Reviewer in Political Law
Download Reviewer in Political Law...
REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
(3) Defines and allocates to the various organs of government their respective powers and duties.
A. Definition and Division of Political Law
Political Law – is that branch of public law which deals A Constitution may be written or unwritten, conventional or with the organization and operations of the cumulative, and rigid or flexible. (i) Written – is one which has been given definite governmental organs of the State and defines the written form at a particular time. relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory. (ii) Unwritten – is one which has not been reduced to writing at any specific time but it is the a. Constitutional Law collective product of a gradual political b. Administrative law development, consisting of unwritten usages c. Election Law and customary rules, judicial decisions, and d. Law of Public Officers legislative enactments of a fundamental e. Law on Municipal Corporations character written but scattered in various records without having any compact form in In case of Macariola vs. Asuncion, the court says ; Upon writing. the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United (iii) Conventional – enacted deliberately and States and later on from the United States to the consciously by a constituent body or ruler, at a Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of this Code of certain time and place. Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated (iv) Cumulative – is a product of gradual political because where there is change of sovereignty, the development. political laws of the former sovereign, whether (v) Rigid – is one which can be amended through a compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are formal and difficult process. automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re(vi) Flexible – is one which can be changed by enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign. ordinary legislation. Likewise, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges from engaging in commerce is, as The 1987 Philippine Constitution is a written, conventional heretofore stated, deemed abrogated automatically upon and rigid Constitution. the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to America, because d. Essential Qualities of a Written Constitution it is political in nature. (i) As to form, a good written constitution should be: B. Definition of Constitutional Law Brief – because if a constitution is too detailed, it Constitutional Law may be defined as that branch of Public would lose the advantage of a fundamental law Law which treats of constitution, their nature, formation, which in a few provisions outlines the government amendment, and interpretation. of the whole state and the rights of the citizens. It refers to the law embodied in the Constitution as well as the principles growing out of the interpretation and application made by the courts of the provisions of the Constitution in specific cases. Thus, the Philippine Constitution itself is brief but the law of the Constitution lies scattered in thousands of Supreme Court decisions. Distinguished Constitutional Law from Political Law Political Law deals specifically with the study of the structure and powers of our government. Constitutional Law is one of the division of Political Law that defines the specific duties and responsibilities of our government together with their privileges and rights and as a fundamental or supreme law of the land, it enumerates the rights of every citizens with their corresponding functions where the sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. C. Constitution (1987 Constitution) a. Definition Constitution - define as the supreme law of the land and established by the people which prescribes the permanent framework of the system of government, which establishes basic principles upon which the government founded, and which defines and allocates to the various organs of government their respective powers and duties. Social Contract Theory – People entrust their rights to the government. The government in return does their part and gives the people what due to them. b. Function (1) Serves as the supreme or fundamental law
Broad- because a statement of the powers and functions of government, and of the relations between the governing body and the governed, requires that it be as comprehensive as possible. Definite- because otherwise the application of its provisions to concrete situations may prove unduly difficult if not impossible. (ii) As to contents, it should contain at least three sets of provisions; Constitution of Government Constitution of Liberty
Constitution of Sovereignty e. Parts of a Constitution f. Interpretation of the Constitution In Francisco vs House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, The Supreme Court ruled that; “ The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.
(2) Establishes basic framework and underlying principles of “The Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. Instead, it government provided for certain well-defined limits, or "judicially Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
discoverable standards" for determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review. There is indeed a plethora of cases in which this Court exercised the power of judicial review over congressional action. Finally, there exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be allowed to defeat another." Both are integral components of the calibrated system of independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution.”
In case of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS; In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage. When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. It also refers to Filipino’s intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. In the present case, Manila Hotel has become a landmark, a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in 1912, a concourse for the elite, it has since then become the venue of various significant events which have shaped Philippine history. In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and concessions, especially on matters involving g. Supremacy of the Constitution national patrimony, when a choice has to be made between The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all a “qualified foreigner” and a “qualified Filipino,” the latter other laws must conform and to which all persons, including shall be chosen over the former. the highest official of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the A provision which is complete in itself and becomes Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling Supreme. All must bow to mandate of this law. Expediency legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is selfdebase its rectitude. executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred In case of Mutuc vs COMELEC; and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution I ssue: Whether the taped jingles fall under the phrase “and itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language the like.” indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for Held: Under the well-known principle of ejusdem action. In self-executing constitutional provisions, the generis, the general words following any enumeration are legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the specifically referred to. It is quite apparent that what was operation of such a provision, prescribe a practice to be contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a the protection of the rights secured or the determination favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the distribution. The Constitutional Convention Act exercise of the right. The mere fact that legislation may contemplated the prohibition on the distribution of gadgets supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the of the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its render such a provision ineffective in the absence of such distribution (distribution of electoral propaganda gadgets, legislation. The omission from a constitution of any express mention being made of pens, lighters, fans, flashlights, provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be selfmatches, and cigarettes, and concluding with the words executing. The rule is that a self-executing provision of the “and the like.”). Taped jingles therefore were not prohibited. constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power NOTE: Ejusdem-Generis - Latin: of the same kind. A rule on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with of statutory construction, generally accepted by both state the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right