THE CONSTITUTION
1.​ Is Section 10, second paragraph, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
self-executing, requiring no further implementing legislation?
I.​
The Constitution
2.​ Does the sale of 51% of the shares of Manila Hotel Corporation
A. Definition
form part of the national patrimony covered by the constitutional
provision?
A00 Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, GR
3.​ Is GSIS, as a government-owned and controlled corporation,
122156, 3 February 1997, En Banc, Bellosillo [J]
bound by the constitutional mandate to give preference to
qualified Filipinos?
Facts:
4.​ Did GSIS commit grave abuse of discretion by refusing to accept
●​ The case involves Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (petitioner)
and Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Manila Hotel
Manila Prince Hotel's matching bid?
5.​ Is Manila Prince Hotel estopped from questioning the sale to
Corporation (MHC), Committee on Privatization, and Office of the
Government Corporate Counsel (respondents).
●​ GSIS decided to sell 30% to 51% of its shares in MHC, which owns
Renong Berhad?
Ruling:
1.​ Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 10, second paragraph,
the historic Manila Hotel, as part of the Philippine Government's
privatization program under Proclamation No. 50 dated
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is self-executing.
2.​ Yes, the Court held that the sale of 51% of the shares of Manila
December 8, 1986.
●​ A public bidding was held on September 18, 1995, with two bidders:
Hotel Corporation is part of the national patrimony.
3.​ Yes, GSIS is bound by the constitutional mandate to give
Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (a Filipino corporation) and
Renong Berhad (a Malaysian firm).
preference to qualified Filipinos.
4.​ Yes, GSIS committed grave abuse of discretion by refusing to
●​ Renong Berhad submitted the highest bid of P44.00 per share,
surpassing Manila Prince Hotel's bid of P41.58 per share.
accept Manila Prince Hotel's matching bid.
5.​ No, Manila Prince Hotel is not estopped from questioning the sale
●​ Manila Prince Hotel attempted to match Renong Berhad's bid, but
GSIS refused to accept it.
●​ The lower court issued a temporary restraining order on October
Issue:
to Renong Berhad.
Ratio:
●​ The Supreme Court held that Section 10, second paragraph,
18, 1995, to prevent the consummation of the sale to Renong
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is self-executing, meaning it
Berhad.
does not require further implementing legislation to be
enforceable.
1
●​ The provision is a mandatory, positive command that is complete
●​ The conflict arose from Neri's refusal to answer questions during a
in itself and judicially enforceable.
Senate inquiry into the National Broadband Network (NBN) project
●​ The term "national patrimony" includes not only natural resources
but also cultural heritage, which encompasses the historic Manila
awarded to Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE).
●​ Neri invoked executive privilege, claiming the information sought
Hotel.
was confidential communications between him and President
●​ GSIS, as a government-owned and controlled corporation, is an
instrumentality of the State and is therefore bound by the
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
●​ The Senate Committees issued a contempt order against Neri for
constitutional mandate to give preference to qualified Filipinos.
●​ GSIS's refusal to accept Manila Prince Hotel's matching bid
his refusal to answer, leading to his arrest and detention.
●​ Neri filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court,
constituted grave abuse of discretion, as it violated the
constitutional provision.
challenging the Senate's contempt order.
●​ The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Neri, upholding the
●​ The argument that Manila Prince Hotel was estopped from
claim of executive privilege and finding the Senate Committees to
questioning the sale was rejected, as the constitutional safeguard
could be invoked at any time before the final award.
have committed grave abuse of discretion.
●​ The Senate Committees filed a motion for reconsideration, which
is the subject of the resolution dated September 4, 2008.
B. Parts
1. Hierarchy
Issue:
1.​ Whether there is a recognized presumptive presidential
communications privilege in the Philippine legal system.
A01 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
2.​ Whether the communications elicited by the three questions are
Investigations, GR 180643, 25 March 2007, En Banc, Corona [J]
covered by executive privilege.
3.​ Whether the Senate Committees have shown that the
Facts:
communications elicited by the three questions are critical to the
●​ Romulo L. Neri, then Chairman of the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA), was involved in a dispute with the
exercise of their functions.
4.​ Whether the Senate Committees committed grave abuse of
Senate Committees on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations, Trade and Commerce, and National Defense and
Security.
discretion in issuing the contempt order.
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court affirmed that there is a recognized
presumptive presidential communications privilege in the
Philippine legal system.
2
2.​ The Court held that the communications elicited by the three
●​ The Court found that the Senate Committees failed to
questions are covered by executive privilege.
demonstrate a compelling need for the information
3.​ The Court found that the Senate Committees failed to show that
the communications elicited by the three questions are critical to
covered by the executive privilege.
●​ The Senate could still legislate on the NBN project without
the exercise of their functions.
4.​ The Court ruled that the Senate Committees committed grave
the specific details of the privileged communications.
●​ The Senate Committees had other sources of information
abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt order against Neri.
Ratio:
and witnesses to rely on for their investigation.
4.​ Grave Abuse of Discretion:
1.​ Presumptive Presidential Communications Privilege:
●​ The Court ruled that the Senate Committees committed
●​ The Court recognized that presidential communications
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt order
are presumptively privileged, citing previous cases such as
Almonte v. Vasquez and Chavez v. PEA.
against Neri.
●​ The Court highlighted several procedural lapses, including
●​ This privilege is fundamental to the operation of
the failure to provide Neri with an advance list of questions
government and is rooted in the separation of powers
and the lack of a majority vote in the Senate Committees'
under the Constitution.
decision to cite Neri for contempt.
●​ The presumption is not absolute and can be overturned by
●​ The Senate Committees acted arbitrarily and precipitately
a compelling need for disclosure.
in issuing the contempt order without adequately
2.​ Coverage of Executive Privilege:
addressing Neri's claim of executive privilege.
●​ The Court held that the communications between Neri and
President Arroyo are covered by executive privilege.
II. HISTORY
●​ The privilege applies to communications that relate to a
quintessential and non-delegable power of the President,
A. Organic Acts
are received by a close advisor, and where there is no
1. 1902 Philippine Organic Act (Cooper Law)
compelling need for disclosure shown by the Senate
Committees.
●​ The privilege is meant to protect candid and objective
discussions necessary for presidential decision-making.
3.​ Critical Need for Information:
Historical Context:
●​ Philippine-American War (1899-1902): Following the
Spanish-American War, the U.S. acquired the Philippines. However,
Filipino revolutionaries, who had been fighting for independence
3
from Spain, resisted American rule, leading to a protracted
conflict.
●​ Shift to Civilian Rule: By 1902, the U.S. had largely suppressed the
Filipino resistance. The U.S. Congress, aiming to transition from
●​ Introduction of Democratic Institutions: The Act introduced
democratic principles and institutions to the Philippines, albeit in a
limited form.
●​ Foundation for Self-Governance: It paved the way for greater
military rule to a more structured civilian government, passed the
Filipino participation in governance and set the stage for eventual
Philippine Organic Act.
independence.
Passage and Implementation:
●​ Enactment: President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Philippine
Organic Act into law on July 1, 1902.
●​ Key Provisions: The Act established a civilian government headed
by a Governor-General appointed by the U.S. President. It also
created a bicameral legislature, consisting of:
○​ The Philippine Commission: An upper house composed of
American appointees, including the Governor-General.
○​ The Philippine Assembly: A lower house with elected
Filipino representatives (established later in 1907).
●​ Transitional Period: The Act served as the framework for
governance in the Philippines until the passage of the Jones Law
in 1916, which further expanded Filipino participation in the
government.
Significance:
●​ End of Military Rule: It marked the formal end of military rule and
the establishment of a civilian government, albeit still under
American control.
●​ Legacy: Some provisions of the Act, particularly the Bill of Rights,
continue to influence Philippine law and governance even today.
Context
●​ Enacted by the U.S. Congress after the Philippine-American War to
establish a civilian government in the Philippines.
●​ Replaced military rule with a more structured civil administration.
●​ Served as the framework for governance until the passage of the
Jones Law in 1916.
Salient Features
1.​ Establishment of a Philippine Commission:
○​ Acted as the upper house of the legislature and the
executive branch initially.
○​ Composed of American appointees, including a
Governor-General.
○​ Oversaw various aspects of governance, such as
education, infrastructure, and the judiciary.
2.​ Creation of the Philippine Assembly:
○​ Lower house of the legislature, established in 1907 after
certain conditions were met.
○​ Composed of elected Filipino representatives.
○​ Shared legislative power with the Philippine Commission.
3.​ Bill of Rights:
4
○​ Guaranteed certain fundamental rights and freedoms to
●​ While a step towards self-governance, the Organic Act still
Filipinos, including freedom of speech, religion, and
maintained significant U.S. control over the Philippines.
assembly.
○​ Modeled after the U.S. Bill of Rights.
4.​ Appointment of Resident Commissioners:
○​ Two non-voting Filipino representatives were appointed to
●​ The Philippine Commission, dominated by Americans, held
considerable power.
●​ It was a foundational document in the evolution of Philippine
political institutions.
the U.S. House of Representatives.
○​ Advocated for Philippine interests in the U.S. Congress.
5.​ Separation of Church and State:
○​ Disestablished the Roman Catholic Church as the official
state religion.
○​ Guaranteed freedom of religion.
6.​ Civil Service System:
○​ Established a merit-based civil service system.
○​ Aimed to promote efficiency and professionalism in the
government.
7.​ Conservation of Natural Resources:
○​ Emphasized the conservation and protection of natural
resources for the benefit of the Filipino people.
Significance
●​ Marked the transition from military to civilian rule in the
Philippines.
●​ Introduced democratic principles and institutions to the country.
●​ Laid the groundwork for future self-governance and eventual
independence.
●​ Some provisions, like the Bill of Rights, continue to influence
Philippine law and governance today.
Key Points to Note
2. 1916 Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law)
History
●​ Rising Filipino Nationalism: By the 1910s, Filipino nationalism and
the desire for self-governance had intensified. The U.S., influenced
by factors like World War I and the changing global landscape,
was also becoming more receptive to the idea of Philippine
independence.
●​ Passage and Implementation: The Jones Law, officially known as
the Philippine Autonomy Act, was passed by the U.S. Congress on
August 29, 1916. It replaced the 1902 Philippine Organic Act and
served as the framework for Philippine governance until 1934.
Salient Features
●​ Declaration of Purpose: The Act contained a clear declaration of
the U.S. intention to eventually grant the Philippines
independence, stating that it would happen "as soon as a stable
government can be established."
●​ Expanded Filipino Representation: It established a bicameral
Philippine Legislature, with both houses (Senate and House of
Representatives) being fully elected by Filipinos.
5
●​ Increased Autonomy: The Act granted Filipinos more control over
domestic affairs, while the U.S. retained authority over foreign
policy and defense.
●​ Bill of Rights: It reaffirmed the Bill of Rights from the 1902 Organic
Act, guaranteeing fundamental freedoms.
●​ Executive Power: The Governor-General, appointed by the U.S.
President, remained the head of the executive branch.
Feature
1902 Philippine Organic
1916 Philippine Autonomy
Act
Act (Jones Law)
Bicameral: Philippine
Legislature
Bicameral: Philippine
Commission (appointed) Senate and House of
and Philippine Assembly
Representatives (both
(elected)
fully elected)
Limited, with more power
Filipino
concentrated in the
Representation
appointed Philippine
Commission
Significantly expanded,
with both houses of the
legislature being elected
Contained a clear
Declaration of
No explicit mention of
statement of the U.S.
Independence
eventual independence
intention to grant
independence
Autonomy
Executive
Significance of the Jones Law
●​ Milestone Towards Independence: It marked a significant step
towards Philippine independence by granting Filipinos more
control over their government and solidifying the U.S.
commitment to eventual self-rule.
●​ Strengthened Nationalist Movement: It fueled the Filipino
nationalist movement and encouraged further efforts towards full
independence.
B. Philippine Constitutions
1. Legal
a. 1935 Constitution
(1) Amended in 1939, 1940, and 1947
Salient Features of the 1935 Philippine Constitution:
●​ Republican and Presidential System: Established a republican
form of government with three distinct branches: the executive,
legislative, and judiciary, each with its own powers and
responsibilities. The President, elected by direct popular vote,
headed the executive branch.
●​ Unicameral Legislature (Initially): Originally, the legislature
consisted of a single chamber, the National Assembly. However,
Limited, with significant
Increased autonomy in
U.S. control
domestic affairs
Governor-General
Governor-General
appointed by the U.S.
appointed by the U.S.
fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, religion,
President
President
assembly, and the press. It also protected against unreasonable
this was later amended in 1940 to create a bicameral Congress
with a Senate and a House of Representatives.
●​ Bill of Rights: Guaranteed a wide range of individual liberties and
searches and seizures and provided for due process of law.
6
●​ Women's Suffrage: Granted Filipino women the right to vote, a
significant milestone in the country's political history.
retained significant control over certain aspects of Philippine affairs,
particularly foreign policy and defense, even under the 1935 Constitution.
●​ Civil Service System: Established a merit-based civil service
system to ensure professionalism and efficiency in the
In Summary:
government bureaucracy.
The 1935 Philippine Constitution was a landmark document that shaped
●​ Provisions for Amendment: Included procedures for amending
the country's political landscape for several decades. It established a
the Constitution, allowing it to adapt to changing times and
republican form of government, enshrined fundamental rights, and
circumstances.
provided a framework for the eventual transition to full independence. 1
Amendments (1939, 1940, and 1947)
●​ 1939 Amendment: The most significant change was the shift from
While amended several times, its core principles and structures remain
influential in Philippine governance today.
a unicameral to a bicameral legislature. This created the Senate
and the House of Representatives, providing a system of checks
(a) Parity amendment - A02 Republic of the Philippines v. Quasha, GR
and balances within the legislative branch.
L-30299, 17 August 1972, En Banc, Reyes JBL [J]
●​ 1940 Amendment: This amendment primarily focused on
economic provisions, allowing for the exploitation of natural
resources and regulating public utilities.
