s duties as Commander –in-‐Chief represent only a part of the organic duties impose upon him. All his other functions are clearly in nature. President does not enlist in, nor is he inducted or drafted into the forces; he is not subject to court martial or other military discipline. Civilian authority, is at all times, supreme over the military. As the commander-‐in-‐chief the President has control and direction of the conduct of war, whether the war be declared or undeclared. Call out powers” to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. His action is not subject to judicial review. His decision is conclusive upon all other persons, it is conclusive on the courts; it is conclusive on the military. Two other powers of the President: (1) the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, (2) the power to impose matial law. Martial law is essentially police power. Public safety is the concern of police power. Martial law depend on: (1) the existence of invasion or rebellion, and (2) the requirements of public safety. The 1987 Constitution has narrowed the grounds to “(actual) invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.” The initial suspension of the privilege and the imposition of martial law is still for the President to decide but they can only be for a period not exceeding sixty days. The Supreme Court may review in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. The Congress has the power to determine the duration of the suspension of the privilege and of the effectivity of Martial Law.
Were there factual bases for the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 1946? (Ampatuan v. Puno)-‐ Yes. Petitoners failed to show the lack of factual basis for the President’s exercise of “calling out” powers. They simply alleged that the takeover of the entire ARMM had no factual bases of the President’s decision: The Ampatuan & Magundadatu clan are prominent families engaged in the political control of Maguindanao, who have an arsenal of armed followers. Is the power to declare martial law a shared power of the President with Congress? (Fortun v. Arroyo)-‐ The President shares such power with Congress. They act in tandem in exercising the power to proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the Writ Habeas Corpus. They exercise the power not only sequentially but in a sense jointly.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Must the Supreme Court allow Congress to exercise its own review powers on the martial law declaration first, before exercising its own review powers ? (Fortun v. Arroyo)-‐It is implicit that the SC must allow defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution through such review should the SC step in as its final rampant. Does the lapse of the 30-‐day period operate to divest the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over the case? (Fortun v. Arroyo)-‐ The SC may review in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of proclamation or suspension or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within 30 days from its filing. Does the governor have the power to declare a state of emergency, and exercise the powers enumerated under proclamation 1-‐09? (Kulayan v. Tan)-‐ No. Governor Tan has abrogated unto himself powers exceeding even the Martial Law powers of the President. It is clear that the Constitution does not authorize the organization of private armed groups similar to the CEI convened by Governor Tan.
Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgement. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. • • •
• • • • • • •
• • •
The Presidential power of executive clemency is a tacit admission that human institutions are imperfect and that there are infirmities in the administration of justice. The duty of the judge is to impose the proper penalty, however harsh it may be, but he is enjoined to recommend to the President the exercise of executive clemency. Limitations on the power of executive clemency: (1) it cannot be exercised over cases of impeachment; (2) reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remission of fines and forfeitures can be given only “after conviction by final judgement,” and (3) a grant of amnesty must be with the concurrence of “a majority of all the members of Congress No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of elections laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favourable recommendation of the COMELEC. A Pardon is an act of grace, no legal power can compel the executive to give it. When a conditional pardon is extended and accepted and the condition is that the recipient of the pardon should not violate any of the penal laws, the President determines whether penal laws have been violated. Amnesty may be given only with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress. Pardon is a private executive act whereas amnesty is a public executive proclamation which must be concurred in by the legislature. Amnesty may thus be defined as the grant of general pardon to a class of political offenders either after conviction or even before the charges filed. Tax Amnesty is a “general pardon or intentional overlooking of its authority to impose penalties on person otherwise guilty of evasion or violation of revenue or tax law, partakes of an absolute forgiveness or waiver by the Government of its right to collect what otherwise would be due it. Aside from Pardon and Amnesty, the President may also grant reprieves, commutations, and remission of fines and forfeitures. Reprieve postpones the execution of an offense to a day certain. Commutation is a remission of a part of the punishment; a substitution of a less penalty for the one originally imposed.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
In view of subsequent amnesty granted in favor of the members of MAGDALO, should the events that transpired during the Oakwood incident be still interpreted as acts of violence in the context of the disqualifications from party registration? (Magdalo v. COMELEC)-‐ No. Oakwood was attended with violence. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion by denying MAGDALO’s petition. However, the events that transpired in the Oakwood incident can no longer be interpreted as acts of violence in the context of the disqualification from party registration.
Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the government of government-‐owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be provided by law. • •
President can no longer contract or guarantee foreign loans without the concurrence of the Monetary Board. Termination of the life of a treaty may be arrived at by formal agreement of the parties. The treaty itself might contain the manner of terminating its life.
Is the RP-‐US Non-‐Surrender Agreement valid in form and substance? (Bayan Muna v. Romulo)-‐ No. The petitioner’s contention, perhaps unaware of certain well-‐recognized international doctrines, practices, and jargons is invalid. Is the RP-‐US NON-‐Surrender Agreement binding without Senate Concurrence? (Bayan-‐Muna v. Romulo)-‐Yes. International agreements may be in the form of a) treaties that require legislative concurrence after executive ratification; or b) executive agreements that are similar to treaties, except that they do not require legislative concurrence and are usually less formal and deal with a narrower range of subject matters than treaties.
Section 22. The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of every regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of receipts and expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures. • •
The budget is prepared by the President and submitted to Congress within thirty days from the opening of every regular session. Complete budgetary process consists of four major phases: 1. Budgetary preparation 2. Legislative authorization 3. Budget Executive 4. Budget Accountability.
In allowing the direct allocation and release of PDAF funds to the Members of Congress based on their own list of proposed projects, did the PDAF provision under the GAA of 2004 violate the budgetary power of the President? (LAMP v. Sec. of Budget and Management)-‐ No. While the budgetary process commence from the proposal submitted by the President to Congress, it is the latter which concludes the exercise by crafting an appropriations act it may deem beneficial to the nation, based on its own judgment, wisdom, and purposes. Is the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of post-‐enactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of the budget, valid and constitutional? (Belgica v. Alcantara)-‐ The enforcement of the National budget, as contained in the GAA, is a function both Constitutionally assigned and properly entrusted to the Executive branch of Government. Congress comes in the picture when it deliberates or acts on the budget proposals of the President.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 23. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at any other time.
ARTICLE VIII THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. •
• • • • • •
•
•
•
•
Judicial power is the power to apply the laws to contest or dispute concerning legally recognized rights or duties between the state and the persons, or between individual litigants in cases properly brought before the judicial tribunals, which includes the power to ascertain what are valid and binding laws of the state, and to interpret and construe them, and to render authoritative judgments. The Judiciary recognizes the doctrine of separation of powers. The policy is a harmonious blend of courtesy and caution. Resolutions of the Supreme Court are beyond the investigatory powers of the other departments of the government because of the separation of powers. When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the constitution. The Constitution, being the highest expression of the sovereign will of the Filipino people, must prevail over any issuance of the government that contravenes its mandates. The Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. It provided for certain well-‐defined limits, or “judicially discoverable standards” for determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review. The Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not imposing its own will upon a co-‐equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of government is done in consonance with the authorities and rights allocated to it by the Constitution. Grave abuse of discretion exists when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim, and despotism. Not every error in the proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Constitution impresses upon the Court to respect the acts performed by a co-‐equal branch done within its sphere of competence and authority, but at the same time, allows it to cross the line of separation – but only at a very limited and specific point – to determine whether the acts of the executive and the legislative branches are null because they were undertaken with grave abuse of discretion. Primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way that it shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial legislation and that in the course of such application or construction, it should not make or supervise legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction which is repugnant to its terms. The Court should shy away from encroaching upon the primary function of a co-‐equal branch of the Government; otherwise, this would lead to an inexcusable breach of the doctrine of separation.
Mendoza vs. People (2011) Issue: Without violating the separation of powers, can the Supreme Court recommend to the President, the grant of executive clemency to a convict?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: Yes. The court has discretion to recommend to the President actions it deems appropriate but are beyond its power when it considers the penalty imposed as excessive. Garcia vs. Drilon, Inc. (2013) Issue: Is the authority of the barangay officials to issue barangay protection orders (BPO) an undue delegation of judicial power? Ruling: No. This power is basically executive in nature.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 thereof. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members. • Unless there is an applicable law, courts are without power to settle controversies. • Courts, other than the Supreme Court established, are created by Congress. • “Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to exercise judicial power in a specific case, and is, of course, a • • •
•
prerequisite of judicial power, which is the totality of powers a court exercises when it assumes jurisdiction and hears and decides a case.” “No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.” There can only be “one Supreme Court”; all others are “lower courts”. “There shall be an independent Presidential Tribunal…which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of the president-‐elect and the vice-‐president-‐elect of the Philippines” and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal “shall be composed of the Chief Justice and other ten Members of the Supreme Court.” The authority to create courts also includes the authority to abolish courts. Courts, however, may not use the power to abolish courts as a subterfuge for removing unwanted judges.”
People vs. Judge Azarraga (2011) Issue: Did the Supreme Court violation Sec. 90 of RA 9165 when it issued A.M. 03-‐8-‐02-‐SC, particularly Chap. V, Sec. 9, which prescribes the manner in which the executive judge reassigns cases in instances if inhibition or disqualification of judges sitting in special courts? Ruling: No. Under RA 9165, Congress empowered this Court with full discretion to designate special courts to hear, try, and decide drug cases. It was precisely in the exercise of this discretionary power that the powers of the executive judge were included in Chap. V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03-‐8-‐02-‐SC vis-‐à-‐vis Sec.5(5) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. • •
The basic aim of granting fiscal autonomy to the judiciary is to assure its independence. The judiciary “should not be exempt from the budgetary process of submitting and justifying its budget, except that upon approval, it should be automatically and regularly released.”
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof. (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. (3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. • Cases are “decided” while matters, which include motions, are “resolved”. Sec. 2, Adm. Matter 10-‐4-‐20-‐SC : Internal Rules of the Supreme Court En Banc, on Tie Voting • Where the Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority vote cannot be had, the Court shall deliberate on it anew. • If after such deliberation still no decision is reached, the Court shall, in an original action filed with it (in civil cases), dismiss the case; in appealed cases, it shall affirm the judgment or order appealed from. • In criminal cases, if after such deliberation still no decision is reached, the Court shall reverse the judgment of conviction of the lower court and acquit the accused. • In administrative cases, if after such deliberation still no decision is reached, the Court shall dismiss the administrative case, unless a majority vote decides to impose a lesser penalty. • In cases for annulment of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation cannot be had, if after such deliberation still no decision is reached, the Court shall deny the challenge to the constitutionality of the act. • In all maters incidental to the main action where the Court en banc is equally divided in opinion, the relief sought shall be denied. Motions for Reconsideration are included in “all matters incidental to the main action.” Sec. 3, Adm. Matter 10-‐4-‐20-‐SC: Internal Rules of the Supreme Court En Banc, on MR. • The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-‐thirds of its actual membership. • There is reconsideration “in the higher interest of justice” when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. • A second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court’s declaration. • In the Division, a vote of three Members shall be required to elevate a second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc. League of Cities vs. Comelec (2009, 2010) Issue: Is the required vote set forth in Sec. 4(2), Art. VIII limited only to the initial vote on the petition or also to the subsequent voting on the Motion for Reconsideration (MR)? What is the effect of a tie-‐vote on the MR?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: Required majority vote is needed on both initial vote and to the subsequent voting on the MR.
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (2) Review, revised, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of the lower courts in: (a) All cases which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation is in question. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue, (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other station as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned. (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall proved a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-‐judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law. •
• • •
• •
Power of Judicial Review ! Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation. ! Includes the power to declare unconstitutional the “application or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instruction, ordinance, or other regulations even if the basis for the action is constitutional.” ! Political questions limit the power of judicial review ! Political questions are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is subject to the requirement of a justifiable controversy before courts can adjudicate constitutional questions. Judicial power is not only a power; it is a duty which cannot be abdicated by the mere specter of the political question doctrine. Two species of political questions: 1. “Truly political questions” – beyond judicial review, the reason for respect of the doctrine of separation of powers to be maintained 2. “Not truly political questions” – can be reviewed by the courts While the scope of judicial power of review may be limited, the Constitution makes no distinction as to the kind of legislation that may be subject to judicial scrutiny, be it in the form of social legislation or otherwise. The Court may pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the legislative and the executive branches.
Vinuya vs. Romulo (2010)
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Issue: Are all cases implicating foreign relations present political question depriving the courts the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements? Ruling: No. Not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and courts certainly possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements. The President, not the Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries. Belgica vs. Alcantara (2013) Issue: Is the issue on the “Pork Barrel System” a political question that is dependent on the wisdom of the political departments of government since it involves “budget-‐related reforms”? Ruling: Yes. Legislators have been consistently accorded post-‐enactment authority (a) to identify the projects they desire to be funded through various Congressional Pork Barrel allocations; (b) and in the areas of fund release and realignment. Thus, legislators have been, in one form or another, authorized to participate in “the various operational aspects of budgeting”, violating the separation of powers principle. That the said authority is treated as merely recommendatory in nature does not alter its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition covers any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law. Informal practices, through which legislators have effectively intruded into the proper phases of budget execution, must be deemed as acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and, hence, accorded the same unconstitutional treatment. Imbong, et. al. vs. Ochoa (2014) Issue: Can the Supreme Court exercise its power of judicial review over the RH law – a social legislation which is a “product of a majoritarian democratic process” and “characterized by an inordinate amount of transparency”? Ruling: The authority of the Court to review social legislation like the RH Law by certiorari is “weak” since the Constitution vests the discretion to implement the constitutional policies and positive norms with the political departments, in particular, with Congress. • The court’s power of judicial reviews is subject to several limitations: 1. An actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power ! An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion. ! The controversy must be justiciable-‐definite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. ! Not merely a theoretical question or issue 2. The person challenging the act must have “standing” to challenge ! Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental act. ! Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing to sue, provided that the following requirements are met: a. The cases involve constitutional issues b. For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional; c. For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question; d. For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early e. For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators. 3. Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity ! If not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily, it may not be raised in the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal. 4. Issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
! Cases are considered of “transcendental importance” if it involve issues of paramount importance and constitutional significance. Only the requirement of legal standing or “locus standi” may be waived if the case is of “transcendental importance.” ! Determinants in determining whether a matter is of “transcendental importance”: a. Character of funds or other assets involved in the case b. Presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government c. Lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in the questions being raised. • A case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of supervening events, there is no more actual controversy between the parties and no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. • Courts of justice will not consider questions where there are no actual interests involved. • A court will decide a case, otherwise moot and academic, if it finds that: 1. There is a grave violation of the constitution 2. The situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved 3. The constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public 4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review. De Castro vs. JBC (2010) Issue: Prior to its vacancy, does the issue of who can appoint the successor of CJ Puno, present an actual controversy and, thus, ripe for adjudication? Ruling: Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other appointments to the Judiciary. Pormento vs. Estrada (2010) Issue: Does the challenge on Estrada’s qualification to run again for President present an actual controversy? Ruling: No. Assuming an actual case or controversy existed prior to the proclamation of a President who has been duly elected in the May 10, 2010 elections, the same is no longer true today. Following the results of that election, private respondent was not elected President for the second time. Thus, any discussion of his “reelection” will simply be hypothetical and speculative. It will serve no useful or practical purpose. Imbong vs. Ochoa (2014) Issue: Considering that the RH Law has yet to be implemented, do the petitioners present actual controversy ripe for adjudication? Ruling: No. Any attack on the constitutionality of the RH Law is premature. • The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all RTCs. Hda. Luisita vs. PARC Issue: What is the “operative fact” doctrine? Does the operative fact doctrine apply only to laws subsequently declared unconstitutional or unlawful, and not to executive acts subsequently declared as invalid? Ruling: Operative fact doctrine is not limited only to invalid or unconstitutional laws but also applies to decisions made by the President or the administrative agencies that have the force and effect of laws. Prior to the nullification or recall of said decisions, they may have produced acts and consequences that must be respected. • Rule-‐Making Power ! The Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights (writs of amparo, habeas data, kalikasan), pleading (Judicial Affidavit Rule), practice (Code of Professional Responsibility), and procedure in all courts (Rules of Court), the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
! Writ of amparo – protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty, or security. ! Writ of habeas data – remedy available to any person whose right to privacy is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. ! Writ of kalikasan – writ of continuing mandamus which is issued in an environmental case directing any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. Under the Constitution, the power to amend the rules of procedure is constitutionally vested in the Supreme Court (Article VIII, Section 5)
Boac vs. Cadapan (2011) Issue: Is an amparo proceeding criminal? Or does it partake of a civil or administrative suit? Ruling: An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liabilities of individuals involved. Neither is it an administrative or civil suit. Rather it is a remedial measure designed to courses of action to government agencies to safeguard the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of aggrieved individuals. Cadiz vs. Gacott (2011) Issue: Can the IBP Board of Governors be held liable for prematurely recommending disbarment of a lawyer based on the position papers and affidavits of witnesses of the parties? Ruling: The IBP Commissioner and Board of Governors merely exercised delegated powers to investigate the complaint against Atty. Gacott and submit their report and recommendation to the Court. They cannot be charged for honest errors committed in the performance of their quasi-‐judicial function.
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof. •
•
The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether an administrative aspect is involved therein. It is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s administrative compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Re: Request for Guidance/Clarification on Sect. 7, Rule III of RA No. 10154, A.M. No. 13-‐09-‐08-‐SC, October 1, 2013 Issue: Is the requirement of seeking a Clearance of Pendency/Non-‐Pendency of Administrative Case from the Civil Service Commission embodied in Sec. 7, Rule III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 10154 applicable to retiring employees of the Judiciary? Ruling: No, this should not be made to apply to employees of the Judiciary. To do so would disregard the Court’s constitutionally-‐enshrined power of administrative supervision over its personnel. Besides, retiring court personnel are already required to secure a prior clearance of the pendency/non-‐pendency of administrative case/s from the Court which makes the CSC clearance a superfluous and non-‐expeditious requirement contrary to the declared state policy of RA 10154.
Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-‐born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar. (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and representative of the Congress as ex-‐officio members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. (2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four year with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year. (3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings. (4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council. (5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.
Section. 9 -‐ SC members and lower court judges shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by JBC. No need of confirmation.
For lower court, President to appoint within 90 days from submission of the list ! ! ! !
