REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW

A. Definition and Division of Political LawPolitical

Law
is that branch of public law which dealsw i t h
the organization and
operations of
t h e governmental organs of the
S t a t e a n d d e f i n e s t h e relations of the
State with the inhabitants of its
territory.a . C o n s t i t u t i o n a l
Lawb.Administrative
l a w c . E l e c t i o n L a w d.Law of
P u b l i c O f f i c e r s e.Law on Municipal
C o r p o r a t i o n s In case of
Macariola vs. Asuncion
, the court says ;
Uponthe transfer of sovereignty from
Spain to the UnitedS t a t e s a n d l a t e r
on from the United States to
t h e Republic of the Philippines,
Article 14 of this Code
of C o m m e r c e m u s t b e d e e m e d t o
h a v e b e e n a b r o g a t e d because
where there is change of
s o v e r e i g n t y, t h e p o l i t i c a l l a w s o f
the former sovereign,
w h e t h e r compatible or not with those of
the new sovereign, areautomatically
abrogated, unless they are expressly reenacted by affirmative act of the
new sovereign.
Likewise, Article 14 of the Code
of Commerce whichp r o h i b i t s
judges from engaging in
c o m m e r c e i s , a s heretofore stated,
deemed abrogated automatically
uponthe transfer of sovereignty from Spain
to America, becauseit is political in nature.
B. Definition of Constitutional Law
Constitutional Law may be defined as that
branch of PublicLaw which treats of
constitution, their nature,
formation,amendment, and interpretation.It
refers to the law embodied in the Constitution
aswell as the principles growing out of the
interpretation anda p p l i c a t i o n m a d e b y

the courts of the provisions of

theC o n s t i t u t i o n i n s p e c i f i c
cases. Thus, the
P h i l i p p i n e Constitution itself is brief but
the law of the Constitution liesscattered in
thousands of Supreme Court
decisions.Distinguished Constitutional Law
from Political Law
Political Law
deals specifically with the study of
thestructure and powers of our government.
Constitutional Law
is one of the division of PoliticalLaw that
defines the specific duties and
responsibilitiesof our government together
with their privileges andrights and as a
fundamental or supreme law of the land,i t
enumerates the rights of every
c i t i z e n s w i t h t h e i r corresponding
functions where the sovereignty residesin
the people and all government authority
emanatesfrom them.
C. Constitution (1987 Constitution)
a. DefinitionConstitution - define as the
supreme law of the land andestablished
by the people which prescribes the
permanentframework of the system of
government, which establishesbasic
principles upon which the government
founded, andw h i c h d e f i n e s a n d
allocates to the various organs
o f government their respective powers and
duties.Social Contract Theory People
entrust their rights to thegovernment.
The government in return does their
part andgives the people what due to
them.b. Function(1) Serves as the supreme
or fundamental law(2) Establishes basic
framework and underlying principles
of government( 3 ) D e f i n e s a n d
allocates to the various
o r g a n s o f government their respective
powers and duties.c. ClassificationA
Constitution may be written or unwritten,
conventional or cumulative, and rigid or
flexible.( i ) W r i t t e n i s o n e

which has been given

d e f i n i t e written form at a particular time.
(ii)Unwritten is one
which has not been
r e d u c e d to writing at any
specific time but it is
thec o l l e c t i v e p r o d u c t o f a
g r a d u a l p o l i t i c a l development,
consisting of unwritten usagesa n d
customary rules, judicial decisions,
andl e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t m e n t s o f
a f u n d a m e n t a l character written
b u t s c a t t e r e d i n v a r i o u s records
without having any compact form
i n writing.( i i i ) C o n v e n t i o n a l
e n a c t e d d e l i b e r a t e l y
a n d consciously by a constituent body or
ruler, at acertain time and place.
(iv)Cumulative is a
product of gradual
p o l i t i c a l development.( v ) R i g i d
is one which can be
a m e n d e d t h r o u g h a formal and
difficult process.( v i ) F l e x i b l e
i s o n e w h i c h c a n b e
c h a n g e d b y ordinary legislation.The
1987 Philippine Constitution is a written,
conventionaland rigid Constitution.d.
Essential Qualities of a Written Constitution(i)
As to form, a good written constitution should
be:

Brief because if a constitution is too

detailed, itw o u l d l o s e t h e a d v a n t a g e
o f a f u n d a m e n t a l l a w which in a few
provisions outlines the governmentof the
whole state and the rights of the citizens.

Broad- because a statement of the

powers andf u n c t i o n s o f
government, and of the
r e l a t i o n s between the governing
b o d y a n d t h e g o v e r n e d , requires that it
be as comprehensive as possible.

Definite- because otherwise the

application of itsprovisions to concrete
situations may prove undulydifficult if not
impossible.(ii) As to contents, it should
contain at least three sets of provisions;

Constitution of Government

Constitution of Liberty

Constitution of Sovereigntye. Parts of a

Constitutionf. Interpretation of the
ConstitutionIn
Francisco vs House of Rep.,
G.R. No. 160261, TheSupreme Court
ruled that; The separation of powers is a
fundamental principle in our system of
government. It obtains not through
expressprovision but by actual division in our
Constitution. Eachdepartment of the
government has exclusive cognizance
of matters within its jurisdiction, and is
supreme within its ownsphere. But it does not
follow from the fact that the threepowers are
to be kept separate and distinct that
theConstitution intended them to be
absolutely unrestrainedand independent of
each other. The Constitution hasprovided for
an elaborate system of checks and balances
tosecure coordination in the workings of the
variousdepartments of the government. And
the judiciary in turn,with the Supreme Court
as the final arbiter, effectivelychecks the other
departments in the exercise of its power
todetermine the law, and hence to declare
executive andlegislative acts void if violative
of the Constitution.The Constitution did not
intend to leave the matter of impeachment to
the sole discretion of Congress. Instead,
itprovided for certain well-defined limits, or
"judicially
discoverable standards" for determining the
validity of theexercise of such discretion,
through the power of judicialreview. There is
indeed a plethora of cases in which thisCourt
exercised the power of judicial review

