Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1.-Consti-I-Premid 1
1.-Consti-I-Premid 1
Atty. Renato Galeon Transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution but it was
Reviewer by: Tanya Ibanez declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because
our Constitution is a rigid one, which cannot be amended
POLITICAL LAW by a simple legislation.
Branch of public law which deals with the organization
and operations of the governmental organs of the State Flexible
and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants A kind of Constitution that can easily be amended by
of its territory. ordinary legislation.
1. Amendment – A piecemeal or isolated changes Assuming further that pursuant to the first law
enacted by Congress, the ConCon was
of some provisions of the Constitution.
convened. How shall ConCon be regarded in
2. Revision – Complete rewriting or overhaul of
relation to Congress? Is ConCon superior or
the Constitution.
inferior to Congress?
Lambino v. Comelec
The Supreme Court succinctly ruled that even if the Loomis v. Jackson
purported change appears to be isolated in character, ConCon is superior to the Congress because
but if it already alters the underlined principle in the its task is to draft the fundamental law of the
Constitution, then it shall be regarded as a revision. land, a sovereign function.
overturned its earlier pronouncement in
Wood’s Appeal Santiago v. Comelec.
ConCon is inferior to the Congress because it
is merely a creation of Congress. (4) Limited only to amendments and not to
revisions
Frantz v. Autry
(5) Petition to amend the constitution should be
ConCon is independent and co-equal with the
signed by the people themselves as authors
Congress as long as it exists and confines
and the draft amendments should be stated
itself within the sphere of its jurisdiction of
already in the petition
revising or amending the Constitution.
Lambino v. Comelec
But what principle do we adhere to in the
The Supreme Court held that any such
Philippines?
petition to amend the Constitution should be
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito signed by the people themselves as authors
and the draft amendment or amendatory
ConCon is a co-equal body with Congress.
provisions shall be incorporated already in
Sec 1 in conjunction with Sec 3 of Art 17 – Congress the petition so as to prevent fraud and
may propose amendments to the Constitution by itself deception.
or it can call a ConCon. 2. Ratification stage – the proposed amendments or
revisions either sponsored by the Congress, ConCon
When what is envisioned is a mere amendment, the
or proposed by the people themselves should be
proposal is better made by the Congress because
submitted to the people in a plebiscite for their
calling a ConCon would entail gargantuan expense.
approval or disapproval.
When what is envisioned is a revision or an overhaul
(Sec 4 Art 17)
of the entire Constitution, it is advisable to entrust the
Ratification should not be held earlier than 60 days
task to the Constitutional Convention, owing to the
but not later than 90 days following the approval of
presumed expertise of its members.
the proposed/draft changes as authored either by
At the end of the day, the choice in the method of Congress or ConCon. But if the proposed changes
proposal is left to the sound judgment or discretion of are authored by the people, then the 60 to the 90 day
the members of the Congress. Such that while it is period should be counted not from the filing of petition
advisable of giving the task of revision to the ConCon, by the people but upon the issuance by the Comelec
there is nothing in law which prohibits the Congress of a certification attesting to the fact that the people’s
from undertaking the task itself. petition is sufficient in form and in substance.
The question is: If the SC allowed the people to vote Hence, the Mabanag ruling is now abandoned.
on the amendment proposed by the Congress, then
the people are expected to vote again in a later time Judicial Review
to the amendments proposed by the ConCon. Is this The power of the courts of justice to check the validity of
not also a piecemeal submission of amendments executive and legislative acts whether or not they are in
which the SC declared to be invalid in Tolentino v. accordance with the Constitution. Through this power,
Comelec? courts of law are now empowered to inquire into the
validity of executive and legislative acts to check if these
How to reconcile the two cases: acts are in conformity with the Constitution.
In the case of Gonzales, what are voted upon by the
people were the amendments proposed by Congress, In the exercise of judicial review, the Judiciary as a
whereas the remaining amendments would have to whole is not asserting its supremacy as it is not supreme
be proposed not by the same body, but by another, over the other two branches, but it is merely performing
the ConCon. And normally it would take time before its bounden duty under the Constitution to allocate
the ConCon could come up with the proposed conflicting claims of authority.
changes in the Constitution.
Hence, when the Judiciary performs its judicial power, it
Unlike in the case of Tolentino v. Comelec, the is not asserting its supremacy but that of the Constitution.
proposed amendments were all proposed by the
same body, the Constitutional Convention. Judicial review is only a part or component of judicial
power.
Occena v. Comelec
nd
The Supreme Court ruled here is nothing wrong in JUDICIAL POWER (Art 7 Sec 1, 2 par)
allowing the people to vote on the proposed Power of the court to settle actual controversies
amendments on the same day as the general involving rights which are legally enforceable and to
elections. determine whether or not there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of
JUDICIAL REVIEW any branch or instrumentality of the government.
