CONSTITUTION • it must be adaptable to various crisis of human

affairs but it must also be solid permanent and

substantial
Definitions: • Its stability protects the rights, liberty, and property
of the people (rich or poor)
- Body of rules and maxims in accordance with
which the powers of the government are • It must be construed as a dynamic process
habitually exercised. intended to stand for a great length of time to be
- Fundamental law of the land progressive and not static
- fundamental law which sets up a form of
government and defines and delimits the • What it is NOT:
powers thereof and those of its officers,  -It should NOT change with emergencies or
reserving to the people themselves plenary conditions
sovereignty  -It should NOT be inflexible
- written charter enacted and adopted by the  -It should NOT be interpreted narrowly
people by which a government for them is
established • Words employed should not be construed to yield
- basically it is the fundamental laws for the fixed and rigid answers because its meaning is
governance and administration of a nation applied to meet new or changed conditions as they
- absolute and unalterable except by arise
amendments
• Courts should construe the constitution so that it
- all other laws are expected to conform to it
would be consistent with reason, justice and the
public interest

Primary purpose of constitution How language of constitution construed

- test of legality of governmental actions • primary source in order to ascertain the

- provides framework of the powers of the constitution is the LANGUAGE itself
government
• The words that are used are broad because it aims
- safeguards fundamental rights of people
to cover all contingencies
- promote common good and protect human
rights • Words must be understood in their common or
- ensure domestic tranquility and progress and ordinary meaning except when technical terms are
provide for the well-being and happiness of the employee
people.
o WHY? Because the fundamental law if
Primary purpose of constitutional construction essentially a document of the people
• primary task of constitutional construction is to • Do not construe the constitution in such a way that
ascertain the intent or purpose of the framers of the its meaning would change
constitution as expressed in its language
• What if the words used have both general and
• purpose of our Constitution: to protect and restricted meaning?
enhance the people’s interests
• Rule: general prevails over the restricted unless
Constitution construed as enduring for ages the contrary is indicated
• Constitution is not merely for a few years but it also Aids to construction, generally
needs to endure through a long lapse of ages
• apart from its language courts may refer to the
• WHY? Because it governs the life of the people not following in construing the constitution:
only at the time of its framing but far into the
indefinite future  history
 proceedings of the convention
 prior laws and judicial decisions
  contemporaneous constructions o HOWEVER mere deletion, as negative guides,
 consequences of alternative cannot prevail over the positive provisions nor is it
interpretations determinative of any conclusion.
• these aids are called extraneous aids because Certain provisions in our constitution (from 1935 to
though their effect is not in precise rules their the present) are mere reenactments of prior
influence describes the essentials of the process constitutions thus these changes may indicate an
intent to modify or change the meaning of the old
Realities existing at time of adoption; object to
provisions.
be accomplished
Constitution construed as a whole
• History basically helps in making one understand
as to how and why certain laws were incorporated • provision should not be construed separately from
into the constitution. the rest it should be interpreted as a whole and be
harmonized with conflicting provisions so as to give
• In construing constitutional law, the history must
them all force and effect.
be taken into consideration because there are
certain considerations rooted in the historical • sections in the constitution with a particular subject
background of the environment at the time of its should be interpreted together to effectuate the
adoption whole purpose of the Constitution.
Proceedings of the convention Mandatory or directory
RULE: If the language of the constitutional provision RULE: constitutional provisions are to be construed
is plain it is not necessary to resort to extrinsic aids as mandatory unless a different intention is
manifested.
EXCEPTION: when the intent of the framer doesn’t
appear in the text or it has more than one Why? Because in a constitution, the sovereign itself
construction. speaks and is laying down rules which for the time
being at least are to control alike the government
• Intent of a constitutional convention member
and the governed.
doesn’t necessarily mean it is also the people’s
intent • failure of the legislature to enact the necessary
required by the constitution does not make the
• The proceedings of the convention are usually
legislature is illegal.
inquired into because it sheds light into what the
framers of the constitution had in mind at that time. Prospective or retroactive
(refers to the debates, interpretations and opinions
RULE: constitution operates prospectively only
concerning particular provisions)
unless the words employed are clear that it applies
Previous laws and judicial rulings retroactively
• framers of the constitution is presumed to be Applicability of rules of statutory construction
aware of prevailing judicial doctrines concerning the
• Doctrines used in Sarmiento v. Mison is a good
subject of constitutional provisions. THUS when
example in which the SC applied a number of rules
courts adopt principles different from prior decisions
of statutory construction.
it is presumed that they did so to overrule said
principle • Issue: whether or not the appointment of a
Changes in phraseology Commissioner of Customs is subject to confirmation
by the Commission on appointments
Before a constitution is ratified it undergoes a lot of
Generally, constitutional provisions are self-
revisions and changes in phraseology (ex. deletion
executing
of words) and these changes may be inquired into
to ascertain the intent or purpose of the provision as RULE: constitutional provisions are self executing
approved except when provisions themselves expressly
require legislations to implement them. •
SELF EXECUTING PROVISIONS - provisions Verba legis non est recedendum – from the words of
which are complete by themselves and becomes a statute there should be no departure
operative without the aid of supplementary
Thus, what is not clearly provided in the law cannot
legislation.
be extended to those matters outside its scope
• Just because legislation may supplement and add
or prescribe a penalty does not render such
provision ineffective in the absence of such CASES
legislation.
Sarmiento v Mison
• In case of Doubt? Construe such provision as self
executing rather than non-self executing. FACTS:
Ulpiano Sarmiento III and Juanito Arcilla, who are
taxpayers, lawyers, members of the IBP and
THREE MAXIMS EMPLOYED AS AIDS TO
professors of Constitutional Law, seek to enjoin
CONSTRUE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Salvador Mison from performing the functions of the
1. Verbal egis – the words used in the Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs
Constitution must be given their ordinary and Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the
meaning except where technical terms are Department of Budget, from effecting disbursements
employed. in payment of Mison’s salaries and emoluments, on
2. Ratio legis est anima – the words of the the ground that Mison’s appointment as
Constitution should be interpreted in Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is
accordance with the intent of its framers. unconstitutional by reason of its not having been
Should bear in mind the object sought to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The
accomplished by its adoption and the evils if respondents, on the other hand, maintain the
any, sought to be prevented or remedied. constitutionality of Mison’s appointment without the
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat – Constitution confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
is to be interpreted as a whole.
The Supreme Court held that the President has the
No provision of the Constitution is to be separated authority to appoint Mison as Commissioner of the
from all the others, to be considered alone, but that Bureau of Customs without submitting his
all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject nomination to the Commission on Appointments for
are to be brought into view and to be so interpreted confirmation, and thus, the latter is entitled the full
as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument. authority and functions of the office and receive all
the salaries and emoluments pertaining thereto.
One section is not to be allowed to defeat another.
ISSUE:
The court must harmonize them, if practicable, and
must lean in favor if a construction which will render Whether the appointments of Mison et. al. in
every word operative, rather than one which may unconstitutional?
make the words idle and nugatory.
Whether or not the appointment of a Commissioner
Literal meaning or plain-meaning rule of Customs is subject to confirmation by the
Commission on appointments
General rule
HELD:
If statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it
must be given its literal meaning and applied without Petition was dismissed.
attempted interpretation
The fundamental principle of constitutional
Verba legis construction is to give effect to the intent of the
framers of the organic law and of the people
Index animi sermo – speech is the index of intention adopting it. The intention to which force is to be given
Words employed by the legislature in a statute is that which is embodied and expressed in the
correctly express its intent or will constitutional provisions themselves. The Court will
thus construe the applicable constitutional Proceedings (House Rules). Section 16 Rule V of
provisions, not in accordance with how the executive the House Rule provides that ―impeachment
or the legislative department may want them proceedings are deemed initiated at the time of the
construed, but in accordance with what they say and filing of such verified complaint or resolution of
provide. impeachment with the Secretary General‖ while
Section 17 Rule V states, ―Within a period of one
In the 1987 Constitution, however, as already
(1) year from the date impeachment proceedings are
pointed out, the clear and expressed intent of its
deemed initiated as provided in Section 16 hereof,
framers was to exclude presidential appointments
no impeachment proceedings, as such, can be
from confirmation by the Commission on
initiated against the same official.
Appointments, except appointments to offices
expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, A House Resolution was subsequently issued
Article VII. Consequently, there was no reason to directing the Committee on Justice to conduct an
use in the third sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII the investigation on the manner of disbursements and
word "alone" after the word "President" in providing expenditures of the Judiciary Development Fund
that Congress may by law vest the appointment of (JDF) by the Chief Justice. Then President Joseph
lower-ranked officers in the President alone, or in the Ejercito Estrada filed an impeachment complaint
courts, or in the heads of departments, because the (first complaint), endorsed by some of the members
power to appoint officers whom he (the President) of the House of Representatives against then Chief
may be authorized by law to appoint is already Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. (Davide, Jr.) and seven
vested in the President, without need of confirmation other associate justices, in accordance with Section
by the Commission on Appointments, in the second 3 (2) Article IX. The first complaint was dismissed for
sentence of the same Sec. 16, Article VII. being insufficient in substance, hence, the
Committee Report was never sent to the House in
Therefore, the third sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII
plenary.
could have stated merely that, in the case of lower-
ranked officers, the Congress may by law vest their A second impeachment complaint (second
appointment in the President, in the courts, or in the complaint) signed by at least one third (1/3) of the
heads of various departments of the government. In members of the House of Representatives was filed
short, the word "alone" in the third sentence of Sec. with the Secretary General of the House of
16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, as a literal Representatives by Gilbert Teodoro et al., founded
import from the last part of par. 3, section 10, Article on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry.
