Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitutional Law 1
Part I - Introduction
Democratic
and
A:
The
Philippines
is
a
democratic
and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates
from them.2
Q: What is the Constitution as a Social
Contract?
A: In Marcos v Manglapus,3 the Supreme Court
speaking through Justice Cortes categorically
opined that the Constitution, aside from being an
allocation of power is also a social contract
whereby the people have surrendered their
sovereign powers to the State for the common
good.
Social Contract asserts that the early states must
have been formed by deliberate and voluntary
compact among people to form a government of
their own.
Q: How do we read the Constitution?
A: The Court, in determining the merits of the
issues raised in a petition before it, must
necessarily turn to the Constitution itself which
employs the well-settled principles of constitutional
construction. In case of doubt, the Court resorts to
the following:
4
1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
1987 constitution. Under Article XVII of the
Constitution
of
the
Philippines,
amendments pass upon a vote of threefourths of all members of Congress, but it
is not clear if the Congress should vote as
a single body or as separate Houses. The
convention of Congress into a Constituent
Assembly is not explicitly provided for in
the Constitution.7
Note:
All three required ratification by a majority vote in a
national referendum.
Q: What is the difference of Amendment and
Revision?
A: Lambino v COMELEC 11, enumerates the
distinctions between revision and amendment, as
follows: Revision broadly implies a change that
alters a basic principle in the Constitution, like
altering the principle of separation of powers or the
system of checks and balances. There is also
revision if the change alters the substantial entirety
of the Constitution. On the other hand, amendment
broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces,
deletes, without altering the basic principle
involved. Revision generally affects several
provisions of the Constitution; while amendment
generally affects only the specific provision being
amended.
10
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
1.
2.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
our people and answer their cry for viable
employment opportunities in the country. The
Judiciary is loath to interfere with the due exercise
by co-equal branches of the government of their
official functions. Let the development of the
mining industry be the responsibility of the political
branches of government. The questioned
provisions of R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of
1995) are not unconstitutional.
election contests
legislature.
involving
members
of
the
Supra.
G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003, Francisco v House
of Representatives.
25
Nachura, Antonio Eduardo B. (2009). Outline/ Reviewer in
Political Law, p.74.
26
G.R. No. 133064, September 16, 1999
27
G.R. No. 127882, December 1, 2004
24
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
granted and sanctioned by law for said breach of
right.28
28
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
In Montesclaros v COMELEC, G.R. No. 152295,
July 9, 2002, it was held that a proposed bill is not
subject to judicial review, because it creates no
rights and imposes no duties enforceable by the
courts.
Q: When does a case becomes Moot?
A: A case becomes moot when there are facts,
injuries and heated arguments but for some reason
the legal problem has become stale.36
A: In Lacson v Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10,
2001, where cases were filed questioning the
declaration by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
of a state of rebellion in Metro Manila (under
General Order No. 1), the Supreme Court
dismissed the petitions because on May 6, 2001,
the President ordered the lifting of the state of
rebellion, and, thus, the issue raised in the
petitions had become moot and academic.
Atlas Fertilizer v Secretary, Department of Agrarian
Reform, G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997, because
Congress had already passed amendatory laws
excluding fishponds and prawn farms from the
coverage of CARL, the issue on the
constitutionality of the assailed provisions had
become moot and academic, and therefore, not
ripe for judicial review.
3.
4.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet
evading review. In the present case, the mootness
of the petition does not bar its resolution. The
question of the constitutionality of the Presidents
appointment of department secretaries in an acting
capacity while Congress is in session will arise in
every such appointment.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ground that the IBP had no legal standing to
question the presidential act.
The mere invocation of the IBP of its duty to
preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while
undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with
standing in this casetoo general interestnot a
specific and substantial interest in the resolution of
the case. Not only is the presumed injury not
personal in character it is likewise too vague, highly
speculative and uncertain to satisfy the
requirement of standing.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result.
Q: Facial challenge
A: In Estrada v Sandiganbayan 53, the Court
defined the face challenge; A facial challenge is
allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one
which is overbroad because of possible "chilling
effect" upon protected speech.
The theory is that "when statutes regulate or
proscribe speech and no readily apparent
construction suggests itself as a vehicle for
rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution,
the transcendent value to all society of
constitutionally protected expression is deemed to
justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes
with no requirement that the person making the
attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not
be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow
specificity." The possible harm to society in
permitting some unprotected speech to go
unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that
the protected speech of others may be deterred
and perceived grievances left to fester because of
possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes.
