• No results found

BATCH 2018 Consti I Reviewer

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "BATCH 2018 Consti I Reviewer"

Copied!
119
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

BATCH 2018

                                                                     

 

S I L L I M A N U N I V E R S I T Y C O L L E G E O F L A W

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I

(2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PREAMBLE  

!  

RON  ROA  

ARTICLE  I:  NATIONAL  TERRITORY  

!  

RON  ROA  

ARTICLE  II:  DECLARATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  

AND  STATE  POLICY  

!  

RON  ROA  

ARTICLE  VI:  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT  

!

 

JOED  MARICE  ZAMORA    

ARTICLE  VII:  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT  

!  

MONICA  MICIANO  AND  ELAINE  CEPEDA  

ARTICLE  VIII:  JUDICIAL  DEPARTMENT  

!  

GLENNA  DUCH  AND  NUBBIN  LAGUMBAY  

ARTICLE  IX:  CONSTITUTIONAL  

COMMISSIONS  

!  

NIKITA  LORETTE  AGUILAR  

ARTICLE  X:  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  

!  

RAY  ARNAIZ  

ARTICLE  XI:  ACCOUNTABILITY  OF  PUBLIC  

OFFICERS  

!  

KAREN  DUNGOG  

ARTICLE  XII:  NATIONAL  ECONOMY  AND  

PATRIMONY  

!  

ROLANDO  ENQUIG  

ARTICLE  XIII:  SOCIAL  JUSTICE  AND  HUMAN  

RIGHTS  

!  

JOSE  ARVIN  MIRANDA  

ARTICLE  XIV:  EDUCAION,  SCIENCE  AND  

TECHNOLOGY,  ARTS,  CULTURE  AND  SPORTS  

!  

KIEFER  JOHN  SAGA  

ARTICLE  XV:  THE  FAMILY  

!  

JOSEA  PALMA  BITO-­‐ON  

ARTICLE  XVI:  GENERAL  PROVISIONS  

!  

JOSEA  PALMA  BITO-­‐ON  

ARTICLE  XVII:  AMENDMENTS  OR  REVISIONS   !  

JOSEA  PALMA  BITO-­‐ON  

ARTICLE  XVIII:  TRANISTORY  PROVISIONS  

!  

JOSEA  PALMA  BITO-­‐ON  

NIKITA  LORETTE  MARTINEZ  AGUILAR  

Subject  Head    

MONICA  MARIE  TEVES  MICIANO  

Chairperson    

ATTY.  EDUARDO  T.  SEDILLO  

(3)

PREAMBLE  

 

We,   the   sovereign   Filipino   people,   imploring   the   aid   of   Almighty   God,   in   order   to   build   a   just   and  

humane  society  and  establish  a  government  that  shall  embody  our  ideals  and  aspirations,  promote  the  

common   good,   conserve   and   develop   our   patrimony,   and   secure   to   ourselves   and   our   posterity   the  

blessings  of  independence  and  democracy  under  the  rule  of  law  and  a  regime  of  truth,  justice,  freedom,  

love,  equality  and  peace,  do  ordain  and  promulgate  this  constitutions  

• The   change   from   “general   welfare”   to   “common   good”   was   intended   to   project   the   idea   of   a   social   order   that  enables  every  citizen  to  attain  his  or  her  fullest  development  economically,  politically,  culturally,  and   spiritually.   The   rejection   of   the   phrase   “general   welfare”   was   based   on   the   apprehension   that   the   phrase   could   be   interpreted   as   meaning   “the   greatest   good   for   the   greatest   number”   even   if   what   the   greater   number  wants  does  violence  to  human  dignity.  It  was  thought  that  the  “common  good”  would  guarantee   that  mob  rule  would  not  prevail  and  that  the  majority  would  not  persecute  the  minority.  

• The   phrase   “Almighty   God”   was   chosen   as   being   more   personal   than   “Divine   Providence”   and   therefore   more  consonant  with  Filipino  religiosity.  

• “Just  and  humane  society”  added  the  notion  that  a  constitution  not  merely  sets  up  a  government  but  is  also   an  instrument  for  building  the  larger  society  of  which  government  is  merely  a  part.  

• “Equality”  to  reflect  the  mounting  wave  of  protests  against  basic  social  inequalities.  

• The   introduction   of   the   word   “love”   serves   as   a   momentum   to   the   love   that   prevented   bloodshed   in   the   February  revolution  of  1986.  

• “Truth”  is  a  protest  against  the  deception  that  characterized  the  Marcos  regime.  

• The  Preamble  is  not  a  source  of  power  or  right  for  any  department  of  government.  But  because  it  sets  down   the   origin,   scope,   and   purpose   of   the   Constitution,   it   is   useful   as   an   aid   in   ascertaining   the   meaning   of   ambiguous  provisions  in  the  body  of  the  Constitution.  

 

ARTICLE  I  THE  NATIONAL  TERRITORY  

 

SECTION  1.  The  national  territory  comprises  the  Philippine  archipelago,  with  all  the  islands  and  waters  

embraced   therein,   and   all   other   territory   over   which   the   Philippines   has   sovereignty   or   jurisdiction,  

consisting  of  its  terrestrial,  fluvial,  or  aerial  domains,  including  its  territorial  sea,  the  seabed,  the  subsoil,  

the  insular  shelves,  and  other  submarine  areas.  The  waters  around,  between,  and  connecting  the  islands  

of  the  archipelago,  regardless  of  their  breath  and  dimensions,  form  part  of  the  internal  waters  of  the  

Philippines.  

• Scope:  

1. The  Philippine  archipelago,    

2. All  other  territories  over  which  the  Philippines  has  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction,     3. Terrestrial,  aerial,  and  fluvial  domains  under  numbers  1  and  2.  

• A   constitution   is   a   municipal   law.   As   such,   it   is   binding   only   within   the   territorial   limits   of   the   sovereignty   promulgating  the  constitution.  