VII of the 1935 Constitution, appears to be Hence, the filing of this petition.
redundant in the light of the second sentence of Sec.
Petitioners Ernesto Francisco, Jr., et al. (Francisco)
16, Article VII. And, this redundancy cannot prevail
prays that the House of Representatives be
over the clear and positive intent of the framers of
prevented from transmitting the Articles of
the 1987 Constitution that presidential
Impeachment of the second complaint to the Senate,
appointments, except those mentioned in the first
that the House Rules be declared null and void for
sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII, are not subject to
being unconstitutional. Likewise, it prayed that the
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
House Resolution infringes the constitutional
doctrine of separation of powers and the
constitutional principle of fiscal autonomy of the
Francisco vs House of Representatives (GR No.
judiciary. On the other hand, Respondent-members
160261, November 10, 2003)
of the House of Representatives claims that the
FACTS: second complaint will prosper since the term,
―initiate is different from ―filing under Section 16
The power of judicial review extends to the rule Rule V of the House Rule, hence, the first complaint
making power of the Congress where said rule was not really ―filed.
contravenes the mandate of the Constitution.
Pursuant to the mandate of Section 3 (8) of Article Respondent-intervenors Senator Franklin Drilon
IX of the 1987 Constitution, the 12th Congress of the (Drilon) and Atty. Jaime Soriano, et. al. filed filed a
House of Representatives adopted and approved Manifestation and Petitions for Intervention,
the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment respectively, asserting that the Court has no
jurisdiction to hear, prohibit or enjoin the House of are to be given their ordinary meaning except where
Representatives, a co-equal and independent technical terms are employed in which case the
branch from performing its mandate of intiating significance thus attached to them prevails. As the
impeachment cases and that there is no justiciable Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document, it
issue and the matter in question is not yet ripe for being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it
judicial determination. The Manifestations and should ever be present in the people’s
Petitions for Intervention were admitted by the Court. consciousness, its language as much as possible
should be understood in the sense they have in
ISSUE:
common use. What it says according to the text of
- Whether or not the power of judicial review the provision to be construed compels acceptance
extends to those arising from impeachment and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based
proceedings on the postulate that the framers and the people
- Whether or not the Rules of Procedure for mean what they say. Thus these are the cases
Impeachment Proceedings adopted by the 12th where the need for construction is reduced to a
Congress is constitutional minimum. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
- Whether or not the second impeachment
Words and Phrases; “Initiate” of course is
complaint may be validly filed
understood by ordinary men to mean, as dictionaries
HELD: do, to begin, to commence, or set going.—The
resolution of this issue thus hinges on the
WHEREFORE, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the interpretation of the term “initiate.” Resort to
Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings statutory construction is, therefore, in order. That the
which were approved by the House of sponsor of the provision of Section 3(5) of the
Representatives on November 28, 2001 are Constitution, Commissioner Florenz Regalado, who
unconstitutional. Consequently, the second eventually became an Associate Justice of this
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Court, agreed on the meaning of “initiate” as “to file,”
G. Davide, Jr. which was filed by Representatives as proffered and explained by Constitutional
Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Commissioner Maambong during the Constitutional
Fuentebella with the Office of the Secretary General Commission proceedings, which he (Commissioner
of the House of Representatives on October 23, Regalado) as amicus curiae affirmed during the oral
2003 is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of arguments on the instant petitions held on
Article XI of the Constitution. November 5, 2003 at which headded that the act of
Verba Legis; Wherever possible, the words used in “initiating” included the act of taking initial action on
the Constitution must be given their ordinary the complaint, dissipates any doubt that indeed the
meaning except where technical terms are word “initiate” as it twice appears in Article XI (3) and
employed. (5) of the Constitution means to file the complaint
and take initial action on it. “Initiate” of course is
To determine the merits of the issues raised in the understood by ordinary men to mean, as dictionaries
instant petitions, this Court must necessarily turn to do, to begin, to commence, or set going. As
the Constitution itself which employs the well-settled Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the
principles of constitutional construction. English Language concisely puts it, it means “to
perform or facilitate the first action,” which jibes with
First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the
Justice Regalado’s position, and that of Father
words used in the Constitution must be given their
Bernas, who elucidated during the oral arguments of
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are
the instant petitions on November 5, 2003.
employed. Thus, in J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land
Tenure Administration, this Court, speaking through It is thus clear that the framers intended “initiation” to
Chief Justice Enrique Fernando, declared: We look start with the filing of the complaint. In his amicus
to the language of the document itself in our search curiae brief, Commissioner Maambong explained
for its meaning. We do not of course stop there, but that “the obvious reason in deleting the phrase “to
that is where we begin. It is to be assumed that the initiate impeachment proceedings” as contained in
words in which constitutional provisions are couched the text of the provision of Section 3 (3) was to settle
express the objective sought to be attained. They and make it understood once and for all that the
initiation of impeachment proceedings starts with the two (2) of whom are members of Congress, runs
filing of the complaint, and the vote of one-third of counter to the letter and spirit of the 1987
the House in a resolution of impeachment does not Constitution.
initiate the impeachment proceedings which was
HELD:
already initiated by the filing of a verified complaint
under Section 3, paragraph (2), Article XI of the Yes. The word “Congress” used in Article VIII,
Constitution.” Amicus curiae Constitutional Section 8(1) of the Constitution is used in its generic
Commissioner Regalado is of the same view as is sense. No particular allusion whatsoever is made on
Father Bernas, who was also a member of the 1986 whether the Senate or the House of Representatives
Constitutional Commission, that the word “initiate” as is being referred to, but that, in either case, only a
used in Article XI, Section 3(5) means to file, both singular representative may be allowed to sit in the
adding, however, that the filing must be JBC. The seven-member composition of the JBC
accompanied by an action to set the complaint serves a practical purpose, that is, to provide a
moving. solution should there be a stalemate in voting.
One of the primary and basic rules in statutory
Chavez v JBC, July 17, 2012 construction is that where the words of a statute are
clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given
FACTS: its literal meaning and applied without attempted
interpretation. It is a well-settled principle of
In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an
constitutional construction that the language
eighth member was added to the JBC as two
employed in the Constitution must be given their
representatives from Congress began sitting in the
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are
JBC – one from the House of Representatives and
employed. As much as possible, the words of the
one from the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2)
Constitution should be understood in the sense they
of a vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate
have in common use. What it says according to the
meetings held in 2000 and 2001, decided to allow
text of the provision to be construed compels
the representatives from the Senate and the House
acceptance and negates the power of the courts to
of Representatives one full vote each. At present,
alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and
Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and
the people mean what they say. Verba legis non est
Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents)
recedendum―from the words of a statute there
simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of
should be no departure.
the legislature. It is this practice that petitioner has
questioned in this petition. Respondents argued that Noscitur a Sociis; Under the maxim noscitur a sociis,
the crux of the controversy is the phrase “a where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in
representative of Congress.” It is their theory that the itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings,
two houses, the Senate and the House of its correct construction may be made clear and
Representatives, are permanent and mandatory specific by considering the company of words in
components of “Congress,” such that the absence of which it is founded or with which it is
either divests the term of its substantive meaning as associated.―Under the maxim noscitur a sociis,
expressed under the Constitution. Bicameralism, as where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in
the system of choice by the Framers, requires that itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings,
both houses exercise their respective powers in the its correct construction may be made clear and
performance of its mandated duty which is to specific by considering the company of words in
legislate. Thus, when Section 8(1), Article VIII of the which it is founded or with which it is associated. This
Constitution speaks of “a representative from is because a word or phrase in a statute is always
Congress,” it should mean one representative each used in association with other words or phrases, and
from both Houses which comprise the entire its meaning may, thus, be modified or restricted by
Congress. the latter. The particular words, clauses and phrases
should not be studied as detached and isolated
ISSUE:
expressions, but the whole and every part of the
- Whether or not the current practice of the JBC statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of
to perform its functions with eight (8) members, any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious
whole. A statute must be so construed as to from both Houses which comprise the entire
harmonize and give effect to all its provisions Congress. Respondent contends that the phrase “ a
whenever possible. In short, every meaning to be representative of congress” refers that both houses
given to each word or phrase must be ascertained of congress should have one representative each,
from the context of the body of the statute since a and that these two houses are permanent and
word or phrase in a statute is always used in mandatory components of “congress” as part of the
association with other words or phrases and its bicameral system of legislature. Both houses have
meaning may be modified or restricted by the latter. their respective powers in performance of their
duties. Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution provides for
ABAD, J., Dissenting Opinion:
the component of the JBC to be 7 members only with
Statutory Construction; View that it is a basic only one representative from congress.
principle in statutory construction that the law must
ISSUE:
be given a reasonable interpretation at all times.
- Whether the JBC’s practice of having members
―It is a basic principle in statutory construction that
from the Senate and the House of
the law must be given a reasonable interpretation at
Representatives making 8 instead of 7 sitting
all times. The Court may, in some instances,
members to be unconstitutional as provided in
consider the spirit and reason of a statute, where a
Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution.
literal meaning would lead to absurdity,
contradiction, or injustice, or would defeat the clear HELD:
purpose of the law makers. Applying a verba legis or
Yes. The practice is unconstitutional; the court held
strictly literal interpretation of the constitution may
that the phrase “a representative of congress”
render its provisions meaningless and lead to
should be construed as to having only one
inconvenience, an absurd situation, or an injustice.
representative that would come from either house,
To obviate this aberration, and bearing in mind the
not both. That the framers of the constitution only
principle that the intent or the spirit of the law is the
intended for one seat of the JBC to be allotted for the
law itself, resort should be made to the rule that the
legislative.
spirit of the law controls its letter.