JBC’s main function – to form list of nominees to the judiciary and other functions SC may assign The President may not appoint anybody not in the list. If President not satisfied with the nominees, he may ask for another list. Temporary appointments in the SC -‐ not allowed by the Constitution
Salaries Section 10 – The salary of SC Justices and lower court judges shall be fixed by law. While in office, their salary shall not be decreased. ! Nitafan, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Issue: Is this provision a prohibition in imposing income taxes? Ruling: No. “The true intent of the framers was to make the salaries of the members of Judiciary taxable.” Security of tenure Section. 11 – SC members and lower court Judges shall hold office during 1) Good behavior and 2) until they reach 70 years old or become incapacitated.
SC en banc shall have the power to discipline lower court judges or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of members who actually took part in the deliberations ! Who determines good behavior in lower court judges? SC alone.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
! Do administrative offenses prescribe? No. (CLB v. Judge Pornillos) ! OCA v. Judge Usman Issue: Are judges required to submit SALN? Ruling: Yes. It is imperative that every public official or government employee must make and submit a complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth. Note: Congress cannot pass a law to make lower court judges removable only by impeachment. ! What about for SC members? They are removed only by impeachment. Thus, the determination of gross behavior is through impeachment proceeding. Note: Impeachment Grounds (CODE: CT-‐GOBB) a. Culpable violation of the Constitution b. treason c. graft and corruption d. other high crimes or e. betrayal of public trust f. bribery ! Are all disciplinary actions for lower court judges need to be decided by SC en banc? No. To require more would contravene the desire of the Constitution for a speedy disposition of cases, which is one of the purposes for allowing the Court to rule in divisions. (Justice Regalado) En Banc decisions need only when the penalty to be imposed is: 1) Dismissal of a judge 2) Disbarment of a lawyer 3) Suspension of either for more than 1 year, or a fine exceeding 10K. (People v. Gacott, Jr.) ! The Congress has the power to create courts and apportion their jurisdiction, thus the incidental power to abolish to courts. But since, abolition of office would imply dismissal of officer-‐in-‐charge, is this practice valid and acceptable? Yes. Abolition of office is valid when done in good faith and not for political or personal reasons. REQUISITES [Mendoza v. Quisumbing (1990): " (1) Abolition must be done in good faith " (2) Clear intent to do away with the office " (3) Not for personal or political reasons " (4) Cannot be implemented in a manner contrary to law
Separation of Powers Section. 12 – SC members and other lower courts shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-‐judicial or administrative functions. ! Makalintal v. PET Issue: Is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal independent and separate from SC?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: PET, as intended by the framers of the Constitution, is to be an institution independent, but not separate, from the judicial department. It has the exclusive authority to decide presidential contests.
Section. 13 – The conclusion of the SC in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation. A certification signed by Chief Justice shall be issued. Any member who took no part or dissented or abstained form a decision or resolution must state the reason.
Same requirement must be observed by lower collegiate courts. ! Per curiam decisions – decision made by several judges as opposed to single judge. ! What is the effect of the absence of certification? It would NOT necessarily mean that the case submitted for decision had not been reached in consultation before being assigned to one member for the opinion of the court since the regular performance of duty is presumed. Furthermore, it would NOT have the effect of invalidating the decision. ! Is the dissent opinion mandatory? Yes.
Decisions Section. 14 – No decision shall be rendered without clear and distinct facts and law on which it is based. Resolutions No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. ! These rules only apply to courts. They do not apply to quasi-‐judicial or administrative (e.g. military commission, COMELEC) ! The 1st paragraph applies to court DECISIONS in which facts and law must be stated. ! The 2nd paragraph refers to court RESOLUTIONS, MINUTE RESOLUTIONS, PETITIONS FOR REVIEW, AND MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATIONS. There is no need to state the facts and accompanying reasoning but to state the “legal basis” for denying due course would suffice. ! What is an extended decision? It is a decision rendered on issues considered moot and academic but the importance of which transcend beyond the particular case. ! General rule: Moot and academic cases are dismissed. Exceptions: (Bayan v. Ermita) 1) grave violation of Constitution 2) exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest 3) when it requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, bar, and the public. 4) the case capable of repetition yet evading review. ! De Castro v. JBC Issue: Is the SC bound and controlled by precedents? Ruling: No, only guided
Section. 15 – 1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within (Reglamentary or prescribed period) - 24 months for SC, unless reduced by the SC
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
-
12 months for lower collegiate courts 3 months for all lower (trial) courts Note: Sandiganbayan belongs to this category
2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon filing of the last pleading, brief, memorandum required by Rules of Court or by Court itself. 3) If there is failure to decide the case within the said period, a certification signed by Chief Justice or presiding Judge shall be issued. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within the said period. 4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay. ! The respective periods are mandatory. Failure to comply of an SC Justice is a ground for culpable violation of Constitution and for lower court judges a disciplinary action. ! What effect does the lapse of reglamentary period have on the case? The case shall remain undecided. When there is delay and no decision or resolution is made within the prescribed period, there is no automatic affirmance of the appealed decision. The Court will not be deprived of jurisdiction and is enjoined to decide without further delay.
Section. 16 – SC, within 30 days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the operation and activities of the Judiciary.
ARTICLE IX CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS A. Common Provisions
Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit. • • • •
Civil Service Commission -‐ personnel office of the government Commission on Audit – auditing office Commission on Elections – administration of all important electoral process In order to protect their integrity, they have been made independent constitutional bodies
Section 2. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-‐owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. •
It was made clear that “practice of a profession,” at least for the purpose of this prohibition does not include teaching.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
•
The prohibition of “active management” of a business does not prohibit a Commissioner from owning a business but it prohibits him from being a managing officer or a member of the governing board of a business “which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office.” The prohibition of financial interest in government corporations, that is, corporations formed not by special law but by mother corporations through the general corporation law.
Section 3. The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. •
This does not encompass legitimate income tax deduction
Section 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in accordance with law. •
This does not mean that appointments made by them are not subject to Civil Service Law and Rules.
Section 5. The commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. • • •
DBM may not retain a portion of the amount nor may it program release. The “no report, no release” policy of the Commission on Audit may not be validly enforced against offices vested with fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released and shall not be subject to pre-‐audit.
Section 6. Each Commission En Banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before any of its offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. • • • •
The rule of the Commission will prevail if the proceeding is before a Commission but if the proceeding is before a court, the Rules of Court prevail. The SC has no power to disapprove Commission rules except through the exercise of the power of “judicial review” when such Commission rules violate the Constitution. If, however, the rules promulgated by a Commission are inconsistent with a statute, the statute prevails. The Commissioners are given a fixed term and are removable only by impeachment.
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case or matter brought before it within 60 days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the SC on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. • • •
The decisions are made by the body and not by individual members Decisions are reached by a majority vote of the Commission. This applies whether the Commission is sitting en banc or in division. How many votes are needed for the Commission en banc to reach a decision? Majority vote of ALL ITS MEMBERS.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• • •
• • • • •
Resolution or decision of the COMELEC is considered complete and validly rendered or issued when there is concurrence by the required majority of the Commissioners There is nothing in the Constitution nor in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure that requires the submission of a dissenting opinion before a decision can be considered validly rendered and complete. There is no decision until the draft is signed and promulgated. If a Commissioner signs a decision but retires before the decision is promulgated, his vote does not count even if it was he who penned the decision. If a decision is not reached within the reglamentary period, such failure does not affect the merits of the case Decisions of the Commissions may be brought to the SC on certiorari. The review by certiorari would be relying on the provisions of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Rule 65 requires that a petitioner must file a motion for reconsideration. Hence, a case may be brought to the SC only after reconsideration. Certiorari jurisdiction of the SC is limited to decisions rendered in actions or proceedings taken cognizance of by the Commissions in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-‐judicial powers. It does not refer to purely executive powers.
Section 8. Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law.
B. The Civil Service Commission
Section 1. (1) The Civil Service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission composed of a Chairman and 2 Commissioners who shall be natural-‐born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least 35 years of age, with proven capacity for public administration, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment. (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of 7 years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for 7 years, a Commissioner for 5 years, and another Commissioner for 3 years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. • • • • •
General objective: To establish and promote professionalism and efficiency in public service Composed of a Chairman and 2 Commissioners appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. The term of the Commissioners is set at 7 years and they may not be reappointed. The prohibition applies even if the Commissioner has served for less than 7 years. The intent of the staggering of terms of the first appointees is to achieve continuity by not allowing the term of all Commissioners to expire all at one time. For the smooth functioning of the staggered rotational system, there are 2 requirements: (1) appointment for any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor; (2) the starting point of all the first appointments was February 2, 1987, and the term of all subsequent appointees start on a February 2 even if they actually assume office later than February 2.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
Should there be a vacancy in the office of the Chairman, the vacancy may not be filled by the President by designating one of the Commissioners a temporary Chairman. The Commission itself must choose the temporary Chairman.
Section 2. (1) The Civil Service Embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including Government-‐owned or controlled corporations with original charters. (2) Appointments in the Civil Service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-‐determining primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination. (3) No officer or employee of the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. (4) No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign. (5) The right to self-‐organization shall not be denied to government employees. (6) Temporary employees of the government shall be given such protection as may be provided by law. • •
• •
• • •
• •
•
The status of being primarily confidential mere exempts an office from the rules on appointment but not from other rules. Civil Service covers not all government-‐owned or controlled corporations but only those “with original charters,” that is, those corporations which have been created by special law and not through the general corporation law. The system includes both officers and employees. Employee – generally used in reference to persons in the public service; Officer – officials whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature, may be considered to involve the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of government, whether such duties are precisely defined by law or not. Entities under the civil service system are not completely beyond the reach of the Department of Labor or labor laws. Classification of positions in the Civil Service: (1) competitive and (2) non-‐competitive. Non-‐competitive positions – by their nature are policy-‐determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical. A policy determining position is one charged with the duty to “formulate a method of action for the government or any of its subdivisions.” A position is highly technical if the occupant is required “to possess a technical skill or training in the supreme or superior degree.” Competitive positions – must be made according to merit and fitness as determined, as far as practicable, by competitive examinations The role of the CSC in the appointing process is limited to the determination of the qualifications of the candidates for appointment. The most that the Commission can do is certify to the qualification of those being considered for appointment. The Civil Service is within its authority when it orders the reinstatement of the first appointee in the event that after having extended an appointment that is immediately accepted, the appointing authority withdraws the same and extends it to someone else.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
• • • •
• • • • •
• • • •
•
• •
A “next-‐in-‐rank” rule might be prescribed by law. But such rule cannot be read to compel the appointing authority to appointment the person next in rank if others, even if lower in rank, are qualified for the post. Basic in a healthy civil service system is a guarantee of security of tenure, a guarantee against arbitrary impairment, whether total or partial, of the right to continue in the position held. Suspension or dismissal can be made only “for cause provided by law.” Dismissal here includes demotion or transfer which involves reduction of pay or rank. Procedural due process would require that suspension or dismissal come only after notice and hearing. “for cause” – for reasons which the law and sound public policy recognize as sufficient warrant for removal; cause must relate to and affect the administration of the office, and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public. “provided by law” – the law must already be in existence when the act for which a persons is being subjected to disciplinary action was committed. Officials and employees holding primarily confidential positions are a special case. They still enjoy security of tenure but their term is deemed to be coterminous with the confidence. Security of tenure cannot be circumvented by abolition of office. For abolition of office to escape the taint of unconstitutionality, it must be made (1) in good faith, (2) not for personal or political reasons, (3) not in violation of the law. The presidential appointees enjoy security of tenure but the procedure is administered by the President and not by the CSC. The President has the power to discipline them because the power to appoint includes the power to remove. The guarantee of security of tenure is enjoyed only by permanent appointees. Temporary appointees are removable any time even without cause. It is, however, not anybody who can remove him but only the appointing authority. The guarantee of security of tenure covers not just removal or other disciplinary actions but also transfers. The appointment of one who is not qualified can only be temporary and it is understood from the outset that it is without fixity but enduring only at the pleasure of the appointing authority. For an appointment to be permanent, it must be a real appointment by the appointing authority and not just a designation by one who does not have the appointing authority. A person lacking the necessary qualifications who is given a temporary appointment does not automatically become a permanent appointee when he or she acquires the required qualification. For one to become permanent, he must receive a new commission, that is, a permanent appointment if he is to be considered permanent. The provision does not prevent any officer or employee from expressing his views on current political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of candidates for public office whim he supports. The court ruled that employees of SSS and public school teachers do not have the constitutional right to strike.
Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
management climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs. • •
•
It can perform executive powers, quasi-‐judicial powers, and quasi-‐legislative or rule-‐making powers. It also includes the power to “promulgate and enforce policies on personnel actions, classify positions, prescribe conditions of employment except as to compensation and other monetary benefits which shall be provided by law.” CSC may revoke a certificate of eligibility motu proprio.
Liban v. Gordon Issue: Is the Phil. National Red Cross a government-‐owned or controlled corporation? Ruling: No. The PNRC is neither a subdivision, agency or instrumentality of the gov’t., nor a GOCC or a subsidiary thereof. Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete Issue: Who shall pay if the appointment is disapproved for violation of the civil service law? Ruling: No one will pay. Not former Mayor Remollo or current mayor Perdices. The SC ruled that the petitioners do not have a clear right for it to compel Mayor Perdices or former Mayor Remollo to pay. Maniebo v. CSC Issue: Will the subsequent acquisition of the required eligibility of an appointee make his temporary appointment regular or permanent? Ruling: No. Obtaining Civil Service eligibility later on does not ipso facto convert his temporary appointment into a permanent one. A new appointment is still required, because a permanent appointment is not a continuation of the temporary appointment. Ong v. Office of the President Issue: Is a co-‐terminous appointment, coterminous with the term of the appointing authority? Ruling: Yes. CSC Resolution No 91-‐1631 defines a co-‐terminous appointment as one “co-‐existing with the tenure of the appointing authority or at his pleasure.” CSC v. Pililla Water District Issue: Is the position of Water District Manager a primarily confidential position? Ruling: Yes. A position is considered to be primarily confidential when there is a primarily close intimacy between the appointing authority and the appointee, which ensures the highest degree of trust and unfettered communication and discussion on the most confidential matters. Issue: What positions have been judicially determined as primarily confidential? Ruling: Chief Legal Counsel of PNB, Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan, Confidential agent of the office of the Auditor, GSIS, Secretary of the City Mayor, Senior Security and Security Guard in the Office of the V-‐mayor, Sec. to the board of a gov’t. corporation, city legal counsel, city legal officer or city attorney, provincial attorney, private secretary, and board secretary II of the Philippine State College of Aeronautics. CSC v. Magnaye
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Issue: Do probationary employees enjoy security of tenure? Ruling: Yes. The Constitution in using the expressions “all workers and no officer or employees” put no distinction between probationary and a permanent or regular employee. BOCEA v. Teves Issue: Does R.A. 9335 violate security of tenure? Ruling: No. R.A. 9335 lays down a reasonable yardstick for removal with due consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of collection. This standard is analogous to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, a ground for disciplinary action under the Civil service law. CSC v. Guevarra Issue: Whether or not the CSC has jurisdiction over cases filed directly with it, regardless of who initiated the complaint. Ruling: Yes. The identity of the complainants is immaterial to the acquisition of jurisdiction over an administrative case by the CSC. CSC v. Cruz Issue: Is a government employee who had been dismissed entitled the back salaries if he was subsequently exonerated? Ruling: Yes. Back salaries are awarded to illegally dismissed or unjustly suspended employees based on the conditional provision that no officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. Baldoz v. COA Issue: Does the grant of probation justify a public official/ employee’s retention in the government service? Ruling: No. While the purpose of probation law is to save valuable human material, unlike pardon, probation does not obliterate the crime which the person under probation has been convicted. He may seek to re-‐enter gov’t. service but only after he has shown that he is fit to serve once again. Camarines Norte v. Gonzales Issue: Being a primarily confidential employee, does Gonzales have security of tenure? Ruling: Yes. The concept of security of tenure labors under a variation from primarily confidential employees due to the basic concept of a primarily confidential position. Serving at the confidence of the appointing authority, the primarily confidential employee’s term of office expires when the appointing authority loses trust in the employee.
Section 4. All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution. •
This provision meant to cover all civilian public officers, whether elective or appointive.
Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees, including those in government-‐owned or controlled corporations with original chargers, taking into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required for their positions.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within 1 year after election, be appointed to any office in the government or any government-‐owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries. Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-‐owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. •
•
The provision prohibits elective officials other than members of Congress from accepting appointment during their tenure. If the elective official accepts an appointment without first resigning his elective position, the appointment is invalid. The second paragraph is not absolute: they may hold another office, if: “allowed by law or by the primary functions of their position.”
La Carlota City v. Atty. Rojo Issue: Did the appointment of the respondent contravene Sec.7, Art IX-‐B of the Constitution? Ruling: Yes. Respondent was still an incumbent regular Sangguniang Panglungsod member when then V-‐Mayor Jalandoni appointed him as Sangguniang Panglungsod Secretary. Posadas v. Sandiganbayan Issue: By holding concurrent position as University Chancellor and TMC Project Director, did Dr. Posadas violate the constitutional provision against double employment and double compensation? Ruling: No. There was no evidence adduced to show that UP academic officials were prohibited from receiving compensation for work they render outside the scope of their normal duties as administrators or faculty professors.
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government. Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation. • • • • •
The purpose of the prohibition is to manifest a commitment to the fundamental principle that a public office is a public trust. There is additional compensation when for one and the same office for which a compensation has been fixed there us added to such fixed compensation an extra reward in the form, for instance, of a bonus. When a per diem or an allowance is given as reimbursement for expenses incident to the discharge of an officer’s duties, it is not an additional compensation prohibited by the Constitution. Double Compensation more properly refers to 2 sets of compensation for different offices held concurrently by one officer. The purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit generally payment for additional or double compensation except in individual instances where the payment of such additional compensation appears not only to be just but necessary.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
Bonuses given to those whose compensation under the law is merely per diem violate the rule against additional compensation.
In Re-‐Gross Violation by Escala Issue: Did the respondent violate the prohibition against dual employment and double compensation in the gov’t service? Ruling: Yes. For knowingly and willfully transgressing the prohibition on dual employment and double compensation, as well as the court’s rules for its personnel on conflict of interest, respondent violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by the court. Dimagiba v. Espartero Issue: Was the gratuity pay given by the HSDC Board to the petitioners a prohibited additional compensation? Ruling: Yes. This can only be allowed if there is a law which specifically authorizes them to receive an additional payment of gratuity. General Santos City v. COA Issue: Can the government agencies and local governments provide supplementary retirement or pension plans from their employees?