• An   archipelago   is   a   body   of   water   studded   with   islands.   The   Philippine   archipelago   is   that   body   of   water   studded   with   islands   which   is   delineated   in   the   Treaty   of   Paris   (1898),   as   amended   by   the   Treaty   of   Washington  (1900)  and  the  Treaty  of  Great  Britain  (1930).  It  is  a  group  of  islands,  including  parts  of  islands,   interconnecting  waters  and  other  natural  features  which  are  so  closely  interrelated  that  such  islands,  waters   and  other  natural  features  from  an  intrinsic  geographical,  economic  and  political  entity,  or  which  historically   gave  been  regarded  as  such.  

(4)

• An  archipelagic  state  means  a  state  constituted  wholly  by  one  or  more  archipelagos  and  may  include  other   islands.  

• The  territorial  sea  of  ta  state,  as  distinct  from  its  inland  and  internal  waters,  consists  of  a  marginal  belt  of   maritime  waters  adjacent  to  the  base  lies  extending  twelve  nautical  miles  outward.  Outside  territorial  sea   are   the   high   seas.   A   state   exercises   sovereignty   over   its   territorial   sea   subject   to   the   right   of   innocent   passage  by  other  states.  

• The  waters  around,  between  and  connecting  the  islands  of  the  archipelago.  Irrespective  of  their  breadth  and   dimensions,  form  part  of  the  internal  waters  of  the  Philippines.  

• Important  distances  with  respect  to  the  waters  around  the  Philippines   1.  Territorial  sea  -­‐  12  nautical  miles  (n.m.)  

2.  Contiguous  zone  -­‐  12  n.m.  from  the  edge  of  the  territorial  sea  

3.  Exclusive  economic  zone  -­‐  200  n.m.  from  the  baseline  [includes  (1)  and  (2)]  

• Methods  used  for  fixing  the  starting  point  or  baseline  from  which  the  territorial  belt  is  measured  seawards:   1. Normal  baseline  method  –  under  which  the  breadth  of  the  territorial  seas  is  measured  from  the  low  

water-­‐line.  Following  the  indentations  of  the  coast.  

2. Straight  baseline  method  –  under  which  instead  of  the  baseline  following  the  sinusitis  of  the  coast,  it   is   drawn   as   straight   lines   connecting   appropriate   points   on   the   coast,   without   departing   to   any   appreciable  extent  from  the  general  direction  of  the  coast.  

• Baseline   is   the   low-­‐water   line   along   the   coast   as   marked   on   large   scale   charts   officially   recognized   by   the   coastal  State.  

• Contiguous  zone  is  the  maritime  zone  adjacent  to  the  territorial  seas  where  the  coastal  state  may  exercise   certain  protective  jurisdiction.  

Indonesia  v.  Malaysia  

Issue:  Who  has  sovereignty  over  Pulau  Ligitan  and  Pulau  Sipadan?  

Ruling:  Malaysia.  Based  on  actual  activities  and  continued  exercise  of  authority  over  these  islands.   Us  v.  Netherlands  

Issue:  Is  there  positive  international  law  of  terra  firma,  or  title  based  on  contiguity,  where  the  nearest  continent  or   island  of  considerable  size  gives  title  to  the  land  in  dispute?  

Ruling:  No.  The  title  of  contiguity,  understood  as  a  basis  of  territorial  sovereignty,  has  no  foundation  in  international   law.  

Malaysia  v.  Singapore  

Issue:  Is  there  positive  international  law  of  acquisitive  prescription  over  neighbouring  territories?  

Ruling:  Yes.  Acquisitive  Prescription  is  capable  of  accounting  for  the  process  whereby  a  state  acquires  sovereignty   that  did  don’t  originally  belong  to  it  and  without  the  express  consent  of  the  original  sovereign.  

Magalona  v.  Ermita  

Issue:   Whether   or   not   RA   9522   “dismembers   a   large   portion   of   national   territory”   because   it   discards   the   pre-­‐ UNCLOS  III  demarcation  of  the  Philippine  territory  under  the  Treaty  of  Paris  and  related  Treaties?  

Ruling:   No.   UNCLOS   III   has   nothing   to   do   with   the   acquisition   (or   loss)   of   territory.   It   is   a   multilateral   treaty   regulating,  among  others,  sea-­‐use  rights  over  maritime  zones  (i.e.,  the  territorial  waters  [12  nautical  miles  from  the   baselines],  contiguous  zone  [24  nautical  miles  from  the  baselines],  exclusive  economic  zone  [200  nautical  miles  from   the  baselines]),  and  continental  shelves  that  UNCLOS  III  delimits.  

(5)

Issue:  that  RA  9522’s  use  of  UNCLOS  III’s  regime  of  islands  framework  to  draw  the  baselines,  and  to  measure  the   breadth  of  the  applicable  maritime  zones  of  the  KIG,  “weakens  our  territorial  claim”  over  that  area?  

Ruling:  No.  Petitioners’  assertion  of  loss  of  “about  15,000  square  nautical  miles  of  territorial  waters”  under  RA  9522   is   similarly   unfounded   both   in   fact   and   law.   On   the   contrary,   RA   9522,   by   optimizing   the   location   of   base   points,   increased  the  Philippines’  total  maritime  space  (covering  its  internal  waters,  territorial  sea  and  exclusive  economic   zone)  by  145,216  square  nautical  miles  

Magalona  v.  Ermita  

Issue:  Whether  or  not  RA  9522  failed  to  textualize  the  Philippines’  claim  of  Sabah  in  North  Borneo?  

Ruling:  No.  Petitioners  claim  is  untenable.  Section  2  of  RA  5446,  which  RA  9522  did  not  repeal,  keeps  open  the  door   for  drawing  the  baselines  of  Sabah.  