Rule of Casus Omissus; According to the rule of
casus omissus “a case omitted is to be held as
Chavez v JBC, April 16, 2013 intentionally omitted”; The Court cannot supply what
it thinks the legislature would have supplied had its
FACTS:
attention been called to the omission, as that would
The case is a motion for reconsideration filed by the be judicial legislation.―The Supreme Court cannot
JBC in a prior decision rendered July 17, 2012 that supply the legislative omission. According to the rule
JBC’s action of allowing more than one member of of casus omissus “a case omitted is to be held as
the congress to represent the JBC to be intentionally omitted.” “The principle proceeds from
unconstitutional a reasonable certainty that a particular person,
object or thing has been omitted from a legislative
In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an enumeration.” Pursuant to this, “the Court cannot
eighth member was added to the JBC as two under its power of interpretation supply the omission
representatives from Congress began sitting in the even though the omission may have resulted from
JBC – one from the House of Representatives and inadvertence or because the case in question was
one from the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2) not foreseen or contemplated.” “The Court cannot
of a vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate supply what it thinks the legislature would have
meetings held in 2000 and 2001, decided to allow supplied had its attention been called to the
the representatives from the Senate and the House omission, as that would be judicial legislation.”
of Representatives one full vote each. Senator
Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman Niel
C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sit in the
JBC as representatives of the legislature. It is this
practice that petitioner has questioned in this
petition. it should mean one representative each
Macalintal vs PET Aglipay vs Ruiz
FACTS: FACTS:
Petitioner Atty. Macalintal questions the Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition
constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal against respondent Director of Posts from issuing
(PET) as an illegal and unauthorized progeny of and selling postage stamps commemorative of the
Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution. While 33rd International Eucharistic Congress. Petitioner
petitioner concedes that the Supreme Court is contends that such act is a violation of the
"authorized to promulgate its rules for the purpose," Constitutional provision stating that no public funds
he chafes at the creation of a purportedly "separate shall be appropriated or used in the benefit of any
tribunal". Petitioner avers that the designation of the church, system of religion, etc. This provision is a
Members of the Court as Chairman and Members result of the principle of the separation of church and
thereof, contravenes Section 12, Article VIII of the state, for the purpose of avoiding the occasion
Constitution, which prohibits the designation of wherein the state will use the church, or vice versa,
Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts as a weapon to further their ends and aims.
established by law to any agency performing quasi- Respondent contends that such issuance is in
judicial or administrative functions. accordance to Act No. 4052, providing for the
appropriation funds to respondent for the production
ISSUE:
and issuance of postage stamps as would be
- Whether or not the constitution of the PET, advantageous to the government.
composed of the Members of this Court, is
ISSUE:
unconstitutional, and violates Section 4, Article
VII and Section 12, Article VIII of the - Whether or Not there was a violation of the
Constitution. freedom to religion.
HELD: HELD:
No. On its face, the contentious constitutional What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious
provision does not specify the establishment of the freedom and not mere religious toleration. It is
PET. But neither does it preclude, much less however not an inhibition of profound reverence for
prohibit, otherwise. Section 4, Article VII of the religion and is not a denial of its influence in human
Constitution should be read with other related affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active
provisions of the Constitution such as the parallel power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is
provisions on the Electoral Tribunals of the Senate recognized. And in so far as it instills into the minds
and the House of Representatives. Contrary to the purest principles of morality, its influence is
petitioner’s assertion, the Supreme Court’s deeply felt and highly appreciated. The phrase in Act
constitutional mandate to act as sole judge of No. 4052 “advantageous to the government” does
election contests involving our country’s highest not authorize violation of the Constitution. The
public officials, and its rule-making authority in issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any
connection therewith, is not restricted; it includes all feeling to favor a particular church or religious
necessary powers implicit in the exercise thereof. denomination. They were not sold for the benefit of
Unmistakable from the foregoing is that the exercise the Roman Catholic Church. The postage stamps,
of the court’s power to judge presidential and vice- instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally
presidential election contests, as well as the rule- planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the
making power adjunct thereto, is plenary. The court location of Manila, with the words “Seat XXXIII
reiterate that the establishment of the PET simply International Eucharistic Congress.” The focus of the
constitutionalized what was statutory before the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city
1987 Constitution. With the explicit provision, the of Manila, being the seat of that congress. This was
present Constitution has allocated to the Supreme to “to advertise the Philippines and attract more
Court, in conjunction with latter’s exercise of judicial tourists,” the officials merely took advantage of an
power inherent in all courts, the task of deciding event considered of international importance.
presidential and vice-presidential election contests, Although such issuance and sale may be
with full authority in the exercise thereof. inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic Church,
any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting status of the declarants and their respective
from it was no the aim or purpose of the spouses’ commission of adultery were investigated
Government. before the declarations were executed. Escritor and
Quilapio made their declarations in the usual and
approved form prescribed by Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Estrada vs Escritor approved by the elders of the congregation where
the declarations were executed, and recorded in the
FACTS: Watch Tower Central Office. Moreover, the
Complainant Alejandro Estrada filed with Judge congregation believed that once all legal
Jose F. Caoibes Jr., presiding judge of Branch 253 impediments for the couple were lifted, the validity of
of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, a sworn the declarations ceased, and the couple were
Letter-Complaint dated July 27, 2000. Estrada obliged to legalize their union. In this case, although
requested an investigation of Respondent Soledad Escritor was widowed in 1998 -- a fact that, on her
Escritor, the court interpreter, for living in with a man part, lifted the legal impediment to marry -- her mate
not her husband, with whom she had a child. was still not capacitated to remarry. Thus, their
Complainant believed that she was committing an declarations remained valid. In sum, therefore,
immoral act that tarnished the image of the court. He insofar as the congregation was concerned, there
contended that she should therefore not be allowed was nothing immoral about the conjugal
to remain employed in the court, as it might appear arrangement between the couple, and they
to be condoning her act. Consequently, respondent remained members in good standing in the
was charged with committing “disgraceful and congregation.
immoral conduct” under Book V, Title I, Chapter VI, ISSUE:
Section 46(b)(5) of the Revised Administrative Code.
During the trial, she testified that when she entered - The issue was whether Soledad Escritor could
the judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow; her be held administratively liable for committing an
husband had died in 1998. Admittedly, more than act that was within the ambit of her right under
twenty years ago, she started to have a live-in the religion clauses(Article III, Section 5) of the
arrangement with Luciano Quilapio Jr., with whom Constitution. The first Decision dated August 4,
she had a son. At the time, she alleged, her husband 2003, remanded the Complaint to the Office of
who was then still alive was himself living with the Court Administrator (OCA). It also ordered
another woman. As a member of the religious sect the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to
known as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch intervene in the case, so that the OSG could (1)
Tower and Bible Tract Society, however, respondent examine the sincerity and centrality of the
asserted that her conjugal arrangement with claimed religious belief and practice of
Quilapio was in conformity with their religious beliefs respondent; (2)present evidence of the State’s
and had the approval of their congregation. In fact, “compelling interest” to override her religious
after ten years of living with him, she executed a belief and practice; and (3) show that the means
“Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” on July 28, the State adopted in pursuing its interest was
1991. The declaration allowed Jehovah’s Witnesses the least restrictive of her religious freedom.
like her, who had been abandoned by their spouses,
HELD:
to enter into marital relations with someone else. It
thus made the resulting union moral and binding The Court found Escritor not administratively liable.
within the congregation all over the world, except in
At the outset, it was clarified that the Decision dated
countries where divorce was allowed. As laid down
August 4, 2003, constituted the law of the case.
by the tenets of their faith, the members required that
Thus, the only issue left to be resolved was the
at the time of the declaration, the couple could not
factual basis of the Complaint, specifically the
secure the civil authorities’ approval of the marital
sincerity and centrality of the religious belief and
relationship because of legal impediments. Only
practice claimed by respondent. The resolution of
couples who had been baptized and in good
this issue would allow the government to present
standing could execute the declaration, which
evidence on the State’s compelling interest to
required the approval of the elders of the
override her religious belief and practice. The Court
congregation. As a matter of practice, the marital
reiterated the fact that, upon its finality, the Decision insist that the RH Law is not a birth or population
had to settle the question of what approach should control measure, and that the concepts of
be taken in construing the religion clauses; that is, “responsible parenthood” and “reproductive health”
the proper test applicable in determining claims of are both interrelated as they are inseparable.
exemption based on freedom of religion. With
ISSUE:
respect to the intent and framework underlying those
clauses in our Constitution, applicable was the - Whether or not RH Law violated the one subject-
benevolent neutrality or accommodation test, one title rule under the Constitution
whether mandatory or permissive. In deciding
respondent’s plea for exemption based on the “Free HELD:
Exercise Clause,” however, the compelling-state- NO, Despite efforts to push the RH Law as a
interest test was applicable. The Court nevertheless reproductive health law, the Court sees it as
revisited the highlights of the earlier Decision; in principally a population control measure. The corpus
particular the Old-World antecedents and the of the RH Law is geared towards the reduction of the
development of the religion clauses anthem context country’s population. While it claims to save lives
of American jurisprudence. and keep our women and children healthy, it also
promotes pregnancy-preventing products. As stated
earlier, the RH Law emphasizes the need to provide
Imbong vs Ochoa Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized,
with access to information on the full range of
FACTS:
modem family planning products and methods.