Ruling: No. All supplementary retirement or pension plans in force in any government office, agency or instrumentality or corporation owned and controlled by the Gov’t. are declared inoperative or abolished. C. Commission on Elections
Section 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and 6 Commissioners who shall be natural-‐born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least 35 years of age, holders of a college degree, and must have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. (2)The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of 7 years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, 3 members shall hold office for 7 years, 2 members for 5 years, and the last members for 3 years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. • • • • •
The Commissioners are appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of 7 years “without reappointment.” The first appointees are given staggered terms of 7, 5, and 3 years, also “without reappointment.” The terms of all appointees have a fixed starting time, that is, on a February 2, even if they assumed office after February. An ad interim appointment is permanent in character, and the circumstance that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. The Constitution imposes no condition on the effectivity of an ad interim appointment, and this an ad interim appointment takes effect immediately. The appointment is effective “until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress.”
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• •
The prohibition of reappointment is only of one who has been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The choice of a temporary Chairman is an internal matter which comes under the discretion of the Commission as a body and that such discretion cannot be exercised for the Commission by anybody else.
Section 2. The Commission on elections shall exercise the following powers and functions: (1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. (2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts or general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COMELEC contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executor, and not appealable. (3) Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters. (4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. (5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the COMELEC. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration. Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to elections constitute interference in national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law. (6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices. (7) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies. (8) Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order or decision. (9) Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• • • • • •
• •
•
•
• •
• • • •
•
The COMELEC is an administrative agency. The powers it possesses are executive, quasi-‐judicial and quasi-‐legislative. By exception, it has been given judicial power as “sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective” local officials. The Commission has limited powers to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus granted by Sec. 50, B.P. Blg. 697 but only in connection with its appellate jurisdiction under Art IX, Sec. 2(2). The COMELEC has the power to review decisions of municipal courts on election contests. The 1993 Rules of Procedure has provided a uniform 5-‐day period for taking an appeal. While the COMELEC may punish for contempt, such power may not be exercised in connection with its purely executive or ministerial functions but only in furtherance of its quasi-‐judicial, and now also judicial functions. If the proceeding is before the Commission, the Commission rule should prevail but if the proceeding is in court, the Rules of Court should prevail. The COMELEC’s power is preventive only and not curative, that is, if it fails to accomplish that purpose, it is not the COMELEC that is charged with the duty to cure or remedy the resulting evil but some other agencies of the government. The court ruled that the COMELEC has authority to exclude what the court characterized as statistically improbable returns, the power to exclude returns which were the product of coercion even if they be clean on their face and to entertain the testimony of handwriting experts as proof of the falsity of the returns. Does the COMELEC have the authority to call a special election? YES. The COMELEC may call for a special election in the event of a failure to elect in order to make it truly effective in the discharge of its functions. The COMELEC has jurisdiction over cases involving plebiscites and has authority to ascertain the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers. The COMELEC has the exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. In the case of local elected officials, even after proclamation the COMELEC retains power to decide controversies. The power of the COMELEC excludes jurisdiction over elections for the Sangguniang Kabataan. Jurisdiction over these is given to the Department of Local Government. The non-‐appealable character of contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices refers only to questions of fact and not of law. The dividing line between a pre-‐proclamation controversy and a contest, is itself subject to election laws which the COMELEC is bound to administer. Hence, the power of the COMELEC to examine the validity of proclamations and to nullify or approve them according to its findings has been recognized. For purposes of the elections for President, V-‐President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-‐proclamation case shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificate of canvass, as the case may be.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
• •
• •
• • •
•
•
•
The COMELEC’s jurisdiction over a pre-‐proclamation controversy is administrative or quasi-‐judicial and is governed by less stringent requirements of administrative due process whereas its jurisdiction over “contests” is judicial and should be governed by the requirements of judicial due process. Election cases must first be decided in division. A decision, resolution or ruling of a division is elevated to the COMELEC en banc. A motion for reconsideration is an interlocutory order of a division should be resolved by the division which issued the interlocutory order, it may be referred to the COMELEC en banc if all the members of the division agree. If a case which should be filed in the COMELEC en banc is erroneously filed with a division, it may be automatically elevated to the COMELEC en banc. It is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-‐judicial powers that the COMELEC is mandated to hear and decide cases first by division and then, upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. COMELEC has no disciplinary powers over the officers it may deputize. All that it can do is recommend disciplinary action to the President. A political party or organization acquires judicial personality by registration. The power of the COMELEC to register includes the power to de-‐register. Exceptions to those organizations who may register: (1) religious denominations and sects; (2) seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means; (3) those who refuse to uphold and adhere to the Constitution; (4) those who are supported by any foreign government. Fiscals or prosecutors can file information charging an election offense only when they have been deputized by the Commission. Disciplinary authority over such fiscals and prosecutors remain with the Secretary of Justice. The most that the COMELEC can do is recommend disciplinary action. The task of the COMELEC is not physical searching and gathering of proof in support of a complaint for an alleged commission of an offense. The complainant has the burden to follow through his accusation and prove his complaint. The decisions of the Commission which may be brought to the SC on certiorari refers to decisions rendered in actions or proceedings taken cognizance of by the Commission in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-‐judicial powers such as decisions in election contests NOT on the prosecutor function.
Section 3. The COMELEC may sit en banc or in 2 divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-‐proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. • • •
Decisions on any case or matter are reached by majority vote. The COMELEC shall decide all election cases brought before it within 90 days from the date of submission. Motions for reconsideration are decided en banc, but a decision en banc is required only when the subject for reconsideration is a “decision.”
Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities,
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-‐owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. • • •
The power subsists not only during the voting of public officers but also during referenda and plebiscites especially if constitutional amendments are at issue. The objective of the law was the equalization. The Court ruled that print media may not be compelled to allocate free space to the Commission because it would amount to prohibited taking of property without just compensation.
Roque v. Comelec Issue: Is the Poll Automation law unconstitutional for being a wholesale abdication of the COMELEC’s mandate to enforce election law? Ruling: No. SMARTNATIC as a joint venture partner in charge of the technical aspect of the counting and canvassing does not translate to ceding control of the electoral process to SMARTMATIC. Cagas v. COMELEC Issue: The COMELEC’s power to administer election includes the power to conduct a plebiscite beyond the schedule prescribed by law? Ruling: Yes. The COMELEC’s power to administer elections includes the power to conduct a plebiscite beyond the schedule prescribed by law. Senior Citizens Partylist v. COMELEC Issue: Does the COMELEC have constitutional basis to disallow term-‐sharing among party-‐list nominees? Was there constitutional basis for the COMELEC to disqualify the Senior Citizen Party-‐list on account of term-‐sharing? Ruling: No. The ground invoked by COMELEC En Banc, the term sharing among nominees of Senior Citizens, was not implemented. Arroyo v. DOJ Issue: Was the creation of the joint committee an abdication of COMELEC’s independence? Ruling: No. It is not an abdication of COMELEC’s independence but as a means to fulfill its duty of ensuring the prompt investigation and prosecution of election offenses as an adjunct of its mandate of ensuring a free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible election. Cagas v. COMELEC Issue: Does the SC have jurisdiction to review a final resolution of the COMELEC? Ruling: Yes but it is limited only to review a final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en banc and does not extend to an interlocutory order issued by a division of the COMELEC. Jalosjos v. COMELEC
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Issue: In cancelling Jalosjos’ certificate of candidacy, did the COMELEC violate Sec. 3 Art IX-‐C of the Constitution? Ruling: No. Requiring a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc may take action is confined only to cases where the COMELEC exercises its quasi-‐judicial power. In this case, the COMELEC en banc acted in purely administrative manner.
Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC. Section 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this article. Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the party-‐list system as provided by this Constitution. Section 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-‐list system, shall not be represented in the voter’s registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law. Libertal Party v. COMELEC Issue: Do political parties include political organizations and coalition? Ruling: Yes. Sec 2(5) Art IX-‐C Issue: Was the NPC petition for registration as a coalition time barred? Ruling: Yes. No substantial distinction exists among these entities germane to the act of registration that would justify creating distinctions among them in terms of deadlines. ABC v. COMELEC Issue: Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction over contests relating to the qualifications of the proclaimed party-‐list representatives? Ruling: No. It is the HRET that has jurisdiction over contests relating to qualifications or party-‐list nominees and representatives. Abang Lingkod v. COMELEC Issue: For failure to prove its track record, can the COMELEC cancel the registration of a party-‐list?
Ruling: Yes. The COMELEC determines whether petitioners are qualified to register under the party-‐list system thereby, they have jurisdiction on matters of party-‐list qualification.
Section 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall commence 90 days before the day of election and shall end 30 days thereafter. • •
Election period – period of time needed for administering an election (90 days before the day of election and 30 days thereafter) Campaign period – period of active solicitation (may be set by the legislature for a period less than the election period)
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Peñera v. COMELEC Issue: What is premature campaigning? May premature campaigning be committed by a person who is not a candidate? Ruling: No. Any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period.
Section 10. Bona fide candidate for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination. Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular and special appropriations and, once approved, shall be released automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the Commission. D. Commission on Audit
Section 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Audit composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners, who shall be natural-‐born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-‐five years of age, Certified Public Accountants with not less than ten years of auditing experience, or members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment. At no time shall all Members of the Commission belong to the same profession. (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years, and the other Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. •
It is the function of the COA to examine the accuracy of the records kept and to determine whether expenditures have been made in conformity with law and to take corrective action when necessary.
Funa v. COA Chair Villar Issue: Whether or not Villar’s promotional appointment as COA Chairman, after having served for 4 years of his 7-‐ year term as COA Commissioner is valid. And if valid, for how long can he serve? Ruling: No. The promotional appointment as COA Chairman of Villar for a stated fixed term of less than 7 years is violating a mandatory constitutional prescription. The vacancy of the position resulted from the expiration of his 7-‐ year term. Hence, the appointment to the vacancy this created ought to have been for 7 years in line with the verbal legis approach of interpreting the constitution.
Section 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-‐owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-‐ audit basis: (A) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (B) autonomous state colleges and universities; (C) other government-‐owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (D) such non-‐ governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-‐audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto. (2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties. •
• • • • • •
• • • •
•
Powers and functions: (1) examine and audit all forms of government revenues; (2) examine and audit all forms of government expenditure; (3) settle government accounts; (4) define the scope and techniques for its own audition procedures; (5) promulgate accounting and auditing rules; (6) decide administrative cases involving expenditure of public funds. The power of the Commission to define the scope of the audit and examination and to establish the techniques it will follow is exclusive. Authority of the Commission extends only to those “with original charters.” It has authority not just over accountable officers but also over other officers who perform functions related to accounting. Where pre-‐audit is allowed and pre-‐audit has already been performed, the Commission is not estopped from making a post-‐audit. The power of COA to settle gov’t. accounts has reference only to liquidated claims and not to unliquidated claims. COA can promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties. The Constitutional competence of COA relates solely to the administrative aspect of the expenditure of public funds and has no competence relative to the criminal aspect of irregular expenditures. COA does not have the exclusive power to examine and audit government agencies. COA’s findings and conclusions necessarily prevail over those of private auditors, at least insofar as government agencies and officials are concerned. Despite the Central Bank’s concurrent jurisdiction over governmental banks, the COA’s audit still prevails over that of the Central Bank since the COA is the constitutionally mandated auditor of government banks. Review power of the SC is limited certiorari power under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
BSP v. COA
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Issue: Are the funds and property owned or held by the BSP subject to the audit authority of the COA pursuant to Sec 2(1), Art IX-‐D of the 1987 Constitution? Ruling: Yes. BSP is a public corporation or a government agency or instrumentality with juridical personality considering the character of its purposes and its functions. De la Llana v. COA Issue: Did the COA violate Sec 2 Art IX-‐D when it lifted pre-‐audit by mere circular? Ruling: No. Pre-‐audit is not a mandatory duty that the court may compel the COA to perform. This discretion is in line with the exclusive authority of COA to define the scope of its audit and examination. Baldoz v. COA Issue: Does the authority of COA to rule on the legality of the disbursement of gov’t. funds include the authority to disallow disbursement? Ruling: Yes. The Constitution vests the COA with the primary responsibility to ensure that any irregularity in the disbursement of the same is cleared or any attendant illegality be prescribed. TESDA v. COA Issue: Are the TESDA funds subject to the audit power of COA? Ruling: Yes. TESDA is an instrumentality of the government and the budget for its implementation is included in the GAA hence, the TESDA fund are funds belonging to the government.
Section 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiaries in any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. Funa v. Meco & COA Issue: Is Manila Economic and Cultural Office a non-‐governmental entity and thus outside the audit jurisdiction of COA? Ruling: Qualify. The court ruled that the Manila Economic and Cultural Office is a non-‐governmental equity but they are subject to the audit jurisdiction of COA pursuant to EO No. 1022.
Section 4. The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress, within the time fixed by law, an annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the Government, its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities, including government-‐owned or controlled corporations, and non-‐ governmental entities subject to its audit, and recommend measures necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. It shall submit such other reports as may be required by law.
ARTICLE X LOCAL GOVERNMENT
•
Local government has been described as “a political subdivision or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs”.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided. Q: Can Congress pass a law creating an autonomous region of the Visayas. A: No. The Constitution only allows two autonomous regions in the Philippines. These are the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao. The creation of other autonomous regions whether from further dividing the existing autonomous regions or by creating outside these regions can only be done after constitutional amnedments has been made regarding the creation of autonomous regions. Q: Without amending the Section 1, Art. X of the 1987 Constitution, can Congress replace the “Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao” to simply “Bangsamoro”? How about “Autonomous Region of the Bangsamoro”? A: Yes. Though the Constitution does not allow any additional autonomous regions to be created the “Bangsamoro” will only replace the “Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao”. The reason being that the Constitution allows mentions only for the need to have a autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao but not especify what that autonomous region is.
Kida vs. Senate and House Issue: Is an autonomous region part of the national government or is it a form of local government? Ruling: Local Government. As heretofore mentioned and discussed, while autonomous regions are granted political autonomy, the framers of the Constitution never equated autonomy with independence. The ARMM as a regional entity thus continues to operate within the larger framework of the State and is still subject to the national policies set by the national government, save only for those specific areas reserved by the Constitution for regional autonomous determination.
Section 2: The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy. • •
The principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means decentralization of administration. It does not make the local governments sovereign within the state or an imperio in imperio. There is decentralization of administration when the central government delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the process to make local governments more responsive and accountable.
CREBA vs. Agrarian Reform Secretary Issue: Does Sec. 2.19, Art. Of DAR AO No. 01-‐02, as amended, making reclassification of agricultural lands subject to the requirements and procedure for land use conversion, violate Sec. 20 of R.A. No. 7160, and contravene the constitutional mandate on local autonomy? Ruling: No. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not fall within the ambit of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-‐judicial functions. The issuance and enforcement by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform of the questioned DAR AO No. 01-‐02, as amended, and Memorandum No. 88 were done in the exercise of his quasi-‐ legislative and administrative functions and not of judicial or quasi-‐judicial functions. In issuing the aforesaid administrative issuances, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform never made any adjudication of rights of the parties. As such, it can never be said that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing DAR AO No. 01-‐02, as amended, and Memorandum No. 88 for he never exercised any judicial or quasi-‐judicial functions but merely his quasi-‐legislative and administrative functions. CSC vs. Yu Issue: What is devolution? Does a governor have the option not to absorb a develop position? Ruling: Devolution is the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. It is a form of decentralization. Devolved
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area. On the basis of the foregoing, it was mandatory for Governor Salapuddin to absorb the position of PHO II, as well as its incumbent, Dr. Fortunata Castillo. Highlighting the absence of discretion is the use of the word ―shall‖ both in Section 17 (i) of R.A. No. 7160 and in Section 2(a)(2) of E.O. No. 503, which connotes a mandatory order. Its use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion. The only instance that the LGU concerned may choose not to absorb the NGA personnel is when absorption is not administratively viable, meaning, it would result to duplication of functions, in which case, the NGA personnel shall be retained by the national government. However, in the absence of the recognized exception, devolved permanent personnel shall be automatically reappointed Section 2(a)(12) by the local chief executive concerned immediately upon their transfer which shall not go beyond June 30, 1992. Pimentel vs. Ochoa Issue: Whether or not the PHP 21 billion CCTP budget allocation under the DSWD voilates local autonomy by providing for the recentralization of the national government in the delivery of basic services already devolved to the LGU’s? Ruling: No. Under the Philippine concept of local autonomy, the national government has not completely relinquished all its powers over local governments, including autonomous regions. Only administrative powers over local affairs are delegated to political subdivisions. The purpose of the delegation is to make governance more directly responsive and effective at the local levels.
Local Autonomy Section 3: The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through of a system of decentralization and effective mechanism of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters realting to the organization and operation of local units. •
The Local Government code was created as a guideline to ensure that while the Local government enjoy local autonomy they must still have accountability as well as initiative. This way they can best react to the changing local levels while but at the same time still be held accountable.
Veloso vs. COA Issue: Does Manila Ordinance No. 8040, which authorized the conferment to the former three-‐term councilors retirement and gratuity pay remuneration, a valid exercise of the powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod? Ruling: No. As correctly held by the COA, the above power is not without limitations. These limitations are embodied in Section 81 of RA 7160, to wit: SEC. 81. Compensation of Local Officials and Employees. The compensation of local officials and personnel shall be determined by the sanggunian concerned: Provided, That the increase in compensation of elective local officials shall take effect only after the terms of office of those approving such increase shall have expired: Provided, further,That the increase in compensation of the appointive officials and employees shall take effect as provided in the ordinance authorizing such increase; Provided however, That said increases shall not exceed the limitations on budgetary allocations for personal services provided under Title Five, Book II of this Code: Provided finally, That such compensation may be based upon the pertinent provisions of Republic Act Numbered Sixty-‐seven fifty-‐eight (R.A. No. 6758), otherwise known as the "Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. City of General Santos vs. COA: Issue: Does the City of General Santos have the power to streamline and reorganize its local government bureucracy as well as the authority to create a separate or supplementary retirement benefit plan?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: Yes. The constitutional mandate for local autonomy supports petitioner city’s issuance of Executive Order No. 40, series of 2008, creating change management teams as an initial step for its organization development masterplan. Local autonomy also grants local governments the power to streamline and reorganize. This power is inferred from Section 76 of the Local Government Code on organizational structure and staffing pattern, and Section 16 otherwise known as the general welfare clause.
Section 4: The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local goverments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. •
The first sentence of Section 4 prescribes the relation between the President and local governments. Under the 1935 Constitution, Article VII, Section 10(1), the Preseident was authorized to “exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law.” Thus, not only was the President given merely supervisory powers (not control), but he also possessed only so much supervisory power as might be given to him by statute.
