CruzReviewer I III

8/13/2019 CruzReviewer I III

1/14

Chapter I: Introduction

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.

The ROLE of Constitutional law is to effect an equilibrium

between authority and liberty so that rights are eercised

within the framewor! of the law and the laws are enacted with

due deference to rights.

Fundamental Powers of the State

". Police Power# the power of promoting the public

welfare by restraining and regulating the use of

liberty and property$. Eminent Domain# also called the power of

epropriation% eminent domain is described as &the

highest and most eact idea of property remaining in

the go'ernment( that may be acquired for some

public purpose through a method &in nature of

compulsory sale to the State(

). Taxation# the power of the state to enforceproportional contributions from persons and property%le'ied by the State by 'irtue of its so'ereignty% for the

support of go'ernment and for all public needs.(

Safeguards in the ill of !ights

". *ue +rocess # &,o person shall be depri'ed of life%

liberty or property without due process of law( -rt.

///% Sec. "0$. Equal +rotection # it requires that all persons or

things similarly situated should be treated ali!e% both

as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.

). +rohibition against unreasonable searches andsei1ures

2. 3reedom of epression

4. /mpairment clause

5. 6uarantees against in7ustice to the accused

Common "#$ecti%e: Co8eistence9 Their ultimate goal is thesame9 a well8ordered society based on the in'iolability of

rights which% although they may not be curtailed arbitrarily%

may ne'ertheless be regulated for the common good.

The recognition of :T;OR/T< is a condition sine qua non

for the proper en7oyment of liberty% with the common weal as

the criterion.

Chapter &: The 'ature of the Constitution

C"'STIT(TI"') is &that body of rules and maim in

accordance with the powers of so'ereignty are habitually

eercised( -Cooley0

&The written instrument enacted by the direct action of the

people by which the fundamental powers of the go'ernment

are established% limited and defined% and by which those

powers are distributed among the se'eral departments for their

safe and useful eercise for the benefit of the body politic(

-=ustice >alcolm0

Purpose of the Constitution

*The purpose of the Constitution is to prescribe the permanent

framewor! of a system of go'ernment% to assign to se'eraldepartments their respecti'e powers and duties% and to

establish certain first fied principles on which go'ernment is

founded(

Basic indi'idual rights are not created or conferred by the

Constitution but it merely recogni1es and protects these rights

and does not bring them into eistence

The Constitution is not &the origin of pri'ate rights? it is not

the fountain of law nor the incipient state of go'ernment? it isnot the cause but the consequence of personal and political

freedom.(

Supremac+ of the Constitution

The CO,ST/T:T/O, is the basic and paramount law which

all other laws must conform and to which all persons%including the highest officials of the land% must defer.

Classification

,ritten and (nwritten

,ritten is one whose precepts are embodied in one

document or set of documents.

(nwritten consists of rules which ha'e not been integrated

into a single% concrete form but are scattered in 'arious

sources% such as statutes of a fundamental character% 7udicial

decisions% commentaries of publicists% customs and traditions%and certain common law principles.

Con%entional and Cumulati%e

Con%entional an enacted constitution% formally &struc! off(

at a definite time and place following a conscious or deliberateeffort ta!en by a constituent body or ruler.

Cumulati%e the result of political e'olution% &not

inaugurated at any specific time but changing by accretion

rather than by any systematic method(

!igid and Flexi#le

!igid one that can be amended only by a formal and usually

difficult process.

Flexi#le8 is one that can be changed by ordinary legislation.

-./0 Constitution written% con'entional% rigid 1,!C2

Essential 3ualities of the ,ritten Constitution

/t should be !"4D


2/14

Because it pro'ides for the organi1ation of the entire

go'ernment and co'ers all persons and things within

the territory of the State

/t is supposed to embody the past% reflect the present

and to anticipate the future

/t must be comprehensi'e enough to pro'ide for

e'ery contingency

/t should be !IEF

/t must confine itself to the basic principles to be

implemented with legislati'e details more ad7ustable

to change and easier to amend.

*ifficulty of its amendment would be a proli

-etended in length0 and 'oluminous codification

inaccessible to the understanding or e'en only theinterest of the people and unable to adapt readily to

changing conditions

/t must beCLE4!and DEFI'ITE

/t must not shed ambiguity in its pro'isions result in

confusion and di'isi'eness among the people% andperhaps e'en physical conflict.

o 5P'9 Cases where the rules are deliberately

worded in a 'ague manner to ma!e them

more malleable to 7udicial interpretation in

the light of new conditions and

circumstance.

Essential Parts of the ,ritten Constitution

Constitution ofLiberty - series of prescriptions setting

forth the fundamental ci'il and political rights of the citi1ens

and imposing limitation on the powers of go'ernment as ameans of securing the en7oyment of those rights.

3ound in9

rt. /// # Bill or Rights

rt. // # *eclaration of State +olicy

rt. /@ # Citi1enship

rt. @ # Suffragert. A// # ,ational Economy and +atrimony

Constitution of Government consists of a series of

pro'isions outlining the organi1ation of the go'ernment%

enumerating its powers% laying down certain rules relati'e to

its administration% and defining the electorate

3ound in9

rt. @/ -Legislati'e0rt. @// -Eecuti'e0

rt. @/// -=udiciary0

rt. A/ -Constitutional Commissions0

Constitution ofSovereignty consists of the pro'isions

pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which

formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about

3ound in9

rt. A@// # mendments and Re'isions

Permanence of the Constitution

Permanence is the capacity to resist capricious or whimsicalchange dictated not by legitimate needs but only by passing

fancies% temporary passions or occasional infatuations of the

people with ideas or personalities.

/t is not li!ely to be easily tampered with to suit political

epediency% personal ambitions or ill8ad'ised agitation for

change.

Disad%antage9 where the written constitution is unable to

ad7ust to the need for change 7ustified by new conditions andcircumstances

Interpretation of the Constitution

/t should be interpreted in such a way as to gi'e

effect to the intendment of the framers. /t is

disco'erable through9o *ocument itself

o :se of etrinsic aids

o Records of the constitutional commission

itself

3: Should the constitution be petrified or

progressi'e

o 4:+rogressi'e. The constitution must

change with the changing times lest it

impede the progress of the people with

antiquated rules grown ineffecti'e in a

modern age.