The increase of the country’s population at an These family planning methods, natural or modern,
uncontrollable pace led to the executive and the however, are clearly geared towards the prevention
legislative’s decision that prior measures were still of pregnancy. For said reason, the manifest
not adequate. Thus, Congress enacted R.A. No. underlying objective of the RH Law is to reduce the
10354, otherwise known as the Responsible number of births in the country. The Court, thus,
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 agrees with the petitioners’ contention that the whole
(RH Law), to provide Filipinos, especially the poor idea of contraception pervades the entire RH Law.
and the marginalized, access and information to the
Be that as it may, the RH Law does not violate the
full range of modern family planning methods, and to
one subject/one bill rule.
ensure that its objective to provide for the peoples’
right to reproductive health be achieved. Stated In Cawaling, Jr. v. COMELEC, it was written: It is
differently, the RH Law is an enhancement measure well-settled that the “one title-one subject” rule does
to fortify and make effective the current laws on not require the Congress to employ in the title of the
contraception, women’s health and population enactment language of such precision as to mirror,
control. fully index or catalogue all the contents and the
minute details therein. The rule is sufficiently
Shortly after, challengers from various sectors of
complied with if the title is comprehensive enough as
society moved to assail the constitutionality of RH
to include the general object which the statute seeks
Law. Meanwhile, the RH-IRR for the enforcement of
to effect, and where, as here, the persons interested
the assailed legislation took effect. The Court then
are informed of the nature, scope and consequences
issued a Status Quo Ante Order enjoining the effects
of the proposed law and its operation. Moreover, this
and implementation of the assailed legislation.
Court has invariably adopted a liberal rather than
Petitioners question, among others, the technical construction of the rule “so as not to cripple
constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that it or impede legislation.”
violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution,
In this case, a textual analysis of the various
prescribing the one subject-one title rule. According
provisions of the law shows that both “reproductive
to them, being one for reproductive health with
health” and “responsible parenthood” are
responsible parenthood, the assailed legislation
interrelated and germane to the overriding objective
violates the constitutional standards of due process
to control the population growth. As expressed in the
by concealing its true intent – to act as a population
first paragraph of Section 2 of the RH Law:
control measure. On the other hand, respondents
- SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State utility, stated in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987
recognizes and guarantees the human rights of Philippine Constitution, which limits foreign
all persons including their right to equality and ownership of the capital of a public utility to not more
nondiscrimination of these rights, the right to than 40%. Then, in 2011, the court ruled the case in
sustainable human development, the right to favor of the petitioner, hence this new case,
health which includes reproductive health, the resolving the motion for reconsideration for the 2011
right to education and information, and the right decision filed by the respondents.
to choose and make decisions for themselves in
ISSUE:
accordance with their religious convictions,
ethics, cultural beliefs, and the demands of - Whether or not the Court made an erroneous
responsible parenthood. interpretation of the term ‘capital’ in its 2011
decision?
The one subject/one title rule expresses the principle
that the title of a law must not be “so uncertain that HELD:
the average person reading it would not be informed
of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as The Court said that the Constitution is clear in
to its contents, or which is misleading, either in expressing its State policy of developing an
referring to or indicating one subject where another economy ‘effectively controlled’ by Filipinos.
or different one is really embraced in the act, or in Asserting the ideals that our Constitution’s Preamble
omitting any expression or indication of the real want to achieve, that is – to conserve and develop
subject or scope of the act.” our patrimony, hence, the State should fortify a
Filipino-controlled economy. In the 2011 decision,
Considering the close intimacy between the Court finds no wrong in the construction of the
“reproductive health” and “responsible parenthood” term ‘capital’ which refers to the ‘shares with voting
which bears to the attainment of the goal of rights, as well as with full beneficial ownership’ (Art.
achieving “sustainable human development” as 12, sec. 10) which implies that the right to vote in the
stated under its terms, the Court finds no reason to election of directors, coupled with benefits, is
believe that Congress intentionally sought to deceive tantamount to an effective control. Therefore, the
the public as to the contents of the assailed Court’s interpretation of the term ‘capital’ was not
legislation. erroneous. Thus, the motion for reconsideration is
denied.
The Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to The fundamental principle in the construction of
certain provisions which are declared constitutional provisions is “to give the intent to the
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Status Quo Ante Order framers of the organic law and the people adopting
issued by the Court is hereby LIFTED, insofar as the it. The intention to which force is to be given is that
provisions of R.A. No. 10354 which have been which is embodied and expressed in the
herein declared as constitutional. constitutional provisions themselves. Generally, “in
construing constitutional provisions which are
ambiguous or of doubtful meaning, the courts may
Gamboa vs Finance Sec. consider the debates in the constitutional convention
as throwing light on the intent of the framers of the
FACTS:
Constitution. It is true that the intent of the
The issue started when petitioner Wilson Gamboa convention is not controlling by itself, but as its
questioned the indirect sale of shares involving proceeding was preliminary to the adoption by the
almost 12 million shares of the Philippine Long people of the Constitution the understanding of the
Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) owned by convention as to what was meant by the terms of the
PTIC to First Pacific. Thus, First Pacific’s common constitutional provision which was the subject of the
shareholdings in PLDT increased from 30.7 percent deliberation, goes a long way toward explaining the
to 37 percent, thereby increasing the total common understanding of the people when they ratified it.
shareholdings of foreigners in PLDT to about
Where a statute is reasonably susceptible of two
81.47%. The petitioner contends that it violates the
constructions, one constitutional and the other
Constitutional provision on filipinazation of public
unconstitutional, the construction in favor of its application in favor of Narra. Another MPSA
constitutionality should be adopted. application of SMMI was filed with the DENR Region
IV-B, labeled as MPSA-AMA-IVB-154 (formerly
“The principle that the contemporaneous
EPA-IVB-47) over 3,402 hectares in Barangays
construction of a statute by the executive officers of
Malinao and Princesa Urduja, Municipality of Narra,
the government, whose duty it is to execute it, is
Province of Palawan. SMMI subsequently
entitled to great respect, and should ordinarily
conveyed, transferred and assigned its rights and
control the construction of the statute by the courts,
interest over the said MPSA application to Tesoro.
is so firmly embedded in our jurisprudence that no
On January 2, 2007, Redmont filed before the Panel
authorities need be cited to support it.’
of Arbitrators (POA) of the DENR three (3) separate
petitions for the denial of petitioners’ applications for
MPSA designated as AMA-IVB-153, AMA-IVB-154
Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp vs and MPSA IV-1-12. In the petitions, Redmont
Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. alleged that at least 60% of the capital stock of
FACTS: McArthur, Tesoro and Narra are owned and
controlled by MBMI Resources, Inc. (MBMI), a 100%
Sometime in December 2006, respondent Redmont Canadian corporation. Redmont reasoned that since
Consolidated Mines Corp. (Redmont), a domestic MBMI is a considerable stockholder of petitioners, it
corporation organized and existing under Philippine was the driving force behind petitioners’ filing of the
laws, took interest in mining and exploring certain MPSAs over the areas covered by applications since
areas of the province of Palawan. After inquiring with it knows that it can only participate in mining
the Department of Environment and Natural activities through corporations which are deemed
Resources (DENR), it learned that the areas where Filipino citizens. Redmont argued that given that
it wanted to undertake exploration and mining petitioners’ capital stocks were mostly owned by
activities where already covered by Mineral MBMI, they were likewise disqualified from engaging
Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) applications in mining activities through MPSAs, which are
of petitioners Narra, Tesoro and McArthur. Petitioner reserved only for Filipino citizens.
McArthur, through its predecessor-in-interest Sara
Marie Mining, Inc. (SMMI), filed an application for an ISSUE:
MPSA and Exploration Permit (EP) with the Mines - Whether or not the petitioner corporations are
and Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB), Region IV-B, Filipino and can validly be issued MPSA and EP
Office of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). Subsequently, SMMI was HELD:
issued MPSA-AMA-IVB-153 covering an area of
No. The SEC Rules provide for the manner of
over 1,782 hectares in Barangay Sumbiling,
calculating the Filipino interest in a corporation for
Municipality of Bataraza, Province of Palawan and
purposes, among others, of determining compliance
EPA-IVB-44 which includes an area of 3,720
with nationality requirements (the ‘Investee
hectares in Barangay Malatagao, Bataraza,
Corporation’). Such manner of computation is
Palawan. The MPSA and EP were then transferred
necessary since the shares in the Investee
to Madridejos Mining Corporation (MMC) and, on
Corporation may be owned both by individual
November 6, 2006, assigned to petitioner McArthur.
stockholders (‘Investing Individuals’) and by
Petitioner Narra acquired its MPSA from Alpha
corporations and partnerships (‘Investing
Resources and Development Corporation and
Corporation’). The said rules thus provide for the
Patricia Louise Mining & Development Corporation
determination of nationality depending on the
(PLMDC) which previously filed an application for an
ownership of the Investee Corporation and, in
MPSA with the MGB, Region IV-B, DENR on
certain instances, the Investing Corporation.
