COURSE SYLLABUS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

Atty. Gideon V. Peña, Manila Law College

Description

A comprehensive study of the principles dealing with the structure of the Philippine Government
under the Constitution, including Philippine constitutional history, the amendment process, judicial review
and various constitutional bodies.

Course Topics
The course will cover the following:

I. In General

A. Political Law Defined

Is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental
organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory including its
citizens and any persons who sojourns in the Philippines.

Macariola v. Asuncion, A.M. No. 133-J, May 31, 1982

(Transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the United States to the
Republic of the Philippines)

B. Constitutional Law Defined

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW is the study of the maintenance of the proper balance between authority
as represented by the three inherent powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

There are three inherent powers of government by which the state interferes with the property
rights, namely.

1. Police power
2. Power of eminent domain
3. Power of taxation

These are said to exist independently of the Constitution as necessary attributes of sovereignty

C. Kinds of Constitution

1. The 1899 Malolos Constitution

2. The Philippine Organic Act of 1902 (American Regime)
3. The Jones Law of 1916 (American Regime)
4. The 1935 Constitution (Commonwealth Constitution)
5. The 1943 Constitution (The Japanese, Belligerent Occupation)
6. The 1973 Constitution (Declaration of Martial Law)

II. Constitutional History

A. The Malolos Constitution

B. The American Regime and the Organic Acts
C. The 1935 Constitution
D. The Japanese (Belligerent Occupation)
E. The Declaration of Martial Law

Aquino v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-35546, September 17, 1974

(Petition for habeas corpus)

F. The 1973 Constitution

Javellana v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1973
(Constitution once accepted and acquired by the people must be recognize by the Court)

III. Background of the Present Constitution

A. The People Power Revolution and the Proclamation of the Provisional Constitution
Proclamation No. 1, February 25, 1986 (Provisional Government)
(To help me run the government, I have issued Executive Order No. 1 dated February 25, 1986 appointing key cabinet
ministers and creating certain task forces.)

* Freedom Constitution – 28 days

Interregnum – A period when normal government is suspended between a successive reigns on regimes.

Proclamation No. 3, March 25, 1986 (Provisional Constitution)

(DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE
PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS, ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR
AN ORDERLY TRANSITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER A NEW CONSTITUTION)

Cases – Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001

(Joseph Estrada impliedly resigned and is not immune from suits)

In Re: Letter of Justice Puno, A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA, June 29, 1992
(The present CA is a new entity, different and distinct from the CA or the IAC, for it was created in the wake of the
massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary government of Corazon Aquino in the people power.)

In Re: Saturnino v. Bermudez, G.R. No. 76180, October 24, 1986

(As to who are the incumbent President and Vice President referred to in the 1986 Draft Constitution, the court agree that
there is no doubt the 1986 Constitutional Commission referred to President Corazon C. Aquino and Vice President
Salvador H. Laurel)

B. Adoption and Effectivity of the Present Constitution

Article V of the Provisional Constitution - Adoption of a New Constitution

(The New Constitution shall be presented by the Commission to the President who shall fix the date for the holding of a
plebiscite. It shall become valid and effective upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast in such plebiscite which
shall be held within a period of sixty (60) days following its submission to the President)

Sec. 27, Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution

Section 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.

Proclamation No. 58, February 11, 1987 (Effectivity Date)

PROCLAIMING THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES ADOPTED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986, INCLUDING THE ORDINANCE
APPENDED THERETO
Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of February in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-seven.

Case – De Leon v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987

(Section 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations letters of instructions, and other executive
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked)

Compare with Effectivity of Statutes

Case – Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985

(Article 2 of the Civil Code states that. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided.)

Law – Executive Order No. 200, June 18, 1987

(PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF LAWS EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OR IN A
NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR
EFFECTIVITY.)

IV. Nature of the Constitution

A. Constitution Defined

Definition
A CONSTITUTION, according to Cooley, is

That body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually
exercised.
 With particular reference to the Constitution of the Philippines, the more appropriate description is
that given by Justice Malcolm, who speaks of it as

The written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of
the government are established, limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among
the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic.

B. Purpose

Purposes
The purpose of the Constitution is to Prescribe the permanent framework of a system of
government, to Assign to the several departments their respective powers and duties, and to Establish
certain first fixed principles on which government is founded.

