De leon vs.

esguerra
g.r. no l -78059; august 31, 1987
ponente:Melencio-herrera, J
Facts:
On May 17, 1982, the petitioners Alfredo M. De Leon and the rest
were elected as the Barangay Captain and Councilmen respectively of
Brgy. Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222. On
February 9, 1987, petitioners received the Memoranda signed by
respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987 but
was antedated on December 1, 1986. The said Memoranda designated
respondents Florentino G. Magno and others to replace the positions of
said petitioners, respectively.
In this case, the respondents contend that such Memoranda are of
legal force because it is in accordance with section 2, article 3 of the
Provisional Constitution which repealed Section 3 of B.p 222. However,
petitioners maintain pursuant to said B.P. their terms of office have
not yet expired. After the ratification of 1987 constitution, the OIC
Governor no longer had the authority to replace them and designate
successors.
Issue:
Is the designation of respondents to replace petitioners from their
respective positions under said Memoranda valid?
Ruling:
No. Article XVIII, sec. 27 of the 1987 constitution clearly provides
that the Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its

ratification and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.The

Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987,
superseding the provisional constitution and its provisions.
Consequently, respondent OIC Governor could no longer designate
respondents to the elective positions occupied by the petitioners.
The petitioners were also held to have acquired security of tenure.
since that B. p 222 is not inconsistent with the constitution, it shall
continue to govern the term of office of barangay officials as provided
in section 8, art3 of the consti. thus, the memoranda issued by
respondent OIC Governor are declared null and void and the Writ of
Prohibition is granted prohibiting respondents taking over the
petitioners' positions subject of this Petition.

Imbong vs comelec
l-32432; September 11, 1970
ponente; makasiar, j.

Facts

On March 16, 1967, the congress passed Resolution No.2 calling for a
Constitutional Convention. The Said resolution was implemented by R.A.
4914, and on June 17, 1969, it was amended by Resolution No. 4. On
August 24, 1970, the congress passed R.A. 6132 implementing
Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4, and repealing R.A. No. 4914. Sec 2 of Ra 6132
provides for the apportionment of delegate, and sec 4 considers all
public officers/employees as resigned when they filed their candidacy.
Sec 5 disqualifies delegates from running for public office or assuming
any appointive or government office until final adjournment of the
Convention. Lastly, Par 1 Sec 8 bans all political parties/organized
groups from giving support/representing any delegate.
In two separate petitions filed by Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M.
Gonzales against the respondent COMELEC. Both petitioners were
running candidates for delegates to the convention filed a petition for
declaratory relief on the validity of RA 6132. Specifically, petitioner
Gonzales assails the validity of Sec 2, 4, 5 and Par 1 Sec 8, and of
entire law itself while petitioner Imbong assails only Par 1 Sec 8 of said
law.
Issue:

1. is RA No. 6132 constitutional?

2. are Sections 2, 4, 5, and (Par. 1) 8 valid?
Ruling
The court ruled that RA 6132 is constitutional. The Congress when
acting as Constituent Assembly has full authority to propose
amendments or call for convention by three-fourths votes as attained
by Res 2 and 4. The specific sections assailed by the petitioners were
also deemed constitutional. In Section 2 of RA 6132, the court held
that the apportionment was valid as well as its basis. While Sec. 4 was
merely an application of and in consonance with the prohibition in Sec.
2 of Art. XII of the Constitution and does not constitute a denial
of due process or of the equal protection of the law. Section 5 is
justified by the right of the State to create office and set its
parameters. Such disqualification is a valid limitation on the right to
public office pursuant to police power. Paragraph 1 Section 8 aims give
the candidates the equality of chances. Said section creates no
discrimination and is so narrow that the basic constitutional rights
themselves remain substantially intact and inviolate. Thus, the
petitions are denied and r.a 6132 including the assailed sections cannot
be declared unconstitutional.