January 6, 1992. Through the said application, the
DENR issued MPSA-IV-1-12 covering an area of Elementary in statutory construction is when there is
3.277 hectares in barangays Calategas and San conflict between the Constitution and a statute, the
Isidro, Municipality of Narra, Palawan. Constitution will prevail.— Elementary in statutory
Subsequently, PLMDC conveyed, transferred and/or construction is when there is conflict between the
assigned its rights and interests over the MPSA Constitution and a statute, the Constitution will
prevail. In this instance, specifically pertaining to the interpretation or construction need be resorted to
provisions under Art. XII of the Constitution on where a provision of law peremptorily calls for
National Economy and Patrimony, Sec. 3 of the FIA application. Where a requirement or condition is
will have no place of application. As decreed by the made in explicit and unambiguous terms, no
honorable framers of our Constitution, the discretion is left to the judiciary. It must see to it that
grandfather rule prevails and must be applied. its mandate is obeyed.

Tawang Multipurpose Coop vs La Trinidad Water Umali vs COMELEC

District
FACTS:
FACTS:
On July 11, 2011, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of
On 9 October 2000, Tawang Multi-Purpose Cabanatuan City passed Resolution No. 183-2011,
Cooperative (TMPC) filed with the National Water requesting the President to declare the conversion
Resources Board (NWRB) an application for a of Cabanatuan City from a component city of the
certificate of public convenience (CPC) to operate province of Nueva Ecija into a highly urbanized city
and maintain a waterworks system in Barangay (HUC). Acceding to the request, the President
Tawang. La Trinidad Water District (LTWD), a local issued Presidential Proclamation No. 418, Series of
water utility, opposed TMPC's application. LTWD 2012, proclaiming the City of Cabanatuan as an
claimed that, under Section 47 of PD No. 198, as HUC subject to “ratification in a plebiscite by the
amended, its franchise is exclusive. qualified voters therein, as provided for in Section
453 of the Local Government Code of 1991.”
The NWRB approved TMPC's application for a CPC.
In its 15 August 2002 Decision, the NWRB held that Respondent COMELEC, acting on the proclamation,
LTWD's franchise cannot be exclusive since issued the assailed Minute Resolution No. 12-0797
exclusive franchises are unconstitutional and found which reads:
that TMPC is legally and financially qualified to
WHEREFORE, the Commission RESOLVED, as it
operate and maintain a waterworks system. The
hereby RESOLVES, that for purposes of the
RTC set aside the NWRB's decision and cancelled
plebiscite for the conversion of Cabanatuan City
TMPC's CPC, stating that "the Constitution does not
from component city to highly-urbanized city, only
necessarily prohibit a franchise that is exclusive on
those registered residents of Cabanatuan City
its face, meaning, that the grantee shall be allowed
should participate in the said plebiscite.
to exercise this present right or privilege to the
exclusion of all others. Nonetheless, the grantee The COMELEC based this resolution on Sec. 453 of
cannot set up its exclusive franchise against the the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), citing
ultimate authority of the State." conversion cases involving Puerto Princesa City in
Palawan, Tacloban City in Southern Leyte, and
ISSUE:
Lapu-Lapu City in Cebu, where only the residents of
Whether or not an exclusive franchise is allowed the city proposed to be converted were allowed to
vote in the corresponding plebiscite.
HELD:
Petitioner Aurelio M. Umali, Governor of Nueva
The petition is meritorious.
Ecija, filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration,
“Basic is the rule of statutory construction that when maintaining that the proposed conversion in
the law is clear and unambiguous, the court is left question will necessarily and directly affect the
with no alternative but to apply the same according mother province of Nueva Ecija. His main argument
to its clear language. is that Section 453 of the LGC should be interpreted
in conjunction with Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution.
This Court had steadfastly adhered to the doctrine He argues that while the conversion in question does
that its first and fundamental duty is the application not involve the creation of a new or the dissolution of
of the law according to its express terms, an existing city, the spirit of the Constitutional
interpretation being called for only when such literal provision calls for the people of the LGU directly
application is impossible. No process of affected to vote in a plebiscite whenever there is a
material change in their rights and responsibilities. directly affected. On the other hand, Sec. 453 of the
The phrase “qualified voters therein” used in Sec. LGC, entitled "Duty to Declare Highly Urbanized
453 of the LGC should then be interpreted to refer to Status", is only on the duty to declare a city as highly
the qualified voters of the units directly affected by urbanized. It mandates the Office of the President to
the conversion and not just those in the component make the declaration after the city has met the
city proposed to be upgraded. Petitioner Umali requirements under Sec. 452, and upon proper
justified his position by enumerating the various application and ratification in a plebiscite. The
adverse effects of the Cabanatuan City’s conversion conduct of a plebiscite is then a requirement before
and how it will cause material change not only in the a declaration can be made. Thus, the Court finds
political and economic rights of the city and its that Sec. 10 of the LGC prevails over Sec. 453 of the
residents but also of the province as a whole. LGC on the plebiscite requirement.Applying this
orthodox view, a law should be construed in
On October 4, 2012, the COMELEC En Banc on
harmony with and not in violation of the
October 16, 2012, in E.M No. 12-045 (PLEB), by a
Constitution.15 In a long line of cases, the cardinal
vote of 5-2 ruled in favor of respondent Vergara
principle of construction established is that a statute
through the assailed Minute Resolution 12-0925.
should be interpreted to assure its being in
ISSUE: consonance with, rather than repugnant to, any
constitutional command or prescription.16 If there is
- Whether the qualified registered voters of the doubt or uncertainty as to the meaning of the
entire province of Nueva Ecija or only those in legislative, if the words or provisions are obscure or
Cabanatuan City can participate in the plebiscite if the enactment is fairly susceptible of two or more
called for the conversion of Cabanatuan City constitution, that interpretation which will avoid the
from a component city into a Highly Urbanized effect of unconstitutionality will be adopted, even
City (HUC). though it may be necessary, for this purpose, to
HELD: disregard the more usual or apparent import of the
language use.
The upward conversion of a component city, in this
case Cabanatuan City, into an HUC will come at a
steep price. It can be gleaned from the above-cited Paras vs COMELEC
rule that the province will inevitably suffer a
corresponding decrease in territory brought about by FACTS:
Cabanatuan City’s gain of independence. With the
Petitioner is an elected barangay chairman of Pula,
city’s newfound autonomy, it will be free from the
Cabanatuan City in 1994. Sometime in October
oversight powers of the province, which, in effect,
1995, A petition for his recall as Punong Barangay
reduces the territorial jurisdiction of the latter. What
was filed by his constituents. Public respondent
once formed part of Nueva Ecija will no longer be
COMELEC resolved to approve the petition and set
subject to supervision by the province. In more
the recall election on November 13. In view of the
concrete terms, Nueva Ecija stands to lose 282.75
petitioner’s opposition, COMELEC deferred the
sq. km. of its territorial jurisdiction with Cabanatuan
election and rescheduled it on December 16, 1995.
City’s severance from its mother province. This is
To prevent the recall election from taking place, the
equivalent to carving out almost 5% of Nueva Ecija’s
petitioner filed a petition for injunction before the
5,751.3 sq. km. area. This sufficiently satisfies the
RTC. The trial court issued a TRO. After conducting
requirement that the alteration be “substantial.”
a summary hearing, the court dismissed the petition
The rules of statutory construction dictate that a and lifted the restraining order. The public
particular provision should be interpreted with the respondent on a resolution date January 5, 1996,
other relevant provisions in the law The Court finds rescheduled the recall election to be held January
that it is actually Sec. 10 of the LGC which is 13, 1996. Hence, this petition for certiorari. The
undeniably the applicable provision on the conduct petitioner argues the pursuant to Section 74b of the
of plebiscites. The title of the provision itself, Local Government code: “no recall shall take place
"Plebiscite Requirement", makes this obvious. It within one (1) year from the date of the official's
requires a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite assumption to office or one (1) year immediately
called for the purpose in the political unit or units preceding a regular local election", petitioner insists
that the scheduled January 13, 1996 recall election determines its construction; hence, a statute, as in
is now barred (SK) election was set on the first this case, must be read according to its spirit and
Monday of May 1996. intent.
ISSUE:
- Whether or not the recall election in question is Ordillo vs COMELEC
in violation to the provisions of Section 74b of
FACTS:
the Local Government Code.
On January 30, 1990, the people of the provinces of
HELD:
Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and
It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of Kalinga-Apayao and the city of Baguio cast their
the statute must be interpreted with reference to the votes in a plebiscite held pursuant to Republic Act
context, that every part of the statute must be No. 6766 entitled “An Act Providing for an Organic
considered together with the other parts, and kept Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region.”
subservient to the general intent of the whole
The official Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
enactment. Paras’ interpretation of the law is too
results of the plebiscite showed that the creation of
literal that it does not accord with the intentions of
the Region was approved by a majority of 5,889
the authors of the law. The spirit rather that the
votes in only the Ifugao Province and was
letters of a law determines its construction. Hence, it
overwhelmingly rejected by 148,676 votes in the rest
was held that the “regular local election” refers to an
of the provinces and city above-mentioned.
election where the office held by the local elective
official sought to be recalled. Consequently, the COMELEC, on February 14,
1990, issued Resolution No. 2259 stating that the
The evident intent of Section 74 is to subject an
Organic Act for the Region has been approved
elective local official to recall election once during his
and/or ratified by majority of the votes cast only in
term of office. Paragraph (b) construed together with
the province of Ifugao.
paragraph (a) merely designates the period when
such elective local official may be subject of a recall The petitioner filed a petition with COMELEC to
election, that is, during the second year of his term declare the non-ratification of the Organic Act for the
of office. Region. The petitioners maintain that there can be
no valid Cordillera Autonomous Region in only one
It is likewise a basic precept in statutory construction
province as the Constitution and Republic Act No.
that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with
6766 require that the said Region be composed of
the Constitution. Thus, the interpretation of Section
more than one constituent unit.
