Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

De Leon vs Esguerra [GR No.



Alfredo de Leon won as barangay captain and other
petitioners won as councilmen of barangay dolores,
taytay, rizal. On february 9, 1987, de leon received
memo antedated december 1, 1986 signed by OIC Gov.
Benhamin Esguerra, february 8, 1987, designating
Florentino Magno, as new captain by authority of minister
of local government and similar memo signed february 8,
1987, designated new councilmen.

Whether or not designation of successors is valid.


No, memoranda has no legal effect.

1. Effectivity of memoranda should be based on the date
when it was signed. So, February 8, 1987 and not
December 1, 1986.

2. February 8, 1987, is within the prescribed period. But
provisional constitution was no longer in efffect then
because 1987 constitution has been ratified and its
transitory provision, Article XVIII, sec. 27 states that all
previous constitution were suspended.

3. Constitution was ratified on February 2, 1987. Thus, it
was the constitution in effect. Petitioners now acquired
security of tenure until fixed term of office for barangay
officials has been fixed. Barangay election act is not
inconsistent with constitution.

Gonzales vs Comelec [GR No. L-28196]
Constitutional Law Political Question vs Justiciable
One of the issues raised in this case was the validity
of the submission of certain proposed constitutional
amendments at a plebiscite scheduled on the same
day as the regular elections. Petitioners argued that
this was unlawful as there would be no proper
submission of the proposal to the people who would
be more interested in the issues involved in the
election. It was contended that such issue cannot be
properly raised before the courts because it is a
political one.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issue involves a political
HELD: Pursuant to Art 15 of the 35 Constitution, SC
held that there is nothing in this provision to indicate
that the election therein referred to is a special, not
a general election. The circumstance that the
previous amendment to the Constitution had been
submitted to the people for ratification in special
elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best
to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It
does not negate its authority to submit proposed
amendments for ratification in general elections. The
SC also noted that if what is placed in question or if
the crux of the problem is the validity of an act then
the same would be or the issue would be considered
as a justiciable question NOT a political one.

Imbong v Comelec [GR No. L-32432]

Imbong v Comelec September 11, 1970
RA 6132: delegates in Constitutional Convention

Petitioner: Imbong
Respondents: Ferrer (Comelec Chair), Patajo, Miraflor
(Comelec Members)
Petitioner: Gonzales
Respondent: Comelec
Ponente: Makasiar

Resolution No 2 (1967) -Calls for Constitutional Convention to
be composed of 2 delegates from each representative district
who shall be elected in November, 1970.
RA 4919 -implementation of Resolution No 2
Resolution 4 (1969)-amended Resolution 2: Constitutional
Convention shall be composed of 320delegates a proportioned
among existing representative districts according to the
population. Provided that each district shall be entitled to 2
RA 6132-Concon Act 1970, repealed RA 4919, implemented
Res No. 2 & 4.
Sec 4: considers all public officers/employees as resigned
when they file their candidacy
Sec 2: apportionment of delegates
Sec 5: Disqualifies any elected delegate from running for any
public office in the election or from assuming any appointive
office/position until the final adournment of the ConCon.
Par 1 Sec 8: ban against all political parties/organized groups
from giving support/representing a delegate to the convention.


This is a petition for declaratory judgment. These are 2
separate but related petitions of running candidates for
delegates to the Constitutional Convention assailing the
validity of RA 6132.Gonzales: Sec, 2, 4, 5 and Par 1 Sec 8,
and validity of entire law Imbong: Par 1 Sec 8

Whether the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional
Convention and whether the parameters set by such a call is


The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional
Convention as a Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, specific
provisions assailed by the petitioners are deemed as


- Sec 4 RA 6132: it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of

-Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132:

Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to
propose amendments, or call for convention for the purpose by
votes and these votes were attained by Resolution 2 and 4

- Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Resolution 4
and is enough that the basis employed for such apportions is
reasonable. Macias case relied by Gonzales is not reasonable
for that case granted more representatives to provinces with
less population and vice versa. In this case, Batanes is equal
to the number of delegates I other provinces with more
- Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to
qualify/disqualify members thereof. Furthermore, this
disqualification is only temporary. This is a safety mechanism
to prevent political figures from controlling elections and to
allow them to devote more time to the Constituional
- Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process
and also to assure candidates equal opportunity since
candidates must now depend on their individual merits, and
not the support of political parties. This provision does not
create discrimination towards any particular party/group, it
applies to all organizations.