The amendatory process in bringing about a change in
our Constitution is outlined under 15 of the 1987 Expanded concept of judicial review
Constitution. Assuming that there is a move to amend the A new concept introduced in the 1987 constitution where
Constitution by the Congress and there is a case being courts of law are now empowered to scrutinize even the
filed questioning the procedure adopted by Congress in discretionary powers given to other branches, if only to
proposing amendments to the Constitution, can the courts determine whether or not there is grave abuse of
of law take cognizance of this case or should this issue be discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
characterized as a political question?
Does this expanded concept of judicial review obliterate
The Supreme Court ruled that the court is powerless to what is known as political question? Can the courts now
resolve this kind of case because any such issue could pass judgments on these issues characterized as
well be characterized as a political question over which it political questions?
has no competent jurisdiction.
Distinguish between a purely political question and what
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito is not.
There was a purported change or amendment to be A purely political question is beyond the sphere of
introduced to the old Constitution regarding parity rights, judicial scrutiny. Hence, courts of law are not
giving rights to foreigners to own lands in the Philippines. empowered to decide those questions which are
The amendments were proposed by the Congress itself categorized as purely political questions. Otherwise, if it
but in the course of the deliberation of the purported is not a purely political question, there is a good chance
amendment, there were 3 senators who were not that such issue may be decided by the court.
allowed to vote and were not included in the computation
of the required vote of ¾. Similarly, there were also (e.g. elections for choosing the president – purely
around 8 congressmen who were suspended and not political question, but when his presidency is protested, it
can be validly decided by the Supreme Court and A copy of the petition or complaint questioning the
because it has nothing to do with wisdom of choice and validity of the law must be furnished with the office of the
something to do with procedure in elections) Solicitor-General, being the counsel for the State.
Because the Sol -Gen will defend the validity of the law
Assuming that the Congress proposed an amendment being assailed of as invalid.
lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, can the courts of
law dictate upon us that such proposed amendment is When what is being questioned is not a law enacted by
not sound? Congress, but rather a provision of an ordinance
A copy of the petition need not be furnished with the
No, it is a purely political question because it has office of the Sol-Gen. It is enough that the copy of the
something to do with the wisdom of the proposed petition or complaint is furnished with the provincial or
amendment. But whether or not such proposed city attorney.
amendment was validly submitted to the people for their
approval, then it can be decided by the courts because it FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
ceases it to a purely political question.
1. Checking Function
POLITICAL QUESTION The Judiciary can check if the acts of the executive
or legislative branch are in accordance of the
Tanada v. Cuenco Constitution.
That question which under the Constitution can be best
answered by the people in their exercise of sovereignty IBP v. Zamora
and in regards to which, full discretionary powers are Pres Erap exercised his calling out power and the
given to other branches of the government. SC reviewed his exercise of calling out power, to
determine if there has been grave abuse of
Are the lower courts also empowered to exercise discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
judicial review? Can they declare a law
unconstitutional? Osmena v. Comelec
Yes. They have the power and competence to declare a The SC checked the validity of RA 7056 which was
law unconstitutional pursuant to Art 8, sec 5, par 2, sub passed by Congress with the end in view of
par (a). Lower courts have the authority to resolve or amending some provisions of Art 18. The SC held
decide on the validity of a law, only that their decisions that the law was unconstitutional.
may still be reviewed, reversed, and modified by the
Supreme Court on appeal or certiorari. Serrano v. Maritime Gallant Services
The SC checked the validity of Section 10, par 5 of
Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court RA 8042 and declared the provision unconstitutional
for being violative of the equal protection clause.
What happens if after the release of judgment of
lower court invalidating a law, not one of the parties 2. Legitimating Function
filed a case on the decision? Would such declaration
necessarily bind the whole world or just the parties? Estrada v. Arroyo
It only binds the parties. It is only when such decision is The SC stamped legitimacy to the Arroyo
affirmed by the Supreme Court that it will become administration. There was a dispute whether or not
binding upon the whole world, because only decisions of Arroyo validly succeeded as the President of the
the Supreme Court would form part of the laws of the Phils. The SC held that Arroyo validly became the
land, under the principle of Stare Decisis. Hence, successor of Erap. (Justiciable question)
decisions of lower courts and even the CA are not
binding upon the whole world. At best, said decisions In re Saturnino Bermudez
may only be considered persuasive. The SC refused to resolve the issue of whether or
not the Aquino administration was a legitimate
However, administration. (Political question)
JM Tuason v. Court of Appels
The SC held that the CA had no jurisdiction to decide on How to reconcile the two cases:
the validity or invalidity of RA 2616, a law authorizing the It has something to do with the manner by which
expropriation of the Tatalo estate. This was questioned Arroyo and Aquino became the president. In the
before the CA by Rosefe and Dizon, the losing case of Aquino, she became the president not by
defendants in the ejectment cases. In connection with virtue of the Constitution, but through extra
the certiorari filed by the Rosefe and Dizon, the CA constitutional means via the people power. Her
issued an injunctive writ, seeking to enjoin the government was a revolutionary government. In fact,
enforcement of the writ issued by the lower court. the first declaration that she issued was that her
administration was constituted in defiance of the
In nullifying the writ issued by the CA, the SC held that 1973 Constitution.
