Consti 1 Case Digests

POLITICAL LAW Morillo Digests CONSTUTIONAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS Atty. J. Arcilla I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Bermudez’ allegation of vagueness is manifestly gratuitous, it being a matter of public record and common public knowledge that the Constitutional Commission refers therein to incumbent Pres. C. Aquino and VP S. Laurel and no other persons. II. NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION

RE: PROCLAMATION NO. 3; MARCH 25, 1986; LEGITIMACY OF CORAZON AQUINO GOVERNMENT

EFFECTIVITY OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION LAWYER’S LEAGUE vs. CORAZON AQUINO GR no. 73748, May 22, 1986

ALFREDO DE LEON, Et. al vs. BENJAMIN ESGUERRA, Et. al GR no. 78059, August 31, 1987

Facts: Lawyers League questioned the legitimacy of President Corazon Aquino. They claimed that the said government is illegal because its establishment was not in accordance to the 1973 Constitution. Issue: W/N the government of President Corazon Aquino was illegal. Ruling: NO, the government of Pres. Corazon Aquino not illegal. The SC provided that the question of legitimacy regarding the government of President Corazon Aquino belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the Judge. The People have made the judgment and they have accepted the government of Pres. Aquino to be in effective control of the entire country. The petition is dismissed because Lawyer’s League have no locus standi or personality to sue and their petition states no cause of action.

RE: PROCLAMATION NO. 3; MARCH 25, 1986; DECLARATION OF CORAZON AQUINO AS THE PRESIDENT IN RE: SATURNINO BERMUDEZ GR no. 76180, October 24, 1986 Facts: Petitioner Saturnino Bermudez questioned paragraph 1 of Section 5, Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution claiming that it is not clear as to whom it refers. He asked the SC to declare and answer the question of the construction and definiteness as to who, among President Aquino (and VP Laurel), and President Marcos (and VP Tolentino) is being referred under the said Section. Issue: W/N President Aquino and not President Marcos is being referred to under Sec. 5, par.1, Art. XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution. Ruling: YES, It is the President C. Aquino (and her VP S. Laurel) are being referred to under the aforesaid section.

Facts: In the May 17, 1982 Barangay Elections, Alfredo De Leon was elected Brgy. Captain and the others as Brgy. Councilmen of Brgy. Dolores, Taytay, Rizal under BP 222 (Brgy. Election Act of 1982). On February 9, 1987, De Leon received a Memorandum signed by the OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra designating Florentino Magno as Brgy. Captain of Brgy. Dolores. The designation made by OIC Governor Esguerra was “by authority of the Minister of Local Government.” De Leon filed an original action for Prohibition before the SC praying that the subject Memoranda be declared null and void, claiming that with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, OIC Governor Esguerra no longer has authority to replace them and to designate their successors. On the other hand, OIC Governor Esguerra relies on Art. II, Sec. 3, of the Provisional Constitution and contend that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials were abolished. Issue: 1. W/N The Memorandum should be declared null and void? 2. Whether or not the designation of Florentino Magno to replace Alfredo De Leon was validly made? Ruling: 1. YES, The Memorandum issued by OIC Governor Esguerra is declared to have no legal effect and force. Since the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution, there has been no proclamation or executive order terminating the term of elective Barangay Officials. 2. NO, Art. II, Sec. 3 of the Provisional Constitution is deemed to have been overtaken by Sec. 27, Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution which provides; “This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast is a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitution. The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. Having become inoperative, OIC Governor Esguerra could no longer rely on Sec. 2,

1

POLITICAL LAW Morillo Digests Art. III thereof to designate Florentino Magno to the elective positions occupied by Alfredo De Leon. III. AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS AMENDMENT OR REVISION; QUALITATIVE TEST v. QUANTITATIVE TESTS

A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution. Lambino Group’s initiative is a revision and not an amendment. Therefore, the present initiative is void and unconstitutional because it violates Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution limiting the scope of a people’s initiative to “Amendments to this Constitution.”

RAUL LAMBINO vs. COMELEC 505 SCRA 160, October 25, 2006

CONGRESS ACTING AS CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY v. CONGRESS ACTING AS LEGISLATIVE BODY

Raul Lambino’s group commenced the gathering of signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. They filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition. Lambino’s group initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Secs. 1-7 of Art. VI (Legislative Department) and Secs. 1-4 of Art. VII (Executive Department). These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a UnicameralParliamentary form of government. COMELEC issued a Resolution denying Lambino group’s petition for lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution.

