THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

De Leon Facts: In the 1982 Barangay Election, Alfredo De Leon won as Barangay Section 27, Article 18 of the 1987 Constitution
v. Captain and other petitioners won as Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, “This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the
Esguerra Rizal. Under Barangay Election Act of 1982, their term of office shall be 6 years votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous
(June 7, 1982 – June 7, 1988). On February 8, 1987, Gov. Benjamin Esguerra Constitutions.”
issued a memorandum designating Florentino Magno as the new Barangay
Captain and other respondents as new Councilmen. Respondents relied on the • The 1987 Constitution was ratified on February 2, 1987
Provisional Constitution of 1986 which grants the governor to appoint or Ratification Date of Ratification
designate new successors within the one year period ending February 25, Proclamation by President Merely the official confirmatory
1987. declaration of the act of the people.
Canvass of Votes Merely the mathematical confirmation.
Issue: WON the designation is valid.

Held: No. Although February 8, 1987 is still within the one-year deadline
provided by the Provisional Constitution which was relied upon by Gov.
Esguerra in making the designation, such Provisional Constitution was already
superseded by the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987.

Manila Facts: Pursuant to Privatization Program of the Government, GSIS decided to Section 10(2), Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution (Filipino First Policy)
Prince sell through public bidding 30-51% shares of Manila Hotel Corporation. Two “In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and
Hotel bidders participated both offering to buy 51% (15,300,000 shares): patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.”
v. Manila Prince Hotel Renong Berhad
GSIS Corporation • Patrimony in its plain and ordinary meaning pertains to heritage. When the
Nationality Filipino Corporation Malaysian Firm Constitution speaks of National Patrimony it refers not only to Natural
Bid Php 41.58/share Php 44.00/share Resources but also to the Cultural Heritage of the Filipinos.
Pending declaration of Renong Berhad as winning bidder, Manila Prince Hotel
Corporation offered to match the bid price at Php 44.00/share. Apprehensive Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
that GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that GSIS might If a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether
consummate the sale with Renong Berhad, Manila Prince Hotel Corporation promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private
came to court on prohibition and mandamus. persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus,
since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation,
Issue: it is deemed written in every statute and contract.
(1) WON Section 10(2), Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing
provision. Self-Executing Provisions
(2) WON 51% shares of Manila Hotel Corporation falls under the application of Complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling
The Filipino First policy. legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants
may be enjoyed or protected.
Held:
(1) Yes. In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing • In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather
rather than non-self-executing. than non-self-executing, unless the contrary is clearly intended.
(2) Yes. 51% shares are controlling, anyone who acquires such will have actual
control and management of Manila Hotel. Manila Hotel has practically become
a historical monument which reflects vibrancy of Philippine heritage and
culture.
Francisco Facts: On June 2, 2003, President Joseph Estrada filed an impeachment
v. complaint (for Culpable Violation of Constitution, Betrayal of Public Trust and
HOR Other High Crimes) against Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. and 7 Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court. Complaint was endorsed by the House of
Representatives and was referred to the House Committee on Justice on
August 5, 2003. House Committee on Justice dismissed it because although it
is sufficient in form, it was insufficient in substance. On October 3, 2003, a
second impeachment complaint accompanied by a Resolution of
Endorsement/Impeachment signed by atleast 1/3 of all the member of the
House of Representatives was filed. Petitioners contend that filing of the
second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional. Sen. Pimentel then
contends that Power of Judicial Review does not extend to impeachment cases
because the Constitution grants to the sole power to try and decide all
impeachment cases to the Senate.
Issue:
(1) WON second impeachment complaint is constitutional.
(2) WON the Power of Judicial Review extends to those arising from
impeachment.
Held:
(1) No. “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one year.”
(2) Yes. Through the filing of the second impeachment complaint, the provision
of the Constitution providing for the one-year ban on filing impeachment cases
has been violated. Courts have the power of Judicial Review if “xxx there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” Respondents
cannot claim that the exercise of Judicial Review in impeachment cases upset
the system of Checks and Balances because the provisions of the Constitution
are to be interpreted as a whole and not in isolation.
Section 3(5), Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution
“No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than
once within a period of one year.”
Section 3(6), Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution
“The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the
President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of
two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
Initiating impeachment Cases:
(1) VC filed by any Member of HOR (2) Endorse by the HOR + refer to the
VC filed by any Citizen upon resolution House Committee on Justice = ROI ->
or endorsement by any Member of HOR AOI = To Senate
(3) VC/ROI filed by atleast 1/3 of all AOI = To Senate
members of HOR
Power of Judicial Review
Section 1, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution
“The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”
• The exercise of Judicial Review does not upset the system of Checks and
Balances. Both are integral components of the calibrated system of
independence and interdependence that insures that no branch or
instrumentality of the Government acts beyond the powers assigned to it by
the Constitution.
Principles of Constitutional Construction
1. verba legis - words used in the Constitution given their ordinary
meaning except where technical terms are employed.
2. ratio legis est anima - words of the Constitution should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of its framers.
3. ut magis valeat quam pereat - interpreted as a whole.
• Extraneous materials can only be used if the above-mentioned rules fail.
AMENDMENTS & REVISIONS
