I. Philippine Constitutional System
Javellana vs Secretary
Imbong vs COMELEC
Santiago vs COMELEC
Lambino vs COMELEC
Lawyer’s League vs Aquino
In Re Saturnino Bermudez
De Leon vs Esguerra
Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary 50 SCRA 30
Ponente:
Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion
The Facts:
The Plebiscite Case
A Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines was approved on August 24, 1970 and began to perform its functions on June
1, 1971. On September 21, 1972, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law.
On November 29, 1972, the 1971 Constitutional Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. The next day,President
Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 73, “submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefor,” as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the
Proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973.
On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a case against the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin
said “respondents or their agents from implementing Presidential Decree No. 73, in any manner, until further orders of the Court,” upon the grounds, inter
alia, that said Presidential Decree “has no force and effect as law because the calling of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same,
the prescription of the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the
Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress “ and “there is no proper submission to the people of said Proposed Constitution set for January 15, 1973,
there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof.”
On December 23, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for the ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution and temporarily
suspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081 for purposes of free and open debate on the proposed Constitution.”
The Court deemed it fit to refrain, for the time being, from deciding the aforementioned cases, for neither the date nor the conditions under which said
plebiscite would be held were known or announced officially.
“In the afternoon of January 12, 1973, the petitioners in Case G.R. No. L-35948 filed an “urgent motion,” praying that said case be decided “as soon as
possible, preferably not later than January 15, 1973.”
The Court issued a resolution requiring the respondents in said three (3) cases to comment on said “urgent motion” and “manifestation,” “not later than
Tuesday noon, January 16, 1973 and set the motion for hearing “on January 17, 1973, at 9:30 a.m.”
While the case was being heard, the President issued Proclamation No. 1102.
“ANNOUNCING THE RATIFICATION BY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION
Citizens Assemblies were created in barrios, in municipalities and in districts/wards in chartered cities. The said Citizens Assemblies were established to
broaden the base of citizen participation in the democratic process and to afford ample opportunity for the citizenry to express their views on important
national issues.
The Ratification Case
On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed Case G.R. No. L-36142, as a “Filipino citizen, and a qualified and registered voter” and as “a class suit, for
himself, and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated against the Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of National Defense, Justice and
Finance, to restrain said respondents “and their subordinates or agents from implementing any of the provisions of the propose Constitution not found in
the present Constitution” referring to that of 1935. Javellana alleged that the President ordered “the immediate implementation of the New Constitution,
thru his Cabinet, and that the latter are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed Constitution. He construed that the
President is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; to approve the proposed Constitution; proclaim the ratification; and that the election held
to ratify the proposed Constitution was not a free election, hence null and void.
The Issue:
1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a justiciable, or political and therefore non-justiciable, question?
2. Has the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention been ratified validly (with substantial, if not strict, compliance)
conformably to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions?
3. Has the aforementioned proposed Constitution acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the people? (acquiesced – “permission” given
by silence or passiveness. Acceptance or agreement by keeping quiet or by not making objections.)
4. Are petitioners entitled to relief?
5. Is the aforementioned proposed Constitution in force?
Decision and Ratio:
The court was severely divided on the issues raised in the petition but when the crucial question of whether the petitioners are entitled to relief, six members
of the court (Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra) voted to dismiss the petition. Concepcion, together Justices Zaldivar,
Fernando and Teehankee, voted to grant the relief being sought, thus upholding the 1973 Constitution.
1. The Court held that the issue is political and “beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry.”
2. Court held that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV, section
1 of the 1935 Constitution, which provides only one way for ratification, i.e., “in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and
participated in only by qualified and duly registered voters. However, it is conceded that the doctrine stated in some American decisions to the
effect that independently of the validity of the ratification, a new Constitution once accepted acquiesced in by the people must be accorded
recognition by the Court.”
3.