/n case of doubt% the constitution should be

interpreted as self8eecuting rather than non8self8

eecutingo >andatory rather than directory

o +rospecti'e rather than retroacti'e

Self6executing pro%isionis a rule that by itself is

directly or indirectly applicable without need of

statutory implementation

Collector of Customs v. Villaluz the SC held that

7udges deri'e directly from rt. ///% Sec. $ of the

Constitution the authority to conduct preliminary

in'estigations to determine probable cause for the

issuance of a search warrant or warrant of arrest%

which power may not be withdrawn or restricted bythe legislature.

Eecuti'e power of the +resident # rt. @//% Sec. "

is self8eecuting

'on6self6executing is one that remains dormant

unless it is acti'ated by legislati'e implementation

Ex7: 4rt7 II) Sec7 87 &ll citi1ens may be required%

under conditions pro'ided by law% to render personal

military% or ci'il ser'ice.

Ex7: 4rt7 I9) Sec7 7 &+hilippine citi1enship may be

lost or reacquired in the manner pro'ided by law.


3/14

5P' to 5P':/mplementation may% howe'er% be

imposed as a duty upon the legislature by mandatory

language of the constitution.

Ex7: 4rt7 5) Sec7 -.7 The first Congress elected

under this Constitution shall% within eighteen months

from the time of organi1ation of both ;ouses% pass

the organic acts for the autonomous regions in>uslim >indanao and the Cordilleras.

The pro'isions of the constitution must be

>,*TOR


4/14

people for ratification in special elections merely shows that

Congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then

obtaining. /t does not negate its authority to submit proposed

amendments for ratification in general elections.

Occena v. COMELEC the SC sustained the simultaneous

holding in "DIJ of the local elections and the plebiscite on theproposal to restore the retirement age of 7udges to se'enty

years.

Audicial !e%iew of 4mendments

The question of the 'alidity of the adoption of amendments to

the Constitution is regarded now as sub7ect to 7udicial re'iew

1Austicia#le Buestions2

Sani!a! v. COMELEC The Solicitor 6eneral wouldconsider the question at bar a pure political one% lying outside

the domain of 7udicial re'iew. The amending process% both as

to proposal and ratification% raises a 7udicial question. This is

especially true in cases where the power of the +residency to

initiate the amending process by proposals of amendments% a

function normally eercised by the legislature% is seriously

doubted.

-./0 Constitution

-.> Constitution 1Commonwealth Constitution2

continued by its pro'isions to be operati'e after the

proclamation of the Republic of the +hilippines

-.0 Constitution

-./= Constitution 1Freedom Constitution2

3ebruary $4% "DI5

By 'irtue of Proclamation 'o7 .by +res. quino% a

Constitutional Commission was made composed of

4J members appointed by her and charged it to framea new charter not later than September $% "DI5.

=ustice Cecilia >uno18+alma of the SC is "stto ta!e

the position

The Constitutional Commission was not able to meet

the deadline because the members came from

different sectors and represented di'erse persuasions.

The final draft was appro'ed only on October $% "DI5

The plebiscite was scheduled and held on 3ebruary $%

"DI5

5.$DK to ratify% $$.2K against

Chapter : The Constitution and the Courts

9oting

4rt7 9III) Sec7 8 ll cases in'ol'ing the constitutionality ofa treaty% international or eecuti'e agreement% or law% which

shall be heard by the SC en banc, and all other cases which

under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc,

including those in'ol'ing the constitutionality% application% or

operation of presidential decrees% proclamations% orders%

instructions% ordinance% and other regulations% shall be decided

with the occurrence of a ma7ority of the >embers who

actually too! part in the deliberations on the issues in the case

and 'oted thereon.

-See case of Firestone Ceramics v. CA0

:nder the "D)4 Constitution -treaty or law O,L


5/14

o 5P': !ule =8) Sec7 -7 /f the purpose of the

ad'isory opinion is to solicit from the court

*ECLRTOR< =:*6>E,T in'ol'ing

the interpretation of the rights and duties of

a person under the pro'isions of a deed% will%

contract or other written instrument% or a

statute or ordinance% the case is deemed an

actual contro'ersy o'er which% the courts

may 'alidly assume 7urisdiction.

C' v. Secretary of E!ucation the possibilitythat such permit might be denied them in the future%

according to the SC% is a premature case because

there at the time% there was not showing of any

conflict of legal rights that would 7ustify such

assumption of 7urisdiction by the 7udiciary

&(ILCO)S# v.Villareal The case was declared

moot and academic by the Supreme Court because anew constitution -"D)0 was established which

resulted to the abolishment of the Congress of the

+hilippines

&erez v.&rovincial *oar! 8 The SC held that the

petitionerHs claim to an appointi'e office was

rendered moot and academic when he filed a

certificate of candidacy for an electi'e office

Morelas v7+e la ,osa an election protest will ha'eto be dismissed upon the epiration of the protested

officialHs term.

1&2 Proper Part+ 1Locus Standi2

Proper Part+ is one who has sustained or is in

immediate danger of sustaining an in7ury as a result

of the act complained of.

ileston v. 'lmann- physician challenged the

constitutionality of a law prohibiting the use ofcontracepti'es because it would be dangerous for the

health of his patients. The SC held that the patients

and not the physician himself were the proper parties.

Cuyegeng v.Cruz /n a quo warranto proceeding

wherein the petitioner challenges the title of the

respondent who he claimed to be appointed to the

Board of >edical Eaminers in 'iolation of the

pro'ision of the >edical ct of "D4D. The SC

dismissed the case because Cuyeg!eng had not madea claim to the position held by Cru1

E/ &arte LevittLe'itt was not a proper party since

he was not claiming the position held by =ustice

Blac!.

&eo$le v.Vera the court held that the 6o'ernmentof the +hilippines was a proper party to challenge the

constitutionality of the +robation ct because% more

than any other% it was the 6o'ernment itself thatshould be concerned o'er the 'alidity of its own

laws.

Custo!io v.Senate &resi!ent a challenge by an

ordinary tapayer to the 'alidity of a law granting

bac!pay to members of Congress during the period

corresponding to the =apanese Occupation was

dismissed as ha'ing been commenced by one who

was not a proper party.