Gonzales Facts: Congress passed 3 resolutions simultaneously: Section 1, Article 2 of the 1935 Constitution (Amended)
v. 1 Proposing amendments to the Constitution so as to increase the “The Philippines, is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
COMELEC membership of the HOR from the current maximum of 120 to 180. government authority emanates from them.”
2 Calling a convention to propose Amendments to the Constitution, the
convention to be composed of 2 elective delegates from each Section 2(1), Article 8 of the 1935 Constitution
representative district, to be elected in the general election. “The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction
3 Proposing that the Constitution be amended so as to authorize of various courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction
Senators & Members of HOR to become delegates to the over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, nor of its
aforementioned constitutional convention without forfeiting their seat. jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill which, upon approval of the President, error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of
became RA 4913 providing that the Amendments to the Constitution inferior courts in: (1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
proposed in RBH 1 & 3 be submitted, for the approval of the people, at the law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question.”
general elections (November 14, 1967). Petitioner assails the constitutionality
of RA 4913 contending that there would be no proper submission of the Section 1, Article 15 of the 1935 Constitution (Amended)
proposals to the people who would be more interested in the issues involved “The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the
in the general election rather than in the issues involving the plebiscite. Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may
Gonzales further assails that the Congress cannot simultaneously propose propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such
amendments to the Constitution and call for the holding of a Constitutional amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of
Convention. COMELEC and other respondents interposed the defense that the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for
said act of Congress cannot be reviewed by the courts because it is a political their ratification.”
question.
The Constituent Power (power to amend/revise the Constitution) is different
Issue: from the law-making power of the Congress.
(1) WON the act of Congress in proposing amendments is a political question.
(2) WON RA 4913 (Submission of Amendments to the Constitution in a Power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is not
General Election) is constitutional. included in the general grant of legislative powers to the Congress.
(3) WON Congress can simultaneously propose amendments to the • Part of the inherent powers of the sovereign – as the repository of
Constitution and call for the holding of a Constitutional Convention. sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours – to make, and hence, to
amend their own Fundamental Law.
Held: • Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the
(1) No. It is Justiciable. Power to amend the Constitution or to propose Constitution grants them such power.
amendments thereto is not included in the general grant of legislative powers • When exercising the same:
to the Congress. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution Senators & Act not as members of Derive their authority
merely because the Constitution grants them such power. Hence, when Members of Congress but as from the Constitution.
exercising the same, Members of Senate & HOR act not as members of HOR component elements of
Congress but as component elements of the Constituent Assembly. When the Constituent
acting as such, members of Congress derive their authority from the Assembly.
Constitution. Thus, it follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say People Authority does not
whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. emanate from the
(2) Yes. The term “election” was used, without qualification. There is nothing Constitution – they are
that indicates that the election therein referred is special, not general. As long the very source of all
as the requirement that the people need to be informed about the gist, the powers of the
main idea, or the substance of the amendment sought to be made is satisfied. government, including
(3) Yes. The disjunctive term “or” has oftentimes been held to mean “and” or the Constitution.
vise-versa when the spirit/context of the law warrants it.
 Imbong Facts: Petitioners Manuel Imbong & Raul Gonzales, both interested in Section 1, Article 15 of the 1935 Constitution (Amended)
v. running as candidates in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, filed separate “The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the
COMELEC petitions for declaratory relief, impugning the constitutionality of RA 6132, Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may
claiming that it prejudices their rights as candidates. propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such
Congress, acting as Constituent Resolution #2 – called for the amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority
Assembly Constitutional Convention to of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people
propose amendments. for their ratification.”
Congress, acting as a Legislative RA 4914 – implementing Resolution
Body #2, restating entirety its provisions. • Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, has authority to propose
Congress, acting as Constituent Resolution #4 – amending amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose by
Assembly Resolution #2, providing that “xxx three-fourths vote of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of
any other details relating to the Representatives in a joint session but voting separately.
specific apportionment of • Such grant includes all other powers essential to the effective exercise of the
delegates, election of delegates to, principal power by necessary implication.
and the holding of the Constitutional • Implementing details are matters within the competence of the Congress not
Convention shall be embodied in an only as a Constituent Assembly but also in the exercise of its comprehensive
implementing legislation xxx” legislative power, which power encompasses all matters not expressly or by
Congress, acting as a Legislative RA 6132 – implementing Resolution necessary implication withdrawn or removed by the Constitution from the
Body 2 & 4, and expressly repealing RA ambit of Legislative Action. As long as such statutory details do not clash
4914. with any specific provision of the Constitution, they are valid.
• Congress as a legislative body may thus enact necessary implementing
Issue: WON the Congress, in acting as a legislative body, may enact RA 6132 legislation to fill in the gaps which Congress as a Constituent Assembly HAS
to implement the resolution passed by it in its capacity as a Constituent omitted.
Assembly.