Supremacy of the Constitution

The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which
all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.

C. Classification

Constitutions are classified into

1. Written or unwritten
2. Evolved or enacted (conventional)
3. Rigid or flexible.

An unwritten constitution, on the other hand, consists of rules which have not been integrated into
a single, concrete form but are scattered in various sources, such as statutes of a fundamental character,
judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs and traditions, and certain common law principles.
A conventional constitution is an enacted constitution, formally "struck off' at a definite time and
place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler. A cumulative
constitution, by contrast, is the result of political evolution, "not inaugurated at any specific time but
changing by accretion rather than by any
systematic method."
A rigid constitution is one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process
whereas a flexible constitution is one that can be changed by ordinary legislation.

The Constitution of the Philippines is written, conventional and rigid.

D. Qualities of a good written constitution

1. Broad – Not only that it covers all persons and things within the territory but comprehensive
enough to provide for every contingency.

2. Brief - Confine itself to basic principles and able to adapt readily to changing conditions.

3. Clear – Prevent ambiguity which could results in confusion and divisiveness among the people.

Essential Parts of constitution

1. Constitution of Liberty – sets forth fundamental and political rights and imposing limitations on the
powers of government as means of securing enjoyment of those rights. (Bill of Rights)

2. Constitution of Government – Outlines organization of Government, Enumerating its Powers, laying

down certain rules relative to its administration and defining the electorate. (Arts. VI, VII, VIII and IX)

3. Constitution of Sovereignty – points out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal
changes in the fundamental law may be brought about. (Art. XVII)

4. Social Justice and human Rights – Economic, Social and Cultural. (Art. XIII)
5. Constitution of Accountability (Checks and Balance)

Parts of a constitution

Adoption, promulgation and amendments

Structure of the constitution - The Constitution is divided into 18 Articles:
Form of government and basic principles of the state
Basic institutions of the state and the rule of law
Supremacy of international law

Title
Preamble
Enacting clause
Body (Content)
Repealing Clause
Effectivity clause

V. Amendment Process

A. Amendment vs. Revision

Amendment:  an alteration of one or a few specific provisions of the Constitution and the changes
brought about by amendments will not affect the basic principle involved.

Revision:  A change that alters a basic principle of the Constitution like altering the principle of
separation of powers or system of checks and balances.
Change alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution.

Amendment means isolated or piecemeal change only, as distinguished from revision, which is a
revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument

Thus, there was mere amendment of the Constitution of 1935 when the term of office of the
President of the Philippines was changed from six to four years. But there was a revision when the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 rewrote the Marcos charter and produced what is now the Constitution
of 1987.

Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006

(Incomplete, inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution)

Quantitative Test – Whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly
the substance entirety.

Qualitative Test – Whether the change will accomplish such far-reaching changes in the nature of our
basic governmental plan.

B. Constituent vs. Legislative Power

Constituent power v. Legislative power

1)      Constituent power is the power to formulate a Constitution or to propose amendments to or
revisions of the Constitution and to ratify such proposal. Legislative power is the power to pass, repeal or
amend or ordinary laws or statutes (as opposed to organic law).
2)      Constituent power is exercised by Congress (by special constitutional conferment), by a
Constitutional Convention or Commission, by the people through initiative and referendum, and ultimately
by sovereign electorate, whereas legislative power is an ordinary power of Congress and of the people,
also through initiative and referendum.
3)      The exercise of constituent power does not need the approval of the Chief Executive, whereas
the exercise of legislative power ordinarily needs the approval of the Chief Executive, except when
done by people through initiative and referendum.

IMBONG V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. L-32432, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970

(Congress acting as a legislative body enacts R.A.6132 to implement the resolution passed by it in its
capacity as a Constituent Assembly)

C. Procedure

Two steps are involved in the amendment or revision of our Constitution.

1. Proposal
2. Ratification
1. Proposal (Secs. 1-3, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution)

The proposal is generally made either directly by the Congress or by a constitutional convention.

a. By Congress
Congress by a vote of ¾ of all of its members.
The Congress acts as a CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY directly for the purpose of amendment or
revision. NOT A LEGISLATIVE ACT.

