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 c. Classification
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.
governmental organs of the State and defines the (i) Written – is one which has been given definite
relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory. written form at a particular time.
(ii) Unwritten – is one which has not been reduced
a. Constitutional Law to writing at any specific time but it is the
b. Administrative law collective product of a gradual political
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  Broad- because a statement of the powers and
well as the principles growing out of the interpretation and functions of government, and of the relations
application made by the courts of the provisions of the between the governing body and the governed,
Constitution in specific cases. Thus, the Philippine requires that it be as comprehensive as possible.
Constitution itself is brief but the law of the Constitution lies
 Definite- because otherwise the application of its
scattered in thousands of Supreme Court decisions.
provisions to concrete situations may prove unduly
Distinguished Constitutional Law from Political Law difficult if not impossible.
Political Law deals specifically with the study of the (ii) As to contents, it should contain at least three sets of
structure and powers of our government. provisions;
 Constitution of Government
Constitutional Law is one of the division of Political
Law that defines the specific duties and responsibilities  Constitution of Liberty
of our government together with their privileges and  Constitution of Sovereignty
rights and as a fundamental or supreme law of the land, e. Parts of a Constitution
it enumerates the rights of every citizens with their
f. Interpretation of the Constitution
corresponding functions where the sovereignty resides
in the people and all government authority emanates In Francisco vs House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, The
Supreme Court ruled that;
from them.
“ The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our
C. Constitution (1987 Constitution) system of government. It obtains not through express
provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each
a. Definition
department of the government has exclusive cognizance of
Constitution - define as the supreme law of the land and matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
established by the people which prescribes the permanent sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three
framework of the system of government, which establishes powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the
basic principles upon which the government founded, and Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained
which defines and allocates to the various organs of and independent of each other. The Constitution has
government their respective powers and duties. provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to
secure coordination in the workings of the various
Social Contract Theory – People entrust their rights to the
government. The government in return does their part and departments of the government. And the judiciary in turn,
with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively
gives the people what due to them.
checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to
b. Function determine the law, and hence to declare executive and
(1) Serves as the supreme or fundamental law 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
government impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. Instead, it
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 In case of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS; In its plain and
exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage.
review. There is indeed a plethora of cases in which this When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it
Court exercised the power of judicial review over refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as
congressional action. Finally, there exists no constitutional the Constitution could have very well used the term natural
basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. It
over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of also refers to Filipino’s intelligence in arts, sciences and
checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be letters. In the present case, Manila Hotel has become a
interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be landmark, a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it
allowed to defeat another." Both are integral components was restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in
of the calibrated system of independence and 1912, a concourse for the elite, it has since then become
interdependence that insures that no branch of government the venue of various significant events which have shaped
act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution.” 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 self-
debase 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
the like.” and construction of its terms, and there is no language
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 self-
matches, 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
persons or things of the same general nature or kind as ARTICLE XVII
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
paraffin tests, photographing and finger printing. thereafter.
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 Unicameral-
instrument 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
(b) Constitutional Convention requires that an initiative must be “directly proposed by the
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. Submission-
approved 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
Constitution is far more important than the initiative on when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
national and local laws. plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty
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
implementing initiative and referendum on national and local petition.
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
The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the Constitutional Convention vis-à-vis the regular department
people through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire of the government.
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
First, the people must author and thus sign the entire departments of the government because the powers it
proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their exercises are in the nature of sovereign powers. This theory
behalf. is thus called the Theory of Conventional Sovereignty.
Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal The second, as announced in Wood’s Appeal, considers the
must be embodied in a petition. constitutional convention inferior to the other departments of
the government since it is merely a creation of the
These essential elements are present only if the full text of legislature.
the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who
express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a The third, as announced in Frantz vs Autry, declares that as
petition. The full text of the proposed amendments may be long as it exists and confines itself within the sphere of its
either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If jurisdiction, the constitutional convention must be
so attached, the petition must state the fact of such considered independent of and co-equal with the other
attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the departments of the government.
several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the The third of these theories, which is the most popular, has
full text of the proposed amendments before – not after – been observed in our government since the case of
signing. 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”
and failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which A. The Philippine Revolution and the Malolos
renders the initiative void. Constitution
In the case of the Lambino Group’s petition, there’s not On June 29,1898, Gen, Aguinaldo established the
a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Revolutionary Government replacing the Dictatorial
proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does Government with himself as the President and a
the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed Congress whose function was advisory and
changes is attached to it. The signature sheet merely ministerial. The decree making such change stated

Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
 that the aims of the new government were “to franchise to all literate Filipino males. The law also
struggle for the independence of the Philippines, incorporated a bill of rights.
until all nations including Spain will expressly C. Japanese Occupation
recognize it,” and “to prepare the country for the
establishment of a real Republic.” (1) The Philippine Executive Commission- a civil
government composed of Filipinos was organized by the
On September 15, 1898, revolutionary Congress of military forced of occupation. The commission exercised
Filipino representatives met in Malolos, Bulacan at both the executive and legislative powers. The laws enacted
the call of the Revolutionary Government. The were, however, subject to the approval of the Commander-
Malolos Congress ratified on Sept. 29, 1898 the in-chief of the Japanese Forces.
proclamation of Philippine Independence made by
Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo in Kawit, Cavite on June (2) The Japanese-sponsored Republic of the Philippines
12,1898 and framed the so-called Malolos was inaugurated with Jose Laurel as the President. The
Constitution.This Constitution was the first same as the Philippine Executive Commission. The ultimate
democratic constitution ever promulgated in the source of its authority was the Japanese military authority
whole Asia. It established a “free and independent and government.
Philippine Republic”. However, it was not D. The 1935 Constitution
recognized by the family of nations. It had short-
lived. The original 1935 Constitution provided for unicameral
National Assembly and the President was elected to a six-
B. The Organic Laws under the American Period year term without re-election. It was amended in 1940 to
(1) Mckinley’s Instructions (April 7, 1990) have a bicameral Congress composed of a Senate and
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
effective government." province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to
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
the archipelago. judges under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that respect. If
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 E. The 1973 Constitution
through a Philippine Commission effectively dominated by
The 1973 Constitution, composed of a preamble and 17
Americans. One of the most significant sections of thearticles, provides for the shift from presidential to
Jones Act replaced the Commission with an elective Senate
parliamentary system of government. The Constitution vests
and, with minimum property qualifications, extended the
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
Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
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 vice-
president 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
  There must be an actual case or has been a governmental act accomplished or performed
controversy that has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of the
person contesting its validity.
 The question of constitutionality must be
raised by the proper party. In the instant case of Montecarlos vs COMELEC, there is
no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of
 The constitutional question must be raised
judicial review. Petitioners' prayer to prevent Congress from
at the earliest possible opportunity.
enacting into law a proposed bill lowering the membership
 The decision of the constitutional question age in the SK does not present an actual justiciable
must be necessary to the determination of controversy. A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review
the case itself. because it is not a law. A proposed bill creates no right and
Article 8 Sec.5, paragraph (2) imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A
proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates no
(1) Actual Case or Controversy- involves a conflict of constitutional right or duty. The Court has no power to
legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional
susceptible of judicial resolution. A “controversy” because that would be in the nature of rendering an
must be the one that is appropriate for judicial advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress. The power
determination. It must be definite and concrete, of judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo.22 The
touching the legal relations of parties having second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the
adverse legal interests. Constitution states –
 Prematurity "Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
In the case of PACU vs. Secretary of Education the justice to settle actual controversies involving
petition contesting the validity of a regulation issued by the rights which are legally demandable and
Secretary of Education requiring private schools to secure a enforceable, and to determine whether or not there
permit to operate was dismissed on the ground that all the has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
petitioners have permits and are actually operating under lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
the same. The petitioners questioned the regulation branch or instrumentality of the Government."
because of the possibility that the permit might be denied Thus, there can be no justiciable controversy involving the
them in the future. This Court held that there was no constitutionality of a proposed bill. The Court can exercise
justiciable controversy because the petitioners suffered no its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not
wrong by the implementation of the questioned regulation before.
and therefore, they are not entitled to relief. A mere
 Mootness
apprehension that the Secretary of Education will withdraw
the permit does not amount to a justiciable controversy. The In case of Gonzales vs Narvasa, that, with respect to the
questioned regulation in the PACU case may be questioned PCCR, this case has become moot and academic.
by a private school whose permit to operate has been
revoked or one whose application therefor has been denied. 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
injured by its operation. on December 20, 1999 and was dissolved by the President
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 RIGHT TO QUESTION THEIR ALLEGED
admissions procedures that were the target of this litigation, UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSITION.
and a voluntary cessation of the admissions practices
complained of could make this case moot only if it could be In case of CHR Employees Assoc. vs CHR, the court held
said with assurance "that `there is no reasonable that; On petitioner's personality to bring this suit, which held
expectation that the wrong will be repeated.'" Otherwise, in a multitude of cases that a proper party is one who has
"the defendant is free to return to his old ways," and this fact sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an
would be enough to prevent mootness because of the injury as a result of the act complained of
"public interest in having the legality of the practices
settled." But mootness in the present case depends not at  Citizen Standing
all upon a "voluntary cessation" of the admissions practices In Tañada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the
that were the subject of this litigation. It depends, instead, issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamus is
upon the simple fact that DeFunis is now in the final quarter to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people are
of the final year of his course of study, and the settled and
regarded as the real parties in interest; and because it is
unchallenged policy of the Law School to permit him to
complete the term for which he is now enrolled. sufficient that petitioner is a citizen and as such is interested
in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he has
 Exceptions to Mootness
any legal or special interest in the result of the action.
In case of Acop vs. Guingona, the court sayd that it’s
necessary to resolve the merits of the principal issue raised In Chavez vs PEA, the Court ruled that since the instant
for a proper disposition of prayer c) and for future guidance petition, brought by a citizen, involves the enforcement of
of both bench and bar as to the application of Sections 3(d) constitutional rights - to information and to the equitable
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 diffusion of natural resources - matters of transcendental
question otherwise moot and academic if it is 'capable public importance, the petitioner has the requisite locus
of repetition, yet evading review.'" standi.
In case of Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary; The Court
 Associational Standing
agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of
Proclamation No. 435, declaring that the state of rebellion
In KMU Labor Center vs Garcia, the court held that; In line
has ceased to exist, has rendered the case moot. As a rule,
courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary
being limited to the determination of "actual taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of
controversies." Nevertheless, courts will decide a planters, and
question, otherwise moot, if it is "capable of repetition non-profit civic organizations were allowed to initiate
yet evading review." The case at bar is one such case. 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
THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL QUESTION. incidental interest," for what is at stake in the enforcement
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
Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
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.
  Facial Challenge General such notice would be tantamount to depriving him
of his day in court. The mandatory notice requirement is not
In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the court defined the “face
limited to actions involving declaratory relief and similar
challenge”;
remedies. The rule itself provides that such notice is
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague required in "any action" and not just actions involving
statute and to one which is overbroad because of declaratory relief. Where there is no ambiguity in the words
possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The used in the rule, there is no room for construction. In all
theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech actions assailing the validity of a statute, treaty, presidential
and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a decree, order, or proclamation, notice to the Solicitor
vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, General is mandatory.
the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally
C. FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks
on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the In case of Salonga vs Cruz-Pano, the court enumerates
person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct their functions for the judicial review;
could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow The setting aside or declaring void, in proper cases, of
specificity." The possible harm to society in permitting some intrusions of State authority into areas reserved by the Bill
unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the of Rights for the individual as constitutionally protected
possibility that the protected speech of others may be spheres where even the awesome powers of Government
deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of may not enter at will is not the totality of the Court's
possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. functions. The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines,
statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench
very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional
reason alone, the State may well be prevented from guarantees.
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
In case of Arceta vs Mangrobang, the court held that;
on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may
Every law has in its favor the presumption of
provide final judgments of lower courts" in all cases
constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there
involving the constitutionality of certain measures, lower
must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first
Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative
instance.
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
present economic and financial crisis should be a basis to Laws are repealed only by the subsequent ones, and
declare the Bouncing Checks Law constitutionally infirm their violation or nonobservance shall not be excused
deserves but scant consideration. As stressed in Lozano, it by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
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
deterred, to prevent havoc in the trading and financial Administrative or executive acts, orders and
communities. Further, while indeed the metropolitan trial regulations shall be valid only when they are not
courts may be burdened immensely by bouncing checks contrary to the laws or the Constitution.
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
dockets in lower courts lies elsewhere. The decision reflects the orthodox view that an
unconstitutional act, for that matter an executive order or a
 Mandatory Notice municipal ordinance likewise suffering from that infirmity,
In case of Mirasol vs. C.A, the court held that; cannot be the source of any legal rights or duties. Nor can it
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 B. Territory
not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such Definition: Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the
challenged legislative or executive act must have been in earth inhabited by the people of the State.
force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after
the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it Components: land, mass, otherwise known as the terrestrial
is entitled to obedience and respect. Parties may have domain, the inland and external waters, which make up the
acted under it and may have changed their positions. What maritime and fluvial domain, and the air space above the
could be more fitting than that in a subsequent litigation land and waters, which is called the aerial domain.
regard be had to what has been done while such legislative The Philippine Archipelago
or executive act was in operation and presumed to be valid
in all respects. It is now accepted as a doctrine that prior to ARTICLE I
its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned NATIONAL TERRITORY
with. This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely .
because the judiciary is the governmental organ which has The national territory comprises the Philippine
the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before therein, and all other territories over which the
it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting
a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its
quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognitionterritorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
of what had transpired prior to such adjudication. shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters
F. Partial Unconstitutionality around, between, and connecting the islands of the
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
produce, and particularly describing the place to be ARTICLE III
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
and Seizure Order 1205. the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
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,
permanently occupying a fixed territory, and possessed of EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
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
racial or ethnic concept. same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be
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
separately. Secretary of National Defense.
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
ARTICLE XVI and robbery;
GENERAL PROVISIONS 2. The fixing of the legal relations between husband
and wife and between parents and children.
Section 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name
for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which 3. The regulation of the holding, transmission and
shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, interchange of property, and the determination of its
history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take liabilities for debt or crime;
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 7. The administration of political duties, privileges and
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS relations of citizens; and
Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement 8. The dealings of the State with foreign powers; the
between the Republic of the Philippines and the United preservation of the State from external danger or
States of America concerning military bases, foreign military encroachment and the advancement of its
bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the international interests.
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Ministerial functions are those undertaken to advance the
Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a general interests of society, such as public works, public
majority of the votes cast by the people in a national charity, and regulation of trade and industry. These
referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a functions are merely optional.
treaty by the other contracting State.
In case of ACCFA vs CUGCO;the court held;
C. As citizens
The ACA is a government office or agency engaged in
ARTICLE II governmental, not proprietary functions. These functions
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES may not be strictly what President Wilson described as
"constituent" (as distinguished from "ministrant"), such as
PRINCIPLES those relating to the maintenance of peace and the
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican prevention of crime, those regulating property and property
State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government rights, those relating to the administration of justice and the
authority emanates from them. determination of political duties of citizens, and those
relating to national defense and foreign relations. Under this
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve
traditional classification, such constituent functions are
and protect the people. The Government may call upon the
exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty, and not
people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all
merely to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of
citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law,
the people — these latter functions being ministrant, the
to render personal, military or civil service.
exercise of which is optional on the part of the government.
ARTICLE III
PARENS PATRIAE
BILL OF RIGHTS
Definition: Guardian of the rights of the people.
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters
In case of Government of the Phil. Vs. Monte de Piedad,
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
the court held the right of the government to file the case for
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official
the State as parens patriae in representation of the
acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
legitimate claimants.
research data used as basis for policy development, shall
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;
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
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
legitimacy of the present government.
Government distinguished from Administration
Government must be distinguished from administration,
which is the group of persons in whose hands the reins of
government are for the time being. The administration runs
the government as a machinist operates his machine.
Administration is transitional whereas the government is
permanent.
OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF GOVERNMENTS
a. Based on accountability to the people
b. Presidential vs Parliamentary
c. National. Local, federal
Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
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[2]). Respondent
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation, in instituting
deportation proceedings against petitioners, acted in the
interests of the State.
VI. CITIZENSHIP
right or
privilege of exercising political and civil rights.
Modes of Acquiring Citizenship
➢ Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the
basis of place of birth.
➢ Jus sanguinis- acquisition of citizenship on
the basis of blood relationship.
➢ Naturalization- the legal act of adopting an
alien and clothing him with the privilege of
native-born citizen.
➢ Marriage
A. Who are Philippine Citizens;
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: Grounds:

[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the 1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or
time of the adoption of this Constitution; illegally;
2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to
[2] 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:
[3] 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;
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with 4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the
law. parents either by
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:
1. Has not left the Philippines;
2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession;
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
4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of
the nation or contrary to any government announced
policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530]
Naturalization
-mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of citizenship
-governed by CA 473 (for acquisition) and CA 63 (for
reacquisition)
-consists a lengthy process
Modes of Naturalization:
1. DIRECT- through:
a. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139 The
Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000—grants
Philippine citizenship to aliens born and residing in the
Philippines
b. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on
Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made an
outstanding contribution to the country
c. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation
or subjugation
d. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals
of the State where they are born
2. DERIVATIVE-Citizenship conferred on:
a. Wife of naturalized husband;
b. Minor children of naturalized person;
c. Alien woman upon marriage to a national.
Denaturalization
Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
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 natural-
born 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
Permanent— September 15, 2003 which declares the
policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become
their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
➢ They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking
the oath of allegiance
➢ Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of
RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country, may
reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the
oath of allegiance
➢ Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or
adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who
reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon the
effectivity of RA 9225 shall be deemed citizens of
the Philippines.
➢ Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship
under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights
and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and the following
conditions:
– Meet the requirements of RA 9189, The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003,
and other existing laws
– For those seeking elective public office and
appointive office, meet the qualifications,
make personal and sworn renunciation,
subscribe and swear to an oath of
allegiance to the RP
– For those intending to practice their
profession, apply with the proper authority
for a license or permit to engage in such
practice
2. By express renunciation of citizenship
 ➢ 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