Criminal statutes have general in terms of effect
resulting from their very existence, and, if facial
challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the
State may well be prevented from enacting laws
against socially harmful conduct. In the area of
criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the
area of free speech. For this reason, it has been
held that "a facial challenge to a legislative act is
the most difficult challenge to mount successfully,
since the challenger must establish that no set of
circumstances exists under which the Act would be
valid."
As for the vagueness doctrine, it is said that a
litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it
is vague in all its possible applications. "A plaintiff
who engages in some conduct that is clearly
proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of
the law as applied to the conduct of others."
Q: Earliest Opportunity
Q: Necessity
Questions
of
Deciding
Constitutional
53
55
54
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
noon on the thirtieth day of June next following
their election.
Also, in Sec. 2, Art. XVIII 57, The Senators,
Members of the House of Representatives, and the
local officials first elected under this Constitution
shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992. Of the
senators elected in the election in 1992, the first
twelve (12) obtaining the highest number of votes
shall serve for six years and the remaining twelve
for three (3) years.
However, it should be noted that in Sec. 4, par. 2,
Art. VI58, it was mentioned that No Senator shall
serve for more than two consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length
of time shall not be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of his service for the full term for
which he was elected.
Q: What is the composition of the House of
Representatives and the qualifications and
term of its members?
59
Id.
Id.
59
Id.
of
residence
Q: What is Gerrymandering?
A: It is the arrangement of districts in such a way
as to favor the election of preferred candidates
(usually re- electionists) through the inclusion
therein only of those areas where they expect to
win, regardless of the resultant shape of such
districts.63
Id.
Id.
62
Cruz, Isagani (2002). Philippine Political Law: Central
Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc. pp. 120. ISBN 971-16-0491-4.
63
Ibid., p.116
61
58
purpose
60
57
the
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Q: Where does apportionment of representative
districts should be based?
A: Macias v COMELEC64 is the authority for the
view that the validity of a legislative apportionment
measure is a justifiable question, involving as it
does certain requirements the interpretation of
which does not call for the exercise of legislative
discretion. The Supreme Court in fact annulled the
challenged law in that case when it was shown that
the apportionment was not based on the number of
inhabitants in the various representatsive districts.
The Supreme Court noted that some big provinces
were given less representatives than certain
relatively smaller ones, e.g. Cebu got seven while
Rizal with a bigger population then got only four.
Q: Discuss the following cases:
3.
Ang
Bagong
Buhay
Hayaang
Yumabong (as a party) must be subject to
the express constitutional prohibition
against religious sects;
4. The party must not be disqualified under
RA 7941;
5. The party must not be an adjunct of an
entity or project funded by the
government;
3 SCRA 1, 1961
142 SCRA 727 (1986)
66
G.R. 136781, October 06, 2000
65
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
2% threshold in the distribution of the additional
seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive
ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of
Representatives shall consist of party-list
representatives.
A: In Aquino v COMELEC 68, it was held that
Agapito Aquino failed to prove that he had
established not just residence but domicile of
choice in Makati. In his certificate of candidacy of
San Jose Concepcion, Tarlac, for 52 years; he was
a registered voter of the same district; his birth
certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac, as birthplace.
Thus, his domicile of origin was Concepcion,
Tarlac; and his bare assertion of transfer of
domicile from Tarlac to Makati is hardly supported
by the facts of the case.
A: In Marcos v COMELEC 69, the Court upheld the
qualification of Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos,
despite her own declaration in her certificate of
candidacy that she had resided in the district for
only seven months, because of the following:
1. A minor follows the domicile of his
parents; Tacloban became Imeldas
domicile of origin by operation of law when
her father brought the family to Leyte;
2. Domicile of origin is lost only when
there is actual removal or change of
domicile,
a bonafide
intention of
abandoning the former residence and
establishing a new one, and acts which
correspond with the purpose; in the
absence of clear and positive proof of the
concurrence of all these, the domicile of
origin should be deemed to continue;
3. The wife does not automatically gained
the husbands domicile because the term
residence in Civil Law does not mean the
same thing in Political Law; when Imelda
married Marcos in 1954, she kept her
domicile of origin and merely gained a
new home, not a domicilium necessarium;
4. Even assuming that she gained a new
domicile after her marriage and acquired
the right to choose a new one only after
her husband died, her acts following her
return to the country clearly indicate that
she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin,
as her domicile of choice.