and federal courts, "that where general words follow and make it more available. enumerations of particular classes or persons or things, the II. AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION general words shall be construed as applicable only to ARTICLE XVII persons or things of the same general nature or kind as those enumerated AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS IN CUSTODIA LEGIS. In the custody of the law. In Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this general, when things are in custodia legis, they cannot be Constitution may be proposed by: distrained, nor otherwise interfered with by custodia legis, (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths they cannot be distrained, nor otherwise interfered with by a of all its Members; or private person. (2) A constitutional convention. In case of Alih vs Castro; The Supreme Court declared those seized in custodia legis and declared that the Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may operation conducted by Maj. Gen. Castro was ILLEGAL. likewise be directly proposed by the people through The respondents have all the time to obtain a search initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum warrant granted that they have about 10 trial courts. The SC of the total number of registered voters, of which every also held the protection of the petitioner's human rights as legislative district must be represented by at least three stated in Art IV Sec 3 and 4 of the 1973 Constitution per centum of the registered voters therein. No regarding illegal search and seizure. The presumption of amendment under this section shall be authorized innocence of the petitioners should be observed and that within five years following the ratification of this they cannot be subjected to self-incriminating instances like Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. paraffin tests, photographing and finger printing. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of In this case, "The Constitution is a law for rulers and people, the exercise of this right. equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than majority vote of all its Members, submit to the that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of electorate the question of calling such a convention. the great exigencies of government." A. Amendment vs Revision Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
Amendment is a change or alteration for the better; an asks a question whether the people approve a shift amendment or change within the lines of the original from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameralinstrument which will bring about improvement Parliamentary system of government. The signature Revision is the rewriting or overhauling of the entire sheet does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the instrument. signature sheet. This omission is fatal. B. Proposal – is the motion of initiating suggestions or proposals on amendment or revision, which may either be An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed by; amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as (a) Congress, upon vote of ¾ of all its members; a gigantic fraud on the people. That’s why the Constitution requires that an initiative must be “directly proposed by the (b) Constitutional Convention people x x x in a petition” – meaning that the people must (c) The people thru initiative sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed In case of Santiago vs COMELEC; R.A. 6735 is amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nation’s inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed to the Constitution. Under the said law, initiative on the amendments cannot be hidden from the people under a Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The general or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, people are not accorded the power to "directly propose, and unelected individuals. enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions." The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, C. Submissionapproved or rejected, amended or repealed" denotes that R.A. No. 6735 excludes initiative on amendments to the In case of Tolentino vs COMELEC; The Supreme Court held that in Section 1 of Article 15, there should be only one Constitution. “election” or plebiscite for the ratification of all amendments Also, while the law provides subtitles for National Initiative the Convention may propose. and Referendum and for Local Initiative and Referendum, D. Ratification: Article 17 Section 4, Paragraphs 1 and 2 no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this means that the main thrust of the law is initiative and Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when referendum on national and local laws. If R.A. No. 6735 ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite were intended to fully provide for the implementation of the which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have than ninety days after the approval of such amendment provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order or revision. of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a Constitution is far more important than the initiative on plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty national and local laws. days nor later than ninety days after the certification by While R.A. No. 6735 specially detailed the process in the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. implementing initiative and referendum on national and local laws, it intentionally did not do so on the system of initiative E. The position of the Convention in our system of on amendments to the Constitution. government In case of Lambino vs COMELEC; There are three theories on the relative position of the Constitutional Convention vis-à-vis the regular department The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the of the government. people through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means The first, as announced in Loomis v. Jackson, holds that the two essential elements must be present. constitutional constitution is supreme over the other departments of the government because the powers it First, the people must author and thus sign the entire exercises are in the nature of sovereign powers. This theory proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their is thus called the Theory of Conventional Sovereignty. behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before – not after – signing.
The second, as announced in Wood’s Appeal, considers the constitutional convention inferior to the other departments of the government since it is merely a creation of the legislature. The third, as announced in Frantz vs Autry, declares that as long as it exists and confines itself within the sphere of its jurisdiction, the constitutional convention must be considered independent of and co-equal with the other departments of the government. The third of these theories, which is the most popular, has been observed in our government since the case of Mabanag vs. Vito.
Moreover, “an initiative signer must be informed at the time III. History and Background of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed” A. The Philippine Revolution and the Malolos and failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which Constitution renders the initiative void. On June 29,1898, Gen, Aguinaldo established the In the case of the Lambino Group’s petition, there’s not Revolutionary Government replacing the Dictatorial a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Government with himself as the President and a proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does Congress whose function was advisory and the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed ministerial. The decree making such change stated changes is attached to it. The signature sheet merely Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
that the aims of the new government were “to struggle for the independence of the Philippines, until all nations including Spain will expressly recognize it,” and “to prepare the country for the establishment of a real Republic.” On September 15, 1898, revolutionary Congress of Filipino representatives met in Malolos, Bulacan at the call of the Revolutionary Government. The Malolos Congress ratified on Sept. 29, 1898 the proclamation of Philippine Independence made by Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo in Kawit, Cavite on June 12,1898 and framed the so-called Malolos Constitution.This Constitution was the first democratic constitution ever promulgated in the whole Asia. It established a “free and independent Philippine Republic”. However, it was not recognized by the family of nations. It had shortlived.