 

ARTICLE  II  DECLARATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  AND  STATE  POLICIES  

 

BDCA  v.  COA  

Issue:  Which  of  the  provisions  under  Art.  II  of  the  1987  are  self-­‐executing?  Which  are  enabling?  

Ruling:  Most  of  the  sections  are  enabling,  they  require  legislative  action  before  rights  are  enforced.  Only  sections  4,   6,  15,  and  16  are  self-­‐executing  

SECTION  1.  The  Philippines  is  a  democratic  and  republican  state.  Sovereignty  resides  in  the  people  and  

all  government  authority  emanates  from  them.  

• A   state   is   a   community   of   persons   more   or   less   numerous,   permanently   occupying   a   definite   portion   of   territory,  independent  of  external  control,  and  possessing  an  organized  government  to  which  the  great  body   of  inhabitants  render  habitual  obedience.  

o Elements:   " People   " Territory   " Government   " Sovereignty  

• People  simply  means  a  community  of  persons  sufficient  in  number  and  capable  of  maintaining  the  continued   existence  of  the  community  and  held  together  by  a  common  bond  of  law.  

• The  extent  of  territory  is  discussed  in  Article  I.  

• Government  is  that  institution  or  aggregate  institutions  by  which  an  independent  society  makes  and  carries   out  those  rules  of  action  which  are  necessary  to  enable  men  to  live  in  a  social  state,  or  which  are  imposed   upon  the  people  forming  that  society  by  those  who  possess  the  power  or  authority  of  prescribing  them.  

o Functions:  

" Constituent  -­‐  compulsory  functions  which  constitute  the  very  bonds  of  society.  

" Ministrant   –   optional   functions   of   government   intended   for   achieving   a   better   life   for   the   community.  

o Determinants  whether  or  not  a  government  shall  exercise  certain  of  these  optional  functions  are:   " That  a  government  should  do  for  the  public  welfare  those  things  which  private  capital  would  

not  naturally  undertake.  

" That  a  government  should  do  those  things  which  by  its  very  nature  it  is  better  to  equipped   to  administer  for  the  public  welfare  than  is  any  private  individual  or  group  of  individuals.  

(6)

• On  the  basis  of  legitimacy,  governments  are  classified  into  de  jure  governments  and  those  which  are  de  facto   merely.  It  is  a  legal  truism  in  political  and  international  law  that  all  acts  and  proceedings  of  the  legislative,   executive,  and  judicial  departments  of  a  de  facto  government  are  good  and  valid.  

• Sec.  1,  Article  II  says:  “Sovereignty  resides  in  the  people  and  all  government  authority  emanates  from  them.”   Sovereignty  therefore  can  be  understood  as  the  source  of  ultimate  legal  authority.    Legal  sovereignty  means   the  power  to  adapt  or  alter  a  constitution.  This  power  resides  in  the  “people”  understood  as  those  who  have   a  direct  hand  in  the  formulation,  adoption,  and  amendment  or  alteration  of  the  Constitution.  

Bayan  Muna  v.  Romulo  

Issue:  Is  the  RP-­‐US  Non-­‐Surrender  Agreement  violative  of  the  Rome  Statute  and  Philippine  sovereignty?    

Ruling:  No.    Article  1  of  the  Rome  Statute  expressly  says  that  the  ICC’S  jurisdiction  will  be  complementary  to  the   criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  country,  which  has  original  jurisdiction.  

 

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.  

• Parts:  

o Renunciation  of  war  

o Adoption  of  the  principles  of  international  law  

o Adherence  to  a  policy  of  peace,  freedom,  and  amity  with  all  nations  

• The  pact  renounced  war  or  aggression  and  this  is  all  that  the  Constitution  renounces,  for  the  power  to  wage   a  defensive  war  is  of  the  very  essence  of  sovereignty.  

• The  Constitution  makes  defense  of  the  state  a  duty  of  government  and  of  the  people  and  gives  to  Congress   the  power  to  declare  a  state  of  war.  

• Implicit  in  this  provision  is  the  acceptance  of  the  dualist  view  of  legal  systems,  namely  that  domestic  law  is   distinct   from   international   law.   Since   dualism   holds   that   international   law   and   municipal   law   belong   to   different  spheres,  international  law  becomes  part  of  municipal  law  only  if  it  is  incorporated  into  municipal   law.  What  the  second  part  of  section  2  does  is  to  make  international  law  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  

• Incorporation  is  the  doctrine  that  considers  the  general  or  customary  norms  of  international  law  as  part  of   municipal  law  and  are  to  be  enforced  as  such,  without  regard  as  to  whether  they  are  enacted  as  statutory  or   legislative  rules  or  not.  

• Jus  cogens  is  a  norm  which  states  cannot  derogate  or  deviate  from  their  agreements  in  international  law.   Vinuya  et.  al.  v.  Executive  Secretary  

Issue:  What  is  “jus  cogens”?  Is  the  Philippines  under  a  non-­‐derogable  obligation  to  prosecute  international  crimes?   Ruling:   “Jus   cogens”   literally   means   “compelling   law”.   It   refers   to   norms   that   command   peremptory   authority,   superseding   conflicting   treaties   and   customs.   They   are   mandatory,   which   do   not   admit   derogation   and   can   be   modified  only  by  general  international  norms  of  equivalent  authority.  

SECTION   3.   Civilian   authority   is,   at   all   times,   supreme   over   the   military.   The   armed   forces   of   the  

Philippines  is  the  protector  of  the  people  and  the  state.  Its  goals  is  to  secure  the  sovereignty  of  the  state  

and  the  integrity  of  the  national  territory.  

SECTION  4.  The  prime  duty  of  the  government  is  to  serve  and  protect  the  people.  The  government  may  

call   upon   the   people   to   defend   the   state   and,   in   the   fulfilment   thereof,   all   citizens   may   be   required,  

under  conditions  provided  by  law,  to  render  personal  military  or  civil  service.  