Philippine bar association vs comelec

g.r. no 72915; January 7, 1986
ponente: Aquino, CJ

Facts:
The validity of Batas Pambansa 883 which calls for a special election
(snap election) for the offices of President and Vice-President on
February 7, 1986 was questioned in a petition. The issue was raised
when the said law was enacted following the conditional letter of
resignation by President Marcos. In his letter, the President was
"irrevocably vacating the position of President effective only when the
election is held and after the winner is proclaimed and qualified as
President by taking his oath of office ten days after his proclamation."
Petitioners contended said BP 883 was in conflict with Article VII,
Sec. 9 of 1973 constitution, it did not create a vacancy necessary for
calling of a special election. The petition calls for the issuance of an
injunction restraining respondents Comelec from holding the election
on February 7, 1986.
Issues:
1. Is the B.P. 883 calling for special elections unconstitutional and
should the supreme court therefore stop and prohibit the holding of
the elections?

Ruling:
No. After the deliberation, there being less than ten votes required
for declaring BP 883 unconstitutional, the petition was dismissed. Since
the court did not validly issued an injunction to stop the COMELEC
from proceeding with the preparations for the election, what at first
according to them was a legal question became a political one. The
Court cited that its delay in deciding the case and the sentiments of
the people that developed in the meantime was the reason for its
inaction. Given that there is no issue more political than the election,
the Court no longer had the jurisdiction to decide for the question and
clearly it cannot stand in the way of letting the people decide through
their ballot, either to give the incumbent president a new mandate or
to elect a new president.

Tolentino vs. comelec

g.r. no L-34150; October 16, 1971
ponente: Barredo, J.

Facts:
Petitioner, Arturo M. Tolentino, filed a petition for prohibition to
restrain the respondent Commission on Elections from undertaking to
hold a plebiscite. The said plebiscite was for the ratification of the
proposed constitutional amendment of lowering the voting age to 18
years old. This amendment was pursuant to Organic Resolution No. 1 of
the Constitutional Convention of 1971. On September 30, 1971, the
COMELEC resolved to hold the plebiscite on November 8, 1971 coincident with the senatorial elections.
The petitioners contend that Organic Resolution No. 1 and its
necessary implementing resolutions should be declared null and void.
This was on the ground that calling and holding a plebiscite is not a
power vested in the Convention and partial amendment on age
qualification is not allowed in the Constitution. While respondents
argue that the Convention has power to call plebiscite and submit
amendments in its discretion.
Issue
Is the plebiscite called by the 1971 Constitutional Convention for the
ratification of the partial amendment authorized under the
Constitution?

Ruling
No. The court ruled that the plebiscite proposed in manner and form
provided by organic Resolution no. 1 and its implementing resolutions is
not authorized by the constitution. It is the condition and limitation in
section 1 of article 15 that all amendments to be proposed by the same
convention must be submitted to the people in a single election or
plebiscite. This is the Doctrine of Submission which means that all the
proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be presented to the
people for the ratification or rejection at the same time, not
piecemeal. At the case at bar, it is undisputable that the proposed
amendment is only the first amendment the Convention of 1971 will
propose. Thus, the petition of declaring Organic Resolution No. 1 and
its implementing acts and resolutions are declared null and void.

Planas vs. comelec

g.r no. l -35925; January 22, 1973
ponente: concepcion, C.J.
Facts:
On December 7, 1972, a petition was filed by Charito Planas against the
respondents COMELEC, Treasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor
General. The petition sought to enjoin the implemention of Presidential
Decree 73 providing for the ratification of the proposed constitution
in a plebiscite on January 15, 1973. The petitioner argued that said
P.D. has no force and effect of a law because in the constitution the
Congress has exclusive authority to call a plebiscite. Petitioner also
maintained that without the freedom of speech, press and assembly
there would be no proper submission and sufficient time to inform the
people of the proposed constitution and its contents.
Issue [1]: is the Court authorized to pass upon the validity of
Presidential Decree 73?
Issue [2]: is the President authorized to issue PD 73 for submission to
the People the Constitution proposed by the Convention?
Issue [3]: Is the proper submission of the proposed constitution to a
plebiscite affected by the proclamation of martial law?
Ruling
[1]: the court held that the issue on the validity of Presidential Decree
73 is of justiciable in nature. Thus, the Supreme Court has authority to
review cases involving said issue as expressly provided on Section 2,
Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution.

