Module 4:

Philippine Constitution Art II, Section 2 and Art VI, Section 26-27 (Joaquin G. Bernas)

Article II: Declaration of Principles and State Policies

• Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.
• What kind of war? — Aggressive, not defensive
• Methods of Adoption of general principles of international law into local law
• Doctrine of Incorporation: Courts have applied rules of international law in a number of
cases even if such rules had not previously been subjected of statutory enactments,
because these generally accepted principles of international law are automatically part of
our own laws
• Doctrine of Transformation: international law be transformed to domestic law by
constitutional mechanism (local legislation)
Article VI: Legislative Department
• Section 26.SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. (2) No bill passed by either House shall
become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof
in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except
when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be
allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays
entered in the Journal.
• Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented
to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return
the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections
at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of
all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by
two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes
of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for
or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill
to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise,
it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
• Steps needed before a bill finally becomes a law:
• 1. Must be approved by Congress.
• 2. Must be approved by the President
• When does the Constitution require that the yeas and nays of the Members be taken every
time a House has to vote?
• 1. upon the last and third readings of the bill
• 2. at the request if 1/5 of the members present
 • 3. In repassing a bill over the veto of the President
• If the version approved by the Senate is different from that approved by the House of Rep,
how are the difference reconciled?
• In a bircameral system bills are independently processed by both. There shall be a
“conference committee” consisting of members from both houses, proposing ways of
reconciling.
• Extent of the powers of a conference committee
• amendments germane to the purpose of the bill could be introduced
• The president is allowed to veto the entire bill, not just part of the bill. It is only in the case
of appropriation, revenue, tariff bills that he can item-veto.
• If the president did not use his veto, the bill becomes a law by executive inaction

Ruben Agpalo: Statutory Construction, 1-25

Chapter 1: Statues
• A. In General
• Law: a rule of conduct formulated and made obligatory by legitimate power of the state
• Statutes: an act of legislature, as an organized body, expressed in the form, and passed
according to the procedure required to constitute it as part of the law of the land.
• May either be public or private
• Classification:
• Public statutes: affects public at large
• General (whole state), Special (particular persons or things), Local (confined to a
specific place or community
• Private: specific person or subject
• According to duration
• Permanent: operation is not limited in duration but continues until repealed
• Temporary: for a limited period
• According to application:
• Prospective: likely to happen in the future
• Retroactive: taking effect from the past
• According to operation:
• Declaratory, Curative, Mandatory, Directory, Substantive, Remedial, Penal
• According to form: ‘
• Affirmative and Negative
• Manner of Referring:
• Public Act- passed by PH Commission and PH Legislature (1901-1935)
• Commonwealth Act- 1936-1946
• Republic Act- 1946-1972, 1987-present
• Batas Pambansa- passed by Batasang Pambansa
• B. Enactment of Statutes
• Legislative Power: authority to make laws, and to alter or repeal them
• Procedures in passing a law
 1. A bill is introduced by any member of the congress, signed by authors and filed with
the Secretary of the house.
2. First Reading: Secretary reports the bill for first reading. referral to appropriate
committee for study and recommendation. Committee may hold public hearings and
submit report for recommendation for calendar for second reading
3. Second reading: read in full with the proposed amendments by the committee.
Subject to debates, motions and amendments. Bill shall be voted upon
4. Third reading: final vote by yeas and nays. After a house has approved their own
version, pass it to another house. If without amendments, the bill is passed by
Congress and submitted to the Presidents. If there are amendments, there will be a
conference committee
5. Conference Committee: differences will be settled. Amendment should be approved
by both houses
6. Approval and authentication: signing of the senate president and house speaker and
their respective secretaries.
7. Submission to the President:
a) A bill is passed in 3 ways
(1) President signs it
(2) President does not sign nor communicate his veto bill within 30 days of
receipt
(3) When the vetoed bill is repassed by Congress by 2/3 vote of all its members,
voting separately
• Enrolled Bill: bill passed by Congress, authenticated by the House Speaker and Senate
President, approved by the President
• Journal Entry: A requirement by the consti to each house
• Enrolled Bill should prevail. Except when the speaker and the senate pres withdraw their
signature from the bill where there is serious discrepancy
• C. Part of the statutes
1. Title: must embrace only one subject. title indicates the general subject, and reasonably
covers all provisions of the act and not calculated to mislead the public
2. Preamble: prefatory statement or explanation (finding of facts, reciting the purpose,
reason or ocassion for making the law). Seldom puts this because the reason for the law
is contained in the explanatory note.
3. Enacting Clause: states the authority by which the act is enacted
4. Purview/ Body of the Statute: What the law is all about, includes a short title, policy def,
administrative sections, sections prescribing standards of conduct, imposing sanctions for
violations of its provisions, transitory provisions
5. Separability Clause: states that if any provision is declared invalid, the remainder shall
not be affected (Presumption: legis intended a statute to be effective as a whole and
would not have passed it had it foreseen that some part of it is invalid.) (Exception:
Where provisions cannot stand alone as to those left, after the void part, is not complete
and workable)
 6. Repealing Clause: the power to declare a law unconstitutional does not lie with the legis,
but with the courts
7. Effectivity Clause: When the law takes effect. Usually 15 days from the publication in
the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation.
• Meaning of certain bills originating from the lower house
• the procedure for enactment of ordinary bills applies to the enactment of appropriations and
revenue measures, it can only originate from the lower house, the senate may propose or
concur with amendments.
• Enactment of the budget and appropriation law
• 4 major phases (Budget Process)
• Budget Preparation
• Budget Authorization
• Budget Execution
• Budget Accountability
• General Appropriation bill: special type of legislation whose content is limited to specific
sums of money dedicated to specific purposes or a separate fiscal unit.
 Module 5:

A. Stare Decisis

Fermin v. People (Nachura, J)

Facts
• Complainant: Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo Gutierrez
• Respondent: criminal informations for libel against Cristinelli S. Fermin (Publisher) and Bogs
C. Tugas (Editor-in-Chief) of Gossip Tabloid
• RTC of QC
• Publicly and acting with malice, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously print
and circulate in the headline and lead story of the Gossip Tabloid.
• Issued on June 14, 1995, the accused very well knew that the same are entirely false and
untrue but were publicly made for no other purpose than to expose said Annabelle Rama
Gutierrez to humiliation and disgrace, as it depicts her to be a fugitive form.
• The RTC affirmed the libel case while the Court of Appeals uphelp the conviction of Fermin
but acquitted Tugas.
• Petitioner, Fermin pusits that to sustain a conviction for libel under Article 360 of the RPC, it
is mandatory that the publisher knowingly participated in or consented to the preparation and
publication of the libelous article. (US v Taylor, People v. Topacio and Santiago, US v.
Madrigal, US v Abad Santos and US v Ocampo) as clarified in People v. Beltran and Soliven.
• She submits that these cases were applied by the CA in acquitting her co-accused Tugas,
and being similarly situated with him, she is also entitled to an acquittal.
• She claims that she had provided ample evidence to show that she had no hand in the
preparation and publication of the offending article, nor in the review, editing, examination
and approval of the articles published in Gossip Tabloid.
Issue/s
• WON Fermin is liable for libel
Ratio
• Yes. The SC held that the arguments are too simplistic and the cited jurisprudence are either
misplaced or damning.
• US v Madrigal and US v Abad Santos are not applicable to the present case
• US v Madrigal: criminal prosecution
• US v Abad Santos: criminal responsibility under the Internal Revenue Law
• The other cases are more in point, but they serve to reinforce the conviction of, rather than
absolve the petitioner.
• US v Taylor: Section 6 of Act No. 277 “Every author, editor or proprietor of any book,
newspaper, or serial publication is chargeable with the publication of any words contained
in any part of the said book or number of each newspaper or serial as fully as if he were the
author of the same”. The accused was the manager of the publication without the
corresponding evidence that, as such, he was directly responsible for the writing, editing or
publishing of the material contained in the said libelous article.
 • People v. Topacio and Santiago, reference was made to the Spanish text of Article 360 of
the RPC, “publicar”. Includes not only the author or the person who causes the libelous
matter to be published but also the person who prints or publishes it.
• Proof of knowledge and participation is not required if the accused has been specifically
identified as “author, editor, or proprietor” or “printer/publishe” of the publication.
PETITION AND TUGAS ARE IN THE CASE
• US v. Ocampo: Artticle 360 of RPC
• ..Not only is the publisher but also all other persons who in any way participate in or
have any connection with its publication are liable as publishers
• State v Mason: question of the manager or proprietor of a newspaper was discussed
• When a libel is published in a newspaper, such fact alone is sufficient evidence prima
facie to charge the manager or proprietor with the guilt of its publication
• A person who makes a defamatory statement to the agent of a newspaper for publication,
is liable both civilly and criminally, and his ability is shared by the agent and all others
who aid in publishing it.
• Petitioner argues that Ocampo has been clarified by the CA in People v Beltran. and
Soliven
• Maximo Soliven as publisher of the PH Star was acquitted by the appellate court in view
of the lack of evidence that he knew and approved the article written by Luis Beltran
about then President Aquino in the newspaper’s October 12, 1987. Guide on the Court
regarding the criminal liability of the publisher of the newspaper where a libelous article
was published.
• The petitioner wants this court to follow the CA decision and adopt it as a judicial
precedent under the principle of STARE DECISIS
• The doctrine of stare decisis (Art 8 of the Civil COde)
• “enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule
established in a decision of the SC thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be
followed in a subsequent cases by all courts in the land. Stare decisis is based on the
principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed
settled and closed to further argument”
• Beltran decision attained finality at the level of the CA. Thus, if the CA seemingly made
a new pronouncement regarding the criminal liability of a publishing under Article 360 of
the RPC, that ruling cannot bind this Court unless we purposely adopt the same. We find
no compelling reason to revisit US v Ocampo., to modify it would amount to judicial
legislation.
Held
• Decision dated Sep 3, 2002 of CA affirmed with Modification in lieu of imprisonment,
petition is sentenced to pay a fine of 6,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
in each case.
• Moral damages of 300,000 for Annabelle Rama and increased 500,000 to Eddie Gutierrez.
Chinese Young Men’s Christian Association of the Philippines v. Remington Steel
Corporation (Austria Martinez, J)