over congressional action. Finally, there

exists no constitutionalbasis for the
contention that the exercise of judicial
reviewover impeachment proceedings would
upset the system of checks and balances.
Verily,
the Constitution is to beinterpreted as a whole
and "one section is not to beallowed to defeat
another."
Both are integral componentsof the calibrated
system of independence andinterdependence
that insures that no branch of governmentact
beyond the powers assigned to it by the
Constitution.g. Supremacy of the
ConstitutionThe Constitution is the basic and
paramount law to which allother laws must
conform and to which all persons,
includingthe highest official of the land,
must defer. No act shall bevalid,
however noble its intentions, if it
conflicts with theConstitution.
The Constitution must ever
r e m a i n Supreme.
All must bow to mandate of this law.
Expediencymust not be allowed to sap its
strength nor greed for power debase its
rectitude.In case of Mutuc vs COMELEC;I
ssue:
Whether the taped jingles fall under the
phrase andthe like.
Held:
Under the
well-known principle of ejusdemgeneris,
the general words following any enumeration
areapplicable only to things of the same kind
or class as thosespecifically referred to. It is
quite apparent that what wascontemplated in
the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the
kind referred to as a means of inducement to
obtain afavorable vote for the candidate
responsible for itsdistribution. The
Constitutional Convention Actcontemplated
the prohibition on the distribution of gadgetsof
the kind referred to as a means of
inducement to obtain afavorable vote for the
candidate responsible for itsdistribution

(distribution of electoral propaganda

gadgets,mention being made of pens,
lighters, fans, flashlights,athletic goods or
materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts,
hats,matches, and cigarettes, and concluding
with the wordsand the like.). Taped jingles
therefore were not prohibited.NOTE:
Ejusdem-Generis
- Latin:
of the same kind
. A ruleof statutoryconstruction,generally
accepted by both statea n d f e d e r a l
courts, "that where general
w o r d s f o l l o w enumerations of particular
classes or persons or things, theg e n e r a l
words shall be construed as
applicable only topersons or things
of the same general nature or kind
a s those enumerated
IN CUSTODIA LEGIS. In the custody of the
law.
Ingeneral, when things are in custodia legis,
they cannot bedistrained, nor otherwise
interfered with by custodia legis,they cannot
be distrained, nor otherwise interfered with by
aprivate person.I n c a s e o f
Alih vs Castro
; The Supreme Court declaredt h o s e
seized in custodia legis and
d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e operation
conducted by Maj. Gen. Castro was
ILLEGAL.T h e r e s p o n d e n t s h a v e
all the time to obtain a
s e a r c h warrant granted that they have
about 10 trial courts. The SCalso held the
protection of the petitioner's human
rights ass t a t e d i n A r t I V S e c 3
and 4 of the 1973
C o n s t i t u t i o n regarding illegal search
and seizure. The presumption
of innocence of the petitioners should
be observed and thatthey cannot be
subjected to self-incriminating instances
likeparaffin tests, photographing and finger
printing.In this case, "The Constitution is a
law for rulers and people,equally in war and

in peace, and covers with the shield of

itsp r o t e c t i o n a l l c l a s s e s o f m e n , a t
all times and under
allcircumstances. No doctrine,
involving more
p e r n i c i o u s consequences, was ever
invented by the wit of man thanthat any
of its provisions can be suspended
during any of the great exigencies of
government."In case
of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS
; In its plain andordinary meaning, the term
patrimony pertains to heritage.When the
Constitution speaks of national patrimony,
itrefers not only to the natural resources of
the Philippines, asthe Constitution could have
very well used the term naturalresources, but
also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
Italso refers to Filipinos intelligence in arts,
sciences andletters. In the present case,
Manila Hotel has become alandmark, a living
testimonial of Philippine heritage. While itwas
restrictively an American hotel when it first
opened in1912, a concourse for the elite, it
has since then becomethe venue of various
significant events which have
shapedPhilippine history. In the granting of
economic rights,privileges, and concessions,
especially on matters involvingnational
patrimony, when a choice has to be made
betweena qualified foreigner and a
qualified Filipino, the latter shall be chosen
over the former.A p r o v i s i o n w h i c h i s
complete in itself and
b e c o m e s operative without the aid
of supplementary or
e n a b l i n g legislation, or that which supplies
sufficient rule by means of which the right it
grants may be enjoyed or protected,
isself-executing. Thus
a constitutional provision is selfexecuting if the nature and extent of the right
conferredand the liability imposed are
fixed by the constitutionitself
, so that they can be determined by an
examinationa n d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f i t s

terms, and there is no

l a n g u a g e indicating that the subject is
referred to the legislature for a c t i o n . I n
self-executing constitutional
p r o v i s i o n s , t h e legislature may still enact
legislation to facilitate the exerciseof powers
directly granted by the constitution,
further theoperation of such a provision,
prescribe a practice to beused for its
enforcement, provide a convenient
remedy for the protection of the rights
secured or the determinationt h e r e o f ,
or place reasonable safeguards
a r o u n d t h e exercise of the right.
The mere fact that legislation
mays u p p l e m e n t a n d a d d t o o r
prescribe a penalty for
t h e violation of a self-executing constitutional
provision does notrender such a provision
ineffective in the absence of
suchlegislation. The omission from a
constitution of any expressprovision for a
remedy for enforcing a right or liability is
notnecessarily an indication that it was not
intended to be self-executing. The rule is that
a self-executing provision of theconstitution
does not necessarily exhaust legislative
power on the subject, but any legislation must
be in harmony withthe constitution, further
the exercise of constitutional rightand
make it more available.
II. AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTIONARTICLE XVIIAMENDMENTS
OR REVISIONSS e c t i o n 1 . A n y
amendment to, or revision of,
t h i s Constitution may be proposed by:(1) The
Congress, upon a vote of three-fourthsof all
its Members; or (2) A constitutional
convention.S e c t i o n 2 . A m e n d m e n t s
t o t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n m a y likewise
be directly proposed by the people
throughinitiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centumof the total number of
registered voters, of which everylegislative
district must be represented by at least
threep e r c e n t u m o f t h e

registered voters therein.