#raneta v.+inglasan The rule on tapayers has

been changed% allowing an ordinary tapayer or a

group of tapayers% to raise the question of the

'alidity of an appropriation law.

olentino v.COMELEC a senator had the proper

party personality to see! the prohibition of a

plebiscite for the ratification of a proposedamendment.

&(ILCO)S# v.Gimenez an organi1ation of

tapayers and citi1ens was held to be a proper partyto question the constitutionality of a law pro'iding

for certain special retirement benefits for members of

the legislature.

O$osa v.%actoran the lower court dismissed the

case on the ground inter alia that the plaintiffs were

not proper parties but the SC through =ustice ;ilario

*a'ide re'ersed the decision because the petitionersminors has the standing to file a class suit based on

the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar

as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is

concerned.

Sani!a! v.COMELEC+residential decrees% the

enforcement of which% will cause direct in7ury to aperson% can be a source of locus standi.

Macalintal v. COMELEC a lawyer who questionedthe O'erseas bsentee @oting ct was accepted as a

proper party. The court has held that they may assail

the 'alidity of a law appropriating public funds

because ependiture of public funds by an officer of

the State for the purpose of eecuting an

unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of

such funds.

Loza!a v.COMELEC a petition to compel the

respondent to call special elections to fill "$'acancies in the interim Batasang +ambansa was

dismissed on the ground inter alia that the petitionerswere not proper parties as they had only what the SC

called &generali1ed interest( shared with the rest of

the people.

Guazon v.+e Villa The SC held that &well8

meaning citi1ens with only second8hand !nowledge

of the e'ents( were not considered proper parties to

challenge the saturation dri'es or &1onas( beingconducted by the military.

0ilosbayan v.Morato t first% the SC held that the

petitioners who were concerned citi1ens and

tapayers is the proper party to question the contract

pro'iding for the holding of the lotto or a national

lottery but it was re'ersed by the SC when it changed

its membership.

Osmena v. COMELEC the petitioner% who is also apresidential candidate% did not show that he had been

in7ured as a result of the ban on political commercials

on radio and tele'ision.

elecommunications an! *roa!cast #ttorneys of

t1e &1ili$$ines v.COMELEC The petitioners is

not the proper party in questioning the law requiring

tele'ision and radio stations to allocate free time to

the respondent agency.


6/14

4rt7 9II) Sec7 -/ allows any citi1en to challenge

the suspension of the pri'ilege of the writ of habeas

corpus or the proclamation of martial law.

12 Earliest "pportunit+

!: Constitutional questions must be raised at the earliest

opportunity% such that if it is not raised in the pleadings% itcannot be considered at the trial% and% if not considered in trial%

it cannot be considered on appeal.

5P':

-"0 /n criminal cases% the constitutional question can be

raised at any time in the discretion of the court

-$0 /n ci'il cases the constitutional question can be raisedat any stage if it is necessary to the determination of

the case

-)0 /n e'ery case% ecept where there is estoppel% the

constitutional question can be raised at any stage if it

in'ol'es the 7urisdiction of the court

182 'ecessit+ of Deciding Constitutional 3uestion 1Lis

oratorium Law% but the

defendants a'erred that the law had been declared

unconstitutional and therefore no rights could be built upon it.

The SC re7ected this contention and% applying considerations

of equity% relaed the operation of the general rule.

an v. *arrios -similar ruling0,e$ublic v. (eri!a# -similar ruling0

,e$ublic v. C%I -similar ruling0

1-2 Partial (nconstitutionalit+

The courts could hesitate to declare a law

unconstitutional and% and as long as they can% willsal'age the 'alid portions thereof in order to gi'e

effect to the legislati'e will as deference to thedoctrine of separation of powers.

!eBuisites for Declaration of Partial (nconstitutionalit+

-"0 The legislature is willing to retain the 'alid portions

e'en if the rest of the statute is declared illegal

-$0 The 'alid portions can stand independently as a

separate statute


7/14

Separa#ilit+ clause# & if for any reason any section

or pro'ision of this ct is declared in'alid or

unconstitutional% the remainder of the ct shall not be

affected by such declaration(

But e'en without such separa#ilit+ clause it has

been held that if the 'alid portion is so far

independent of the 'alid portion% it may be fair topresume that the legislature would ha'e enacted

it by itself if it had supposed that it could

constitutionally do so. /n re Cunanan # declared partly unconstitutional. The

amendment in the Rules of Court was prospecti'e but

the reduction of passing a'erage in the bar

eamination made it unconstitutional.

Macalintal Case The SC% while sustaining the

O'erseas bsentee @oting ct% declared as

unconstitutional that part of the law gi'ing Congressthe power to super'ise its implementation by the

CO>ELEC as inimical to the independence of the

electoral body.

Sando%al: 4mendment and !e%ision

Lambino v. COMELEC rt. A@// of the Constitution

spea!s of three modes of amending the Constitution.

The first mode is through Congress upon three8fourths 'ote of

all its >embers. The second mode is through a constitutionalcon'ention. The third mode is through a peopleHs initiati'e.

Section " of rticle A@//% referring to the first and second

modes% applies to &MNny amendment to% or re'ision of% this

Constitution.( /n contrast% Section $ of rticle A@//% referring

to the third mode% applies only to &mendments to this

Constitution.(

There can be no mista!e about it. The framers of the

Constitution intended% and wrote% a clear distinction between&amendment( and &re'ision( of the Constitution. The framers

intended% and wrote% that only Congress or a constitutional

con'ention may propose re'isions to the Constitution. The

framers intended% and wrote% that a peopleHs initiati'e may

propose only amendments to the Constitution. Ghere the

intent and language of the Constitution clearly withhold from

the people the power to propose re'isions to the Constitution%

the people cannot propose re'isions e'en as they areempowered to propose amendments.

Imbong v. COMELEC TheCongress% when acting as a

Constituent ssembly% pursuant to rt. A@ of the Constitution

-now rt. A@//0% has full and plenary authority to proposeConstitutional amendments or to call a con'ention for the

purpose% by a three8fourths 'ote of each ;ouse in 7oint session

assembled but 'oting separately.

