ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISION
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
Case Digest Compilation and Reviewer
ARTS. XVII-XVIII
Submitted by:
Reyes, Joshua Nathaniel C.
Navarro, Bea Czarina B.
Luna, Marishifra M.
Gamad, Kevin
Panti, Angelo Brian
Kee, Zyra D.
Fabian, Nico
Cortes, Hubert Pio S.
Regado, Aleezah Gertrude R.
Villar, Isabelle Louise J.
Submitted to:
Atty. Dianna Louise R. Wilwayco
December 02, 2017
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.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be
directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a
petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters
therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized
within five years following the ratification of this Constitution
nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its
Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote
of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of
calling such a convention.
Amendment
 Envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and
separable provisions.
  To improve specific parts or to add new provisions
deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress
specific provisions that may be have become obsolete
Revision
 A re-examination of the entire document, or of
provisions of the document which have overall
implications for the entire document
 May involve a rewriting of the whole Constitution
 Ex. switch from presidential to a parliamentary system
* Revolution - a change in the constitution that implies action
not pursuant to any provision of the constitution itself
Three (3) steps necessary to give effect to amendments and
revisions:
1. Proposal of amendments or revisions by the proper
constituent assembly;
2. Submission of the proposed amendments or revisions;
and
3. Ratification
Amendments may be proposed by:
1. The Congress upon a 3/4 vote of all members
2. Constitutional Convention
3. by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum of the registered
voters therein
Revisions may be proposed by:
1. The Congress upon a 3/4 vote of all members
2. Constitutional Convention
How to create a Constitutional Convention?
 By a vote of 2/3 of all members of Congress
How to create the question in calling for a Constitutional
Convention through plebiscite?
 By a majority vote of all members of Congress
*The provision says nothing about a joint sessions, but
according to Fr. Bernas, what is essential is that both Houses
vote separately; the power to propose an amendment was given
not to a unicameral body but to a bicameral body
Initiative
 Method whereby the people themselves can directly
propose amendments to the Constitution
 Can only propose amendments
Judicial Review
 While the substance of the proposals made by each type
of constituent assembly is not subject to judicial review
(exception is that a constituent assembly may not
propose anything that is inconsistent with what is
known, particularly in international law, as Jus Cogens),
the manner the proposals are made is subject to judicial
review.
 Proposal of amendments is not political but a justiciable
question subject to judicial review.

Jus Cogens - peremptory norm of international law; a norm
accepted and recognized by the international community which
no derogation is permitted and can only be modified by a
subsequent norm
IMBONG V COMELEC
Facts
On March 16, 1967, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly
pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, passed Resolution No.
2 which among others called for a Constitutional Convention to
propose constitutional amendments to be composed of two
delegates from each representative district who shall have the
same qualifications as those of Congressmen, to be elected on
the second Tuesday of November, 1970 in accordance with the
Revised Election Code.
Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted Republic Act No.
4914 implementing the aforesaid Resolution No. 2.
On June 17, 1969, Congress, also acting as a Constituent
Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4 amending the aforesaid
Resolution No. 2 by providing that the convention "shall be
composed of 320 delegates apportioned among the existing
representative districts according to the number of their
respective inhabitants: Provided, that a representative district
shall be entitled to at least two delegates, who shall have the
same qualifications as those required of members of the House
of Representatives."
On August 24, 1970, Congress, acting as a legislative body,
enacted Republic Act No. 6132, implementing Resolutions Nos.
2 and 4, and expressly repealing R.A. No.
4914.
Petitions for declaratory relief were filed pursuant to Sec. 19 of
R.A. No. 6132 by petitioners Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M.
Gonzales, both members of the Bar, taxpayers and interested in
running as candidates for delegates to the Constitutional
Convention. Both impugn the constitutionality of R.A. No.
6132, claiming during the oral argument that it prejudices their
rights as such candidates.
Issue
W/N RA No. 6132 is constitutional
Ruling
Yes.
The Court upholds the constitutionality of the enactment of R.A.
No. 6132 by Congress acting as a legislative body in the
exercise of its broad law-making authority, and not as a
Constituent Assembly, because:
1. Congress, when acting as a Constituent Assembly
pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, has full and
plenary authority to propose Constitutional amendments or
to call a convention for the purpose, by a three-fourths vote
of each House in joint session assembled but voting
separately. Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 calling for a
constitutional convention were passed by the required three-
fourths vote.

2. The grant to Congress as a Constituent Assembly of such
plenary authority to call a constitutional convention
includes, by virtue of the doctrine of necessary implication,
all other powers essential to the effective exercise of the
principal power granted, such as the power to fix the
qualifications, number, apportionment, and compensation
of the delegates as well as appropriation of funds to meet
the expenses for the election of delegates and for the
operation of the Constitutional Convention itself, as well as
all other implementing details indispensable to a fruitful
convention. Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 already embody the
above-mentioned details, except the appropriation of funds.