N o amendment under this section
shall be authorizedw i t h i n f i v e
years following the ratification
o f t h i s Constitution nor oftener than
o n c e e v e r y f i v e y e a r s thereafter.The
Congress shall provide for the
implementation of the exercise of this
right.Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote
of two-thirds of all its Members, call a
constitutional convention, or by am a j o r i t y
vote of all its Members,
s u b m i t t o t h e electorate the question of
calling such a convention.A. Amendment vs
Revision
Amendment
is a change or alteration for the
better; ana m e n d m e n t o r c h a n g e
within the lines of the
o r i g i n a l instrument which will bring about
improvement
Revision
is the rewriting or overhauling
o f t h e e n t i r e instrument.
B. Proposal
is the motion of initiating suggestions
or proposals on amendment or revision,
which may either beby;(a) Congress, upon
vote of of all its members;(b) Constitutional
Convention(c) The people thru initiativeI n
c a s e o f
Santiago vs COMELEC
; R . A . 6 7 3 5 i s inadequate to
cover the system of initiative on
amendmentst o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . U n d e r
t h e s a i d l a w, i n i t i a t i v e o n
t h e Constitution is confined only to
proposals to AMEND. Thepeople are not
accorded the power to "directly
propose,e n a c t , a p p r o v e , o r
reject, in whole or in part,
t h e Constitution" through the system of
initiative. They can onlydo so with respect to
"laws, ordinances, or resolutions." Theu s e
of the clause "proposed laws
s o u g h t t o b e e n a c t e d , approved or

rejected, amended or repealed" denotes

thatR.A. No. 6735 excludes initiative on
amendments to theConstitution.Also, while
the law provides subtitles for National
Initiativeand Referendum and for Local
Initiative and Referendum,no subtitle is
provided for initiative on the Constitution.
Thism e a n s t h a t t h e m a i n t h r u s t o f
the law is initiative
a n d referendum on national and local
laws. If R.A. No. 6735were intended to
fully provide for the implementation of
theinitiative on amendments to the
Constitution, it could haveprovided for a
subtitle therefor, considering that in the
order of things, the primacy of interest, or
hierarchy of values, theright of the people
to directly propose amendments to
theC o n s t i t u t i o n i s f a r m o r e
important than the initiative
o n national and local laws.W h i l e R . A . N o .
6735 specially detailed the process
i n implementing initiative and referendum on
national and locallaws, it intentionally did not
do so on the system of initiativeon
amendments to the Constitution.In case
of Lambino vs COMELEC;
The essence of amendments directly
proposed by thepeople through initiative upon
a petition is that the entireproposal on its
face is a petition by the people. This means
two essential elements
must be present.
First, the people must author and thus sign
the entire proposal. No agent or
representative can sign on
their behalf.Second, as an initiative upon a
petition, the proposal must be embodied in a
petition.
These essential elements are present only if
the full text of the proposed amendments is
first shown to the people whoexpress their
assent by signing such complete proposal in
apetition. The full text of the proposed
amendments may beeither written on the
face of the petition, or attached to it. If so

attached, the petition must state the fact of

suchattachment. This is an assurance that
every one of theseveral millions of signatories
to the petition had seen thefull text of the
proposed amendments before not after
signing.Moreover, an initiative signer must
be informed at the timeof signing of the
nature and effect of that which is
proposedand failure to do so is deceptive
and misleading whichrenders the initiative
void.
In the case of the Lambino Groups petition, theres
nota single word, phrase, or sentence of text of
theproposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither
doesthe signature sheet state that the text of
the proposedchanges is attached to it. The
signature sheet merelyasks a question whether
the people approve a shiftfrom the BicameralPresidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary
system of government. The signaturesheet
does not show to the people the draft of
theproposed changes before they are asked
to sign thesignature sheet. This omission is
fatal.
An initiative that gathers signatures from the
people withoutfirst showing to the people the
full text of the proposedamendments is most
likely a deception, and can operate asa
gigantic fraud on the people. Thats why the
Constitutionrequires that an initiative must be
directly proposed by thepeople x x x in a
petition meaning that the people mustsign
on a petition that contains the full text of the
proposedamendments. On so vital an issue
as amending the nationsfundamental law,
the writing of the text of the
proposedamendments cannot be hidden from
the people under ageneral or special power
of attorney to unnamed, faceless,and
unelected individuals.
C. SubmissionIn case of
Tolentino vs COMELEC;
The Supreme Courtheld that in Section 1
of Article 15, there should be only
oneelection or plebiscite for the ratification

of all amendmentsthe Convention may

propose.
D. Ratification: Article 17 Section 4,
Paragraphs 1 and 2Section 4. Any
amendment to, or revision of, thisConstitution
under Section 1 hereof shall be valid whenratified
by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscitewhich shall be held not earlier than
sixty days nor later than ninety days after the
approval of such amendmentor revision.Any
amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be
validwhen ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in aplebiscite which shall be held not earlier
than sixtydays nor later than ninety days after
the certification bythe Commission on
Elections of the sufficiency of thepetition.E .
The position of the Convention in
o u r s ys t e m o f government
There are three theories on the
r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n o f t h e Constitutional
Convention vis--vis the regular departmentof
the government.The first, as announced in
Loomis v. Jackson, holds that
thec o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t i t u t i o n i s
supreme over the
o t h e r departments of the
government because the powers
i t exercises are in the nature of sovereign
powers. This theoryis thus called the Theory
of Conventional Sovereignty.The second, as
announced in Woods Appeal, considers
theconstitutional convention inferior to the
other departments of t h e g o v e r n m e n t
since it is merely a creation
o f t h e legislature.The third, as announced
in Frantz vs Autry, declares that aslong as it
exists and confines itself within the
sphere of its j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e
constitutional convention
m u s t b e considered independent of
and co-equal with the
o t h e r departments of the government.The
third of these theories, which is the
most popular, hasb e e n o b s e r v e d i n
our government since the case
o f Mabanag vs. Vito.