On the fourth question, 6 justices voted to DISMISS the petition. Justice Makalintal and Castro so voted on the strength of their view that “The
effectivity of the said Constitution, in the final analysis, is the basic and ultimate question posed by these cases to resolve which considerations
other than judicial, and therefore beyond the competence of this Court, are relevant and unavoidable.
4.
On the fifth question of whether the new Constitution of 1973 is in force:
ACCORDINGLY, by virtue of the majority of six (6) votes of Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra with the four (4)
dissenting votes of the Chief Justice and Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and Teehankee, all the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed. This being the vote
of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that “As to whether or not the 1973 Constitution has been validly ratified pursuant to Article XV, I still maintain
that in the light of traditional concepts regarding the meaning and intent of said Article, the referendum in the Citizens’ Assemblies, especially in the manner
the votes therein were cast, reported and canvassed, falls short of the requirements thereof.
However, the fact that there was voting and that the majority of the votes were for considering as approved the 1973 Constitution without the necessity of
the usual form of plebiscite followed in past ratifications, the people may be deemed to have cast their favorable votes in the belief that in doing so they did
the part required of them by Article XV, hence, it may be said that in its political aspect, which is what counts most, after all, said Article has been
substantially complied with, and, in effect, the 1973 Constitution has been constitutionally ratified.”
Imbong vs COMELEC G.R. No. L-32432 September 11, 1970
RAUL M. GONZALES vs COMELEC G.R. No. L-32443 September 11, 1970
Ponente:
Makasiar
Facts:
These two separate but related petitions for declaratory relief were filed pursuant to Sec. 19 of R.A. No. 6132 by petitioners Manuel B. Imbong and Raul
M. Gonzales, both members of the Bar, taxpayers and interested in running as candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Both impugn the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, claiming during the oral argument that it prejudices their rights as such candidates.
On March 16, 1967, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, passed Resolution No. 2 which among others
called for a Constitutional Convention to propose constitutional amendments to be composed of two delegates from each representative district who shall
have the same qualifications as those of Congressmen, to be elected on the second Tuesday of November, 1970 in accordance with the Revised Election
Code. On June 17, 1969, Congress, also acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4 amending the aforesaid Resolution No. 2 of March
16, 1967 by providing that the convention “shall be composed of 320 delegates apportioned among the existing representative districts according to the
number of their respective inhabitants: Provided, that a representative district shall be entitled to at least two delegates, who shall have the same
qualifications as those required of members of the House of Representatives,” 1 “and that any other details relating to the specific apportionment of
delegates, election of delegates to, and the holding of, the Constitutional Convention shall be embodied in an implementing legislation: Provided, that it
shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution.” 2
On August 24, 1970, Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted Republic Act No. 6132, implementing Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly
repealing R.A. No. 4914.
Petitioner Raul M. Gonzales assails the validity of the entire law as well as the particular provisions embodied in Sections 2, 4, 5, and par. 1 of 8(a).
Petitioner Manuel B. Imbong impugns the constitutionality of only par. I of Sec. 8(a) of said R.A. No. 6132 practically on the same grounds advanced by
petitioner Gonzales.
Issue:
1. Whether the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional Convention;
2. Whether the parameters set by such a call is constitutional.
Decision:
The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional Convention as a Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the
petitioners are deemed as constitutional.
Ratio:
– Sec 4 RA 6132: it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of Constitution
-Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132:
Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to propose amendments, or call for convention for the purpose by votes and these votes were
attained by Resolution 2 and 4
– Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Resolution 4 and is enough that the basis employed for such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied
by Gonzales is not reasonable for that case granted more representatives to provinces with less population and vice versa. In this case, Batanes is equal to
the number of delegates I other provinces with more population.
– Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualify members thereof. Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. This is
a safety mechanism to prevent political figures from controlling elections and to allow them to devote more time to the Constituional Convention.
– Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also to assure candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend on their
individual merits, and not the support of political parties. This provision does not create discrimination towards any particular party/group, it applies to all
organizations.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Fernando “ I find it difficult to reconcile the decision reached insofar as the aforesaid ban on political parties and civic, professional and other
organizations is concerned with the explicit provision that the freedom to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged. 2 The right of an individual to join others of a like persuasion to pursue common objectives and to engage in activities is embraced within if not
actually encouraged by the regime of liberty ordained by the Constitution. This particular freedom has an indigenous cast, its origin being traceable to the
Malolos Constitution.
Santiago vs COMELEC G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997
Ponente:
Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.
Facts:
On 6 December 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a “Petition to Amend the Constitution to Lift Term Limits of elective Officials by People’s
Initiative” The COMELEC then, upon its approval
1. set the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country,
2. caused the necessary publication of the said petition in papers of general circulation, and
3. instructed local election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing stations.
On 18 Dec 1996, Miriam Santiago et al filed a special civil action for prohibition against the Delfin Petition. Also, Raul Roco filed with the COMELEC a
motion to dismiss the Delfin petition, the petition having been untenable due to the foregoing. Santiago argues among others that the People’s Initiative is
limited to amendments to the Constitution NOT a revision thereof. The extension or the lifting of the term limits of those in power (particularly the President)
constitutes revision and is therefore beyond the power of people’s initiative. The respondents argued that the petition filed by Roco is pending under the
COMELEC hence the Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of it.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to call for People’s Initiative to amend the constitution specifically to lift term limits of elected
officials.
2. Whether or not the Supreme Court can take cognizance of the case
Decision:
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION.
The COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative.
Ratio:
Under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC’s power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations
referred to therein are those promulgated by the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate legislation
is authorized and which satisfies the “completeness” and the “sufficient standard” tests.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Puno does not share the view that R.A. No. 5735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 are legally defective and cannot implement the people’s
initiative to amend the Constitution. I likewise submit that the petition with respect to the Pedrosas has no leg to stand on and should be dismissed.
Significantly, the majority decision concedes that “. . . R.A. No. 6735 was intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.” It ought
to be so for this intent is crystal clear from the history of the law which was a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 3 and Senate Bill No. 17. 4 Senate Bill
No. 17 was entitled “An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and the Exception Therefrom, Whereby People in Local Government
Units Can Directly Propose and Enact Resolutions and Ordinances or Approve or Reject any Ordinance or Resolution Passed by the Local Legislative
Body.” Beyond doubt, Senate Bill No. 17 did not include people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. In checkered contrast, House Bill
No. 21505 5 expressly included people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.
Lambino Vs. Comelec G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25 2006
Ponente:
Justice Antonio Carpio
Facts:
Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution, they filed a petition with the
COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M
individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and
sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral- presidential form of government to unicameralparliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that
RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.
Issue:
1. Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the
Constitution through a people’s initiative.
2. Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
conditions” to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
3. Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition.
Decision:
According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a people’s initiative. The Court held that the
COMELEC did not grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People
The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time of the signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is
“deceptive and misleading” which renders the initiative void.
2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives
The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between “amendment” and “revision, it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17
of the constitution may propose only amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change, therefore constitutes
a revision.
3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary
Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply
with the constitution before complying with RA 6735
Petition is dismissed.
Ratio:
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution. This section states:
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum
of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of an amendment “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon
a petition,”
LAWYER’S LEAGUE VS. AQUINO, ET AL. G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986
Ponente: GLORIA C. PARAS
FACTS:
On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power.
On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the “new government
was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate
Decision:
As early as April 10, 1986, this Court* had already voted to dismiss the petitions for the reasons to be stated below.
1. On April 17, 1986, Atty. Lozano as counsel for the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 73748 and 73972 withdrew the petitions and manifested that they
would pursue the question by extra-judicial methods. The withdrawal is functus oficio.
2. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines
are the judge. And the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino
3. The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members of this Court, as reorganized, have
sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government.