3. While the authority to call a constitutional convention is
vested by the present Constitution solely and exclusively in
Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly, the power to
enact the implementing details, which are now contained in
Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 as well as in R.A. No. 6132, does
not exclusively pertain to Congress acting as a Constituent
Assembly. Such implementing details are matters within the
competence of Congress in the exercise of its
comprehensive legislative power, which power
encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary
implication withdrawn or removed by the Constitution from
the ambit of legislative action. And as lone as such statutory
details do not clash with any specific provision of the
constitution, they are valid.
4. Consequently, when Congress, acting as a Constituent
Assembly, omits to provide for such implementing details
after calling a constitutional convention, Congress, acting as
a legislative body, can enact the necessary implementing
legislation to fill in the gaps, which authority is expressly
recognized in Sec. 8 of Res No. 2 as amended by Res. No.
4.
5. The fact that a bill providing for such implementing
details may be vetoed by the President is no argument
against conceding such power in Congress as a legislative
body nor present any difficulty; for it is not irremediable as
Congress can override the Presidential veto or Congress can
reconvene as a Constituent Assembly and adopt a resolution
prescribing the required implementing details.
DEFENSOR SANTIAGO V COMELEC
FACTS:
On dec. 6, 1996, Atty. Delfin filed with COMELEC a
petition to amend the constitution. He seeks to lift the term limit
of elective officials by people’s initiative. He seeks an order that
contains 1) Fixing the time and dates of signature gathering all
over the country, 2) Causing the necessary of said order and
attached petition for initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in
newspapers of general circulation, and 3) Instructing Municipal
Election Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines, to assist
Petitioners and volunteers, in establishing signing stations at the
time and on the dates designated for the purpose. He invoked
R.A. No. 6735 also known as “Ac Act Providing for a System
of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds
Therefor” or “The Initiative and Referendum Act.”
 Delfin alleged in his petition that he is a founding
member of the Movement for Peoples’ Initiative. This is a group
of citizens desirous to avail of the system intended to
institutionalize people power; that he and the members of the
Movement and other volunteers intend to exercise the power to
directly propose amendments to the Constitution granted under
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
Also, Delfin argued that the said Petition for Initiative
will first be submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at
least twelve per cent of the total number of registered voters in
the country it will be formally filed with the COMELEC.
On the other hand, Santiago argued that the
constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the
constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by
Congress and no such law has yet been passed by Congress.
R.A. 6735’s has no provisions were specifically made for
initiatives on the Constitution. This omission indicates that the
matter of people’s initiative to amend the Constitution was left
to some future law – as pointed out by former Senator Arturo
Tolentino.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not RA 6735 was intended to include
initiative on amendments to the constitution?
2. Whether or not the act, as worded, adequately covers
such initiative?
HELD: 1) YES, 2) NO
RATIO: R.A. 6735 intended to include the initiative on
amendments to the constitution but this is inadequate to cover
that system. This petition must then be granted, and the
COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from entertaining
or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on
amendments on the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have
been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the
system. Sec 2 of Article 17 of the Constitution is not self-
executory as it needs an enabling law to be passed by Congress.
Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986 Con-Con stated “without
implementing legislation Section 2, Art 17 cannot operate.
Thus, although this mode of amending the constitution is a
mode of amendment which bypasses Congressional action in the
last analysis is still dependent on Congressional
action.” Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of
inititative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the
constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. The
people cannot exercise such right, though constitutionally
guaranteed, if Congress for whatever reason does not provide
for its implementation.
We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the
cold; it should be given flesh and blood, energy and strength.
Congress should not tarry any longer in complying with the
constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of the
right of the people under that system.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
a) GRANTING the instant petition;
b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the
system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and
to have failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate
legislation;
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolutions No. 2300
of the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and
regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to
the Constitution; and
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith
DISMISS the DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December
1996 is made permanent as against the Commission on
Elections, but is LIFTED against private respondents.
LAMBINO V COMELEC
Facts
Lambino was able to gather the signatures of 6,327,952
individuals for an initiative petition to amend the 1987
Constitution. That said number of votes comprises at least 12
per centum of all registered voters with each legislative district
at least represented by at least 3 per centum of its registered
voters. This has been verified by local COMELEC registrars as
well. The proposed amendment to the constitution seeks to
modify Secs 1-7 of Art VI and Sec 1-4 of Art VII and by adding
Art XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions”. These proposed
changes will shift the president bicameral-presidential system to
a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The
COMELEC, on 31 Aug 2006, denied the petition of the
Lambino group due to the lack of an enabling law governing
initiative petitions to amend the Constitution – this is in
pursuant to the ruling in Santiago vs COMELEC.
Lambino et al contended that the decision in the aforementioned
case is only binding to the parties within that case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for initiative met the
requirements of Sec 2 Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution.