franchise to all literate Filipino males. The law also incorporated a bill of rights. C. Japanese Occupation (1) The Philippine Executive Commission- a civil government composed of Filipinos was organized by the military forced of occupation. The commission exercised both the executive and legislative powers. The laws enacted were, however, subject to the approval of the Commanderin-chief of the Japanese Forces. (2) The Japanese-sponsored Republic of the Philippines was inaugurated with Jose Laurel as the President. The same as the Philippine Executive Commission. The ultimate source of its authority was the Japanese military authority and government. D. The 1935 Constitution
The original 1935 Constitution provided for unicameral National Assembly and the President was elected to a sixB. The Organic Laws under the American Period year term without re-election. It was amended in 1940 to have a bicameral Congress composed of a Senate and (1) Mckinley’s Instructions (April 7, 1990) House of Representatives, as well the creation of an President McKinley's instruction to the Philippine independent electoral commission. The Constitution now Commission in April 1900 directed that, "... Beginning with granted the President a four-year term with a maximum of the 1st day of September, 1900, the authority to exercise two consecutive terms in office. that part of the power of government in the Philippine Islands which is of legislative nature, is to be transferred A Constitutional Convention was held in 1971 to rewrite the from the Military Governor to this commission." The 1935 Constitution. The convention was stained with instruction also gave the Commission the power to appoint manifest bribery and corruption. Possibly the most to officers under the judicial, educational, and civil service controversial issue was removing the presidential term limit systems and in the municipal and departmental so that Ferdinand E. Marcos could seek election for a third governments. The instruction charged the Commission, "... term, which many felt was the true reason for which the In all the forms of government and administrative provisions convention was called. In any case, the 1935 Constitution which they are authorized to proscribe, the Commission was suspended in 1972 with Marcos' proclamation of should bear in mind that the government which they are martial law, the rampant corruption of the constitutional establishing is designed not for our satisfaction, or for the process providing him with one of his major premises for expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, doing so. peace and prosperity of the people of the Philippine islands, In case of Mabanag vs Vito, the Court held; and measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and even their prejudices, to the It is a doctrine too well established to need citation of fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of just and authorities that political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to effective government." deal with such questions has been conferred upon the (2) The Spooner Amendment (1901) courts by express constitutional or statutory provision. This The Army Appropriation Act, also known as the Spooner doctrine is predicated on the principle of the separation of Amendment, is passed by the US Senate. It provides that powers, a principle also too well known to require the US President governs the Philippines by the authority of elucidation or citation of authorities. If a political question Congress and not as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the political Forces, thereby formally ending the US military regime in departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds the judges under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that respect. If the archipelago. ratification of an amendment is a political question, a (3)The Philippine Bill of 1902, or the Cooper Act of July 1, proposal which leads to ratification has to be a political 1902, provided for the retention of executive powers of the question. The two steps complement each other in a Philippine Commission and the establishment of a scheme intended to achieve a single objective. It is to be bicameral Philippine Legislature. It provided for the creation noted that the amendatory process as provided in section I of the Philippine Assembly, a body that would share of Article XV of the Philippine Constitution "consists of (only) legislative powers with the Philippine Commission and two distinct parts: proposal and ratification." There is no would function as the lower chamber of the proposed logic in attaching political character to one and withholding Philippine Legislature. It also provided for a bill of rights for that character from the other. Proposal to amend the the Filipinos, and the appointment of two Filipino resident Constitution is a highly political function performed by the commissioners to represent the Philippines in the United Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and States Congress but without voting rights. On October 16, committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. The 1907, the first session of the Philippine assembly opened, exercise of this power is even in dependent of any with an elected lower house and the Philippine Commission, intervention by the Chief Executive. If on grounds of previously established, as the upper house. expediency scrupulous attention of the judiciary be needed (4) The Philippine Autonomy Act or Jones Law to safeguard public interest, there is less reason for judicial Statute announcing the intention of the United States inquiry into the validity of a proposal then into that of a government to “withdraw their sovereignty over the ratification. Philippine Islands as soon as a stable government can be established therein.” The U.S. had acquired the Philippines in 1898 as a result of the Spanish–American War; and from 1901 legislative power in the islands had been exercised through a Philippine Commission effectively dominated by Americans. One of the most significant sections of the Jones Act replaced the Commission with an elective Senate and, with minimum property qualifications, extended the
E. The 1973 Constitution
The 1973 Constitution, composed of a preamble and 17 articles, provides for the shift from presidential to parliamentary system of government. The Constitution vests the legislative power in the National Assembly. A Prime Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
Minister is elected from among the members of the National Assembly and serves as the head of government and commander-in-chief of the Philippine Armed Forces. A President is elected from among the members of the National Assembly and serves as the symbolic head of state with a six-year term. The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Justices. The National Assembly exercises the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the lower courts. All justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts are appointed by the Prime Minister. This Constitution retains the independence of the Commission on Elections and establishes two independent Constitution al bodies [Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit] as well as the National Economic Development Authority [NEDA]. On 24 August 1970, Congress enacted RA No. 6132, otherwise known as the Constitution al Convention Act, for the purpose of convening a Constitution al Convention. The 320 delegates met from June 1971 until 30 November 1972, when they approved the draft of the new Charter. While in the process of drafting a new Constitution , President Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law on 21 September 1972. The draft Constitution was submitted to the Citizen's Assemblies from January 10 to 17, 1973 for ratification. On 17 January 1973 , President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. The above constitution was amended in 1976, 1980 and in 1981. There were minor amendments done in 1984. In case of Sanidad vs COMELEC; The Constitutional Convention intended to leave to the President the determination of the time when he shall initially convene the interim National Assembly, consistent with the prevailing conditions of peace and order in the country. When the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention voted on the Transitory Provisions, they were aware of the fact that under the same, the incumbent President was given the discretion as to when he could convene the interim National Assembly. In sensu striciore, when the legislative arm of the state undertakes the proposals of amendment to a Constitution, that body is not in the usual function of lawmaking. It is not legislating when engaged in the amending process. Rather, it is exercising a peculiar power bestowed upon it by the fundamental charter itself. In the Philippines, that power is provided for in Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution (for the regular National Assembly) or in Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions (for the interim National Assembly). While ordinarily it is the business of the legislating body to legislate for the nation by virtue of constitutional conferment, amending of the Constitution is not legislative in character. In political science a distinction is made between constitutional content of an organic character and that of a legislative character. The distinction, however, is one of policy, not of law. Such being the case, approval of the President of any proposed amendment is a misnomer. The prerogative of the President to approve or disapprove applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation. The President has nothing to do with proposition or adoption of amendments to the Constitution. F. The 1986 Provisional Constitution The 1986 Provisional Constitution, popularly known as the Freedom Constitution, promulgated by President Corazon C. Aquino on March 25, 1986, was a provisional constitution after a successful People Power Revolution. Under the Freedom Constitution, executive and legislative powers are exercised by the President, and shall continue to exercise legislative powers until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution. Furthermore, the President is mandated to convene a Constitutional Commission tasked to draft a new charter. (1) Snap Election