the CA had no jurisdiction to decide on the
constitutionality of RA 2616. The CA acted without Whereas, in the case of Arroyo, she became the
authority in granting the injunctive writ because the rule president by virtue of the 1987 Constitution. In fact,
before, the CA can only validly issue injunctive writs in she swore to defend the 1987 Constitution.
connection with an appeal, and never in connection with
a certiorari. Hence, the CA acted beyond the scope of its 3. Symbolic Function
authority in granting the injunction.
Salonga v. Cruz Pano
But the rules now pursuant to 1997 RCC, Rule 65, Before the SC could decide the case petition filed by
the CA is now empowered to issue an injunctive writ Salonga, the criminal information charging Salonga
even in connection with a certiorari. with subversion was already dismissed upon order
of the Sec of Justice. Despite the withdrawal of the
Requirements criminal case against Salonga, the SC decided the
When the validity of a law is put in issue case on the merits because the SC saw the need to
formulate doctrinal precepts for the guidance of the would indeed convene to propose amendments to
bench and the bar in respect to the determination in the Constitution.
the absence or presence of probable cause.
Symbolic in a sense that there was no longer actual Montesclaros v. Colemec
case or controversy, but just the same, the case was There was a pending bill in Congress seeking to
still decided on the merits by the SC. postpone the SK elections in 2002. This was
questioned by Montesclaros and those who would
There is no doubt that lower courts and the want to run as SK officers. When the bill was stll
Supreme Court can exercise judicial review, but pending, they already filed a petition seeking for the
courts cannot automatically take on the case and declaration of the bill as unconstitutional.The SC
decide the same threw out the petition because the filing thereof is
Because courts of justice are passive instruments, in still premature.
a sense that they can only act when their jurisdiction
is invoked as by filing the necessary complaint or Follows that if the case is already mooted by
information. Hence, even if there is a legal problem subsequent events, said petition must be dismissed
calling for the interpretation of an act in light of its outright.
conformity with the Constitution, the courts of law
cannot automatically take cognizance of that legal Gonzales v. Narvasa
problem. There has to be a case, complaint or Before the SC could resolve the case, the PCCR
petition to be filed before the courts of law before already ceased to exist. The issue posed in the case
they can act on the matter because they are passive became moot and academic with the cessation of
instruments. the operation of the PCCR.
1. Existence of an actual case or controversy When the case presents a situation where
Before the courts of law can decide on a there is a grave or culpable violation of the
constitutional question, there has to be a case and Constitution.
an actual case or controversy. You cannot just go to
court and ask of for legal advisory opinion such as David v. Arroyo
asking about their opinion on the law of same sex They were arrested without a warrant of arrest
marriage. during the state of national emergency was in
force. Similarly, premises were searched
There has to be actual conflict of interest and without a search warrant. Since there was a
conflicting claims before the courts can validly act on culpable violation of the Constitution, the SC
a legal problem. decided on the merits of the case
notwithstanding the eventual lifting of the state
Petition for declaratory relief – petitioner asking for a of national emergency by Pres. Arroyo.
declarative judgment to inquire into his rights or
duties under a law, a contract, an ordinance, etc. An
When the case presents an issue which is of
action for declaratory relief may satisfy the
paramount public interest
requirement on actual case because by filing the
petition, you are not merely asking for an advisory David v. Arroyo
because the law is there already, and what you are
Issue posed is of grave importance to the
asking the court is to declare what your rights and
public. Freedom of the press and expression.
duties under a law that is enacted. It is not therefore
similar to a legal advisory opinion.
When there is a need for the courts of law to
In re Saturnino Bermudez formulate doctrinal precepts for the guidance
SC threw out the petition when it was a petition for of the bench and the bar.
declaratory relief because under Rule 63, any
Salonga v. Cruz Pano
petition for declaratory relief must be filed only with
the RTC and not directly with the SC, which is not Before the SC could decide the case petition
given the authority resolve petitions for declaratory filed by Salonga, the criminal information
relief at the first instance. Also, the issue of the case charging Salonga with subversion was already
partook of the nature of a political question. dismissed upon order of the Sec of Justice.
Despite the withdrawal of the criminal case
Follows that if a petition is filed prematurely, said against Salonga, the SC decided the case on
petition must be dismissed outright. the merits because the SC saw the need to
formulate doctrinal precepts for the guidance
Lozano v. Nograles of the bench and the bar in respect to the
There was a House Res calling for the Congress to determination in the absence or presence of
convene to consider amending the Constitution. probable cause.