HELD: NO. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct
Proposal by the People.
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution states that
amendments may be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters of which every legislative district must be
represented by 3% of the registered voters therein.
As explained by the ConCom (pertinent points raised by Mr.
Rodriguez and Mr. Suarez), an amendment is "directly proposed
by the people through initiative upon a petition" only if the
people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the
proposed amendments.
The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with
this Court a copy of the paper that the people signed as their
initiative petition.
As admitted by Atty. Lambino during the oral arguments, there
is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino
Group's proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does
the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is
attached to it.
However, he explained that during the signature gathering from
Feb-Aug 2006, they circulated, together with the signature
sheets, printed copies of the draft petition, which they later filed
on 25 August 2006 with the COMELEC.
But what the group allegedly circulated was the draft of the 30
August 2006 amended petition, not the draft of the 25 August
2006 petition.
The Lambino Group would have this Court believe that they
prepared the draft of the 30 August 2006 amended petition
almost seven months earlier in February 2006 when they started
gathering signatures.
The Lambino Group never alleged in their petition with the
COMELEC that they circulated printed copies of the draft
petition together with the signature sheets. Neither did they
allege the same in their petition before the SC.
It is only in their Consolidated Reply to the Opposition-in-
Interventions that they first claimed that they circulated the
"petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC."
There were also inconsistencies with the written allegations re:
what was presented as compared to what the group allegedly
circulated based on their oral arguments.
Even assuming they circulated the amended petition during the
signature-gathering period, the Lambino Group admitted
circulating only very limited copies of the petition.
Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed only
100,000 copies of the draft petition.
Thus, of the 6.3 million signatories, only 100,000 signatories
could have received with certainty one copy each of the petition,
assuming a 100 percent distribution with no wastage.
If they attached one copy of the petition to each signature sheet
with a space for ten signatures, only 100,000 signature sheets
could have circulated with the petition. Hence, the maximum
number of people who saw the petition before they signed the
signature sheets would not exceed 1,000,000.
The inescapable conclusion is that they failed to show to the 6.3
million signatories the full text of the proposed changes.
In short, the Lambino Group's initiative is void and
unconstitutional because it dismally fails to comply with the
requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution that
the initiative must be "directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition."
NOTE:
The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on
its face is a petition by the people
First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal;
Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition.
The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written
on the face of the petition, or attached to it, and if so attached,
the petition must state the fact of such attachment
A signature
requirement would be meaningless if the person supplying the
signature has not first seen what it is that he or she is
signing.
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people
without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed
amendments is most likely a deception
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle
in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of
powers or the system of checks-and-balances, and there is also
revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the
constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions
of the constitution.
Amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or
deletes without altering the basic principle involved; Revision
generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while
amendment generally affects only the specific provision being
amended.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution
under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority
of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of
such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall
be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days
after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the
sufficiency of the petition.
Three essential steps in the procedure
1. The amendments are proposed by Congress or by a
contention called for that purpose “by a vote of ¾ of all
the members of the senate and HoR voting separately” but
“in joint session assembled”
2. Such amendments are “submitted to the people for their
ratification” at an “election”
3. Such amendments are “approved by a majority of the
votes cast” in the election
Political character of the effectivity of a revolutionary
constitution
· Inquiry belonged to the political power and not the
judicial
· Political-question doctrine illustrated in Luther v. Borden:
“if a state court should enter upon the inquiry
proposed in this case, and should come to the
conclusion that the government under which it
acted had been put aside and displaced by an
opposing government, it would cease to be a
court and incapable of pronouncing a judicial
decision upon the question it undertook to try. If
it decided at all as a court, it necessarily affirms
the existence and authority of the government
under which it is exercising judicial power”

Written Constitution is susceptible of change by:
1. Revolution – implies action not pursuant to any provision
of the constitution
2. Revision – implies action pursuant to procedural provision
in the constitution
Ratification and date of effectivity of amendments and revision
Two rules for ratification of amendments or revision
1. When must the plebiscite be held’
§ Time set for waiting before plebiscite intended to
give electorate time to study the proposed
constitutional changes and avoid allowing such
to become “stale”
§ Same whether change proposed by constituent
body or by initiative
§ not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days
§ starting point
Ø constituent body – from approval of
such amendment or revision
Ø initiative – from certification by the
COMELEC of the sufficiency of the
petition
2. When do amendments or revision take effect
§ Generally: Same date as date of ratification; day
votes are cast
§ Exception: Amendments specify otherwise
GONZALES VS COMELEC
Facts:
On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of
Representatives passed the following resolutions:
1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, proposing
that Section 5, Article VI, of the Constitution of the
Philippines, be amended so as to increase the
membership of the House of Representatives from a
maximum of 120, as provided in the present
Constitution, to a maximum of 180, to be apportioned
among the several provinces as nearly as may be
according to the number of their respective inhabitants,
although each province shall have, at least, one (1)
member;
2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose
amendments to said Constitution, the convention to be
composed of two (2) elective delegates from each
representative district, to be “elected in the general
elections to be held on the second Tuesday of
November, 1971;” and
3. R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of
the same Constitution, be amended so as to authorize
Senators and members of the House of
Representatives to become delegates to the
aforementioned constitutional convention, without
forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
Upon approval by the President of the bill passed by Congress,
on June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing
that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the
aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for
approval by the people which shall be held on Nov. 1967.