Where what is intended is a mere amendment or change of particular provisions only, the proposal
is better made by direct legislative action. In this case the vote of at ¾ of all the members of the Congress
shall be needed. This method will avoid the unnecessary expenditure of public funds and time that the
calling of a constitutional convention will entail.

b. By Constitutional Convention – Called into existence either by:

a. The call for a constitutional convention may be made by a vote of 2/3 of all the members of the
Congress.
b. By calling of people, with the majority of votes cast (50% + 1) with1the question of whether or
not to call a convention to be resolved by the people in a plebiscite.

If what is envisioned is the overhaul of the entire Constitution, it will be advisable to entrust the task
to a constitutional convention, which will have more time, opportunity and presumably also the needed
expertise to discharge it.

c. By the People Through Initiative

1. Petition, signed by at least 12% of the total number of registered voter and every legislative district must
be represented by at least 3%.

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 127325, MARCH 19, 1997

(The attempt to use this method in 1997 was struck down by the Supreme Court in Santiago v.
Commission on Elections for lack of the necessary implementing law.

Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution provides:

. Without implementing legislation, People through initiative cannot operate. Thus, although this
mode of amending the Constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, in the
last analysis it still is dependent on congressional action.

Law Republic Act No. 6735

The Initiative and Referendum Act.

The above-quoted provision, it held, was not self-executing, and RA 6735 provided for a local
initiative only and not the national initiative required for proposing constitutional changes.

The supposedly implementing law, RA 6735 was declared as unconstitutional as it covers BOTH
amendment AND REVISIONS, contrary to the provision of Art. 17, Sec.12. However, the law as found to
be incomplete as regards amendment, so the constitutional provision remains non self-executing (But See
Lambino vs. COMELEC where it was held that RA 6735 was constitutional).

2. Ratification (Sec. 4, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution)

Proposed amendment shall become part of the Constitution when ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than 60 nor later than 90 days after the approval of the proposal by
congress or the Constitutional Convention. Or after the certification by the COMELEC of the Sufficiency of
the petition or initiate under Sec.12, Art. XVII.

Ratification is the confirmation of an act after it was performed for a prior authority.

By majority, 50% + 1 of the total votes cast.

GONZALES V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. L-27833, APRIL 18, 1969

(Prohibition of too early nomination of candidates)

Javellana v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1973

(Not validly ratified but accepted and acquired by the people)
Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976
(The president has the authority to propose amendments as the governmental powers are generally
concentrated to the president in times of crisis)

The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction in Sanidad v. Commission on Elections over the
Solicitor General's contention that the amendment of the Constitution was a political question.

SC disagree. The amending process, both as to proposal and ratification, raises a judicial question.
This is especially true in cases where the power of the Presidency to initiate the amending process by
proposals of amendments, a function normally exercised by the legislature, is seriously doubted.

Thus, the judiciary may declare invalid a proposal adopted by less than three-fourths of the
members of the Congress, or a call for a constitutional convention by less than two-thirds of the
legislature, or a ratification made by less than a majority of the votes cast, or a plebiscite irregularly held.

* The Supreme Court can review only the amending process.

Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-34150, October 16, 1971

(all the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention must be submitted to the people in a single
plebiscite pursuant to Section 1 Article XV of the Constitution)

VI. Judicial Elaboration of the Constitution

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

Judicial Review - Power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in light of
their conformity with Constitution. This is not an assertion of superiority by the courts over the other
departments but merely an expression of the supremacy of the Constitution.

Functions of Judicial review

1. Checking
2. Ligitimizing
3. Symbolic – to educate the bench and the bar.
4. Teaching

* Supreme Court can reverse its decision thru motion for reconsideration only thru Supreme Court En
Banc.

* Authoritative – cited enacted law and case law

* Persuasive – citing only CA decisions and other reference

Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry

Unlike the political departments, courts are passive instruments that can act only when their
jurisdiction is invoked. It is understood, of course, that, even then, the question raised will not be
entertained by them if it is political in nature.
No constitutional question will be heard and decided by them unless there is compliance with what
are known as the requisites of a judicial inquiry.