In the Philippines, the term "snap election" usually refers to the 1986 presidential election, where President Ferdinand Marcos called elections earlier than scheduled, in response to growing social unrest. Marcos was declared official winner of the election but was eventually ousted when it was alleged that he cheated in the elections. In the current constitution, a snap election will be held for the positions of president and vice president on the condition that both positions are vacant, and outside the 90-day range of the next scheduled presidential election. (2) The February 1986 Revolution (3) Proclamation No.1 , Feb. 25, 1986 Pres. Aquino declared that she and her vicepresident were “taking power in the name and by the will of the Filipino People” on the basis of the clear sovereign will of the people expressed in the election of Feb. 7, 1986. In her oath, she swore to preserve and defend the “fundamental law” (not the “Constitution”) and execute “just laws” ( instead of “its laws). (4) Proclamation No. 3, March 25, 1986 That the provisional government established thereunder was revolutionary in character having been installed by direct action of the people or by “people power”, deriving its existence and authority directly from the people themselves and not from the then operating 1973 Constitution. G. The 1987 Philippine Constitution (1) The Constitutional Commission of 1986 The 1987 Constitution was drafted by a Constitutional Commission created under Article V of Proclamation No. 3 issued on March 25, 1986 which promulgated the “Freedom Constitution” through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people. (2) Proclamation No. 58 (Feb. 11, 1987) (3) When Considered ratified? Article 18 Section 27 (1987 Constitution) 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 October 12, 1986 and accordingly signed on October 15, 1986 at the Plenary Hall, National Government Center, Quezon City, by the Commissioners whose signatures are hereunder affixed/ IV. JUDICIAL REVIEW A. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review In case of Angara vs Electoral Commission, the Court held that; In case of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent thereof. In case of Francisco vs House of Representatives, the court ruled that; The judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution. B. Requisites of Judicial Review
Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
There must be an actual case or controversy The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. Article 8 Sec.5, paragraph (2)
(1) Actual Case or Controversy- involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. A “controversy” must be the one that is appropriate for judicial determination. It must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. Prematurity In the case of PACU vs. Secretary of Education the petition contesting the validity of a regulation issued by the Secretary of Education requiring private schools to secure a permit to operate was dismissed on the ground that all the petitioners have permits and are actually operating under the same. The petitioners questioned the regulation because of the possibility that the permit might be denied them in the future. This Court held that there was no justiciable controversy because the petitioners suffered no wrong by the implementation of the questioned regulation and therefore, they are not entitled to relief. A mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education will withdraw the permit does not amount to a justiciable controversy. The questioned regulation in the PACU case may be questioned by a private school whose permit to operate has been revoked or one whose application therefor has been denied.
has been a governmental act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of the person contesting its validity. In the instant case of Montecarlos vs COMELEC, there is no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of judicial review. Petitioners' prayer to prevent Congress from enacting into law a proposed bill lowering the membership age in the SK does not present an actual justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed bill creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty. The Court has no power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional because that would be in the nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress. The power of judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo.22 The second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states – "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 a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." Thus, there can be no justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill. The Court can exercise its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not before. Mootness In case of Gonzales vs Narvasa, that, with respect to the PCCR, this case has become moot and academic.
An action is considered “moot” when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues NOTE: Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic involved have become academic or dead. questions. Courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a law upon the complaint of one who fails to show that he is The PCCR submitted its recommendations to the President on December 20, 1999 and was dissolved by the President injured by its operation. on the same day. It had likewise spent the funds allotted to In case of Mariano vs COMELEC held that the petition is it. Thus, the PCCR has ceased to exist, having lost its premised on the occurrence of many contingent events, i.e., raison d’etre. Subsequent events have overtaken the that Mayor Binay will run again in this coming mayoralty petition and the Court has nothing left to resolve. elections; that he would be re-elected in said elections; and that he would seek re-election for the same position in the The staleness of the issue before us is made more 1998 elections. Considering that these contingencies may manifest by the impossibility of granting the relief prayed for or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a by petitioner. Basically, petitioner asks this Court to enjoin hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual the PCCR from acting as such. Clearly, prohibition is an case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of inappropriate remedy since the body sought to be enjoined Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to no longer exists. It is well established that prohibition is a raise this abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this futuristic preventive remedy and does not lie to restrain an act that is issue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court already fait accompli. At this point, any ruling regarding the has no jurisdiction. PCCR would simply be in the nature of an advisory opinion, The decided case of Cutaran vs DENR the court defined which is definitely beyond the permissible scope of judicial the word “justiciable controversy” Court cannot rule on the power. basis of petitioners' speculation that the DENR will approve In case of Defunis vs Odegaard; DeFunis did not cast his the application of the heirs of Carantes. There must be an suit as a class action, and the only remedy he requested actual governmental act which directly causes or will was an injunction commanding his admission to the Law imminently cause injury to the alleged right of the petitioner School. He was not only accorded that remedy, but he now to possess the land before the jurisdiction of this Court may has also been irrevocably admitted to the final term of the be invoked. There is no showing that the petitioners were final year of the Law School course. The controversy being evicted from the land by the heirs of Carantes under between the parties has thus clearly ceased to be orders from the DENR; "definite and concrete" and no longer "touches the A justiciable controversy has been defined as, "a definite legal relations of parties having adverse legal and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of interests." parties having adverse legal interest” which may be There is a line of decisions in this Court standing for the resolved by a court of law through the application of a law. proposition that the "voluntary cessation of allegedly Courts have no judicial power to review cases involving illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power political questions and as a rule, will desist from taking to hear and determine the case, i. e., does not make the cognizance of speculative or hypothetical cases, case moot." These decisions and the doctrine they reflect advisory opinions and in cases that has become moot. would be quite relevant if the question of mootness here Subject to certain well-defined exceptions courts will not had arisen by reason of a unilateral change in the touch an issue involving the validity of a law unless there Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
admissions procedures of the Law School. For it was the admissions procedures that were the target of this litigation, and a voluntary cessation of the admissions practices complained of could make this case moot only if it could be said with assurance "that `there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.'" Otherwise, "the defendant is free to return to his old ways," and this fact would be enough to prevent mootness because of the "public interest in having the legality of the practices settled." But mootness in the present case depends not at all upon a "voluntary cessation" of the admissions practices that were the subject of this litigation. It depends, instead, upon the simple fact that DeFunis is now in the final quarter of the final year of his course of study, and the settled and unchallenged policy of the Law School to permit him to complete the term for which he is now enrolled. Exceptions to Mootness In case of Acop vs. Guingona, the court sayd that it’s necessary to resolve the merits of the principal issue raised for a proper disposition of prayer c) and for future guidance of both bench and bar as to the application of Sections 3(d) and 4 of R.A. No. 6981. As we have ruled in Alunan III vs. Mirasol, and Viola vs. Alunan III, "courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.'" In case of Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary; The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of Proclamation No. 435, declaring that the state of rebellion has ceased to exist, has rendered the case moot. As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of "actual controversies." Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is "capable of repetition yet evading review." The case at bar is one such case.