Issues:
1. W/N Congress may adopt either one of two alternatives—
propose amendments or call a convention therefor—but may not
avail of both—that is to say, propose amendment and call a
convention—at the same time; NO
2. W/N the election, in which proposals for amendment to the
Constitution shall be submitted for ratification, must be a special
election, not a general election, in which officers of the national
and local governments—such as the elections scheduled to be
held on November 14, 1967—will be chosen; NO
Ruling:
Republic Act 4913 and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 are constitutional
and valid. The petitions are hereby, dismissed.
Ratio:
Alternatives Available
to Congress
This theory is based upon the fact that the two (2) alternatives
are connected in the Constitution by the disjunctive “or.” Such
basis is, however, a weak one, in the absence of other
circumstances— and none has brought to our attention —
supporting the conclusion drawn.
It is, also, noteworthy that R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 propose
amendments to the constitutional provision on Congress, to be
submitted to the people for ratification on November 1A, 1967,
whereas R. B. H. No. 2 calls for a convention in 1971, to
consider proposals for amendment to the Constitution, in
general. Although the three (3) resolutions were passed on the
same date, they were taken up and put to a vote separately, or
one after the other. In other words, they were not passed at the
same time.
No plausible reason been advanced to justify the denial of
authority to adopt said resolutions on the same day.
Since Congress has decided to call a constitutional convention
to propose amendments, why not let the whole thing be
submitted to said convention, instead of, likewise, proposing
some specific amendments, to be submitted for ratification
before said convention is held? Whether or not this should be
done is a political question, not subject to review by the courts
of justice.
May Constitutional Amendments
Be Submitted for Ratification
in a General Election?
There is in this provision nothing to indicate that the “election”
therein referred to is a “special,” not a general, election. It does
not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for
ratification in general elections.
They do not deny the authority of Congress to choose either
alternative, as implied in the term “election” used, without
qualification, in the abovequoted provision of the Constitution.
Such authority becomes even more patent when we consider:
(1) that the term “election,” normally refers to the choice or
selection of
candidates to public office by popular vote; and (2) that the
word used in Article V of the Constitution, concerning the grant
of suffrage to women is, not “election,” but “plebiscite.”
Would the Submission now of the
Contested Amendments to the People Violate the
Spirit of the Constitution?
It should be noted that the contested Resolutions were approved
on March 16, 1967, so that, by November 14, 1967, our
citizenry shall have had practically eight (8) months to be
informed on the amendments in question.
We are not prepared to say that the taken measures are palpably
inadequate to comply with the constitutional requirement that
proposals for amendment be “submitted to the people for their
ratification,” and that said measures are manifestly insufficient.
TOLENTINO V COMELEC
Facts:
The Constitutional Convention of 1971 came into being by
virtue of two resolutions of the Congress of the Philippines
approved in its capacity as a constituent assembly convened for
the purpose of calling a convention to propose amendments to
the Constitution.
The Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 which was
a resolution that would amend Section 1 of Article V of the
Constitution.
Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution was about the voting
age.
Petitioner then argued that under Section 1, Article XV of the
Constitution (now Article XVII), the proposed amendment in
question cannot be presented to the people for ratification
separately from each and all of the other amendments to be
drafted and proposed by the Convention.
Respondents and intervenors posit that the power to provide for,
fix the date and lay down the details of the plebiscite for the
ratification of any amendment the Convention may deem proper
to propose is within the authority of the Convention as a
necessary consequence and part of its power to propose
amendments and that this power includes that of submitting
such amendments either individually or jointly at such time and
manner as the Convention may direct in discretion.
Issue:
Whether or not it is within the powers of the Constitutional
Convention of 1971 to order the holding of a plebiscite for the
ratification of the proposed amendment reducing to eighteen
years the age for the exercise of suffrage under Section 1 of
Article V of the Constitution proposed in the Convention's
Organic Resolution No. 1?
Ruling:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition herein is
granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional
Convention of 1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions
of the Convention, insofar as they provide for the holding of a
plebiscite on November 8, 1971, as well as the resolution of the
respondent Comelec complying therewith (RR Resolution No.
695) are hereby declared null and void. The respondents
Comelec, Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant and Auditor of
the Constitutional Convention are hereby enjoined from taking
any action in compliance with the said organic resolution. In
view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court
declares this decision immediately executory. No costs.