1. There must be an actual case or controversy

2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself

1. Actual Case of Controversy

Involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
adjudication.
The case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not
cognizable by a court of justice. There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and
enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.
Samples:
a. Cases that are premature as there was not yet showing at the time, of any conflict of legal rights that
would justify assumption of jurisdiction by the judiciary.
b. Before the case could be decided, however, the 1973 Constitution became effective and the Congress
of the Philippines was consequently abolished.
c. Electorate protest where the term of office of the protested was already terminated.

2. Proper party
A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a
result of the act complained of. Until and unless such actual or potential injury is established, the
complainant cannot have the legal personality to raise the constitutional question.

Legal standing or locus standi is a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case such that he
has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged.
Direct Injury Test – a person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result.

Exceptions to Locus Standi

a. In cases involves constitutional Issues. Overbreadth Doctrine – permits a party to challenge the
validity of a statue even though, as applied to him, it is not unconstitutional but may be to others.

b. Taxpayers Suit – If there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being
deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid
or unconstitutional law or act.

c. Voters – there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question.

d. Concerned citizens suit – there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental
importance which must be settled early. Like environmental right in the Constitution.

e. Legislators – Legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges
vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate. Thus, they are allowed to question the validity of
any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators.

f. Class suits – filed in behalf of all citizens, persons intervening must be sufficiently numerous to fully
protect the interests of all concerned to enable the court to deal properly with all interests involved in the
suit.

The Doctrine of Transcendental Importance serves as an important exception to the requisites of

judicial review. If the Court deems a case to be of paramount importance, the requisites of actual case or
controversy and legal standing or locus standi may be dispensed with according to the former's discretion.

The concept of intergenerational responsibility hinges on the right of the present generation to sue
in its behalf and in behalf of the succeeding generations for the protection of the environment

3. Earliest Opportunity
The rule is that the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, such
that if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not considered at the trial,
it cannot be considered on appeal.

This general rule, however, is subject to the following exceptions:

1. In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any time in the discretion of the court.
2. In civil cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any stage if it is necessary to the
determination of the case itself.
3. In every case, except where there is estoppel, the constitutional question can be raised at any stage if it
involves the jurisdiction of the court.

That the matter of constitutionality shall, as a rule, be considered if it is the lis mota (Cause of
Action) of the case and raised and argued at the earliest opportunity.

4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Question

The reason why the courts will as much as possible avoid the decision of a constitutional question
can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers, which enjoins upon each department a proper
respect for the acts of the other departments.
A. Construction

Cases –

Basco v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 1991

(Limitations of LGU to impose tax)

Facts:
Petitioner is seeking to annul the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)
Charter -- PD 1869. It waived the Manila City government’s right to impose taxes and license fees, which
is recognized by law. For the same reason, the law has intruded into the local government’s right to
impose local taxes and license fees.
Issue:
Whether or not Presidential Decree No. 1869 is valid.
Held:
No. SC said this is a pointless argument. The power of the local government to “impose taxes and
fees” is always subject to “limitations” which Congress may provide by law. Besides, the principle of local
autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means “decentralization.” It does not make local
governments sovereign within the state.

Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, April 16, 2013

(the JBC’s practice of having members from the Senate and the House of Representatives making 8
instead of 7 sitting members to be unconstitutional as provided in Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution)

Civil Liberties Union v. Exec. Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, Feb. 22, 1991
(Cabinet members, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries and other appointive officials may
hold in addition to their primary position but in effect allowed them to hold multiple positions contrary to Art
VII, Sec 13 of the Constitution)

Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, February 28, 2012
(The Constitution mandate the synchronization of ARMM regional elections with national and local
elections)

Domino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Kilosbayan v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, November 16, 1995
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Pamatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004

(Whether or not the constitutional right of Pamatong is violated when he has been declared a nuisance
candidate?)

B. Theory of Judicial Review

Theory of Judicial Review

Unlike the political departments, courts are passive instruments that can act only when their
jurisdiction is invoked. It is understood, of course, that, even then, the question raised will not be
entertained by them if it is political in nature.

Interpret the law and make them binding judgement constitutionally of the laws.

Separation of Powers

Doctrine of separation of powers, enjoins upon each department a proper respect for the acts of
the other departments.

Under our system of constitutional government, the Legislative department is assigned the power
to make and enact laws. The Executive department is charged with the execution of carrying out of the
provisions of said laws. But the interpretation and application of said laws belong exclusively to the
Judicial department.