Held [2]: on the authority of the President to issue said PD, the Court
decided to pass upon such question due to the postponement of said
plebiscite.
Held [3]: on the question whether the proclamation of martial law
affected the proper submission of the proposed constitution involves a
question of fact which cannot be predetermined.
Thus, the court held that all cases are dismissed.

Sanidad vs. comelec

g.r. no l- 44640; October 12, 1976
ponente: martin, J.

Facts:
The issuance of PD 991 on September 2 1976 of PD 991 called
for a referendum-plebiscite of the Citizens Assemblies on October 16
1976. The manner of voting and canvass to be applied on said
referendum-plebiscite was declared by PD 1031, and the questions to
be asked were provided by PD 1033. On September 27, 1976, the
father and son petitioners, Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V. Sanidad,
filed for Prohibition suits with Preliminary Injunction.
Petitioners seek to enjoin respondents Comelec and national treasurer
from conducting the Referendum-Plebiscite and to declare without
force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1033 and 1031.
Petitioners argued that since the president has no power to propose
amendments to the new constitution such Referendum-Plebiscite has no
constitutional or legal basis. However, solicitor general claimed that
petitioners have no standing to sue and the political nature of said
issue is beyond judicial jurisdiction of the SC.
Issue
1. Is the question of the constitutionality of presidential decrees
nos 991, 1031 and 1033 political or justiciable?
2. Is the president in possession of a power to propose amendments
to the constitution?

3. Is there a sufficient and proper submission to the people of the

proposed amendments within the allowed time frame?
Ruling
1. After deliberation, 7 justices are of the view the question is
justiciable. Said P.d.s involves an amending process both as to
proposal and ratification. Thus Supreme Court is vested with that
authority to determine whether the amending power has been
discharged within its limits.
2. Whether the president has the power to propose constitutional
amendments, 7 justices voted on the affirmative while 2 voted on
the negative. Under 1973 constitution, the power to propose
constitutional amendments resides in the interim national
assembly, the president only has the prerogative on when to
convene said assembly.
3. On the last issue, 6 justices are with the view that there was a
sufficient and proper submission of proposed amendments, while
some viewed that it is a political question and beyond the
competence of court. On the other hand, 2 justices stated that
there is no proper and fair submission with sufficient time and
information to assure intelligent consent or rejection. The
Petititons are dismissed by vote of 8 to 2 to.

Javellana vs. the executive secretary

g.r 36142; march 31, 1973
ponente: concepcion; c.j
Facts:
On January 20, 1973, petitioner Josue Javellana, filed a suit against
the respondents Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of National
Defense, Justice and Finance. This suit was to restrain said
respondents and their subordinates or agents from implementing any of
the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present
1935 Constitution. According to petitioner, the President allegedly
ordered the immediate implementation of the new 1973 constitution
through his Cabinet and the respondents. Said respondents are acting
without, or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing said proposed
Constitution. Petitioner added that the President has no power to
create the Citizens Assemblies, neither to approve nor proclaim the
ratification of the proposed constitution
ISSUES
1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a justiciable or
political and therefore non-justiciable, question?
2. Is the proposed new Constitution been ratified validly according to
said Art. XV of the1935 Constitution?
3. Is the proposed Constitution been acquiesced in (with or without
valid ratification) by the people?
4. Are the petitioners entitled to relief?

5. Is the proposed Constitution in force?

Ruling
1st on the first issue, 6 justices hold it is a justiciable while 3
members of the Court hold that the issue is political and beyond the
ambit of judicial inquiry.
On the second issue of validity of the ratification, 6 members hold
that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention
was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV, section 1 of the
1935 Constitution. 3 members of the court viewed that there was a
substantial compliance with the constitutional requirements and only
Justice Barredo qualified his vote.
In the third issue, no majority vote has been reached by the Court but
4 justices hold that the people have already accepted the 1973
Constitution.
In the issue of relief, 6) members voted to DISMISS the petition
while Four members gave due course to the petitions.
On the last issue, (4) justices hold that it is in force by virtue of the
people's acceptance while Four casted no vote Two (2) members of the
Court, is not in force;
With majority of 6 votes the cases were dismissed. Thus, there is no
further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in
force and effect.