RATIO:
The SC ruled that the Convention's Organic Resolution No. 1
and all subsequent acts of the Convention implementing the
same violate the condition in Section 1, Article XV that there
should only be one "election" or plebiscite for the ratification of
all the amendments the Convention may propose.
All the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention
must be submitted to the people in a single "election" or
plebiscite. In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of a
Constitutional amendment may be validly held, it must provide
the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an
intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se but
as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution with
which it has to form a harmonious whole.
ARTICLE XVIII
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
Section 1. The first elections of Members of the Congress under
this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May,
1987.
The first local elections shall be held on a date to be determined
by the President, which may be simultaneous with the election
of the Members of the Congress. It shall include the election of
all Members of the city or municipal councils in the
Metropolitan Manila area.
 The obvious purpose of the transitory provisions is to
facilitate the transition from the old Constitution to the
new. In case of the transitory provisions of the 1987
Constitution, the transition is not just from its original
predecessor, the Freedom Constitution, but also from the
1973 Constitution.
Section 2. The Senators, Members of the House of
Representatives, and the local officials first elected under this
Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
Of the Senators elected in the elections in 1992, the first twelve
obtaining the highest number of votes shall serve for six years
and the remaining twelve for three years.
The purpose was to establish a staggered system of
electing Senators. Every three years only twelve new
Senators are elected. Continuity is thus achieved.
Section 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive
issuances and other executive issuances not inconsistent with
this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed
or revoked.
Effect of Section 3
The items enumerated in Section 3, Article XVIII of the 1987
Constitution have the force of law. The 1973 Constitution
erased the distinction between statutes passed by the legislative
body on one hand and decrees passed by the President on the
other hand. Section 3, Article VXIII of the 1987 Constitution
clarified the legal stature of such acts by removing the phrase
“by the Congress” in the same provision under the 1973
Constitution thereby implicitly leaving modification or repeal of
executive issuances either to Congress or to the President
depending on the nature of the issuances involved.
Section 4. All existing treaties or international agreements
which have not been ratified shall not be renewed or extended
without the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the
Members of the Senate.
Ratification of Treaties
In relation to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution,
Section 4, Article VXIII requires that any treaty or international
agreement, even if valid under previous constitutions and even
id containing a renewal or extension clause, can be renewed or
extended only if ratified by the at least two-thirds of all the
members of the Senate.
Section 5. The six-year term of the incumbent President and
Vice-President elected in the February 7, 1986 election is, for
purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby extended to
noon of June 30, 1992.
The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President
under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of
May, 1992.
Term of Corazon C. Aquino
 It was President Marcos who was proclaimed elected by
Batasang Pambansa
 Aquino assumed office on February 25,1986 for a term
of 6 years
 Section 5 merely extends her term for about 4 months
longer
Synchronization of elections
 R.A 7056 provided that the national elections in 1992
would be held on the second Monday of May and the
local elections the following November.
 Section 5 commanded synchronized elections, that is,
elections, that is election of national and local officials
on the same day. (Osmena v. COMELEC)
Section 6. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise
legislative powers until the first Congress is convened.
President Aquino’s legislative Power
 Both the “Freedom Constitution” and the 1987
Constitution authorized President Aquino to exercise
legislative power until such time a new Congress was
organized.
 Ended on July 27,1987 when the first congress under
this Constitution convened
Section 7. Until a law is passed, the President may fill by
appointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors
the seats reserved for sectoral representation in paragraph (2),
Section 5 of Article VI of this Constitution.
Sectoral Representatives
 President was given the transitory power to appoint
sectoral representatives
 It was a power which she may or may not exercise
 Once appointed and qualified, such representative would
enjoy the term given by the Constitution which would
not be affected by whatever implementing legislation
Congress might eventually pass
 It can be argued, that those appointed requires that they
be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments
Section 8. Until otherwise provided by the Congress, the
President may constitute the Metropolitan Authority to be
composed of the heads of all local government units comprising
the Metropolitan Manila area.
Metropolitan Authority
 Intended to rescue the Metropolitan Manila
Administration which would effectively be terminated
by the election of the local officials under Article XVIII,
Section 1
 Indicate that the authority of President to constitute
Metropolitan Authority was limited to period when
Congress has not yet convened.
Section 9. A sub-province shall continue to exist and operate
until it is converted into a regular province or until its
component municipalities are reverted to the mother province.
Sub-provinces
 Does not mention sub-provinces as territorial and
political units
 They are merely extensions of the mother province
 This provision prolongs their existence.
Section 10. All courts existing at the time of the ratification of
this Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction,
until otherwise provided by law. The provisions of the existing
Rules of Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not
inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative unless
amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the Congress.
Section 11. The incumbent Members of the Judiciary shall
continue in office until they reach the age of seventy years or
become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office or
are removed for cause.