The grant to Congress as a Constituent ssembly of such

plenary authority to call a constitutional con'ention includes%

by 'irtue of the doctrine of necessary implication% all other

powers essential to the effecti'e eercise of the principal

power granted% such as the power to fi the qualifications%

number% apportionment% and compensation of the delegates as

well as appropriation of funds to meet the epenses for the

election of delegates and for the operation of the

Constitutional Con'ention itself% as well as all other

implementing details indispensable to a fruitful con'ention.

Ghile the authority to call a constitutional con'ention is

'ested by the present Constitution solely and eclusi'ely in

Congress acting as a Constituent ssembly% the power to enactthe implementing details% which are now contained in

Resolutions ,os. $ and 2 as well as in R.. ,o. 5")$% does no

eclusi'ely pertain to Congress acting as a Constituent

ssembly. Such implementing details are matters within the

competence of Congress in the eercise of its comprehensi'e

legislati'e power% which power encompasses all matters not

epressly or by necessary implication withdrawn or remo'ed

by the Constitution from the ambit of legislati'e action. nd

as long as such statutory details do not clash with any specific

pro'ision of the Constitution% they are 'alid.

Consequently% when Congress% acting as a Constituent

ssembly% omits to pro'ide for such implementing details

after calling a constitutional con'ention% Congress% acting as a

legislati'e body% can enact the necessary implementing

legislation to fill in the gaps% which authority is epressly

recogni1ed in Sec. I of Res. ,o. $ as amended by Res. ,o. 2.

The fact that a bill pro'iding for such implementing details

may be 'etoed by the +resident is no argument against

conceding such power in Congress as a legislati'e body nor

present any difficulty? for it is not irremediable as Congress

can o'erride the +residential 'eto or Congress can recon'ene

as a Constituent ssembly and adopt a resolution prescribing

the required implementing details.

Gonzales v. COMELEC Doctrines: 1-2 +roposal of

amendments is not a political but a 7usticiable question sub7ect

to 7udicial re'iew. This doctrine is reaffirmed in Sanidad '.

CO>ELEC. 1&2The choice as to whether to proposeamendments or to call a constitutional con'ention for that

purpose or to do both was a question of wisdom and not of

authority and hence was a political question not sub7ect to

re'iew by the courts. 12 The constituent power% or the power

to amend or re'ise the Constitution% is different from the law8

ma!ing power of Congress.

ana!a v. Cuenco The courts can inquire into whether or

not the prescribed procedure for amendment has been

obser'ed.

Lambino v. COMELEC Courts ha'e long recogni1ed the

distinction between an amendment and a re'ision of aconstitution.

,evisionbroadly implies a change that alters a basic principle

in the constitution% li!e altering the principle of separation of

powers or the system of chec!s8and balances. There is also

re'ision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the

constitution% as when the change affects substantial pro'isions

of the constitution. On the other hand% amen!mentbroadly

refers to a change that adds% reduces% or deletes !it"o#taltering the basic principle in'ol'ed. Re'ision generally

affects se'eral pro'isions of the constitution% while


8/14

amendment generally affects only the specific pro'ision being

amended.

/n California where the initiati'e clause allows amendments

but not re'isions to the constitution 7ust li!e in our

Constitution% courts ha'e de'eloped a two8part test9 the

$#antitative test and the $#alitative test. The Buantitati%e test

as!s whether the proposed change is &so etensi'e in its

pro'isions as to change directly the substantial entiretyH of the

constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous eisting

pro'isions.( The court eamines only the number of

pro'isions affected and does not consider the degree of the

change.

The Bualitati%e test inquires into the qualitati'e effects of the

proposed change in the constitution. The main inquiry is

whether the change will &accomplish such far reachingchanges in the nature of our basic go'ernmental plan as to

amount to a re'ision.( Ghether there is an alteration in the

structure of go'ernment is a proper sub7ect of inquiry. Thus%

&a change in the nature of MtheN basic go'ernmental plan(

includes &change in its fundamental framewor! or the

fundamental powers of its Branches.( change in the nature

of the basic go'ernmental plan also includes changes that&7eopardi1e the traditional form of go'ernment and the systemof chec! and balances.(

:nder both the quantitati'e and qualitati'e tests% the Lambino

6roupHs initiati'e is a re'ision and not merely an amendment.

%#antitativel&% the Lambino 6roupHs proposed changes

o'erhaul two articles # rticle @/ on the Legislature and

rticle @// on the Eecuti'e # affecting a total of "J4

pro'isions in the entire Constitution. %#alitativel&% theproposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of

go'ernment% from presidential to parliamentary% and from a

bicameral to a unicameral legislature.

change in the structure of go'ernment is a re'ision of the

Constitution% as when the three great co8equal branches of

go'ernment in the present Constitution are reduced into two.

This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution. shift

from the present Bicameral8 +residential system to a

:nicameral8+arliamentary system is a re'ision of theConstitution. >erging the legislati'e and eecuti'e branches

is a radical change in the structure of go'ernment.

The abolition alone of the Office of the +resident as the locus

of Eecuti'e +ower alters the separation of powers and thus

constitutes a re'ision of the Constitution. Li!ewise% the

abolition alone of one chamber of Congress alters the systemof chec!s8and8balances within the legislature and constitutes are'ision of the Constitution.

By any legal test and under any 7urisdiction) a shift from a

Bicameral8+residential to a :nicameral8+arliamentary system%

in'ol'ing the abolition of the Office of the +resident and the

abolition of one chamber of Congress% is beyond doubt a

re'ision% not a mere amendment. On the face alone of the

Lambino 6roupHs proposed changes% it is readily apparent thatthe changes will radically alter the framewor! of go'ernment

as set forth in the Constitution. 3ather =oaquin Bernas% S.=.% a

leading member of the Constitutional Commission% writes9

&n amendment en'isages an alteration of one or a few

specific and separable pro'isions. The guiding original

intention of an amendment is to impro'e specific parts or to

add new pro'isions deemed necessary to meet new conditions

or to suppress specific portions that may ha'e become

obsolete or that are 7udged to be dangerous. /n re%ision%howe'er% the guiding original intention and plan contemplates

a re8eamination of the entire document% or of pro'isions of

the document which ha'e o'er8all implications for the entire

document% to determine how and to what etent they should be

altered. Thus) for instance a switch from the presidential

s+stem to aparliamentar+ s+stem would #e a re%ision#ecause of its o%er6allimpact on the entire constitutional

structure7 So would a switch froma #icameral s+stem to aunicameral s+stem #e #ecause of its effecton other

important pro%isions of the Constitution. -Emphasissupplied0(

Ghere the proposed change applies only to a specific

pro'ision of the Constitution without affecting any other

section or article% the change may generally be considered an

amendment and not a re'ision. 3or eample% a change

reducing the 'oting age from "I years to "4 years is anamendment and not a re'ision. Similarly% a change reducing3ilipino ownership of mass media companies from "JJ

percent to 5J percent is an amendment and not a re'ision.

lso% a change requiring a college degree as an additional

qualification for election to the +residency is an amendment

and not a re'ision.