III. History and BackgroundA . T h e

Philippine Revolution and
t h e M a l o l o s Constitution
On June 29,1898, Gen, Aguinaldo
established theRevolutionary Government
replacing the DictatorialGovernment with
himself as the President and
aC o n g r e s s w h o s e f u n c t i o n
w a s a d v i s o r y a n d ministerial. The
decree making such change stated
that the aims of the new
g o v e r n m e n t w e r e t o struggle for
the independence of the
Philippines,u n t i l a l l n a t i o n s
including Spain will
e x p r e s s l y recognize it, and to
prepare the country for theestablishment
of a real Republic.On September 15, 1898,
revolutionary Congress of Filipino
representatives met in Malolos, Bulacan
att h e c a l l o f t h e R e v o l u t i o n a r y
G o v e r n m e n t . T h e Malolos Congress
ratified on Sept. 29, 1898
theproclamation of Philippine
Independence made byG e n . E m i l i o
Aguinaldo in Kawit, Cavite on
June1 2 , 1 8 9 8 a n d f r a m e d t h e
so-called
Ma lolo sConstitution.This
Constitution was the
f i r s t democratic constitution ever
p r o m u l g a t e d i n t h e whole Asia. It
established a free and
independentP h i l i p p i n e
Republic. However, it was
n o t recognized by the family of nations.
It had short-lived.
B. The Organic Laws under the American Period
(1) Mckinleys Instructions (April 7,
1990)P r e s i d e n t M c K i n l e y ' s
instruction to the
P h i l i p p i n e Commission in April 1900
directed that, "... Beginning withthe 1st day
of September, 1900, the authority to
exerciset h a t p a r t o f t h e p o w e r o f

g o v e r n m e n t i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e Islands
which is of legislative nature, is to be
transferredf r o m t h e M i l i t a r y
Governor to this commission."
T h e instruction also gave the Commission
the power to appointto officers under the
judicial, educational, and civil
services y s t e m s a n d i n t h e
municipal and
d e p a r t m e n t a l governments. The
instruction charged the Commission, "...In all
the forms of government and administrative
provisionswhich they are authorized to
proscribe, the Commissionshould bear
in mind that the government which they
areestablishing is designed not for our
satisfaction, or for theexpression of our
theoretical views, but for the
happiness,peace and prosperity of the
people of the Philippine islands,and
measures adopted should be made to
conform to their c u s t o m s , t h e i r h a b i t s ,
and even their prejudices, to
t h e fullest extent consistent with the
accomplishment of just andeffective
government."(2) The Spooner Amendment
(1901)The Army Appropriation Act, also
known as the Spooner Amendment, is
passed by the US Senate. It provides
thatthe US President governs the Philippines
by the authority of Congress and not as
Commander-in-Chief of the
ArmedForces, thereby formally ending
the US military regime inthe archipelago.
(3)The Philippine Bill of 1902, or the Cooper
Act of July 1,1902, provided for the retention
of executive powers of theP h i l i p p i n e
Commission and the
e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a bicameral
Philippine Legislature. It provided for the
creationo f t h e Philippine Assembly, a
body that would
s h a r e legislative powers with the
Philippine Commission andwould
function as the lower chamber of
t h e p r o p o s e d Philippine Legislature. It also

provided for a bill of rights for the Filipinos,

and the appointment of two Filipino
residentcommissioners to represent the
Philippines in the UnitedStates
Congress but without voting rights. On
October 16,1907, the first session of the
Philippine assembly opened,with an
elected lower house and thePhilippine
Commission,previously established, as the
upper house.(4) The Philippine Autonomy Act
or Jones LawS t a t u t e a n n o u n c i n g t h e
intention of the United
Statesg o v e r n m e n t t o w i t h d r a w
their sovereignty over
t h e Philippine Islands as soon as a
stable government can beestablished
therein. The U.S. had acquired the
Philippinesin 1898 as a result of the Spanish
American War; and from1901 legislative
power in the islands had been
exercisedthrough a Philippine Commission
effectively dominated byA m e r i c a n s . O n e
of the most significant sections of
t h e Jones Act replaced the Commission with
an elective Senateand, with minimum
property qualifications, extended
thef r a n c h i s e t o a l l l i t e r a t e
Filipino males. The law
a l s o incorporated a bill of rights.C. Japanese
Occupation( 1 ) T h e P h i l i p p i n e
Executive Commission- a
c i v i l government composed of Filipinos
was organized by themilitary forced of
occupation. The commission
exercisedboth the executive and legislative
powers. The laws enactedwere, however,
subject to the approval of the Commander-inchief of the Japanese Forces.(2) The
Japanese-sponsored Republic of the
Philippineswas inaugurated with Jose
Laurel as the President. Thesame as the
Philippine Executive Commission. The
ultimatesource of its authority was the
Japanese military authorityand
government.D. The 1935 ConstitutionT h e
original 1935 Constitution provided

f o r u n i c a m e r a l National Assembly and the

President was elected to a six-year term
without re-election. It wasamendedi n
1940 tohave a bicameral Congress
composed of a Senate and H o u s e
of Representatives, as well the
c r e a t i o n o f a n independentelectoral
commission. T h e C o n s t i t u t i o n
n o w granted the President a four-year
term with a maximum of two consecutive
terms in office.AConstitutional
Conventionwas held in 1971 to rewrite
the1 9 3 5 C o n s t i t u t i o n . T h e
convention was stained
w i t h manifestbriberya n d c o r r u p t i o n .
P o s s i b l y t h e m o s t controversial
issue was removing the presidential term
limitso thatFerdinand E. Marcoscould seek
election for a thirdt e r m , w h i c h m a n y f e l t
was the true reason for which
t h e convention was called. In any case,
the 1935 Constitutionw a s s u s p e n d e d
in 1972 with Marcos'
p r o c l a m a t i o n o f martial law , t h e
rampant corruption of the
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l process providing him
with one of his major premises for doing
so.In case of
Mabanag vs Vito
, the Court held;I t i s a d o c t r i n e t o o w e l l
established to need citation
of a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t p o l i t i c a l
questions are not within
t h e province of the judiciary, except to the
extent that power tod e a l w i t h s u c h
questions has been conferred upon
t h e courts by express constitutional or
statutory provision. Thisdoctrine is
predicated on the principle of the
separation of p o w e r s , a p r i n c i p l e
also too well known to
r e q u i r e elucidation or citation of
authorities. If a political
questionconclusively binds the judges out of
respect to the politicaldepartments, a duly
certified law or resolution also binds