IMBONG vs. COMELEC 35 SCRA 28, September 11, 1970

Facts:

Issue: W/N Lambino Group’s initiative violates Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. Ruling: YES, A people’s initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-andbalances. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, Amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Where the initiative clause allows amendments but not revisions to the constitution, courts have developed a two-part test: (a) quantitative test, and (b) qualitative test. The quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is “so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions.” The qualitative test ask whether the change will “accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to revision.” Under both tests, the Lambino Group’s initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, Lambino Group’s proposed changes overhaul two articles (Art. VI and Art. VII) affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution. Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.

2

Facts: Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales are interested in running as a candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They both impugn the constitutionality of RA 6131, claiming that it prejudices their rights as candidates. On March 16, 1967, Congress (acting as a Constituent Assembly) passed Resolution no. 2 which called for a Constitutional Convention to propose constitutional amendments to be composed of two delegates from each representative district who shall have the same qualification as those of Congressman, to be elected on the second Tuesday of November 1970. After the adoption of Resolution no. 2 but before the November Elections that year, Congress (acting as Legislative Body) enacted RA 4914, implementing Resolution no. 2. On June 17, 1969, Congress (acting as Constituent Assembly) passed Resolution no. 4 amending Resolution no. 2. On August 24, 1970, Congress (acting as legislative body) enacted RA 6132 expressly repealing RA 4914. Manuel Imbong impugns the constitutionality of RA 6132. Issue: W/N the enactment of RA 6131 by the Congress acting as a legislative body is constitutional. Ruling: YES, the SC sustain the constitutionality of the enactment of RA 6131 by Congress acting as a legislative body in the exercise of its broad law-making authority, and not as a Constituent Assembly. Congress (acting as a Constituent Assembly) has full and plenary authority to propose Constitutional amendments or to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose. The grant to Congress as a Constituent Assembly of such plenary authority to call a constitutional convention includes all other powers essential to the effective exercise of the principal power granted. While the authority to call a constitutional convention is vested by the Constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly, the power to enact the implementing details (such as RA 6132) does not exclusively pertain to Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly. Such implementing details are matters within the competence of Congress in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power, which power

POLITICAL LAW Morillo Digests encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary implication withdrawn or removed by the Constitution from the ambit of legislative action. When Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly omits to provide for such implementing details after calling a constitutional convention, Congress acting as a legislative body can enact the necessary implementing legislation to fill in the gaps.

Third, there is no subtitle provided for initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of RA 6735 is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.

PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE; GOVERNING STATUTE

REQUIREMENTS OF PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE ON THE CONSTITUTION

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC GR no. 127325, March 19, 1997

LAMBINO vs. COMELEC 505 SCRA 160, October 25, 2006

Facts:

Facts:

Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with Comelec a “Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People’s Initiative (Delfin Petition). Delfin and the members of the Movement for People’s Initiative intend to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution granted under Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. As required in COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, signature stations shall be established all over the country. On the other hand, Miriam Defensor-Santiago filed a special civil action before the SC, arguing that the Constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed, SB 1290 is still pending before the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments. Moreover, RA 6735 failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution. RA 6735 covers only laws and not constitutional amendments because the latter take effect only upon ratification and not after publication. The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not revision thereof.

Raul Lambino’s group commenced the gathering of signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. They filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Sec. 5(b) and (c) and Sec. 7 of RA 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Act). Lambino’s group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals consisting at least 12% of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least 3 % of its registered voters. These proposed changes will shift the present BicameralPresidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. COMELEC issued a Resolution denying Lambino group’s petition for lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. COMELEC invokes the ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution. Issue:

W/N RA 6735 was intended to or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution.

W/N Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative.

Ruling:

Ruling:

NO, RA 6735 is not intended to or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution. First, Sec. 2 of the RA 6735 does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of the word “Constitution” therein was a delayed afterthought. That word is neither germane or relevant to the said section, which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on national laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section is silent as to amendments on the Constitution. Second, RA 6735 does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Sec. 5(c) thereof requires statement of the proposed lw sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be. It does not include the provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution.

NO, Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution allows a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution, stating: “Amendments to the Constitution may x x x be directly proposed by the people though initiative upon a petition x x x “ The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means 2 essential elements must be present; (1) The people must author and sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf; and (2) As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. The Lambino Group submitted a copy of the signature sheet before the SC, however, there is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of the of their group’s proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the

Issue:

3

POLITICAL LAW Morillo Digests signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it. The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system of government. It does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet. Clearly, the signature sheet is not the “petition” that the framers of the Constitution envisioned when they formulated the initiative clause in Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution.

circumstance that three previous amendments to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for ratification in special elections merely shows that congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections.

RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC 41 SCRA 702, October 16, 1971

RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION; PLEBISCITE; SCHEDULE GONZALES vs. COMELEC GR no. L-28196, November 9, 1967 Facts: On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions: 1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180, to be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants, although each province shall have, at least, one (1) member; 2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district, to be "elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of November, 1971;" and 3. R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of the same Constitution, be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress. Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections, which shall be held on November 14, 1967. Issue: May the proposed amendments be submitted at a plebiscite scheduled on the same day as the regular elections?