Held: Yes. While the authority to call a Constitutional Convention is vested by

the Constitution solely and exclusively in the Congress acting as a Constituent
Assembly, the power to enact the implementing details or specifics to the
general law does not exclusively pertain to Congress acting as a Constituent
Assembly. Such implementing details are matters within the competence of
the Congress in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power, which
power encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary implication
withdrawn or removed by the Constitution from the ambit of Legislative Action.
As long as such statutory details do not clash with any specific provision of
the Constitution, they are valid.
 Lambino Facts: On February 15, 2006, Lambino Group, with other groups and
v. individuals, commended gathering signatures for an initiative petition to
COMELEC change the 1987 Constitution. On August 25, 2006, Lambino Group filed a
petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition
under RA 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Act). Lambino Group alleged that
their petition has support of 6.3M individuals (complying with the 12%; 3%
rule) and also claimed that COMELEC had verified the signatures of the 6.3M
individuals. The Lambino Initiative petition’s proposed changes will shift the
present bicameral-presidental system to a unicameral-parliamentary form of
government.
Issue: WON Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2,
Article 17 of the 1987 Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through
people’s initiative.
Section 2, Article 17 of the 1987 Constitution
“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
three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section
shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the
implementation of the exercise of this right.”
Essential Elements:
1. People must author and sign the entire proposal.
Written on face of the petition
Attached to petition Petition must state fact of
attachment.

Held: No. It does not comply with Section 2, Article 17 of the 1987 Constitution Assurance that every one of the
on Direct Proposal by the People. Proponents secured the signatures in their signatories had seen the full
private capacity and not as public officials. They are not disinterested parties text of proposed amendments
who can impartially explain the advantages & disadvantages of the proposed before signing. So that they can
amendments to the people. The proponents present favorably their proposal intelligently evaluate whether to
to the people without presenting the arguments against it. The proponents, or sign or not.
their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures. Thus, there is no • No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
presumption that the proponents observed the Constitutional requirements in • Full text of the proposed amendments must first be
gathering the signatures. Proponents bear the burden of proving that petition shown to the people before they sign the petition
contained or incorporated by attachment the full text of the proposed (Adopted from American Jurisprudence on Initiative).
amendments. • Initiative signatory must be informed at the time of the
signing of the nature and effect of which is proposed.
Nature and Effects of Proposed Amendments Failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which
1. Term limits on Members of the Legislature will be lifted. Thus, renders the initiative void.
members of Parliamentary can be elected indefinitely. 2. Proposal must be embodied in a petition.
2. Interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until its
members, who are almost all the present members of the • Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Congress, decide to call for new parliamentary elections. Thus, Lambino v. COMELEC (2006) Santiago v. COMELEC (1997)
Members of Interim Parliament will be able to determine the RA 6735 (Initiative and Referendum RA 6735 (Initiative and Referendum
expiration of their own term of office. Act) is sufficient to implement People’s Act) is insufficient to implement
3. Within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, Initiative. – Here, SC En Banc People’s Initiative.
Interim Parliament shall convene to propose further overturned the ruling of Santiago v.
amendments/revisions to the Constitution. COMELEC.
Since these specific amendments are not stated or indicated in the Lambino
Group’s signature sheets. People who signed it had no idea that they were • Initiative can only be exercised to propose Amendments, not Revisions.
proposing these amendments. These proposed changes are highly
Amendment Revision
controversial and could not have been inferred or divined by merely reading
Nature Generally affects only the specific Generally affects several
or rereading the contents of the signature sheets. Furthermore, change
provision being amended. provisions.
proposed is considered a revision not an amendment as it alters the
Constitutional principle on separation of powers and checks-and-balances. Effect Change that adds, reduces or deletes Change that alters a
without altering the basic principle basic principle in the
involved. Constitution.

Two-part test to determine change in Constitution:

1. Quantitative Test – examines only the number of provisions affected and
does not consider the degree of change.
2. Qualitative Test – examines effect of change to the Constitution