the judges under the "enrolled bill rule"

born of that respect. If r a t i f i c a t i o n o f
an amendment is a political
question, aproposal which leads to
ratification has to be a
politicalq u e s t i o n . T h e t w o s t e p s
complement each other in
a scheme intended to achieve a single
objective. It is to benoted that the
amendatory process as provided in section
Iof Article XV of the Philippine Constitution
"consists of (only)two distinct parts:
proposal and ratification." There is
nologic in attaching political character to one
and withholdingt h a t c h a r a c t e r f r o m
the other. Proposal to amend
t h e Constitution is a highly political
function performed by theC o n g r e s s
in its sovereign legislative
c a p a c i t y a n d committed to its
charge by the Constitution itself.
Thee x e r c i s e o f t h i s p o w e r i s
even in dependent of
a n y intervention by the Chief
Executive. If on grounds
o f expediency scrupulous attention of the
judiciary be neededto safeguard public
interest, there is less reason for
judiciali n q u i r y i n t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f a
proposal then into that of
a ratification.E. The 1973 ConstitutionThe
1973 Constitution, composed of a
preamble and 17a r t i c l e s , p r o v i d e s
for the shift from presidential
t o parliamentary system of government. The
Constitution veststhe legislative power in
the National Assembly. A Prime
Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel
Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising
Minister is elected from among the members
of the NationalA s s e m b l y a n d s e r v e s
as the head of government
a n d commander-in-chief of the
P h i l i p p i n e Ar m e d F o r c e s .
AP r e s i d e n t i s e l e c t e d f r o m
among the members of

t h e N a t i o n a l As s e m b l y a n d s e r v e s
a s t h e s ym b o l i c h e a d o f state with a
six-year term. The judicial power is
vested inthe Supreme Court, composed
of a Chief Justice and 14Justices. The
National Assembly exercises the power
todefine, prescribe and apportion the
jurisdiction of the lower courts. All justices of
the Supreme Court and judges of thel o w e r
courts are appointed by the Prime
M i n i s t e r. T h i s Constitution retains the
independence of the Commissionon
Elections and establishes two independent
Constitutional bodies [Civil Service
Commission and the Commission onA u d i t ]
as well as the National Economic
D e v e l o p m e n t Authority [NEDA]. On 24
August 1970, Congress enactedR A N o .
6132, otherwise known as the
C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Convention Act, for the
purpose of convening a Constitutional
Convention. The 320 delegates met from
June 1971 until30 November 1972, when
they approved the draft of then e w
Charter. While in the process of
d r a f t i n g a n e w Constitution , President
Ferdinand Marcos declared MartialL a w o n
21 September 1972. The draft
C o n s t i t u t i o n w a s submitted to the
Citizen's Assemblies from January 10
to17, 1973 for ratification. On 17
January 1973 , PresidentM a r c o s
i s s u e d P r o c l a m a t i o n N o . 110 2 ,
announcing ther a t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e
Constitution of the Republic of
t h e Philippines. The above constitution was
amended in 1976,1980 and in 1981.
There were minor amendments done
in1984.In case of
Sanidad vs COMELEC
;The Constitutional Convention intended to
leave to thePresident the determination of the
time when he shallinitially convene the
interim National Assembly, consistentwith the
prevailing conditions of peace and order in
thecountry. When the Delegates to the

ConstitutionalConvention voted on the

Transitory Provisions, they wereaware of the
fact that under the same, the
incumbentPresident was given the discretion
as to when he couldconvene the interim
National Assembly. In sensu striciore,when
the legislative arm of the state undertakes
theproposals of amendment to a Constitution,
that body is notin the usual function of
lawmaking. It is not legislating whenengaged
in the amending process. Rather, it is
exercising apeculiar power bestowed upon it
by the fundamental charter itself. In the
Philippines, that power is provided for in
ArticleXVI of the 1973 Constitution (for the
regular NationalAssembly) or in Section 15 of
the Transitory Provisions (for the interim
National Assembly). While ordinarily it is
thebusiness of the legislating body to
legislate for the nation byvirtue of
constitutional conferment, amending of
theConstitution is not legislative in character.
In politicalscience a distinction is made
between constitutional contentof an organic
character and that of a legislative
character.The distinction, however, is one of
policy, not of law. Suchbeing the case,
approval of the President of any
proposedamendment is a misnomer. The
prerogative of the Presidentto approve or
disapprove applies only to the ordinary
casesof legislation. The President has
nothing to do withproposition or adoption of
amendments to the Constitution.F. The 1986
Provisional ConstitutionThe
1986 Provisional Constitution
, popularly known asthe
Freedom Constitution
, promulgated by
P r e s i d e n t Corazon C. Aquinoon March
25, 1986, was a provisionalconstitution
after a successfulPeople Power
Revolution .Under the Freedom Constitution,
executive and legislativepowers are
exercised by the President, and shall
continueto exercise legislative powers