(7)

• The   National   Defense   Law,   in   so   far   as   it   establishes   compulsory   military   service,   does   not   go   against   this   constitutional   provision   but   is,   on   the   contrary,   in   faithful   compliance   therewith.   The   duty   of   the   Government  to  defend  the  State  cannot  be  performed  except  through  an  army.  To  leave  the  organization  of   an  army  to  the  will  of  the  citizens  would  be  to  make  this  duty  of  the  Government  excusable  should  there  be   no  sufficient  men  who  volunteer  to  enlist  therein.  

SECTION  5.  The  maintenance  of  peace  and  order,  the  protection  of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  and  the  

promotion  of  the  general  welfare  are  essential  for  the  enjoyment  by  all  the  people  of  the  blessings  of  

democracy.  

• The  provision  recognized  a  hierarchy  of  needs:   o First:  life  

o Second:  liberty   o Third:  property  

SECTION  6.  The  separation  of  church  and  state  shall  be  inviolable.  

• Discussed  under  the  non-­‐establishment  clause  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.   Imbong  et.  al.  v.  Ochoa  

Issue:  Does  R.A.  No.  10354.  “The  Responsible  Parenthood  and  Reproductive  Health  Act  of  2012,  violate  the  principle   of  separation  of  the  church  and  the  state?  

Ruling:  No.  One  religious  group  cannot  be  allowed  to  impose  its  beliefs  on  the  rest  of  the  society.  Thus,  with  this   stipulation,  it  does  not  violate  the  principle.  

SECTION  7.  The  state  shall  pursue  an  independent  foreign  policy.  In  its  relations  with  other  states  the  

paramount   consideration   shall   be   national   sovereignty,   territorial   integrity,   national   interest,   and   the  

right  to  self-­‐determination.  

SECTION   8.   The   Philippines,   consistent   with   the   national   interest,   adopts   and   pursues   a   policy   of  

freedom  from  nuclear  weapons  in  its  territory.  

• The  Philippines  is  a  nuclear  free  country.  No  portion  of  its  territory  shall  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  storing  or   stockpiling  nuclear  weapons,  devices,  or  parts  thereof.  

• The  ban  is  clearly  on  nuclear  arms  only.  This  provision  is  not  a  ban  on  the  peaceful  uses  of  nuclear  energy,   nor  is  it  a  ban  on  all  “nuclear-­‐capable  vessels”.  For  a  vessel  to  be  banned,  it  is  not  enough  that  it  is  capable  of   carrying  nuclear  arms;  it  must  actually  carry  nuclear  arms.  

ICJ  Advisory  Opinion  

Issue:   Is   there   customary   or   conventional   international   law   specifically   authorizing   the   threat   or   use   of   nuclear   weapons?  

 

Ruling:  No.  At  face  value,  the  threat  or  use  of  nuclear  weapons  is  against  international  laws  of  armed  conflict.  

 

SECTION  9.  The  state  shall  promote  a  just  and  dynamic  social  order  that  will  ensure  the  prosperity  and  

independence  of  the  nation  and  free  the  people  from  poverty  through  policies  that  provide  adequate  

social  services,  promote  full  employment,  a  rising  standard  of  living,  and  an  improved  quality  of  life  for  

all.  

(8)

PKSMMN  v.  Cocofed    

Issue:  Are  the  laws  on  coco-­‐levy  fund  consistent  with  social  justice?    

Ruling:  No.  As  per  meaning  the  term  levy.  Thus,  the  main  reason  of  the  coco-­‐levy  funds  was  similar  to  that  of  taxes.   As  such,  the  fund  is  considered  public  funds.  Considering  its  nature  as  public  funds,  there  are  some  provisions  in  the   coco-­‐levy  fund  that  were  contrary  to  social  justice.  Such  provisions  included  those  that  appropriated  portion  of  funds   to  private  interests.  By  doing  so,  these  provisions  violated  the  rights  of  the  citizens  to  substantive  due  process  and  as   such,  were  inconsistent  with  social  justice.  

 

SECTION  11.  The  state  values  the  dignity  of  every  human  person  and  guarantees  full  respect  for  human  

rights.  

SECTION  12.  The  state  recognizes  the  sanctity  of  family  life  and  shall  protect  and  strengthen  the  family  

as  a  basic  autonomous  social  institution.  It  shall  equally  protect  the  life  of  the  mother  and  the  life  of  the  

unborn  from  conception.  The  natural  and  primary  right  and  duty  of  parents  in  the  rearing  of  the  youth  

for  civic  efficiency  and  the  development  of  moral  character  shall  receive  the  support  of  the  government.  

• The  unborn’s  entitlement  to  protection  begins  from  conception,  that  is,  from  the  moment  of  conception.   The   intention   is   to   protect   life   from   its   beginning,   and   the   assumption   is   that   human   life   begins   at   conception  and  that  conception  takes  place  at  fertilization.  

• The   1987   provision   has   added   the   adjective   “primary”   to   modify   the   right   of   parents.   It   imports   the   assertion  that  the  right  of  parents  is  superior  to  that  of  the  state.  

Imbong  et.  al.  v.  Ochoa  

Issue:   Does   R.A.   No.   10354.   “The   Responsible   Parenthood   and   Reproductive   Health   Act   of   2012,   violate   the   constitutional  right  of  the  unborn.  

Ruling:  No.  The  court  considers  life  from  the  moment  of  fertilization.  

SECTION  13.  The  state  recognizes  the  vital  role  of  the  youth  in  nation-­‐building  and  shall  promote  and  

protect  their  physical,  moral,  spiritual,  intellectual,  and  social  well-­‐being.  It  shall  inculcate  in  the  youth  

patriotism  and  nationalism,  and  encourage  their  involvement  in  public  and  civic  affairs.  

SECTION   14.   The   state   recognizes   the   role   of   women   in   nation-­‐building,   and   shall   ensure   the  

fundamental  equality  before  the  law  of  women  and  men.  