74 of the Local Government Code, specifically
paragraph (b) thereof, should not be in conflict with ISSUE:
the Constitutional mandate of Section 3 of Article X
of the Constitution to “enact a local government code The question raised in this petition is whether or not
which shall provide for a more responsive and the province of Ifugao, being the only province,
accountable local government structure instituted which voted favorably for the creation of the
through a system of decentralization with effective Cordillera Autonomous Region can, alone, legally
mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum x x and validly constitute such Region.
x.” HELD:
Moreover, petitioner’s too literal interpretation of the The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute
law leads to absurdity which we cannot the Cordillera Autonomous Region.
countenance. Thus, in a case, the Court made the
following admonition: “We admonish against a too- It is explicit in Article X, Section 15 of the 1987
literal reading of the law as this is apt to constrict Constitution. The keywords — provinces, cities,
rather than fulfill its purpose and defeat the intention municipalities and geographical areas connote that
of its authors. That intention is usually found not in “region” is to be made up of more than one
‘the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth’ x x constituent unit. The term “region” used in its
x.” The spirit, rather than the letter of a law ordinary sense means two or more provinces. This
is supported by the fact that the thirteen (13) regions respondents from further implementing the last
into which the Philippines is divided for proviso in Sec. 15, Art. II of the New Central Bank
administrative purposes are groupings of contiguous Act (i.e., the exemption from the Salary
provinces. Ifugao is a province by itself. To become Standardization Law (SSL) of all employees with
part of a region, it must join other provinces, cities, salary grade of 19 and the non-exemption of those
municipalities, and geographical areas. It joins other having a salary grade under 19). They alleged its
units because of their common and distinctive constitutionality for being an invalid “class
historical and cultural heritage, economic and social legislation”.
structures and other relevant characteristics. The
Petitioner’s Contentions:
Constitutional requirements are not present in this
case. i. The said proviso violates equal protection
clause because only the officers of the BSP (those
Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of Republic Act No. 6766
holding the salary grade of 19 and up) are exempted
provide that the Cordillera Autonomous Region is to
from the SSL.
be administered by the Cordillera government
consisting of the Regional Government and local ii. Those belonging from 19 and up and those
government units. It further provides that: 19 below do not really differ from one other in terms
of the nature of work and expertise.
“SECTION 2. The Regional Government shall
exercise powers and functions necessary for the iii. Other GFIs, which are the same as the BSP,
proper governance and development of all exempt all their rank-and-file personnel from SSL
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangay or ili without any distinction.
within the Autonomous Region . . .”
BSP’s contention:
From these sections, it can be gleaned that
Congress never intended that a single province may i. The proviso is not unconstitutional as it can
constitute the autonomous region. Otherwise, we stand the constitutional test, provided it is construed
would be faced with the absurd situation of having in harmony with other provisions of the same law,
two sets of officials, a set of provincial officials and such as the mandate of the Monetary Board to
another set of regional officials exercising their “establish professionalism and excellence at all
executive and legislative powers over the same levels in accordance with sound principles of
small area. management.”

Relative Unconstitutionality - In the Philippine Solicitor General, on behalf of respondent Executive

setting, this Court declared the continued Secretary:
enforcement of a valid law as unconstitutional as a i. The proviso is not unconstitutional as the
consequence of significant changes in classification is based on actual and real
circumstances. differentiation, even as it adheres to the enunciated
policy of the new SB Act to establish professionalism
and excellence within the BSP subject to prevailing
Central Bank Employees Association vs Banko laws and policies of the national government.
Sentral ng Pilipinas
ISSUE:
FACTS:
WON the proviso is unconstitutional for being
The new Central Bank Act took effect and gave way violative of equal protection clause.
for the creation of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
HELD:
Other Governmental Financial Institutions (GFIs)
also amended their charters. YES, the proviso is unconstitutional for being
violative of the equal protection clause.
After almost 8 years following the amendment of the
GFIs’ charters, BSP’s employees, through Equal protection clause does not prevent the
petitioner, filed a petition for prohibition against the Legislature from establishing classes of individuals
BSP and the Executive Secretary to restrain the or objects upon which different rules shall operate –
so long as the classification is not unreasonable.
Equality of operation of statutes does not mean However, the constitutionality of a statute cannot in
indiscriminate operation on persons themselves, but every instance be determined by a mere comparison
on persons according to the circumstances of its provisions with the applicable provisions of the
surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity constitution. A statute may be constitutional and
of rights. valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in its
application to another. Thus, unless we find the
In the case at bar, it is clear in the legislative
exemption unconstitutional on its face, it must be
deliberations that the exemption of officers (SG 20
unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the instant
and above) from the SSL was intended to address
case in order to be stricken.
the BSP’s lack of competitiveness in terms of
attracting competent officers and executives. It was When statutes are in pari materia, the rule of
not intended to discriminate against the rank-and-file statutory construction dictates that they should be
and the resulting discrimination or distinction has a construed together. This is because enactments of
rational basis and is not palpably, purely, and the same legislature on the same subject matter are
entirely arbitrary in the legislative sense. However, supposed to form part of one uniform system; that
in the subsequent passages of the amendment on later statutes are supplementary or complimentary to
the charters of other GFI, the surrounding the earlier enactments and in the passage of its acts
circumstances of the case changed. the legislature is supposed to have in mind the
existing legislation on the same subject and to have
The subsequent amendments of the other GFIs’
enacted its new act with reference thereto. Having
charter (i.e., express authorization to determine and
thus in mind the previous statutes relating to the
institute its own compensation and wage structure,
same subject matter, whenever the legislature
and explicit exemption – without distinction as to
enacts a new law, it is deemed to have enacted the
salary grade or position – all employees of the GFI
new provision in accordance with the legislative
from the SSL) resulted to the oppressive results of
policy embodied in those prior statutes unless there
Congress’ inconsistent and unequal policy towards
is an express repeal of the old and they all should be
the BSP rank-and-file and those of the seven other
construed together
GFI. In the case at bar, it is precisely the fact that as
regards the exemption from the SSL, there are no
characteristics peculiar only to the seven GFIs or
Gamboa vs Finance Secretary
their rank-and-file so as to justify the exemption
which BSP rank-and-file employees were denied FACTS:
(not to mention the anomaly of the SEC getting one).
The distinction made by the law is not only The issue started when petitioner Gamboa
superficial, but also arbitrary. It is not based on questioned the indirect sale of shares involving
substantial distinctions that make real differences almost 12 million shares of the Philippine Long
between the BSP rank-and-file and the seven other Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) owned by
GFIs. PTIC to First Pacific. Thus, First Pacific’s common
shareholdings in PLDT increased from 30.7 percent
The subsequent grant to the rank-and-file of the to 37 percent, thereby increasing the total common
seven other GFIs and continued denial to the BSP shareholdings of foreigners in PLDT to about
rank-and-file employees of the exemption from SSL 81.47%. The petitioner contends that it violates the
breached the latter’s right to equal protection. Constitutional provision on filipinazation of public
utility, stated in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987
The equal protection clause does not demand
Philippine Constitution, which limits foreign
absolute equality but it requires that all persons shall
ownership of the capital of a public utility to not more
be treated alike, under like circumstances and
than 40%. Then, in 2011, the court ruled the case in
conditions both as to privileges conferred and
favor of the petitioner, hence this new case,
liabilities enforced.
resolving the motion for reconsideration for the 2011
Besides, it is a cardinal rule that courts first ascertain decision filed by the respondents.
whether construction of a statute is fairly possible by
which any constitutional question therein may be
avoided.
ISSUE: Gutierrez vs House of Representatives
Committee on Justice
Whether or not the Court made an erroneous
interpretation of the term ‘capital’ in its 2011 FACTS:
decision?
22 July2010: 4 days before the 15th Congress
HELD: opened its first session, private respondents Risa
Hontiveros-Baraquel, Danilo Lim and spouses
The Court said that the Constitution is clear in
Pestaño (Baraquel group) filed an impeachment
expressing its State policy of developing an
complaint against Gutierrez upon endorsement of
economy ‘effectively controlled’ by Filipinos.
Party-List Representatives Walden Bello and Arlene
Asserting the ideals that our Constitution’s Preamble
Bag-ao
want to achieve, that is – to conserve and develop
our patrimony, hence, the State should fortify a 27 July2010: HOR Sec-Gen transmitted the
Filipino-controlled economy. In the 2011 decision, complaint to House Speaker Belmonte who then, on
the Court finds no wrong in the construction of the August 2, directed the Committee on Rules to
term ‘capital’ which refers to the ‘shares with voting include it in the Order of Business
rights, as well as with full beneficial ownership’ (Art.
3 Aug2010: private respondents Renato Reyes Jr.,
12, sec. 10) which implies that the right to vote in the
Mother Mary John Mananzan, Danilo Ramos, Edre
election of directors, coupled with benefits, is
Olalia, Ferdinand Gaite and James Terry Ridon
tantamount to an effective control. Therefore, the
(Reyes group) filed an impeachment complaint
Court’s interpretation of the term ‘capital’ was not
againsta herein petitioner endorsed by
erroneous. Thus, the motion for reconsideration is
Representatives Colmenares, Casiño, Mariano,
denied.