The changes in these eamples do not entail any modification

of sections or articles of the Constitution other than thespecific pro'ision being amended. These changes do not also

affect the structure of go'ernment or the system of chec!s8

and8balances among or within the three branches. These three

eamples are located at the far green end of the spectrum%opposite the far red end where the re'ision sought by the

present petition is located.

;owe'er% there can be no fied rule on whether a change is an

amendment or a re'ision. change in a single word of one

sentence of the Constitution may be a re'ision and not anamendment. 3or eample% the substitution of the word

&republican( with &monarchic( or &theocratic( in Section "%

rticle // of the Constitution radically o'erhauls the entire

structure of go'ernment and the fundamental ideological basis

of the Constitution. Thus% each specific change will ha'e to be

eamined case8by8case% depending on how it affects other

pro'isions% as well as how it affects the structure ofgo'ernment% the carefully crafted system of chec!s8and8

balances% and the underlying ideological basis of the eisting

Constitution.

Since a re'ision of a constitution affects basic principles% or

se'eral pro'isions of a constitution% a deliberati'e body with

recorded proceedings is best suited to underta!e a re'ision.

re'ision requires harmoni1ing not only se'eral pro'isions% but

also the altered principles with those that remain unaltered.Thus% constitutions normally authori1e deliberati'e bodies li!e

constituent assemblies or constitutional con'entions to

underta!e re'isions. On the other hand% constitutions allow


9/14

peopleHs initiati'es% which do not ha'e fied and identifiable

deliberati'e bodies or recorded proceedings% to underta!e only

amendments and not re'isions.

Doctrine of Proper Su#mission: The entire constitution must

be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only. Submission

for ratification of piecemeal amendments disallowed.

Lambino v. COMELEC The essence of amendments

&directly proposed by the people through initiati'e upon a

petition( is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by

the people. This means two essential elements must be

present. %irst% the people must author and thus sign the entire

proposal. ,o agent or representati'e can sign on their behalf.

Secon!% as an initiati'e upon a petition% the proposal must be

embodied in a petition.

These essential elements are present only if the full tet of the

proposed amendments is first shown to the people who

epress their assent by signing such complete proposal in a

petition. Thus% an amendment is &directly proposed by the

people through initiati'e upon a petition( only if the people

sign on a petition that contains the full tet of the proposed

amendments7

The full tet of the proposed amendments may be either

written on the face of the petition% or attached to it.'f so

attac"ed% the petition must state the fact of such attachment.

This is an assurance that e'ery one of the se'eral millions of

signatories to the petition had seen the full tet of the proposed

amendments before signing. Otherwise% it is physically

impossible% gi'en the time constraint% to pro'e that e'ery one

of the millions of signatories had seen the full tet of theproposed amendments before signing.

Sando%al: Audicial !e%iew

Audicial Power

4rt7 9III) Sec7 -7 The 7udicial power shall be 'ested

in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as

may be established by law.

=udicial power includes the duty of the courts of 7ustice to

settle actual contro'ersies in'ol'ing rights which arelegally demandable and enforceable% and to determine

whether or not there has been a gra'e abuse of discretion

amounting to lac! or ecess of 7urisdiction on the part of

any branch or instrumentality of the 6o'ernment.

s early as#ngara v. Electoral ribunal% the SC

held that when it performs his chec!ing function of

the co8equal branches% it is merely performing a dutyimposed upon it by the Constitution? that it acts as the

mechanism that implements the Psupremacy of the

Constitution.P "e etent to !"ic" it eercises t"is

f#nction, "o!ever, "as beenlimited b& t"e political

$#estion doctrine.

Ghen the court allocated constitutional boundaries% it

neither asserts supremacy% nor annuls the acts of the

legislature. /t simply carries out the solemn and

sacred obligations imposed upon it by the

constitution to determine conflicting claims and to

establish for the parties the rights which the

constitution grants to them. This is in truth all that is

in'ol'ed in what is termed P7udicial supremacyP

which properly is the power of 7udicial re'iew underthe Constitution.

acao v. C#. The inherent powers of a Court to

amend and control its processes and orders so as to

ma!e them conformable to law and 7ustice includes

the right to re'erse itself% especially when in its

honest opinion it has committed an error or mista!e

in 7udgment% and that to adhere to its decision willcause in7ustice to a party litigant.

+rilon v. Lim Do lower courts ha%e $urisdiction to

consider the constitutionalit+ of a law

The lower court had 7urisdiction to consider the

constitutionality of Section "I% this authority being embraced

in the general definition of the 7udicial power to determine

what are the 'alid and binding laws by the criterion of their

conformity to the fundamental law. Specifically% B+ "$D 'estsin the regional trial courtHs 7urisdiction o'er all ci'il cases in

which the sub7ect of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary

estimation (Sec. *+*)% e'en as the accused in a criminal

action has the right to question in his defense the

constitutionality of a law he is charged with 'iolating and of

the proceedings ta!en against him% particularly as they

contra'ene the Bill of Rights. >oreo'er% rticle @///% Section

4-$0% of the Constitution 'ests in the Supreme Court appellate7urisdiction o'er final 7udgments and orders of lower courts in

all cases in which the constitutionality or 'alidity of any

treaty% international or eecuti'e agreement% law% presidential

decree% proclamation% order% instruction% ordinance% orregulation is in question.