Garcia  v.  Drilon  

Issue:  Is  R.A.  9262,  An  Act  Defining  Violence  against  Women  and  their  Children,  violative  of  the  fundamental  equality   between  men  and  women?  

Ruling:  No.  Equal  protection  requires  that  all  persons  or  things  similarly  situated  should  be  treated  alike,  both  as  to   rights  conferred  and  responsibilities  imposed.  The  classification  should  be  based  on  substantial  distinctions  which   makes  for  real  differences.  

SECTION   15.   The   state   shall   protect   and   promote   the   right   to   health   of   the   people   and   instil   health  

consciousness  among  them.  

SECTION   16.   The   state   shall   protect   and   advance   the   right   of   the   people   to   a   balanced   and   healthful  

ecology  in  accord  with  the  rhythm  and  harmony  of  nature.  

(9)

• While    the    right    to    a    balanced    and    healthful    ecology    is    found    under    the  declaration  of  Principle  and   State  Policies  and  not  under  the  Bill  of  Rights,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  less  important  than  any  of  the  civil   and  political  rights  enumerated  in  the  latter.  

• The  right  to  a  balanced  and  healthful  ecology  carries  with  it  the  correlative  duty  to  refrain  from  impairing  the   environment.  

Imbong  et.  al.  v.  Ochoa  

Issue:   Does   R.A.   No.   10354.   “The   Responsible   Parenthood   and   Reproductive   Health   Act   of   2012,   violate   the   constitutional  right  to  health  and  the  right  to  protection  against  hazardous  products?  

Ruling:  No.  The  contraceptives  it  will  procure  shall  be  from  a  duly  licensed  drug  store  or  pharmaceutical  company   and  that  the  actual  distribution  of  these  contraceptive  drugs  and  devices  will  be  done  following  a  prescription  of  a   qualified  medical  practitioner.  

SECTION  17.  The  state  shall  give  priority  to  education,  science  and  technology,  arts,  culture,  and  sports  

to  foster  patriotism  and  nationalism,  accelerate  social  progress,  and  promote  total  human  liberation  and  

development.  

SECTION  18.  The  state  affirms  labour  as  a  primary  social  economic  force.  It  shall  protect  the  rights  of  

workers  and  promote  their  welfare.  

Cercado  v.  UNIPROM  

Issue:  Is  an  employee’s  passive  acquiescence  to  the  early  retirement  age  option  sufficient?  

Ruling:  No.  Considering  that  a  retirement  plan  is  a  contract  between  two  parties,  i.e.  Employer  and  employee  and   that  the  assailed  revised  retirement  plan  was  not  embodied  in  a  CBA,  or  any  employment  contract  or  agreement   between   the   company   and   the   employees,   such   retirement   plan   could   not   be   unilaterally   and   compulsorily   be   imposed  to  the  employees.  

SECTION   19.   The   state   shall   develop   a   serf-­‐reliant   and   independent   national   economic   effectively  

controlled  by  Filipinos.  

SECTION   20.   The   state   recognizes   the   indispensable   role   of   the   private   sector,   encourages   private  

enterprise,  and  provides  incentives  to  needed  investments.  

SECTION  21.  The  state  shall  promote  comprehensive  rural  development  and  agrarian  reform.  

SECTION  22.  The  state  recognizes  and  promotes  the  rights  of  indigenous  cultural  communities  within  the  

framework  of  national  unity  and  development.  

CMU  v.  Nat’l.  Anti-­‐Poverty  Com.  

Issue:   Is   Presidential   Proclamation   310   that   takes   670   hectares   from   CMU’s   registered   lands   for   distribution   to   indigenous  peoples  and  cultural  communities  in  Maramag,  Bukidnon,  valid  and  constitutional?  

 

Ruling:   No.   the   lands   by   their   character   have   become   separate   from   the   moment   President   Garcia   dedicated   the   land  for  scientific  and  technological  research  in  the  field  of  agriculture.  The  have  ceased  to  be  alienable  public  lands.  

SECTION  23.  The  state  shall  encourage  non-­‐governmental,  community-­‐based,  or  sectorial  organizations  

that  promote  the  welfare  of  the  nation.  

SECTION  24.  The  state  recognizes  the  vital  role  of  communication  and  information  in  nation-­‐building.  

SECTION  25.  The  state  shall  ensure  the  autonomy  of  local  governments.  

(10)

• The  principle  of  local  autonomy  under  the  Constitution  simply  means  decentralization.  It  does  not  make  the   local   governments   sovereign   within   the   state   or   an   imperium   in   imperio.   The   local   government   is   autonomous  in  the  sense  that  it  is  given  more  powers,  authority,  responsibilities  and  resources.  

Belgica  v.  Alcantara  

Issue:  Does  the  Congressional  Pork  Barrel  go  against  the  constitutional  principles  on  local  autonomy  since  it  allows   district   representatives,   who   are   national   officers,   to   substitute   their   judgement   in   utilizing   public   funds   for   local   development?  

Ruling:  Yes.  Insofar  as  individual  legislators  are  authorized  to  intervene  in  purely  local  matters  and  thereby  subvert   genuine   local   autonomy,   the   2013   PDAF   Article   as   well   as   all   other   similar   forms   of   Congressional   Pork   Barrel   is   deemed  unconstitutional.  

SECTION   26.   The   state   shall   guarantee   equal   access   to   opportunities   for   public   service,   and   prohibit  

political  dynasties  as  may  be  defined  by  law.  

• The  establishment  of  political  dynasties  is  an  effective  way  of  monopolizing  and  perpetuating  power.  Hence,   the  state  is  commanded  to  prohibit  political  dynasties.  

SECTION  27.  The  state  shall  maintain  honesty  and  integrity  in  the  public  service  and  take  positive  and  

effective  measures  against  graft  and  corruption  

Ombudsman  v.  Racho  

Issue:  Must  public  officials  declare  their  SALN?  