Purpose of Separation of Powers

 To prevent a concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to a
irreversible error or abuse in its exercise of powers

Principle of Separation of Powers

Ordains that of the three branches of government has exclusive cognisance and is supreme in
matters falling within its own constitutional allocated sphere.

Different powers allocated to each department is supreme in their own sphere.

Blending of Powers
Powers are not confined exclusively within one department but are assigned to or shared by
several departments. Ex. Enactment of General Appropriations Law.
Sample – enactment of General Appropriations Law which will prepare by the president of the
budget, which will become basis of the bill and returned to the president for approval.

Check and Balances

By means of which one department is allowed to resist encroachments upon its prerogative or to
rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other department.

* One department to check the other two departments

Samples – Veto power of the president, congress may refuse to concur by an amnesty given by
the president, the pardon power of the president.

SENATE VS ERMITA
(Pres. Gloria Arroyo instructed her Cabinet Members not to attend senate hearing without her consent)

FACTS:
In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines conducts inquiries or
investigations in aid of legislation. The Committee of the Senate issued invitations to various officials of
the Executive Department for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway
project, others on the issues of massive election fraud in the Philippine elections, wire-tapping, and the
role of military in the so-called “Gloriagate Scandal”. Said officials were not able to attend due to lack of
consent from the President as provided by E.O. 464, Section 3 which requires all the public officials
enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house
of Congress

ISSUE: Is Section 3 of E.O. 464, which requires all the public officials, enumerated in Section 2(b) to
secure
the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress, valid and
constitutional?

DECISION: Partly Granted

HELD:
No. The enumeration in Section 2 (b) of E.O. 464 is broad and is covered by the executive
privilege. The doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact that certain information must, as a
matter of necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of the public interest. The privilege being, by definition,
an exemption from the obligation to disclose information, in this case to Congress, the necessity must be
of such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing that obligation in a particular.

Cases – CSC v. Ramoneda-Pita, A.M. No. P-08-2531, April 11, 2013

Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013

Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997

Metrobank v. Tobias, G.R. No. 177780, January 25, 2012

Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No., 225973, November 8, 2016

Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987, September 3, 2013

Presumption of Constitutionality
 It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to
presume in favor of its validity, until its violation of the constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt

The presumption of constitutionality, in its most basic sense, only means that courts, in passing
upon the validity of a law, will afford some consideration to the statute and charge the party assailing it
with the burden of showing that the act is incompatible with the constitution.

Cases – City of Cagayan De Oro v. CEPALCO, G.R. No. 224825, October 17, 2018

C. Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review

Cases – Advocates For Truth v. Bangko Sentral, G.R. No. 192986, Jan. 15, 2013
(The petitioners do not allege that they sustained any personal injury from the issuance of CB Circular No.
905. Petitioners also do not claim that public funds were being misused in the enforcement of CB
Circular No. 905)

Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014

Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013

(Questioning the Pork Barrel System is a tax payers suit)

Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, April 16, 2013

David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006

(Arroyo declared a state of emergency, does the petitioners have locus standi as a Citizen?)

Disini v. SOJ, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014

IDEALS, Inc. v. PSALM, G.R. No. 192088, October 9, 2012
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014

D. Functions of Judicial Review: Checking, Legitimating and Symbolic

ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000

(Moot and Academic)

Central Bank Employees Assoc. v. BSP, G.R. No. 148208, Dec. 15, 2004
(Can a provision of law, initially valid, become subsequently unconstitutional, on the ground that
its continued operation would violate the equal protection of the law)

Javier v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. L-68379-81, September 22, 1986

E. All Courts Can Exercise Judicial Review

ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

Ongsuco v. Malones, G.R. No. 182065, October 27, 2009

Article VIII of the Constitution, expressly establishes the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, and
impliedly recognizes the original jurisdiction of lower courts over cases involving the constitutionality or
validity of an ordinance.

Ynot v. IAC, G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987 (Confiscation of Carabaos)
The lower courts are not prevented from resolving constitutional questions, however, the supreme
court have the power to review, revise or reverse the ruling of the lower courts.

F. Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality

1. Orthodox View – Unconstitutional Act is not a law, confers no rights, imposes no duties, affords no
protection, creates no office, inoperative, as if it had not been passed at all.
The orthodox view is expressed in Article 7 of the Civil Code, providing that "when the courts
declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.

2. Modern View – Certain legal effects prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be recognized.

Refuse to recognize the law and determine the rights of the parties as if the statue had no existence.

Partial Unconstitutionality
Also in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers, courts hesitate to declare a law totally
unconstitutional and, as long as they can, will salvage the valid portions thereof in order to give effect to
the wisdom of the law-maker.

Nevertheless, a declaration of partial unconstitutionality will be valid only if two conditions concur,
first, that the legislature must be willing to retain the valid portions usually shown by the presence of a
separability clause;
second, that the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute.

The legislative will to this effect may be expressed in what is known as the separability clause.
This usually provides that "if for any reason any section or provision of this Act is declared invalid or
unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act shall not be affected by such declaration." But even without
such separability clause, it has been held that if the valid portion is so far independent of the valid portion,
it may be fair to presume that the legislature would have enacted it by itself if it had supposed that it could
constitutionally do so.

Law – Article 7, Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall
not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.

When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void
and the latter shall govern.

Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not
contrary to the laws or the Constitution.

Cases – Aldovino v. Alunan, G.R. No. 102232, March 9, 1994

Flores v. Drilon, G.R. No. 104732, June 22, 1993

Operative Facts Doctrine

The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination of unconstitutionality, is an

operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored.
The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the
determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot
always be erased, ignored or disregarded.
In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects.
It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no effect.

Cases – Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014

Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013

(Questioning the Pork Barrel System is a tax payers suit)

Cocofed v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 177857-58, January 24, 2012

Hacienda Luisita v. PARC, G.R. No. 171101, July 5, 2011

G. Political Question vs. Justiciable Question

Political Questions
 Refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature
or executive branch of the Government.

Justiciable Questions
Actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

Cases – IDEALS, Inc. v. PSALM, G.R. No. 192088, October 9, 2012

Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Velarde v. SJS, G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004
Vinuya v. Romulo, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010

VII. The Philippines as a State

A. State Defined - Is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite
portion of territory, independent of external control and possessing a government to which a great body
of inhabitants render habitual obedience.

While there is no legal requirements as to their number, it is generally agreed that they must be
numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend themselves and small enough to be easily
administered and sustained.

Elements of a State
1. People – Inhabitants of the State
2. Territory – Is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth including the land mass, bodies of waters and
aerial domain inhabited by the people of the State.
3. Government – Is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated,
expressed and realized.
4. Sovereignty – The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people
and all government authority emanates from them.
Is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a state by which that State is governed.

2 Kinds of Sovereignty
1. Legal – Is the authority which has the power to issue final commands
2. Political – Is the power behind the legal sovereign, or the sum of influences that operate upon it.

B. Territory

1. The National Territory (Art. 1, 1987 Constitution)

SECTION 1. THE NATIONAL TERRITORY COMPRISES THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO, WITH ALL
THE ISLANDS AND WATERS EMBRACED THEREIN, AND ALL OTHER TERRITORIES OVER WHICH
THE PHILIPPINES HAS SOVEREIGNTY OR JURISDICTION, CONSISTING OF ITS TERRESTRIAL,
FLUVIAL, AND AERIAL DOMAINS, INCLUDING ITS TERRITORIAL SEA, THE SEABED, THE SUBSOIL,
THE INSULAR SHELVES, AND OTHER SUBMARINE AREAS. THE WATERS AROUND, BETWEEN,
AND CONNECTING THE ISLANDS OF THE ARCHIPELAGO, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BREADTH
AND DIMENSIONS, FORM PART OF THE INTERNAL WATERS OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Components of Territory – are the landmass, otherwise known as the terrestrial domain, the inland and
external waters, which make up the maritime and fluvial domain, and the air space above the land and
waters which is called aerial domain. 50 to 100 miles from the land or waters up to the air space.