Political 3uestion Doctrine

I*& v. 2amora - s a general proposition% a contro'ersy is

7usticiable if it refers to a matter which is appropriate for court

re'iew. /t pertains to issues which are inherently susceptible of

being decided on grounds recogni1ed by law. ,e'ertheless%

the Court does not automatically assume 7urisdiction o'er

actual constitutional cases brought before it e'en in instances

that are ripe for resolution. One class of cases wherein the

Court hesitates to rule on are &political questions.( The reason

is thatpolitical $#estions are concerned !it" iss#esdependen#pon t"e !isdom, not t"e lealit&, of a partic#lar act ormeas#re bein assailed. >oreo'er% the political question being

a function of the separation of powers% the courts will not

normally interfere with the wor!ings of another co8equal

branch unless the case shows a clear need for the courts to step

in to uphold the law and the Constitution.

s anada v. Anaraputs it% P"LITIC4L 3(ESTI"'S

refer &to t"ose $#estions !"ic", #nder t"e Constit#tion, are tobe decided b& t"e people in t"eir soverein capacit&, or in

reard to !"ic" f#ll discretionar& a#t"orit& "as been

deleated to t"e leislative or eec#tive branc" of


10/14

overnment.( Thus% if an issue is clearly identified by the tet

of theConstitution as matters for discretionary action by a

particular branch of go'ernment or tothe people themsel'es

then it is held to be a political question. /n the classic

formulation of=ustice Brennan in/aker v. Carr, &MpNrominent

on the surface of any case held to in'ol'e apolitical question

is found a tetually demonstrable constitutional commitmentof the issueto a coordinate political department? or a lac! of

7udicially disco'erable and manageablestandards for

resol'ing it? or the impossibility of deciding without an initial

policydetermination of a !ind clearly for non7udicial

discretion? or the impossibility of a courtQsunderta!ing

independent resolution without epressing lac! of the respect

due coordinatebranches of go'ernment? or an unusual need

for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already

made? or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious

pronouncements by 'arious departments on the one question.(

The "DI Constitution epands the concept of 7udicial re'iew

by pro'iding that 0"e 1#dicial po!er s"all be vested in one

S#preme Co#rt and in s#c" lo!er co#rts as ma& be

establis"ed b& la!. J#dicial po!er incl#des t"e d#t& of t"e

co#rts of 1#stice to settle act#al controversies involvin ri"ts

!"ic" are leall& demandable and enforceable, and todetermine !"et"er or not t"ere "as been a rave ab#se ofdiscretion amo#ntin to lack or ecess of 1#risdiction on t"e

part of an& branc" or instr#mentalit& of t"e 2overnment.3

(Article 4''', Sec. * of t"e *+56 Constit#tion) :nder this

definition% the Court cannot agree that the issue in'ol'ed is a

political question beyond the 7urisdiction of this Court to

re'iew. 7"en t"e rant of po!er is $#alified, conditional or

s#b1ect to limitations% the issueof whether the prescribed

qualifications or conditions ha'e been met or the limitationsrespected% is 7usticiable # the problem being one of legality or

'alidity% not its wisdom. >oreo'er% the 7urisdiction to delimit

constitutional boundaries has been gi'en to this Court. 7"en

political $#estions are involved% the Constitution limits thedetermination as towhether or not there has been a gra'e

abuse of discretion amounting to lac! or ecess of7urisdiction

on the part of the official whose action is being questioned.

By gra%e a#use of discretionis meant simply capricious or

whimsical eercise of 7udgment that is patent and gross as toamount to an e'asion of positi'e duty or a 'irtual refusal to

perform a duty en7oined by law% or to act at all in

contemplation of law% as where the power is eercised in an

arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or

hostility. :nder this definition% a co#rt is !it"o#t po!er to

directl& decide matters over !"ic" f#ll discretionar&a#t"orit&

"as been deleated. But while this Court has no power tosubstitute its 7udgment for that of Congress or of the +resident%it may loo! into the question of whether such eercise has

been made in gra'e abuse of discretion. showing that

plenary power is granted either department of go'ernment

may not be an obstacle to 7udicial inquiry% for the impro'ident

eercise or abuse thereof may gi'e rise to 7usticiable

contro'ersy.

Estra!a v. +esierto - /n fine% the legal distinction betweenE*S +eople +ower / and E*S +eople +ower // is clear

E*S / presented a political question? E*S // in'ol'es

legal questions.

,eedless to state% the cases at bar pose legal and not political

questions. The principal issues for resolution require the

proper interpretation of certain pro'isions in the "DI

Constitution% notably Section " of rticle //% and Section I of

rticle @//% and the allocation of go'ernmental powers under

Section "" of rticle @//.

EDS4 - EDS4 &

/n'ol'es the eercise of the

people power of re'olution

which o'erthrows the whole

go'ernment

n eercise of people power

of freedom of speech

freedom of assembly to

petition the go'ernment forredress and grie'ances which

only affected the office of the

president.

/s etra8constitutional and the

legitimacy of the new

go'ernment that resulted

from it cannot be sub7ect of

7udicial re'iew

/s intra8constitutional and the

resignation of the sitting

president that it caused and

the succession of the @+ as

president are sub7ect to

7udicial re'iew

+olitical question =usticiable question

!eBuisites of Audicial !e%iew

1-2 4ctual Case or Contro%ers+

I*& v. 2amora - n *4CT(4L C4SE "!

C"'T!"9E!S@ means an eisting case or contro'ersy

which is both ripe for resolution and susceptible of 7udicial

determination% and that which is not con7ectural or

anticipatory% or that which see!s to resol'e hypothetical or

feigned constitutional problems. petition raising a

constitutional question does not present an &actualcontro'ersy%( unless it alleges a legal right or power.>oreo'er% it must show that a conflict of rights eists% for

inherent in the term &contro'ersy( is the presence of opposing

'iews or contentions. Otherwise% the Court will be forced to

resol'e issues which remain unfocused because they lac! such

concreteness pro'ided when a question emerges precisely

framed from a clash of ad'ersary arguments eploring e'ery

aspect of a multi8faceted situation embracing conflicting and

demanding interests. The contro'ersy must also be 7usticiable?

that is% it must be susceptible of 7udicial determination.