RIGHT TO QUESTION UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSITION.
In case of CHR Employees Assoc. vs CHR, the court held that; On petitioner's personality to bring this suit, which held in a multitude of cases that a proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of Citizen Standing In Tañada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real parties in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is a citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result of the action. In Chavez vs PEA, the Court ruled that since the instant petition, brought by a citizen, involves the enforcement of constitutional rights - to information and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources - matters of transcendental public importance, the petitioner has the requisite locus standi. Associational Standing
In KMU Labor Center vs Garcia, the court held that; In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of planters, and non-profit civic organizations were allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before this court to question the The same as in the case of Pimentel vs Ermita, the court constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, decisions, held that as a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin rulings, or orders of various government agencies or acts already done. However, as an exception to the rule on instrumentalities. mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. Court is ready to brush aside this barren procedural In the present case, the mootness of the petition does not infirmity and recognize the legal standing of the bar its resolution. The question of the constitutionality of the petitioner in view of the transcendental importance of Presidents appointment of department secretaries in an the issues raised. And this act of liberality is not acting capacity while Congress is in session will arise in without judicial precedent. As early as the Emergency every such appointment. Powers Cases, this Court had exercised its discretion 2. Proper Party and waived the requirement of proper party. In case of Joya vs PCGG , THE COURT HELD THAT ONE HAVING NO RIGHT OR INTEREST TO PROTECT In John Hay vs Lim, The court says; The grant by the law CANNOT INVOKE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AS on local government units of the right of concurrence on the PART-PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION. THIS IS PREMISED ON bases' conversion is equivalent to vesting a legal standing SEC. 2, RULE 3, OF THE RULES AND W/C PROVIDES on them, for it is in effect a recognition of the real interests THAT EVERY ACTION MUST BE PROSECUTED AND that communities nearby or surrounding a particular base DEFENDED IN THE NAME OF THE REAL PARTY area have in its utilization. Thus, the interest of petitioners, INTEREST AND THAT ALL PERSONS HAVING being inhabitants of Baguio, in assailing the legality of INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTION AND IN Proclamation 420, is personal and substantial such that OBTAINING RELIEF AND SHALL BE JOINED AS they have sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of PLAINTIFFS. THE COURT WILL EXERCISE ITS POWER the government act being challenged." Theirs is a material OF JUDICAL REVIEW ONLY IF THE CASE THAT A interest, an interest in issue affected by the proclamation PARTY WHO HAS THE LEGAL STANDING TO RAISE and not merely an interest in the question involved or an incidental interest," for what is at stake in the enforcement THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL QUESTION. of Proclamation 420 is the very economic and social ANY CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT IN THEIR existence of the people of Baguio City. ACQUISITION AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT DISPOSITION MUST BE RAISED ONLY BY THE PROPER PARTIES In the case of Kilosbayan, Inc., et al. v. Teofisto TRUE OWNERS THEREOF – WHOSE AUTHORITY TO Guingona, Jr., et al., ruled in the same lines and enumerated some of the cases where the same policy was RECOVER EMANATES FROM THEIR PROPRIETY adopted, viz: RIGHTS. HAVING FAILED TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE ARTWORK THAT THE . . . A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of its VALUED PISCES HAVE BECOME PULICLY OWNED, discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the PETITIONERS DO NOT POSSESS ANY CLEAR LEGAL issues raised. In the landmark Emergency Powers Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
Cases, this Court brushed aside this technicality because "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure." Insofar as taxpayers' suits are concerned, this Court had declared that it "is not devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained," or that it "enjoys an open discretion to entertain the same or not. Taxpayers Standing In ITF vs COMELEC, the court held that;The issues central to the case are "of transcendental importance and of national interest." As alleged, Comelec’s flawed bidding and questionable award of the Contract to an unqualified entity would impact directly on the success or the failure of the electoral process. Any taint on the sanctity of the ballot as the expression of the will of the people would inevitably affect their faith in the democratic system of government. Further, the award of any contract for automation involves disbursement of public funds are in gargantuan amounts; therefore, public interest requires that the laws governing the transaction must be followed strictly. Truly, our nation’s political and economic future virtually hangs in the balance, pending the outcome of the 2004 elections. Hence, there can be no serious doubt that the subject matter of the case is "a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest"; in other words, it is of "paramount public interest" and "transcendental importance." This fact alone would justify relaxing the rule on legal standing, following the liberal policy of the Court whenever a case involves "an issue of overarching significance to our society." ITF, et. al.’s legal standing should therefore be recognized and upheld. Moreover, the Court has held that taxpayers are allowed to sue when there is a claim of "illegal disbursement of public funds," or if public money is being "deflected to any improper purpose"; or when petitioner(s) seek to restrain respondent(s) from "wasting public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law." In Jumamil vs Café, The court defined the word locus standi and interest; Legal standing or locus standi is a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged. It calls for more than just a generalized grievance. The term “interest” means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Unless a person’s constitutional rights are adversely affected by the statute or ordinance, he has no legal standing. Voter’s Standing In TOLENTINO VS COMELEC Court Ruling: "Legal standing" or locus standi refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged governmental act. The requirement of standing, which necessarily "sharpens the presentation of issues," relates to the constitutional mandate that this Court settle only actual cases or controversies Thus, generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable
to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. In questioning, in their capacity as voters, the validity of the special election on 14 May 2001, petitioners assert a harm classified as a "generalized grievance." This generalized grievance is shared in substantially equal measure by a large class of voters, if not all the voters, who voted in that election. On the other hand, we have relaxed the requirement on standing and exercised our discretion to give due course to voters' suits involving the right of suffrage We accord the same treatment to petitioners in the instant case in their capacity as voters since they raise important issues involving their right of suffrage, considering that the issue raised in this petition is likely to arise again. Legislative Standing In Ople vs Torres RULING: Petitioner Ople is a distinguished member of our Senate. As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A.O. No. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. As taxpayer and member of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the legality of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to implement A.O. No. 308.