IN RE: SATURNINO V. BERMUDEZ G.R. No. 76180 October 24, 1986
PER CURIAM:
In a petition for declaratory relief impleading no respondents, petitioner, as a lawyer, quotes the first paragraph of Section 5 (not Section 7 as erroneously
stated) of Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution, which provides in full as follows:
Sec. 5. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the February 7, 1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of
elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30, 1992.
The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May, 1992.
Claiming that the said provision “is not clear” as to whom it refers, he then asks the Court “to declare and answer the question of the construction and
definiteness as to who, among the present incumbent President Corazon Aquino and Vice-President Salvador Laurel and the elected President Ferdinand E.
Marcos and Vice-President Arturo M. Tolentino being referred to under the said Section 7 (sic) of ARTICLE XVIII of the TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
of the proposed 1986 Constitution refers to, . …
The petition is dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction and for lack for cause of action.
Prescinding from petitioner’s lack of personality to sue or to bring this action, (Tan vs. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 677), it is elementary that this Court assumes
no jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief. More importantly, the petition amounts in effect to a suit against the incumbent President of the Republic,
President Corazon C. Aquino, and it is equally elementary that incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period
of their incumbency and tenure.
The petition furthermore states no cause of action. Petitioner’s allegation of ambiguity or vagueness of the aforequoted provision is manifestly gratuitous,
it being a matter of public record and common public knowledge that the Constitutional Commission refers therein to incumbent President Corazon C.
Aquino and Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel, and to no other persons, and provides for the extension of their term to noon of June 30, 1992 for purposes
of synchronization of elections. Hence, the second paragraph of the cited section provides for the holding on the second Monday of May, 1992 of the first
regular elections for the President and Vice-President under said 1986 Constitution. In previous cases, the legitimacy of the government of President Corazon
C. Aquino was likewise sought to be questioned with the claim that it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. The said cases were dismissed
outright by this court which held that:
Petitioners have no personality to sue and their petitions state no cause of action. For the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It
belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the
government of President Corazon C. Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and
law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of tlie present government. All the eleven members of this
Court, as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government. (Joint Resolution of May 22, 1986 in G.R. No.
73748 [Lawyers League for a Better Philippines, etc. vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al.]; G.R. No. 73972 [People’s Crusade for Supremacy of the
Constitution. etc. vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al.]; and G.R. No. 73990 [Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al.])
De Leon vs Esguerra 153 SCRA 602, August 31, 1987
Ponente:
MELENCIO-HERRERA,J
Facts:
In 1982, Alfredo M. De Leon was elected as Baranggay Captain along with the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Baranggay Dolores, Taytay,
Rizal. On February 9, 1987, he received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986, signed on February 8, 1987 by OIC Gov. Benhamin B. Esguerra
designating Florentino Magno as new Barangay Captain. A separate Memorandum with the same dates was also issued by Hon. Esguerra replacing the
Barangay Councilmen. De Leon along with the other petitioners filed a petition to declare the subject Memorandum null and void and prevent the
respondents from taking over their positions in the Barangay. The petitioners maintained that OIC Gov. Esguerra no longer have the authority to replace
them under the 1987 Constitution and that they shall serve a term of six (6) years in pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982.
Issue:
Was the designation of the new Barangay Officials valid?
Ruling:
The designation by the OIC Governor of new Barangay Officials was declared NO LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT and the Writ for Prohibition is
GRANTED enjoining respondents perpetually from ouster/take-over of petitioners’ position subject of this petition.
Ratio
The affectivity of the Memorandum should be based on the date when it was signed, February 8, 1987. By that time, the 1987 Constitution was already in
effect, thus superseding all previous constitution as provided in Section 27 of its Transitory Provisions. Respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely on
Section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners.
Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern since it is not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.
For the above-quoted reason, which are fully applicable to the petition at bar, mutatis mutandis, there can be no question that President Corazon C. Aquino
and Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel are the incumbent and legitimate President and Vice-President of the Republic of the Philippines.or the above-quoted
reasons, which are fully applicable to the petition at bar