●​ 1947 Parity Amendment: Granted U.S. citizens equal rights with
Filipinos in the exploitation of natural resources and the operation
Facts:
●​ The case is Republic of the Philippines v. Quasha, G.R. No. L-30299,
decided on August 17, 1972.
●​ Respondent William H. Quasha, an American citizen, purchased
of public utilities for a period of 28 years. This amendment was
land at 22 Molave Place, Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal, on November
controversial and remains a subject of debate in Philippine
26, 1954.
history.
Key Differences from Previous Legal Frameworks
●​ The land was classified as private agricultural land.
●​ Quasha sought a declaration of rights under the Parity
Amendment, which allowed certain rights for American citizens
Compared to earlier legal frameworks like the Philippine Organic Act and
the Jones Law, the 1935 Constitution marked a significant step toward
regarding land acquisition in the Philippines.
●​ The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor
greater autonomy and self-governance for the Philippines. It established
General, contested Quasha's claim, citing Section 5, Article XIII of
a fully elected Philippine legislature and outlined a path to eventual
the Philippine Constitution, which prohibits the transfer of private
independence. However, it's important to remember that the U.S. still
agricultural land to non-Filipinos, except in cases of hereditary
succession.
7
●​ The Court of First Instance of Rizal ruled in favor of Quasha on
●​ Legislative history and intent behind the Parity Amendment did
March 6, 1969, validating his acquisition and allowing ownership
not support the acquisition of private agricultural land by
beyond the Parity Amendment's expiration on July 3, 1974.
non-Filipinos.
●​ The Republic appealed this decision, leading to a review by the
Supreme Court.
●​ Consequently, Quasha's rights to the property would cease after
the expiration of the Parity Amendment.
Issue:
1.​ Can American citizens and corporations acquire private
agricultural lands in the Philippines under the Parity Amendment?
2.​ Will Quasha's rights expire on July 3, 1974, as claimed by the
Republic of the Philippines?
Ruling:
(2) Attempts to amend in 1967 and 1971
1. 1967 Constitutional Convention
●​ Context:
○​ The Philippines had gained independence from the United
States in 1946, but the 1935 Constitution, with its
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that American citizens and corporations
cannot acquire private agricultural lands in the Philippines under
the Parity Amendment.
2.​ The Court held that all rights acquired under the Parity
Amendment would expire on July 3, 1974.
Ratio:
amendments, remained in effect.
○​ By the mid-1960s, there was growing sentiment that the
Constitution needed to be updated to address
contemporary issues and challenges facing the nation.
○​ President Ferdinand Marcos, elected in 1965, supported
calls for constitutional reform.
●​ The decision was based on a strict interpretation of the Parity
Amendment and the Philippine Constitution.
●​ The Court concluded that the Parity Amendment only provided
exceptions to Sections 1 and 8 of Articles XIII and XIV, which
pertained to public lands and public utilities, respectively.
●​ It did not extend to the acquisition of private agricultural lands,
which are reserved for Filipinos.
●​ The Court emphasized that exceptions to constitutional provisions
must be interpreted strictly, indicating that rights under the Parity
●​ Process:
○​ In 1967, a Constitutional Convention was convened,
composed of elected delegates tasked with revising or
replacing the 1935 Constitution.
○​ The convention was marked by intense debates and
political maneuvering.
○​ While some progress was made, the convention ultimately
failed to produce a new constitution due to disagreements
and political gridlock.
Amendment were intended to last only until July 3, 1974.
8
2. 1971 Constitutional Convention
●​ However, political factors and controversies, particularly during
●​ Context:
the 1971 convention, significantly impacted the process and
○​ The failure of the 1967 convention left the issue of
constitutional reform unresolved.
outcomes.
●​ The 1971 Constitution, despite its controversial origins, eventually
○​ The late 1960s and early 1970s were a period of social
played a role in the restoration of democracy after the People
unrest and political turmoil in the Philippines, with student
Power Revolution in 1986, when it was initially reinstated and later
activism, labor strikes, and a growing communist
replaced by the current 1987 Constitution.
insurgency.
○​ President Marcos, nearing the end of his second term and
constitutionally barred from seeking re-election, saw a
A03 Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, GR L-28196, 9 November 1967,
En Banc, Concepcion [CJ]
new constitution as a potential means to extend his power.
●​ Process:
○​ In 1970, a second Constitutional Convention was called.
○​ The convention was marred by allegations of bribery,
Facts:
●​ The case involves consolidated petitions challenging the
constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System in the Philippines.
intimidation, and manipulation by Marcos and his allies.
●​ Petitioners include Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica, Jose M.
○​ Despite these controversies, the convention managed to
Villegas, Jr., Jose L. Gonzalez, Reuben M. Abante, and Quintin
draft a new constitution.
●​ Outcome:
○​ The 1971 Constitution was ratified in a highly questionable
plebiscite in January 1973.
○​ Shortly after, Marcos declared martial law, suspending the
newly ratified constitution and ruling by decree.
○​ The 1973 Constitution, though technically in force, was
largely sidelined during the martial law period.
Key Points:
●​ Both attempts to amend the 1935 Constitution were driven by a
Paredes San Diego.
●​ Respondents are high-ranking government officials, including
Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Secretary of Budget and
Management Florencio B. Abad, and National Treasurer Rosalia V.
De Leon.
●​ Petitions were filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul
provisions of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2013 that
provide for the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and
other lump-sum discretionary funds.
●​ Petitioners argue that these provisions violate principles of
desire to modernize the country's legal framework and address
separation of powers, checks and balances, and accountability,
pressing issues.
and perpetuate patronage politics and political dynasties.
9
●​ The Supreme Court of the Philippines decided the case on
also declared unconstitutional for constituting an undue
November 19, 2013.
Issue:
delegation of legislative power.
Ratio:
1.​ Does the Pork Barrel System, as embodied in the 2013 PDAF and
other similar provisions, violate the principles of separation of
1.​ Separation of Powers:
●​ The PDAF and similar provisions allowed legislators to wield
powers, non-delegability of legislative power, checks and
post-enactment authority in budget execution, an
balances, accountability, political dynasties, and local autonomy?
executive function.
2.​ Does the phrase "for such other purposes as may be hereafter
●​ This violates the principle of separation of powers by
directed by the President" under Section 8 of PD 910, relating to the
allowing legislators to interfere in budget implementation,
Malampaya Funds, constitute an undue delegation of legislative
a role assigned to the Executive branch.
power?
3.​ Does the phrase "to finance the priority infrastructure
development projects and to finance the restoration of damaged
or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and
2.​ Non-delegability of Legislative Power:
●​ The PDAF provisions allowed individual legislators to
exercise the power of appropriation, a legislative function.
●​ This delegation of power to individual legislators is
authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines" under
unconstitutional as it bypasses the collective legislative
Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, constitute an undue
process required for appropriations.
delegation of legislative power?
Ruling:
3.​ Checks and Balances:
●​ The lump-sum nature of the PDAF and similar funds
1.​ The Supreme Court declared the entire 2013 PDAF Article and all
other similar Congressional Pork Barrel provisions unconstitutional
for violating the principles of separation of powers,
non-delegability of legislative power, checks and balances, and
accountability.
2.​ The phrase "for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed
undermines the President's power of item veto, a crucial
check on legislative power.
●​ Appropriations must be specific to allow the President to
exercise this veto power effectively.
4.​ Accountability:
●​ The PDAF system diluted congressional oversight and
by the President" under Section 8 of PD 910 was declared
allowed legislators to intervene in budget execution,
unconstitutional for constituting an undue delegation of
impairing public accountability.
legislative power.
3.​ The phrase "to finance the priority infrastructure development
●​ This intervention violated Section 14, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution, which prohibits legislators from intervening in
projects" under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, was
10
matters before any government office for their pecuniary
●​ Intervenors included Raul S. Manglapus, Jesus G. Barrera, Pablo S.
benefit.
Trillana III, Victor de la Serna, Marcelo B. Fernan, Jose Y. Feria,
5.​ Undue Delegation of Legislative Power:
●​ The phrases in PD 910 and PD 1869 that allowed the
Leonardo Siguion Reyna, Victor F. Ortega, and Juan V. Borra.
●​ The case arose from the Constitutional Convention's approval of
President to use funds for unspecified purposes were
Organic Resolution No. 1, which proposed to amend Section 1 of
found to be unconstitutional.
Article V of the Philippine Constitution to lower the voting age to
●​ These provisions lacked sufficient legislative guidelines
and standards, giving the President undue discretion in the
eighteen years.
●​ The resolution also called for a plebiscite to be held on November
use of public funds.
The Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to
8, 1971, to ratify this amendment.
●​ Tolentino argued that the Convention did not have the authority
constitutional principles in the appropriation and use of public funds,
to call for such a plebiscite and that this power was exclusively
ensuring that each branch of government operates within its
vested in Congress.
constitutionally defined limits to maintain a system of checks and
●​ The lower court had not yet ruled on the matter, and the case was
balances and uphold public accountability.
brought directly to the Supreme Court for resolution.
Issue:
A04 Tolentino v. Commission on Elections, GR L-34150, 16 October 1971,
1.​ Does the Constitutional Convention have the authority to call for a
En Banc, Barredo [J]
plebiscite to ratify a proposed constitutional amendment?
2.​ Is the proposed plebiscite for the amendment to lower the voting
Facts:
age to eighteen years valid under the existing Constitution?
●​ The case "Tolentino v. Commission on Elections" (G.R. No. L-34150)
was decided on October 16, 1971, by the Supreme Court of the
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitutional Convention does
Philippines.
not have the authority to call for a plebiscite to ratify a proposed
●​ Justice Barredo was the ponente.
●​ Petitioner Arturo M. Tolentino filed a petition for prohibition against
constitutional amendment.
2.​ The proposed plebiscite for the amendment to lower the voting
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Chief
Accountant, Auditor, and Disbursing Officer of the 1971
Constitutional Convention.
age to eighteen years is invalid under the existing Constitution.
Ratio:
●​ The Supreme Court held that the power to call for a plebiscite to
ratify constitutional amendments is vested exclusively in
11
Congress, as per Section 1 of Article XV of the 1935 Philippine
adhere to the amendment procedures outlined in the 1935
Constitution.
Constitution.
●​ The Court emphasized that the Constitutional Convention, while
●​ Supreme Court Ruling (Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 1973):
having the authority to propose amendments, does not have the
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging
power to determine the manner and timing of their ratification.
the irregularities in the ratification process, ultimately declared
●​ The Court noted that the Constitution requires all proposed
that there was no further legal obstacle to the 1973 Constitution
amendments to be submitted to the people in a single plebiscite,
being considered in force and effect. The Court essentially
not piecemeal.
recognized the political reality of the situation and the de facto
●​ The Court reasoned that allowing the Convention to call for
separate plebiscites for individual amendments would lead to
confusion and undermine the integrity of the constitutional
amendment process.
●​ Therefore, the acts of the Convention and COMELEC in calling for
the plebiscite on November 8, 1971, were declared null and void for
being violative of the Constitution.
effectivity of the new constitution.
Effectivity and Implications:
●​ De Facto Effectivity: Notwithstanding the non-compliance with
the 1935 Constitution's amendment process, the 1973 Constitution
became the de facto fundamental law of the land from the time
of its ratification in 1973.
●​ Legal Framework During Martial Law: The 1973 Constitution
provided the legal framework for Marcos' authoritarian rule during
b. 1973 Constitution, original and as amended
the martial law period. Its provisions, particularly those granting
extensive powers to the President, were used to justify his actions
(1) Effectivity, notwithstanding non-compliance with 1935 Constitution
Context and Controversy:
●​ Martial Law Declaration: President Ferdinand Marcos declared
and policies.
●​ Post-Martial Law Era: After the People Power Revolution in 1986,
the 1973 Constitution was initially reinstated, but was soon
martial law in 1972, suspending the 1935 Constitution and ruling by
replaced by the current 1987 Constitution. However, the 1973
decree. During this time, a new constitution was drafted by a
Constitution remains a significant part of Philippine legal and
Constitutional Convention.
political history.
●​ Questionable Ratification: The 1973 Constitution was ratified
through a highly controversial plebiscite in January 1973, marred
Key Points to Note:
●​ The 1973 Constitution's effectivity highlights the complex interplay
by allegations of fraud and coercion. The legitimacy of the
between law and politics, particularly in times of political
ratification process was widely questioned, as it did not strictly
upheaval.
12
●​ The Supreme Court's decision in Javellana v. Executive Secretary
●​ On January 7, 1973, President Marcos postponed the plebiscite
underscored the principle of recognizing the de facto reality of a
new constitution, even if its ratification process was flawed.
indefinitely.
●​ On January 17, 1973, President Marcos issued Proclamation No.
●​ The 1973 Constitution, though controversial in its origins, served as
1102, declaring that the proposed Constitution had been ratified
the legal basis for governance during a crucial period in Philippine
history.
by the Citizens' Assemblies and was in effect.
Issue:
1.​ Does the Supreme Court have the authority to pass upon the
A05 Planas v. Commission on Elections, GR L-35925, 22 January 1973, En
Banc, Concepcion [CJ]
validity of Presidential Decree No. 73?
2.​ Did the 1971 Constitutional Convention exceed its authority in
approving certain provisions of the proposed Constitution?
Facts:
3.​ Does the President have the authority to issue Presidential Decree
●​ Multiple petitioners, including Charito Planas and others, filed
petitions against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and
No. 73 and appropriate funds for the plebiscite?
4.​ Does martial law affect the validity of the submission of the
other respondents.
●​ The petitions, filed in December 1972, challenged Presidential
proposed Constitution to the people for ratification?
5.​ Is Proclamation No. 1102, declaring the ratification of the proposed
Decree No. 73, which called for a plebiscite on January 15, 1973, to
ratify the proposed 1972 Constitution.
●​ Petitioners argued that the decree was unconstitutional as the
President lacked the authority to call a plebiscite or appropriate
funds for it.
●​ They contended that the period between the approval of the
proposed Constitution and the scheduled plebiscite was too short
for adequate voter information.
●​ They also argued that martial law, declared by President Marcos
on September 21, 1972, impeded a free and fair plebiscite.
