POLITICAL REVIEW 2 WAYS THAT CONSTITUTION CAN BE CHANGED
Judge Gener Gito 1. Amendment
Belgica vs. Executive Secretary
I. Amendment vs. Revision
a. Who may Propose to the People through Plebiscite
where can people accept or reject the proposed changes
in the constitution:
 Constitution
 It is constituted by the vote of ¾ of all of its
members:
a. two (2) schools of thought:
a. Don’t compute it by combining the total
number of members, it will be computed by ¾
from the members of the HR and ¾ from senate
since governed by system bicameralism. The
story behind this is during the deliberation, the
body is not yet decided on what form of
congress they will be constituting whether it be
bicameral or unicameral until they are almost
complete with the draft, members voted for
bicameral system won by one vote, hence they
changed everything but forgot this provision.
Blame it on the committee on style!
b. Literal interpretation. Congress is a
combination of HR and Senate such that you
combine the number and compute the ¾.
Chavez vs. JBC
 This case speaks of the members of Judicial
Bar Council. Headed by
 Chief Justice as the Chair Ex-officio position
 Secretary of Justice Ex-officio position
 A representative from the Congress
 4 members: (retired justice, public sector,
academe, and IBP)
 Chavez is nominated to be the Chief Justice of
SC, the composition of JBC at that time is 8
because there is one rep from HR and one
from Senate.
 Chavez challenged that arguing the literal
interpretation of the provision.
 SC held, when we speak of Congress it is
combined, it is composed of the HR and Senate
and because of that interpretation there
should only be on representative from the
Congress.
 In this particular case, the SC interpreted the
meaning of Congress as something that is
combination of HR and the Senate.
 Constitutional Convention
 2/3 of all of its members
 People’s initiative of at least 12% of the total
number of registered voters of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least
3% of the registered voters therein.
 connecting the outermost islands. All waters and island
 simply adds, increases without altering the
basic principles in the constitution.
2. Revision
 alters substantially the basic structure and
principles of the Constitution
The importance/materiality of knowing the distinction
between Amendment and Revision lies on the fact who can
change the Constitution. If the People’s Initiative will be the
one proposing changes, their power is limited only to
PROPOSE AMENDMENT.
Lambino vs. Comelec
Presidential to Parliamentary
They have gathered the number of votes required, they
asked the COMELEC to constitute a Plebiscite. The Petition
was dismissed which resulted to Lambino brought the case
to SC. SC held:
1. People’s Initiative cannot be used to Proposed to
Amend the Constitution
2. SC attack on the form of the questionnaire being
given to the people, the complete amended
constitution must be attached on the Petition so
that the people before signing will be informed as
to the implication of such proposal.
Two (2) tests
A. Quantitative
– it requires into the number of provisions altered, deleted
or changed.
B. Qualitative
– in terms of substance, it requires into the qualitative
effect it does not speak of number. Basic structure
underlying the Constitution is altered. Almost 50% of the
Constitution
People changes constitution through People’s Initiative.
II. NATIONAL TERRITORY
 Extent and composition of our National Territory.
Q: Can this definition be internationally binding?
A: No because Constitution is only Municipal Law.
 Archipelago is defined means a group of islands,
including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and
other natural features which are so closely interrelated
that such islands, waters and other natural features form
an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity,
or which historically have been regarded as such.
 "Archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by
one or more archipelagos and may include other islands.
 This is what we are BANKING! - ARCHIPELAGIC
DOCTRINE, a country which is composed of fragmented
Island should be treated as one, whole and integral
territory. Done by collecting the outermost points of
islands of the Archipelago and draw imaginary baseline
within the imaginary baseline are considered internal
 waters of that country. The waters around, between and
connecting the islands shall form part of the internal  RIGHTS ON MARITIME ZONES (See it sa notes)
waters of the Philippines regardless of breadth and
dimension. DOCTRINE ON STATE OF IMMUNITY
- Constitutional Provision - The State may not be sued
Q: Has International Law accepted this Doctrine? without its consent.” Sec. 3 Article 16
A: NOT YET, Partly! Philippines consider it as your internal e.g:
waters but we will consider it as ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS. 1. Foreign Countries are sued here can those countries
invoke state of immunity pursuant to the aforesaid proviso?
INTERNAL WATERS ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS NO. For the State being referred here is the Philippines
It is subject to plenary There is a right of ALONE.
jurisdiction of the state. innocent passage, all the
It can disallow the waters inside are • But they are immuned from in accordance with
passage of foreign considered yours but we the international law principle “par in parem non
vessels and can only be have the right of innocent habet imperium.”
allowed subject to passage. Sabi ni Tolentino
consent of the keri bam bam na yun but  If at the end of the day, it requires the affirmative
controlling state. our signature here should act of the State, the officer of the government being
not mean that we are in suit, is a case against the government.
abandoning our  e.g DPWH Contract; flyover-hindi binayaran ni Gov.
archipelagic doctrine. So a suit was filed against the government. Treated
a case against the government.