Ruling:  Yes.  Our  public  servants  that  public  service  demands  utmost  integrity  and  discipline.  A  public  servant  must   display   at   all   times   the   highest   sense   of   honesty   and   integrity,   for   no   less   than   the   Constitution   mandates   the   principle  that  a  public  office  is  a  public  trust;  and  all  public  officers  and  employees  must  at  all  times  be  accountable   to  the  people  and  serve  them  with  utmost  responsibility,  integrity,  loyalty  and  efficiency.  

SECTION   28.   Subject   to   reasonable   conditions   prescribed   by   law,   the   state   adopts   and   implements   a  

policy  of  full  public  disclosure  of  all  its  transactions  involving  public  interest.  

RE:  Request  for  Copy  of  2008  SALN  and  Personal  Data  Sheet  or  Curriculum    

Issue:  Are  the  information  contained  in  the  SALN  matters  of  public  necessitating  public  disclosure?  

Ruling:  Yes.  Section  7  of  Article  III  of  the  Constitution  is  relevant  in  the  issue  of  public  disclosure  of  SALN  and  other   documents   of   public   officials,   which   provides   that   the   right   of   the   people   to   information   on   matters   and   to   documents,  and  papers  pertaining  to  official  acts,  transactions,  or  decisions,  as  well  as  to  government  research  data   used  as  basis  for  policy  development,  shall  be  afforded  the  citizen,  subject  to  such  limitations  as  may  be  provided  by   law.  

 

ARTICLE  VI  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT  

 

Section  1.  The  legislative  power  shall  be  vested  in  the  Congress  of  the  Philippines  which  shall  consist  of  a  

Senator  and  a  House  of  Representatives,  except  to  the  extent  reserved  to  the  

people  by  the  provision  on  initiative  and  referendum.  

 

• Legislative   power   is   the   authority   to   make   laws   and   to   alter   or   repeal   them,   and   is   vested   by   the   Constitution  to  the  Congress  

(11)

     -­‐  Senate  (elected  by  the  nation  at  large)  

     -­‐  House  of  Representatives  (elected  by  the  district)   • Separation  of  powers:  

     1.  legislative  power  shall  be  vested  in  the  Congress  of  the  Philippines        2.  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in  the  President  of  the  Philippines  

     3.  judicial  power  shall  be  vested  in  one  Supreme  Court  and  in  such  lower  courts  as  maybe                  established  by  law  

     -­‐  each  is  prevented  from  invading  the  domain  of  the  others,  but  not  absolute  for  the  system  still  allows  for   "checks  and  balance"  (no  one  department  is  able  to  act  without  the  cooperation  of  at  least  one  of  the  other   departments)  

• Blending  of  power  –  confluence  of  2  or  more  powers  of  the  3  branches  of  the  government  

• Limits  of  legislative  power  of  Congress:  (1)  substantive  –  limitations  on  content  of  laws,  and  (2)  procedural  –   limitations  on  the  manner  of  passing  laws.  

•  Holders  of  legislative  power:  (1)  Congress,  (2)  people  through  initiative  and  referendum,  and  (3)  President  in   emergency.  

• Non-­‐delegability  of  legislative  power,  except  (1)  delegation  of  legislative  power  to  local  governments,  and  (2)   instances  when  the  Constitution  itself  allows  for  such  delegation.  

• Congress  can  only  delegate  Rule-­‐Making  Power  and  Law  Execution.   Banda  vs.  Ermita  (2010):  

Issue:  Is  the  issuance  of  E.O.  378  an  invalid  exercise  of  legislative  power?  

Ruling:  No.  It  is  a  well-­‐settled  principle  in  jurisprudence  that  the  President  has  the  power  to  reorganize  the  offices   and  agencies  in  the  executive  department  in  line  with  the  President’s  constitutionally  granted  power  of  control  over   executive  offices  and  by  virtue  of  previous  delegation  of  the  legislative  power  to  reorganize  executive  office  under   existing  statutes.  

Pichay  vs.  Ochoa  (2012):  

Issue:  Is  E.O.  13  unconstitutional  for  usurping  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  create  a  public  office?  

Ruling:  No.  The  President  has  continuing  authority  to  reorganize  the  Executive  Department  under  E.O.  292  in  order   to  achieve  simplicity,  economy  and  efficiency.  The  abolition  of  the  PAGC  and  the  transfer  of  its  functions  to  a  division   specially   created   within   the   ODECLA   is   properly   within   the   prerogative   of   the   President   under   his   continuing   “delegated  legislative  authority  to  reorganize”  his  own  office.  

Pimentel  vs.  Senate  (2011):  

Issue:  Will  the  invocation  of  the  doctrine  of  separation  of  powers  preclude  the  Supreme  Court  from  resolving  the   legal  issues  of  a  petition?  

Ruling:   No.   The   doctrine   of   separation   of   powers   does   not   prescribe   absolute   autonomy   in   the   discharge   of   the   separate   department’s   duties   assigned   to   them   by   the   sovereign   people.   Therefore,   the   Supreme   Court   is   not   precluded   from   resolving   the   legal   issues   raised   by   the   petitioner   more   so   that   such   issues   do   not   require   the   expertise,  specialized  skills  and  knowledge  of  administrative  bodies  for  their  resolution.  

Belgica  vs.  Alcantara  (2013):  

Issue:   Are   post-­‐enactment   measures   which   govern   the   areas   of   project   identification,   fund   release   and   fund   alignment  not  related  to  functions  of  congressional  oversight  and  not  violative  of  separation  of  powers?  Are  these   measures  violative  of  the  non-­‐delegability  of  legislative  functions?  