Negros Occidental vs. COA Issue: Does the Presidential power of supervision justify AO 103’s “prior approval rule” from the President? Ruling: Yes. As stated in Section 4 Article X of the Constitution, the President has the power to implement and justify A0 103’s “prior apporval rule.” League of Provinces vs DENR Issue: Did the act of respondent [DENR] in cancelling the small-‐scale mining permits amount to executive control, not merely supervision, and usurpation of the devolved powers of provinces? Ruling: No. Paragraph 1 of Section 2, Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) of the Constitution provides that "the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State." It should be pointed out that the Administrative Code of 198733 provides that the DENR is, subject to law and higher authority, in charge of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate, under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization and conservation of the country's natural resources. Hence, the enforcement of small-‐scale mining law in the provinces is made subject to the supervision, control and review of the DENR under the Local Government Code of 1991, while the People’s Small-‐ Scale Mining Act of 1991 provides that the People’s Small-‐Scale Mining Program is to be implemented by the DENR Secretary in coordination with other concerned local government agencies.
Local Taxation Section 5: Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic police of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. •
This Section was created as a means of giving the LGU’s the ability to collect revenues for their own use. And also this revenues are only under the control and discretion of the LGU’s. This was done so that they would not be completely reliant on the national government. As well as a means for the national government to have a lesser burden in supporting it’s LGU’s. Though the national government is still required to give them revenues as part of the national budget for every local government unit.
Smart vs. Davao Issue: Does the “in lieu taxes provision” include exemption from local taxation?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: No. In Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel) v. Province of Pangasinan,7 Digitel used as an argument the "in lieu of all taxes" clauses/provisos found in the legislative franchises of Globe, Smart and Bell, vis-‐à-‐ vis Section 23 of RA 7925, in order to claim exemption from the payment of local franchise tax. Digitel claimed, just like the petitioner in this case, that it was exempt from the payment of any other taxes except the national franchise and income taxes. Digitel alleged that Smart was exempted from the payment of local franchise tax. However, it failed to substantiate its allegation, and, thus, the Court denied Digitel’s claim for exemption from provincial franchise tax. Cited was the ruling of the Court in PLDT v. City of Davao,10 wherein the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, held that in approving Section 23 of RA No. 7925, Congress did not intend it to operate as a blanket tax exemption to all telecommunications entities. Section 23 cannot be considered as having amended PLDT’s franchise so as to entitle it to exemption from the imposition of local franchise taxes. The Court further held that tax exemptions are highly disfavored and that a tax exemption must be expressed in the statute in clear language that leaves no doubt of the intention of the legislature to grant such exemption. And, even in the instances when it is granted, the exemption must be interpreted in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. The Court also clarified the meaning of the word "exemption" in Section 23 of RA 7925: that the word "exemption" as used in the statute refers or pertains merely to an exemption from regulatory or reporting requirements of the Department of Transportation and Communication or the National Transmission Corporation and not to an exemption from the grantee’s tax liability.
Fiscal Autonomy Section 6: Local governments shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them. •
A basic feature of local autonomy is the automatic release of shares of the local government units in the national internal revenue.
Section 7: Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provide by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits. •
Section 7 gives yet another source of revenue for local governments: share in the proceeds from the exploitation and development of natural resources found within the locality. For example paying for cheaper power rates of energy sourced in the localtiy.
Q: To be considered equitable, how much shall be the share of the local governments in the procceds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas? A: The method for equitable sharing is found in Sec. 285 of the Local Government Code of the Philippines: SEC. 285. Allocation to Local Government Units. -‐ The share of local government units in the internal revenue allotment shall be allocated in the following manner: (a) Provinces -‐ Twenty-‐three percent (23%); (b) Cities -‐ Twenty-‐three percent (23%); (c) Municipalities -‐ Thirty-‐four percent (34%); and (d) Barangays -‐ Twenty percent (20%). Provided, however, That the share of each province, city, and municipality shall be determined on the basis of the following formula: (a) Population -‐ Fifty percent (50%); (b) Land Area -‐ Twenty-‐five percent (25%); and (c) Equal sharing -‐ Twenty-‐five percent (25%).
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Q: Residents of Bacong, Dumaguete and Dauin are demanding a share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the geothermal plants in the Palinpinon, Valencia, claiming that while the steam wells are drilled in Valencia but most of the steam veins come from the neighboring towns and city. Resolve. A: I would resolve that the residents requests be granted. For while the steam wells are in Palinpinon, Valencia, the steam veins are located in their own towns and city. Therefore they must receive a share from the use of the natural resources that their towns and city have under their jurisdiction.
Section 8: The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term which he was elected. •
•
Section 8 not only set the term at three years but also prohibits local officials from serving for more than three consecutive terms. These two limitations, however, do not apply to barangay officials whose term and number of allowable terms may be set by law. For service to be counted as one term for the purpose of the three-‐term limit, two essential elements are required. First, the official must have been elected to the position three consecutive times, and second, he must have served three full terms.
Abundo vs. Comelec Issue: Does the service of a term less than the full three years considered as full service of the term for purposes of the three term limit rule? Ruling: No. There can be no quibbling that, during the term 2004-‐2007, and with the enforcement of the decision of the election protest in his favor, Abundo assumed the mayoralty post only on May 9, 2006 and served the term until June 30, 2007 or for a period of a little over one year and one month. Consequently, unlike Mayor Ong in Ong and Mayor Morales in Rivera, it cannot be said that Mayor Abundo was able to serve fully the entire 2004-‐2007 term to which he was otherwise entitled. A “term,” as defined in Appari v. Court of Appeals,63 means, in a legal sense, “a fixed and definite period of time which the law describes that an officer may hold an office.”64 It also means the “time during which the officer may claim to hold office as a matter of right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another.”65 It is the period of time during which a duly elected official has title to and can serve the functions of an elective office. From paragraph (a) of Sec. 43, RA 7160,66 the term for local elected officials is three (3) years starting from noon of June 30 of the first year of said term. In the present case, during theperiod of one year and ten months, or from June 30, 2004 until May 8, 2006, Abundo cannot plausibly claim, even if he wanted to, that he could hold office of the mayor as a matter of right. Neither can he assert title to the same nor serve the functions of the said elective office.
Section 9: Legislative bodies of local governments shall have sectoral representation as may be prescribed by law. • The qualifications of sectoral representatives are determined by law. Sectoral representation is now provided for in the Local Government Code. Section 10: No province, city, municipality, barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. •
Section 10, is a legacy from the 1973 Constitution. It not only makes creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays subject to “criteria established in the local government code,” thereby declaring these actions properly legislative, but it also makes creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries “ subject to approval by majority of votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Navarro vs. Ermita, Feb. 10, 2011 Issue: Is RA 9335, An Act Creating the Province of Dinagat Islands, constitutional? Ruling: No. It is undisputed that R.A. No. 9355 complied with the income requirement specified by the Local Government Code. What is disputed is its compliance with the land area or population requirement. R.A. No. 9355 expressly states that the Province of Dinagat Islands “contains an approximate land area of eighty thousand two hundred twelve hectares (80,212 has.) or 802.12 sq. km., more or less, including Hibuson Island and approximately forty-‐seven (47) islets x x x.”[33] R.A. No. 9355, therefore, failed to comply with the land area requirement of 2,000 square kilometers. Also when the Dinagat Islands was proclaimed a new province on December 3, 2006, it had an official population of only 106,951 based on the NSO 2000 Census of Population. Less than a year after the proclamation of the new province, the NSO conducted the 2007 Census of Population. The NSO certified that as of August 1, 2007, Dinagat Islands had a total population of only 120,813,[37] which was still below the minimum requirement of 250,000 inhabitants. Navarro vs. Ermita, Apr. 12, 2011 Issue: Is RA 9335, An Act Creating the Province of Dinagat Islands, constitutional? Ruling: Yes. The land area, while considered as an indicator of viability of a local government unit, is not conclusive in showing that Dinagat cannot become a province, taking into account its average annual income ofP82,696,433.23 at the time of its creation, as certified by the Bureau of Local Government Finance, which is four times more than the minimum requirement of P20,000,000.00 for the creation of a province. The delivery of basic services to its constituents has been proven possible and sustainable. Rather than looking at the results of the plebiscite and the May 10, 2010 elections as mere fait accompli circumstances which cannot operate in favor of Dinagat’s existence as a province, they must be seen from the perspective that Dinagat is ready and capable of becoming a province. This Court should not be instrumental in stunting such capacity. Umali vs. Comelec Issue: In the plebiscite for the proposed conversion of Cabanatuan City to a highly urbanized city, who are qualified to cast their votes: the registered voters of Cabanatuan City only or the registered voters of the province of Nueva Ecija? Ruling: The registered voters of the province.
Section 11: The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set in Section 10 hereof. The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination. •
Section 11 authorizes Congress to create metropolitan political subdivisions. The area of jurisdiction of such divisions is not the totality of the concerns of municipal government but only basic services. As such it will be a juridical entity with municipal powers, police, eminent domain, and taxation powers exercised by a legislative assembly but only to the extent needed for providing basic services.
Section 12: Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component cities whose chapters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial officials. •
Since the first and second categories do not vote in provincial elections, they are independent of the province. Since they are independent of the province, residents of such a province are not qualified to run for provincial positions. But since those in the third category are under a province, they cannot be denied a vote in the election of provincial officials.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 13: Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with law. •
Section 13 authorizes local government units to”group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with law” It is important to note that the authority to decide whether to enter into groupd efforts with local government units is given to the units themselves. This is another guarantee of local autonomy.
Section 14: The President shall provide for regional development councils or other similar bodies composed of local government officials, regional head of departments and other government offices, and representatives from non-‐governmental organizations within the regions for purposes of administrative decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units therein and to accelerate the economic and social growth and development of the units in the region. • The purpose of this provision is to foster administrative decentralization as a complement to political decentralization. This is meant to allow bottom-‐to-‐top planning rather than the reverse. It will be noted that the power to form these development councils is given to the President. He does not need to wait for authorization from Congress. Q: What is the extent of the authority if the President over regional development councils: control or supervision? A: The authority is one of supervision. The reason being that regional development councils where created to aid in political decentralization. If the President were to have control over them then it would run contrary to the point of political decentralization. Autonomous Regions Section 15: There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, and municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characterisitcs within the framework of this Constitution and the national soveriegnty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. •
•
Section 15 says that the autonomous regions shall consist of “provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographic areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures and other relevant characteristics within the framework” of one svoregin nation. The understanding is that there are such provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographic areas in Mindanao(i.e., the Muslim part) and in the Cordilleras, but that between the areas of Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras there is more or less homogenous culture.
Section 16: The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. •
The power of the President over autonomous regions is the same as his power over local governments-‐ only one of “general supervision,” that is, the power to ensure that subordinate officers execute and act within existing laws.
Section 17: All powers, functions, and responsibilites not granted by the Constitution or by law to the autonomous regions shall be vested in the National Government.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 18: The Congress shall enact an Organic Act for each autonomous region with assistance and participation of the regional consultative commission composed of representatives appointed by the President from a list of nominees from multisectoral bodies. The Organic Act shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive department and legislative assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units. The Organic Act shall likewise provide for special courts with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and national law. The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only province, cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region. Section 19: The First Congress elected under this Constituion shall, within eighteen months from the time of organization of both houses, pass the Organic Acts for the autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. Section 20: Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over: 1) Administrative organization 2) Creation of sources of revenues 3) Ancestral domain and natural resources 4) Personal, family, and property relations 5) Regional urban and rural planning development 6) Economic, social, and tourism development 7) Educational policies 8) Preservation and development of cultural heritage and; 9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region. •
• •
Sections 17, 18, and 20 set down the delineation of the powers of the autonomous regions and the process of establishing these regions. A cardinal principle enunciated in Section 17 is that these autonomous regions are local units which are given “enumerated powers.” Powers not included in the enumeration and not implicit in those enumerated remain vested in the national government. Notably not included in the enumeration are powers over: national defense and security, foreign relations and foreign trade, customes and tariff, quarantine, currency, monetary affairs, foreign exchange, banking and quasi-‐banking, external borrowings, posts and communications, air amd sea trasnport, immigration and deportation, citizenship and naturalization, and general auditing.
Section 21: The preservation of peace and order within the regions shall be the responsibility of the local police agencies which shall be organized, maintained, supervised, and utilized in accordance with applicable laws. The defense and security of the regions shall be the responsibility of the National Government. •
The creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and Cordilleras, which is peculiar to the 1987 Constitution contemplates of the grant of political autonomy and not just administrative autonomies to these regions. Thus, the provision in the Constitution for an autonomous regional government with a basic structure consisting of an executive department and legislative assembly and special courts with personal, family and property law jurisdiction in each of the autonomous regions.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Q: The Executive Department entered into a Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The agreement defines the core area of the Bangsamoro as “present ARMM, the six municipalities in Lanao del Norte that voted ‘yes’ in the 2001 plebiscite on the exapnsion of ARMM, all barangays in six municipalities in North Cotabato that also voted ‘yes’ in the same plebiscite, Cotabato City and Isabela City, and all other contiguos areas where there is a revolution of the local government unit or a petition of at least 10% of qualified voters in the area askinf for their inclusion at least tw months prior to the conduct of the ratification of the Bangsamoro Basic Law.” Can Congress enact a law to this efftect, without amending the Constitution? A: Yes. Since as stated in the agreement it will replace the ARMM with the Bangsamoro. The Constitution allows for the creation of an autonomus region in Muslim Mindanao. The details such as the size area, name and others not mentioned specifically in the Constitution is left to the discretion of the President. Q: The CAB also provides for an establishment of a “Bangsamoro waters” consisting of waters within, around, and connecting the Bangsamoro core territory up to 12 nautical miles seawards. Can Congress enact a law to this effect, without amending the Constitution? A: Yes. Due to the reason that the Bangsamoro waters are ultimately under Philippine jurisdiction. The Bangsamoro waters however also under the Bangsamoro due to the fact of their autonomy. Q: The CAB also provides for a establishment of an asymmetric “ministerial form government” whereby ministers will be elected from the constituent units of the Bangsamoro and who will in turn elect the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister shall be the Chief Executive of the Bangsamoro and shall be the Presiding Officer of the Bangsamoro Legislature whereat he also sits as a member. Can Congress enact a law to this effect, without amending the Constitution? A: Yes. The reason being that it is allowed in the Constitution, specifically Section 18 of Article X which states: The Congress shall enact an Organic Act for each autonomous region with assistance and participation of the regional consultative commission composed of representatives appointed by the President from a list of nominees from multisectoral bodies. The Organic Act shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive department and legislative assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units. The Organic Act shall likewise provide for special courts with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and national law. Since the Organic Act can define the structure of both executive and legislative department provided the constituent has the power to elect their officials to represent them. As such the “ministerial form of government” is allowed since it followes this requirement. Ampatuan vs. Puno Issue: Does Proclamation 1946 and Aos 273 and 273-‐A violate the principle of local autonomy under Section 16, Article X of the Constitution, and Section 1, Article V of the Expanded ARMM Organic Act? Ruling: No. The DILG Secretary did not take over control of the powers of the ARMM. After law enforcement agents took respondent Governor of ARMM into custody for alleged complicity in the Maguindanao massacre, the ARMM Vice-‐Governor, petitioner Ansaruddin Adiong, assumed the vacated post on December 10, 2009 pursuant to the rule on succession found in Article VII, Section 12, of RA 9054. In turn, Acting Governor Adiong named the then Speaker of the ARMM Regional Assembly, petitioner Sahali-‐Generale, Acting ARMM Vice-‐Governor. In short, the DILG Secretary did not take over the administration or operations of the ARMM. Kida vs. Senate and House Issue: Do the supermajority and enlarged plebiscite requirements of RA No. 9054 consistent with Section 18, Article X of the Constitution? Does RA No. 10153 violate the autonomy granted to the ARMM? Ruling: No. Even assuming that RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 did in fact amend RA No. 9054, the supermajority (2/3) voting requirement required under Section 1, Article XVII of RA No. 9054 has to be struck down for giving RA No. 9054 the character of an irrepealable law by requiring more than what the Constitution demands.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
ARTICLE XI ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. -
-
the basic idea of the gov’t. of the Phils. ‘is that of a representative gov’t., the officers being mere agents and not rulers of the people, 1 where no 1 man or set of men has propriety or contractual right to office, but where every officer accepts office pursuant to the provision of law and holds the office as a trust for the people whom he represents although public service is its reward, nevertheless, public officers may by law be rewarded for exemplary and exceptional performance.
SERRANA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN GR NO. 162059. JAN. 22, 2008 ISSUE: Is compensation an essential element of public office? RULING: NO. It is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. It is merely incidental to the public office. Delegation of sovereign function is essential in the public office. An investment in a individual of some portion of the sovereign functions of the gov’t. to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes one a public officer.
Section 2. The President, the Vice-‐President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. -
-
object of impeachment was not to punish a person but only to remove a person from office, to divest him of his political capacity removal and disqualification are the only punishments that can be imposed upon a conviction on impeachment criminal and civil liability can follow after the officer has been removed by impeachment prosecution after impeachment does not constitute prohibited double jeopardy In prohibiting the legislature from increasing the number of impeachable officers, the intention was to prevent the creation of a special class of statutoritly protected officials. Hence, all other public officers and employess may be may be removed from office as provided by law, but not impeachment. The right to be removed only by impeachement is the Constitution’s stronges guarantee of security of tenure It should also be noted that resignation of an impeachable officer does not place him beyond the reach of impeachment for offenses committed during his tenure. Culpable violation of the Constitution – willfull and intentional violation of the Constituion and not vilations committed unintentionally or involuntarily or in good faith or through honest mistake of judgement High crimes – offenses which are indictable offenses and are such enormous gravity that they strike at the very life and orderly working of the government
GONZALES VS. OCHOA GR. NO. 196231, SEPT. 4, 2012
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
ISSUE: Would every negligent act or misconduct in the performance of a Deputy Ombud’s Man’s duties constituted betrayal or public trust warranting immediate removal from office? RULING: NO. Where betrayal of public trust, for purposes of impeachment, was not intended to cover all kinds of wrongdoing and plain errors of judgment, this should remain true even for purposes of removing a Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutors from office. Betrayal of public trust could not suddenly “overreach” to cover acts that are not various or malevolent on the same level as the other grounds for impeachment. The tragic hostage taking incident was the result of a confluence of several unfortunate events including system failure of gov’t. response even if there was inordinate delay in the resolution of PLS Institution. Mendoza’s motion and an unexplained failure on petitioner’s part to supervise his subordinates in its prompt disposition, the same cannot be considered a vicious and malevolent act warranting his removal for betrayal of public trust. More so because the neglect imputed upon petitioner appears to be an isolated case.
Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. (2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof. (3) A vote of at least one-‐third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded. (4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-‐third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. (5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-‐thirds of all the Members of the Senate. (7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law. (8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section. -
senate tries the impeachment case and can convict only be a vote of 2/3s off all its members the penalty which the Senate may impose shall be limited to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the RP this penalty is beyond the reach of the President’s power of executive clemency but does not place the officer beyond liability to criminal prosecution for the same offenses initiation of impeachment is governed by the rules of the House; trial is governed by the rules of the Senate for the purpose
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
-
-
the constitution prohibits the initiation of more than 1 “impeachable proceeding” within 1 year the proceeding is initiated or begins, when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action the debates on the Constitutional Commission made it clear that when the impeachment proceeding have become moot due to the resignation of the Pres., the proper criminal and civil cases may already be filed against him “incumbent President’s are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency ans tenure but not beyond (IN re Saturnino Bermudez)
GUTIERREZ VS. HOUSE COMMUNICATION ON JUSTICE, GR NO. 193459, FEB. 15 2011 ISSUE: Did the House Committee On Justice fail to ascertain the sufficiency of form and substance of the complaints on the basis of standards sets by the constitution and its own Impeachment Rules? RULING: NO. The Court said that the determination of form and substance of an impeachment complaint is an exponent of the express constitutional grant of rule-‐making powers of the House of Rep. which committed such determinative function to public respondent. In discharge of that power and in the exercise of its discretion, the House has formulated determinable standards as to the form and substance of an impeachment complaint. Prudential consideration behoove the court to respect the compliance by the House of its duty to effectively carry out the constitutional purpose, absent any contravention of the minimum constitutional guidelines. Contrary to petitioner’s position that the Impeachment rules do not provide for comprehensible standards in determining the sufficiency of form and substance, the Impeachment Rules are clear in echoing the Constitution Requirements and providing that there must be a “verified complaint or resolution” and that the substance requirement is met if there is a “recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee. ISSUE : Should the impeachment Rules be published to be effective? RULING: NO. It is within the discretion of the congress to determine how to promulgate its Impeachment Rules, in much the same way that the Judiciary is permitted to determine that to promulgate a decision means to deliver the decision to the clerk of court for filing and publication. It is not for the court to tell a co-‐equal branch of government how to promulgate when the constitution itself has not prescribed a specific method of promulgation. The court is in no position to dictate a mood of promulgation beyond the dictates of the constitution. Had the constitution intended to have the impeachment rules published it could have categorically stated so as it did in the case of the rules of procedure in legislative inquiries. Other than “promulgate” there is no other single formal term in the English language to appropriately refer to an issuance without need of it being published. ISSUE: Should the impeachment against Gutierrez be considered a prohibited second impeachment proceeding initiated within one-‐year? RULING: NO. The one-‐year ban reckoned from date it is referred to the House Committee On Justice. The term “to initiate” refers to filing of the impeachment complaint couple with Congress taking initial action of the said complaint. Hence initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Communication of Justice or, by the filing of at least one-‐third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House, the meaning of Secretary 3(5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one-‐year period. ISSUE : Should an impeachment complaint only allege one impeachable offence under the one offence, one complaint rule of the rules on criminal procedure?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
RULING: NO. The constitution allows the indictment or multiple impeachment offences, each charge representing an article of impeachment, assembled in one set know as the “articles of impeachment”. It therefore follows than an impeachment complaint need not allege only one impeachable offense.
Section 4. The present anti-‐graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law. -
Generally, the jurisdiction of the SB is over public officers, however in case private individuals are charged as co-‐principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officer or employees, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers or employees (Sec. 4, PD No. 1606)
DESIERTO VS CARANDANG GR. NO. 148076 Jan. 1, 2011 Issue: As a general operating officer of Radio Philippines Network (a GOCC), does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over Carandang? Ruling: The Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over administrative cases committed exclusively by officials and employees of GOCC in which the government directly or indirectly controls majority or 51% share of the capital stock. Consequently, RPN is neither a government owned or controlled corporation since its share is only 32.4%. In conclusion, the petition is meritorious and Carandang is correct that the Ombudsman and SandiganBayan have no jurisdiction over him for being an employee of a private company.
Section 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman, composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed.
Section 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other than the Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman, according to the Civil Service Law. -
Office of the Ombudsman is an independent body un the Constitution The Ombudsman has the power to appoint all officials & emplyees of the Office of the Ombudsman, except his deputies. The Ombudsman has also been vested with the ower of administrative control and supervision of the Office. It includes the authority to determine & establish the qualifications, duties, functions & reponsibilities of the various dierectorates & allied services of the Office, the CSC has no power over this.
OMBUDSMAN VS CSC, GR NO. 162215 JULY 30, 2007 Issue: What is the extent of CSC’s power of the personnel organization staffing and qualification over employees of the Ombudsman? Ruling: Under the constitution the office of the Ombudsman is an independent body. As a guaranty of this independence, the Ombudsman has the power to appoint all officials and employees of the office of the Ombudsman, except its deputies. This power necessarily includes, the power of setting, prescribing, and administrative standards for the officials and personnel of the office. The Ombudsman also has been vested with the power of administrative control and supervision of the office. Since the responsibility for the establishment, administration lies within the concerned agency, the role of the CSC is limited to assisting the agency with respect to these qualification standards and approving them. The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of the agency especially in a case like this in which an independent constitutional body is involved.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
GONZALES VS OCHOA GR. NO. 196231 Issue: Is Sec. 8(2) of RA 6670 which vest unto the President disciplinary jurisdiction over the Deputy Ombudsman valid and constitutional? Ruling: No. The court ruled that subjecting the Ombudsman to discipline or removal by the president whose own alter egos and officials in the Executive Department are subject to the Ombudsman disciplinary authority, cannot but seriously place at risk the independence of the Ombudsman. Sec 8 (2) of RA 6770 directly collided not only with the independence that the constitution guarantees to the office of the Ombudsman but invariably with the principle of checks and balances that the creation of an Ombudsman Office seeks to revitalize.
Section 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution. -
Tanodbayan – essentially a prosecutory arm but RA No. 6770 has given the prosecutorial powers to the Ombudsman Ombudsman – champion of the citizen and not bound by legal technicalities Special prosecutor – continue to exercise the powers the former Tanodbayan had except those which were passed to the Ombudsman; could neither investigate not prosecute unless authorized by the Ombudsman
GONZALES VS OCHOA GR. NO. 196231 Issue: Is Sec. 8 (2) of RA 6770 which vest unto the President disciplinary jurisdiction over the Special Prosecutor valid or constitutional? Ruling: Yes. The court did not consider the office of the Special Prosecutor to be constitutionally within the office of the Ombudsman. Hence, is not entitled to the independence the latter enjoys under the constitution.
Section 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-‐born citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of their appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity and independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election. The Ombudsman must have, for ten years or more, been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of Article IX-‐A of this Constitution.
Section 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur.
Section 10. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of Chairman and Members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions, and they shall receive the same salary which shall not be decreased during their term of office.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without reappointment. They shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office. -
The Constitution does not prescribe the qualifications of the Special Prosecutor
Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-‐owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof. -‐ There is no constitutionally prescribed form for complaints before the Ombudsman can act; he is mandated to act promptly!
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: (1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. (2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-‐owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties. (3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith. (4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action. (5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents. (6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence. (7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency. (8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. PIA VS GERVACIO, GR. NO 172334 June 5, 2013 Issue: What is the quantum of evidence required in proceedings before the Ombudsman? Is the Ombudsman decision imposing the penalty of suspension for 1 year immediately executory pending appeal?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable is substantial evidence. The rules of court defines substantial evidence as the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. As explained in Ombudsman vs CA, a decision of the office of the Ombudsman is immediately executory even pending appeal. PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No. 185729-‐32, JUNE 25,2013 Issue: Does the Ombudsman have the power to grant immunity? Ruling: Yes. Sec. 17 of RA 6770 provides “Under such terms and conditions as it may determine, taking into account the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, the Ombudsman may grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession or production of documents or other evidence may be necessary to determine the truth in any hearing conducted by the Ombudsman or under its authority, in the performance or in the furtherance of its constitutional functions and statutory objectives. His authority enables the Ombudsman to carry out his constitutional mandate to ensuic accountability in the public service. It gives the ombudsman wide latitude in using an accused discharged from the information to increase the chances of conviction of the other accused and attain a higher prosecutorial goal.
Section 14. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. -
-
-
Sec. 12 & 13 spell out the duties & responsibilities of the Ombudsman and his deputies They function essentially as complaints & action bureau One of the principal functions is the capability to act immediately on complaints not leading to prosecution but to correction or implemention of the request, either phoned in, or simply made orally or even in writing (Commisioner Colayco). To cut red tape in order to obtain gov’t action, they can commence investigation without having to wait for a formal complaint The power of the Ombudsman to investigate is very broad especially as it has been given by R.A. No. 6670 and expanded by the Ombudsman Act of 1989 He can investigate ‘any illegal act or omission by a public official’ even if the offense committed by the official is not related to the performance of his functions Even the claim of confidentiality will not prevent the Ombudsman from demanding the production of documents needed for the investigation Under Bank Secrecy Law, there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction before an in camera inspection may b allowe; account must be clearly identified; inspiection limited to subject matter of pending case; bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during inspection & such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case When Ombudaman has power to investigate a complaint, he also has the authority to dismiss the complaint While Ombudsman’s power to investigate is primary, it is not ABSOLUTE, he may delegate it to otherswho have power to investigate & take it back anytime he wants to Power to investigate also includes power to impose preventive suspension Thus: 1. The Ombudsman can investigate only officers of the gov’t. owned corps. With original charter. PAL, even when still owned by gov’t., did not have original charter 2. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over disciplinary cases involving public school teachers has been modified by Sec 9. Of RA No. 4670 w/c says that such cases must first go to a committee appointed by the Sec. of Education (Ombudman vs Estandarte, April 13,2007). It is erroneous thus to contend the RA No. 4670 confers an exclusive disciplinary authority on the DECS over public school teachers & prescribes an exclusive procedure in administrative investigations involving them. The 1987 Consitution & RA No. 6770 were quite explicit in conferring authority on the Ombudsman to act on complaints against ALL public official
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
-
-
-
& employees, except those who may be removed only by impeachment or over members of congress or Judiciary. 3. Sec. 25 of RA No. 6770, “The Ombudsman may imposein administrative proceedings the penalty ranging from suspension without pay fro 1 year to dismissal with forfeiture of benefits or a fine ranging from P5,000 to twiced the amount malversed, illegally taken or lost, or both at his discretion.” Note: elective officials may be dismissed only by the proper court according to the Local Gov’t. Code 4. Special Prosecutor -‐ may not file an information without authority from the Ombudsman; prosecutes only when authorized by the Ombudsman Deputy Ombudsman – has been given a delegated authority to prosecute 5. Ombudsman has been conferred rule making power to govern procedures under it; 1 who is answering an administrative complaint filed before the Ombudsman may not appeal to the procedural rules under the CSC 6. Power to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation on any Ombusdman case may be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or their assistance, either in their regular capacities as deputized Ombusdman prosecutors 7. Preventive suspension – only last 90 days in consonance with PD No. 807, now Sec. 52 of the Administrative Code of 1987
Section 15. The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. -
Sec. 15 of R.A. No. 1379, “The laws concerning acquisitive prescription & limitition of actions cannot be invoked by, nor hsall they benefit the respondent in respect of any property unlawfully acquired by him”. In Preidential Ad Hoc Fact-‐Finding Com. on Behest Loans v. Desierto it has been declared that Sec. 15 of Art. XI applies only to civil actions fro recovery of ill-‐gotten wealth, & not to criminal cases Prescription of criminal cases is governed by special laws on prescription
REPULIC VS. COJUANGCO OR NO. 139930, JUNE 26, 2012.
ISSUE: May the prosecution of offenses arising from, relating, or incident to, or involving its gotten wealth contemplated in sec. Art XI of the constitution be barred by prescription. RULING: Yes. The court has already settled in Pres. Ad HOC-‐Fact-‐Finding Committee on Behest Loans V. Desierto that Sec.15,, Art IX of the 1987 constitution applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-‐gotten wealth, not to criminal cases such as the complaint against respondents in OMB-‐0-‐90-‐2810. Thus, the prosecution of offenses arising from, relating or incident to, or involving ill-‐gotten wealth contemplated in Sec.15, ART XI of the 1987 constitution may be barred by prescription. Prescription of actions is a valued rule in all civilized states from the beginning of organized society. It is a ruled of fairness, since without it, the plaintiff can postpone the filling of his action to the point of depriving the defendant, through the passage of time, of access to defense witness that would have been discarded or could no longer be located. Moreover, the memories of witness are eroded by time. There is an absolute need in the interest of fairness to bar actions that have taken the plaintiff too long to file in court.
Section 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for any business purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by any government-‐owned or controlled bank or financial institution to the President, the Vice-‐President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
-
Intention is to prevent such high ranking officials from making use of their position fro the purposes of obtaining financial accommodations from govt. institutions & from firms wherein they have a controlling interest
Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-‐President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. -
2 commands: 1) filing of a declaration of assets & liabilities – applicable to public officers & employees regardless of rank 2) public disclosure of assets & liabilities in the manner provided by law – applicable only to Pres., VP, members of Cabinet, the Congress, the SC, & the Constitutional Commissions However, the legislature may also require public disclosure of assets & liabilities of other official.
OMBUDSMAN VS. CAPULONG GR NO. 201643, MARCH 12, 2014.
ISSUE: Did Capulong’s non-‐disclosure of his wife business interest in his SALN Constitute serious dishonesty of grave misconduct? RULING: No. Capulong’s nondisclosure of his wife’s business interest does not constitute serious dishonesty of grave misconduct. Nothing in the record reveals that Capulong deliberately placed “N/A” in his SALN despite knowledge about his wife’s business interest. As explained by Capulong, the SEC already revoked the registration of the corporations where his wife was an incorporator ; hence, he deemed it not necessary to indicate it in his SALN.
Section 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all times and any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law. -
Rationale given by Com. Ople: Public officers are expected to set the example or standard of single-‐minded allegiance to the nation & to the public interest. xxx
ARTICLE XII NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged. The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership. •
Threefold goal of the national economy
1. More equitable distribution of wealth; 2. Increase of wealth for the benefit of the people; 3. Increased productivity. • The State shall promote industrialization and full employment 1. It should be based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform 2. It should be through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources. Industries should also be competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. • Meaning of the Phrase “UNFAIR FOREIGN COMPETITION AND TRADE PRACTICES” The phrase is not to be understood in a limited legal and technical sense but in the sense of anything that is harmful to Philippine enterprises. At the same time, however, the intention is not to protect local inefficiency. Nor is the intention to protect local industries from foreign competition at the expense of the consuming public. • Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS The national patrimony refers not only to natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. • Miners Association of the Philippines vs. Factoran The 1987 Constitution assumed a more dynamic role in the exploration, development, and utilization (EDU) of the natural resources of the country.
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-‐production, joint venture, or production-‐sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-‐five years, renewable for not more than twenty-‐ five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The Congress may, by law, allow small-‐scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish-‐ workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-‐owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-‐scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution. •
•
The following are owned by the State: 1. Lands of the public domain 2. Waters 3. Minerals, coals, petroleum, and other mineral oils 4. All sources of potential energy 5. Fisheries 6. Forests or timber 7. Wildlife 8. Flora and fauna and 9. Other natural resources. Alienation of Natural Resources General Rule: All natural resources CANNOT be alienated. Exception: Agricultural lands.
What is Regalian Doctrine [Jura Regalia]? The Regalian doctrine is a universal feudal theory that all lands were held from the Crown. • Any person claiming ownership of a portion of the public domain must be able to show title from the state according to any of the recognized modes of acquisition of title. • Exploration, Development and Utilization (EDU) of Natural Resources 1. Shall be under the full control and supervision of the State 2. Meaning: a. The state may DIRECTLY UNDERTAKE such activities b. The state may enter into CO-‐PRODUCTION, JOINT VENTURE OR PRODUCTION-‐SHARING arrangements with Filipino citizen or Corporation or association at least 60% of whose capital is owned by such citizens. 3. Limitations: a. Period: It should not exceed 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years. b. Under terms and conditions as may be provided by law. 4. In case of water rights/water supply/fisheries/industrial uses other than the development of water power 5. The beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. • Small-‐scale Utilization of Natural Resources 1. Congress may, by law, authorize small-‐scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens. 2. Congress may also authorize cooperative fish farming with priority given to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in the rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons. • Large-‐Scale Exploration, Development and Utilization of Minerals/Petroleum/Other Mineral Oils 1. The President may enter into agreements with foreign owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large scale exploration etc. of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils. These agreements should be in accordance with the general terms and conditions provided by law. 2. They should be based on the real contributions to economic growth and general welfare of the country. •
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
3. In the agreements, the State should promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. 4. The President should notify Congress of every contract under this provision within 30 days from its execution. 5. Management and service contracts are not allowed under this rule. • Protection of Marine Wealth 1. The State shall protect its marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea & EEZ 2. The State shall reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. • Q: Who may change the classification of public lands, e.g., from inalienable to alienable, and how is the classification done? A: The classification of public lands is the exclusive prerogative of the President upon recommendation of the pertinent department head. (CA No. 141) • Q: Does the classification of land change automatically when the nature of the land changes? A: No. A positive act of the executive is needed. Anyone who claims that the classification has been changed must be able to show the positive act of the President indicating such positive act. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature and not of what the land actually looks like. Hence, for instance, that a former forest has been denuded does not by the fact meant that it has ceased to be forest land. (Director of Lands v. Judge Aquino, 1990) • Q: Can a land have a mixed classification, e.g., partly mineral, partly agricultural? A: No. “The Court feels that the rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. • La Bugal-‐B’laan vs. DENR The management or operation of mining activities by foreign contractors, which is the primary feature of service contracts, was precisely the evil that the drafters of the 1987 Constitution sought to eradicate. • La Bugal-‐B’laan vs. DENR All mineral resources are owned by the State. Their exploration, development and utilization (EDU) must always be subject to the full control and supervision of the State. More specifically, given the inadequacy Filipino capital and technology in large-‐scale EDU activities, the State may secure the help of foreign companies in all relevant matters – especially financial and technical assistance – provided that, at all times, the State maintains its rights of full control.