●​ The Supreme Court heard the cases on December 18 and 19, 1972.
●​ President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 86 on December
31, 1972, creating Citizens' Assemblies to broaden citizen
Constitution by the Citizens' Assemblies, valid?
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it has the authority to
pass upon the validity of Presidential Decree No. 73.
2.​ The Court found that the issue of whether the 1971 Constitutional
Convention exceeded its authority had become moot and
academic.
3.​ The Court ruled that the issue of the President's authority to issue
Presidential Decree No. 73 had become moot and academic due
to the postponement of the plebiscite.
4.​ The Court did not resolve the question of whether martial law
affects the validity of the submission of the proposed Constitution,
as it was not explicitly raised in the cases.
participation.
13
5.​ The Court did not pass upon the validity of Proclamation No. 1102,
as it was not properly raised before the Court.
A06 Javellana v. Executive Secretary, GR L-36142, 31 March 1973, En
Banc, Concepcion [CJ]
Ratio:
1.​ The Court held that the issue of the validity of Presidential Decree
No. 73 is justiciable because it purports to have the force and
Facts:
●​ Presidential Proclamation No. 1102 was issued on January 17, 1973,
effect of legislation. The Court's authority to review such cases is
declaring the ratification of the 1971 Constitutional Convention's
provided by the 1935 Constitution.
proposed Constitution by Citizens Assemblies (barangays).
2.​ The Court found that the issue of whether the 1971 Constitutional
●​ Petitioners, including Josue Javellana, Vidal Tan, Gerardo Roxas,
Convention exceeded its authority had become moot and
Eddie Monteclaro, and Napoleon V. Dilag, challenged the
academic because the plebiscite had been postponed, and the
proclamation, seeking to halt the new Constitution's
proposed Constitution had already been proclaimed as ratified.
implementation and compel the Senate to convene.
3.​ The Court ruled that the issue of the President's authority to issue
●​ They argued that the Constitutional Convention was
Presidential Decree No. 73 had become moot and academic due
to the postponement of the plebiscite. The Court noted that the
compromised due to Martial Law declared on September 21, 1972.
●​ They claimed the Convention lacked authority to include certain
proper parties could file an action if the plebiscite were
rescheduled.
provisions in the 1972 Constitution.
●​ They contended the President had no power to create and
4.​ The Court did not resolve the question of whether martial law
affects the validity of the submission of the proposed Constitution,
empower Citizens Assemblies for ratification.
●​ They asserted that Article XV of the 1935 Constitution's
as it was not explicitly raised in the cases. The Court noted that
this issue is intimately related to the validity of Proclamation No.
amendment procedures were not followed.
●​ The Solicitor General's comments were treated as motions to
1102.
5.​ The Court did not pass upon the validity of Proclamation No. 1102,
dismiss, leading to extensive hearings.
●​ Respondents included high-ranking government officials such as
as it was not properly raised before the Court. The Court noted
the Executive Secretary, Secretary of National Defense, and
that the parties responsible for the referendum or plebiscite by
Secretary of Justice.
the Citizens' Assemblies had not been impleaded and afforded a
chance to be heard.
●​ The Supreme Court of the Philippines heard the cases en banc.
Issue:
1.​ Is the question political and beyond the Court's competence, or is
it justiciable and fit for judicial determination?
14
2.​ Was the new Constitution ratified according to Article XV of the
1935 Constitution?
3.​ Has the new Constitution been accepted and acquiesced in by
the Filipino people?
4.​ Is the new Constitution in force and effect?
5.​ If the answers to questions 3 and 4 are affirmative, are petitioners
entitled to the reliefs they seek?
Ruling:
was justiciable and the ratification process did not meet Article
XV's requirements.
●​ They emphasized that the Constitution is a paramount law,
unchangeable by ordinary means, and any amendment or new
Constitution must be ratified as prescribed.
●​ They contended the Citizens Assemblies' voting did not meet
constitutional requirements, was not supervised by the
Commission on Elections, and included unqualified voters.
●​ The justices were divided, with some voting to dismiss the
petitions and others dissenting.
●​ Thus, they concluded the new Constitution was not validly ratified
and should not be enforced.
●​ The majority opinion, by Justice Esguerra, held that the issue was
political and not justiciable, and that the new Constitution had
(2) Subsequent Amendments or Proposed Amendments; 1 Lack of
been accepted by the Filipino people.
Interim
●​ Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
●​ Dissenting opinions argued the issue was justiciable, the
National Assembly
●​ Original 1973 Constitution: The original version of the 1973
ratification process did not comply with Article XV of the 1935
Constitution, ratified under martial law, provided for a
Constitution, and the new Constitution was not validly ratified.
parliamentary system of government with a unicameral National
Assembly. However, it did not establish an interim National
Ratio:
●​ Justice Esguerra's majority opinion stated that the validity of the
Assembly to function during the transition period between the
new Constitution's ratification was a political question beyond the
ratification of the new constitution and the election of a regular
Court's competence.
National Assembly.
●​ He argued that once a new Constitution is accepted and put into
●​ Gap in Representation: This lack of an interim body resulted in a
practical operation by the people, any question of its validity
significant gap in legislative representation, leaving President
becomes political, not judicial.
Marcos with broad powers to rule by decree during this
●​ He noted that the new Constitution had taken root, the people
were content, and the government was functioning normally.
●​ Therefore, he concluded the petitions should be dismissed.
●​ Dissenting opinions, particularly from Chief Justice Concepcion
and Justices Zaldivar, Fernando, and Teehankee, argued the issue
transitional phase.
Subsequent Amendments and Proposals
●​ 1976 Amendments: In 1976, amendments were made to the 1973
Constitution, including provisions to address the lack of an interim
assembly:
15
○​ Interim Batasang Pambansa (IBP): The amendments
legislative bodies, in any new or amended constitution to ensure
created the IBP, an interim legislative body composed of
continuity of governance and prevent potential abuses of power.
the incumbent President (Marcos) and members of the
then-existing Constitutional Convention. The IBP
A07 Aquino v. Commission on Elections, GR L-40004, 31 January 1975,
functioned until the election of a regular Batasang
En Banc, Makasiar [J]; See also Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections,
Pambansa in 1978.
L-40117, 22 February 1975.
○​ Expanded Presidential Powers: While the IBP provided
some semblance of legislative representation, the
Facts:
amendments also significantly expanded the President's
●​ The case Aquino, Jr. v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. L-40004)
powers, allowing him to continue issuing decrees even
was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on January
with the IBP in place.
31, 1975.
●​ Proposed Amendments during the 1980s: Various proposals were
●​ Petitioners included Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., Trinidad Herrera,
floated during the 1980s to further address the issue of the lack of
various bishops, and concerned citizens.
an interim legislative body. These proposals aimed to strengthen
●​ They sought to nullify Presidential Decrees Nos. 1366 and 1366-A
checks and balances and prevent a repeat of the power vacuum
issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, which called for a
that occurred after the ratification of the 1973 Constitution.
referendum on February 27, 1975.
●​ Petitioners argued that Marcos did not hold a legal office under
Significance and Legacy
the 1935 or 1973 Constitution, lacking authority to issue the
●​ Concentration of Power: The absence of an interim National
Assembly in the original 1973 Constitution contributed to the
proclamations.
●​ They claimed that the climate of fear due to Martial Law would
concentration of power in the hands of President Marcos,
prevent genuine public expression and that the time for debate
particularly during the early years of martial law.
before the referendum was inadequate.
●​ Attempts to Rectify: The 1976 amendments, while creating the IBP,
●​ The lower court ruled in favor of the respondents, leading the
also highlighted the challenges of balancing the need for a
functioning legislature with the desire to maintain executive
control during a transition period.
●​ Lessons for Future Constitutions: The experience with the 1973
Constitution underscores the importance of clear provisions for
transitional arrangements, including the establishment of interim
petitioners to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
1.​ Does President Ferdinand E. Marcos have the legal authority to
issue the questioned proclamations, decrees, and orders?
2.​ Can private citizens, like the petitioners, challenge the title of the
incumbent President?
16
3.​ Is the scheduled referendum valid considering the context of
Martial Law and the limited time for public debate?
A08 Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, GR L-44640, 12 October 1976,
En Banc, Martin [J]
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that President Ferdinand E. Marcos is the
de jure President of the Philippines, and the questioned
Facts:
●​ The case involves three consolidated petitions for prohibition with
proclamations, decrees, and orders are valid.
preliminary injunction filed by Pablito V. Sanidad, Vicente M.
2.​ The Court determined that the petitioners lacked legal standing to
Guzman, and Raul M. Gonzales against the Commission on
challenge the President's title.
3.​ The referendum was deemed valid despite concerns about the
Elections (COMELEC) and the National Treasurer.
●​ The petitions challenge President Ferdinand E. Marcos's authority
climate of fear and the short debate period.
to propose amendments to the 1973 Philippine Constitution during
Ratio:
the transition period when the interim National Assembly had not
●​ The Court established that a challenge to the title of the
incumbent President is similar to a quo warranto proceeding,
been convened.
●​ On September 2, 1976, President Marcos issued decrees proposing
which can only be initiated by the Solicitor General or someone
the replacement of the interim National Assembly with an interim
asserting title to the same office.
Batasang Pambansa and other related amendments.
●​ Petitioners did not claim such title, thus lacking standing to file the
●​ These proposed amendments were to be submitted to the people
suit.
in a referendum-plebiscite scheduled for October 16, 1976.
●​ The legality of a public officer's appointment or election cannot
●​ The petitioners argued that the President did not have the
be attacked collaterally through a petition for prohibition.
authority to propose such amendments and that the
●​ The Court upheld the validity of the 1973 Constitution, affirming it
was in effect as established in the Javellana case.
referendum-plebiscite was unconstitutional.
●​ The Solicitor General countered that the petitioners lacked
●​ The President's authority to issue decrees during Martial Law is
standing, the issue was political and non-justiciable, and that the
recognized under the Constitution, and the actions taken by
President had the authority to propose amendments during the
Marcos were deemed necessary for maintaining order during a
transition period.
crisis.
●​ Concerns regarding the referendum's validity were dismissed, as
previous elections under similar conditions had shown the
Issue:
1.​ Is the question of the constitutionality of Presidential Decrees Nos.
991, 1031, and 1033 political or justiciable?
capacity for free expression despite Martial Law.
17
2.​ During the present stage of the transition period, does the
President possess the power to propose amendments to the
Constitution?
3.​ Is the submission of the proposed amendments to the people
within the time frame allowed a sufficient and proper submission?
Ruling:
■​ Given this context, the President could also exercise the
constituent power to propose amendments.
■​ The Court noted that the President's actions were in
response to the people's expressed will through various
referenda, which indicated a preference for not convening
the interim National Assembly.
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that the question of the constitutionality
of the Presidential Decrees is justiciable.
2.​ The Court held that during the transition period, the President
possesses the power to propose amendments to the Constitution.
3.​ The Court found that the submission of the proposed
3.​ Proper Submission:
■​ The Court found that the time frame for the submission of
the proposed amendments was adequate for public
discussion and understanding.
■​ The Court noted that the issues were not new and had
amendments to the people within the given time frame was
been part of public discourse since the proclamation of
sufficient and proper.
martial law.
Ratio:
■​ The Court also addressed concerns about the
1.​ Justiciability:
■​ The Court determined that the issue was justiciable
because it involved the legality and validity of the
President's authority to propose amendments, which is a
judicial question.
■​ The Court emphasized that political questions are
associated with the wisdom of an act, not its legality.
■​ Since the controversy centered on the President's
participation of 15-year-olds in the referendum, clarifying
that their votes would be counted separately and would
not affect the validity of the plebiscite.
●​ The decision was based on the 1973 Philippine Constitution, as the
case was decided in 1976.
●​ The Court's ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to
constitutional processes while recognizing the unique
circumstances of the transition period.
constitutional authority, it was within the Court's
jurisdiction to decide.
2.​ Presidential Authority:
■​ The Court reasoned that during the transition period, the
interim National Assembly had not been convened, and
the President had been exercising legislative powers.
18
A09 Hidalgo v. Marcos, GR L-47329, 9 December 1977, En Banc, Castro
[CJ]
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, dismissing
the petition for mandamus and/or prohibition.
Facts:
2.​ The Court found that the President could not be compelled to
●​ The case Hidalgo v. Marcos y Edralin (G.R. No. L-47329) was
convene the "interim National Assembly" as it had been replaced
decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on December 9,
1977.
by the interim Batasang Pambansa.
3.​ The validity of the referendum called for by the 1976 amendments
●​ Petitioner Ernesto C. Hidalgo sought to compel President
Ferdinand Marcos y Edralin and the Commission on Elections
was upheld, with no constitutional issues identified.
4.​ The Court confirmed the President's continued exercise of powers
(COMELEC) to convene the "interim National Assembly."
●​ The dispute stemmed from the 1976 amendments to the
Philippine Constitution, which replaced the interim National
Assembly with the interim Batasang Pambansa.
●​ Hidalgo contended that the referendum for these amendments
was unconstitutional and that the President could not act against
the Constitution.
●​ The lower court dismissed Hidalgo's petition, prompting him to
appeal to the Supreme Court for review.
●​ The Supreme Court was tasked with evaluating the referendum's
validity and the amendments' impact on presidential powers and
the legislative body.
Issue:
following the establishment of the interim Batasang Pambansa.
Ratio:
●​ The Court's reasoning centered on the interpretation of the 1976
amendments, particularly Amendment No. 7, which allowed a
referendum to assess public opinion on significant matters.
●​ The interim National Assembly was effectively replaced by the
interim Batasang Pambansa, rendering Hidalgo's request moot.
●​ The Court concluded that the President's role as Prime Minister did
not breach the Constitution, as the amendments permitted this
arrangement.
●​ The petition was dismissed without further judicial examination,
as it did not present substantial questions.
●​ Dissenting opinions raised concerns about the merging of the
1.​ Can the President be compelled by mandamus to convene the
"interim National Assembly"?