The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not affected by the fact that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. Petitioner Ople assails A.O. No. 308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face. His action is not premature for the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects.
All signals from the respondents show their unswerving will to implement A.O. No. 308 and we need not wait for the formality of the rules to pass judgment on its constitutionality. In this light, the dissenters insistence that we tighten the rule on standing is not a commendable stance as its result would be to throttle an important constitutional principle and a fundamental right. GOVERNMENTAL STANDING: In People vs Vera; HELD: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila, is a proper party in the present proceedings. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act 4221 really violates the constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.
Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
Facial Challenge In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the court defined the “face challenge”; A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity." The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.
General such notice would be tantamount to depriving him of his day in court. The mandatory notice requirement is not limited to actions involving declaratory relief and similar remedies. The rule itself provides that such notice is required in "any action" and not just actions involving declaratory relief. Where there is no ambiguity in the words used in the rule, there is no room for construction. In all actions assailing the validity of a statute, treaty, presidential decree, order, or proclamation, notice to the Solicitor General is mandatory. C. FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW In case of Salonga vs Cruz-Pano, the court enumerates their functions for the judicial review; The setting aside or declaring void, in proper cases, of intrusions of State authority into areas reserved by the Bill of Rights for the individual as constitutionally protected spheres where even the awesome powers of Government may not enter at will is not the totality of the Court's functions. The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area The fact that the petition was moot and academic did not of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area prevent the Court in the exercise of its symbolic function of free speech. from promulgating one of the most voluminous decisions For this reason, it has been held that "a facial challenge to ever printed in the Reports. Herein, the prosecution a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount evidence miserably fails to establish a prima facie case successfully, since the challenger must establish that against Salonga, either as a co-conspirator of a no set of circumstances exists under which the Act destabilization plan to overthrow the government or as an would be valid." As for the vagueness doctrine, it is said officer or leader of any subversive organization. The that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is respondents have taken the initiative of dropping the vague in all its possible applications. "A plaintiff who charges against Salonga. The Court reiterates the rule, engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot however, that the Court will not validate the filing of an complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the information based on the kind of evidence against Salonga conduct of others." found in the records. 3. Earliest Opportunity
D. The Exercise of Judicial Review
4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions
In case of Ynot vs IAC, Under the provision granting the SC jurisdiction to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may provide final judgments of lower courts" in all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures, lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first instance.
In case of Arceta vs Mangrobang, the court held that; Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative. The Court examined the contentions of Arceta and Dy carefully; but they still have to persuade us E. Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality that BP 22 by itself or in its implementation transgressed a New Civil Code, Article 7 provision of the Constitution. Even the thesis of Dy that the Laws are repealed only by the subsequent ones, and present economic and financial crisis should be a basis to declare the Bouncing Checks Law constitutionally infirm their violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. deserves but scant consideration. As stressed in Lozano, it is precisely during trying times that there exists a most When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with compelling reason to strengthen faith and confidence in the the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter financial system and any practice tending to destroy shall govern. confidence in checks as currency substitutes should be Administrative or executive acts, orders and deterred, to prevent havoc in the trading and financial regulations shall be valid only when they are not communities. Further, while indeed the metropolitan trial contrary to the laws or the Constitution. courts may be burdened immensely by bouncing checks cases now, that fact is immaterial to the alleged invalidity of In case of Serrano de Agbayani vs PNB, the law being assailed. The solution to the clogging of The decision reflects the orthodox view that an dockets in lower courts lies elsewhere. unconstitutional act, for that matter an executive order or a Mandatory Notice municipal ordinance likewise suffering from that infirmity, cannot be the source of any legal rights or duties. Nor can it In case of Mirasol vs. C.A, the court held that; justify any official act taken under it. Its repugnancy to the (Notice to Solicitor General) of the Rules of Court provides fundamental law once judicially declared results in its being that "in any action which involves the validity of a statute, or to all intents and purposes a mere scrap of paper. As the executive order or regulation, the Solicitor General shall be new Civil Code puts it: "When the courts declare a law to be notified by the party attacking the statute, executive order, inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void or regulation, and shall be entitled to be heard upon such and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, question." The purpose of the mandatory notice in Rule 64, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not Section 3 is to enable the Solicitor General to decide contrary to the laws of the Constitution. It is understandable whether or not his intervention in the action assailing the why it should be so, the Constitution being supreme and validity of a law or treaty is necessary. To deny the Solicitor Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
paramount. Any legislative or executive act contrary to its a body-politic organized by common consent for mutual terms cannot survive. defense and mutual safety and to promote the general Such a view has support in logic and possesses the merit of welfare. simplicity. It may not however be sufficiently realistic. It does not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative or executive act must have been in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and respect. Parties may have acted under it and may have changed their positions. What could be more fitting than that in a subsequent litigation regard be had to what has been done while such legislative or executive act was in operation and presumed to be valid in all respects. It is now accepted as a doctrine that prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with. This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmental organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication.