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-‐five years, renewable for not more than twenty-‐five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant. Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor. •
LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN ARE CLASSIFIED INTO: 1. Agricultural 2. Forest/timber 3. Mineral lands & 4. National Parks
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
1. Reclassification of PUBLIC (MINERAL AND AGRICULTURAL) lands – exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department through the Office of the President, upon recommendation by the DENR. But as to FOREST AND NATIONAL PARKS, it is the Congress which has the sole power to reclassify. 2. Classification is descriptive of the legal nature of the land and NOT what it looks like. Thus, the fact that forest land is denuded does not mean it is no longer forest land. • Alienable lands of public domain 1. Only agricultural lands are alienable. 2. Agricultural lands may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted. • Limitations regarding Alienable Lands of the Public Domain 1. For private corporations or associations a. They can only hold alienable lands of the public domain BY LEASE b. Period: Cannot exceed 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years c. Area: Lease cannot exceed 1,000 hectares NOTE: A corporation sole is treated like other private corporations for the purpose of acquiring public lands. 2. For Filipino citizens a. Can lease up to 500 hectares b. Can ACQUIRE not more than 12 hectares by purchase, homestead or grant • Means by Which Lands of the Public Domain Become Private Land 1. Acquired from government by purchase or grant; 2. Uninterrupted possession by the occupant and his predecessors-‐in-‐interest since time immemorial; and 3. Open, exclusive, and undisputed possession of ALIENABLE (agricultural) public land for a period of 30 years. a. Upon completion of the requisite period, the land becomes private property ipso jure without need of any judicial or other sanction. b. Possession since time immemorial leads to the presumption that the land was never part of public domain. c. In computing 30 years, start from when land was converted to alienable land, not when it was still forest land d. Presumption is always that land belongs to the State. • Q: Section 2 speaks of “co-‐production, joint venture, or production sharing agreements” as modes of exploration, development, and utilization of inalienable lands. Does this effectively exclude the lease system? A: Yes, with respect to mineral and forest lands. (Agricultural lands may be subject of lease). • Q: Who are qualified to take part in the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources? A: Filipino citizens and corporations or associations at least sixty percent of whose capital is owned by Filipino citizens. (Note however, that as to marine wealth, only Filipino citizens are qualified. This is also true of natural resources in rivers, bays, lakes and lagoons, but with allowance for cooperatives.). • Q: If natural resources, except agricultural land, cannot be alienated, how may they be explored, developed, or utilized? A: (1) Direct undertaking of activities by the State or (2) Co-‐production, joint venture, or production sharing agreements with the State and all “under the full control and supervision of the State.” • Q: May the State enter into service contracts with foreign owned corporations? A: Yes, but subject to the strict limitations in the last two paragraphs of Section 2. Financial and technical agreements are a form of service contract. Such service contacts may be entered into only with respect to minerals,
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
petroleum, and other mineral oils. The grant of such service contracts is subject to several safeguards, among them: (1) that the service contract be crafted in accordance with a general law setting standard of uniform terms, conditions and requirements; (2) the President be the signatory for the government; and (3) the President report the executed agreement to Congress within thirty days.
Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide, for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas. •
•
May national parks be increased or diminished? -‐ The forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. Director of Lands vs. CA The classification of public lands in an exclusive prerogative of the executive department of the government and not the courts. In the absence of such classification, the land remains as unclassified land until it is released there from and rendered open to disposition.
Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-‐being. The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain. •
Protection of Indigenous Cultural Communities 1. The State protects the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands a. Subject to Constitutional provisions b. Subject to national development policies and programs
2. In determining ownership and extent of ancestral domain, Congress may use customary laws on property rights and relations. 3. “ANCESTRAL DOMAIN” a. It refers to lands which are considered as pertaining to a cultural region b. This includes lands not yet occupied, such as deep forests. • Carino vs. Insular Gov’t Native title held by Filipinos from time immemorial and excluded them from the coverage of jura regalia since they are private and belong to indigenous people. Their indigenous rights precede state ownership and antedate the very concept of public dominion. • Cruz vs. Secretary R.A. 8371, or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997, recognizes the existence of the indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples as a distinct sector in the Philippine society. It grants these people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these lands and domains.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands. •
Manila Memorial Park vs. DSWD The right to property has a social dimension. While Article XIII of the Constitution provides the precept for the protection of property, various laws and jurisprudence, particularly on agrarian reform and the regulation of contracts and public utilities, continuously serve as a reminder that the right to property can be relinquished upon the command of the State for the proportion of public good. Q: May the National Electrification Authority, a government agency empowered by law to supervise and control electric cooperatives and borrowers, override the decisions of a cooperatives board? A. In the facts of this case the Court saw no proof of direct injury to petitioner. Hence it did not want to rule directly on the constitutionality of the law authorizing NEA to override a board. However, the court observed that Article XII Section 6 of the Constitution says that cooperatives are subject to the duty of the State to intervene when the common good demands. [La Union Electric Cooperative vs. Judge Yaranon].
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Who may acquire private lands? • GENERAL RULE: 1. Private lands CAN only be transferred or conveyed to: a. Filipino citizens b. Corporations or associations incorporated in the Philippines, at least 60% of whose capital is owned by Filipino citizens Exceptions i. In intestate succession, where an alien heir of a Filipino is the transferee of private land. ii. A natural born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of PRIVATE LAND, subject to limitation provided by law. Hence, land can be used only for residential purposes. In this case, he only acquires derivative title. iii. Foreign states may acquire land but only for embassy and staff residence purposes. 3. Filipino citizenship is only required at the time the land is acquired. Thus, loss of citizenship after acquiring the land does not deprive ownership. 4. Restriction against aliens only applies to acquisition of ownership. Therefore: a. Aliens may be lessees or usufructuaries of private lands b. Aliens may be mortgagees of land, as long as they do not obtain possession thereof and do not bid in the foreclosure sale. 5. Land tenure is not indispensable to the free exercise of religious profession and worship. A religious corporation controlled by non-‐ Filipinos cannot acquire and own land, even for religious purposes. •
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
•
•
J.G. Summit Holdings v. CA The prohibition under Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution applies only to ownership of land – it does not extend to immovable or real property as defined in Article 415 of the Civil Code. Republic vs. Iglesia ni Kristo The Iglesia ni Kristo, a corporation sole of juridical person, is disqualified to acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain, because the said church is not entitled to avail itself of the benefits which applies only to Filipino citizens or natural persons. A corporation sole has no nationality. Cheesman vs. IAC The constitution prohibits the sale of the land to aliens. He acquired no right whatsoever over the property inspite of the fact that it was purchased by his wife during their marriage.
Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-‐born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law. A natural born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of PRIVATE LAND, subject to limitation provided by law. Hence, land can be used only for residential purposes. In this case, he only acquires derivative title. Remedies to recover private lands from disqualified aliens: 1. Escheat proceedings 2. Action for reversion under the Public Land Act 3. An action by the former Filipino owner to recover the land a. The former in pari delicto principle has been abandoned b. Alien still has the title (didn’t pass it on to one who is qualified) •
Section 9. The Congress may establish an independent economic and planning agency headed by the President, which shall, after consultations with the appropriate public agencies, various private sectors, and local government units, recommend to Congress, and implement continuing integrated and coordinated programs and policies for national development. Until the Congress provides otherwise, the National Economic and Development Authority shall function as the independent planning agency of the government. •
National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) in the independent planning agency of the Government as provided for by the Constitution. This is the central planning agency which is recommendatory to Congress. While it is independent of Congress, it is under the President and dependent on the President who chairs the body.
Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. •
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities. • Power of Congress 1. Congress, upon the recommendation of NEDA, can reserve to Filipino citizens or to corporations or associations at least 60% of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe certain areas of investment. This may be done when the national interest dictates. 2. Congress shall also enact measures to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. • National Economy and Patrimony In the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to QUALIFIED Filipinos. •
Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines. Power to grant: 1. Congress may directly grant a legislative franchise; or 2. Power to grant franchises may be delegated to appropriate regulatory agencies and/or LGU’s • Public utility 1. In order to be considered as a public utility, and thus subject to this provision, the undertaking must involve dealing directly with the public. 2. Thus, a Build-‐Operate-‐Transfer grantee is NOT a public utility. The BOT grantee merely constructs the utility, and it leases the same to the government. It is the government which operates the public utility (operation separate from ownership). • To whom granted: 1. Filipino citizens or 2. Corporations or associations incorporated in the Philippines and at least 60% of the capital is owned by Filipino citizens. • Terms and conditions: 1. Duration: Not more than 50 years 2. Franchise is NOT exclusive in character 3. Franchise is granted under the condition that it is subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by Congress when the common good so requires. • Participation of Foreign Investors 1. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital. 2. Foreigners cannot be appointed as the executive and managing officers because these positions are reserved for Filipino citizens. • A franchise, certificate or authorization shall not be exclusive nor for a period more than 50 years, and shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress. •
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• • •
All executive and managing officers must Filipino citizens. In Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. NRC, 2003, it was held that a franchise to operate a public utility is not an exclusive private property of the franchisee. No franchisee can demand or acquire exclusivity in the operation of a public utility. Thus, a franchisee cannot complain of seizure or taking of property because of the issuance of another franchise to a competitor. Albano v. Reyes The Supreme Court said that Congress does not have the exclusive power to issue such authorization. Administrative bodies, e.g. LTFRB, ERB, etc., may be empowered to do so.
Section 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive. • •
Filipino First Policy Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS The Supreme Court said that this provision is a positive command which is complete in it and needs no further guidelines or implementing rules or laws for its operation. It is per se enforceable. It means precisely that Filipinos should be preferred and when the Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances, an action may be maintained to enforce such right.
Section 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity. • Forms and arrangements in economic exchange to can be any number of those which are in practice, e.g., counter-‐trade, common market arrangements and others. As to the quality of these arrangements, first, they must serve the general welfare – which includes not just health, safety, security but also the idea of protection of local enterprises. Secondly, these must be characterized not only by reciprocity but also by equality which imports mutual benefits. Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high-‐level technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit. The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law. •
Care for Filipino professionals and skilled workers. This reflects the desire not only to develop a ready reservoir of Filipino professionals, scientists and skilled workers but also to protect their welfare. The limitation on the practice of professions, however, is subject to exceptions found in reciprocity laws.
Section 15. The Congress shall create an agency to promote the viability and growth of cooperatives as instruments for social justice and economic development. •
Development of cooperatives. This provision indicates a line agency under the Office of the President and outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. The purpose would be to promote the growth and viability of cooperatives in the private sectors.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-‐owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability. • •
Private corporations Congress can only provide for the formation, etc of private corporations through a general law. GOCC’s They may be created by: a. Special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability. b. By incorporation under the general corporation law.
Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest. Takeover of Public Utilities The power given to the President to take over the operation of public utilities does not stand alone. It is activated only if Congress grants emergency powers to the President under Article VI, Section 23. 1. Temporary takeover or direction of operations: a. Conditions i. National emergency and ii. When the public interest requires b. May be used against privately owned public utilities or businesses affected with public interest. c. Duration of the takeover: period of emergency d. Takeover is subject to reasonable terms and conditions e. No need for just compensation because it is only temporary. 2. Nationalization of vital industries: a. Exercised in the interest of national welfare or defense b. Involves either: i. Establishment and operation of vital industries; or ii. Transfer to public ownership, upon payment of just compensation, public utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the government. •
Section 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government. Q. Distinguish Section 17 from Section 18. A. Section 18 deals with state ownership of public utilities and industries, Section 17 deals merely with temporary state take-‐over of “the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.” Hence, no compensation is involved in Section 17.
Section 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed. •
Monopoly
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
A monopoly is “a privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right (or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of a particular commodity.” Clearly, monopolies are not per se prohibited by the Constitution but may be permitted to exist to aid the government in carrying on an enterprise or to aid in the performance of various services and functions in the interest of the public. 1. The Constitution does NOT prohibit the existence of monopolies. 2. The State may either regulate or prohibit monopolies, when public interest so requires. 3. Combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition are prohibited.
Section 20. The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority, the members of whose governing board must be natural-‐born Filipino citizens, of known probity, integrity, and patriotism, the majority of whom shall come from the private sector. They shall also be subject to such other qualifications and disabilities as may be prescribed by law. The authority shall provide policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit. It shall have supervision over the operations of banks and exercise such regulatory powers as may be provided by law over the operations of finance companies and other institutions performing similar functions. Until the Congress otherwise provides, the Central Bank of the Philippines, operating under existing laws, shall function as the central monetary authority. •
The main concern in the formulation of this provision was to assure independence of the central monetary authority from all sectors, local or foreign, but especially from the executive department. It was envisioned that Congress would fix the term of the members and give them security of tenure to enhance their independence.
Section 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of the monetary authority. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public. Q. What are the restrictions with respect to the contracting of foreign loans? A. 1) They must be in accordance with law; 2) they must be in accordance with regulations of the Monetary Board and with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board.
Section 22. Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions of this Article shall be considered minimical to the national interest and subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as may be provided by law. •
Congress should penalize acts which seek to circumvent the goals set down by the economic provisions of the Constitution.
ARTICLE XIII SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
•
Social justice includes all phases of national development, instead of being merely the removal of socio-‐ economic equities.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments. Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-‐reliance. Social justice in the Constitution is principally the embodiment of the principle that those who have less in life should have more in law • When the law is clear and valid, it simply must be applied; but when the law can be interpreted in more ways than one, an interpretation that favors the underprivileged must be favored Q: Is social justice like Robin Hood: he steals from the rich and gives it to the poor? •
A: No. Social Justice, as the term suggests, is used to correct an injustice with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bring about the ‘greatest good to the greatest number.’ Hence, stealing from the rich and conveniently giving it to the poor would not address any concern of the state’s general welfare, as it is an injustice in itself by tolerating behavior that is contrary to law. What the law demands instead, is a legal bias in favor of those who are underprivileged. Section 1, Art. XIII translates the principle of more in law for those who have less in life into a duty of the state to attend “to the enactment of measures to protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.” Q: Is the concept of laissez faire consistent with the principle of social justice? A: In the most basic sense, no. Laissez faire(‘let them do’ or ‘let them do as they will’) is a policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering[or interference of state] with only enough regulations to protect property rights while the principle of social justice, in its attempt to correct an injustice, is presented as consisting of two principal tracks(which are contrary to the concept of laissez faire), namely: 1) according to the second paragraph of Sect. 1, Art. XIII, there must be regulation of the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments, and 2) according to Sect. 2, Congress should create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-‐reliance. Q: Cannot social, economic, and political inequalities be removed? A: In the state’s effort to ‘reduce social, economic, and political inequalities,’ it should be noted that one goal is to reduce, and not remove, inequalities because inequalities by themselves are not evil. Cultural inequities, however, are evil and therefore must be ‘removed.’ And since the goals embodied in the command are to be achieved through legislation, the task is given to Congress. Issue: Do the social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment? Ruling: Yes. The Court then stressed that as opposed to the abovementioned Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission, the social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment. Labor
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-‐organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-‐making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth. • •
Under the Constitution, labor and management are not completely free to decide between themselves how their relationship should go even in the matter so personal as wages State should seek a balance between “the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the rights of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth” – does not mean mandatory profit-‐sharing but a voluntary sharing that is born of the acceptance of the social function of the means of production
Yrasuegui v PAL Issue: What is the Meiorin Test? Is it valid and constitutional? Ruling: In British Columbia Public Service Employee Commission (BSPSERC) v. The British Columbia Government and Service Employee’s Union (BCGSEU), the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the so-‐called “Meiorin Test” in determining whether an employment policy is justified. Under this test, (1) the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job; (2) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that work-‐related purpose; and (3) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work-‐related purpose. Similarly, in Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, this Court held that in order to justify a BFOQ(bona fide occupational qualification) , the employer must prove that (1) the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job. In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance.” Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertaken an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-‐sharing. • • • • • •
The farmer has a right to the land he tills, but this is not an immutable rights Congress has the right to limit the beneficiary’s right to sell, dispose, or even mortgage the property; it is given discretion to set priorities and retention limits Agrarian reform program is based on the right of farmers and regular farm workers to own the lands they till(a land-‐to-‐the-‐tiller program) As to size of the land, the general guideline is that these should be ‘reasonable’ Agricultural lands are ‘arable and suitable agricultural lands’ and do not include ‘commercial, industrial and residential lands’ For distribution to agrarian reform beneficiaries, there is need to compensate landowners justly
Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services. •
What is referred to is participation in the management of the land reform program, not participation in the management of the land reform program, not participation in the management of a privately-‐owned farm
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law. • • •
Nation’s principal natural resource is land of which, constitutionally, there are two basic kinds: alienable and inalienable CARL(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) is an exercise of police power and power of eminent domain To the extent that the law prescribes retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of police power. But where it becomes necessary to deprive owners of their land in excess of the maximum allowed there is compensable taking and therefore the exercise of eminent domain.
Hda. Luisita v PARC Issue: Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657, which permits stock transfer in lieu of outright agricultural land transfer, inconsistent with the basic concept of agrarian reform ingrained in Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the Constitution? Ruling: No. Clearly, workers’ cooperatives or associations under Sec. 29 of RA 6657 and corporations or associations under the succeeding Sec. 31, as differentiated from individual farmers, are authorized vehicles for the collective ownership of agricultural land. Cooperatives can be registered with the Cooperative Development Authority and acquire legal personality of their own, while corporations are juridical persons under the Corporation Code. Thus, Sec. 31 is constitutional as it simply implements Sec. 4 of Art. XIII of the Constitution that land can be owned COLLECTIVELY by farmers. Even the framers of the l987 Constitution are in unison with respect to the two (2) modes of ownership of agricultural lands tilled by farmers––DIRECT and COLLECTIVE.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Land Bank v Obias Issue: Whether or not the provisions of DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 13, as amended are mandatory insofar as the computation of interest for P.D. 27-‐acquired properties concerned? How should just compensation be treated viewed against the Bill of Rights and agrarian reform? Ruling: Yes. The mandate of determination of just compensation is a judicial function, hence, the court exerts all efforts to consider and interpret all the applicable laws and issuances in order to balance the right of the farmers to own a land subject to the award the proper and just compensation due to the landowners. Section 4, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates that the State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farm workers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. It also provides that the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands subject to the payment of just compensation. Further, the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission on this subject reveal that just compensation should not do violence to the Bill of Rights, but should also not make an insurmountable obstacle to a successful agrarian reform program. Hence, the landowner's right to just compensation should be balanced with agrarian reform.