Lozano questioned it already and the SC held that it
was rather premature for Lozano to file the petition When the issue in the case is capable of
because there was no showing that the Congress repetition yet evading review
Alunan v. Mirasol 1. Demonstrate that there was illegal disbursement
There was a dispute regarding the authority of of public funds and that they were derived
the DILG to supervise the SK elections. But pursuant to the taxing and appropriation power
before the SC could decide on the case, there of Congress.
were already two SK elections that were
conducted. Notwithstanding the mootness of Kilosbayan v. Morato
the case, the SC nonetheless decided the The SC did not characterize the action as
case on the merits, if only to settle the issue partaking of a taxpayer’s suit because while
once and for all. admittedly the action involved disbursement of
public funds, the funds were not derived from
When there are still other issues that the taxing or appropriation power of Congress
are still ripe for adjudication but by the operation of lotto.
What should be established if you are suing as a 1. Demonstrate that the act complained of
private citizen? somehow infringe your rights as voter.
What should be established if you are suing as a Her personality and legal standing was
taxpayer? questioned by the respondents but the SC held
that Nicolas Lewis had the legal standing to
bring the action because her right as voter was
prejudiced by the decision of the Comelec in When the petition questioning the validity of an act
denying her application for registration as a is filed by way of a facial challenge
voter under the Absentee Voters’ Act.
You can mount this petition by way of a facial
Can the government question the validity of its own laws? challenge if you are questioning the validity of a
law because it is supposedly void for being vague
People v. Vera 65 Phil 56 or its scope is encompassing such that the same
There was this old commission act Act 4221 providing may seemingly be valid if applied to the petitioner,
that the act may be effective in provinces which could but the same would be invalid if applied to others.
allocate the salaries of probation officers. Suggesting
that for provinces which could not afford the salary of a A petition by way of a facial challenge normally
probation officer, the act may not be enforced in those can be lodged only if it has something to do with
provinces. the freedom of speech and of the press.
This was questioned by the office of the Solicitor Chavez v. Gonzales
General contending that this was violative of the equal Hello Garci tape. There was an attempt on the part
protection clause. The legal position of the Sol-Gen was of the government through Sec. Gonzales to
questioned by accused Vera and according to him, the silence the media and prohibiting the airing of the
government cannot question the validity of its own acts. hello Garci tape. Hence, any publisher, radio or tv
It is absurd. station which would air out the hello garci tape
may be penalized and their franchise may be
The SC held that the state has the right to question the cancelled.
validity of its own laws because more than anyone else,
it is the state which should be interested in seeing to it This was questioned by Frank Chavez, the former
that all its laws are valid and constitutional. Solicitor-General for being violative of the freedom
of speech and expression. His personality to bring
Can the Integrated Bar of the Philippines question the the action was challenged by the respondents.
validity of laws? According to Gonzales, Chavez did not have the
legal standing because he was not a media
Bayan v. Zamora practitioner and an owner of a tv or radio station.
SC held that the IBP does not have the legal standing to
bring the action, unless it can prove that any of its SC held that the petition filed by Chavez was by
members suffered injury by reason of the act complained way of a facial challenge.
of.
3. Constitutional question must be raised at the
Take Note: earliest opportunity
As a rule: If a petition is filed by a person who has no
legal standing to bring the action, such petition must be The issue questioning the validity of an act should
dismissed outright. be pleaded in the initiatory complaint or petition.
Otherwise, when one fails to incorporate that issue
Exceptions: in the complaint or petition itself, the issue may no
There are instances wherein even if the case is filed by a longer be taken up in the course of the trial and may
person who has no legal standing to bring the same, the not be considered in the course of the revision of
case may still be decided by the courts of law. decision nor on appeal.
When the issue of the case is of transcendental At the inception, you should already be questioning
importance, of great importance to the public. the validity of an act or statute. Otherwise, it would
not be regarded as timely.
IBP v. Zamora
IBP was adjudged of having no legal standing to Umali v. Guingona
bring the petition but the SC decided the case Upon the filing of certiorari, he did not question the
because it has something to do with the validity of the creation of the Presidential
determination of whether or not President Erap Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption (PCAGC),
really had the calling out power. the body which investigated him. It was only after
encountering an adverse decision, that on motion for
Bayan v. Zamora reconsideration, he raised such issue.
Bayan was adjudged of having no legal standing
to bring the action but the SC decided the case The SC characterized the issue to be untimely. The
just the same on the merits because it involved the SC should have raised such in his action for
validity of the visiting forces agreement. certiorari.
EFFECTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
LAW
Should it be voided in its entirety or only a portion
thereof?
Salazar v. Achacoso