until a legislature is electedand

convened under a new Constitution.
Furthermore, theP r e s i d e n t i s
mandated to convene
a ConstitutionalCommissiontasked to draft a
new charter.( 1 ) S n a p E l e c t i o n I n
t h e Philippines, t h e t e r m " s n a p
e l e c t i o n " u s u a l l y refers to the1986
presidential election, wherePresident
Ferdinand Marcos c a l l e d
elections earlier
t h a n scheduled, in response to
g r o w i n g s o c i a l u n r e s t . Marcos was
declared official winner of the election butwas
eventuallyoustedw h e n i t w a s a l l e g e d
t h a t h e cheated in the elections.In the
currentconstitution,a snap election will be
heldfor the positions of president andvice
presidenton thecondition that both positions
are vacant, and outside the9 0 - d a y r a n g e
of the next scheduled
p r e s i d e n t i a l election.(2)The February
1986 Revolution(3)Proclamation No.1 ,
Feb. 25, 1986P r e s . A q u i n o
declared that she and her vicepresident were taking power in the
name and bythe will of the Filipino
People on the basis of theclear
sovereign will of the people expressed
in theelection of Feb. 7, 1986. In her
oath, she swore topreserve and defend the
fundamental law (not theConstitution)
and execute just laws ( instead of its
laws).(4)Proclamation No. 3, March 25,
1986T h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n a l
g o v e r n m e n t e s t a b l i s h e d thereunder
was revolutionary in character
havingbeen installed by direct action of
the people or bypeople power, deriving its
existence and authoritydirectly from the
people themselves and not fromthe then
operating 1973 Constitution.G. The 1987
Philippine Constitution(1) The Constitutional
Commission of 1986T h e 1 9 8 7
Constitution was drafted
b y a Constitutional Commission

c r e a t e d u n d e r Ar t i c l e V
of P r o c l a m a t i o n N o . 3 i s s u e d o n
M a r c h 2 5 , 1 9 8 6 w h i c h promulgated
the Freedom Constitution through a
directexercise of the power of the Filipino
people.(2) Proclamation No. 58 (Feb. 11,
1987)(3) When Considered ratified?
Article 18 Section 27 (1987 Constitution)This
Constitution shall take effect immediately upon
itsratification by a majority of the votes cast in
a plebisciteheld for the purpose and shall
supersede all previousConstitutions.The
foregoing proposed Constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines was approved by the
ConstitutionalCommission of 1986 on October
12, 1986 andaccordingly signed on October
15, 1986 at the PlenaryHall, National
Government Center, Quezon City, by
theCommissioners whose signatures are
hereunder affixed/IV. JUDICIAL REVIEW
A.Theory and Justification of Judicial
ReviewIn case
of Angara vs Electoral Commission
, t h e C o u r t held that;I n c a s e o f
conflict, the judicial department
i s t h e o n l y constitutional organ which can
be called upon to determinet h e p r o p e r
allocation of powers between
t h e s e v e r a l departments and among the
integral or constituent thereof.I n c a s e o f
Francisco vs House of Representatives
, t h e court ruled that;The judiciary in turn,
with the Supreme Court as the finalarbiter,
effectively checks the other departments in
theexercise of its power to determine the law,
and hence todeclare executive and legislative
acts void if violative of
theConstitution.B . R e q u i s i t e s o f J u d i c i a l
Review
the judiciary as the agency of the State
acting as parenspatriae, is called upon
whenever a pending suit or litigationa f f e c t s
one who is a minor to accord
p r i o r i t y t o h i s b e s t interests. It may
happen as it did in this case, that

familyrelations may press their

respective claims.
I t w o u l d b e more in consonance not only
with the natural order of thingsbut the
tradition of the country for a parent to be
preferred.
DE JURE GOVERNMENT/ CRITERIA FOR
LEGITIMACYA de jure government
has rightful title but no power
o r control, either because this has been
withdrawn from it or b e c a u s e i t h a s
not yet actually entered into
e x e r c i s e s thereof.
DE FACTO GOVERNMENTA de facto
government
is a government of fact, that is, itactually
exercises power or control but without legal
title.KINDS of de facto government;1 . T h e
government that gets
possession and controlo f , o r
usurps, by force or by the
v o i ce o f th e m a jo r i t y, th e
rightful legal government
a n d maintains itself against the will of the
latter, such ast h e g o v e r n m e n t
o f E n g l a n d u n d e r
t h e Commonwealth, first by Parliamentary
and later byCromwell as Protector.2 . T h a t
established as an independent
g o v e r n m e n t b y the inhabitants of a
country who rise in insurrectionagainst the
parent state, such as the government of t h e
Southern Confederacy in revolt
against theUnion during the war of
s e c e s s i o n i n t h e U n i t e d States.
3.
That which is established and
m a i n t a i n e d b y military forces who invade
and occupy a territory of t h e e n e m y i n
the course of war, and which
i s denominated as a government of
paramount force,such as the cases of
Castine in Maine, which wasreduced to a
British possession in the war of 1812,and of
Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the

war with Mexico by the troops of the United

States.In case
Co Kim Cham vs Valdez
, the court define the kindsof de facto
governments;There are several kinds of de
facto governments. The first,o r
government de facto in a proper
l e g a l s e n s e , i s t h a t government that gets
possession and control of, or usurps,by
force or by the voice of the majority, the
rightful legalgovernment and maintains
itself against the will of the latter.The second
is that which is established and maintained
bym i l i t a r y f o r c e s w h o i n v a d e a n d
o c c u p y a t e r r i t o r y o f t h e enemy in the
course of war, and which is
denominated ag o v e r n m e n t o f
paramount force. And the third
i s t h a t established as an independent
government.B y c o n t r a s t , t h e
Supreme Court unanimously
h e l d i n Lawyers League for a better
Philippines v Aquino that thepeople have
made the judgment; they have accepted
thegovernment of Pres. Aquino which is in
effective control of t h e e n t i r e c o u n t r y
so that it is not merely a de
f a c t o government but in fact and
l a w a d e j u r e g o v e r n m e n t . Moreover,
the community of nations has
recognized thelegitimacy of the present
government.Government distinguished from
AdministrationGovernment must be
distinguished from administration,which
is the group of persons in whose hands
the reins of government are for the time
being. The administration runsthe
government as a machinist operates his
machine.
Administration is transitional whereas
the government is permanent.
OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF
GOVERNMENTSa . B a s e d o n
accountability to the
peopleb.Presidential vs