Diamond Farms v Diamond Farm Workers Issue: If farmers are allowed to collectively own lands, must the control thereof be also with the farmers? Ruling: Yes. The matter has already been settled in Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated, etc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, et al., when we ruled that the Constitution and the CARL intended the farmers, individually or collectively, to have control over agricultural lands, otherwise all rhetoric about agrarian reform will be for naught. We stressed that under Section 4, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution and Section 2 of the CARL, the agrarian reform program is founded on the right of farmers and regular farm workers who are landless to own directly or collectively the lands they till. The policy on agrarian reform is that control over the agricultural land must always be in the hands of the farmers.
Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. •
The right given to subsistence fishermen is the preferential but not exclusive
Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice. This section sees agrarian reform as a unique instrument for releasing capital locked up in land for use in industrialization in particular and economic development in general Urban Land Reform and Housing •
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small property owners. •
Urban land reform and housing are to be undertaken “in cooperation with the private sector”
Section 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner. No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated. • • • •
The intent of this provision is to prevent the recurrence of past abuses when law enforcement agents would move in, bulldoze dwellings and even inflict violence on persons Protection extends to both hose who have valid claims to stay on the land and to those who do not, always “in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner” Even violators of the law are entitled to humane treatment Occupants should be sufficiently notified before actual eviction or demolition is done and there be no loss of lives , physical injuries or unnecessary loss of or damage to properties
Q: Is the constitutional protection to urban and rural poor dwellers whose dwellings cannot be demolished except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner applicable to squatters who either have or have no valid claims on the land? A: Yes. The phrase “urban or rural poor dwellers” refers to principally to squatters. The intent of the provision is to prevent the recurrence of past abuses when law enforcement agents would move in, bulldoze dwellings, and even inflict violence on persons. Sec. 10(2), Art. XIII, commands that every relocation process must be preceded by consultation with the dwellers to be relocated and also with the communities where they are to be relocated. This, however, “does not mean that the validity or legality of the demolition or eviction is hinged on the existence of a resettlement area designated or earmarked by the government.” Rather, it means that “the person to be evicted be accorded due process or an opportunity to controvert the allegation that his or her occupation or possession of the property involved is unlawful or against the will of the landowner; that should the illegal or unlawful occupation be proven, the occupant be sufficiently notified before actual eviction or demolition is done; and there be no loss of lives, physical injuries or unnecessary loss of or damage to properties.” Q: Is the constitutional mandate for urban land reform directed to on-‐site housing development or relocation? A: Relocation. A person occupying land may be relocated and the improvements on land demolished by the National Housing Authority(NHA) authorities as part of its mandate to improve blighted areas. The NHA, as the decree’s designated administrator for the national government, is empowered to take possession, control and disposition of the expropriated properties with the power if demolition of their improvements. There is no violation of social justice. (Section 29, R.A. No. 7279, 1992) Health
Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the under-‐privileged sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers. Section 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate health manpower development and research, responsive to the country's health needs and problems. Section 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled person for their rehabilitation, self development and self-‐reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of society. Right to health should be enjoyed by all Integration connotes a unified health delivery system, a combination of public and private sector, and a blend of western medicine and traditional health care modalities • Free medical care should be extended to paupers Imbong, et. Al. v Ochoa • •
Issue: By giving priority to the poor, does the RH Law violate the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution? Ruling: No. To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the government's reproductive health care program is not a violation of the equal protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution which recognizes the distinct necessity to address the needs of the underprivileged by providing that they be given priority in addressing the health development of the people. It should be noted that Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility issues and desire to have children. There is, therefore, no merit to the contention that the RH Law only seeks to target the poor to reduce their number. While the RH Law admits the use of contraceptives, it does not, as elucidated above, sanction abortion. As Section 3(1) explains, the "promotion and/or stabilization of the population growth rate is incidental to the advancement of reproductive health." Manila Memorial Park v DSWD Issue: Does the tax deduction scheme under R.A. 7432, violate Article XIII, Sect. 11 of the Constitution because it shifts the State’s constitutional mandate or duty improving the welfare of the elderly to the private sector? Is it in the nature of an exercise of police power or eminent domain? Ruling: No. The right to property has a social dimension. While Article XIII of the Constitution provides the precept for the protection of property, various laws and jurisprudence, particularly on agrarian reform and the regulation of contracts and public utilities, continuously serve as x x x reminder[s] that the right to property can be relinquished upon the command of the State for the promotion of public good. Undeniably, the success of the senior citizens program rests largely on the support imparted by petitioners and the other private establishments concerned. This being the case, the means employed in invoking the active participation of the private sector, in order to achieve the purpose or objective of the law, is reasonably and directly related. Without sufficient proof that Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 9257 is arbitrary, and that the continued implementation of the same would be unconscionably detrimental to petitioners, the Court will refrain from quashing a legislative act. The court, thus, found that the 20% discount as well as the tax deduction scheme is a valid exercise of the police power of the State. Women
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 14. The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation. This provision asserts the fundamental equality between men and women Implicitly acknowledges that between women and men there are distinctions which make for real differences Role and Rights of People's Organization • •
Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means. People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure. Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-‐making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms. Empowering the people is a key to the attainment of the ends of social justice “People” here refers not just to the electorate but to all the people The intention of the proponents was to project the independence of these organizations in the performance of their role as promoters of social justice and to distinguish them from those associations which are set up and operate like “company unions” of the state • In relation to consultation mechanisms, the role of the state is “facilitate” their creation, instead of implying that they cannot come into existence except through state Human Rights • • •
Section 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on Human Rights. (2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-‐born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission shall provided by law. (3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers. (4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly released. • • • •
Not on the same level as the Constitutional Commissions mentioned in Article IX Its full operationalization requires congressional action When Congress passes a new law, the statutory Commission on Human Rights will no longer function as a statutory creation, but as a constitutional creation It is given fiscal autonomy although not on the same level as the ConComms in Article IX
Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions:
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights; (2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court; (3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection; (4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities; (5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights; (6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families; (7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights; (8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority; (9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions; (10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and (11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law. Section 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendations. • • • • • •
• •
The principal function of the Commission is investigatory Beyond investigation, it will have to rely on the Justice Department which has full control over prosecutions It can only request assistance from executive offices It may not issue writs of injunction or restraining orders against supposed violators of human rights to compel them to cease and desist from continuing their acts complained of The scope of the investigation is “all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights” Its rules of procedure must not violate the Rules of Court, but it is not strictly bound to judicial procedural rules.It need only adopt administrative procedural norms The commission has no power to order the release of a detainee A very significant power is to grant immunity to witnesses
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
ARTICLE XIV EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE, AND SPORTS E. EDUCATION Section 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible. • •
•
• •
Right of all citizens to quality education is a basic right and a constitutional right. The support that is expected of the state is by way of promoting quality education that is accessible to all. Efforts should be made to upgrade these so that quality education should be made available to all citizenry. Is quality education a demandable right enforceable in court? No, the right guaranteed in the constitution is demandable from the state because the constitution governs the relationship between people and state and not between private parties and private parties. It is the prerogative of the school to set high standards of efficiency for its teachers since quality education is a mandate of the constitution, as long as standards fixed are reasonable not arbitrary. Against whom is the constitutional mandate to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels directed? It is directed to the state and not to the school. (PTA of SMCA vs MBTC)
Section 2. The State shall: 1. Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society; 2. Establish and maintain, a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels. Without limiting the natural rights of parents to rear their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age; 3. Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan programs, subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to deserving students in both public and private schools, especially to the under-‐privileged; 4. Encourage non-‐formal, informal, and indigenous learning systems, as well as self-‐learning, independent, and out-‐of-‐school study programs particularly those that respond to community needs; and 5. Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-‐of-‐school youth with training in civics, vocational efficiency, and other skills. • •
•
The constitution envisions a complete, adequate and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society. Did RA 6655 (free elementary and high school education act) satisfy the constitutional mandate? Qualify, while it is true pursuant to section 2(2) Article XIV. The explicit mandate for a free education up to high school is provided to emphasize the importance of giving the citizens free education. But the provision on free high school education is more an expression of an objective or priority rather than an immediate mandate. Congress shall give priority to the determination of the period for the full implementation of free public secondary education. Education is compulsory only up to elementary level which seeks to address the social problems such as illiteracy. The compulsory requirement reflects consciousness to the natural right of parents to rear their children and decide what is best for them.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
• •
Can teachers demand reinstatement upon their return from suspension? Yes, in light of the obligation of the state and the exigencies of the service but teachers must subject themselves also to accept assignment elsewhere. (Superintendent vs Azarcon) The constitutional mandate to provide free public secondary education is addressed to the state and not to the University of the Philippines which decided to phase out high school department. (UP vs. Ayson) The law allows an increase in school tuition fees on the condition that 70% of the increase shall go to the payment of personal benefits. Thus remedy for sympathy on contention on the tuition fee increase lies on the legislative branch and not of the judiciary. (Joseph College vs. SJC-‐WA)
Section 3. 1. All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula. 2. They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency. 3. At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government. • •
A practical knowledge of the constitution as part of the curricula will raise our people’s political literacy so that they will be able to effectively participate in governance. The values mentioned in Section 3(2) which seeks to inculcate but there is no constitutional command that these should be taught as prescribed subjects. How these are to be taught is covered by the guarantee of academic freedom for educational institutions. Optional religious instructions in public school schools. Subject to following conditions in order it will be allowed to be taught: o Parents desire expressed in writing o The instruction must be approved by the religious authorities and o No additional cost shall be incurred by the government for such teaching.
Jenosa vs. USA (2010): Issue: Is discipline in education specifically mandated by the 1987 Constitution? Can School authorities impose discipline on students? Ruling: Yes, Discipline in education is specifically mandated by the 1987 Constitution which provides that all educational institutions shall teach and develop moral character and personal discipline. Schools and school administrators have the authority to maintain school discipline and the right to impose appropriate and reasonable disciplinary measures. On the other hand, students have the duty and the responsibility to promote and maintain the peace and tranquillity of the school by observing the rules of discipline. Go vs. Letran (2012): Issue: Does Letran, a private school, possess authority to impose a dismissal or any disciplinary action against students who violate is policy against fraternity membership? Ruling: Yes, private schools have the authority to promulgate and enforce a similar prohibition pursuant to their right to establish disciplinary rules and regulations. This right has been recognized in the Manual of Regulations for
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Private Schools, which has the character of law. Section 78 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations of Regulations for Private Schools. The right to establish disciplinary rules is consistent with the mandate in the Constitution for schools to teach discipline; in fact, schools have the duty to develop discipline in students.
Section 4. 1. The State recognizes the complementary roles of public and private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions. 2. Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions. The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines. No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and no group of aliens shall comprise more than one-‐third of the enrollment in any school. The provisions of this sub section shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and, unless otherwise provided by law, for other foreign temporary residents. 3. All revenues and assets of non-‐stock, non-‐profit educational institutions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law. Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may likewise be entitled to such exemptions, subject to the limitations provided by law, including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment. 4. Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, donations, or contributions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax. •
•
• •
• •
The constitution recognized the necessary and indispensable role which private schools plays in the society. However that state is enjoined to supervise and regulate all educational institutions. Thus it must be a reasonable supervision and regulation. Can a school be wholly run and operated by foreign religious groups? Yes, as an exemption under the provision …other than those established by religious groups and mission boards. Moreover, the exemption applies both to schools already established and those yet to be established. However, Congress may require increased Filipino equity participation. Filipinization of academic administration only applies on line position on the level of President, Dean, Principal or member of the board of trustees. Qualify that while it’s true that no educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and should not comprise more than 1/3. It shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel unless provided by law. Educational institutions may accept donations from foreign students. No provision in the Constitution or any law prohibits it. The tax exemption for non-‐stock non-‐profit educational institutions is given by the constitution itself. Hence it may not be diminished by legislation or by administrative regulation.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• •
The profits or assets and revenues of the school must be used directly and exclusively for educational purposes. Scholarship grants shall be made available to deserving students in both public and private schools especially to underprivileged, this is in keeping the idea to make quality education made available to all.
Section 5. 1. The State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs. 2. Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. 3. Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. 4. The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. Non-‐teaching academic and non-‐academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State. 5. The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment. •
•
•
•
• • • •
•
The 1987 Constitution has not increased its scope of academic freedom from that of 1973. The 1987 provision on academic freedom essentially preserves the provision of 1973 constitution. There was an acceptance and reinforcement of the elements that make institutional academic freedom the right of the institution to decide on academic grounds o what should be taught o how it should be taught o who may teach o who may be taught. Hence, academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all schools. Qualify while it is true that Academic freedom as a right of an individual student, as his right to write and speak freely about his school, to form or join student associations and promote student welfare but it is still subject to reasonable rules and regulations of the educational institution which also enjoys academic freedom. What is academic freedom? Academic freedom of institutions of higher learning involves a wide sphere of autonomy in deciding their objectives and the best means of attaining them without outside interference except when overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. (Garcia vs. Faculty Admission Committee) Qualify while it is true that under the constitution the highest budgetary priority must be given to education (and not to debt servicing) however it is still subject to consideration by the Congress, such as responding imperatives of national interests. (Guingona vs Carague) What are institutions of higher learning which are entitled to academic freedom? The right of the school to determine the qualification of the applicants to be admitted (Garcia vs. Carague) Academic freedom includes to refuse students who did not meet necessary standards for the school (Tangonan vs. Pano) Academic freedom includes to remove with due process a teacher and chose who may teach (Montemayor vs. Araneta) To compel students to take part in the flag ceremony when it is against their religious beliefs will violate their religious freedom. Their expulsion also violates the duty of the State under Article XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education and make such education accessible to all. (Ebralinag vs Supt. Division of Cebu) Academic freedom is also the freedom of a faculty member to pursue studies (Reyes vs. CA)
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
The constitution now explicitly recognized the right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study. This right is subject however to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements of the school. Such requirement may be prescribed or regulate by law. (PRC vs. De Guzman)
Mercado vs. AMACC (2010): Issue: Does institutional academic freedom include the right of the school or college to decide and adopt screening guidelines for its faculty? Ruling: Yes, academic freedom grants the school the autonomy to decide for itself the terms and conditions for hiring its teacher (who may teach), subject within the terms of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. Academic freedom, too, is not the only legal basis for AMACC’s issuance of screening guidelines. The authority to hire is likewise covered and protected by its management prerogative – the right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, such as hiring and the freedom to prescribe work assignments. Calawag vs. UP (2013): Issue: Is the right to education absolute? Does academic freedom give the dean the power to disapprove the composition of a thesis committee? Ruling: No, Right to education is not absolute, Section 5(e), Article XIV of the Constitution provides that "every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements." Yes, academic freedom is accorded to instructors of higher education the prerogative to establish requirements for graduation, such as the completion of a thesis, and the manner by which this shall be accomplished by their students. Imbong vs. Ochoa (2014): Issue: In mandating the teaching of Age and Development Appropriate Reproductive Health Education under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, does the Reproductive Health Law violate academic freedom? Ruling: The court decline to rule on its constitutionality or validity considering the premature nature of this particular issue because the DepEd has yet to formulate a curriculum on age-‐appropriate reproductive health education. One can only speculate on the content, manner and medium of instruction that will be used to educate the adolescents and whether they will contradict the religious beliefs.
F. LANGUAGE Section 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages. Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system. Section 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English. The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis. Section 8. This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish. Section 9. The Congress shall establish a national language commission composed of representatives of various regions and disciplines which shall undertake, coordinate, and promote researches for the development, propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages. •
•
•
• • •
•
Official language (Filipino and English) is the prescribed medium of communication and instruction in the government, the courts and the school. While National language (Filipino) is the standard medium of communication among people. A city ordinance was passed prescribing the use of local dialect as medium for instruction in the primary grade is invalid. The Constitution provides in Art. XIV, Sec. 7 for the use of regional dialect as auxiliary medium of instruction. If the ordinance prescribes the use of local dialect not as auxiliary but as exclusive language of instruction, then it is violative of the Constitution. The constitution adheres that Filipino will be the medium of official communication and as a language of instruction in the educational system while English also as official language until otherwise provided by law. In short Filipino and English are the official languages of the Philippines. Auxiliary languages shall serve also as media for instruction to supplement Filipino and English. Spanish and Arabic are promoted on a voluntary and optional basis. Section 8 commands the constitution to promulgate in Filipino and English be translated into major languages, however the commission decided to be silent about which text should prevail thereby leaving the matter to unarticulated logic. However if Filipino version of the constitution is made and in case of conflict in its interpretation, the English text shall prevail. For the very reason that the 1971 constitutional convention were conducted in English.
G. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Section 10. Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self-‐reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the country's productive systems and national life. Section 11. The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax deductions, to encourage private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-‐in-‐aid, or other forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, researchers, scientists, inventors, technologists, and specially gifted citizens. Section 12. The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology from all sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage the widest participation of private groups, local governments, and community-‐based organizations in the generation and utilization of science and technology. Section 13. The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the people, for such period as may be provided by law.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
• •
•
While these provision on science and technology are of little significance as constitutional law, they are important as expression of national policy and concern. The Constitution directs the state to: o give priority to research and development, invention and innovation o support technological capabilities and their application to country’s productive system o provide scholarship grants, incentives to deserving scientists. The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax deductions to encourage private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research.
H. ARTS AND CULTURE Section 14. The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic and intellectual expression. Section 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State shall conserve, promote, and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations. Section 16. All the country's artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure of the nation and shall be under the protection of the State which may regulate its disposition. Section 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies. Section 18. 1. The State shall ensure equal access to cultural opportunities through the educational system, public or private cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives, and community cultural centers, and other public venues. 2. The State shall encourage and support researches and studies on the arts and culture. • •
•
They seek to express a national policy and are evidence of a nation seeking to understand and articulate its own cultural identity after many years of colonial rule. The constitution directs state to: o Foster the preservation, enrichment and dynamic evolution of a Filipino national culture base. o Conserve, promote and popularize the nation’s historical and cultural heritage. o Protect the country’s artistic and historic wealth. The right of indigenous cultural communities to reserve and develop their cultures must be recognized, respected and protected by the State.
National Artists vs. Executive Sec. (2013): Issue: Did the President validly confer the Order of National Artist to Gudote-‐Alvarez, Caparas, Manosa and Moreno as National Artists?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: It does not have to. The advice of the NCCA and the CCP is subject to the President’s discretion. Nevertheless, the Presidents discretion on the matter is not totally unrestricted nor the role of NCCAA and the CCP Boards meaningless. The President’s discretion in the conferment of the Order of National Artists should be exercised in accordance with the duty to faithfully execute the relevant laws.