68
69
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
day. However Senator Guingona, as the minority
leader of the Senate, was subsequently recognized
by the Senate President. Thereafter, Senators
Santiago and Tatad filed a case before the Court
alleging that Senator Guingona had been usurping,
unlawfully holding and exercising the position of
Senate minority leader, a position that, according
to them, rightfully belonged to Senator Tatad.
Q: Rules of Proceeding?
75
78
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
enactment of RA 8240 (amending certain
provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code
by imposing so-called sin taxes) was premised on
alleged violations of internal rules of procedure of
the House of Representatives rather than of
constitutional requirements. Decided cases, both
here and abroad, in varying forms of expression, all
deny to the courts the power to inquire into
allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of
Congress failed to comply with its own rules, in the
absence of showing that there was a violation of
constitutional requirements or the rights of private
individuals.
A: Arroyo v De Venecia81, in its Resolution on the
Motion for Reconsideration, the Supreme Court
ruled that it is well settled that a legislative act will
not be declared invalid for non-compliance with the
internal rules of the House.
Q: Discipline of members?
A: Section 16, (3)82. Each House may determine
the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for
disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of
two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a
Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed,
shall not exceed sixty days.
A: In Alejandrino v Quezon 83, the Court held that, it
cannot dictate action on the legislative department
without a gross usurpation of power. Precedents
have held that where a member has been expelled
by the legislative body, the courts have no power,
irrespective of whether the expulsion was right or
wrong, to issue a mandate to compel his
reinstatement.
In this case, a resolution was adopted by the
Philippine Senate composed of the respondent
Senators, on February 5, 1924, depriving Senator
Alejandrino of all the prerogatives, privileges, and
emoluments of his office for the period of one year
from the first of January, 1924 for disorderly
conduct and flagrant violation of the privileges of
the Senate for having assaulted the Honorable
Vicente de Vera, Senator for the Sixth District.
A: In Osmea v Pendatun84, the President of the
Philippines himself who had been vilified by the
petitioner could not file any civil or criminal action
against him because of this immunity. Nonetheless,
81
85
86
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
A: Section 16, (4)87. Each House shall keep a
Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time
publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in
its judgment, affect national security; and
the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the
request of one-fifth of the Members present, be
entered in the Journal. Each House shall also
keep a Record of its proceedings.
does
Joint
Session
Congress
87
88
90
91
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
1. Choosing the President (Sec. 4, Art. VII)
2. Determine Presidents disability (Sec.
11, Art. VII)
3. Confirming nomination of the Vice
President (Sec. 9, Art. VII)
4. Declaring the existence of a state of war
(Sec. 23, Art. VI)
5. Proposing constitutional amendments
(Sec. 1, Art. XVII)
While in Voting Jointly, to revoke or extend
proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or placing the Philippines under
martial law. (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
Q: Salaries, Privileges and Disqualifications.
Q: Salaries of Congress.
A: Section 1092. The salaries of Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives shall be
determined by law. No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives
approving such increase.
A: Section 2093. The records and books of
accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and
be open to the public in accordance with law, and
such books shall be audited by the Commission on
Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list
of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each
Member.
A: In Philconsa v Mathay94, the Court ruled that,
Sec 14 of Art VI requires that not only the term of
all members of the House but also all of the
Senators who approved the increase must have
fully expired before those increases become fully
effective. Therefore, some parts of RA 4642 are
declared void. The intendment of the law also
requires the expiration of the full term of all
members of the Legislature who approved the
salary increase.
92
95
93
96
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
2. One rationale behind confinement,
whether pending appeal or after final
conviction, is public self-defense, i.e., it is
the injury to the public not, not injury to the
complainant, which state action in criminal
law seeks to redress;
3. It would amount to the creation of a
privileged class, without justification in
reason, if notwithstanding their liability for
a criminal offense, they would be
considered immune from arrest during
their attendance in Congress and in going
to and returning from the same; and
4. Accused-appellant is provided with an
office at the House of Representatives
with full complement of staff, as well as an
office at the Administration Building, New
Bilibid Prison, where he attends to his
constituents; he has, therefore, been
discharging his mandate as member of the
House of Representatives, and being a
detainee, he should not even be allowed
by the prison authorities to perform these
acts.
Q: Speech and Debate Clause?