+avi! v. Maca$agal-#rroyo - n actual case or contro%ers+

in'ol'es a conflict of legal right% an opposite legal claims

susceptible of 7udicial resolution. /t is &definite and concrete%

touching the legal relations of parties ha'ing ad'erse legal

interest?( a real and substantial contro'ersy admitting of

specific relief.

Cutaran v. +E), - A(STICI4LE C"'T!"9E!S@

has been defined as% &a definite and concrete dispute touching

on the legal relations of parties ha'ing ad'erse legal interests(

which may be resol'ed by a court of law through the

application of a law. Co#rts "ave no 1#dicialpo!er to revie!

cases involvin political $#estions and as a r#le, !ill desist

from takin coni8ance of spec#lative or "&pot"etical cases,


11/14

advisor& opinions and in cases t"at "as become moot. Sub7ect

to certain well8defined eceptions courts will not touch an

issue in'ol'ing the 'alidity of a law unless there has been a

go'ernmental act accomplished or performed that has a direct

ad'erse effect on the legal right of the person contesting its

'alidity.

Isagani Cruz v. Sec. of +E), - /n the case at bar% there eist

a li'e contro'ersy in'ol'ing a clash of legal rights. law has

been enacted% and the /mplementing Rules and Regulations

appro'ed. >oney has been appropriated and the go'ernment

agencies concerned ha'e been directed to implement the

statute. /t cannot be successfully maintained that we should

await the ad'erse consequences of the law in order to consider

the contro'ersy actual and ripe for 7udicial resolution. /t is

precisely the contention of the petitioners that the law% on its

face% constitutes an unconstitutional abdication of Stateownership o'er lands of the public domain and other natural

resources. >oreo'er% when the State machinery is set into

motion to implement an alleged unconstitutional statute% this

Court possesses sufficient authority to resol'e and pre'ent

imminent in7ury and 'iolation of the constitutional process.

4d%isor+ "pinion

!: request for ad'isory opinion cannot come in the

category of an actual case or contro'ersy since the issue raised

does not in'ol'e any conflict in law that has assumed the

proportions of a full8blown dispute. The court in this case is

being as!ed only to counsel and not to decide.

5P': Ghen the purpose is to solicit from the court a

declaratory 7udgment in'ol'ing the interpretation of the rightsand duties of a person under the pro'isions of a deed% will%

contract% or other written instrument% or a statute or ordinance%

the case is deemed an actual contro'ersy o'er which the courts

may 'alidly assume 7urisdiction.

ay ""%

"DDI election% its implications on the peopleHs fundamental

freedom of epression transcends the past election. Theholding of periodic elections is a basic feature of our

democratic go'ernment. By its 'ery nature% eit polling is tied

up with elections. To set aside the resolution of the issue now

will only postpone a tas! that could well crop up again in

future elections.

/n any e'ent% in Salona v. Cr#8 Pano% the Court had occasionto reiterate that it Palso has the duty to formulate guiding andcontrolling constitutional principles% precepts% doctrines% or

rules. /t has the s+m#olic function of educating bench and bar

on the etent of protection gi'en by constitutional guarantees.P

Since the fundamental freedoms of speech and of the press are

being in'o!ed here% we ha'e resol'ed to settle% for the

guidance of posterity% whether they li!ewise protect the

holding of eit polls and the dissemination of data deri'ed

therefrom.

Proper Part+

I*& v. 2amora - GLegal standingG or locus stan!i has beendefined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such

that the party has sustained or will sustain direct in7ury as a

result of the go'ernmental act that is being challenged. The

term PinterestP means a material interest% an interest in issue

affected by the decree% as distinguished from mere interest in

the question in'ol'ed% or a mere incidental interest. Theist oft"e $#estionof standin is whether a party alleges Psuch

personal sta!e in the outcome of the contro'ersy as to assure

that concrete ad'erseness which sharpens the presentation of

issues upon which the court depends for illumination of

difficult constitutional questions.P

+avi! v. Maca$agal-#rroyo - Locus stan!i is defined as &aright of appearance in a court of 7ustice on a gi'en question.(/n pri'ate suits% standing is go'erned by the &real8parties8in

interest( rule as contained in Section $% Rule ) of the "DD

Rules of Ci'il +rocedure% as amended. /t pro'ides that &e'ery

action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real

party in interest.( ccordingly% the *real6part+6in interest is

the party who stands to be benefited or in7ured by the

7udgment in the suit or the party entitled to the a'ails of the

suit.( Succinctly put% the plaintiffHs standing is based on hisown right to the relief sought.


12/14

"e diffic#lt& of determinin loc#s standi arises in$ublic

suits. ;ere% the plaintiff who asserts a &public right( in

assailing an allegedly illegal official action% does so as a

representati'e of the general public. ;e may be a person who

is affected no differently from any other person. ;e could be

suing as a &stranger%( or in the category of a &citi1en(% or

&tapayer.( /n either case% he has to adequately show that he isentitled to see! 7udicial protection. /n other words% he has to

ma!e out a sufficient interest in the 'indication of the public

order and the securing of relief as a &citi1en( or &tapayer.(

Case law in most 7urisdictions now allows both citi1en and

tapayer standing in public actions. The distinction was first

laid down in/ea#c"amp v. Silk% where it was held that the

plaintiff in a tapayerHs suit is in a different category from the

plaintiff in a citi1enHs suit. /n theformer% the plaintiff is

affected by the ependiture of public funds% while in the latter%he is but the mere instrument of the public concern. s held by

the ,ew


13/14

(11 3or taxpa+ers% there must be a claim of illegal

disbursement of public funds or that the ta measure

is unconstitutional?

(11 3or %oters% there must be a showing of ob'ious

interest in the 'alidity of the election law in question?

(11 3or concerned citiHens% there must be a showing

that the issues raised are of transcendental importancewhich must be settled early? and

(11 3or legislators% there must be a claim that the

official action complained of infringes upon their

prerogati'es as legislators.

Significantly% recent decisions show a certain toughening inthe CourtHs attitude toward legal standing.