2.​ Is the referendum called for by the 1976 amendments to the
roles of President and Prime Minister and potential constitutional
erosion, but the majority upheld the validity of the amendments
and the referendum process.
Constitution valid?
3.​ Does the incumbent President's dual role as Prime Minister violate
the Constitution's separation of powers?
19
A0A Dela Llana v. Commission on Elections, GR L-47245, 9 December
1977, En Banc, Castro [CJ]
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the
referendum question was political and non-justiciable, thus not
Facts:
subject to judicial intervention.
●​ The case is Gualberto J. Dela Llana v. The Commission on
2.​ The Court affirmed that the political branch of government has
Elections, et al., G.R. No. L-47245, decided on December 9, 1977.
the authority to determine when a referendum should be called,
●​ Petitioner Gualberto J. Dela Llana sought to prevent a referendum
taking into account various political, social, and economic factors.
scheduled for December 17, 1977.
3.​ The Court confirmed that the call for the referendum was explicitly
●​ The referendum aimed to gauge public support for President
Ferdinand E. Marcos to remain in office and transition to Prime
Minister following the establishment of the Interim Batasang
authorized by Amendment No. 7 of the Constitution.
Ratio:
●​ The Court's rationale emphasized that political decision-making
Pambansa, as outlined in Amendment No. 3 of the 1976
processes, such as the timing and necessity of a referendum, are
Amendments to the Constitution.
outside the judicial realm.
●​ Dela Llana contended that the referendum was unnecessary,
●​ It highlighted the judiciary's role in refraining from intervening in
asserting that the public had already demonstrated support for
political questions that involve government decision-making
President Marcos on multiple occasions.
wisdom.
●​ The Supreme Court reviewed the case after lower courts
●​ The Court noted that holding a referendum involves
dismissed it, citing that the decision to call a referendum was a
considerations typically beyond the courts' competence,
political question beyond judicial review.
including political climate and public sentiment.
●​ The Court considered the Solicitor General's comments and
arguments presented during a hearing on November 24, 1977.
Issue:
●​ The referendum was deemed explicitly permitted under
constitutional amendments, affirming its legality.
●​ The dismissal of the petition was immediately executory,
1.​ Is the question of President Ferdinand E. Marcos continuing in
office and assuming the role of Prime Minister justiciable?
underscoring the importance of allowing the political process to
proceed without judicial interference.
2.​ Does the December 17, 1977 referendum violate any constitutional
provisions?
3.​ Is the call for the referendum authorized under the constitutional
amendments?
20
A0B Occena v. Commission on Elections, GR L-56350, 2 April 1981, En
Banc, Fernando [CJ];
Ruling:
1.​ Yes, the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose
Facts:
amendments to the 1973 Constitution.
●​ The case "Occena v. Commission on Elections" involves two suits
2.​ No, the proposed amendments do not constitute a revision but
for prohibition.
●​ Petitioners Samuel C. Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales, along with
are within the scope of amendments.
3.​ Yes, the required majority vote was obtained for the proposed
others, filed against COMELEC, the Commission on Audit, the
National Treasurer, and the Director of Printing.
amendments.
4.​ Yes, the proposed amendments were properly submitted to the
●​ They challenged the validity of Batasang Pambansa Resolutions
Nos. 28, 104, and 106, proposing amendments to the 1973
Constitution.
●​ Petitions were filed on March 6 and March 12, 1981.
●​ Respondents were required to answer, and arguments were
heard on March 26, 1981.
●​ Petitioners, former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
people for ratification.
Ratio:
1.​ Validity of the 1973 Constitution:
●​ The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the 1973 Constitution is
the fundamental law, as established in Javellana v.
Executive Secretary.
●​ The Court emphasized that its rulings must be respected
claimed the 1973 Constitution was not the fundamental law.
and obeyed.
●​ The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the validity
2.​ Power to Propose Amendments:
of the proposed amendments and the power of the Interim
Batasang Pambansa to propose them.
Issue:
●​ The Court held that the Interim Batasang Pambansa has
the power to propose amendments, as explicitly stated in
the 1976 Amendments to the 1973 Constitution.
1.​ Does the Interim Batasang Pambansa have the power to propose
amendments to the 1973 Constitution?
2.​ Are the proposed amendments so extensive that they constitute a
revision rather than an amendment?
3.​ Was the required majority vote obtained for the proposed
amendments?
4.​ Were the proposed amendments properly submitted to the
people for ratification?
●​ Acting as a constituent body, it was authorized to propose
the amendments in question.
3.​ Extent of Amendments:
●​ The Court rejected the argument that the proposed
amendments were so extensive that they constituted a
revision.
●​ Citing Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections, the Court
stated that "amendment" includes "revision" or a total
21
overhaul, and changes are valid once ratified by the
sovereign people.
4.​ Majority Vote:
●​ The Court found that the required majority vote for the
proposed amendments was obtained.
●​ The resolutions were approved by significant majorities, far
●​ Transitional Nature: The Freedom Constitution was intended as a
provisional or transitional constitution to bridge the gap while a
new, permanent constitution was being drafted.
Salient Points of the Freedom Constitution:
●​ Restoration of Democracy and Human Rights: The primary goal
of the Freedom Constitution was to dismantle the authoritarian
exceeding the simple majority required when the Interim
structures of the Marcos regime and restore democratic
Batasang Pambansa acts as a constituent body.
principles and human rights.
5.​ Submission for Ratification:
●​ Abolition of Marcos-era Institutions: The Constitution abolished
●​ The Court determined that the proposed amendments
institutions associated with Marcos' rule, such as the Batasang
were properly submitted to the people for ratification.
Pambansa (unicameral parliament) and the office of the Prime
●​ The plebiscite date of April 7, 1981, was within the 90-day
period specified by the Constitution.
●​ The Court noted the extensive discussions in the Interim
Batasang Pambansa and mass media, ensuring the
people were well-informed.
Minister.
●​ Grant of Legislative Powers to the President: In the absence of a
legislature, the President was granted legislative powers until a
new Congress could be elected under a new constitution.
●​ Protection of Basic Rights: It affirmed the Bill of Rights and
emphasized the protection of civil liberties and human rights.
c. 1986 Freedom Constitution
History and Context
●​ People Power Revolution: In February 1986, the People Power
Revolution ousted the authoritarian regime of President Ferdinand
Marcos, who had ruled the Philippines under martial law since
1972. Corazon Aquino assumed the presidency following the
revolution.
●​ Need for a Transitional Constitution: The 1973 Constitution,
enacted under Marcos, was widely seen as a tool for his
authoritarian rule. Aquino, upon assuming power, abolished the
●​ Creation of the Constitutional Commission: It mandated the
creation of a Constitutional Commission to draft a new,
permanent constitution.
●​ Transitional Justice: It provided for mechanisms to address
human rights abuses committed during the Marcos regime.
Significance:
●​ Symbol of Freedom and Democracy: The Freedom Constitution
symbolized the restoration of democracy and the Filipino people's
aspiration for a just and equitable society.
●​ Foundation for a New Constitution: It laid the groundwork for the
1973 Constitution and promulgated the 1986 Freedom Constitution
drafting and ratification of the 1987 Constitution, which remains
through Proclamation No. 3 on March 25, 1986.
the fundamental law of the Philippines today.
22
●​ Bridge to a New Era: The Freedom Constitution served as a crucial
●​ Petitioners argued their terms should last six years as per Batas
bridge between the authoritarian past and the democratic future
Pambansa Blg. 222 and that the OIC Governor no longer had the
of the Philippines.
authority to replace them following the ratification of the 1987
Constitution.
Key Takeaways:
●​ Respondents contended that the Provisional Constitution allowed
●​ The Freedom Constitution was a product of a revolutionary
moment in Philippine history.
for such replacements within one year from February 25, 1986.
●​ The case was brought before the Supreme Court to determine the
●​ It played a vital role in dismantling the vestiges of
authoritarianism and paving the way for a new democratic order.
●​ Although short-lived, its impact on Philippine constitutionalism
validity of the replacements.
Issue:
1.​ Did the OIC Governor have the authority to replace the petitioners
and the protection of human rights is enduring.
as Barangay officials after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution?
2.​ Should the antedated memoranda issued by the OIC Governor be
A0C De Leon v. Esguerra, GR 78059, 31 August 1987, En Banc,
Melencio-Herrera [J]
considered valid?
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that the OIC Governor no longer had the
Facts:
authority to replace the petitioners after the ratification of the 1987
●​ Petitioners Alfredo M. De Leon, Angel S. Salamat, Mario C. Sta. Ana,
Jose C. Tolentino, Rogelio J. De La Rosa, and Jose M. Resurreccion
Constitution on February 2, 1987.
2.​ The antedated memoranda issued by the OIC Governor were
were elected as Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen of
Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal during the Barangay elections on
May 17, 1982.
●​ They sought to prevent respondents, including Hon. Benjamin B.
Esguerra (OIC Governor of Rizal) and Hon. Romeo C. De Leon (OIC
Mayor of Taytay, Rizal), from replacing them.
●​ On February 9, 1987, De Leon received a Memorandum antedated
December 1, 1986, signed by Esguerra on February 8, 1987,
declared null and void.
Ratio:
●​ The Supreme Court held that the 1987 Constitution took effect
immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in
the plebiscite held on February 2, 1987.
●​ This new Constitution superseded the Provisional Constitution,
which had allowed for the replacement of elective and appointive
officials within one year from February 25, 1986.
designating Florentino G. Magno as the new Barangay Captain.
●​ Since the 1987 Constitution was ratified before the one-year
●​ Similar memoranda were issued for the replacement of the other
period ended, the authority granted by the Provisional
petitioners.
Constitution to replace officials was no longer in effect.
23
●​ The Court emphasized that the term of office for Barangay
●​ EO 273 was issued by the President on July 25, 1987, and took
officials, as provided by the Barangay Election Act of 1982, should
be six years unless otherwise determined by law.
effect on January 1, 1988.
●​ Petitioners argued that EO 273 was unconstitutional, claiming the
●​ The Court also noted that the antedated memoranda were
President lacked authority to issue it and that the VAT was
ineffective as they were signed after the ratification of the 1987
oppressive, discriminatory, regressive, and violated the due
Constitution, which guaranteed the security of tenure for the
process and equal protection clauses of the 1987 Constitution.
petitioners.
●​ The Solicitor General countered that petitioners failed to justify the
●​ The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the new
exercise of judicial power, questioning their legal standing and the
constitutional provisions and ensuring the autonomy of local
governments as mandated by the 1987 Constitution.
existence of a justiciable controversy.
●​ Despite procedural objections, the Court decided to address the
petitions due to their public importance.
A0D Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas v. Tan,
GR 81311, 30 June 1988, En Banc, Padilla [J]
Issue:
1.​ Did the President have the authority to issue Executive Order No.
273 on July 25, 1987?
Facts:
2.​ Is the value-added tax (VAT) introduced by EO 273 oppressive,
●​ The case involves four consolidated petitions challenging the
discriminatory, regressive, and in violation of the due process and
constitutionality of Executive Order No. 273 (EO 273), which
introduced the value-added tax (VAT) in the Philippines.
●​ Petitioners: Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng
Pilipinas, Inc., Herminigildo C. Dumlao, Geronimo Q. Quadra, Mario
equal protection clauses of the 1987 Constitution?
3.​ Does EO 273 unduly discriminate against customs brokers?
Ruling:
1.​ Yes, the President had the authority to issue Executive Order No.
C. Villanueva (G.R. No. 81311); Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center
(KMU) and its officers and affiliated labor federations and
273 on July 25, 1987.
2.​ No, the value-added tax (VAT) introduced by EO 273 is not
alliances (G.R. No. 81820); Integrated Customs Brokers Association
oppressive, discriminatory, regressive, or in violation of the due
of the Philippines and Jesus B. Banal (G.R. No. 81921); Ricardo C.
process and equal protection clauses of the 1987 Constitution.
Valmonte (G.R. No. 82152).
●​ Respondents: Hon. Bienvenido Tan, Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Finance, the
3.​ No, EO 273 does not unduly discriminate against customs brokers.
Ratio:
●​ Authority to Issue EO 273:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the Secretary of Budget.
24
■​ The President was vested with legislative powers by the
Provisional Constitution and the 1987 Constitution until the
●​ Impact and Separation of Powers:
first Congress was convened.
■​ The petitioners' fears of skyrocketing prices and mass
■​ The first Congress convened on July 27, 1987, making the
protests due to the VAT were unfounded, as no such
issuance of EO 273 within the President's constitutional
events occurred in the five months since EO 273 took
power.
effect.
■​ The Court clarified that "convene" means to call together
■​ The Court emphasized the principle of separation of
or assemble, not merely the assumption of office by
powers, stating it could not substitute its judgment for that
individual members of Congress.
of the President regarding the wisdom and advisability of
●​ Constitutionality of VAT:
the VAT.
■​ EO 273 met the requirements of a valid tax, being uniform
■​ The Court's role was to ensure that EO 273 was enacted in
and equitable.
accordance with the Constitution and not issued in grave
■​ The VAT applied equally to all goods and services sold to
the public at a constant rate of 0% or 10%.
abuse of discretion.
●​ Conclusion:
■​ It exempted small businesses with gross annual sales
■​ The petitions were dismissed, and EO 273 was upheld as
below P200,000.00 and essential goods like farm and
constitutional.
marine products.
■​ Petitioners' claims of the VAT being oppressive,
discriminatory, and regressive were unsupported by
A0E Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila v. Court of Appeals, GR
125183, 29 September 1997, Third Division, Melo [J]
concrete evidence and relied on hearsay.
●​ Discrimination Against Customs Brokers:
■​ The phrase "except customs brokers" in Sec. 103(r) of the
Facts:
●​ On February 17, 1978, President Ferdinand Marcos issued
National Internal Revenue Code clarified that customs
Proclamation No. 1716, reserving certain parcels of public domain
brokers were subject to the VAT under Sec. 102,
land in San Juan, Metro Manila, for Municipal Government Center
distinguishing them from other professionals subject to
Site purposes.
occupation tax under the Local Tax Code.