Security of Tenure of judges
 “All elective and appointive officials and employees
under the 1973 COnstitution shall continue office until
otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order
or upon designation or appointment and qualification of
their successors, if such is made within a period of 1
year from February 25,1986.” (Art III,Sec 2,
Proclamation No. 3)
 Such proclamation, therefore would have applied to
members of judiciary until February 25,1987.
  What Section 11 does is to remove applicability of
Proclamation No. 3 to all members of the judiciary and
apply to them instead the rules on Security of Tenure in
Art VIII, Sec 11.
Section 12. The Supreme Court shall, within one year after the
ratification of this Constitution, adopt a systematic plan to
expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending
in the Supreme Court or the lower courts prior to the effectivity
of this Constitution. A similar plan shall be adopted for all
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
Section 13. The legal effect of the lapse, before the ratification
of this Constitution, of the applicable period for the decision or
resolution of the cases or matters submitted for adjudication by
the courts, shall be determined by the Supreme Court as soon as
practicable.
Section 14. The provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), Section 15
of Article VIII of this Constitution shall apply to cases or
matters filed before the ratification of this Constitution, when
the applicable period lapses after such ratification.
Section 15. The incumbent Members of the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the
Commission on Audit shall continue in office for one year after
the ratification of this Constitution, unless they are sooner
removed for cause or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office or appointed to a new term there under. In
no case shall any Member serve longer than seven years
including service before the ratification of this Constitution.
Term of carry over commissioners
 Gave the term of 1 year from the date of ratification of
constitution and at the same time gave the president
authority during the same period to replace them or give
them regular appointments.
 During that period, they would be occupying the first
year of term of those who would subsequently be
appointed thereby reducing tenure of subsequent
appointees.
 In no case shall any member serve longer than 7 years
including service before ratification of this constitution.
Section 16. Career civil service employees separated from the
service not for cause but as a result of the reorganization
pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 and the
reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution
shall be entitled to appropriate separation pay and to retirement
and other benefits accruing to them under the laws of general
application in force at the time of their separation. In lieu
thereof, at the option of the employees, they may be considered
for employment in the Government or in any of its subdivisions,
instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. This provision
also applies to career officers whose resignation, tendered in
line with the existing policy, had been accepted.
Career Civil Service Officers
 Recognize that Proclamation No. 3 authorized
reorganization of civil service and that after ratification
 of new constitution, reorganization might likewise still
be necessary
 Sec 16 is not a remedy for arbitrary removal of civil
servants enjoying security of tenure
 Sec 16 → some form of relief for members of career
civil service who may have been or may be legally but
involuntarily reorganized out of service or may have
voluntarily resigned pursuant to reorganization policy
Section 17. Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President
shall receive an annual salary of three hundred thousand pesos;
the Vice-President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, two hundred forty thousand pesos each; the
Senators, the Members of the House of Representatives, the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of
the Constitutional Commissions, two hundred four thousand
pesos each; and the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos each.
 Emphasizes on the independence of the Central
Monetary Authority from all sectors, local, or foreign,
and more importantly, from the executive department
 majority of the members mandated to be from the
private sector; natural-born Filipino; and known for
probity, integrity, and patriotism
 subject to such other qualifications as may be provided
by law
 NOT same status as to ConCom
Section 18. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall
increase the salary scales of the other officials and employees of
the National Government.
 the low salary of high ranking officials serve as the a cap
on the possibility of the upward movement of the salary
of lower officials
 lower officials positions need more study that is why it
is left to ordinary legislation but with command of it
being done at the earliest possible opportunity
Section 19. All properties, records, equipment, buildings,
facilities, and other assets of any office or body abolished or
reorganized under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 or
this Constitution shall be transferred to the office or body to
which its powers, functions, and responsibilities substantially
pertain.
Section 20. The first Congress shall give priority to the
determination of the period for the full implementation of free
public secondary education.
Section 21. The Congress shall provide efficacious procedures
and adequate remedies for the reversion to the State of all lands
of the public domain and real rights connected therewith which
were acquired in violation of the Constitution or the public land
laws, or through corrupt practices. No transfer or disposition of
such lands or real rights shall be allowed until after the lapse of
one year from the ratification of this Constitution.
  idea is that during the Marcos regime, lands of public
domain and real rights connected with them had been
transferred either in violation of the constitution and
other laws or through “corrupt practices”
 rules of court provide for escheat and reversion as a
remedy aka reivindicatory action/ accion reivindicatoria
 this provision stresses the need for a substantive law to
be made on that particular subject
 second sentence stresses that the Constitution enables
the government to follow the property even if it had
already been acquired by a transferee in good faith
Section 22. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall
expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural lands as may be
defined by law, for distribution to the beneficiaries of the
agrarian reform program.
 noted at the deliberations how there was 183K hectares
of idle and abandoned lands
 (RA 3844) ABANDONED LANDS- those devoted to
any crop but which were not utilized by the owner for
his benefit for five years prior to notice, except when
non, utilZiation was due to reasons force majeure or
other fortuitous event.