A: In Jimenez v Cabangbang98, Supreme Court
held declared that the privilege could not be
invoked by a legislator who had allegedly maligned
the plaintiff in an open letter to the President of the
Philippines coursed through and published in the
newspapers. The finding was that he had written
the letter at a time when the Congress was in
recess and in his private capacity only.
Q: Distinguish Incompatible and Forbidden
Office.
A: Section 1399. (Incompatible office) No Senator
or Member of the House of Representatives may
hold any other office or employment in the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including governmentowned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his
seat. (Forbidden Office) Neither shall he be
appointed to any office which may have been
created or the emoluments thereof increased
during the term for which he was elected.
A: The purpose of incompatible office is to prevent
him from owing loyalty to another branch of the
98
99
100
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
A: In Puyat vs. De Guzman 103, a legislator entered
his appearance as counsel for one of the parties to
an intra-corporate dispute before the Securities
and Exchange Commission. He desisted when his
representation was challenged under Sec. 14, Art.
VI of the Constitution. Thereafter, he purchased
two hundred pesos worth of stocks in the
corporation from the faction he was representing
and sought to intervene in the said dispute, this
time as a stockholder. The Supreme Court did not
allow him to do so as his evident purpose was to
circumvent the constitutional prohibition.
Q: Duty to Disclose?
Q: Electoral Tribunals
104
103
Q: Commission on Appointments
107
108
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
o
112
Express
o Bill or rights (Art.III)
o On appropriations [Secs. 25 and 29 (1)
and (2), Art. VI]
o On taxation [Secs. 28 and 29 (3), Art.
VI; Sec. 4 (3), Art. XIV]
o On constitutional appellate jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court [Sec. 30, Art. VI]
o No law granting a title of royalty or
nobility shall be passed [Sec. 31, Art.
VI]
Implied
o Non- delegation of powers; and
2. Procedural limitations
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Q: What are the classifications of appropriation
law?
A: There are two classifications of appropriation
law and they are:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
President who proposes the budget, still, the final
say on the matter of appropriations is lodged in
Congress. The power of appropriation carries with
it the power to specify the project or activity to be
funded under the appropriation law. It can be as
detailed and as broad as Congress wants it to be.
Q: Tax laws
A: In Tolentino v Sec. of Finance122, it was held that
RA 7716 (Expanded VAT Law) did not violate Sec.
24, Art. VI of the Constitution. It is important to
emphasize that it is not the law, but the bill, which
is required to originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, because the bill may undergo
such extensive changes in the Senate that the
result may be a rewriting of the whole. As a result
of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be
produced. To insist that a revenue statue, not just
the bill, must be substantially the same as the
House bill would be to deny the Senates power not
only to concur with amendments but also to
propose amendments. It would violate the
coequality of legislative power of the Senate. The
Constitution does not prohibit the filing in the
Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its
receipt of the House bill.
123
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
A: Executive Order No. 200127
A: Armault v Balagtas129,
the
power
of
Legislative
Other Powers:
a. Act as board of canvassers for
presidential election
Pimentel v. Joint Com., G.R.
163783, June 22, 2004
b. Call a special election for
Presidency
129
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Executive Department
The President
Q: Qualifications.
A: No person may be elected President unless he
is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, able to read and write, at least
forty years of age on the day of the election, and a
resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
immediately preceding such election.134
Q: Election.
A: The President and the Vice-President shall be
elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six
years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day
of June next following the day of the election and
shall end at noon of the same date, six years
thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for
any re-election. No person who has succeeded as
President and has served as such for more than
four years shall be qualified for election to the
same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two
successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be considered
as an interruption in the continuity of the service for
the full term for which he was elected.
shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the
election, open all the certificates in the presence of
the Senate and the House of Representatives in
joint public session, and the Congress, upon
determination of the authenticity and due execution
thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the
votes.
The person having the highest number of votes
shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or
more shall have an equal and highest number of
votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the
vote of a majority of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the
canvassing of the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or VicePresident, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.135
Q: Term.
A: Six (6) years. No re-election; and no person
who has succeeded as President and has served
for more than four years shall be qualified for
election to the same office at any time.
The six-year term of the incumbent President and
Vice-President elected in the February 7, 1986
election is, for purposes of synchronization of
elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30,
1992.136
Q: Oath of office.