■​ The classification was based on material differences, as
customs brokers' activities were more akin to a business
●​ The Municipality of San Juan faced the challenge of squatters
occupying the reserved land and purchased an 18-hectare land
in Taytay, Rizal, to resettle these squatters.
than a profession.
25
●​ After resettling hundreds of squatter families, the municipality
began developing the government center by constructing several
Issue:
1.​ Does the principle of res judicata apply to the case, preventing
buildings, including the INP Building, Fire Station Headquarters,
Central Post Office Building, and Municipal High School Annex
the re-litigation of the same issues?
2.​ Was Proclamation No. 164 a valid exercise of legislative power by
Building.
●​ On October 6, 1987, after Congress convened on July 26, 1987,
then President Corazon Aquino?
Ruling:
former President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 164,
1.​ Yes, the principle of res judicata applies to the case.
amending Proclamation No. 1716. This new proclamation excluded
2.​ No, Proclamation No. 164 was not a valid exercise of legislative
parcels of land not utilized for government center purposes but
occupied for residential purposes and declared them open to
disposition under the Public Land Act.
●​ The Corazon de Jesus Homeowners Association, Inc., filed a
power and is declared null and void.
Ratio:
●​ The Supreme Court found that the principle of res judicata
applied because the previous judgment was final, the court had
petition for prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig,
jurisdiction, it was a judgment on the merits, and there was
Metro Manila, on June 1, 1988, to prevent the demolition of their
substantial identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
houses, claiming that Proclamation No. 164 awarded them the lots
they occupied.
●​ The RTC dismissed the petition on September 14, 1990, ruling that
the property was being used for government purposes.
●​ The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this decision on July 17, 1991,
which became final on April 8, 1992.
●​ Despite the final judgment, the homeowners association
submitted consolidation-subdivision plans to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for a grant under
Proclamation No. 164.
●​ To prevent the DENR from issuing any grants, the Municipality of
San Juan filed another petition for prohibition.
●​ The RTC ruled in favor of the municipality, but the CA reversed this
decision.
●​ The municipality then brought the case to the Supreme Court.
●​ The addition of the DENR as a party in the second case did not
affect the application of res judicata. The Court emphasized that
only substantial identity of parties is required, not absolute
identity.
●​ The Court held that Proclamation No. 164 was an invalid exercise
of legislative power. President Corazon Aquino issued
Proclamation No. 164 on October 6, 1987, after Congress had
convened on July 26, 1987.
●​ Under the 1987 Constitution, legislative power resided solely in
Congress once it was convened. Therefore, President Aquino no
longer had the authority to amend Proclamation No. 1716, which
was a valid legislative act by President Marcos under Amendment
No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution.
●​ The Court underscored that the presumption of validity of statutes
does not apply in cases of clear usurpation of legislative power by
26
the executive branch. Allowing such an act would violate the
principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
●​ Consequently, the Supreme Court declared Proclamation No. 164
null and void and permanently enjoined the DENR from enforcing
it.
d. 1987 Constitution. See also Section 27, Article XVIII, 1987 Constitution.
Section 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its
ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the
purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.
2. Historical/Non-bearing
●​ Short-Lived: The constitution was in effect for only a brief period.
The Philippine-American War erupted in February 1899, leading to
the eventual defeat of the First Philippine Republic.
Salient Features
●​ Popular Sovereignty: Declared that sovereignty resides in the
people, and all government authority emanates from them.
●​ Separation of Powers: Established three distinct branches of
government: executive, legislative, and judiciary, with checks and
balances.
●​ Unicameral Legislature: Provided for a unicameral legislature
called the Assembly of Representatives, elected by popular vote.
●​ Bill of Rights: Guaranteed fundamental freedoms such as speech,
a. 1898 Malolos Constitution
b. 1943 Philippine Constitution (under the Japanese)
a. 1898 Malolos Constitution
History
●​ Context: The Malolos Constitution was crafted in the midst of the
Philippine Revolution against Spanish colonial rule. After the
religion, and assembly.
●​ Presidential System: The President, elected by the Assembly,
served as both head of state and government.
b. 1943 Philippine Constitution (under the Japanese)
History
●​ Context: During World War II, Japan occupied the Philippines. To
Spanish defeat in the Battle of Manila Bay in 1898, Filipino
gain Filipino support, Japan established a puppet government
revolutionaries, led by Emilio Aguinaldo, declared independence
and oversaw the drafting of a new constitution.
and established the First Philippine Republic.
●​ Drafting and Ratification: The 1943 Constitution was drafted by
●​ Drafting and Ratification: A constitutional convention was held in
the Preparatory Commission for Philippine Independence (PCPI),
Malolos, Bulacan, to draft a constitution for the nascent republic.
a body appointed by the Japanese authorities. It was ratified in a
Primarily authored by Felipe Calderon, the Malolos Constitution
heavily controlled process and went into effect in 1943.
was adopted on November 29, 1898, and promulgated on January
21, 1899.
●​ Short-Lived: This constitution remained in force only until the
liberation of the Philippines from Japanese occupation in 1945.
27
Salient Features
●​ Authoritarian Leanings: Reflected strong Japanese influence and
Historical Context
emphasized central authority and executive power.
●​ Unicameral Legislature: Provided for a unicameral National
Assembly with limited powers.
●​ Limited Bill of Rights: Contained a Bill of Rights, but with
significant restrictions on certain freedoms, particularly those
related to political expression and assembly.
●​ Strong Executive: Vested significant powers in the President,
including the authority to issue decrees and dissolve the National
Assembly.
1898 Malolos
1943 Philippine
Constitution
Constitution
Popular Sovereignty
people, but with
significant Japanese
control in practice
Structure of
Separation of powers;
Government
Presidential system
Legislature
Bill of Rights
for independence from
occupation during World
Spain
War II
Overall Assessment
●​ The Malolos Constitution, despite its short lifespan, represents a
significant milestone in Philippine constitutional history, reflecting
the Filipinos' aspirations for self-governance and democracy.
●​ The 1943 Constitution, on the other hand, was a product of
Japanese occupation and reflected the authoritarian nature of
that regime. While it maintained some semblance of
control.
Vested in the Filipino
Sovereignty
Drafted under Japanese
constitutionalism, it ultimately served to legitimize Japanese
Key similarities and differences:
Feature
Born out of the struggle
III. INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
A. Verba legis, Ratio legis, Ut magis valeam quam pereat
A. Verba Legis
●​ Meaning: "The letter of the law."
●​ Explanation: This maxim emphasizes the importance of adhering
to the literal or plain meaning of the words used in a law or legal
Separation of powers in
document. When interpreting a statute, the first step is to examine
theory, but with a strong
the clear and ordinary meaning of its text.
executive in practice
B. Ratio Legis
Unicameral Assembly of Unicameral National
●​ Meaning: "The reason of the law" or "The spirit of the law."
Representatives
●​ Explanation: This maxim highlights the importance of
Guaranteed
fundamental freedoms
Assembly
Contained a Bill of
Rights, but with
significant restrictions
understanding the underlying purpose or intent behind a law.
When the literal interpretation leads to absurd or unjust results,
courts may look beyond the strict wording to ascertain the
28
legislative intent and apply the law in a manner that fulfills its
unless there is a clear and unequivocal violation of the
purpose.
Constitution.
C. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat
●​ Meaning: "It is better for a thing to have effect than to be made
void" or "That it may rather have effect than be destroyed."
A0F Francisco v. House of Representatives, GR 160261, 10 November
2003, En Banc, Carpio Morales [J]
●​ Explanation: This maxim reflects a presumption in favor of the
validity and effectiveness of laws and legal acts. When
interpreting a law or contract, courts should strive to give it a
Facts:
●​ Multiple petitions challenged the constitutionality of a second
meaningful interpretation that upholds its validity, rather than
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
rendering it ineffective or meaningless.
Jr.
●​ The first impeachment complaint, filed on June 2, 2003, by former
In the Philippine Context: These maxims are frequently invoked by
President Joseph Estrada, accused Chief Justice Davide of
Philippine courts in interpreting and applying laws.
culpable violation of the Constitution and other high crimes.
●​ This initial complaint was dismissed by the House Committee on
●​ Verba Legis: Philippine jurisprudence generally adheres to the
principle that the first step in statutory construction is to examine
Justice on October 22, 2003, for being insufficient in substance.
●​ On October 23, 2003, Representatives Gilberto Teodoro, Jr. and
the plain meaning of the law's text. However, courts also recognize
Felix William Fuentebella filed a second impeachment complaint,
that a strict adherence to the letter of the law may sometimes
endorsed by more than one-third of the House members, alleging
lead to absurd or unjust outcomes.
misuse of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
●​ Ratio Legis: When the literal interpretation of a law results in
●​ Petitioners, including members of the House, lawyers, and civic
absurdity, injustice, or defeats the legislative intent, Philippine
organizations, contended that the second complaint violated
courts resort to the ratio legis principle. They seek to understand
Section 3(5), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits
the underlying purpose and intent behind the law and apply it in a
initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official
manner that promotes justice and fairness.
more than once within a year.
●​ Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat: The Philippine legal system reflects
●​ Respondents, including the House of Representatives and the
a strong presumption in favor of the constitutionality and validity
Senate, argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over
of laws. Courts strive to interpret laws in a way that upholds their
the matter, claiming it involved a political question.
effectiveness and avoids declaring them void or unconstitutional
Issue:
29
1.​ Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the petitions
●​ The Court recognized the standing of the petitioners due to
challenging the second impeachment complaint against Chief
the significant public interest involved and the potential
Justice Davide?
misuse of public funds.
2.​ Do the petitioners have the legal standing (locus standi) to file the
petitions?
3.​ Is the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice
Davide unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar on initiating
impeachment proceedings against the same official?
Ruling:
●​ The Chief Justice himself could not file the petition due to
ethical considerations, thus justifying the standing of the
petitioners.
3.​ Constitutionality of the Second Impeachment Complaint:
●​ The term "initiate" in Section 3(5), Article XI of the 1987
Constitution refers to the filing of the impeachment
●​ The Supreme Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the petitions,
as the issues raised involve the interpretation of constitutional
provisions, which is within the Court's mandate.
●​ The Court found that the petitioners have legal standing to file the
petitions, given the transcendental importance of the issues and
the potential misuse of public funds.
●​ The Court declared Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Rules
on Impeachment Proceedings unconstitutional. Consequently, the
second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide
complaint and its referral to the House Committee on
Justice.
●​ The first impeachment complaint filed on June 2, 2003,
had already initiated impeachment proceedings against
Chief Justice Davide.
●​ Therefore, the second impeachment complaint filed on
October 23, 2003, violated the one-year bar on initiating
impeachment proceedings against the same official.
●​ Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Rules on
was deemed unconstitutional and time-barred under Section
Impeachment Proceedings were declared unconstitutional
3(5), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
for contravening the clear intent of the Constitution.
Ratio:
1.​ Jurisdiction:
●​ The Court has a duty under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution to settle actual controversies involving rights
that are legally demandable and enforceable.
●​ The issues raised are justiciable and not merely political
B. Verba legis non est recedendum; Casus omissus
●​ Meaning: "From the words of the law, there must be no departure."
●​ Explanation: This maxim underscores the principle of strict
adherence to the literal or plain meaning of the words used in a
statute. It emphasizes that courts should not deviate from the
questions, as they involve the interpretation of
clear and unambiguous language of the law, even if it leads to
constitutional provisions.
seemingly harsh or unintended consequences.
2.​ Locus Standi:
30
Philippine Context
○​ Legislative Intent: Courts may consider the legislative
●​ Plain Meaning Rule: The Philippine legal system generally follows
intent and purpose behind the law to determine how it
the "plain meaning rule" in statutory interpretation. This means
should be applied to an unaddressed situation, as long as
that when the language of a law is clear and unambiguous,
this interpretation is consistent with the overall spirit and
courts must apply it according to its literal meaning, without
objectives of the legislation.
resorting to external aids or interpretations.
●​ Legislative Supremacy: The maxim reflects the principle of
Conclusion
The maxims Verba legis non est recedendum and Casus omissus
legislative supremacy, which recognizes that it is the legislature's
represent important principles in Philippine legal interpretation. While the
role to enact laws, and the judiciary's role to interpret and apply
former emphasizes adherence to the plain meaning of the law, the latter
them faithfully.
acknowledges that there may be situations not explicitly covered by the
law, requiring careful judicial consideration.
Casus omissus
●​ Meaning: "An omitted case" or "A case not provided for by the
law."
The Philippine judiciary strives to strike a balance between respecting the
letter of the law and ensuring that its application leads to just and
●​ Explanation: This maxim refers to a situation where a particular
matter or scenario is not explicitly addressed or covered by a
reasonable outcomes, even in the face of legislative omissions or
ambiguities.
statute or legal provision.
A10 Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, GR 202242, 17 July 2012, En Banc,
Philippine Context
●​ Judicial Restraint: Philippine courts generally exercise judicial
restraint when confronted with a casus omissus. They are hesitant
Mendoza [J],
Facts:
●​ The case involves petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, a former Solicitor
to fill in gaps in the law, as this is considered the legislature's
General, and respondents Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero
prerogative.
and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr.
●​ Exceptions: However, there are instances where courts may step
in to address a casus omissus:
○​ Absurd or Unjust Results: If a strict application of the law
would lead to absurd, unjust, or unintended consequences,
courts may interpret the law in a way that avoids such
●​ The controversy arose after the departure of former Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona on May 29, 2012, and Chavez's subsequent
nomination as a potential successor.
●​ Chavez filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the
current composition of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
outcomes, even if it means going beyond the literal text.
31
●​ He challenged whether Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987
●​ The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 8,
Constitution allows more than one member of Congress to sit in
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which states that the JBC
the JBC.
should include "a representative of the Congress."
●​ Chavez also questioned the practice of having two
representatives from each House of Congress with one vote each.
●​ On July 17, 2012, the Supreme Court declared the current
●​ The use of the singular "a" indicates that only one representative
from Congress is allowed.