Definition: Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the State. Components: land, mass, otherwise known as the terrestrial domain, the inland and external waters, which make up the maritime and fluvial domain, and the air space above the land and waters, which is called the aerial domain. The Philippine Archipelago ARTICLE I
NATIONAL TERRITORY . The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the F. Partial Unconstitutionality archipelago, regardless of their breadth and In case Salazar vs Achacoso, dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the The decrees in question stand as the dying vestiges of Philippines. authoritarian rule in its twilight moments. Under the new C. People Constitution, "no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined Definition: refers simply to the inhabitants of the State. personally by the judge after examination under oath or (a) As inhabitants affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may ARTICLE III produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. It is only a Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest." property without due process of law, nor shall any person Mayors may not exercise this power. Neither may it be done be denied the equal protection of the laws. by a mere prosecuting body. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable process. To that extent, the Court declare Article 38, searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or force and effect. For the guidance of the bench and the bar, warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to the COurt reaffirmed the principles that (1) Under Article III, be determined personally by the judge after examination Section 2 , of the 1987 Constitution, it is only judges, and under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the no other, who may issue warrants of arrest and search; and witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the (2) The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and place to be searched and the persons or things to be undesirable aliens, whom the President or the seized. Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following ARTICLE II a final order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation. Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to Thus, the Court herein granted the petition, declaring Article health of the people and instill health consciousness among 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code unconstitutional and them. null and void, and thus ordering the POEA to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord and Seizure Order 1205. with the rhythm and harmony of nature. V. THE STATE b. As Electors A. Concept and Definition ARTICLE VII State- is a community of persons, more or less numerous, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT permanently occupying a fixed territory, and possessed of an independent government organized for political ends to Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be which the great body of inhabitants render habitual elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years obedience. which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next NOTE: State is a legal concept, while the nation is only a following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be racial or ethnic concept. eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded In case CIR vs Campos Rueda, the court held that; : If a as President and has served as such for more than four foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is required years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically time. organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally supreme No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive within its territory, acting through a government functioning terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of under a regime of law. It is thus a sovereign person with the time shall not be considered as an interruption in the people composing it viewed as an organized corporate continuity of the service for the full term for which he was society under a government with the legal competence to elected. exact obedience to its commands. It has been referred to as Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may President and Vice-President shall be held on the second be provided by law. Monday of May. D. Government The returns of every election for President and Vice- Definition: is the agency or instrumentality through which President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized. province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines : certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, In case of People vs. Sandiganbayan; the law provides not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open that the contribution by military officers and enlisted all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the personnel to the System shall be compulsory. Its enabling House of Representatives in joint public session, and the law further mandates that the System shall be administered Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass through an agency, group, committee or board, which may the votes. be created and organized by him and subject to such rules The person having the highest number of votes shall be and regulations governing the same as he may, subject to proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an the approval of the Secretary of National Defense, equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall promulgate from time to time. Moreover, the investment of forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the funds of the System shall be decided by the Chief of Staff of Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the approval of the Secretary of National Defense. separately. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing Constituent vs Ministrant Functions of the certificates. Constituent functions constitute the very bonds of society The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge and are therefore compulsory. Among the constituent of all contests relating to the election, returns, and functions are the following; qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may 1. The keeping of order and providing for the promulgate its rules for the purpose. protection of persons and property from violence and robbery; ARTICLE XVI 2. The fixing of the legal relations between husband GENERAL PROVISIONS and wife and between parents and children. Section 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name 3. The regulation of the holding, transmission and for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which interchange of property, and the determination of its shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, liabilities for debt or crime; history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national 4. The determination of contractual rights between referendum. individuals; 5. The definition and punishment of crimes; 6. The administration of justice in civil cases; ARTICLE XVIII TRANSITORY PROVISIONS 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. C. As citizens ARTICLE II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES PRINCIPLES Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. 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 fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service. ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, 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
7. The administration of political duties, privileges and relations of citizens; and 8. The dealings of the State with foreign powers; the preservation of the State from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interests. Ministerial functions are those undertaken to advance the general interests of society, such as public works, public charity, and regulation of trade and industry. These functions are merely optional. In case of ACCFA vs CUGCO;the court held; The ACA is a government office or agency engaged in governmental, not proprietary functions. These functions may not be strictly what President Wilson described as "constituent" (as distinguished from "ministrant"), such as those relating to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of crime, those regulating property and property rights, those relating to the administration of justice and the determination of political duties of citizens, and those relating to national defense and foreign relations. Under this traditional classification, such constituent functions are exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty, and not merely to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people — these latter functions being ministrant, the exercise of which is optional on the part of the government. PARENS PATRIAE Definition: Guardian of the rights of the people. In case of Government of the Phil. Vs. Monte de Piedad, the court held the right of the government to file the case for the State as parens patriae in representation of the legitimate claimants.
In Cabanas v Pilapil, the Supreme Court said; Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
…the judiciary as the agency of the State acting as parens patriae, is called upon whenever a pending suit or litigation affects one who is a minor to accord priority to his best interests. It may happen as it did in this case, that family relations may press their respective claims. It would be more in consonance not only with the natural order of things but the tradition of the country for a parent to be preferred. DE JURE GOVERNMENT/ CRITERIA FOR LEGITIMACY A de jure government has rightful title but no power or control, either because this has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually entered into exercises thereof. DE FACTO GOVERNMENT A de facto government is a government of fact, that is, it actually exercises power or control but without legal title. KINDS of de facto government; 1. The government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter, such as the government of England under the Commonwealth, first by Parliamentary and later by Cromwell as Protector. 2. That established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state, such as the government of the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Union during the war of secession in the United States.
3. That which is established and maintained by
military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated as a government of paramount force, such as the cases of Castine in Maine, which was reduced to a British possession in the war of 1812, and of Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the war with Mexico by the troops of the United States.