A: Before they enter on the execution of their
office, the President, the Vice-President, or the
Acting President shall take the following oath or
affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my
duties as President (or Vice-President or
Acting President) of the Philippines,
preserve and defend its Constitution,
execute its laws, do justice to every man,
and consecrate myself to the service of
the Nation. So help me God." (In case of
136
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
affirmation,
omitted.)137
last
sentence
will
be
Q: Rule on Succession.
A: In case of vacancy at the beginning of the term.
(1) Death or permanent disability of the
President-elect: Vice President-elect shall
become President.
(2) President-elect fails to qualify: Vice
President-elect shall act as President until
the President-elect shall have qualified.
(3) President shall not have been chosen:
Vice President-elect shall act as President
until a President shall have been chosen
and qualified.
137
138
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of the
Members of the Cabinet transmit within 5 days to
the Senate President and Speaker their written
declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office,
Congress shall decide the issue. For this purpose,
Congress shall convene, if not in session, within 48
hours. And if, within 10 days from receipt of the last
written declaration or, if not in session, within 12
days after it is required to assemble, the Congress
determines by a 2/3 vote of both Houses, voting
separately, that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice President shall act as President; otherwise,
the President shall continue exercising the powers
and duties of his office.
3.
4.
5.
3.
4.
5.
6.
140
Article
XI
of
the
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
7.
8.
Q: Prohibitions
Q: Executive Power.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
executive and administrative functions of the Chief
Executive are performed by and through the
executive departments, and the acts of the
Secretaries of such departments performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business are,
unless disapproved or repudiated by the Chief
Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief
Executive.
local
148
Q: What is Appointment?
Mondano v Silvosa
G.R. 109406, September 11, 1998
150
G.R. No. 131367, August 31, 2000
151
377 SCRA 233 (2002)
149
152
153
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
the
classifications
of
A: Bermudez v Torres154,
A: In Sarmiento v Mison155, the Supreme Court
declared that the foregoing are the only categories
of appointments which require confirmation by the
Commission on Elections. In this case, it was held
that the appointment of Salvador Mison as
Commissioner of Customs needs no confirmation
by the Commission on Appointments, because the
Commissioner of the Customs is not among the
officers mentioned in the first sentence, Sec. 16,
Art. VII.
A: In Concepcion-Bautista v Salonga156, the
Supreme Court held that the appointment of the
Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is
not otherwise provided for in the Constitution or in
the law. Thus, there is no necessity for such
appointment to be passed upon by the
Commission on Appointments.
A: In Calderon v Carale157, Article 254 of the Labor
Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, insofar as it
requires confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of the appointment of the NLRC
Chairman and commissioners, is unconstitutional,
because it violates Sec. 16, Art. VII.
A: In Manalo v Sistoza 158, the Supreme Court said
that Congress cannot, by law, require the
confirmation of appointments of government
officials other than those enumerated in the first
sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII.
A: In Soriano v Lista159, the Supreme Court said
that because the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) is
154
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
judiciary is undoubtedly in the public interest, there
is no showing in this case of any compelling reason
to justify the making of the appointments during the
period of the ban.
162
A: Pelobello v Palatino168,
A: In Re Lontok169,
A: In Torres v Gonzales 170, on conditional pardon
the rule is reiterated in In re: Petition for Habeas
Corpus of Wilfredo S. Sumulong, that a conditional
pardon is in the nature of a contract between the
Chief Executive and the convicted criminal; by the
pardonees consent to the terms stipulated in the
contract, the pardonee has placed himself under
the supervision of the Chief Executive or his
delegate who is duty bound to see to it that the
pardonee complies with the conditions of the
pardon. Sec. 64(i), Revised Administrative Code,
authorizes the President to order the arrest and reincarceration of such person who, in his
judgement, shall fail to comply with the conditions
of the pardon. And the exercise of this Presidential
judgment is beyond judicial scrutiny.
Q: Commander-in-Chief
A: The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief
of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever
it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or
rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he
may, for a period not exceeding sixty days,
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law. x x x.171
A: In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v Zamora 172,
the Court declared that the factual necessity of
calling out the armed forces is something that is for
the President to decide, but the Court may look
into the factual basis of the declaration to
determine if it was done with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
162
168
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
situations to avert great loss of human lives and
mass destruction of property. Indeed, the decision
to call out the armed forces must be done swiftly
and decisively if it were to have any effect at all.