 Noong unang panahon, panahon pa ng HAPON. CANON  EXPN: Petition for mandamus or prohibition against
BALL RULES – reach is only 3 nautical miles from the the officer.
shore. Thus that will only be the extent of your territorial
sea. But this is disadvantageous! WAIVER
 Magallona vs. Ermita
- Maritime Zones : - express (there is a general or special law Act NO. 3038, CA
- Territorial – 12 nautical mile 327 and charters of municipal corporation. Money claim.
- Contiguous Zone – 24 nautical mile Filed it to COA)
- Exclusive Economic – 200 - implied
- Continental shelf – 200 - it initiates litigation or
- RECKONED FROM THE BASELINE. RA 9522 was - enters into a contract; it depends on what capacity;
enacted for us to be able to establish our maritime governmental or proprietary (descended to the level of
zone under UNCLOS. ordinary individual)
- Magallona THE RAPPER, challenged this one 2
grounds: GOVERNMENT AGENCY
- (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, -examples: LGU, GSIS, SSS, BulSU
and logically, the reach of the Philippine states -when a case is filed against government agency.,
sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Determine if you need consent when you will file a suit:
Constitution,10 embodying the terms of the Treaty Incorporated – there is a law specifically creating such
of Paris11 and ancillary treaties,12 and agency; inquire into the charter!
- (2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of Unincorporated – there is no law creating but it is only
the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and attached to a particular government agency; inquire into
aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and the function of the principal government agency:
national security, contravening the countrys a. If its governmental – need consent
nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, b. If its proprietary – no need of consent;
in violation of relevant constitutional provisions. descended

RA 9522 is constitutional for it only demarcates or sets the SCOPE OF CONSENT:

baselines from where we can reckon the measure the
breadth and dimension of our maritime zone.
REGIME OF ISLANDS – SC ruled that under UNCLOS we are
committed to connect our baselines in accordance and shall
not depart to the natural configuration of the Philippine
archipelago. UNCLOS is an international agreement from
which we are signatory and under the principle of “Pactu
Sunt Servanda”- Every treaty in force is binding upon the
parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith,
we are bound by it and non-compliance therewith
tantamounts to breach of PACT.
- Filing of writ of execution
- Can you attach the Property of government or
garnished the funds in Landbank?
GR: Consent to be sued does not include consent to the
execution of judgment against it. In the latter case, you
need another consent because the funds belonging to
government is a public fund.
In cases of GOCC, if the latter is receiving funds from the
General Appropriation Act, such fund is not subject to
 garnishment because it is already intended for a particular
activity.
In cases of LGU, funds of LGU cannot be garnished. File a case
for action of mandamus to compel them to pass an
appropriation law for the disbursement of the collectible
money against the government. Filing of claim in COA is
necessary, because if the latter approves it they will now
order for the passage of appropriation act.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
- The powers of each department are delineated by the
Constitution in such that one cannot assume the power
of the other
VIOLATION:
A. In other words, there is a violation of the principle when
there is:
a. impermissible interference with and/or
b. assumption of another department's functions
e.g:
 When judiciary legislates.
 Rulemaking power does not allow the increase or
diminish substantive rights for the making of rights
is lodged in the legislative dept.
 executive dept. cannot legislate in such case that
when executive order is not in accordance to the law
it seeks to implement, there is encroachment of
power.
 Read the full text of Belgica vs. Executive
 Flores vs. Drilon – it is provided in the law that the
one who will head the SBMA shall be in the
incumbent mayor of Olongapo. The power to
appoint in an executive position but in this case, it’s
the Congress who is as if appointing.
 Santiago vs. Guingona – We could not interfere into
the exclusive activity of Legislative. Only the election
of Senate President and the election of Speaker that
Constitution is concerned. Others, BHALA KAYO SA
BUHAY NIO.! In this case, the position is in dispute is
the position for MINORITY LEADER. KAYA BHLA KAYO
SA BUHAY NIO
 Arroyo vs. De Venecia – This is the case wherein,
VAT LAW. Si Arroyo – majority floor leader, wala
siyang staff, wawa. Ang role ko busisiin lang mga
batas nio! Suspend the deliberation I will still
interpolate, JINGLE LANG AKO. AHAHAHA. TWANG
TWA AKOOO! Kahit no interpolation, BINATAS NA
ANG LAW. Thus, he questions the validity of VAT
LAW on the ground that it violated the rules of
House of Representative. Under the constitution
each house is mandated to promulgate its rules by
the Constitution, the violation of each house is a
violation of consti. SC held NO!, violation of internal
rules of each house is an internal activity, SC could
not intervene
 Abakada Guru Party-list vs. Purisima – justification
of SC in declaring PDAF Unconstitutional.
The case: Pag-nameet ang quota pak kayo, pag hindi
tanggal kayo, this rule is only applicable in BIR. It
further provides creation of the joint congressional
committee is composed of the members of HR and
Senate. The function of this is to approve and
disapprove the IRR to be issued by the concerned
agency required to promulgate the IRR of the
government.
Article 5 of Labor Code – The SOLE is empowered to
issue IRR in order to implement this code and other
labor laws.