Parliamentaryc . N a t i o n a l . L o c a l ,
federal
E. Sovereignty
Definition: is the supreme and uncontrollable
power inherentin a State by which that State
is governed.Kinds:1 . L e g a l S o v e r e i g n t y
is the authority which has
t h e power to issue final
commands.2.Political Sovereignty is
the power behind the legalsovereign or
the sum of the influences that operateupon
it.3 . I n t e r n a l S o v e r e i g n t y r e f e r s
t o t h e p o w e r o f t h e State to control its
domestic affairs.4 . E x t e r n a l S o v e r e i g n t y
power of the State to directits
relations with other States is also
k n o w n a s independence.S o v e r e i g n i s
permanent, exclusive,
c o m p r e h e n s i v e , absolute, indivisible,
inalienable, and imprescriptible.
Effects of Change of Sovereignty
In case of
Macariola vs Asuncion
, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t ; Upon the
transfer of sovereignty from Spain to
the UnitedStates and later on from the
United States to the Republicof the
Philippines, Art. 14 of the Code of
Commerce mustbe deemed to have been
abrogated because where there isa change
of sovereignty , the political laws of the
former sovereign , whether compatible or
not with those of the newsovereign, are
automatically abrogated, unless they
aree x p r e s s l y r e - e n a c t e d b y
affirmative act of the
n e w sovereign.
Acts of State
In case of
Harvey vs. Commissioner
, the court held that;Every sovereign
power has the inherent power to
excludealiens from its territory upon such
grounds as it may deemproper for its selfpreservation or public interest. The power to
deport aliens is an act of State, an act

done by or under the authority of the

sovereign power. It is a police
measureagainst undesirable aliens whose
continued presence in thecountry is found
to be injurious to the public good and
thedomestic tranquility of the people.
Particularly so in thisc a s e , w h e r e t h e
State has expressly committed
itself tod e f e n d t h e t i g h t o f
children to assistance and
specialprotection from all forms
of neglect, abuse,
c r u e l t y,e x p l o i t a t i o n , a n d o t h e r
conditions prejudicial to
t h e i r d e ve l o p m e n t (A rt i c l e X V,
Section 3[2]).
R e s p o n d e n t Commissioner of
Immigration and Deportation, in
institutingdeportation proceedings
against petitioners, acted in theinterests
of the State.
VI. CITIZENSHIPCitizenshipis membership in a political community
whichis personal and more or less permanent
in character.
Nationalityis membership in any class or form of
politicalcommunity. Thus, nationals may be
citizens [if member of ad e m o c r a t i c
community] or subjects [if
m e m b e r s o f a monarchial community]. It
does not necessarily include theright
or privilege of exercising political and civil
rights.
Modes of Acquiring Citizenship

Jus Soli acquisition of citizenship on

thebasis of place of birth.

Jus sanguinis- acquisition of citizenship onthe

basis of blood relationship.

Naturalization- the legal act of adopting

analien and clothing him with the
privilege of native-born citizen.

MarriageA . W h o a r e P h i l i p p i n e
Citizens;
Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel
Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

Section 1.
The following are citizens of the Philippines:
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines
at thetime of the adoption of this Constitution;
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines;[3] Those born
before January 17, 1973, of
Filipinom o t h e r s , w h o e l e c t P h i l i p p i n e
c i t i z e n s h i p u p o n reaching the age of
majority; and[4] Those who are
naturalized in accordance withlaw.
Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship
1.
Election is
expressed in a statement
to be
signed
and
sworn
to by the party concerned before
anyofficial authorized to administer oaths.
2.
Statement to be
filed
with the nearest Civil Registry

accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance

to theConstitution and the Government of
the Philippines.[Sec. 1, CA 625].
Naturalized citizens
are those who have become
Filipinocitizens through naturalization,
generally under CA No. 473,otherwise known
as the Revised Naturalization Law,
whichrepealed the former Naturalization Law
(Act No. 2927), andby RA 530.T o b e
naturalized, an applicant has to
prove that hep o s s e s s e s a l l t h e
qualifications and none of
t h e disqualifications provided by
law to become a Filipinocitizen. The
decision granting Philippine
c i t i z e n s h i p becomes executor only after 2
years from its promulgationw h e n t h e c o u r t
is satisfied that during the
i n t e r v e n i n g period, the applicant:1. Has not
left the Philippines;2. Has dedicated himself
to a lawful calling or profession;3 . H a s n o t
been convicted of any offense or
v i o l a t i o n o f government promulgated
rules; or 4. Has not committed any act
prejudicial to the interest of t h e n a t i o n
or contrary to any government
a n n o u n c e d policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530]
Naturalization
-mode for both acquisition and reacquisition
of citizenship- g o v e r n e d b y C A 4 7 3 ( f o r
acquisition) and CA 63
( f o r reacquisition)-consists a lengthy
process
Modes of Naturalization:
1. DIRECT- through:a. Judicial or
administrative proceedings- e.g.
RA 9139 TheA d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Naturalization Law of 2000
grantsPhilippine citizenship to aliens
born and residing in thePhilippinesb .
Special act of legislature- this
i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y o n Congress; usually
conferred on an alien who has made
anoutstanding contribution to the countryc.
Collective change of nationality, as a result of

cessationor subjugationd. Some cases, by

adoption of orphan minors as
nationalsof the State where they are born2.
DERIVATIVE-Citizenship conferred on:a.
Wife of naturalized husband;b. Minor children
of naturalized person;c. Alien woman upon
marriage to a national.
Denaturalization
Grounds:1. Naturalization certificate was
obtained fraudulently or illegally;2 .
Within 5 years, he returns to his
n a t i v e c o u n t r y o r t o some foreign
country and establishes residence
there;Prima Facie evidence of intent to take
up residence:a. Native country- 1-year stayb.
Foreign country- 2-year stay3. Petition was
made on an invalid declaration of intent;4.
Minor children failed to graduate through the
fault of theparents either byn e g l e c t i n g t o
support them or by transferring
t h e m t o another school;5. Allowed himself
to be used as a dummy;
Effects of Denaturalization:
1. If the ground affects the
intrinsic validity of
t h e proceedings, denaturalization shall
divest the wife andchildren of their
derivative naturalization;2. If the ground
was personal to the denaturalized
person,his wife and children shall retain their
Philippine citizenship.
Section 2.
Natural-born citizens are those who are
citizensof the Philippines from birth
without having to perform anyact to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.
Thosew h o e l e c t P h i l i p p i n e
citizenship in accordance
w i t h paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof
shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3.
Philippine citizenship may be lost or
reacquiredin the manner provided by law.
Loss of citizenship:1. By naturalization in a
foreign country However, thisw a s m o d i f i e d b y