A: In Aquino v Enrile174,
A: In Constantino v Cuisia180,
Q: Foreign Affairs
Q: Emergency Powers
173
180
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
A: In Go Tek v Deportation Board185,
Q: Legislation
Q: Prohibitions
Q: Address Congress
Q: Succession
Q: Pardoning Power
2.
3.
4.
5.
Q: Veto-Power
Q: Emergency Powers
Q: Immunity from suit
A: In Beltran v Macasiar188, the Court held that the
privilege of immunity from suit pertains to the
President by virtue of the office and may be
invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any
other person in the Presidents behalf. The choice
of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive is
solely the Presidents prerogative. It is a decision
that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other
person. Furthermore, there is nothing in our laws
that would prevent the President from waiving the
privilege.
A: In Gloria v CA189, the Court said that even if he
is an alter- ego of the President, the DECS
Secretary cannot invoke the Presidents immunity
from suit in a case filed against him, inasmuch as
the questioned acts are not those of the President.
Vice-President
Q: Qualifications, election, term, oath and
removal.
A: The same as the President (Sec.3, Art.VII), but
no Vice President shall serve for more than 2
successive terms.
Judicial Department
Q: The Judicial Power
A: 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.191
Q: Where Judicial Power is vested?
185
79 SCRA 17 (1977)
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.23, Art. VII.
187
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.22, Art. VII.
188
G.R. 82585, Nov. 14, 1988.
189
G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000.
of
186
190
191
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
A: The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.192
Q: Constitutional Safeguards to insure the
independence of the Judiciary.
A: The following insures the independence of the
Judiciary:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
194
192
193
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
A: Appointed by the President of the Philippines
from among a list of at least three nominees
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
vacancy; the appointment shall need no
confirmation.198
Q: Fiscal autonomy
Q: Jurisdiction
Q: No non-judicial work for judges
A: The Members of the Supreme Court and of
other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial
or administrative function.201
A: In Meralco v Pasay Trans. Co.202,
A: In Garcia v Macaraig203,
Q: Salary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
207
208
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
A: In Santiago v Bautista209, it was held that the
courts may not exercise judicial power when there
is no applicable law.
Hence, an award of honors to a student by a board
of teachers may not be reversed by a court where
the awards are governed by no applicable law.
Q: Requirements as to decisions
A: No decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based.216
A: In Valladolid v Inciong217
A: In Felipe v Leuterio210,
A: In Nunal v COA218
Q: Deliberations
A: In People v Bugarin219
A: In Yao v CA221
A: In Dizon v Judge Lopez222, respondent Judge
was held to have violated Sec. 15, Art. VIII,
because although she promulgated her decision
within three months from submission, only the
dispositive portion was read at such promulgation,
and it took one year and 8 months more before a
copy of the complete decision was furnished the
complainant. What respondent did was to render a
sin perjuicio judgment, which is a judgment
without a statement of the facts in support of its
conclusions, to be later supplemented by the final
judgment. As early as 1923, the Supreme Court
already expressed its disapproval of the practice of
rendering sin perjuicio judgments. What should
be promulgated must be the complete decision.
The decision, which consisted only of the
dispositive portion (denominated a sin perjuicio
judgment) was held invalid.
A: In Asiavest v CA223
Q: Voting
A: In Cruz v DENR215, when the votes are equally
divided and the majority vote is not obtained, then
pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, the petition shall be dismissed.
209
Q: Petition for
Reconsideration
Review
with
Motion
216
for
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
A: In Tichangco v Enriquez225, it was held that
when the Court, after deliberating on a petition and
any
subsequent
pleadings,
manifestations,
comments or motions, decides to deny due course
to a petition, and states- in a minute resolutionthat the questions raised are factual or no
reversible error in the respondent courts decision
is shown or some other legal basis stated in the
resolution, there is sufficient compliance with the
constitutional requirement.
A: In re Demetria229,
1.
2.
3.
4.
225
226
Q: Administrative powers
A: The Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof.228
Q: Supervision of lower courts
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
2.
Regular
members:
A
representative of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, a professor
of law, a retired justice of the
Supreme
Court,
and
a
representative of the private
sector.
3.
238
244
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
A: Writ issued by court directed to person detaining
another, commanding him to produce the body of
the prisoner at designated time and place, with the
day and cause of his capture and detention, to do,
to submit to, and to receive whatever court or judge
awarding writ shall consider in his behalf.
Extends to all cases of illegal confinement or
detention by which any person is deprived of his
liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any
person is withheld from the person entitled
thereto.249
249
252