2. The Philippine Archipelago

Archipelago – Group of islands surrounded by waters or body of waters studded with islands
A cluster of islands forming a territorial unity, or as a unit of water studded with islands

Archipelago Doctrine - The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimension form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE – integration of a group of islands to the sea and their oneness so
that together they can constitute one unit, one country, and one state. An imaginary single baseline is
drawn around the islands by joining appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago with
straight lines and all islands and waters enclosed within the baseline form part of the territory. Main
purpose is to protect the territorial interests of an archipelago. (see last sentence, Art. I).
Treaty Limits
The Philippine Treaty Limits describe the territorial domain of the Philippine archipelago which
passed from the sovereignty of Spain to that of the United States by virtue of the Treaty of Paris on
December 10, 1898. The Philippine Treaty Limits constitute the unilateral declaration of the Philippines of
the limits of its national territory.

The Treaty of Paris

Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain (Treaty of Paris),
signed in Paris, December 10, 1898.
Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba and also ceded Puerto
Rico, Guam, and the Philippines to the United States. The cession of the Philippines involved a
compensation of $20 million from the United States to Spain.
Treaty of Paris – Cession of Philippine Islands by Spain to US.

The Treaty of Washington Between Spain and the United States

Treaty between the Kingdom Spain and the United States of America for cession of outlying
islands of the Philippines [1900] (Cagayan, Sulu and Sibuto)

Spain relinquishes to the United States all title and claim of title, which she may have had at the
time of the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace of Paris, to any and all islands belonging to the Philippine
Archipelago, lying outside the lines described in Article III of that Treaty and particularly to the islands of
Cagayan, Sulu and Sibutu and their dependencies, and agrees that all such islands shall be
comprehended in the cession of the Archipelago as fully as if they had been expressly included within
those lines.

The Treaty between the United States and Great Britain

Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain delimiting the boundary
between the Philippine archipelago and the State of North Borneo [1930]
(Turtle and Mangsee Islands)
Laws – Republic Act No. 3046 as amended by RA 5446
AN ACT DEFINING THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES.
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the Philippines describes the national territory as comprising all the
territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain
on December 10, 1898, the limits of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the
islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington, between the United States and Spain on
November 7, 1900, and in the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on January 2,
1930, and all the territory over which the Government of the Philippine Islands exercised jurisdiction at the
time of the adoption of the Constitution;

Republic Act No. 5446

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED 3046, ENTITLED "AN ACT
TO DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES"

Republic Act No. 9522 March 10, 2009

AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046, AS AMENDED
BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSE

Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises
sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the
Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.

Section 3. This Act affirms that the Republic of the Philippines has dominion, sovereignty and
jurisdiction over all portions of the national territory as defined in the Constitution and by provisions of
applicable laws including, without limitation, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991, as amended.

Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009

 Rape case committed by l/cpl smith
The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United
States, entered into on February 10, 1998, is UPHELD as constitutional, but the Romulo-Kennedy
Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006 are DECLARED not in accordance with the VFA

Philippines v. China, PCA Case No. 2013-19, July 12, 2016

Philippines v. China (PCA case number 2013–19), also known as the South China Sea
Arbitration, was an arbitration case brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's
Republic of China (PRC) under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea UNCLOS, concerning certain issues in the South China Sea, including the nine-dash line introduced
by the Republic of China (Taiwan) since as early as 1947.
China declared that it would not participate in the arbitration. A white paper was published by China
to elaborate its position. On 29 October 2015, the arbitral tribunal ruled that it has jurisdiction over the
case, taking up seven of the 15 submissions made by the Philippines.
On 12 July 2016, the special arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines on most of its
submissions. It clarified that it would not "... rule on any question of sovereignty over land territory and
would not delimit any maritime boundary between the Parties". The tribunal also concluded that China's
historic rights claims over the maritime areas (as opposed to land territories and territorial waters) inside
the "nine-dash line" have no lawful effect if they exceed what's entitled to under UNCLOS. China has
rejected the ruling, as has Taiwan.

Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011

This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of Republic
Act No. 9522 adjusting the country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby
territories.

Thus, as the map shows, the reach of the exclusive economic zone drawn under RA 9522 even
extends way beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation under the Treaty of Paris. Of
course, where there are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjacent States, there will
have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance with UNCLOS III

3. Other Territories over which the Philippines has Sovereignty or Jurisdiction

Presidential Decree No. 1596, June 11, 1978

DECLARING CERTAIN AREA PART OF THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY AND PROVIDING FOR
THEIR GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.