In this case, the one who will make IRR’s are BIR,
DOF, and Customs. So pag mali ang IRR mo, i-rule out
yan ng JCC. ABAKADA challenges the
constitutionality of JCC on the ground that it violated
the rule on separation of power for it interfered the
powers of Executive to implement the law since JCC
holds the power to approve and disapprove the
IRRS.
SC held JCC unconstitutional for it violates the rule
on separation of power for the moment that the law
comes effective, any provisions of law that
empowers the congress or any of its members to
play any role in the enforcement or implementation
of law violates the principles of separation power.
The promulgation of IRR is in the nature of the
implementation of a law. With respect to the
implementation of law, hands-off na ang legislative.
• Legislative Veto - No. Legislative veto is
unconstitutional. Legislative veto violates the
principle of separation of powers. From the
moment the law becomes effective, any provision
of law that empowers Congress or any of its
members to play any role in the implementation or
enforcement of the law violates the principle of
separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional
(Abakada Guru Party-list vs. Purisima, G.R. No.
166715, August 14, 2008).
• PORK BARREL SCAM
- in the matter of releasing the fund, it is in the nature
of implementation and execution. Thus when the
Congress put conditions that release of funds shall
be subject to the approval of respective
representative and senators, it constitutes
impermissible interference these post-enactment
measures which govern the areas of project
identification, fund release and fund realignment are
not related to functions of congressional oversight
and, hence, allow legislators to intervene and/or
assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of
budget execution.
- They incorporated their interference in the law
- YES. The “pork barrel system” violates the principle
of separation of powers. The distinguishing factor of
a pork barrel system, especially “Congressional Pork
Barrel” is the authority of the legislator to participate
in the post-enactment phases of project
implementation.
 POWERS
Supposing, CongKang during the deliberation of budget
allocated 70 M for his project in the lone district of
KEMERUT. Senators did the same thing. This projects were
carried out in the GAA and eventually passed and becomes a
law. Is this valid?
Answer: Identification of projects were conducted during
the deliberation of GAA, is it post-enactment? NO! for it
was made during the deliberation. NOT CONSTITUTIONAL
for what is prohibited in the constitution is the
participation of legislators in the post-enactment phases of
project implementation, this proscribes because it violates
separation power. If identification is done during the
deliberation this is valid for Congress is only doing their
primary function to legislate laws.
 Araullo case. The president arrogates congressional
power which has the power of the purse.
DELEGATION OF POWERS
 What has been delegated cannot be delegated
 Non delegation of legislative power, the IRR cannot
supplant, add the law which it seeks to implement
otherwise the IRR would be valid because it as if the
Executive Department is acting as the legislative
body.
 David vs. Arroyo. Proclamation 1070 declaring the
Philippines under the State of Emergency. When
GMA declares State of Emergency it ordered the
closure of Philippine Premium. Problem no. 1
LEGISLATIVE POWER
• “as may be provided by law” phrase under Article
VI, Section 2 refers to the qualification of voter
(such as absentee votee law) it cannot refer to the
number of senators and as to how they can elect. IT
MUST ALWAYS BE AT LARGE
• QUALIFICATIONS SENATE:
 Natural Born Citizen
 35 years
 Able to read and write
 resident of the Philippines for not less than
two years immediately preceding the day of
the election.
 Social Justice Society vs. DDB, November 3, 2008
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
1. District Representative
2. Party-list Representative
• Bagabuyo vs. Comelec – when you create
legislative district does it need a plebiscite in order
for it to be effective? NO because Legislative District
is not a local government. Plebiscite is applicable
only in LGUS. Regional, Provincial, City,
Municipality, Brgy.
• Aquino III vs. Comelec – 3rd District of Camarines
Sur, ANG PAGBABALIK NI NONOY. HAHAH! Kaya
may political problem, it encountered road block.
The 250k population requirement pertains only to
city and not to province. What is being redistricted
here is a province, thus it does not apply to this case
• Aldaba vs. Comelec, creating a lone district of City
of Malolos.
a. Population requirement
b. Contiguous keme., it will separate other
territories if Malolos will be a separate district.
 Sema vs. Comelec – province of Shariff. Creation of
province entails creation of legislative district, this
was sustained. Only congress can apportion
legislative district, thus ARM cannot create province
PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE
-Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC
Parliamentary Immunity
- Privilege from Arrest
- Privilege from Speech
• Pobre vs. Santiago, 597 SCRA 1,
Santiago was not nominated by JBC.
I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the
mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am
humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only
that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle
years in a country of this nature. I am
nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the
Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the
position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded
by idiots. I would rather be in another environment
but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x.
(Emphasis ours.)
• The Court is not hesitant to impose some form of
disciplinary sanctions on Senator/Atty. Santiago for
what otherwise would have constituted an act of
utter disrespect on her part towards the Court and
its members. The factual and legal circumstances of
this case, however, deter the Court from doing so,
even without any sign of remorse from her. Basic
constitutional consideration dictates this kind of
disposition. “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”