●​ The Court emphasized that the Framers of the Constitution
numerical composition of the JBC unconstitutional and ordered it
deliberately chose this language to ensure that Congress would
to reconstitute itself to include only one member of Congress.
have only one seat in the JBC.
●​ The decision was immediately executory, but respondents filed a
●​ The Court rejected the argument that the Framers' failure to
motion for reconsideration, leading to oral arguments and the
adjust the provision to reflect the shift to a bicameral legislature
suspension of the immediate executory effect.
was an oversight.
●​ The case was ultimately decided on April 16, 2013, with Justice
Mendoza as the ponente.
Issue:
●​ The Court noted that other constitutional provisions were
adjusted to recognize the bicameral nature of Congress, but
Section 8, Article VIII was not, indicating a deliberate choice.
1.​ Does Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution allow more than
one member of Congress to sit in the JBC?
2.​ Is the practice of having two representatives from each House of
Congress with one vote each sanctioned by the Constitution?
Ruling:
●​ Allowing two representatives from Congress would disrupt the
balance intended by the Framers and could lead to voting
deadlocks.
●​ The decision highlighted the principle of checks and balances,
stating that the JBC was designed to insulate the judiciary from
1.​ The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
the respondents.
2.​ The Court upheld its previous decision that the current numerical
composition of the JBC is unconstitutional.
political pressure and partisan activities.
●​ The Court concluded that the current practice of having two
representatives from Congress with one vote each is a
constitutional circumvention that cannot be countenanced.
3.​ The Court reiterated that only one member of Congress should sit
as a representative in the JBC.
4.​ The suspension of the immediate executory effect of the July 17,
2012 decision was lifted.
Ratio:
32
also Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, GR 202242, 16 April 2013, En
2.​ Is the practice of having two representatives from each House of
Banc Resolution, Mendoza [J]
Congress with one vote each sanctioned by the Constitution?
Ruling:
Facts:
●​ The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
●​ The case involves petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, a former Solicitor
General, and respondents Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero
the respondents.
●​ The Court upheld its previous decision that the current numerical
and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr.
●​ The controversy arose after the departure of former Chief Justice
composition of the JBC is unconstitutional.
●​ The Court reiterated that only one member of Congress should sit
Renato C. Corona on May 29, 2012, and Chavez's subsequent
nomination as a potential successor.
as a representative in the JBC.
●​ The suspension of the immediate executory effect of the July 17,
●​ Chavez filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the
current composition of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
●​ He challenged whether Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987
2012 decision was lifted.
Ratio:
●​ The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 8,
Constitution allows more than one member of Congress to sit in
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which states that the JBC
the JBC.
should include "a representative of the Congress."
●​ Chavez also questioned the practice of having two
representatives from each House of Congress with one vote each.
●​ On July 17, 2012, the Supreme Court declared the current
●​ The use of the singular "a" indicates that only one representative
from Congress is allowed.
●​ The Court emphasized that the Framers of the Constitution
numerical composition of the JBC unconstitutional and ordered it
deliberately chose this language to ensure that Congress would
to reconstitute itself to include only one member of Congress.
have only one seat in the JBC.
●​ The decision was immediately executory, but respondents filed a
●​ The Court rejected the argument that the Framers' failure to
motion for reconsideration, leading to oral arguments and the
adjust the provision to reflect the shift to a bicameral legislature
suspension of the immediate executory effect.
was an oversight.
●​ The case was ultimately decided on April 16, 2013, with Justice
Mendoza as the ponente.
Issue:
●​ The Court noted that other constitutional provisions were
adjusted to recognize the bicameral nature of Congress, but
Section 8, Article VIII was not, indicating a deliberate choice.
1.​ Does Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution allow more than
one member of Congress to sit in the JBC?
●​ Allowing two representatives from Congress would disrupt the
balance intended by the Framers and could lead to voting
deadlocks.
33
●​ The decision highlighted the principle of checks and balances,
1.​ Do the plaintiffs have a cause of action to prevent the
stating that the JBC was designed to insulate the judiciary from
political pressure and partisan activities.
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?
2.​ Is the issue raised by the plaintiffs a political question that should
●​ The Court concluded that the current practice of having two
be addressed by the legislative or executive branches of
representatives from Congress with one vote each is a
constitutional circumvention that cannot be countenanced.
government?
3.​ Does the granting of the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs result in
the impairment of contracts, which is prohibited by the
IV. SELF-EXECUTING AND NON-SELF EXECUTING PROVISIONS
Constitution?
Ruling:
A11 Oposa v. Factoran, GR 101083, 30 July 1993, En Banc, Davide Jr. [J]
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs do have a cause of
Facts:
action to prevent the misappropriation or impairment of
●​ In "Oposa v. Factoran Jr.," a group of minors, represented by their
parents and the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), filed a
Philippine rainforests.
2.​ The Court held that the issue raised by the plaintiffs is not a
complaint against the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Fulgencio S. Factoran,
political question and is within the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
3.​ The Court found that the granting of the reliefs prayed for by the
Jr.
●​ The case, Civil Case No. 90-777, was filed before Branch 66 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Makati, Metro Manila.
●​ The plaintiffs argued that the continued granting of timber license
agreements (TLAs) by the DENR was leading to the
misappropriation and impairment of the Philippines' rainforests,
causing severe environmental damage.
●​ They requested the cancellation of all existing TLAs and a halt to
the issuance of new ones.
●​ The RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs had no cause
of action and that the issue was a political question.
●​ The plaintiffs then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the
Supreme Court, challenging the RTC's dismissal.
Issue:
plaintiffs does not result in the impairment of contracts.
Ratio:
●​ The Supreme Court recognized the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology as a fundamental legal right, explicitly provided
for in Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
●​ This right is linked to the right to health and is essential for
self-preservation and self-perpetuation.
●​ The Court emphasized that this right carries with it the duty to
refrain from impairing the environment.
●​ The Court noted that the DENR has a mandate to protect and
advance this right, as outlined in Executive Order No. 192 and the
Administrative Code of 1987.
●​ The Court rejected the argument that the issue was a political
question, stating that the judiciary has the duty to settle actual
34
controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable
●​ c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted,
rights.
●​ The Court clarified that timber licenses are not contracts
approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be;
●​ c.2. the proposition;
protected by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution, as
●​ c.3. the reason or reasons therefor;
they are merely privileges that can be revoked in the interest of
●​ c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;
public welfare.
●​ c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
●​ The Court concluded that the plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently
●​ c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred (100)
alleged a cause of action and that the case should proceed to
words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every
trial, with the timber license holders being impleaded as
page of the petition.
indispensable parties.
A12 Defensor-Santiago v. Commission on Elections, GR 127325, 19 March
V. AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
1997, En Banc, Davide Jr. [J]
1. Modes. Sections 1 and 3, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution
Facts:
2. People's Initiative. Section 2, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution
●​ The case "Defensor Santiago v. Commission on Elections" (G.R. No.
a. Law. See also Section 5 (b) and (c), RA 6735 (1989)
127325) was decided on March 19, 1997, by the Supreme Court of
Section 5. Requirements. —
the Philippines.
●​ (a) To exercise the power of initiative or referendum, at least ten
per centum (10%) of the total number of the registered voters, of
which every legislative district is represented by at least three per
●​ Petitioners: Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla,
and Maria Isabel Ongpin.
●​ Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Jesus Delfin,
centum (3%) of the registered voters thereof, shall sign a petition
Alberto Pedrosa, and Carmen Pedrosa (founding members of the
for the purpose and register the same with the Commission.
People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization, and Action - PIRMA).
●​ (b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have
●​ Delfin filed a petition with the COMELEC on December 6, 1996, to
at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered
amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution to lift term limits for
voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be
elective officials through a people's initiative.
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered
●​ Delfin requested the COMELEC to set dates for signature
voters therein. Initiative on the Constitution may be exercised only
gathering, publish the petition, and instruct municipal election
after five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution
registrars to assist.
and only once every five (5) years thereafter.
●​ COMELEC issued an order for publication and set a hearing date.
(c) The petition shall state the following:
35
●​ Petitioners argued there was no enabling law for such an initiative
5.​ The Supreme Court found it proper to take cognizance of the
and that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction.
petition despite the pending case before the COMELEC due to the
●​ The case was brought to the Supreme Court to resolve these
transcendental importance of the issues raised.
issues.
Issue:
1.​ Whether R.A. No. 6735 was intended to include or cover initiatives
on amendments to the Constitution.
2.​ Whether the COMELEC's Resolution No. 2300 regarding the
conduct of initiatives on amendments to the Constitution is valid.
3.​ Whether the proposal to lift term limits of elective officials
constitutes a revision or an amendment to the Constitution.
4.​ Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of a petition solely
intended to obtain an order for signature gathering and
publication.
5.​ Whether it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of
the petition when there is a pending case before the COMELEC.
Ruling:
Ratio:
1.​ R.A. No. 6735 and Initiative on Constitutional Amendments:
●​ The Court acknowledged that R.A. No. 6735 was intended
to cover initiatives on constitutional amendments.
●​ Found the law inadequate due to lack of specific
provisions and details necessary for implementing such
initiatives.
●​ The law did not provide a clear framework for the contents
of a petition, the process of gathering signatures, or the
role of the COMELEC in verifying and certifying the
sufficiency of the petition.
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that R.A. No. 6735 was intended to
include initiatives on amendments to the Constitution but found it
inadequate to cover such initiatives.
2.​ The Court declared that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, insofar as it
prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiatives on
amendments to the Constitution, is void.
3.​ The Court did not find it necessary to resolve whether the
proposal to lift term limits constitutes a revision or an amendment
to the Constitution.
4.​ The Court ruled that the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.
2.​ COMELEC Resolution No. 2300:
●​ The Court held that the COMELEC's Resolution No. 2300,
which provided rules for conducting initiatives on
constitutional amendments, was void.
●​ The COMELEC lacked the authority to promulgate such
rules because R.A. No. 6735 did not provide sufficient
standards for subordinate legislation.
●​ The delegation of legislative power to the COMELEC was
invalid as the law was incomplete and did not meet the
requirements for valid delegation.
3.​ Jurisdiction and Grave Abuse of Discretion:
36
●​ The Court found that the COMELEC acted without
●​ Petitioners claimed their initiative had the support of at least 12%
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented
entertaining the Delfin Petition.
by at least 3% of its registered voters.
●​ The petition did not contain the required number of
●​ COMELEC denied due course to the petition on August 31, 2006,
signatures, and the COMELEC should not have taken
citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC (1997),
cognizance of it.
which declared there was no sufficient law to implement the
●​ The COMELEC's actions, including ordering the publication
and setting a hearing date, were beyond its authority
initiative clause for amending the Constitution.
●​ Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that
given the petition's deficiencies.
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their
4.​ Supreme Court's Cognizance of the Petition:
●​ The Court justified its decision to take cognizance of the
petition despite the pending case before the COMELEC due
petition.
Issue:
1.​ Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with
to the transcendental importance of the issues involved.
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the
●​ Emphasized the need to settle the matter promptly and
Constitution through a people's initiative.
definitively, given its significant implications for the
2.​ Whether the Supreme Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago v.
constitutional process and the exercise of people's
COMELEC declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate or wanting
initiative
in essential terms and conditions" to implement the initiative
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
b. Amendment v. Revision, Tests; Proposal;
3.​ Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying due course to the Lambino Group's petition.
A13 Lambino v. Commission on Elections, GR 174153, 25 October 2006, En
Ruling:
Banc, Carpio [J] 3. Plebiscite. Section 4, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution
1.​ The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Facts:
2.​ The Court ruled that the Lambino Group's initiative petition did not
●​ Petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado, along with
6,327,952 registered voters, filed a petition with the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) on August 25, 2006.
●​ The petition sought to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution to
shift from a bicameral-presidential system to a
comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for
conducting a people's initiative.
3.​ The Court found no need to revisit the Santiago ruling, as the
present petition warranted dismissal based on the Lambino
Group's failure to comply with constitutional requirements.
unicameral-parliamentary system.
37
4.​ The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
following the Court's ruling in Santiago.
Ratio:
a. Treaty of Paris of 10 December 1898, 2 Washington Treaty of 7
November 1900, 3 and The Convention Between the United States and
●​ The Lambino Group's initiative petition did not comply with
Great Britain of 2 January 1930.
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution, which requires
b. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 10
amendments to be directly proposed by the people through an
December 1982):
initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of
(1) Introduction
registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at
UNCLOS is a comprehensive treaty that defines the rights and
least 3% of the registered voters therein.
responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing
●​ The full text of the proposed amendments must be shown to the
people before they sign the petition.
●​ The Lambino Group failed to attach the full text of the proposed
guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of
marine natural resources.
(2) Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone
amendments to the signature sheets, and the signature sheets
●​ Territorial Sea: Coastal states have sovereignty over their
did not indicate that the text was attached. This omission was
territorial sea extending up to 12 nautical miles from their
deemed fatal to the initiative.
baselines. This includes the airspace above and the seabed and
●​ A people's initiative can only propose amendments, not revisions,
to the Constitution. The proposed changes by the Lambino Group,
subsoil below.
●​ Contiguous Zone: States can exercise control over a contiguous
which included shifting from a bicameral-presidential to a
zone extending up to 24 nautical miles from their baselines to
unicameral-parliamentary system, constituted a revision rather
prevent or punish infringements of their customs, fiscal,
than an amendment.
immigration, or sanitary laws within their territory or territorial sea.
●​ The COMELEC's reliance on the Santiago ruling was appropriate
and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
(3) Straits Used for International Navigation
UNCLOS guarantees the right of transit passage through straits used for
international navigation, ensuring unimpeded passage for ships and
STATE
I.​
ELEMENTS
A. Territory
aircraft between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone
(EEZ) and another.
(4) Archipelagic States
Archipelagic states, like the Philippines, can draw straight baselines
1. Article I, 1987 Constitution
connecting the outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to
38
certain conditions. The waters enclosed within these baselines are
rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their
considered archipelagic waters, over which the state has sovereignty.
own, which only generate a territorial sea.