In case Co Kim Cham vs Valdez, the court define the kinds of de facto governments;
E. Sovereignty Definition: is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is governed. Kinds: 1. Legal Sovereignty – is the authority which has the power to issue final commands. 2. Political Sovereignty – is the power behind the legal sovereign or the sum of the influences that operate upon it. 3. Internal Sovereignty – refers to the power of the State to control its domestic affairs. 4. External Sovereignty – power of the State to direct its relations with other States is also known as independence. Sovereign is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and imprescriptible. Effects of Change of Sovereignty In case of Macariola vs Asuncion, the court held that ; Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is a change of sovereignty , the political laws of the former sovereign , whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign. Acts of State In case of Harvey vs. Commissioner, the court held that; Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its self-preservation or public interest. The power to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the people. Particularly so in this case, where the State has expressly committed itself to defend the tight of children to assistance and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development (Article XV, Section 3). Respondent Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation, in instituting deportation proceedings against petitioners, acted in the interests of the State.
There are several kinds of de facto governments. The first, or government de facto in a proper legal sense, is that government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter. The second is that which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a government of paramount force. And the third is that VI. CITIZENSHIP established as an independent government. By contrast, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Citizenship- is membership in a political community which Lawyers League for a better Philippines v Aquino that “the is personal and more or less permanent in character. people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of Pres. Aquino which is in effective control of Nationality- is membership in any class or form of political the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if member of a government but in fact and law a de jure government. democratic community] or subjects [if members of a Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the monarchial community]. It does not necessarily include the right or legitimacy of the present government. privilege of exercising political and civil rights. Government distinguished from Administration Modes of Acquiring Citizenship Government must be distinguished from administration, ➢ Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the which is the group of persons in whose hands the reins of basis of place of birth. government are for the time being. The administration runs the government as a machinist operates his machine. ➢ Jus sanguinis- acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship. Administration is transitional whereas the government is permanent. ➢ Naturalization- the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF GOVERNMENTS native-born citizen. a. Based on accountability to the people ➢ Marriage b. Presidential vs Parliamentary A. Who are Philippine Citizens; c. National. Local, federal Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
 Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the 1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally; time of the adoption of this Constitution; 2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to  Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of some foreign country and establishes residence there; the Philippines; Prima Facie evidence of intent to take up residence:  Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino a. Native country- 1-year stay mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon b. Foreign country- 2-year stay reaching the age of majority; and 3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intent;  Those who are naturalized in accordance with 4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents either by law. neglecting to support them or by transferring them to Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship another school; 5. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy; 1. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any Effects of Denaturalization: official authorized to administer oaths. 1. If the ground affects the intrinsic validity of the 2. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry proceedings, denaturalization shall divest the wife and accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to the children of their derivative naturalization; Constitution and the Government of the Philippines. 2. If the ground was personal to the denaturalized person, [Sec. 1, CA 625]. his wife and children shall retain their Philippine citizenship. Naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by RA 530. To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executor only after 2 years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant:
Section 2. 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. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed naturalborn citizens. Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Loss of citizenship: 1. By naturalization in a foreign country - However, this was modified by RA 9225—An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship 1. Has not left the Philippines; Permanent— September 15, 2003 which declares the 2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession; policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become 3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of citizens of another country shall be deemed to have lost government promulgated rules; or their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act. 4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced ➢ They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530] the oath of allegiance ➢ Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of Naturalization RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country, may reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the -mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of citizenship oath of allegiance -governed by CA 473 (for acquisition) and CA 63 (for ➢ Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or reacquisition) adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who -consists a lengthy process reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of RA 9225 shall be deemed citizens of Modes of Naturalization: the Philippines. ➢ Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship 1. DIRECT- through: under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and a. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139 The responsibilities under existing laws of the Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000—grants Philippines and the following Philippine citizenship to aliens born and residing in the conditions: Philippines b. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on – Meet the requirements of RA 9189, The Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made an Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, outstanding contribution to the country and other existing laws c. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation – For those seeking elective public office and or subjugation appointive office, meet the qualifications, d. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals make personal and sworn renunciation, of the State where they are born subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the RP 2. DERIVATIVE-Citizenship conferred on: – For those intending to practice their profession, apply with the proper authority a. Wife of naturalized husband; for a license or permit to engage in such b. Minor children of naturalized person; practice c. Alien woman upon marriage to a national. 2. By express renunciation of citizenship Denaturalization Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation Express renunciation means a renunciation made Dual Citizenship known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to – arises as a result of the concurrent application of inference or implication. the different laws of 2 or more states, a person is ➢ Mere registration of alien in BID and mere simultaneously possession of foreign passport do not constitute considered as a national of said states effective renunciation. – involuntary ➢ In Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, obtaining a Portuguese passport and signing commercial Dual Allegiance documents as a Portuguese were construed as – refers to a situation in which a person renunciation of Philippine citizenship. simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to 2 or more states 3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the – voluntary Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining the age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest Instances when a citizen of the Philippines may himself of Philippine citizenship in this manner while RP is possess dual citizenship: at war with any country. –an application of the principle of Indelible Allegiance.—by virtue of RA 9225 1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli; 4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in 2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and the armed forces of a foreign country EXCEPT: alien fathers if by the laws of their father’s country such ➢ If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of children are citizens of that country; alliance with the said foreign country; and 3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s ➢ The said foreign country maintains armed forces in country the former are considered citizens, unless by their Philippine territory with the consent of RP act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. 5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization ➢ ➢
6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter of the pardon or amnesty has been granted. Reacquisition of citizenship: 1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance 2. By naturalization 3. By repatriation 4. By direct act of Congress Repatriation -mode for reacquisition for those who lost their citizenship -governed by various statutes -consists of taking of an oath of allegiance to the RP and registering said oath in the LCR of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided Effect of repatriation: It allows the person to recover or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, the respondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the US Marine Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural-born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship through repatriation. The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a) Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity. Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE: an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality even if he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second State whose nationality he has acquired. Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising