CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Enumerate and explain the steps in amendments or revision of the Constitution. (p.376)
Two steps are involved in the amendment or revision of the Constitution. The first is the
proposal and the second is the ratification.
(1) Proposal
The proposal is usually made either directly by the Congress or by a constitutional
convention. A special case is provided for where the proposal may be made directly by the
people through initiative.
The pertinent rules are:
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered votes therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized
within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five
years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Sec. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a
constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the
question of calling such a convention.
(2) Ratification
Sec. 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall
be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or
revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety
days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
Advocates of charter change wanted to change the presidential system of government as
provided in the present Constitution to a parliamentary system. Can the change be proposed
through peoples initiative under Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution? Explain your answer.
Yes. Subject to paragraph two of Section 4 which states that any amendment under
Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which
shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
What is impeachment? Who are the officers removable thereby? What are the grounds
therefore? And what are the penalties that may be imposed in relation thereto? (p.355)
Impeachment has been defined as a method of national inquest into the conduct of
public men. It is an extraordinary means of removal exercised by the legislature over a selected

number of officials, the purpose being to ensure the highest care in their indictment and
conviction and the imposition of special penalties in case of a finding of guilt, taking into
account the degree or nature of the offense committed and the high status of the wrong-doers.
The following officers may only be removed by impeachment: President, Vice-President,
Members of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commission and Ombudsman.
The following are the grounds for impeachment: culpable violation of the Constitution,
treason, bribery, other high crimes, graft and corruption, or betrayal of public trust.
Culpable violation of the Constitution is wrongful, intentional or willful disregard or
flouting of the fundamental law. Obviously, the act must be deliberate and motivated by bad
faith to constitute a ground for impeachment. Mere mistakes in the proper construction of the
Constitution, on which students of law may differ, cannot be considered a valid ground for
impeachment.
Treason is committed by any person who, owing allegiance to the Government of the
Philippines, levies war against it or adheres to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Bribery is committed by any public officer who shall agree to perform an act, whether
or not constituting a crime, or refrain from doing an act which he is officially required to do in
connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise,
gift or present received by him personally or through mediation of another, or who shall accept
gifts offered to him by reason of his office.
Other high crimes, according to the special committee of the House of
Representatives that investigated the impeachment charges against President Quirino, are
supposed to refer to those offenses which, like treason and bribery, are of so serious and
enormous a nature s to strike at the very life or the orderly workings of the government.
Graft and corruption is to be understood in the light of the prohibited acts
enumerated in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which was in force at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution.
Betrayal of public trust is a new ground added by the Constitutional Commission as a
catch-all to cover all manner of offenses unbecoming a public functionary but not punishable by
the criminal statutes, like inexcusable negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of authority, breach
of official duty by malfeasance or, misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, obstruction of justice.
Under the new Constitution, Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend
further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of
the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution,
trial, and punishment according to law.
Where the convicted official is no longer in the public service, the only penalty obviously
available against him is disqualification. But if he is still incumbent at the time, both the
penalties of removal and disqualification may be meted out.
The convicted official may later be prosecuted in an ordinary criminal action if the
ground for his conviction in the impeachment proceedings is also an indictable offense.
Give the procedure in impeachment proceedings. (page 359)
Under the new Constitution, it is the House of Representatives alone that can initiate an
impeavhment case by a vote of at least one-third of its members. On the other hand, the sole
power to try and decide such case is conferred on the Senate, which can convict only by a vote
of at least two-thirds of its members.
The applicable rules are as follows:
Sec. 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all
cases of impeachment.
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of
Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof,
which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the
proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a
majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days

from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be
calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary
either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or
override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least onethird of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment,
and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than
once within a period of one year.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
When sitting for the purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President
of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not
vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of
the Senate.

Explain the measures to ensure that proceeding in the Constitutional Commission will be held
with dispatch. (pg.306)
To ensure that the proceedings in the Constitutional Commission will be held with
dispatch, the Constitution clearly provides:
Sec. 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or
matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or
resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of
the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the
Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
It is recalled that the people are assured of a speedy disposition of their cases not only
in the courts of justice but also in administrative bodies like the Constitutional Commissions.
The standard rule now is that the decisions, orders and rulings of the Constitutional
Commission may be elevated to the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari. As held in Aratuc
v. Commission on Elections, this proceeding is limited to issues involving grave abuse of
discretion resulting in lack or excess of jurisdiction and does not ordinarily empower the Court
to review the factual findings of the Commissions.
A money claim against the government was filed with the Commision on Audit. The chairman
of COA designated the Manager of the Techinical Service Office to investigate the claim. The
manager after notice and hearing made a recommendation denying the claim. The COA
chairman on the basis of the recommendation issued an order denying the claim. Is the order
valid? Explain.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Enumerate and explain the requisites of judiciary inquiry (pg.258)
The requisites of judicial inquiry are the following:
(1) There must be an actual case or controversy. An actual case or controversy involves a
conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
resolution. A controversy must be one that is appropriate for judicial determination. The
controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having
adverse legal interests. It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of

specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in character, as distinguished from an

opinion advising what the law would ne upon a hypothetical state of facts.
(2) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party. A property party
is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of
the act complained of. Until and unless such actual or potential injury is established, the
complainant cannot have the legal personality to raise the constitutional question.
(3) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity such that if not
raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial court, and if not considered
at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.
(4) The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of
the case itself. The reason why courts will as much as possible avoid the decision of a
constitutional question can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers which
enjoins upon each department a proper respect for the acts of the other departments.
Hence, as long as there is some other basis that can be used by the courts for its
decision, the constitutionality of the challenged law will not be touched and the case
will be decided on other available grounds.
Upon authority of the President, the Presidential Commission on Good Government ordered
the sale at public auction of paintings by old masters alleged to be part of ill-gotten wealth of
former President Marcos. X, a Filipino citizen, artist, and taxpayers filed a taxpayer suit to
restrain the sale claiming that the same should be given to the nations museum, A motion to
dismiss was filed on the ground that X is not a proper party. Decide.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Enumerate the appellate jurisdictions of the Supreme Court (pg.273)
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is explicitly granted under this
Constitutional provision, thus, review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari
as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance or regulation is in question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
The right to appeal is not embraced in due process of law. As long as the parties have
been given the opportunity to be heard in the lower court, they cannot demand the right to
appeal if the legislature sees fit to withhold it. Appeal is as a general rule a matter of statutory
right entirely dependent upon the discretion or policy of the lawmaking body. The Congress
may validly provide that the decisions of lower courts shall be final and no longer appealable to
the Supreme Court. But this rule is not absolute. An aggrieved party may, on appeal or
certiorari, question the judgments and decrees of a lower court before the Supreme Court,
which may review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm the same. This appellate jurisdiction of the
Court is irreducible and may not be withdrawn from it by the Congress.
A case before the Regional Trial Court questioning the constitutionality of a law was
dismissed by the judge who alleged that only the Supreme Court can decide questions of the
constitutionality of the law. Is the judge correct? Explain.

No. The question of the competence of lower court to decide constitutional question is
so settled. The correct view now is that they can, subject to review by the Supreme Court. It is
erroneous to suppose that only the Supreme Court can decide these questions because of the
provisions that no treaty, executive agreement or law may be declared unconstitutional
without the concurrence of the majority of the members who participated in the deliberation
of the issues and voted thereon. That rule is not intended to confine the power to the Supreme
Court as this interpretation would render meaningless the provision that this Court has
appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and decrees of lower courts in all cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation is in question.
What is pardon? What are the limitations of pardon? (page 229, 230)
A pardon is an act of grace which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from
the punishment which the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.
The following are the constitutional limitations on the pardoning power of the
President:
1. Pardon cannot be granted in cases of impeachment.
2. No pardon can be granted for the violation of any election law, rule or regulation
without the favorable recommendation of the Commission on Elections.
3. Pardon can be granted only after conviction by final judgment.
4. Pardon cannot be extended to a person convicted of legislative contempt.
Pardon cannot also be extended for the purpose of absolving the pardonee of civil liability.
Y, an assistant treasurer was convicted of estafa through falsification of a public document.
After he was granted absolute pardon, he petitioned for his reinstatement to his position
alleging that the pardon restores back to him his civil and political rights and farther freed
him from all the penalties and legal disabilities imposed as a result of the crime. If you are the
judge, will you grant the petition?
No. The petition will be denied. Pardon cannot mask the acts constituting the crime.
These are historical facts which, despite the public manifestation of mercy and forgiveness
implicit in pardon, ordinary prudent men will take into account in their subsequent dealings
with the actor.
Pardon granted after conviction frees the individual from all the penalties and legal
disabilities and restores him to his civil rights. But unless expressly grounded on the persons
innocence, it cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing. This must
be constantly kept in mind lest we lose track of the true character and purpose of the privilege.
Thus, the pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public office necessarily
relinquished or forfeited by reason of the conviction although such pardon undoubtedly
restores his eligibility for appointment to that office.
Distinguish a regular from an ad-interim appointment. (pg. 207-208)
The distinctions between the regular and ad interim appointments are the following:
1. The regular appointment is made during the legislative session; the ad interim is made
during the recess.
2. The regular appointment is made only after the nomination is confirmed by the
Commission on Appointment; the ad interim appointment is made before such
confirmation.
3. The regular appointment, once confirmed by the Commission on Appointments,
continues until the end of the term of the appointee; the ad interim appointment shall
cease to be valid if disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or upon the next

adjournment of the Congress. In the latter case, the appointment is deemed by passed
through inaction of, and so disapproved impliedly by, the Commission on Appointments.
M, was appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs while Congress is in session. He
took his oath and immediately started discharging his functions. A petition was filed to enjoin
him from performing his functions on the ground that his appointment was not yet confirmed
by the Commission on Appointments. Will the petition prosper? Explain.
No. The Commissioner of Customs was held to be not subject to confirmation, being of
the rank of the bureau director, who was purposely deleted from the listing of those whose
appointments had to be approved by the Commission on Appointments. As pointed out by
Justice Teodoro Padilla:
It is evident that the position of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is not one of
those within the first group of appointments where the consent of the Commission on
Appointments is required. The 1987 Constitution deliberately excluded the position of heads of
bureaus from appointments that need the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
Give and explain the constitutional basis of the power of Congress to conduct Legislative
inquiries (pg. 163)
Sec. 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published
rules of procedure. The rights of person appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
It is now provided that the legislative inquiry must be in aid of legislation, whether it be
under consideration already or still to be drafted. Furthermore, the conduct of the investigation
must be strictly in conformity with the rules of procedure that must have been published in
advance for the information and protection of the witnesses. Moreover, the power of
legislative investigation may be implied from the express power of legislation and does not
itself have to be expressly granted.
Senator JPE delivered a privilege speech calling for an investigation to determine possible
violation of the Anti-Graft Law of the alleged anomaly by Lopa who is the brother-in-law of
President Aquino in buying 36 companies owned by Romualdez which is the subject of a case
before the Sandiganbayan. Bengzon, a pricy to the deal, was subpoenaed by the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee but refused to testify. Is Bengzon correct or not? Explain.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Distinguish suability from liability (pg.48)
Suability is the result of the express or implied consent of the State to be sued while
liability, on the other hand, is determined after hearing on the basis of the relevant laws and
established facts. The mere fact that the State is suable does not mean that it is liable; or to put
it another way, waiver of immunity by the State does not mean concession of its liability. When,
therefore, the State allows itself to be sued, all it does in effect is to give the other party an
opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State is liable. The State, in many cases, may be suable
but not liable.
In case of conflict between international law and municipal law, how should the conflict be
resolved? (pg.58)
Where there appears to be a conflict between international law and municipal law,
efforts should be first exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both. For this purpose,

it should be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally
accepted rules of international law. However, if the conflict is irreconcilable, the municipal law
should be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power which, being inherent,
could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Distinguish amendment from revision (p.376)
Article XVII provides that the Constitution may be changed either by amendment or
revision. Amendment refers to isolated or piecemeal change only, as distinguished from
revision, which is a revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument.
Thus, there was mere amendment of The Constitution of 1935 when the term of office
of the President of the Philippines was changed from six to four years. But there was a revision
when the Constitutional Convention of 1971 rewrote the entire document and produced the
Constitution of 1973, which was in turn revised with the adoption of the present Constitution.

What is the Doctrine of Incorporation? (page 57)

Every state is, by reason of its membership in the family of nations, bound by the
generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically
part of its own laws. By virtue thereof, our Supreme Court has applied the rules of international
law in the decision of a number of cases notwithstanding that such rules had not been
previously converted to statutory enactments.
Define Social Justice (page 65)
The classic definition of social justice is found in Calalang vs. Williams, where Justice
Laurel declared as follows: Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism,
nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces
by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be
approximated. Social Justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the
adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the
component elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through
the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of
powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time honored principles of salus
populi est suprema lex.
Give at least three provisions that enshrines social justice in our constitution (page 67)
Under Article II of the Constitution:
Sec.10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
Sec.11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights.
Sec.18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Can a convict who has already served his prison term still be extended a pardon? (p.234)

Yes. For the purpose of relieving him of whatever accessory liabilities have attached to
his offense. For example, under Section 118 of the Omnibus Election Code, a person who has
been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year shall be disqualified from the
exercise of the right of suffrage for a period of five years from service of the sentence unless
this disability is removed earlier by the grant of pardon.
Enumerate and explain the test to determine the validity of the delegation of legislative
power. (page 102)
The following are the test to determine the validity of the delegation of legislative
power:
1. The completeness test the law must be complete in all its essential terms and
conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the
delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it. If there are gaps in the law that
will prevent its enforcement unless they are first filled, the delegate will then have been
given the opportunity to step into the shoes of the legislature and to exercise a
discretion essentially legislative in order to repair the omissions. This is invalid
delegation.
2. The sufficient standard test intended to map out the boundaries of the delegates
authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which
it is to be pursued and effected. The purpose of the sufficient standard is to prevent a
total transference of legislative power from the lawmaking body to the delegate.
Explain the immunities enjoyed by the Members of the Congress (pg.124)
Sec. 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the
Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for
any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
The rule provides for two kinds of immunities, to wit: immunity from arrest and the
privilege of speech and debate. The first is intended to ensure representation of the
constituents of the member of the Congress by preventing attempts to keep him from
attending its sessions. Under the 1987 Constitution, the scope of this immunity has been
expanded to cover not only civil arrests but also arrests for criminal offenses punishable by not
more than six years imprisonment. The immunity now applies only while the Congress is in
session. The second enables the legislator to express views bearing upon the public interest
without fear of accountability outside the halls of the legislature for his inability to support his
statements with the usual evidence required in the court of justice. In other words, he is given
more leeway than the ordinary citizen in the ventilation of matters that ought to be divulged
for the public good. There are two requirements that must concur in order that the privilege of
speech and debate can be availed of by the Member of the Congress. The first is that the
remarks must be made while the legislature is functioning; and the second is that they must be
made in connection with the discharge of official duties. It is important to note that this
privilege is not absolute. The rule provides that the legislator may not be questioned in any
other place, which means that he may be called to account for his remarks by his own
colleagues in Congress itself and when warranted, punished for disorderly behavior.
Explain the two kinds of members of the House of Representatives (pg.115)
A new composition is prescribed for the House of Representatives consisting of two
kinds of members, to wit, the district representative and the party-list representative. The
former is elected directly and personally from the territorial unit he is seeking to represent. The

latter, on the other hand, is chosen indirectly through the party he represents which is the one
voted for by the electorate. The party-list system is an innovation of the 1987 Constitution and
has yet to be proved for wisdom and efficiency.
The pertinent provisions are the following:
SEC. 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities and Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive
ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
membership of the House of Representatives. For three consecutive terms after the ratification
of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled,
as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, women, youth and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except
the religious sector.
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact
and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or
each province, shall have at least one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.
What are the formalities required in the passage of a bill into law? (pg. 158)
Article VI Section 26(2). No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has
passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to
the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the
last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be
taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
What is the appropriation law? Give at least 3 Constitutional limitations of appropriation
measures. (pg. 167)
An appropriation law is one the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize
the release of public funds from the public treasury.
Constitutional limitations:
1. Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public
purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be
prescribed by law.
2. A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as certified to by the National Treasurer, or to be
raised by a corresponding revenue proposal included therein.
3. The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the
operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of
preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
Explain the procedure in the approval of bills. (pg. 160, pg. 152)
The procedure in the approval of bills is briefly as follows:
A bill is introduced by any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate
except for some measures that must originate only in the former chamber.

The first reading involves only a reading of the number and title of the measure and its
referral by the Senate President or the Speaker to the proper committee for study.
The bill may be killed in the committee or it may be recommended for approval, with
or without amendments, sometimes after public hearings are first held thereon. If there are
other bills of the same nature or purpose, they may all be consolidated into one bill under
common authorship or as a committee bill.
Once reported out, the bill shall be calendared for second reading. It is at this stage that
the bill is red in its entirety, scrutinized, debated upon, and amended when desired. The second
reading is the most important stage in the passage of a bill.
The bill as approved on second reading is printed in its final form and copies thereof are
distributed at least three days before the third reading, in which the members merely register
their votes and explain them if they are allowed by rules. No further debate is allowed.
Once the passes third reading, it is sent to the other chamber, where it will also undergo
the three readings. If there are differences between the versions approved by the two
chambers, a conference committee representing both Houses will draft a compromise measure
that if ratified by the Senate and the House of Representative will then be submitted to the
President for his consideration.
The bill is enrolled when printed as finally approved by the Congress, thereafter
authenticated with the signatures of the Senate President, the Speaker, and the Secretaries of
their respective chambers, and approved by the President.
May a bill become a law without passing 3 readings? (pg. 159)
Yes. The rule the no bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed
three readings on separate days is not absolute as it also contemplates for its exception, thus,
except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a
public calamity or emergency.
May a bill become a law without the signature of the President? (pg. 160)
Yes. Under the rules on the approval of bills, a bill may become a law when the
President vetoes it but the veto was overridden by two-thirds vote of all the Members of each
House, or when the president does not act upon the measures within thirty days after it shall
have been presented.
Is partial veto allowed in our Constitution? (pg. 160)
Yes. The general rule is that the President must approve entirely or disapprove in toto.
The exception applies to appropriation, revenue, and tariff bills, any particular item or items of
which may be disapproved without affecting the item or items to which he does not object.
Under the Constitution, The president shall have the power to veto any particular item or
items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, bu the veto shall not affect the item or items
which he does not object.
Explain the two ways by which a pardonee may be proceeded with for violating the
conditions of his pardon. (pg.232)
The condition of the pardon shall be co-extensive with the penalty remitted unless
otherwise indicated. Hence, if the violation takes place before the expiration of the remitted
penalty, the pardon itself is deemed invalidated and the pardonee may be either recommitted
by the President under the Administrative Code or prosecuted for violation of conditional
pardon under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code. In the latter case, the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the convict, except when the penalty

remitted is higher than six years, in which event he shall serve the unexpired portion of his
original sentence.
Enumerate and explain the military power of the President. (pg.217)
Under the Constitution, the President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed
forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. In case of invasion,
rebellion, or when the public safety requires it, he may for a period not exceeding sixty days
suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law.
The military power enables the President to: (1) command all the armed forces of the
Philippines; (2) suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and (3) declare martial law.
(1) Command of the Armed Forces. The power of the sword makes the President the
most important figure in the country in times of war or other similar emergency. In
theory, he plans all campaigns, establishes all sieges and blockades, direct all marches,
fights all battles. His leadership, if bold and decisive, can galvanize people to gallantry
or, if vacillating and timorous, can enfeeble them to defeatism and surrender. It is
because the sword must be wielded with courage and resolution that the President is
given vast powers in the making and carrying out of military decisions.
(2) Habeas Corpus. To the president is entrusted the power to suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus. However, this power is not without limitations and may be
revoked by the Congress or the Supreme Court in proper cases. It should be stressed
that what is permitted to be suspended by the President is not the writ itself but its
privilege.
(3) Martial Law. The declaration of martial law has no further legal effect than to warn the
citizens that the military powers have been called upon by executive to assist him in
the maintenance of law and order and that while the emergency lasts, they must, upon
pain of arrest and punishment, not commit any act which will in any way render difficult
the restoration of order and the enforcement of law. When martial law is declared, no
new powers are given to the executive; no extension of arbitrary authority is
recognized; no civil rights of the individuals are suspended. The relation of the citizens
to their State is unchanged.
Distinguish the power of control from the power of supervision of the President of the
Philippines. (pg.211)
Control is defined as the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside
what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former for that of the latter. Control is a stronger power than mere
supervision, which means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that
subordinate office perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, then the
former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them perform these duties.
What is the alter ego doctrine or the qualified political agency?
The doctrine recognizing that the Constitution has established a single and not plural
executive, postulates that the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business are, unless disapproved or probated by the Chief
Executive, presumptively the act of the Chief Executive.
Can an ordinary taxpayer be a proper party to question the legality of an appropriation?
(pg.261, 263)

Yes. The rule before was that an ordinary taxpayer did not have the proper party
personality to question the legality of an appropriation law since his interest in the sum
appropriated was not substantial enough but since the first emergency power cases, however,
the rule has been changed and it is now permissible for an ordinary taxpayer, or a group of
taxpayer, to raise the question of the validity of an appropriation law. As the Supreme Court
put it, 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.
What is judicial power? (pg.245)
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights that which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether
or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of judicial power,
involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred by law. The second part of the
authority represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to review
what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the political departments of the
government.
Can a law be declared partially unconstitutional? (pg.270)
Yes. A declaration of partial unconstitutionality will be valid only if two conditions
concur, to wit: first, that the legislature is willing to retain the valid portion even if the rest of
the statute is declared illegal, and second, that the valid portions can stand independently as a
separate statute. The legislative willingness to retain the valid portions may be expressed in
what is known as the separability clause.
Explain the votes required for the Supreme Court when sitting en banc and in division in
order to arrive at a decision. (page 256)
Sec. 4 (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven
Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases
which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three
of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en
banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision
rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en
banc.
Can 5 members of the Supreme Court declare a law unconstitutional? (pg.257)
Yes. What is required by the Constitution is a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberation on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Thus, as few as five

Members of the Court can declare any of the measures mentioned above unconstitutional, this
number being a majority of the quorum of eight of the fifteen-member of the Court.
What are the cases over which the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction? (pg.271)
The Supreme Court has the power to exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
Under international law, diplomats, and even consuls to a lesser extent, are not subject
to the jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving State, save in certain cases, as when immunity
is waived either expressly or impliedly. In such instances, the Supreme Court can and probably
should take cognizance of the litigation in view of possible international repercussions.
The petitions for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto are special civil
actions. The questions raised in the first three petitions are questions of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion and, in the fourth, the title of the respondent. The petition for habeas
corpus is a special proceeding.
When any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal, nor any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may
file a verified petition for certiorari in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings, as the law requires,
of such tribunal, board or officer.
When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person, whether
exercising functions judicial or ministerial, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition for
prohibition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the defendant to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter
specified therein.
When any tribunal, corporation, board, or person unlawfully neglects the performance
of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition for mandamus in the
proper court alleging the fact with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained
by the petitioner by the reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant.
Quo warranto is an action for usurpation of office or franchise or against a corporation
for violation of its charter or for misuse, non-use or forfeiture of its rights and privileges.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to
all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by
which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
Discuss whether the Commission on Audit can refuse to pass in audit government financial
transaction which has the effect of the vetoing an appropriation? (page 351)
Under our Constitution, the authority of the Auditor General in connection with
expenditures of the Government is limited to the auditing of expenditures of funds or property
pertaining to, or held in trust by, the Government or the provinces or municipalities thereof.
Such function is limited to a determination of whether there is a law appropriating funds for a
given purpose; whether a contract, made by the proper officer, has been entered into in
conformity with said appropriation law; whether the goods or services covered by said contract
have been delivered or rendered in pursuance of the provisions thereof, as attested to by the

proper officer; and whether payment therefor has been authorized by the officials of the
corresponding department or bureau. If these requirements have been fulfilled, it is the
ministerial duty of the Auditor General to approve and pass in audit the voucher and treasury
warrant for said payment. He has no discretion or authority to disapprove said payment upon
the ground that the aforementioned contract was unwise or that the amount stipulated
thereon is unreasonable. If he entertains such belief, he may do no more than discharge the
duty imposed upon him by the Constitution. To bring to the attention of the proper
administrative officer expenditures of funds or property which, in his opinion, are irregular,
unnecessary, excessive or extravagant. This duty implies a negation of the power to refuse and
disapprove payment of such expenditures, for its approval, if he had authority therefor, would
bring to the attention of the aforementioned administrative officer the reasons for the adverse
action thus taken by the General Auditing Office, and hence, render the imposition of said duty
unnecessary.
The above doctrine notwithstanding, there is now a view to the effect that the critical
function of the Commission on Audit under the reworded provision of the Constitution
authorizes it to veto appropriations. This can be done, so it is argued, through the power of the
Commission to refuse to examine, audit, and settle any account violating its own regulations for
the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or
unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds or properties.
Can a judgment of conviction in impeachment cases impose the penalty of imprisonment?
(page 362)
No. Under the new Constitution, judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend
further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of
the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution,
trial, and punishment according to law.
**The convicted official may later be prosecuted in an ordinary criminal action if the
ground for his conviction in the impeachment proceedings is also an indictable offense.
Are the amendments of the Constitution subject to the judicial review inquiry? (page 384)
Yes. From what has already been observed, it is clear that the question of the validity of
the adoption of amendments to the Constitution is regarded now as subject to judicial review.
The present doctrine allows the courts to inquire into whether or not the prescribed procedure
of amendment has been observed.
Thus, the judiciary may declare invalid a proposal adopted by less than three-fourths of
the members of the Congress, or a call for a constitutional convention by less than two-thirds of
the legislature, or a ratification made by less than a majority of the votes cast, or a plebiscite
irregularly held.
Some Members of the House of Representatives are moving for change of our system of
government from a presidential-bicameral to a parliamentary unicameral system. In relation
to this moves, answer the following questions.
a. What is the best mode of making the proposal?
Under the Constitution, the best mode of making proposal is stated as: amendments to this
Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through the initiative upon a
petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered
voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years
thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

Can the COMELEC declare a failure of election because of the terrorism that attended the
counting of votes and the preparation of the election returns and call another election?
Explain your answer. (pg.330)
Yes. Under the OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE, the Commission on Elections is allowed to
postpone or continue elections subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, it was held
authorized, in Sanchez vs. Commission on Elections, to declare a failure of election because of
the terrorism that attended the counting of the votes and the preparation of the election
returns and to call another election.
Can the Commission on Audit in the exercise of its power veto an appropriation? Explain your
answer.
Yes. In the absence of an appropriation which authorizes the release of public funds
from the treasury, which may come from the Constitution itself or from the Congress. It is the
duty of the Commission on Audit to refuse or to approve the disbursement of public funds. The
Commission on Audit can veto an appropriation through its power to refuse to examine, audit,
and settle any account violating its own regulations for the prevention and disallowance of
irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures or uses of
government funds or properties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------