(5) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
(9) Enclosed or Semi-Enclosed Seas
Coastal states have sovereign rights over the exploration, exploitation,
States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas are encouraged to
conservation, and management of natural resources in their EEZ,
cooperate on the management of marine resources, environmental
extending up to 200 nautical miles from their baselines. They also have
protection, and marine scientific research.
jurisdiction over marine scientific research and the protection and
preservation of the marine environment within their EEZ.
(10) Right of Access of Land-Locked States to and from the Sea and
Freedom of Transit
(6) Continental Shelf
Land-locked states have the right of access to and from the sea for the
The continental shelf comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine
purpose of exercising the rights provided for in the Convention, including
areas extending beyond the territorial sea throughout the natural
those relating to the freedom of the high seas and the common heritage
prolongation of the land territory to the outer edge of the continental
of mankind. Transit states are obligated to facilitate this access and
margin or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines where
transit.
the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that
distance. Coastal states have sovereign rights for exploring and
(11) The Area
exploiting the natural resources of their continental shelf.
The Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind. No
state can claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part
(7) High Seas
of the Area or its resources. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is
The high seas are open to all states and are beyond the jurisdiction of
responsible for organizing and controlling activities in the Area,
any state. Freedoms of the high seas include navigation, overflight, laying
particularly relating to mineral resource exploration and exploitation.
submarine cables and pipelines, constructing artificial islands, fishing,
and scientific research.
(12) Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment
States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine
(8) Regime of Islands
environment and take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce, and
An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which
control pollution of the marine environment from any source.
is above water at high tide. Islands generate their own maritime zones
(territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and continental shelf), except for
39
(13) Marine Scientific Research
determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the
Marine scientific research in the EEZ and on the continental shelf is
Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations
subject to the consent of the coastal state, but such consent shall not
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
normally be withheld. Marine scientific research in the Area is conducted
○​ a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under
for the benefit of mankind as a whole, under the auspices of the ISA.
Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
○​ b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
(14) Development and Transfer of Marine Technology
●​ Section 3. This Act affirms that the Republic of the Philippines has
States shall promote the development and transfer of marine
dominion, sovereignty and jurisdiction over all portions of the
technology, taking into account the needs and interests of developing
national territory as defined in the Constitution and by provisions
states.
of applicable laws including, without limitation, Republic Act No.
7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, as
(15) Settlement of Disputes
States are encouraged to settle their disputes concerning the
amended.
●​ Section 4. This Act, together with the geographic coordinates and
interpretation or application of the Convention peacefully through
the chart and maps indicating the aforesaid baselines, shall be
negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial settlement. The
deposited and registered with the Secretary General of the United
Convention establishes the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Nations.
(ITLOS) as one of the dispute settlement mechanisms.
●​ Section 5. The National Mapping and Resource Information
Authority (NAMRIA) shall forthwith produce and publish charts
(16) General Provisions
and maps of the appropriate scale clearly representing the
This part covers various general provisions, including the signature,
delineation of basepoints and baselines as set forth in this Act.
ratification, accession, and entry into force of the Convention, as well as
its amendment and revision procedures.
●​ Section 6. The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act shall be provided in a supplemental budyet or included in
the General Appropriations Act of the year of its enactment into
2. Local laws and issuances in relation to territory
law.
●​ Section 7. If any portion or provision of this Act is declared
a. Baselines. RA 9522. See also RA 3046, and RA 5446.
unconstitutional or invalid the other portions or provisions hereof
RA 9522
which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force
●​ Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the
and effect.
Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be
40
●​ Section 8. The provisions of Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by
2.​ Are the writs of certiorari and prohibition proper remedies to
Republic Act No. 5446, and all other laws, decrees, executive
orders, rules and issuances inconsistent with this Act are hereby
amended or modified accordingly.
assail the constitutionality of RA 9522?
3.​ Is RA 9522 unconstitutional?
Ruling:
1.​ The petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as citizens.
B00 Magallona v. Ermita, GR 187167, 16 August 2011, En Banc, Carpio [J]
2.​ The writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test
Facts:
the constitutionality of RA 9522.
●​ The case "Magallona v. Ermita" involves petitioners including Prof.
Merlin M. Magallona, Akbayan Party-List Rep. Risa Hontiveros, Prof.
Harry C. Roque, Jr., and several University of the Philippines
College of Law students.
●​ They challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522 (RA
9522).
●​ Respondents include Hon. Eduardo Ermita, Executive Secretary,
Hon. Alberto Romulo, Secretary of the Department of Foreign
Affairs, Hon. Rolando Andaya, Secretary of the Department of
3.​ RA 9522 is not unconstitutional.
Ratio:
●​ The Supreme Court held that the petitioners have locus standi as
citizens with a constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution
of the case, which raises issues of national significance.
●​ The Court found that the writs of certiorari and prohibition are
appropriate remedies to challenge the constitutionality of
statutes.
●​ On the merits, the Court ruled that RA 9522 is a statutory tool to
Budget and Management, Hon. Diony Ventura, Administrator of
demarcate the country's maritime zones and continental shelf
the National Mapping & Resource Information Authority, and Hon.
under UNCLOS III, not to delineate Philippine territory.
Hilario Davide, Jr., Representative of the Permanent Mission of the
Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations.
●​ Petitioners argued that RA 9522, which adjusted the archipelagic
baselines of the Philippines in accordance with the United Nations
●​ The Court emphasized that UNCLOS III regulates sea-use rights
over maritime zones and does not affect the acquisition or loss of
territory.
●​ Baselines laws, such as RA 9522, are mechanisms for States to
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), resulted in the loss
delimit their maritime zones and continental shelves in
of Philippine maritime territory and violated constitutional
compliance with UNCLOS III.
provisions.
●​ The case was decided by the Supreme Court on August 16, 2011,
with Justice Carpio as the ponente.
Issue:
●​ The Court noted that RA 9522's classification of the Kalayaan
Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal as "regimes of
islands" is consistent with the Philippines' claim of sovereignty
over these areas and does not result in territorial loss.
1.​ Do the petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit?
41
●​ Additionally, the Court found that RA 9522 does not undermine the
occupation and control established in accordance with the
country's security, environment, or economic interests, nor does it
international law, such areas must now deemed to belong and
relinquish the Philippines' claim over Sabah.
subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines;
●​ The Court concluded that RA 9522 is consistent with the 1987
●​ WHEREAS, while other states have laid claims to some of these
Constitution and the Philippines' obligations under international
areas, their claims have lapsed by abandonment and can not
law.
prevail over that of the Philippines on legal, historical, and
equitable grounds.
b. Kalayaan Island Group. See also PD 1596
●​ NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the
DECLARING CERTAIN AREA PART OF THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY AND
Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me vested by the
PROVIDING FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
Constitution, do hereby decree as follows:
●​ Sec. 1. The area within the following boundaries:
WHEREAS, by reason of their proximity the cluster of islands and islets in
the South China Sea situated within the following
●​ KALAYAAN ISLAND GROUP
●​ KALAYAAN ISLAND GROUP
■​ From a point [on the Philippine Treaty Limits] at latitude
7§40' North and longitude 116§00' East of Greenwich, thence
From a point [on the Philippine Treaty Limits] at latitude 7§40' North and
due West along the parallel of 7§40' N to its intersection
longitude 116§00 East of Greenwich, thence due West along the parallel of
with the meridian of longitude 112§10' E, thence due north
7§40' N to its intersection with the meridian of longitude 112§10' E, thence
along the meridian of 112§10' E to its intersection with the
due north along the meridian of 112§10' E to its intersection with the
parallel of 9§00' N, thence northeastward to the
parallel of 9§00' N, thence northeastward to the intersection of parallel of
intersection of parallel of 12§00' N with the meridian of
12§00' N with the meridian of longitude 114§30' E, thence, due East along
longitude 114§30' E, thence, due East along the parallel of
the parallel of 12§00' N to its intersection with the meridian of 118§00' E,
12§00' N to its intersection with the meridian of 118§00' E,
thence, due South along the meridian of longitude 118§00' E to its
thence, due South along the meridian of longitude 118§00' E
intersection with the parallel of 10§00' N, thence Southwestwards to the
to its intersection with the parallel of 10§00' N, thence
point of beginning at 7§40' N, latitude and 116§00' E longitude.
Southwestwards to the point of beginning at 7§40' N,
are vital to the security and economic survival of the Philippines;
latitude and 116§00' E longitude; including the sea-bed,
●​ WHEREAS, much of the above area is part of the continental
margin of the Philippine archipelago;
●​ WHEREAS, these areas do not legally belong to any state or nation
sub-soil, continental margin and air space shall belong
and be subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines. Such
area is hereby constituted as a distinct and separate
but, by reason of history, indispensable need, and effective
42
municipality of the Province of Palawan and shall be
Section 2. Without prejudice to the rights of the Republic of the Philippines
known as "Kalayaan."
over it territorial sea and continental shelf, it shall have and exercise in
●​ Sec. 2. Pending the election of its regular officials and during the
the exclusive economic zone established herein the following;
period of emergency declared in Proclamation No. 1081, and
(a) Sovereignty rights for the purpose of exploration and exploitation,
unless earlier provided by law, the administration and
conservation and management of the natural resources, whether living
government of the area shall be vested in the Secretary of
or non-living, both renewable and non-renewable, of the sea-bed,
National Defense or in such officers of the Civil government or the
including the subsoil and the superjacent waters, and with regard to
Armed Forces of the Philippines as the President may designate.
other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the
●​ Sec. 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately
resources of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water,
currents and winds;
c. Exclusive Economic Zone. See also PD 1599
(b) Exclusive rights and jurisdiction with respect to the establishment and
ESTABLISHING AN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
WHEREAS, an exclusive economic zone extending to a distance of two
utilization of artificial islands, off-shore terminals, installations and
hundred nautical miles from the baselines from which the territorial sea
is measured is vital to the economic survival and development of the
Republic of the Philippines;
WHEREAS, such a zone is now a recognized principle of international law;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by
virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree
and order:
Section 1. There is hereby established a zone to be known as the exclusive
economic zone of the Philippines. The exclusive economic zone shall
extend to a distance of two hundred nautical miles beyond and from the
baselines from which the territorial sea is measured: Provided, That,
where the outer limits of the zone as thus determined overlap the
exclusive economic zone of an adjacent or neighboring state, the
common boundaries shall be determined by agreement with the state
concerned or in accordance with pertinent generally recognized
structures, the preservation of the marine environment, including the
prevention and control of pollution, and scientific research;
(c) Such other rights as are recognized by international law or state
practice.
Section 3. Except in accordance with the terms of any agreement
entered into with the Republic of the Philippines or of any license granted
by it or under authority by the Republic of the Philippines, no person shall,
in relation to the exclusive economic zone:
●​ (a)explore or exploit any resources;
●​ (b) carry out any search, excavation or drilling operations:
●​ (c) conduct any research;
●​ (d) construct, maintain or operate any artificial island, off-shore
terminal, installation or other structure or device; or
●​ (e) perform any act or engage in any activity which is contrary to,
or in derogation of, the sovereign rights and jurisdiction herein
provided.
principles of international law on delimitation.
43
Nothing herein shall be deemed a prohibition on a citizen of the
Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The
Philippines, whether natural or juridical, against the performance of any
Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the
of the foregoing acts, if allowed under existing laws.
State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of
the national territory.
Section 4. Other states shall enjoy in the exclusive economic zone
freedoms with respect to navigation and overflight, the laying of
submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of
the sea relating to navigation and communications.
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 fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under
conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.
Section 5.
●​ (a) The President may authorize the appropriate government
office/agency to make and promulgate such rules and
regulations which may be deemed proper and necessary for
carrying out the purposes of this degree.
●​ (b) Any person who shall violate any provision of this decree or of
any rule or regulation promulgated hereunder and approved by
the President shall be subject to a fine which shall not be less than
two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) nor be more than one hundred
thousand pesos (100,000.00) or imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months to ten (10) years, or both such fine and imprisonment, in
the discretion of the court. Vessels and other equipment or
articles used in connection therewith shall be subject to seizure
and forfeiture.
Section 6. This Decree shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication
in the Official Gazette.
d. Philippine (Benham) Rise. See also EO 154 (2013), and EO 25 (2017)
3. In relation to Sections 3 and 4, Article II, 1987 Constitution
B01 Esmero v. Duterte, GR 256288m 29 June 2021, En Banc, Zalameda [J]
B. Sovereignty 1. No associated state
Facts:
●​ Atty. Romeo M. Esmero filed a Petition for Mandamus against
President Rodrigo R. Duterte on July 29, 2021.
●​ Esmero sought to compel President Duterte to defend the West
Philippine Sea against Chinese incursions.
●​ He argued that the President should consider a defensive war
against China and invoke the Mutual Defense Agreement with the
United States.
●​ Esmero contended that the President's actions and
pronouncements regarding the West Philippine Sea should be
subject to judicial review.
●​ He claimed the President had unlawfully neglected his duty to
defend the national territory, as established by the UN Arbitral
Tribunal.
●​ Esmero stated that the President's inaction harmed the livelihood
of Filipino fishermen and their families.
44
●​ He suggested that the Philippines should go to the United Nations
●​ According to Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a mandamus
Security Council and sue China before the International Court of
petition can only compel the performance of a ministerial duty,
Justice for damages.
not a discretionary act.
●​ The lower court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, citing
●​ The President's duty to defend the national territory involves
presidential immunity and the discretionary nature of the
President's foreign affairs powers.
discretion, particularly in foreign affairs.
●​ The President, as the chief architect of foreign policy, has the
Issue:
exclusive power to conduct and manage the country's
1.​ Can the President be compelled through a writ of mandamus to
defend the national territory, specifically the West Philippine Sea,
international relations.
●​ The Court cited Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., affirming the President's
against Chinese incursions?
broad discretion in foreign affairs, subject to constitutional and
2.​ Does the President's immunity from suit extend to this case?
3.​ Is the President's discretion in conducting foreign affairs subject to
statutory limitations.
●​ The petitioner failed to point to any law specifically requiring the
judicial review?