/n?ilosba&an, 'nc. v. =orato% the Court ruled that the status

of?ilosba&an as a peopleHs organi1ation does not gi'e it the

requisite personality to question the 'alidity of the on8line

lottery contract% more so where it does not raise any issue of

constitutionality. >oreo'er% it cannot sue as a tapayer absent

any allegation that public funds are being misused. ,or can itsue as a concerned citi1en as it does not allege any specific

in7ury it has suffered.

/n elecomm#nications and /roadcast Attorne&s of t"e

P"ilippines, 'nc. v. C% the opposition Congressmen alleged

there was usurpation of legislati'e powers. They also raised

the issue of whether or not the concurrence of Congress is

necessary whene'er the alarming powers incident to >artial

Law are used. >oreo'er% it is in the interest of 7ustice that

those affected by ++ "J" can be represented by their

Congressmen in bringing to the attention of the Court the

alleged 'iolations of their basic rights.

/n 7!7 'o7 -0-8% -L6/0% this Court applied the liberality

rule inP"ilconsa v. 9nri$#e8%?apatiran @ =a

@alilinkod sa Pama"alaan n Pilipinas, 'nc. v. an%

Association of SmallLando!ners in t"e P"ilippines, 'nc. v.

Secretar& of Ararian eform%/asco v. P"ilippine

Am#sement and 2amin Corporation, and anada v. #vera%

that when the issue concerns a public right% it is sufficient that

the petitioner is a citi1en and has an interest in the eecution

of the laws.

/n 7!7 'o7 -0-8/% >:Hs assertion that ++ "J" and 6.O.

,o. 4 'iolated its right to peaceful assembly may be deemed

sufficient to gi'e it legal standing. Organi1ations may be

granted standing to assert the rights of their members. Ge ta!e

7udicial notice of the announcement by the Office of the

+resident banning all rallies and cancelling all permits for

public assemblies following the issuance of ++ "J" and 6.O.,o. 4.

/n 7!7 'o7 -0-8/.% petitioners% Cadi8 et al., who are national

officers of the /ntegrated Bar of the +hilippines -/B+0 ha'e no

legal standing% ha'ing failed to allege any direct or potential

in7ury which the /B+ as an institution or its members may

suffer as a consequence of the issuance of ++ ,o. "J" and

6.O. ,o. 4. /n'nterated /ar of t"e P"ilippines v. >amora,

the Court held that the mere in'ocation by the /B+ of its dutyto preser'e the rule of law and nothing more% while

undoubtedly true% is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in

this case. This is too general an interest which is shared by

other groups and the whole citi1enry. ;owe'er% in 'iew of thetranscendental importance of the issue% this Court declares that

petitioner ha'e loc#s standi.

/n 7!7 'o7 -0-8&8% Loren Legarda has no personality as a

tapayer to file the instant petition as there are no allegations

of illegal disbursement of public funds. The fact that she is aformer Senator is of no consequence. She can no longer sue as

a legislator on the allegation that her prerogati'es as a

lawma!er ha'e been impaired by ++ "J" and 6.O. ,o. 4.

;er claim that she is a media personality will not li!ewise aid

her because there was no showing that the enforcement of

these issuances pre'ented her from pursuing her occupation.

;er submission that she has pending electoral protest beforethe +residential Electoral Tribunal is li!ewise of no rele'ance.She has not sufficiently shown that ++ "J" will affect the

proceedings or result of her case. But considering once more

the transcendental importance of the issue in'ol'ed% this Court

may rela the standing rules.

/t must always be borne in mind that the question of loc#s

standi is but corollary to the bigger question of proper eercise

of 7udicial power. This is the underlying legal tenet of the&liberality doctrine( on legal standing. /t cannot be doubted

that the 'alidity of ++ ,o. "J" and 6.O. ,o. 4 is a 7udicial

question which is of paramount importance to the 3ilipino


14/14

people. To paraphrase =ustice Laurel% the whole of +hilippine

society now waits with bated breath the ruling of this Court on

this 'ery critical matter. The petitions thus call for the

application of the &transcendental importance doctrine(% a

relaation of the standing requirements for the petitioners in

the ++ "J" cases.

This Court holds that all the petitioners herein ha'e loc#s

standi.

Taxpa+erJs Suit

#nti-Graft League of t1e &1ili$$ines v. San 3uan To

constitute a tapayerQs suit% two reBuisites must be met%

namely% that pu#lic funds are dis#ursed #+ a politicalsu#di%ision or instrumentalit+ and in doing so% a law is

%iolated or some irregularit+ is committed% and that thepetitioner is directl+ affected #+ the alleged ultra %ires act.

:ndeniably% as a tapayer% petitioner would somehow be

ad'ersely affected by an illegal use of public money. Ghen%

howe'er% no such unlawful spending has been shown% as in the

case at bar% petitioner% e'en as a tapayer% cannot question the

transaction 'alidly eecuted by and between the +ro'ince andOrtigas for the simple reason that it is not pri'y to saidcontract.

Gonzales v. )arvasa - tapayer is deemed to ha'e the

standing to raise a constitutional issue when it is established

that public funds ha'e been disbursed in alleged contra'ention

of the law or the Constitution. Thus% a tapayerHs action is

properly brought only when there is an eercise by Congress

of its taing or spending power

Earliest "pportunit+:

!: /f not raised in the pleadings% it cannot be considered atthe trial% and if not considered at the trial% it cannot be

considered on appeal.

5P': ". in criminal cases# can be raised at any time in the

discretion of the court.

$.'n civil cases# can be raised at any stage if it is necessary to

the determination of the case itself.

).'n ever& case, ecept !"ere t"ere is estoppel# can be raised

at any stage if it in'ol'es the 7urisdiction of the court.

'ecessit+ of Deciding Constitutional 3uestion

Laurel v. Garcia - The Court does not ordinarily pass upon

constitutional questions unless these questions are properly

raised in appropriate cases and their resolution is necessary for

the determination of the case (People v. 4era, B P"il. B

*+D6). The Court will not pass upon a constitutional

question although properly presented by the record if the casecan be disposed of on some other ground such as the

application of a statute or general law.

Lalican v. Vergara - Thus% e'en if all the requisites for

7udicial re'iew of a constitutional matter are present in a case%

this Court will not pass upon a constitutional question unless it

is the lis mota of the case or if the case can be disposed of on

some other grounds% such as the application of the statute or

general law.

Documents

CruzReviewer I III