Ruling:   Yes.   These   post-­‐enactment   measures   violate   the   separation   of   powers.   The   enforcement   of   the   national   budget,   as   primarily   contained   in   the   GAA,   is   indisputably   a   function   both   constitutionally   assigned   and   properly  

(12)

entrusted  to  the  Executive  branch.  The  Legislative  branch,  much  more  any  of  its  members,  should  not  cross  over  the   field  of  implementing  the  national  budget.  The  court  held  that  “from  the  moment  the  law  becomes  effective,  any   provision   of   law   that   empowers   Congress   or   any   of   its   members   to   play   any   role   in   the   implementation   or   enforcement  of  the  law  violates  the  principle  of  separation  of  powers  and  is  thus  unconstitutional.”    

  Yes.  The  2013  PDAF  Article  violates  the  principle  of  non-­‐delegability  since  legislators  are  effectively  allowed   to  individually  exercise  the  power  of  appropriation.    

 Francisco  vs.  TRB  (2010):  

Issue:  Can  Congress  delegate  its  franchising  power  and  prerogative?  

Ruling:  Yes.  As  stressed  in  Alabano  vs.  Reyes,  there  is  nothing  in  the  Constitution  which  provides  that  the  issuance  of   a   franchise,   certificate   or   other   form   of   authorization   for   the   operation   of   a   public   utility   shall   be   subject   to   amendment,  alteration  or  repeal  by  Congress  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  only  Congress  has  the  power  to  grant   such   authorization.   Congress   may   validly   delegate   its   legislative   authority   under   the   power   of   subordinate   legislation,  to  issue  franchises  of  certain  public  utilities  to  some  administrative  agencies.    

Lokin  vs.  COMELEC  (2010):  

Issue:   Is   Sec.   13   of   COMELEC   Res.   No.   7804   a   valid   subordinate   legislation   as   it   implements   Section   8   of   R.A.   No.   7941?  

Ruling:  Yes.  The  administrative  IRRs  must  comply  with  the  following  requisites  to  be  valid:  (1)  its  promulgation  must   be  authorized  by  the  Legislative;  (2)  it  must  be  within  the  scope  of  the  authority  given  by  the  Legislative;  (3)  it  must   be  promulgated  in  accordance  with  the  prescribed  procedure;  and  (4)  it  must  be  reasonable.  The  COMELEC  issued   Resolution  No.  7804  pursuant  to  its  powers  under  the  Constitution,  Batas  Pambansa  Bilang  881,  and  the  Party-­‐List   System  Act.    

Biraogo  vs.  Philippine  Truth  Commission  (2010):  

Issue:  Is  there  a  valid  delegation  of  power  from  Congress  empowering  the  President  to  create  a  public  office?  

Ruling:   No.   The   court   ruled   that   the   Constitution   ever   remains   the   supreme   power   and   that   the   inclusion   of   recognition  of  the  past  presidents  in  creating  public  offices  should  not  be  an  upfront  to  the  Constitution  and  that  it  is   still   the   Judiciary   who   has   the   advanced   interest   in   the   quest   for   truth   and   should   not   be   retarded   by   any   other   branches.  

Vivas  vs.  Monetary  Board  (2013):  

Issue:  Is  Sec.  30  R.A.  7653  an  undue  delegation  of  legislative  power  to  the  Monetary  Board?  

Ruling:  No.  The  Court  denied  the  petition  as  RA  7653  was  complete  in  itself  and  the  act  imposed  sufficient  standards   and  parameters  the  Monetary  Board  ha  to  follow.  

The  Senate    

Section  2.  The  Senate  shall  be  composed  of  twenty-­‐four  senators  who  shall  be  elected  at  large  by  the  

qualified  voters  of  the  Philippines,  as  may  be  provided  by  law.  

• The   numerical   composition   of   the   Senate   can   only   be   changed   by   constitutional   amendment,   and   the   phrase,  “as  may  be  provided  by  the  law”,  refers  to  the  mechanics  for  electing  the  Senators  at  large.    

 

Section  3.  No  person  shall  be  a  senator  unless  he  is  a  natural-­‐born  citizen  of  the  Philippines,  and,  on  the  

day  of  the  election,  is  at  least  thirty-­‐five  years  of  age,  able  to  read  and  write,  a  registered  voter,  and  a  

resident  of  the  Philippines  for  not  less  than  two  years  immediately  preceding  the  day  of  the  election.  

(13)

• The  residence  requirement  is  satisfied  if  one  is  domiciled  in  the  Philippines  during  the  two-­‐year  period  even   if  not  physically  present  in  the  Philippines  during  the  two-­‐year  period.  

• The   age   qualification   must   be   possessed   on   the   day   votes   are   cast   as   fixed   by   law   and   not   on   the   day   of   proclamation.  

Section  4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  senators  shall  be  six  years  and  shall  commence,  unless  otherwise  

provided  by  law,  at  noon  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  June  next  following  their  election.  

 

No  senator  shall  serve  for  more  than  two  consecutive  terms.  Voluntary  renunciation  of  the  office  

for  any  length  of  time  shall  not  be  considered  as  an  interruption  in  the  continuity  of  his  service  for  the  

full  term  for  which  he  was  elected.  

• Senators  shall  have  a  six  year  term  with  one  immediate  re-­‐election.  

• A  senator  could  run  again  for  office  three  years  after  the  expiration  of  his  second  term.    

    The  House  

Section  5.  (1)  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed  of  not  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  

members,   unless   otherwise   fixed   by   law,   who   shall   be   elected   from   legislative   districts   apportioned  

among  the  provinces,  cities  and  the  Metropolitan  Manila  area  in  accordance  with  the  number  of  their  

respective  inhabitants,  and  on  the  basis  of  a  uniform  and  progressive  ratio,  and  those  who,  as  provided  

by  law,  shall  be  elected  through  a  party-­‐list  system  of  registered  national,  regional,  and  sectoral  parties  

or  organizations.  

