CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

MACARIOLA v. ASUNCION ISSUE: Whether or not Article 256 of the Spanish

114 SCRA 77 Penal Code (SPC) is still in force and can be applied in
the case at bar?
FACTS:
On August 6, 1968, petitioner, HELD:
BernaditaMacariola charged respondent Judge Elias No.The Court stated that during the Spanish
Asuncion of CFI of Leyte, now Associate Justice of CA, Government, Article 256 of the SPC was enacted to
with acts unbecoming of a judge when the latter protect Spanish officials as representatives of the King.
purchased a property which was previously the However, the Court explains that in the present case,
subject of litigation on which he rendered decision. we no longer have Kings nor its representatives for the
Respondent and his wife were also members of provision to protect. Also, with the change of
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. to sovereignty over the Philippines from Spanish to
which their shares and interests in said property were American, it means that the invoked provision of the
conveyed. According to the petitioner, respondent SPC had been automatically abrogated. The Court
allegedly violated Article 1491 (5) of the New Civil determined Article 256 of the SPC to be political in
Code and Article 14 (1) and (5) of Code of Commerce, nature for it is about the relation of the State to its
Sec. 3 of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Sec. 12 inhabitants, thus, the Court emphasized that it is a
XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of Canons general principle of the public law that on acquisition
of Judicial Ethics. of territory, the previous political relations of the
ceded region are totally abrogated.Hence, Article 256
ISSUE:Is Article 14 of the Code of Commerce still in of the SPC is considered no longer in force and cannot
force? be applied to the present case. Therefore, respondent
was acquitted.
HELD:
Article 14 partakes of the nature of a political
law as it regulates the relationship between the Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance Xel
government and certain public officers and employees Vera vs. Avelino Fernandez
like justices and judges. Said provision must be
deemed to have been abrogated because where there Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito
is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the GR L-1123, 5 March 1947
former sovereign are automatically abrogated. As
such, Article 14 is not in force. The respondent is not FACTS:
found to have violated the articles invoked by the Three senators and eight representatives had
petitioner but he was advised by the Court to be more been proclaimed by a majority vote of the
discreet in his private and business activities. Commission on Elections as having been elected
senators and representatives in the elections held on
People v. Perfecto 23 April 1946. The three senators were suspended by
G.R. No. L-18463, October 4, 1922 the Senate shortly after the opening of the first
session of Congress following the elections, on
FACTS: account of alleged irregularities in their election. The
The issue started when the Secretary of the eight representatives since their election had not been
Philippine Senate, Fernando Guerrero, discovered that allowed to sit in the lower House, except to take part
the documents regarding the testimony of the in the election of the Speaker, for the same reason,
witnesses in an investigation of oil companies had although they had not been formally suspended. A
disappeared from his office. Then, the day following resolution for their suspension had been introduced in
the convening of Senate, the newspaper La Nacion the House of Representatives, but that resolution had
edited by herein respondent Gregorio Perfecto not been acted upon definitely by the House when the
published an article against the Philippine Senate. petition for prohibition was filed. As a consequence
Here, Mr. Perfecto was alleged to have violated Article these three senators and eight representatives did not
256 of the Spanish Penal Code provision that take part in the passage of the congressional
punishes those who insults the Ministers of the resolution, designated "Resolution of both houses
Crown. Hence, the issue. proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
Philippines to be appended as an ordinance thereto,"
nor was their membership reckoned within the
computation of the necessary three-fourths vote

1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

which is required in proposing an amendment to the needed to safeguard public interest, there is less
Constitution. If these members of Congress had been reason for judicial inquiry into the validity of a
counted, the affirmative votes in favor of the proposal then into that of ratification.
proposed amendment would have been short of the
necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of Gonzales vs. COMELEC
Congress. The petition for prohibition sought to
prevent the enforcement of said congressional FACTS:
resolution, as it is allegedly contrary to the The case is an original action for prohibition,
Constitution. The members of the Commission on with preliminary injunction. The main facts are not
Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor disputed. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the
General, and the Director of the Bureau of Printing are House of Representatives passed the following
made defendants. Eight senators, 17 representatives, resolutions:
and the presidents of the Democratic Alliance, the
Popular Front and the Philippine Youth Party. 1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, -
proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the
ISSUE:Whether the Court may inquire upon the Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to
irregularities in the approval of the resolution increase the membership of the House of
proposing an amendment to the Constitution. Representatives from a maximum of 120, as provided
in the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180, to
HELD: be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly
It is a doctrine too well established to need as may be according to the number of their respective
citation of authorities that political questions are not inhabitants, although each province shall have, at
within the province of the judiciary, except to the least, one (1) member;
extent that power to deal with such questions has
been conferred upon the courts by express 2. R. B. H. No. 2, - calling a convention to propose
constitutional or statutory provision. This doctrine is amendments to said Constitution, the convention to
predicated on the principle of the separation of be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each
powers, a principle also too well known to require representative district, to be "elected in the general
elucidation or citation of authorities. The difficulty lies elections to be held on the second Tuesday of
in determining what matters fall within the meaning November, 1971;" and
of political question. The term is not susceptible of
exact definition, and precedents and authorities are 3. R. B. H. No. 3, -proposing that Section 16, Article VI,
not always in full harmony as to the scope of the of the same Constitution, be amended so as to
restrictions, on this ground, on the courts to meddle authorize Senators and members of the House of
with the actions of the political departments of the Representatives to become delegates to the
government. If a political question conclusively binds aforementioned constitutional convention, without
the judges out of respect to the political departments, forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
a duly certified law or resolution also binds the judges
under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that respect. If Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon
ratification of an amendment is a political question, a approval by the President, on June 17, 1967, became
proposal which leads to ratification has to be a Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the
political question. The two steps complement each amendments to the Constitution proposed in the
other in a scheme intended to achieve a single aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be
objective. It is to be noted that the amendatory submitted, for approval by the people, at the general
process as provided in section I of Article XV of the elections which shall be held on November 14, 1967.
Philippine Constitution "consists of (only) two distinct ISSUE:Whether or Not a Resolution of Congress,
parts: proposal and ratification." There is no logic in acting as a constituent assembly, violates the
attaching political character to one and withholding Constitution.
that character from the other. Proposal to amend the
Constitution is a highly political function performed by HELD:
the Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and In as much as there are less than eight (8)
committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. The votes in favor of declaring Republic Act 4913 and R. B.
exercise of this power is even in dependent of any H. Nos. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid, the
intervention by the Chief Executive. If on grounds of petitions in these two (2) cases must be, as they are
expediency scrupulous attention of the judiciary be hereby, dismiss and the writs therein prayed for

2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

denied, without special pronouncement as to costs. It Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law
is so ordered. Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco
As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer cannot filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the
be assailed collaterally. It may not be contested except ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC.
directly, by quo warranto proceedings. Neither may The petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander
the validity of his acts be questioned upon the ground Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for
that he is merely a de facto officer. And the reasons prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against
are obvious: COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several
(1) it would be an indirect inquiry into the title arguments, such as the following: (1) The
to the office; and constitutional provision on peoples initiative to
(2) the acts of a de facto officer, if within the amend the constitution can only be implemented by
competence of his office, are valid, insofar as law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been
the public is concerned. passed; (2) The peoples initiative is limited
to amendments to the Motions for Intervention.
"The judicial department is the only constitutional
organ which can be called upon to determine the ISSUES:
proper allocation of powers between the several (1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987
departments and among the integral or constituent Constitution is a self-executing provision.
units thereof."
(2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
Article XV of the Constitution provides: regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to
the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in
. . . The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such
of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and initiative.
of the House of Representatives voting separately,
may propose amendments to this Constitution or call (3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective
a contention for that purpose. Such amendments shall officials would constitute a revision or an amendment
be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by of the Constitution.
a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the
amendments are submitted to the people for their HELD:
ratification. 1. Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self
executory, thus, without implementing legislation the
From our viewpoint, the provisions of Article XV of the same cannot operate. Although the Constitution has
Constitution are satisfied so long as the electorate recognized or granted the right, the people cannot
knows that R. B. H. No. 3 permits Congressmen to exercise it if Congress does not provide for its
retain their seats as legislators, even if they should run implementation.
for and assume the functions of delegates to the
Convention. 2. The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which
Santiago vs. COMELEC prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void.
FACTS: It has been an established rule that what has been
Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, delegated, cannot be delegated (potestasdelegata non
president of Peoples Initiative for Reforms, delegaripotest). The delegation of the power to the
Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly
COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift promulgate rules and regulations to implement
the term limits of elective officials, through Peoples the exercise of the right to peoples initiative.
Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2
of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right 3. The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a
of the people to exercise the power to directly revision, as it would affect other provisions of the
propose amendments to the Constitution. Constitution such as the synchronization of elections,
Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the constitutional guarantee of equalaccess to
the publication of the petition and of the notice of opportunities for public service, and prohibiting
hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the politicaldynasties. A revision cannot be done by
hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya- initiative. However, considering the Courts decision in

3
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

the above Issue, the issue of whether or not the petitionviolated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first
petition is a revision or amendment has comply with the constitution before complyingwith RA
becomeacademic. 6735Petition is dismissed.

Lambino vs. COMELEC

October 25, 2006 Lambino vs. COMELEC Resolution
FACTS: November 21, 2006
Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering
signatures for an initiative petition tochange the 1987
constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a Tolentino vs. COMELEC
plebiscite that willratify their initiative petition under RA 6735.
Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M FACTS:
individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the The 1971 Constitutional Convention came into
constitution. Their petition changes the1987 constitution by being by virtue of two resolutionsof the Congress
modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by approved in its capacity as a constituent assembly
adding Art 18.the proposed changes will shift the present convened for thepurpose of calling a convention to
bicameral- presidential form of government to unicameral- propose amendments to the Constitution.
parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of Afterelection of delegates held on November 10,
enabling law governing initiative petitionsand invoked the 1970, the Convention held its inauguralsession on
Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to June 1, 1971.
implement the initiativepetitions.
In the morning of September 28, 1970, the
ISSUE: Conventionapproved Organic Resolution No. 1 which
1. Whether or Not the Lambino Groups initiative petition is entitled as, A RESOLUTION AMENDINGSECTION 1
complies with Section 2, Article XVII of theConstitution on OF ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO
amendments to the Constitution through a peoples initiative. LOWER THE VOTING AGE TO 18. On September 30,
1971, the COMELEC resolved to followthe mandate
2. Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago of the Convention, that it will hold the said plebiscite
declaring RA 6735 incomplete,inadequate or wanting in together with the senatorial elections on November 8,
essential terms and conditions to implement the initiative 1971.
clause onproposals to amend the Constitution.
Petitioner, Arturo Tolentino, filed a petition for
3. Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of prohibition, its main thrust being that Organic
discretion in denying due course to theLambino Groups petition. Resolution No. 1 and the necessary implementing
resolutions subsequently approved have no force and
Held: effect as laws in so far as they provide for the holding
According to the SC the Lambino group failed of a plebiscite co-incident with the senatorial
to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a elections, on the ground that the calling and holding
peoples initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not of such a plebiscite is, by the Constitution, a power
grave abuse of discretionon dismissing the Lambino petition.1. lodged exclusively in Congress as a legislative body
The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article and may not be exercised by the
XVII of the Constitution on DirectProposal by the People. The
petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must Convention, and that, under Article XV Section 1 of
be informed at the time of thesigning of the nature and effect, the 1935 Constitution, the proposed amendment in
failure to do so is deceptive and misleading which question cannot be presented to the people for
renderstheinitiative void.2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, ratification separately from each and all other
Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision amendments to be drafted and proposed by the
throughInitiatives. The framers of the constitution intended a Constitution.
clear distinction between amendment and revision, it
isintended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the ISSUE: Whether or not the Organic Resolution No. 1 of
constitution may propose onlyamendments to the constitution. the 1971 ConstitutionalConvention violative to the
Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical Constitution.
change,therefore a constitutes a revision.3. A Revisit of Santiago HELD:
v. COMELEC is Not NecessaryEven assuming that RA 6735 is NO. All the amendments to be proposed by
valid, it will not change the result because the present the same Convention must besubmitted to the people

4
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

in a single election or plebiscite. In order that a without jurisdiction to hear and determine the
plebiscite forthe ratification of a Constitutional case.
amendment may be validly held, it must provide
thevoter not only sufficient time but ample basis for RULING:
an intelligent appraisal of the nature ofthe 1. Act No. 55 confers jurisdiction over the
amendment per se but as well as its relation to the offense created thereby on Courts of First Instance or
other parts of the Constitutionwith which it has to any provost court organized in the province or port in
form a harmonious whole. In the present context, which such animals are disembarked, and there is
where theConvention has hardly started considering nothing inconsistent therewith in Act No. 136, which
the merits, if not thousands, of proposals to provides generally for the organization of the courts of
amend the existing Constitution, to present to the the Philippine Islands. Act No. 400 merely extends the
people any single proposal or a few of them cannot general jurisdiction of the courts over certain offenses
comply with this requirement. committed on the high seas, or beyond the
jurisdiction of any country, or within any of the waters
U.S. Vs. Bull of the Philippine Islands on board a ship or water craft
15 PHIL 259 of any kind registered or licensed in the Philippine
FACTS: Islands, in accordance with the laws thereof. (U.S. vs.
The information alleged the following: That on Fowler, 1 Phil. Rep., 614.) This jurisdiction may be
and for many months to December 2, 1908, H. N. Bull exercised by the Court of First Instance in any province
was the master of a steam sailing known as the into which such ship or water upon which the offense
steamship Standard, the said vessel is engaged in or crime was committed shall come after the
carrying and transporting cattle, carabaos, and other commission thereof. Had this offense been committed
animals from a foreign port and city of Manila, upon a ship carrying a Philippine registry, there could
Philippines. That the accused Bull while being the have been no doubt of the Jurisdiction of the court,
master of the said vessel on or about the 2nd day of because it is expressly conferred, and the Act is in
December 1908, wilfully, and wrongfully carry, accordance with well recognized and established
transport and bring into the port and city of Manila public law. But the Standard was a Norwegian vessel,
677 head of cattle and carabaos from the port of and it is conceded that it was not registered or
Ampieng, Formosa, without providing suitable means licensed in the Philippine Islands under the laws
for securing said animals while in transit, so as to thereof. We have then the question whether the court
avoid cruelty and unnecessary suffering to the said had jurisdiction over an offense of this character,
animals. In this, to wit, the accused as the master of committed on board a foreign ship by the master
the vessel, did then and there fail to provide stalls for thereof, when the neglect and omission which
said animals so in transit and suitable means for trying constitutes the offense continued during the time the
and securing said animals in a proper manner, and did ship was within the territorial waters of the United
then and there cause some of said animals to be tied States. No court of the Philippine Islands had
by means of rings passed through their noses, and jurisdiction over an offenses or crime committed on
allow and permit others to be transported loose in the the high seas or within the territorial waters of any
hold and on the deck of said vessel without being tied other country, but when she came within 3 miles of a
or secured in stalls, and all without bedding; that by line drawn from the headlines which embrace the
reason of the aforesaid neglect and failure of the entrance to Manila Bay, she was within territorial
accused to provide suitable means for securing said waters, and a new set of principles became applicable.
animals while so in transit, the noses of some of said The ship and her crew were then subject to the
animals were cruelly torn, and many of said animals jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign subject through
were tossed about upon the decks and hold of said the proper political agency. This offense was
vessel, and cruelly wounded, bruised, and killed. committed within territorial waters. From the line
which determines these waters the Standard must
All contrary to the provisions of Acts No. 55 and No. have traveled at least 25 miles before she came to
275 of the Philippine Commission. anchor. During that part of her voyage the violation of
the statue continued, and as far as the jurisdiction of
ISSUE: the court is concerned, it is immaterial that the same
1. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to conditions may have existed while the vessel was on
confer jurisdiction upon the court. the high seas. The offense, assuming that it originated
2. That under the evidence the trial court was at the port of departure in Formosa, was a continuing
one, and every element necessary to constitute it

5
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

existed during the voyage across the territorial waters. construction of the language requires us to hold that
The completed forbidden act was done within any violation of criminal laws disturbs the order or
American waters, and the court therefore had tranquility of the country. The offense with which the
jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the offense and appellant is charged had nothing to so with any
the person of the offender. difference between the captain and the crew. It was a
The offense then was thus committed within the violation by the master of the criminal law of the
territorial jurisdiction of the court, but the objection country into whose port he came. We thus find that
to the jurisdiction raises the further question whether neither by reason of the nationality of the vessel, the
that jurisdiction is restricted by the fact of the place of the commission of the offense, or the
nationality of the ship. Every state has complete prohibitions of any treaty or general principle of public
control and jurisdiction over its territorial waters. law, are the court of the Philippine Islands deprived of
According to strict legal right, even public vessels may jurisdiction over the offense charged in the
not enter the ports of a friendly power without information in this case.
permission, but it is now conceded that in the absence It is further contended that the complaint is defective
of a prohibition such ports are considered as open to because it does not allege that the animals were
the public ship of all friendly powers. The exemption disembarked at the port of Manila, an allegation
of such vessels from local jurisdiction while within which it is claimed is essential to the jurisdiction of the
such waters was not established until within court sitting at that port. To hold with the appellant
comparatively recent times. upon this issue would be to construe the language of
Such vessels are therefore permitted during times of the complaint very strictly against the Government.
peace to come and go freely. Local official exercise but The disembarkation of the animals is not necessary in
little control over their actions, and offenses order to constitute the completed offense, and a
committed by their crew are justiciable by their own reasonable construction of the language of the statute
officers acting under the laws to which they primarily confers jurisdiction upon the court sitting at the port
owe allegiance. This limitation upon the general into which the animals are bought. They are then
principle of territorial sovereignty is based entirely within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and the
upon comity and convenience, and finds its mere fact of their disembarkation is immaterial so far
justification in the fact that experience shows that as jurisdiction is concerned. This might be different if
such vessels are generally careful to respect local laws the disembarkation of the animals constituted a
and regulation which are essential to the health, constitutional element in the offense, but it does not.
order, and well-being of the port. But comity and The evidence shows not only that the defendants acts
convenience does not require the extension of the were knowingly done, but his defense rests upon the
same degree of exemption to merchant vessels. There assertion that according to his experience, the
are two well-defined theories as to extent of the system of carrying cattle loose upon the decks and in
immunities ordinarily granted to them, According to the hold is preferable and more secure to the life and
the French theory and practice, matters happening on comfort of the animals. It was conclusively proven
board a merchant ship which do not concern the that what was done was done knowingly and
tranquillity of the port or persons foreign to the crew, intentionally.
are justiciable only by the court of the country to
which the vessel belongs. The French courts therefore 2. Whether a certain method of handling cattle
claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on is suitable within the meaning of the Act cannot be
board French merchant vessels in foreign ports by one left to the judgment of the master of the ship. It is a
member of the crew against another. question which must be determined by the court from
Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has the evidence. On December 2, 1908, the defendant
recently said that the merchant vessels of one country Bull brought into and disembarked in the port and city
visiting the ports of another for the purpose of trade, of Manila certain cattle, which came from the port of
subject themselves to the laws which govern the ports Ampieng, Formosa, without providing suitable means
they visit, so long as they remain; and this as well in for securing said animals while in transit, so as to
war as in peace, unless otherwise provided by treaty. avoid cruelty and unnecessary suffering to said
(U. S. vs. Diekelman, 92 U. S., 520-525.) animals, contrary to the provisions of section 1 of Act
The treaty does not therefore deprive the local courts No. 55, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 275. The
of jurisdiction over offenses committed on board a trial court found the abovementioned facts true and
merchant vessel by one member of the crew against all of which are fully sustained by the evidence.
another which amount to a disturbance of the order The defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to pay
or tranquility of the country, and a fair and reasonable a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos, with subsidiary

6
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the FACTS:

costs. The sentence and judgment is affirmed. So On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed a
ordered. prohibition case to restrain respondents from
implementing any of the provisions of the proposed
PLANAS VS. COMELEC constitution not found in the present constitution.
49 SCRA 105; January 22, 1973 Javellana maintained that the respondents are acting
Ponente: Concepcion, C.J. without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing
proposed constitution and that the president is
FACTS: without power to proclaim the ratification of the
While the 1971 Constitution Convention was constitution. Similar actions were filed by Vidal Tan,
in session on September 21, 1972, the president Gerardo Roxas, among others. Petitioners pray for the
issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the Philippines nullification of Proclamation 1102 (Citizens
under martial law. On November 29,1972 the Assemblies) and any order, decree, and proclamation
Convention approved its proposed constitution. The which are similar in objective.
next day the president issued PD No. 73 submitting to
the people for ratification or rejection the proposed ISSUES:
constitution as well as setting the plebiscite for said 1. Is the validity of Proclamation No. 1102
ratification. On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed justiciable?
a petition to enjoin respondents from implemented 2. Was the constitution proposed by the
PD No. 73 because the calling of the plebiscite among 1971 Constitutional Convention ratified validly
others are lodged exclusively in the Congress. On in compliance to applicable laws?
December 17, 1972, the president issued an order 3. Was the proposed Constitution
temporarily suspending the effects of PD 1081 for the acquiesced by the people?
purpose of free and open debate on the proposed 4. Are the petitioners entitled relief?
constitution. On December 23, the president 5. Is the proposed Constitution in force?
announced the postponement of the plebiscite, as
such, the Court refrained from deciding the cases. On HELD:
January 12, the petitioners filed for an urgent Whether a constitutional amendment has
motion praying that the case be decided as soon as been properly adopted according to an existing
possible. constitution is a judicial question as it is the absolute
duty of the judiciary to determine whether the
Constitution has been amended in the manner
ISSUES: required by the constitution. The Constitution
1. Is validity of PD 73 justiciable? proposed by the 1971 Convention was not validly
2. Is PD 73 valid? ratified in accordance with Article XV section 1 of the
3. Does the 1971 Constitutional Convention 1935 Constitution which provides only one way for
have the authority to pass the proposed ratification (election or plebiscite held in accordance
constitution? with law and only with qualified voters). Due to the
environmental and social conditions in the Philippines
HELD: (i.e. martial law) the Court cannot honestly say that
The Court may pass upon constitutionality of the people acquiesced to the proposed Constitution.
PD 73 not only because of a long list of cases decided The majority ruled to dismiss the cases as the
by the Court but also of subdivision (1) of Section 2, effectivity of the proposed Constitution is the basic
Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution which expressly issue posed by the cases which considerations other
provides for the authority of the Court to review cases than judicial are relevant and unavoidable. The new
revolving such issue. The validity of the decree itself constitution is in force as there are not enough votes
was declared moot and academic by the Court. The to say otherwise.
convention is free to postulate any amendment as
long as it is not inconsistent to what is known as Jus Philippine Bar Association vs. COMELEC
Cogens. 140 SCRA 455
January 7, 1986

JAVELLANA VS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FACTS:

50 SCRA 30; March 31, 1973 11 petitions were filed for prohibition against
the enforcement of BP 883 which calls for special

7
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

national elections on February 7, 1986 (Snap LAWYERS LEAGUE VS. AQUINO

elections) for the offices of President and Vice ET AL. G.R. No. 73748
President of the Philippines. BP 883 in conflict with May 22, 1986
the constitution in that it allows the President to
continue holding office after the calling of the special FACTS:
election. On February 25, 1986, President Corazon
Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 announcing that
Senator Pelaez submits that President Marcos letter she and Vice President Laurel were taking power.
of conditional resignation did not create the actual
vacancy required in Section 9, Article 7 of the On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued
Constitution which could be the basis of the holding of providing the basis of the Aquino government
a special election for President and Vice President assumption of power by stating that the new
earlier than the regular elections for such positions in government was installed through a direct exercise of
1987. The letter states that the President is: the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of
irrevocably vacating the position of President the New Armed Forces of the Philippines.
effective only when the election is held and after the
winner is proclaimed and qualified as President by ISSUE:Whether or not the government of Corazon
taking his oath office ten (10) days after his Aquino is legitimate
proclamation.
HELD:
The unified opposition, rather than insist on strict As early as April 10, 1986, this Court* had
compliance with the cited constitutional provision that already voted to dismiss the petitions for the reasons
the incumbent President actually resign, vacate his to be stated below.
office and turn it over to the Speaker of the
BatasangPambansa as acting President, their standard On April 17, 1986, Atty. Lozano as counsel for the
bearers have not filed any suit or petition in petitioners in G.R. Nos. 73748 and 73972 withdrew
intervention for the purpose nor repudiated the the petitions and manifested that they would pursue
scheduled election. They have not insisted that the question by extra-judicial methods. The
President Marcos vacate his office, so long as the withdrawal is functusoficio.The legitimacy of the
election is clean, fair and honest. Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It
belongs to the realm of politics where only the people
ISSUE: Is BP 883 unconstitutional, and should the of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have
Supreme Court therefore stop and prohibit the made the judgment; they have accepted the
holding of the elections government of President Corazon C. Aquino. The
community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of
HELD: the present government. All the eleven members of
The petitions in these cases are dismissed and this Court, as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the
the prayer for the issuance of an injunction restraining fundamental law of the Republic under her
respondents from holding the election on February 7, government.
1986, in as much as there are less than the required
10 votes to declare BP 883 unconstitutional.
IN RE: SATURNINO V. BERMUDEZ G.R. No. 76180
The events that have transpired since December 3,as October 24, 1986
the Court did not issue any restraining order, have
turned the issue into a political question (from the In a petition for declaratory relief impleading no
purely justiciable issue of the questioned respondents, petitioner, as a lawyer, quotes the first
constitutionality of the act due to the lack of the paragraph of Section 5 (not Section 7 as erroneously
actual vacancy of the Presidents office) which can be stated) of Article XVIII of the proposed 1986
truly decided only by the people in their sovereign Constitution, which provides in full as follows:
capacity at the scheduled election, since there is no
issue more political than the election. The Court Sec. 5. The six-year term of the incumbent President
cannot stand in the way of letting the people decide and Vice-President elected in the February 7, 1986
through their ballot, either to give the incumbent election is, for purposes of synchronization of
president a new mandate or to elect a new president. elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30, 1992.

8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

The first regular elections for the President and Vice- government of President Corazon C. Aquino which is
President under this Constitution shall be held on the in effective control of the entire country so that it is
second Monday of May, 1992. not merely a de facto government but in fact and law
a de jure government. Moreover, the community of
Claiming that the said provision is not clear as to nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present
whom it refers, he then asks the Court to declare and government. All the eleven members of this Court, as
answer the question of the construction and reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental
definiteness as to who, among the present incumbent law of the Republic under her government. (Joint
President Corazon Aquino and Vice-President Salvador Resolution of May 22, 1986 in G.R. No. 73748
Laurel and the elected President Ferdinand E. Marcos [Lawyers League for a Better Philippines, etc. vs.
and Vice-President Arturo M. Tolentino being referred President Corazon C. Aquino, et al.]; G.R. No. 73972
to under the said Section 7 (sic) of ARTICLE XVIII of the [Peoples Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution.
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS of the proposed 1986 etc. vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al.]; and G.R. No. 73990
Constitution refers to, . [Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et
al.])
The petition is dismissed outright for lack of
jurisdiction and for lack for cause of action. De Leon v. Esguerra
153 SCRA 602, August, 31, 1987
Prescinding from petitioners lack of personality to sue
or to bring this action, (Tan vs. Macapagal, 43 SCRA FACTS:
677), it is elementary that this Court assumes no On May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De
jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief. More Leon was elected Barangay Captain together with the
importantly, the petition amounts in effect to a suit other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay
against the incumbent President of the Republic, Dolores, Muncipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal in a
President Corazon C. Aquino, and it is equally Barangay election held under Batas PambansaBlg.
elementary that incumbent Presidents are immune 222, otherwise known as Barangay Election Act of
from suit or from being brought to court during the 1982.
period of their incumbency and tenure.
On February 9, 1987, petitioner De Leon received a
The petition furthermore states no cause of action. Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 but
Petitioners allegation of ambiguity or vagueness of signed by respondent OIC Governor Benjamin
the aforequoted provision is manifestly gratuitous, it Esguerra on February 8, 1987 designating respondent
being a matter of public record and common public Florentino G. Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay
knowledge that the Constitutional Commission refers Dolores and the other respondents as members of
therein to incumbent President Corazon C. Aquino and Barangay Council of the same Barangay and
Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel, and to no other Municipality.
persons, and provides for the extension of their term
to noon of June 30, 1992 for purposes of Petitoners prayed to the Supreme Court that the
synchronization of elections. Hence, the second subject Memoranda of February 8, 1987 be declared
paragraph of the cited section provides for the holding null and void and that respondents be prohibited by
on the second Monday of May, 1992 of the first taking over their positions of Barangay Captain and
regular elections for the President and Vice-President Barangay Councilmen.
under said 1986 Constitution. In previous cases, the
legitimacy of the government of President Corazon C. Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the
Aquino was likewise sought to be questioned with the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 222), their
claim that it was not established pursuant to the 1973 terms of office shall be six years which shall
Constitution. The said cases were dismissed outright commence on June 7, 1988 and shall continue until
by this court which held that: their successors shall have elected and shall have
qualified. It was also their position that with the
Petitioners have no personality to sue and their ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution,
petitions state no cause of action. For the legitimacy respondent OIC Governor no longer has the authority
of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It to replace them and to designate their successors.
belongs to the realm of politics where only the people
of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have On the other hand, respondents contend that the
made the judgment; they have accepted the terms of office of elective and appointive officials

9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

were abolished and that petitioners continued in

office by virtue of Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional
Constitution and not because their term of six years
had not yet expired; and that the provision in the
Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of
Barangay officials to six years must be deemed to have
been repealed for being inconsistent with Sec. 2, Art.
3 of the Provisional Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not the designation of

respondents to replace petitioners was validly made
during the one-year period which ended on Feb 25,
1987.

RULING: Supreme Court declared that the

Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Gov on Feb 8,
1987 designating respondents as Barangay Captain
and Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay,
Rizal has no legal force and effect.

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on

Feb 2, 1987, therefore, the Provisional Constitution
must be deemed to have superseded. Having become
inoperative, respondent OIC Gov could no longer rely
on Sec 2, Art 3, thereof to designate respondents to
the elective positions occupied by petitioners.
Relevantly, Sec 8, Art 1 of the 1987 Constitution
further provides in part:

"Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials,

except barangay officials, which shall be determined
by law, shall be three years x xx."

Until the term of office of barangay officials has been

determined by aw, therefore, the term of office of 6
years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of
1982 should still govern.

10