 IDLE LANDS- those not developed directly to any crop
or to any definite economic purpose for at least one year
prior to notice but which used to be devoted or were
suitable for such crop, but not lands devoted
permanently or regularly to other essential or more
productive purposes
 QUESTION : WHAT ARE IDLE LANDS?
those not developed directly to any crop or to any
definite economic purpose for at least one year prior to notice
but which used to be devoted or were suitable for such crop, but
not lands devoted permanently or regularly to other essential or
more productive purposes
 RA 3844 did not provide for expropriation, only for
temporary planting
 Section 22 provides for expropriation
Section 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph (2),
Section 11 of Article XVI of this Constitution shall have five
years from its ratification to comply on a graduated and
proportionate basis with the minimum Filipino ownership
requirement therein.
 Art. XVI, Section 11 (2) imposes a 70-30 Filipino-
Foreign equity ratio on all advertising entities.
 Section 23 which is to provide for a period of adjustment
in order to accommodate agencies which may have
Filipino equity as low as zero. (Monsod).
 To implement this, no legislation is needed.
 This section is ready for implementation by proper
regulatory agency.
Section 24. Private armies and other armed groups not
recognized by duly constituted authority shall be dismantled.
All paramilitary forces including Civilian Home Defense Forces
not consistent with the citizen armed force established in this
Constitution, shall be dissolved or, where appropriate, converted
into the regular force.
Original proposal of the Committee:
“All armed groups and paramilitary forces now existing
outside of the regular police and armed forces shall be
dismantled.”
Armed Groups - Private armies and fanatical groups
Paramilitary Forces - Intended to include the CHDF (Civilian
Home Defense Forces) under the operational control of the
Ministry of National Defense
First Sentence: categorically commands the dismantling of
private armies and other armed groups not recognized by duly
constitute authorities. This had reference particularly to the
private armies of political or economic warlords or of fanatical
sects.
Second Sentence: Alternative command regarding existing
paramilitary forces under the authority of government. If found
inconsistent with the citizen armed force established in this
constitution, they should either be dissolved or converted into
the regular force.
Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement
between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines
except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when
the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast
by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose,
and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.
Foreign Military Bases, Troops, or Facilities
 Not intended to foreclose the issue of validity or invalidity
of the existing RP-US Military Bases Agreement.
 Should not prevent the government from rejecting the
treaty under the principle of rebus sic stantibus, if
applicable, or from having it declared void ab initio.
The Visiting Forces Agreement
 Allow American military personnel to enter the
Philippines on a temporary basis for training purposes.
 Raised two important questions:
 Although the agreement would not entail the
permanent basing of a foreign military force, did the
agreement require a treaty? (YES)
 Whether the phrase “recognized as a treaty by the
other contracting State” required that the treaty be
concurred in by the United States Senate (NO)
Section 26. The authority to issue sequestration or freeze orders
under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 in relation to
the recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall remain operative for not
more than eighteen months after the ratification of this
Constitution. However, in the national interest, as certified by
the President, the Congress may extend said period.
A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon
showing of a prima facie case. The order and the list of the
sequestered or frozen properties shall forthwith be registered
with the proper court. For orders issued before the ratification of
this Constitution, the corresponding judicial action or
proceeding shall be filed within six months from its ratification.
For those issued after such ratification, the judicial action or
proceeding shall be commenced within six months from the
issuance thereof.
The sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically lifted
if no judicial action or proceeding is commenced as herein
provided.
Sequestration orders
 Art II, Sec 1 (d) of Proclamation No. 3 had given to the
President the power to recover ill-gotten properties
amassed by the leaders and supporters of the
sequestration or freezing of assets and accounts.
 Pursuant to such power, President created the
Presidential Commission of Good Government (PCGG)
and conferred upon it the powers of sequestration.
Limits on the power of sequestration
 Only upon prima facie case
 Order and list of the sequestered or frozen properties
shall forthwith be registered with proper court
 For orders issued before the ratification of this
constitution
 Corresponding judicial election or proceeding shall be
filed within 6 months from its ratification
 For those issued after such ratification
 Judicial action or proceeding shall commence within 6
months from issuance thereof
 Sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically
lifted if no judicial action or proceeding is commenced
as herein provided.
Subsequent jurisprudence on sequestration
 Power given to PCGG as obviously and imperatively
needed “provisional measures to prevent the
concealment, disappearance, destruction, dissipation, or
loss of assets and properties subject of suits or to restrain
or foil acts that may render moot and academic or
effectively hamper, delay or negate efforts to recover the
same
3 provisional remedies
1. Sequestration
 To place or cause to be placed under its possession or
control said property or any building or office wherein
any such property and any records pertaining thereto
may be found, including business enterprises and
entities.