Facts
• Remington Steel Corporation leased the ground floor units 964 and 966 and second floor unit
963 owned by Manila Downtown YMCA in Benavidez St., Binondo, Manila.
• YMCA terminated the lease of the second floor unit.
• Remington filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila a case for the fixing of Lease
Period over unit 963.
• YMCA then filed in the same court an action for unlawful detainer involving the same unit
against remington
• Remington filed a Petition for Consignation of Rentals on the ground that YMCA refused to
receive rentals for ground floor units. Also filed a Formal Surrender of Leased Premises,
opting to surrender possession of units 964 and 966 effective July 1, 1998 and tendering two
checks to cover all the past rentals due on the two units/
• On June 25, 1998, YMCA filed NO OBJECTION to the turn over of the leased premises/
• On July 9, 1998, MeTC issued an Order declaring the consignation case closed.
• Remington, however, continued to use ground floor units 964 and 966 as passageway to the
second floor unit. It kept the premises padlocked and failed to give YMCA the keys to the
premises.
• YMCA argues that Remington did not surrender the ground floor units but padlocked the
doors, refused to surrender the keys, and failed to pay rent therefor demand.
• Remington countered that it vacated and surrendered ground floor units, it had the doors
locked, it did so as an act of self-preservation, since it had a valid lease on second floor unit.
YMCA refused to follow the order of the court to provide a passageway to the second floor.
• If it were true that no turnover of ground floor units was made, YMCA had the remedy of
filing the appropriate motion in the consignation case, where the parties agreed on such
turnover, and that the fact that it did not complain shows completion of such turnover.
• Instead of remanding the case to the CA, the court held that the final resolution of the court in
the previous case “Remington Industrial Steel Corporation v. Chinese Young Men’s Christian
Association of the Philippine Islands” governs the right of the parties, under the principle of
stare decisis.
• Respondent Remington filed a Motion of Reconsideration. Arguing that it was denied its right
to due process when the court, decided the merits of the case by considering the final
resolution as a precedent in the present case, and the principle of stare decisis is not applicable
because the parties and the facts in the present differ from those of the final resolution’
• YMCA filed its opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration

Issue
• WON the principle of stare decisis is applicable to the present case
Ratio
• Yes. The final resolution is binding and applicable to the present case following the salutary
doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere which means “to adhere to precedents, and not
to unsettle things which are established”. Under the doctrine, when the SC has once laid down
a principle of law as applicable to certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and
apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same.
• The doctrine of stare decisis is based upon the legal principle or rule involved and not upon
judgement which results therefrom. In this particular sense stare decisis differs from res
judicata which is based upon the judgement.
• The common issue of law in the two cases was whether possession of the ground flooe units
was unlawfully withheld despite constructive delivery thereof. In the final resolution, the court
held that possession of the leased premises was unlawfully withheld. Once a case has been
decided one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided in
the same manner.

Held
• Therefore, the final resolution under the principle stare decisis, shall govern the rights of the
parties insofar as unit 964 is concerned.