RA 9225An Act Making

t h e Citizenshipof Philippine Citizens Who
Acquire Foreign CitizenshipPermanent
September 15, 2003 which
d e c l a r e s t h e policy of the State that all
Philippine citizens who becomecitizens
of another country shall be deemed to
have losttheir Philippine citizenship under
the conditions of this Act.

They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by

takingthe oath of allegiance

Those Filipino citizens who, after the

effectivity of RA 9225, become citizens of a
foreign country, mayreacquire Philippine
citizenship upon taking theoath of
allegiance

Unmarried child, whether legitimate,

illegitimate or a d o p t e d , b e l o w 1 8
years of age, of those
w h o reacquire their Philippine
c i t i z e n s h i p u p o n t h e effectivity of RA
9225 shall be deemed citizens of the
Philippines.

Those who reacquire or retain Philippine

citizenshipunder this Act shall enjoy full civil
and political rightsa n d b e s u b j e c t t o
all attendant liabilities
andr e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s u n d e r
e x i s t i n g l a w s o f t h e Philippines
and the followingconditions: M e e t t h e
requirements of RA 9189,
T h e O v e r s e a s Ab s e n t e e Vot i n g Ac t
o f 2 0 0 3 , and other existing laws F o r
those seeking elective public office
a n d appointive office, meet the
qualifications,m a k e p e r s o n a l a n d
sworn renunciation, s u b s c r i b e
and swear to an oath
o f allegiance to the RP

For those intending to

p r a c t i c e t h e i r profession, apply with

the proper authorityf o r a l i c e n s e o r

p e r m i t t o e n g a g e i n s u c h practice2.
By express renunciation of citizenship
Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel
Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prince Lising

Conscious, voluntary and intelligent

renunciation

Express renunciation means a

renunciation madek n o w n d i s t i n c t l y
a n d e x p l i c i t l y, a n d n o t l e f t
t o inference or implication.

Mere registration of alien

i n B I D a n d m e r e possession of
foreign passport do not
constituteeffective renunciation.

In
Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago,
obtaining aP o r t u g u e s e p a s s p o r t
and signing
c o m m e r c i a l documents as a
Portuguese were construed
a s renunciation of Philippine citizenship.3.
By subscribing to an oath of allegiance
to support theConstitution or laws of a foreign
country upon attaining theage of 21;
provided, however, that a Filipino may not
divesthimself of Philippine citizenship in this
manner while RP
isat war with any country.
an application of the principle of Indelible
Allegiance.by virtue of RA 92254.
By rendering service to or accepting
commission inthe armed forces of a foreign
country EXCEPT:

If RP has a defensive and/or

o f f e n s i v e p a c t o f alliance with the said
foreign country; and

The said foreign country maintains armed

forces inPhilippine territory with the consent
of RP5.

By cancellation of the certificate of

naturalization
6.
By having been declared by competent
authority adeserter of the
pardon or amnesty has been granted.
Reacquisition of citizenship:
1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of
allegiance2. By naturalization3. By
repatriation4. By direct act of Congress
Repatriation
-mode for reacquisition for those who lost
their citizenship-governed by various
statutes-consists of taking of an oath of
allegiance to the RP andr e g i s t e r i n g
said oath in the LCR of the place
w h e r e t h e personconcerned resides or last
resided
Effect of repatriation:
It allows the person to recover or
r e t u r n t o , h i s o r i g i n a l status before he
lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus,
therespondent, a former natural-born Filipino
citizen who losthis Philippine citizenship
when he enlisted in the US MarineCorps,
was deemed to have recovered his
natural-bornstatus when he reacquired
Filipino citizenship throughrepatriation.The
only persons entitled to repatriation under RA
8171 arethe following:a) Filipino women
who lost their Philippine citizenship
bymarriage to aliens; andb) Natural-born
Filipinos including their minor children
wholost their Philippine citizenship on
account of politicalor economic necessity.
Section 4.
Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens
shallretain their citizenship, unless by their
act or omission, theyare deemed, under the
law, to have renounced it.
Section 5.

Dual allegiance of citizens is

i n i m i c a l t o t h e national interest and shall
be dealt with by law.
Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE:
an individual maybe compelled to retain his
original nationality even if he hasa l r e a d y
renounced or forfeited it under the
l a w s o f t h e second State whose nationality
he has acquired.
Dual Citizenship
arises as a result of the
c o n c u r r e n t a p p l i c a t i o n o f the
different laws of 2 or more states, a
person issimultaneouslyconsidered as a
national of said states
i n v o l u n t a r y
Dual Allegiance

r e f e r s t o a s i t u a t i o n i n
w h i c h a p e r s o n simultaneously
owes, by some positive act, loyaltyto 2 or
more states v o l u n t a r y
Instances when a citizen of the
P h i l i p p i n e s m a y possess dual
citizenship:
1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or
mothers in foreigncountries which follow
the principle of
jus soli
;2 . T h o s e b o r n i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s o f
F i l i p i n o m o t h e r s a n d alien fathers if by
the laws of their fathers country
suchchildren are citizens of that country;3 .
Those who marry aliens if by the
l a w s o f t h e l a t t e r s country the former
are considered citizens, unless by their a c t
or omission they are deemed to
h a v e r e n o u n c e d Philippine citizenship.
Prepared by: Madelyn Taytayon, Edcel
Quiben, Jilliane Oria and Prin