(2)   The   party-­‐list   representatives   shall   constitute   twenty   per   centum   of   the   total   number   of  

representatives  including  those  under  the  party  list.  For  three  consecutive  terms  after  the  ratification  of  

this  Constitution,  one-­‐half  of  the  seats  allocated  to  party  list  representatives  shall  be  filled,  as  provided  

by  law,  by  selection  or  election  from  the  labor,  peasant,  urban  poor,  indigenous  cultural  communities,  

women,  youth,  and  such  other  sectors  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  except  religious  sector.  

(3)  Each  legislative  district  shall  comprise,  as  far  as  practicable,  contiguous,  compact  and  adjacent  

territory.  Each  city  with  a  population  of  at  least  two  hundred  fifty  thousand,  or  each  province,  shall  have  

at  least  one  representative.  

(4)   Within   three   years   following   the   return   of   every   census,   the   Congress   shall   make   a  

reapportionment  of  legislative  districts  based  on  the  standard  provided  in  this  section.  

• The  total  membership  of  the  House  may  be  raised  from  time  to  time  by  statute  (through  reapportionment   due  to  the  creation  of  new  districts  or  new  provinces).  

• Kinds   of   representatives:   (1)   district   representatives   elected   by   districts,   (2)   party   representatives   elected   through  the  party-­‐list  system,  and  (3)  sectoral  representatives  which  only  last  for  three  consecutive  terms.   • A  city  with  a  population  of  at  least  250,000  shall  have  at  least  one  representative.  

• A  province  is  entitled  to  one  representative  no  matter  what  its  population  size.  

• Parties,  coalitions  participating  in  the  system  are  required  to  obtain  at  least  two  percent  of  the  total  votes   cast  for  the  party-­‐list  system  in  order  to  be  entitled  to  a  party-­‐list  seat,  with  a  three-­‐seat  limit.  

(R.A.  No.  7941)  

• The  party-­‐list  nominees  “must  represent  marginalized  and  underrepresented  sectors.”  

Section   6.   No   person   shall   be   a   member   of   the   House   of   Representatives   unless   he   is   a   natural-­‐born  

citizen  of  the  Philippines  and,  on  the  day  of  the  election,  is  at  least  twenty  five  years  of  age,  able  to  read  

and  write,  and,  except  the  party  list  representatives,  a  registered  voter  in  the  district  in  which  he  shall  be  

(14)

elected,  and  a  resident  thereof  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  one  year  immediately  preceding  the  day  of  

the  election.  

• The  qualifications  mentioned  must  be  possessed,  by  the  candidate,  on  the  day  of  the  election.  

• Natural-­‐born  citizens  are  those  who  are  citizens  of  the  Philippines  from  birth  without  having  to  perform  any   act  to  acquire  or  perfect  their  Philippine  citizenship.  

Section  7.  The  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  elected  a  term  of  three  years  which  

shall  begin,  unless  otherwise  provided  by  law,  at  noon  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  June  next  following  their  

election.    

No  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  serve  for  more  than  three  consecutive  terms.  

Voluntary  renunciation  of  the  office  for  any  length  of  time  shall  be  considered  as  an  interruption  in  the  

continuity  of  his  service  for  the  full  term  for  which  he  was  elected.  

• The  three-­‐year  term  set  by  the  Constitution  may  not  be  changed  by  Congress.  

• Elective   official   whether   national   or   local   running   for   any   office   other   than   the   one   he   is   holding   in   a   permanent  capacity  except  for  the  President  and  Vice-­‐President  shall  be  considered  ipso  facto  resigned  from   his  office  upon  the  filing  of  his  certificate  of  candidacy.  

• Term  is  the  period  of  time  allotted  to  the  office  by  law.  

• Tenure  is  the  period  during  which  the  official  actually  holds  office.   Aquino  vs.  COMELEC  (2010):  

Issue:  Is  the  250  thousand  population  requirement  applicable  to  both  the  province  and  the  city?  

Ruling:  No.  The  plain  and  clear  distinction  between  a  city  and  a  province  was  explained  under  the  second  sentence   of  Section  5(3)  of  the  Constitution.  It  states  that  a  province  is  entitled  a  representative,  and  nothing  was  mentioned   about  population.  

Ladlad  vs.  COMELEC  (2010):  

Issue:  Are  only  those  sectors  specifically  enumerated  in  R.A.  7941  or  related  to  said  sectors  may  be  registered  under   the  party-­‐list  system?  

Ruling:  No.  As  mentioned  in  Ang  Barangay  Bayani  OFW  vs.  COMELEC  that  marginalized  and  underprivileged  is  not   exclusive.  It  is  not  whether  a  sector  is  stipulated  specifically  but  whether  a  particular  organization  complied  with  the   requirements  of  the  Constitution  and  the  requirements  set  forth  in  R.A.  7941.  

Guardians  vs.  COMELEC  (2010):  

Issue:  Is  the  Minero  ruling  a  correct  application  of  Section  6(8)  of  RA  7941?  

Ruling:  No.  According  to  the  court,  the  Minero  ruling  is  an  erroneous  application  of  Section  6(8)  of  RA  7941,  hence,  it   cannot  stand  PGBI’s  delisting  from  the  roster  of  registered  national,  regional  or  sectoral  parties,  organizations,  or   coalitions  under  the  party-­‐list  system.  A  delisting  based  on  a  mixture  of  fusion  of  these  two  different  and  separate   grounds  for  delisting  is  therefore  a  strained  application  of  the  law.  

BANAT  vs.  COMELEC  (2009):  

Issue:  How  are  the  party-­‐list  seats  computed  and  allocated  under  the  BANAT  ruling  as  compared  to  the  Veterans   ruling?  

Ruling:   To   summarize,   in   Veterans,   the   court   allocated   party-­‐list   seats   of   those   party-­‐lists   ranked   2   and   higher   in   reference  to  the  number  of  seats  allocated  to  the  rank  1party-­‐list.  This  method  of  allocation  will  never  reach  the  full   number  of  seats  as  mandated  by  the  Constitution  as  a  consequence  to  the  formula  used  by  the  courts.    

References

Related documents