I. SPORTS Section 19. 1. The State shall promote physical education and encourage sports programs, league competitions, and amateur sports, including training for international competitions, to foster self-‐discipline, teamwork, and excellence for the development of a healthy and alert citizenry. 2. All educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in cooperation with athletic clubs and other sectors. • •
The promotion of amateur sports, as distinguished from professional players, shall be provided by law, including the training of national athletes for Olympic Games. The constitution directs state to: o Promote physical education and o Encourage sports programs to foster self-‐discipline
ARTICLE XV THE FAMILY
Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. Imbong Et. al. V. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 Issue: Section 7 of the RH Law debars parental consent in cases where the minor who will be undergoing a procedure, is already a parent or has had a miscarriage, valid and constitutional? Ruling: No. To insist on a rule that interferes with the right of parents to exercise parental control over their minor– child or the right of the spouses to mutually decide on matters which very well affect the very purpose of marriage, that is, the establishment of conjugal and family life, would result in the violation of one’s privacy with respect to his family. It would be dismissive of the unique and strongly–held Filipino tradition of maintaining close family ties and violative of the recognition the State affords couples entering into the special contract of marriage that they act as one unit in forming the foundation of the family and society.
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.
•
•
Although marriage is generally regarded as a union that has been formalized by legal or religious sanction, the protection of the state is also meant for other stable unions entered into through folk ritual or by simply living together. It remains the province of legislature to define all legal aspects of marriage and prescribe the strategy and the modalities to protect it.
Republic V. Encelan, G.R. No. 170022, Jan. 9, 2013 Issue: How should “Psychological Incapacity” under Article 36 of the Family Code be interpreted? In voiding of marriage , how should any doubt be resolved?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: In interpreting this provision, we have repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates "downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations”, not merely the refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. Marriage is an inviolable social institution protected by the State. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of its existence its existence and continuation and against its dissolution and nullity.
Section 3. The State shall defend: (1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood; (2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development; (3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and (4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.
• •
•
The intent to prohibit coercive methods of family size limitation is clear. Republic Act No. 7610 was passed as a measure geared towards the implementation of a national comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable members of the population, the Filipino children. A guarantee of equal rights for legitimate and illegitimate children was not approved. But there is no prohibition of a law equalizing their rights.
Valino V. Adriano G.R. No. 182894, April 22, 2014 Issue: As between the legal wife and the common-‐law wife, who has the legal right over the remains of the deceased patriarch? Ruling: The surviving legal wife has the legal right over the deceased patriarch pursuant to Article 199 of the Family Code which gave to the former the right and duty to make funeral arrangements. Imbong Et. al. V. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 Issues: 1. In mandating the teaching of Age-‐and-‐Development-‐appropriate reproductive health education, does RH Law violate Sec 3(1), Article XV of the 1987 Constitution? 2. Is Section 23 (a)(2)(i) RH Law unconstitutional for intruding into marital privacy and autonomy? Ruling: 1. No. Section 14 also mandates that the mandatory reproductive health education program shall be developed in conjunction with parent-‐teacher-‐community associations, school officials and other interest groups, it could very well be said that it will be in line with the religious beliefs ofthe petitioners. By imposing such a condition, it becomes apparent that the petitioners' contention that Section 14 violates Article XV, Section 3(1) ofthe Constitution is without merit. 2. Yes. the RH Law, in its not-‐so-‐hidden desire to control population growth, contains provisions which tend to wreck the family as a solid social institution. It bars the husband and/or the father from participating in the decision making process regarding their common future progeny.
Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so through just programs of social security.
Manila Memorial Park V. DSWD Secretary, G.R. No. 175356, Dec. 3, 2013 Issue: Does the tax deduction scheme under R.A. 7432, violate Article XV, Section 4 of the Constitution because it shifts the state’s constitutional mandate or duty of improving the welfare of the elderly to the private sector?
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Ruling: No. While the Constitution protects property rights, petitioners must accept the realities of business and the State, in the exercise of police power, can intervene in the operations of a business, which may result in an impairment of property rights in the process. The law is a legitimate exercise of police power, which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has general welfare for its object. Police power is not capable of an exact definition, but has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances, thus assuring the greatest benefits.
ARTICLE XVI GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and three stars, as consecrated and honored by the people and recognized by law. •
The design of the flag may be changed only by constitutional amendment.
Section 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum. Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent. Not all government entities, whether corporate or non-‐corporate, are immune from suits. The character of the objects for which the entity is organized determines immunity from suits. • Whether or not government immunity from suit can be pleaded in a suit against government officers is made to turn on whether the ultimate liability will fall on the government. • Where the liability of the officer is personal because it arises from a tortious act in the performance of his duties, the officer cannot plead sovereign immunity from suit. • Consent to be sued may be given by the legislative through a special law or a general law. • When the state consents to be sued, it cannot be inferred from such consent that the state concedes its liability. Vigilar V. Aquino, GR No. 180388, Jan. 18, 2011 •
Issue: Was the doctrine of sovereign immunity properly invoked? Ruling: No. Under these circumstances, respondent may not validly invoke immunity from suit, considering that this principle yields to certain settled exceptions. True enough, the rule, in any case, is not absolute for it does not say that the state may not be sued under any circumstance. Under these circumstances, respondent may not validly invoke the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty and conveniently hide under the State's cloak of invincibility against suit, considering that this principle yields to certain settled exceptions. in any case, is not absolute for it does not say that the state may not be sued under any circumstance. Lockheed V. UP, GR No. 185918, Apr. 18, 2012 Issue: Having a charter with which it can sue and be sued, can UP funds be garnished? Ruling: Yes. UP is a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued. Thus, it cannot evade execution, and its funds may be subject to garnishment or levy. DOH V. Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc., GR No. 182358, Feb. 20, 2013
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Issue: Does the mantle of non-‐suability extend to complaints filed against public officials? Ruling: Yes. The doctrine of state immunity extends its protective mantle also to complaints filed against state officials for acts done in the discharge and performance of their duties. "The suability of a government official depends on whether the official concerned was acting within his official or jurisdictional capacity, and whether the acts done in the performance of official functions will result in a charge or financial liability against the government."
Section 4. The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo military training and serve as may be provided by law. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the security of the State. Section 5. (1) All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution. (2) The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military, and respect for people’s rights in the performance of their duty. (3) Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. No member of the military shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any partisan political activity, except to vote. •
Partisan political activity – campaigning for a candidate or for a party.
(4) No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government, including government-‐owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries. (5) Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their service. (6) The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be recruited proportionately from all provinces and cities as far as practicable. (7) The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years. However, in times of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress, the President may extend such tour of duty. •
The President may shorten the Chief of Staff’s tour of duty to less than 3 years if he is proven to be incompetent.
Section 6. The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law. •
The PNP is civilian in character and is subject to the Civil Service Commission.
Section 7. The State shall provide immediate and adequate care, benefits, and other forms of assistance to war veterans and veterans of military campaigns, their surviving spouses and orphans. Funds shall be
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
provided therefor and due consideration shall be given them in the disposition of agricultural lands of the public domain and, in appropriate cases, in the utilization of natural resources. • •
The veterans covered are not just veterans of a declared war but also veterans of peacekeeping campaigns. The determining status in giving them due consideration in disposition of lands of the public domain is not status but need.
Section 8. The State shall, from time to time, review to increase the pensions and other benefits due to retirees of both the government and the private sectors. Section 9. The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and from substandard or hazardous products. Section 10. The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of Filipino capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country, in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press. Section 11. (1) The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-‐owned and managed by such citizens. The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed. •
•
“Mass media” in this section includes radio, television and printed media. It does not include commercial telecommunications (governed by public utilities under Article XII) and is separate from the advertising industry. The definition of “monopolies” is left to the discretion of the Congress.
(2) The advertising industry is impressed with public interest, and shall be regulated by law for the protection of consumers and the promotion of the general welfare. Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such industry shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines. •
Advertising is not mass media but the use of mass media.
Section 12. The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall come from such communities.
ARTICLE XVII AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-‐fourths of all its Members; or (2) A constitutional convention. • • •
An amendment envisages an altercation of one or a few specific and separable provisions while a revision may involve a rewriting of the constitution. The amendatory and revision provisions are called the “constitution of sovereignty” because they define the constitutional meaning of “sovereignty of the people”. Since nothing is said about a joint session, it is submitted that each house may separately form amendments by a vote of three-‐fourths of all its members, and then pass it to the other house for a similar process. It is also submitted that what is essential is that both houses vote separately.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. • • •
“Initiative and referendum” is a method whereby the people themselves can directly propose amendments to the constitution. Without implementing legislation, this section cannot operate. There is as yet no law implementing the provision on amendment by initiative and referendum. Congress enacted R.A. No. 6735, the Initiative and Referendum Law; but the Supreme Court held that the law, as worded, did not apply to constitutional amendment.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-‐thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention. • •
A constituent assembly may not propose anything that is inconsistent with what is known as Jus Cogens. “Jus Cogens” means “a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision. Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. •
The date of effectivity of any amendment or revision should ordinarily the same as that of the date of ratification, that is, the day on which the votes as cast.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
ARTICLE XVIII TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
Section 1. The first elections of Members of the Congress under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May, 1987. The first local elections shall be held on a date to be determined by the President, which may be simultaneous with the election of the Members of the Congress. It shall include the election of all Members of the city or municipal councils in the Metropolitan Manila area. Section 2. The Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, and the local officials first elected under this Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992. Of the Senators elected in the elections in 1992, the first twelve obtaining the highest number of votes shall serve for six years and the remaining twelve for three years. •
This common termination date will synchronize future elections to once every three years.
Section 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked. •
The modification of executive issuances is left to either the Congress or the president depending on the nature off the issuance involved.
Section 4. All existing treaties or international agreements which have not been ratified shall not be renewed or extended without the concurrence of at least two-‐thirds of all the Members of the Senate. •
Any treaty or international agreement, even if valid under previous constitutions and even if containing a renewal or extension clause, can be renewed and extended only according to the procedure prescribed.
Section 5. The six-‐year term of the incumbent President and Vice-‐President elected in the February 7, 1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30, 1992. The first regular elections for the President and Vice-‐President under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May, 1992. Kida V. Senate, GR No. 196271, Oct. 18, 2011 Issue: Does the synchronization mandated by the Constitution include the regional elections of the ARMM? Ruling: Yes. That the ARMM elections were not expressly mentioned in the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution on synchronization cannot be interpreted to mean that the ARMM elections are not covered by the constitutional mandate of synchronization. We have to consider that the ARMM, as we now know it, had not yet been officially organized at the time the Constitution was enacted and ratified by the people. Keeping in mind that a constitution is not intended to provide merely for the exigencies of a few years but is to endure through generations for as long as it remains unaltered by the people as ultimate sovereign, a constitution should be construed in the light of what actually is a continuing instrument to govern not only the present but also the unfolding events of the indefinite future.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Section 6. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is convened. •
The legislative power of President Aquino ended on July 27, 1987 when the Congress under this constitution convened.
Section 7. Until a law is passed, the President may fill by appointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors, the seats reserved for sectoral representation in paragraph (2), Section 5 of Article VI of this Constitution. • •
One appointed and qualified, such representatives would enjoy the term given by the constitution which would not be affected by whatever implementing legislation Congress might eventually pass. The appointment of sectoral representatives need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Section 8. Until otherwise provided by the Congress, the President may constitute the Metropolitan Manila Authority to be composed of the heads of all local government units comprising the Metropolitan Manila area. Section 9. A sub-‐province shall continue to exist and operate until it is converted into a regular province or until its component municipalities are reverted to the mother province. •
Sub provinces are merely extensions of the mother province and are not treated as territorial and political units by themselves.
Section 10. All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction, until otherwise provided by law. The provisions of the existing Rules of Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the Congress. Section 11. The incumbent Members of the Judiciary shall continue in office until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office or are removed for cause. Section 12. The Supreme Court shall, within one year after the ratification of this Constitution, adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme Court or the lower courts prior to the effectivity of this Constitution. A similar plan shall be adopted for all special courts and quasi-‐judicial bodies. Section 13. The legal effect of the lapse, before the ratification of this Constitution, of the applicable period for the decision or resolution of the cases or matters submitted for adjudication by the courts, shall be determined by the Supreme Court as soon as practicable. Section 14. The provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), Section 15 of Article VIII of this Constitution shall apply to cases or matters filed before the ratification of this Constitution, when the applicable period lapses after such ratification. Section 15. The incumbent Members of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit shall continue in office for one year after the ratification of this Constitution, unless they are sooner removed for cause or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
or appointed to a new term thereunder. In no case shall any Member serve longer than seven years including service before the ratification of this Constitution. Section 16. Career civil service employees separated from the service not for cause but as a result of the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 and the reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution shall be entitled to appropriate separation pay and to retirement and other benefits accruing to them under the laws of general application in force at the time of their separation. In lieu thereof, at the option of the employees, they may be considered for employment in the Government or in any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-‐ owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. This provision also applies to career officers whose resignation, tendered in line with the existing policy, had been accepted. •
What is envisioned in this section is a form of relief for the members of the career civil service who may have been or may be legally but involuntarily reorganized out of the service or may have voluntarily resigned pursuant to the reorganization policy.
Section 17. Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of three hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-‐President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty thousand pesos each; the Senators, the Members of the House of Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos each; and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos each. Section 18. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall increase the salary scales of the other officials and employees of the National Government. Section 19. All properties, records, equipment, buildings, facilities, and other assets of any office or body abolished or reorganized under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 or this Constitution shall be transferred to the office or body to which its powers, functions, and responsibilities substantially pertain. Section 20. The first Congress shall give priority to the determination of the period for the full implementation of free public secondary education. Section 21. The Congress shall provide efficacious procedures and adequate remedies for the reversion to the State of all lands of the public domain and real rights connected therewith which were acquired in violation of the Constitution or the public land laws, or through corrupt practices. No transfer or disposition of such lands or real rights shall be allowed until after the lapse of one year from the ratification of this Constitution. Section 22. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined by law, for distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program. •
Abandoned lands – those devoted to any crop but which were not utilized by the owner for his benefit for 5 years prior to notice, except when such non-‐utilization was due to reasons of force majeure or other fortuitous event.
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
Idle lands – those not devoted directly to any crop or to any economic purpose for at least one year prior to notice but which used to be devoted or were suitable for such crop, but not lands devoted permanently or regularly to other essential or more productive purposes.
Section 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph (2), Section 11 of Article XVI of this Constitution shall have five years from its ratification to comply on a graduated and proportionate basis with the minimum Filipino ownership requirement therein. •
This is intended to provide a period of adjustment in order to accommodate agencies which may have Filipino equity as low as zero. No legislation is needed.
Section 24. Private armies and other armed groups not recognized by duly constituted authority shall be dismantled. All paramilitary forces including Civilian Home Defense Forces not consistent with the citizen armed force established in this Constitution, shall be dissolved or, where appropriate, converted into the regular force. • •
Armed groups – referred to private armies and fanatical groups. Paramilitary forces – includes CHDF (Civilian Home Defense Forces) under the operational control of the Ministry of National Defense.
Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. • •
United States alone could be allowed to have military bases in the Philippines. Concurrence by the US senate is not needed as long as the treaty is considered by both the US and the Philippines, and have undergone all the necessary steps needed to make it a treaty under law.
Section 26. The authority to issue sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 in relation to the recovery of ill-‐gotten wealth shall remain operative for not more than eighteen months after the ratification of this Constitution. However, in the national interest, as certified by the President, the Congress may extend such period. A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon showing of a prima facie case. The order and the list of the sequestered or frozen properties shall forthwith be registered with the proper court. For orders issued before the ratification of this Constitution, the corresponding judicial action or proceeding shall be filed within six months from its ratification. For those issued after such ratification, the judicial action or proceeding shall be commenced within six months from the issuance thereof. The sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically lifted if no judicial action or proceeding is commenced as herein provided. • •
The president created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and conferred upon it powers of sequestration. Sequestration – means to place or cause to be placed under its possession or control said property, or any building or office wherein any such property and any records pertaining thereto may be found, including “business enterprises and entities” – for the purpose of preventing the destruction,
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
•
concealment or dissipation of, and otherwise conserving and preserving the same – until it can be determined, through appropriate judicial proceedings, whether the property was in truth “ill-‐ gotten”. Freeze order – prohibits the person having possession or control of property having been alleged to constitute “ill-‐gotten wealth” from transferring, conveying, encumbering or otherwise depleting or concealing such property , or from assisting or taking part in its transfer, encumbrance, concealment, or dissipation.
Cojuangco V. Republic, GR No. 180705, Nov. 27, 2012 Issue: Is the PCA-‐Cojuangco Agreement involving coco-‐levy funds, constitutional? Ruling: No. As the coconut levy funds partake of the nature of taxes and can only be used for public purpose, and importantly, for the purpose for which it was exacted, i.e., the development, rehabilitation and stabilization of the coconut industry, they cannot be used to benefit whether directly or indirectly private individuals, be it by way of a commission, or as the subject Agreement interestingly words it, compensation. Consequently, Cojuangco cannot stand to benefit by receiving, in his private capacity, 7.22% of the FUB shares without violating the constitutional caveat that public funds can only be used for public purpose. Accordingly, the 7.22% FUB (UCPB) shares that were given to Cojuangco shall be returned to the Government, to be used "only for the benefit of all coconut farmers and for the development of the coconut industry." Republic V. Bakunawa GR. No. 180418, August 28, 2013 Issue: What quantum of evidence is required in the recovery of ill-‐gotten wealth? Was the republic able to establish the ill-‐gotten nature of the Bakunawas’ wealth? Ruling: Preponderance of evidence is required in actions brought to recover ill-‐gotten wealth. By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to that of the other side. No, no proof was established that there was a link between the alleged acts of the Bakunawas and those of the Marcoses, or even the proximity of Luz Bakunawa as a Marcos relative or Marcos dummy. the Republic still did not satisfy its quantum of proof because the facts it established were not sufficient to prove its case against respondents.
Section 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions. The foregoing proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was approved by the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the twelfth day of October, Nineteen hundred and eighty-‐six, and accordingly signed on the fifteenth day of October, Nineteen hundred and eighty-‐six at the Plenary Hall, National Government Center, Quezon City, by the Commissioners whose signatures are hereunder affixed. ★ ★ ★ ★ ★★
SU LAW Batch 2018
Constitutional Law I Reviewer
View more...
Comments