2. Freeze Order
 Prohibits the person having control of property alleged
to constitute “ill-gotten wealth” from transferring,
conveying, encumbering, or otherwise depleting or
concealing such property or from assisting or taking part
in its transfer, encumbrance, concealment or dissipation.
3. Provisional takeover
 Assumption of control not only over things but also over
operations or on-going activities
 “Business enterprises/entities
  Authorized in the public interest or to prevent disposal
or dissipation of enterprises.
Section 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately
upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous
Constitutions.
Date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
 February 2,1987, on the very day of the plebiscite.
REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts
Upon assumption of office, President Corazon Aquino issued
E.O. no. 1 creating the Presidential Commission on Good
Governance (PCGG) for the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of
the former President Marcos. PCGG Chairman Jovito Salonga
created an AFP Anti-Graft Board which was tasked to
investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP
personnel.
On March 3, 1986(5 days after the EDSA Revolution), the
raiding team searched and seized the the premises of Elizabeth
Dimaano.
The AFP Anti-Graft Board investigated Major General Josephus
Ramas and issued a Resolution on its findings and
recommendation. The AFP Anti-Graft Board found that one
Elizabeth Dimaano is the mistress of Ramas; that Dimaano has
no visible means of income; that Dimaano was a former
secretary and only being supported, then, by Ramas; that they
found and confiscated in the premises of Elizabeth
Dimaano military equipment, communication facilities, and
money which, allegedly, could not have been in her possession
if not given to her by Ramas; and that these were ill-gotten and
unexplained wealth. The AFP Anti-Graft Board, then,
recommended, that Ramas be prosecuted for violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The PCGG, then, filed a petition for Forfeiture against Ramas
and impleaded Dimaano as co-defendant. Ramas contended that
he acquired all those items and cash out of his salary as an army
officer while Dimaano claimed ownership of the cash,
equipment and jewelry confiscated by the raiding team.
On November 1991, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the
complaint against Ramas and Dimaano and stated that the
evidence against Ramas did not constitute a prima facie case
against him and that there was an illegal search and seizure of
the items confiscated.
The PCGG appeals to the SC claiming that the Sandiganbayan
erred in ruling that the evidence did not constitute a prima facie
case against him.
On the other hand, the private respondents were questioning the
jurisdiction of the PCGG. They were also claiming that there
was indeed illegal search and seizure contrary to their rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. The petitioners, however,
countered that because at the time of the seizure, a revolutionary
government was operative, the 1973 Constitution was not
operative and no rights were guaranteeing against the seizure
conducted during the interregnum (which was until March 24,
1986), until that time a provisional constitution(the freedom
constitution) was adopted.
Issue/s
1. Whether or not the PCGG has jurisdiction to investigate
Ramas and Dimaano
2. Whether or not there was illegal search and seizure
Ruling
1. No, it is not within the jurisdiction of the PCGG to investigate
Ramas and Dimaano. Under E.O. no. 1, the PCGG’s mandate
was to:
a. The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth
accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos,
his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close
associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad,
including the takeover and sequestration of all business
enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them,
during his administration, directly or through nominees,
by taking undue advantage of their public office and/ or
using their powers, authority, influence, connections or
relationship.
b. The investigation of such cases of graft and
corruption as the President may assign to the
Commission from time to time.
The case of Ramas was never claimed to have been
assigned by the President to the PCGG not does the Ramas case
fall as included in the “subordinate and close associate
category”. Although the PCGG claims that Ramas, being a
Commanding General, received direct orders from the President
(as Commander-in-Chief), it is the the “subordinate” referred to
under E.O. no. 1. The subordinate referred to under the mandate
of the PCGG was one who enjoys a close association with the
former President Marcos, his wife, similar to immediate family
member, relative, business associate, dummy, agent or nominee
in E.O. n. 2. Ramas’ position as Commanding General of the
Army does not necessarily mean he is included as “subordinate”
under the PCGG’s mandate. In the case at bar, the PCGG failed
to adduce evidence that Ramas was a close associate of Marcos
nor any showing that the properties were accumulated in his
capacity as “subordinate”. The mass wealth of Ramas, as
alleged violations of the Anti-Graft ad Corrupt Practices Act,
fall on the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and not under that of
the PCGG.
2. Yes, there was illegal search and seizure. The court noted
that, indeed, at the time of the seizure during the interregnum,
the 1973 Constitution was not operative and the rights
guaranteed under that Constitution were also inoperative. If it
were operative, all sequestration orders of the PCGG at that
time would have been void. However, during the interregnum,
international law remained in effect. The Revolutionary
Government at that time assumed the compliance to the
Covenant and the Declaration. These were also considered as
customary international law which protected the rights of the
respondents. In the case at bar, the search and seizure conducted
exceeded those written in the warrant, as they have admitted
during the proceedings. Therefore, the seizure was deemed
illegal and the court ordered the return of the illegally seized
items to the respondents.