Facts: Petition for prohibition to restrain the COMELEC from holding a plebiscite on No. 8, 1971, at which the proposed constitutional amendment “reducing the voting age” in Art. V, Sec.1, Constitution to 18 years “shall be submitted” for ratification by the people pursuant to Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 by declaring said resolution to be without the force and effect of law in so far as they direct the holding of the plebiscite and by also declaring the act of the COMELEC performed and to be done by it in obedience to the aforesaid Convention resolutions to be null and void, for being violative of the Constitution. The COMELEC issued a Resolution holding a plebiscite on November 8, 1971. Issue: Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order the holding of a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendment reducing to 18 years the age for the exercise of suffrage under Art. V, Sec.1, Constitution proposed in the Convention’s Organic Resolution No. 1 in the manner and form provided in said resolution and the subsequent implementing acts and resolution of the Convention? Ruling: NO, SC granted the petition of Tolentino. The Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971, insofar as it provide for the holding of a plebiscite on November 8, 1971 as well as the resolution of the COMELEC complying therewith are declared by the SC to be null and void. In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution with which it has to from a harmonious whole. The SC is of the opinion that the present Constitution does not contemplate in Art. XV, Sec. 1 as plebiscite or “election” wherein the people are in the dark as to frame of reference they can base their judgment on.

Ruling: YES. The term “election” in article XV of the 1935 Constitution does not indicate that the “election” therein referred to is a “special”, not a general election. The

4

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS

POLITICAL LAW Morillo Digests SANIDAD vs. COMELEC 73 SCRA 333, October 12, 1976 Facts: Pres. Marcos issued PD 991 calling for a national referendum for the Citizen Assemblies (Barangays) to resolve the issues of martial law, its replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for tile exercise by the President of his present powers. 20 days after, President issued PD 1031, amending PD 991,by declaring the provisions of PD 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in Citizen Assemblies applicable to the national referendumplebiscite. On the same date, President issued PD 1033, stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on Oct. 16, 1976. Pablo and Pablito Sanidad commenced a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to declare without force and effect PD 991 and 1033. They contend that under the 1935/1973 Constitution there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. Hence, the referendum-plebiscite on Oct. 16 has no constitutional or legal basis. In its comment, the COMELEC (SOL-GEN) maintains that the issue raised is political in nature, beyond judicial cognizance of the SC and that only the incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power. Hence, the referendum-plebiscite is a step towards normalization. Issue: W/N the issue raised is political in nature which is beyond the ambit of the Supreme Court. Ruling:

Section 2 (2), Article X of the new Constitution provides: "All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or law may shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court en banc and no treaty, executive agreement, or law may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of at least ten Members. ..." The Supreme Court has the last word in the construction not only of treaties and statutes, but also of the Constitution itself The amending, like all other powers organized in the Constitution, is in form a delegated and hence a limited power, so that the Supreme Court is vested with that authorities to determine whether that power has been discharged within its limits.

Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, of the legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. The SC cannot accept the view of the Solicitor General, in pursuing his theory of non-justiciability, that the question of the President's authority to propose amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted for submission of the proposal to the people ultimately lie in the judgment of the A clear Descartes fallacy of vicious circle. Is it not that the people themselves, by their sovereign act, provided for the authority and procedure for the amending process when they ratified the present Constitution in 1973? Whether, therefore, the constitutional provision has been followed or not is the proper subject of inquiry, not by the people themselves of course who exercise no power of judicial but by the Supreme Court in whom the people themselves vested that power, a power which includes the competence to determine whether the constitutional norms for amendments have been observed or not. And, this inquiry must be done a prior not a posterior i.e., before the submission to and ratification by the people.

NO, the SC disagree with the contention of the Solicitor General that the question at bar is political in nature. 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 of normally exercised by the legislature, is seriously doubted. Under the terms of the 1973 Constitution, the power to propose amendments o the constitution resides in the interim National Assembly in the period of transition (See. 15, Transitory provisions). After that period, and the regular National Assembly in its active session, the power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular National Assembly (Sec. 1, pars. 1 and 2 of Art. XVI, 1973 constitution). The normal course has not been followed. Rather than calling the National Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent assembly the incumbent President undertook the proposal of amendments and submitted the proposed amendments thru Presidential Decree 1033 to the people in a Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. Unavoidably, the regularity regularity of the procedure for amendments, written in lambent words in the very Constitution sought to be amended, raises a contestable issue. The implementing Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033, which commonly purport to have the force and effect of legislation are assailed as invalid, thus the issue of the validity of said Decrees is plainly a justiciable one, within the competence of this Court to pass upon.

5