The doubt with respect to the Batanes Islands, however, was left unclarified in spite of the fact that,
from time immemorial, these islands had undisputedly formed part of the Philippine Islands. Hence, to
remove the doubt, the 1935 Constitution added the clause "all territory over which the present (1935)
government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.”

1973 Constitution, Art.1 – Belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title
“and all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title”

- Briefly, the Philippine claim over Sabah strongly hinges on a “padjak” or lease contract executed
by Sultan Kiram of the Sultanate of Sulu while that of part of the Spratly Islands group called Freedom
land or Kalayaan is based on discovery and occupation as a mode of acquiring sovereignty over a territory
which is “terra nullius,” that is, territory which belonged to no state. The Marianas Islands, on the other
hand, was discovered by Magellan and were a dependency of the Philippines during the Spanish colonial
period (1521-1898). Its civil affairs were under the direct control of the Governor- General of the
Philippines based in Manila while its ecclesiastical administration was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop
of Cebu.

4. The Territorial Sea, the Seabed, the Subsoil, the Insular Shelves and other
Submarine Areas

The Territorial Sea

The territorial sea of a state, as distinct from its inland and internal waters, consists of a marginal
belt of maritime waters adjacent to the base lines extending twelve nautical miles outward. Outside the
territorial sea are the high seas. A state exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea subject to the right of
innocent passage by other states.

Innocent passage is understood as passage not prejudicial to the interests of the coastal state nor
contrary to recognized principles of international law.
 The traditional length of the territorial waters measured seawards, according to the cannon-shot
rule formulated in 1702, was three miles, the effective range of 18th century defensive shore batteries.
Modern law, however, now recognizes twelve nautical miles.

Two methods are used for baseline from which the territorial belt is measured seawards:
1) Normal baseline method, under which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured from the low water-
line, following the indentations of the coast;

2) Straight baseline method, under which instead of the baseline following the sinuosities of the coast, it is
drawn as straight lines connecting appropriate points on the coast, without departing to any appreciable
extent from the general direction of the coast.

Insular Shelves

The continental shelf, archipelagic or insular shelf for archipelagos, refers to

(a) the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coastal state but outside the territorial
sea, to a depth of two hundred meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth allows exploitation, and

(b) the seabed and subsoil of areas adjacent to islands.

Contiguous Zone - Extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea.

Although not part of the territory, the coastal State may exercise jurisdiction to prevent infringement of
customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws.

5. The Two Hundred-Mile Exclusive Economic Zone 12 nm from baseline to territorial sea, 12 nm from
territorial sea to Contiguous zone and 200 nm from contiguous zone to EEZ

Is not a part of the national territory but exclusive economic benefit is reserved for the country. Thus, the
coastal state has in the exclusive economic zone:

1. sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural
resources, whether living or non-living, if the waters superjacent to the seabed and subsoil, and with
regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production
of energy from the waters, currents, and winds;

2. jurisdiction with regard to:

a. the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures;
b. marine scientific research;
c. the protection and preservation of marine environment;

3. other rights and duties provided for in the Convention. (Art. 56 of the UN Convention on theLaw of the
Sea)

Laws – Presidential Decree No. 1599, June 11, 1978

ESTABLISHING AN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

The exclusive economic zone shall extend to a distance of 200 nautical miles beyond and from the
baselines from which the territorial sea is measured: Provided,
If the exclusive economic zone overlaps of neighboring state, the common boundaries shall be
determined by agreement with the state concerned.

(a) explore or exploit any resources;

(b) carry out any search, excavation or drilling operations:

(c) conduct any research;

(d) construct, maintain or operate any artificial island, off-shore terminal, installation or other structure or
device; or
(e) perform any act or engage in any activity which is contrary to, or in derogation of, the sovereign rights
and jurisdiction herein provided.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and
humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the
common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the
blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom,
love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

Differentiate Extra constitutional from

In fine, the legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA People Power II is clear. EDSA
I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. EDSA
II is an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the
government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President.

EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot
be the subject of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting
President that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as President are subject to judicial
review. EDSA I presented a political question; EDSA II involves legal questions. A brief discourse on
freedom of speech and of the freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievance
which are the cutting edge of EDSA People Power II is not inappropriate.