Occena vs. Commission on Elections
[GR 56350, 2 April 1981]; also Gonzales vs.
National Treasurer [GR 56404]

Facts: The challenge in these two prohibition
proceedings against the validity of three
Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing
constitutional amendments, goes further than
merely assailing their alleged constitutional
infirmity. Samuel Occena and Ramon A.
Gonzales, both members of the Philippine Bar
and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional
Convention that framed the present Constitution,
are suing as taxpayers. The rather unorthodox
aspect of these petitions is the assertion that the
1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law, the
Javellana ruling to the contrary notwithstanding.

Issue: Whether the 1973 Constitution was valid,
and in force and effect when the Batasang
Pambansa resolutions and the present petitions
were promulgated and filed, respectively.

Held: It is much too late in the day to deny the
force and applicability of the 1973 Constitution. In
the dispositive portion of Javellana v. The
Executive Secretary, dismissing petitions for
prohibition and mandamus to declare invalid its
ratification, this Court stated that it did so by a
vote of six to four. It then concluded: "This being
the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial
obstacle to the new Constitution being
considered in force and effect." Such a statement
served a useful purpose. It could even be said
that there was a need for it. It served to clear the
atmosphere. It made manifest that as of 17
January 1973, the present Constitution came into
force and effect. With such a pronouncement by
the Supreme Court and with the recognition of
the cardinal postulate that what the Supreme
Court says is not only entitled to respect but must
also be obeyed, a factor for instability was
removed. Thereafter, as a matter of law, all
doubts were resolved. The 1973 Constitution is
the fundamental law. It is as simple as that. What
cannot be too strongly stressed is that the
function of judicial review has both a positive and
a negative aspect. As was so convincingly
demonstrated by Professors Black and Murphy,
the Supreme Court can check as well as
legitimate. In declaring what the law is, it may not
only nullify the acts of coordinate branches but
may also sustain their validity. In the latter case,
there is an affirmation that what was done cannot
be stigmatized as constitutionally deficient. The
mere dismissal of a suit of this character suffices.
That is the meaning of the concluding statement
in Javellana. Since then, this Court has invariably
applied the present Constitution. The latest case
in point is People v. Sola, promulgated barely
two weeks ago. During the first year alone of the
effectivity of the present Constitution, at least ten
cases may be cited.

G.R. No. L-34150 October 16, 1971


The case is a petition for prohibition to restrain
respondent Commission on Elections "from undertaking
to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971," at which the
proposed constitutional amendment "reducing the voting
age" in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution of the
Philippines to eighteen years "shall be, submitted" for
ratification by the people pursuant to Organic Resolution
No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971, and the
subsequent implementing resolutions, by declaring said
resolutions to be without the force and effect of law for
being violative of the Constitution of the Philippines. The
Constitutional Convention of 1971 came into being by
virtue of two resolutions of the Congress of the
Philippines approved in its capacity as a constituent
assembly convened for the purpose of calling a
convention to propose amendments to the Constitution
namely, Resolutions 2 and 4 of the joint sessions of
Congress held on March 16, 1967 and June 17, 1969
respectively. The delegates to the said Convention were
all elected under and by virtue of said resolutions and the
implementing legislation thereof, Republic Act 6132.

Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of
1971 to order the holding of a plebiscite for the ratification
of the proposed amendment/s.

HELD: The Court holds that all amendments to be
proposed must be submitted to the people in a single
"election" or plebiscite. We hold that the plebiscite being
called for the purpose of submitting the same for
ratification of the people on November 8, 1971 is not
authorized by Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution,
hence all acts of the Convention and the respondent
Comelec in that direction are null and void. lt says
distinctly that either Congress sitting as a constituent
assembly or a convention called for the purpose "may
propose amendments to this Constitution,". The same
provision also as definitely provides that
"such amendments shall be valid as part of this
Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes
cast at an election at which the amendments are
submitted to the people for their ratification," thus leaving
no room for doubt as to how many "elections" or
plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment or
amendments proposed by the same constituent
assembly of Congress or convention, and the provision
unequivocably says "an election" which means only one.
The petition herein is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1
of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 and the
implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention,
insofar as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite on
November 8, 1971, as well as the resolution of the
respondent Comelec complying therewith (RR Resolution
No. 695) are hereby declared null and void. The
respondents Comelec, Disbursing Officer, Chief
Accountant and Auditor of the Constitutional Convention
are hereby enjoined from taking any action in compliance
with the said organic resolution. In view of the peculiar
circumstances of this case, the Court declares this
decision immediately executory. No costs

PABLITO V. SANIDAD - petitioner; newspaper
columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO
MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly newspaper
circulated in the City of Baguio and the

COMELEC - respondent; through its Solicitor-

Type of petition filed: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Whether Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No.
2167 is constitutional or not.


COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 was promulgated
due to the enacted RA No. 6766 (An Act Providing
for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous
Region) last October 23, 1989, which paved for a call
of a plebescite fo its ratification (original schedule
was reset from December 27, 1989 to January 30,

Allegations of Sanidad:

1.Unconsitutional as it it violates the constitutional
guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the

2.Constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-
guaranteed freedom of the press bause of its penal
provsions in case of violation

Responses of COMELEC

-Not violative of the constitutional guarantees of the
freedom of expression and of the press but only a
valid implementation of the power of the Comelec to
supervise and regulate media during election or
plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C,
Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of
RA 6646

-Does Not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing
his views and/or from campaigning for or against the
Organic Act. He may still express his views or
campaign for or against the act through the Comelec
space and airtime (magazine/periodical in the


Petiton is GRANTED- Section 19 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void and
unconstitutional . TRO made permanent due to the
follwing reasons:
1. It has no statutory basis
2. Form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of
petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable
3. affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite
should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the
forum where the right to expression may be

Santiago vs COMELEC [GR No. 127325]
Facts: On 6 Dec 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with
COMELEC a Petition to Amend the Constitution to Lift
Term Limits of elective Officials by Peoples Initiative
The COMELEC then, upon its approval, a.) set the time
and dates for signature gathering all over the country,
b.) caused the necessary publication of the said petition
in papers of general circulation, and c.) instructed local
election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in
establishing signing stations. On 18 Dec 1996, MD
Santiago et al filed a special civil action for prohibition
against the Delfin Petition. Santiago argues that 1.) the
constitutional provision on peoples initiative to amend
the constitution can only be implemented by law to be
passed by Congress and no such law has yet been
passed by Congress, 2.) RA 6735 indeed provides for
three systems of initiative namely, initiative on the
Constitution, on statues and on local legislation. The two
latter forms of initiative were specifically provided for in
Subtitles II and III thereof but no provisions were
specifically made for initiatives on the Constitution. This
omission indicates that the matter of peoples initiative to
amend the Constitution was left to some future law as
pointed out by former Senator Arturo Tolentino.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 6735 was intended to include
initiative on amendments to the constitution and if so
whether the act, as worded, adequately covers such
HELD: RA 6735 is intended to include the system of
initiative on amendments to the constitution but is
unfortunately inadequate to cover that system. Sec 2 of
Article 17 of the Constitution provides: Amendments to
this constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least there per centum of the
registered voters therein. . . The Congress shall provide
for the implementation of the exercise of this right This
provision is obviously not self-executory as it needs an
enabling law to be passed by Congress. Joaquin Bernas,
a member of the 1986 Con-Con stated without
implementing legislation Section 2, Art 17 cannot
operate. Thus, although this mode of amending the
constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses
Congressional action in the last analysis is still dependent
on Congressional action. Bluntly stated, the right of the
people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of inititative would
remain entombed in the cold niche of the constitution
until Congress provides for its implementation. The
people cannot exercise such right, though constitutionally
guaranteed, if Congress for whatever reason does not
provide for its implementation.

Lambino vs COMELEC [GR No.

Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced
gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change
the 1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the
COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their
initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino group
alleged that the petition had the support of 6M
individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the
constitution. Their petition changes the 1987
constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and
sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the
proposed changes will shift the present bicameral-
presidential form of government to unicameral-
parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to
lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and
invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735
is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.

Issues: (1) Whether or Not the Lambino Groups
initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII
of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution
through a peoples initiative; (2) Whether or Not this
Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA
6735 incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential
terms and conditions to implement the initiative
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution; (3)
Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse
of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino
Groups petition.

Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed
to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a
peoples initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC
did not grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the
Lambino petition.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section
2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct
Proposal by the People

The petitioners failed to show the court that the
initiative signer must be informed at the time of
the signing of the nature and effect, failure to do
so is deceptive and misleading which renders
the initiative void.

2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution Disallowing Revision through

The framers of the constitution intended a clear
distinction between amendment and revision, it
is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2
art 17 of the constitution may propose only
amendments to the constitution. Merging of the
legislative and the executive is a radical change,
therefore a constitutes a revision.

3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not

Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not
change the result because the present petition
violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must
first comply with the constitution before complying
with RA 6735

Petition is dismissed.