Ilagan, Tinio and De Jesus
Moreover, it is a well-settled rule of statutory
HOR provisionally adopted the Rules of Procedure
struction that a statute should be construed
on Impeachment Proceedings of the 14th Congress
whenever possible in a manner that will avoid
and HOR Sec-Gen transmitted the complaint to
conflict with the Constitution.64 Where a statute is
House Speaker Belmonte who then, on August 9,
reasonably susceptible of two constructions, one
directed the Committee on Rules to include it in the
constitutional and the other unconstitutional, the
Order of Business
construction in favor of its constitutionality should be
adopted. 11Aug2010: HOR simultaneously referred the two
complaints to the House Committee on Justice
A constitutional provision is self-executing if it fixes
(HCOJ for brevity)
the nature and extent of the right conferred and the
liability imposed such that they can be determined After hearing, HCOJ by Resolution of September 1,
by an examination and construction of its terms, and 2010, found both complaints sufficient in form
there is no language indicating that the subject is
referred to the legislature for action. On the other 2Sept2010: The Rules of Procedure of
hand, if the provision needs a supplementary or Impeachment Proceedings of the 15th Congress
enabling legislation, it is merely a declaration of was published
policy and principle which is not selfexecuting. After hearing, HCOJ by Resolution of September 7,
The principle that the contemporaneous 2010 found the two complaints, which both allege
construction of a statute by the executive officers of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of
the government, whose duty it is to execute it, is public trust, sufficient in substance
entitled to great respect, and should ordinarily Petitioner filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition
control the construction of the statute by the courts, challenging Resolutions of September 1 and 7
is so firmly embedded in our jurisprudence that no alleging that she was denied due process and that
authorities need be cited to support it. these violated the one-year bar rule on initiating
impeachment proceedings
ISSUE: Impeachment is primarily for the protection of the
people as a body politic, and not for the punishment
- Whether the case presents a justiciable
of the offender
controversy
- Whether the belated publication of the Rules of THE ONE-YEAR BAR RULE
Procedure of Impeachment Proceedings of the
(P): start of the one-year bar from the filing of the first
15th Congress denied due process to the
impeachment complaint against her on July 22, 2010
Petitioner
or four days before the opening on July 26, 2010 of
- Whether the simultaneous referral of the two
the 15th Congress. She posits that within one year
complaints violated the Constitution
from July 22, 2010, no second impeachment
HELD: complaint may be accepted and referred to public
respondent.
NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION
INITIATIVE: Filing of impeachment complaint
In the 1987 Constitution, though vesting in the
coupled with Congress’ taking initial action of said
House of Representatives the exclusive power to
complaint (referral of the complaint to the Committee
initiate impeachment cases, provides for several
on Justice)
limitations to the exercise of such power as
embodied in Section 3(2), (3), (4) and (5), Article XI IMPEACH: to file the case before the Senate
thereof. These limitations include the manner of
Rationale of the one-year bar: “that the purpose of
filing, required vote to impeach, and the one year bar
the one-year bar is two-fold: 1)”to prevent undue or
on the impeachment of one and the same official.
too frequent harassment; and 2) to allow the
The Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of legislature to do its principal task [of] legislation,”
impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress.
“…that there should only be ONE CANDLE that is
Instead, it provided for certain well-defined limits, or
kindled in a year, such that once the candle starts
in the language of Baker v. Carr, “judicially
burning, subsequent matchsticks can no longer
discoverable standards” for determining the validity
rekindle the candle.” (Gutierrez vs. HOR, 2011)
of the exercise of such discretion, through the power
of judicial review Statutory Construction:
DUE PROCESS: Is there a need to publish as a The petitioner’s reliance on the singular tense of the
mode of promulgation the Rules of Procedure of word “complaint” to denote the limit prescribed by
Impeachment Proceedings? the Constitution goes against the basic rule of
statutory construction that a word covers its enlarged
(P) alleges that the finding of sufficiency in form and
and plural sense.—Contrary to petitioner’s emphasis
substance of the impeachment complaints is tainted
on impeachment complaint, what the Constitution
with bias as the Chairman of the HCOJ’s, Rep.
mentions is impeachment “proceedings.” Her
Tupas, father has a pending case with her at the
reliance on the singular tense of the word
Sandiganbayan
“complaint” to denote the limit prescribed by the
Presumption of regularity Constitution goes against the basic rule of statutory
construction that a word covers its enlarged and
The determination of sufficiency of form and
plural sense. The Court, of course, does not
exponent of the express grant of rule-making power
downplay the importance of an impeachment
in the HOR
complaint, for it is the matchstick that kindles the
The Impeachment Rules are clear in echoing the candle of impeachment proceedings. The filing of an
constitutional requirements and providing that there impeachment complaint is like the lighting of a
must be a “verified complaint or resolution”, and that matchstick. Lighting the matchstick alone, however,
the substance requirement is met if there is “a recital cannot light up the candle, unless the lighted
of facts constituting the offense charged and matchstick reaches or torches the candle wick.
determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee” Referring the complaint to the proper committee
ignites the impeachment proceeding. With a
The Constitution itself did not provide for a specific simultaneous referral of multiple complaints filed,
method of promulgating the Rules. more than one lighted matchsticks light the candle at
the same time. What is important is that there should The Court of Appeals in turn ruled that the
only be ONE CANDLE that is kindled in a year, such dismissal of the petitioners was not illegal because
that once the candle starts burning, subsequent they had abandoned their employment but ordered
matchsticks can no longer rekindle the candle. the payment of money claims.
An examination of Francisco shows that it Petitioners also claim that private respondent did
extensively discussed the constitutional meaning of not comply with the twin requirements of notice and
“initiation” in Article XI by relying heavily on the hearing.
records of the Constitutional Commission. Yet, it was
eerily silent on the purposes behind Section 3(5) Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained
which was the provision directly in issue. Basic in that petitioners were not dismissed but had
construing a constitution is the ascertainment of the abandoned their work.
intent or purpose of the framers in framing the
provision under consideration. This should include,
aside from the reason which induced the framers to ISSUE:
enact the particular provision, the particular
- Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed.
purpose/s intended to be accomplished and the
evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. HELD:
Constitutional interpretation must consider the whole
Petition granted
instrument and its various parts in a manner that
would align the understanding of the words of the To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only
Constitution with the identified underlying intents and the existence of a just and valid cause but also
purposes. enjoins the employer to give the employee the
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
Constitution goes against the basic rule of statutory
construction that a word covers its enlarged and Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified
plural sense refusal of an employee to resume his
employment.[14] It is a form of neglect of duty,
hence, a just cause for termination of employment
Agabon vs NLRC by the employer.[15] For a valid finding... of
abandonment, these two factors should be present:
FACTS: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without
Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to
Inc. is engaged in the business of selling and sever employer-employee relationship, with the
installing ornamental and construction materials. It second as the more determinative factor which is
employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and Jenny manifested by... overt acts from which it may be
Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on deduced that the employees has no more intention
January 2, 1992[2] until February 23, 1999 when to work. The intent to discontinue the employment
they were dismissed for abandonment of work. must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate
and unjustified.
Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and payment of money claims[3] and on December An employee who deliberately absented from work
28, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision without leave or permission from his employer, for
declaring the dismissals illegal and ordered private the purpose of looking for a job elsewhere, is
respondent to pay the monetary claims. considered to have abandoned his job.

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter The dismissal should be upheld because it was
because it found that the petitioners had abandoned established that the petitioners abandoned their jobs
their work, and were not entitled to backwages and to work for another company. Private respondent,
separation pay. however, did not follow the notice requirements and
instead... argued that sending notices to the last
Upon denial of their motion for reconsideration, known addresses would have been useless because
petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for
of Appeals. the private respondent, this is not a valid excuse
because the law mandates the twin notice by the legislature, constitutional mandates would be
requirements to the employee's last... known rendered ineffectual.
address.[21] Thus, it should be held liable for non-
In self-executing constitutional provisions, the
compliance with the procedural requirements of due
legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the
process.
exercise of powers directly granted by the
That in cases involving dismissals for cause but constitution, further the operation of such a
without observance of the twin requirements of provision, prescribe a practice to be used for its
notice and hearing, the better rule is to abandon the enforcement, provide... a convenient remedy for the
protection of the rights secured or the determination
Serrano doctrine and to follow Wenphil by holding
thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the
that the dismissal was for just cause but imposing
exercise of the right. The mere fact that legislation
sanctions on the employer. Such sanctions,
may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty
however, must be stiffer than that imposed in
for the violation of a self-executing... constitutional
Wenphil.
provision does not render such a provision
Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the ineffective in the absence of such legislation. The
instant case, the lack of statutory due process omission from a constitution of any express
should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability
ineffectual. However, the employer should is not necessarily an indication that it was not
indemnify the employee for the violation of his intended to be... self-executing. The rule is that a
statutory rights self-executing provision of the constitution does not
necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject,
Under the Civil Code, nominal damages is but any legislation must be in harmony with the
adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which constitution, further the exercise of constitutional
has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may right and make it more available.
be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose
of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by Subsequent legislation however does not
him. necessarily mean that the subject constitutional
provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable.
