Political Law Review Digest

A.
THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

1. Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
TOPIC: Non-Self Executing v Self Executing Constitutional Provisions
FACTS:
The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell through public bidding 30% to
51% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC).
In a close bidding, two bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC), a Filipino
corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a
Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at
P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder and the execution of the contracts,
the MPHC matched the bid price in a letter to GSIS. MPHC sent a manager’s check to the GSIS in a
subsequent letter, which GSIS refused to accept. On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that
GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid, MPHC came to the Court on prohibition and
mandamus.
Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila
Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical monument
which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture.
Respondents assert that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a statement
of principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires implementing
legislation(s).
ISSUE:
Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-executing.
RULING:
Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.
A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Article II of the 1987
Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes
operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient
rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.
Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the
constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature
would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law.
In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive
command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or
rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it
in operation.
2. Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997)

Facts:
Delfin alleged in his petition that... he and the members of the Movement and other... volunteers
intend to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution granted under
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
Attached to the... petition is a copy of a "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution"[10]
embodying the proposed amendments which consist in the deletion from the aforecited sections of the
provisions concerning term limits, and with the following proposition:
DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF ARTICLE VI, SECTION
4 OF ARTICLE VII, AND SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE X OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION?
According to Delfin, the said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people, and after it is
signed by at least twelve per cent of the total number of registered voters in the country it will be
formally filed with the COMELEC.
On 18 December 1996, the petitioners herein -- Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander
Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin -- filed this special civil action for prohibition raising the following
arguments:
(1) The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution can only be
implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed;
(2) It is true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three systems of initiative, namely, initiative on the
Constitution, on statutes, and on local legislation. However, it failed to provide any subtitle on
initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which... are specifically provided
for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people's
initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some future law.
(5)The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof.
Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside the power of the
people's initiative.
(6) Finally, Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people's initiative; neither the COMELEC nor
any other government department, agency, or office has realigned funds for the purpose.
Issues:
Issue No. 1
Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and
Appropriating Funds Therefor, was intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to the
Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as worded, adequately covers... such initiative
Issue No. 2
Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In re: Rules and Regulations Governing the
Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws)
regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid,... considering the
absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative
Issue No. 3
Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as proposed in the draft
"Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution," would constitute a revision of, or an amendment to,
the Constitution.
Ruling:
Ruling on the first issue:
R.A. NO. 6735 INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS
TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IS, UNFORTUNATELY,... INADEQUATE TO COVER THAT
SYSTEM.
Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution provides:
SEC. 2. 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.
This provision is not self-executory. In his book,[29] Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986
Constitutional Commission, stated:
Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of amending the
Constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, in the last analysis it still
is dependent on congressional action.
Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the
system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution until Congress
provides for its implementation. Stated otherwise, while the Constitution has... recognized or granted
that right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its
implementation.
Ruling on the second issue
COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300, INSOFAR AS IT PRESCRIBES RULES AND
REGULATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION, IS VOID.
It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement
the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the
system of initiative. It does not have that power under R.A. No. 6735.
Reliance on the COMELEC's power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is
misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by the COMELEC
under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate... legislation is
authorized and which satisfies the "completeness" and the "sufficient standard" tests.
Ruling on the 3rd issue
The foregoing considered, further discussion on the issue of whether the proposal to lift the term
limits of the elective national and local officials is an amendment to, and not a revision of, the
Constitution is rendered unnecessary, if not academic.
Principles:
Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution... is not self-executory.
Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of amending
the Constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, in the last analysis it
still is dependent on congressional action.
3. Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006)

4. Tolentino vs. Comelec (41 SCRA 702, 729) 5. Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640. October
12, 1976

Political Law Review Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law Review Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.

THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

2. Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997)

3. Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006)

You might also like