The violation of the petitioners' right to statutory due
process by the private respondent warrants the Thus, the constitutional mandates of protection to
payment of indemnity in the form of nominal labor and security of tenure may be deemed as self-
damages. executing in the sense that these are automatically
acknowledged and observed without need for any
Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case enabling legislation. However, to declare that the
at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00. constitutional provisions... are enough to guarantee
Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is further the full exercise of the rights embodied therein, and
ORDERED to pay each of the petitioners the amount the realization of ideals therein expressed, would be
of P30,000.00 as nominal damages for non- impractical, if not unrealistic. The espousal of such
compliance with statutory due process. view presents the dangerous tendency of being
overbroad and exaggerated. The guarantees... of
Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the "full protection to labor" and "security of tenure",
instant case, the lack of statutory due process when examined in isolation, are facially unqualified,
should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or and the broadest interpretation possible suggests a
ineffectual. However, the employer should blanket shield in favor of labor against any form of
indemnify the employee for the violation of his removal regardless of circumstance. This
statutory rights interpretation... implies an unimpeachable right to
continued employment-a utopian notion, doubtless-
Political Law... we affirmed the presumption that all
but still hardly within the contemplation of the
constitutional provisions are self-executing.
framers. Subsequent legislation is still needed to
to declare otherwise would result in the pernicious define the parameters of these guaranteed rights to
situation wherein by mere inaction and... disregard ensure the protection and promotion, not... only the
rights of the labor sector, but of the employers' as
well. Without specific and pertinent legislation,
judicial bodies will be at a loss, formulating their own contravene or undermine the letter, spirit and intent
conclusion to approximate at least the aims of the of Section 19, Article II and Sections 10 and 12,
Constitution. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
Ultimately, therefore, Section 3 of Article XIII cannot, Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement
on its own, be a source of a positive enforceable right unduly limit, restrict or impair the exercise of
to stave off the dismissal of an employee for just legislative power by Congress.
cause owing to the failure to serve proper notice or
Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement
hearing. As manifested by several framers of the
impair the exercise of judicial power by this
1987
Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of
Constitution, the provisions on social justice require evidence.
legislative enactments for their enforceability.
Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate ‘in the
ratification by the President of the Philippines of the
Agreement establishing the World Trade
Tañada vs Angara
Organization’ implied rejection of the treaty
FACTS: embodied in the Final Act.

This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, HELD:

together with other lawmakers, taxpayers, and
1987 Constitution states that Judicial power includes
various NGO’s to nullify the Philippine ratification of
the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.
controversies involving rights which are legally
Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the demandable and enforceable, and to determine
growth of our National Economy and against to the whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
“Filipino First” policy. The WTO opens access to discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
foreign markets, especially its major trading on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its government.
exports, particularly agricultural and industrial
Although the Constitution mandates to develop a
products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the
self-reliant and independent national economy
service sector cost and uncertainty associated with
controlled by Filipinos, does not necessarily rule out
exporting and more investment in the country. These
the entry of foreign investments, goods and services.
are the predicted benefits as reflected in the
It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor
agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators,
“mendicancy in the international community.” The
a “free market” espoused by WTO.
WTO itself has some built-in advantages to protect
Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the weak and developing economies, which comprise
provisions of our constitution, since the said the vast majority of its members. Unlike in the UN
Agreement is an assault on the sovereign powers of where major states have permanent seats and veto
the Philippines because it meant that Congress powers in the Security Council, in the WTO,
could not pass legislation that would be good for decisions are made on the basis of sovereign
national interest and general welfare if such equality, with each member’s vote equal in weight to
legislation would not conform to the WTO that of any other. Hence, poor countries can protect
Agreement. their common interests more effectively through the
WTO than through one-on-one negotiations with
ISSUE: developed countries. Within the WTO, developing
- Whether or not the petition present a justiciable countries can form powerful blocs to push their
controversy. economic agenda more decisively than outside the
Organization. Which is not merely a matter of
Whether or not the provisions of the ‘Agreement practical alliances but a negotiating strategy rooted
Establishing the World Trade Organization and the in law. Thus, the basic principles underlying the
Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments WTO Agreement recognize the need of developing
included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of countries like the Philippines to “share in the growth
that agreement’ cited by petitioners directly
in international trade commensurate with the needs While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in
of their economic development.” favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need
In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the
for business exchange with the rest of the world on
Constitution “adopts the generally accepted
the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits
principles of international law as part of the law of the
protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign
land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
competition and trade practices that are unfair. In
justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all
other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue
nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country
an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign
is bound by generally accepted principles of
investments, goods and services in the development
international law, which are considered to be
of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution
automatically part of our own laws. A state which has
does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign
contracted valid international obligations is bound to
goods, services and investments into the country, it
make in its legislations such modifications as may be
does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an
necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations
exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity,
undertaken. Paragraph 1, Article 34 of the General
frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.
Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict
Rights (TRIPS) may intrudes on the power of the the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary
Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning act, nations may surrender some aspects of their
pleading, practice and procedures. With regard to state power in exchange for greater benefits granted
Infringement of a design patent, WTO members by or derived from a convention or pact. After all,
shall be free to determine the appropriate method of states, like individuals, live with coequals, and in
implementing the provisions of TRIPS within their pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and
own internal systems and processes. benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the
exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. As shown
The alleged impairment of sovereignty in the
by the foregoing treaties Philippines has entered, a
exercise of legislative and judicial powers is
portion of sovereignty may be waived without
balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted
violating the Constitution, based on the rationale that
principles of international law as part of the law of the
the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted
land and the adherence of the Constitution to the
principles of international law as part of the law of the
policy of cooperation and amity with all nations. The
land and adheres to the policy of cooperation and
Senate, after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and
amity with all nations.”
overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO
Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law of the The provision in Article 34 of WTO agreement does
land” is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty not contain an unreasonable burden, consistent as it
and power. is with due process and the concept of adversarial
dispute settlement inherent in our judicial system.
Rulings: In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine
Senate on the ground that it contravenes the The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed
Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable concurrence in exactly what the Final Act required
controversy. Where an action of the legislative from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the
branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Senate in the WTO Agreement. Moreover, the
Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring in
the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. As as shown by the members’ deliberation on August
explained by former Chief Justice Roberto 25, 1994. After reading the letter of President Ramos
Concepcion, “the judiciary is the final arbiter on the dated August 11, 1994, the senators of the Republic
question of whether or not a branch of government minutely dissected what the Senate was concurring
or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in.
in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to
constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial
power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this
nature.”
Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS rule by means of which the right it grants may be
enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.
FACTS:
Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a
The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
legislative act is necessary to enforce a
decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of
constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that
the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila
all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If
Hotel (MHC).
the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring
In a close bidding, two bidders participated: Manila legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature
Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC), a Filipino would have the power to ignore and practically nullify
corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC at the mandate of the fundamental law.
P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian
In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, Art. XII of the
firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which
1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command
bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per
which is complete in itself and which needs no
share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.
further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the its enforcement. From its very words the provision
winning bidder and the execution of the contracts, does not require any legislation to put it in operation.
the MPHC matched the bid price in a letter to GSIS.
Progressive Interpretation
MPHC sent a manager’s check to the GSIS in a
subsequent letter, which GSIS refused to accept. On Progressive conservatism is an ideology that tries to
17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that GSIS unite conservative and progressive ideas. To deal
has disregarded the tender of the matching bid, with poverty, the ideology supports the idea of a
MPHC came to the Court on prohibition and social safety net. It also supports a limited
mandamus. redistribution of wealth.
Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of
the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila
Orceo vs COMELEC
Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and
has practically become a historical monument which FACTS:
reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and
culture. Petitioner asserts that playing airsoft provides
bonding moments among family members, and
Respondents assert that Sec. 10, second par., Art. families are entitled to protection by the society and
XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a statement of the State under the Universal Declaration of Human
principle and policy since it is not a self-executing Rights. Pursuant thereto, they are free to choose
provision and requires implementing legislation(s). and enjoy their recreational activities. These
liberties, petitioner contends, cannot be abridged by
ISSUE:
the COMELEC. Thus, petitioner contends that
- Whether the provisions of the Constitution, Resolution No. 8714 is not in accordance with the
particularly Article XII Section 10, are self- State policies. As a response, COMELEC defends
executing. that constitutional freedoms are not absolute in a
sense, and they may be abridged to some extent to
HELD:
serve appropriate and important interests.
Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a
ISSUE:
self-executing provision.
- WON the COMELEC gravely abused its
A provision which lays down a general principle,
discretion in including airsoft guns and their
such as those found in Article II of the 1987
replicas/imitations in the term “firearm” in
Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a
Section 2(b) of RA 8714?
provision which is complete in itself and becomes
operative without the aid of supplementary or
enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient
HELD:
NO. A word of general significance in a stature is to
be taken in its ordinary sense and comprehensive
sense, unless it is shown that the word is intended
to be given a different or restricted meaning; what is
generally spoken shall be generally understood and
general words shall be understood in a general
sense.
The term “firearm” in Resolution No. 8714 was
intended for purposes of the gun ban during the
election period. The inclusion of airsoft guns in the
term “firearm” and their resultant coverage by the
election
Gun ban is to avoid the possible use of recreational
guns in sowing fear, intimidation or terror during the
election period. An ordinary citizen may not be able
to distinguish between a real gun and an airsoft gun.
It is fear subverting the will of a voter, whether
brought about by the use of a real gun or a
recreational gun which is sought to be averted