President to take the actions he suggested, such as going to the
Ruling:
UN or the ICJ.
1.​ The petition for mandamus is dismissed for lack of merit.
●​ The Court concluded that the President's approach to addressing
2.​ The President is immune from suit during his incumbency,
disputes with China, whether militarily, diplomatically, or legally,
regardless of the nature of the suit.
falls within his discretion and is not subject to judicial intervention
3.​ The President's discretion in conducting foreign affairs is not
subject to judicial review unless there is a clear violation of
unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.
●​ The petition was therefore dismissed
constitutional or statutory provisions.
Ratio:
B02 Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral
●​ The Supreme Court emphasized that the President is immune
from suit during his incumbency, as established in De Lima v.
Duterte.
●​ This immunity applies regardless of the nature of the suit filed
against him.
●​ Even if the case were considered against the Executive Secretary
as the President's representative, a writ of mandamus would not
lie in the petitioner's favor.
Domain, GR 183591, 14 October 2008, En Banc, Carpio-Morales [J]
Facts:
●​ Multiple petitions challenged the constitutionality of the
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD)
between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)
and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
●​ The MOA-AD was scheduled for signing on August 5, 2008, in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
45
●​ Petitioners included the Province of North Cotabato, the City
3.​ The Court held that the GRP Peace Panel committed grave abuse
Government of Zamboanga, the City of Iligan, and others.
of discretion by negotiating and initialing the MOA-AD without
●​ Petitioners argued that the MOA-AD violated the Constitution and
proper public consultation and by making commitments that
lacked proper public consultation.
●​ The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
on August 4, 2008, preventing the signing of the MOA-AD.
●​ The Executive Department later declared that the MOA-AD would
required constitutional amendments.
Ratio:
●​ The MOA-AD contained provisions that effectively created a
separate Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) with its own territory,
not be signed "in its present form or in any other form," and the
government, and institutions, which was inconsistent with the
GRP Peace Panel was dissolved.
Constitution.
●​ Despite these developments, petitioners sought a ruling on the
constitutionality of the MOA-AD.
Issue:
●​ The MOA-AD's provisions on the BJE's territorial jurisdiction,
governance, and resource management required amendments
to the Constitution, which the GRP Peace Panel had no authority to
1.​ Whether the petitions have become moot and academic due to
the non-signing of the MOA-AD and the dissolution of the GRP
Peace Panel.
2.​ Whether the MOA-AD is unconstitutional.
3.​ Whether the GRP Peace Panel committed grave abuse of
guarantee.
●​ The lack of public consultation and transparency in the
negotiation process violated the people's right to information and
the principles of democratic governance.
●​ The Court underscored the importance of adhering to
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
constitutional processes and ensuring that any peace agreement
negotiated and initialed the MOA-AD.
respects the Constitution's framework and the rule of law.
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that the petitions were not moot and
academic despite the non-signing of the MOA-AD and the
2. Doctrine of Auto-limitation
dissolution of the GRP Peace Panel. The issues raised were of
Essence
paramount public interest and capable of repetition yet evading
review.
2.​ The Court declared the MOA-AD unconstitutional. It found that the
The doctrine of auto-limitation, enshrined in Philippine jurisprudence,
acknowledges that although a state possesses inherent sovereignty
MOA-AD violated the Constitution's provisions on territorial
(supreme power and authority), it can voluntarily choose to restrict or
integrity, national sovereignty, and the separation of powers.
limit its own powers by consenting to international laws and treaties. In
46
essence, it signifies that a sovereign state can, of its own accord, impose
2.​ Respect for International Law: It reinforces the country's
limitations on its otherwise absolute authority.
commitment to upholding and respecting international legal
Legal Basis
norms and obligations.
●​ Philippine Constitution: While the Constitution doesn't explicitly
3.​ Domestic Impact: The doctrine ensures that international laws
mention "auto-limitation," it lays the groundwork for this doctrine
and treaties, once validly entered into by the Philippines, become
through provisions like Article II, Section 2, which states:
part of the domestic legal system, binding upon its citizens and
"The Philippines... adopts the generally accepted principles of
government agencies.​
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."
Key Points to Note
●​ Voluntary Nature: Auto-limitation is inherently voluntary. The
state retains its sovereignty and can choose which international
This provision implies a willingness to abide by international norms and
commitments, reflecting the spirit of auto-limitation.
agreements to join and the extent of the limitations it accepts.
●​ Constitutional Limits: The doctrine operates within the bounds of
●​ Supreme Court Decisions: Several landmark Supreme Court
the Philippine Constitution. Any self-imposed limitations must not
rulings have further solidified the doctrine of auto-limitation. For
contravene the fundamental principles and provisions enshrined
instance, in the case of Reagan v. CIR (1969), the Court asserted:
in the Constitution.​
"Any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction
of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise
In Conclusion
is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of sovereignty as
The doctrine of auto-limitation serves as a vital legal principle in
auto-limitation..."
Philippine law. It enables the nation to engage meaningfully with the
world while upholding its commitment to the rule of law and international
cooperation.
Implications
1.​ International Cooperation: The doctrine allows the Philippines to
participate actively in the international community, fostering
collaboration and contributing to global order.
B03 Dizon v. Commanding General of the Philippine Ryukus Command,
US Army, GR L-2110, 22 July 1948, En Banc, Paras [J]
Facts:
47
●​ The case involves petitioner Godofredo Dizon, prosecuted and
●​ The Supreme Court ruled that the General Court Martial had
convicted by a General Court Martial appointed by the
Commanding General of the Philippine-Ryukus Command of the
jurisdiction over the offense committed by Dizon.
●​ The Supreme Court held that the Agreement concerning military
U.S. Army.
bases of March 14, 1947, was constitutional and did not violate the
●​ The offense occurred at the main storage area, Philrycom
Engineer Depot, in Quezon City, Philippines.
●​ Dizon was sentenced to five years of hard labor on March 4, 1948.
●​ On March 24, 1948, Dizon filed a petition for habeas corpus with
the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
●​ Dizon argued that the General Court Martial lacked jurisdiction as
the offense was not committed within a U.S. military base as
Philippine Constitution.
Ratio:
●​ The Supreme Court reasoned that under the Agreement
concerning military bases of March 14, 1947, the U.S. was granted
the right to exercise jurisdiction over certain offenses committed
within and outside the specified military bases.
●​ The main storage area where the offense occurred was classified
defined by the Agreement concerning military bases of March 14,
as a temporary installation under Article XXI of the Agreement,
1947.
making the terms of the Agreement applicable.
●​ He also contended that the Agreement was unconstitutional,
●​ The Court cited Article XIII of the Agreement, which allowed the
depriving Philippine courts of jurisdiction and violating due
U.S. to exercise jurisdiction over offenses committed within any
process and equal protection under the Philippine Constitution.
base, except where both the offender and offended parties were
●​ The lower court upheld the jurisdiction of the U.S. military court
Philippine citizens or the offense was against the security of the
over the offense.
Issue:
Philippines.
●​ The Court referenced the principle of international law that a
●​ Did the General Court Martial have jurisdiction over the offense
committed by Dizon?
●​ Is the Agreement concerning military bases of March 14, 1947,
foreign army allowed to be stationed in a friendly country by
permission of its government is exempt from the civil and criminal
jurisdiction of the host country.
unconstitutional for depriving Philippine courts of jurisdiction and
●​ The Court argued that the Philippine Independence Act and the
violating due process and equal protection under the Philippine
Joint Resolution of June 29, 1944, authorized the U.S. to acquire
Constitution?
and retain military bases in the Philippines, making the
Agreement constitutionally valid.
●​ The waiver of jurisdiction in favor of the U.S. was deemed valid,
Ruling:
and the petitioner's claims of denial of due process and equal
protection were found to be unfounded.
48
2.​ The Court affirmed that Reagan is not exempt from paying
B04 Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR L-26379, 27
December 1969, En Banc, Fernando [J]
Facts:
income tax on the sale of his car.
Ratio:
●​ The Supreme Court emphasized that the Philippines, as a
●​ William C. Reagan, a civilian employee of Bendix Badio, Division of
sovereign state, exercises authority over its entire domain,
Bendix Aviation Corporation, provided technical assistance to the
United States Air Force in the Philippines.
including military bases leased to foreign powers.
●​ The concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation allows a state to
●​ Reagan was assigned to Clark Air Base, Philippines, on July 7, 1959.
consent to certain restrictions, but this does not render any part of
●​ On April 22, 1960, he imported a tax-free 1960 Cadillac car valued
its territory foreign soil.
at $6,443.83.
●​ The Military Bases Agreement of 1947 does not convert Clark Air
●​ On July 11, 1960, Reagan sold the car for $6,600 to Willie Johnson,
Jr., a Private First Class in the United States Marine Corps, at Clark
Base into foreign territory; it remains under Philippine jurisdiction.
●​ The Court cited various precedents and international law
Air Base.
principles affirming that jurisdiction within a state's territory is
●​ Johnson subsequently sold the car to Fred Meneses for P32,000 in
Manila.
exclusive and absolute unless explicitly limited by the state itself.
●​ The exemption clause in the Military Bases Agreement does not
●​ The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed Reagan's net
apply to Reagan's case, as the income derived from the sale of
taxable income from the sale at P17,912.34, making him liable for
an income tax of P2,979.00.
the car was from a Philippine source.
●​ The Court reiterated that tax exemptions are not favored and
●​ Reagan paid the tax but sought a refund, claiming exemption
under the Military Bases Agreement.
must be clearly justified, which Reagan failed to do.
●​ Therefore, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax
●​ The Court of Tax Appeals denied his claim, leading to this appeal.
Appeals, denying Reagan's claim for a refund.
Issue:
1.​ Is the Clark Air Base considered foreign soil for purposes of
income tax legislation?
2.​ Is Reagan exempt from paying income tax on the sale of his car
under the Military Bases Agreement?
Ruling:
B05 People of the Philippines v. Gozo, GR L-36409, 26 October 1973, En
Banc, Fernando [J]
Facts:
●​ Loreta Gozo was convicted for violating Municipal Ordinance No.
14, Series of 1964, in Olongapo City, Zambales.
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that Clark Air Base is not considered
foreign soil and is within Philippine territorial jurisdiction.
49
●​ The ordinance requires a permit from the municipal mayor for
●​ The Supreme Court, through Justice Fernando, upheld the
any construction, modification, alteration, repair, or demolition of
ordinance's validity under the general welfare clause, citing
buildings.
long-standing jurisprudence.
●​ Gozo constructed a house within the U.S. Naval Reservation in
Olongapo City without obtaining a building permit.
●​ Ernesto Evalle, an assistant in the City Mayor's office, and her
neighbors informed her that a permit was unnecessary.
●​ On December 29, 1966, city officials apprehended carpenters
working on her house, leading to her being charged.
●​ The City Court of Olongapo City found her guilty, sentencing her to
one month of imprisonment and costs.
●​ On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Zambales modified the
sentence to a fine of P200.00 and ordered the demolition of the
house.
●​ Gozo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which referred the case to
the Supreme Court due to the constitutional question raised.
Issue:
●​ The ordinance aims to ensure public health, safety, and order,
and its requirements are not inherently oppressive or
unreasonable.
●​ The Court referenced Switzer v. Municipality of Cebu, which
validated similar measures, and distinguished this case from
People v. Fajardo.
●​ Regarding the U.S. Naval Base, the Court emphasized that
Philippine sovereignty and local jurisdiction are not diminished by
foreign military presence.
●​ Citing People v. Acierto and Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, the Court affirmed the Philippines' jurisdiction over its
territory, including leased foreign military areas.
●​ The Court rejected the idea that the U.S. Naval Base negates
Olongapo City's administrative jurisdiction, affirming the
1.​ Is the municipal ordinance requiring a building permit for
construction valid and applicable to Loreta Gozo?
2.​ Does the location of Gozo's house within a U.S. Naval Base affect
the applicability of the municipal ordinance?
Ruling:
ordinance's applicability to Gozo's construction activities within
the base.
●​ The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of First Instance of
Zambales' decision, with a modification allowing Gozo thirty days
from judgment finality to obtain the required building permit or
1.​ The Supreme Court affirmed the validity and applicability of the
face house demolition.
municipal ordinance to Loreta Gozo.
2.​ The Court ruled that the location of Gozo's house within the U.S.
Ratio:
C. Government
Naval Base does not exempt her from complying with the
1. De Facto government
municipal ordinance.
Essence
A de facto government in Philippine law refers to a government that
exercises actual control and authority over a territory, even though it may
50
not have full legal or constitutional legitimacy. It is a government in fact,
●​ Transition to De Jure: A de facto government may eventually
if not in law.
transition into a de jure (legitimate) government if it gains
widespread acceptance and legitimacy, or if it establishes a new
Types of De Facto Governments (recognized in Philippine
constitutional order.​
jurisprudence)
1.​ Government by Revolution: This type arises when a revolutionary
group successfully overthrows the existing legitimate government
Key Cases
●​ Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh (1945): The Philippine Supreme
and establishes its own control.
Court recognized the validity of certain acts performed by the
2.​ Government by Secession: This occurs when a portion of a
Japanese-sponsored government during World War II, even
territory secedes or breaks away from the parent state and
establishes its own independent government.
though it was considered a de facto government by occupation.
●​ In re: Saturnino Bermudez (1948): The Court held that the judicial
3.​ Government by Occupation: This emerges when a foreign power
acts of courts established under the de facto government during
invades and occupies a territory, establishing its own
the Japanese occupation remained valid and effective even after
administration while the legitimate government is displaced or
the restoration of the legitimate government.
unable to function.​
Conclusion
The concept of a de facto government is complex and often arises in
Legal Status and Implications
●​ Acts and Decisions: While a de facto government's legal status
situations of political instability or transition. While lacking full legal
legitimacy, a de facto government exercises actual control and its acts
may be questionable, its acts and decisions, particularly those of
can have significant legal implications, especially in relation to the rights
an administrative or routine nature, are generally considered
and obligations of individuals. The Philippine legal system recognizes the
valid and binding, especially when they affect the rights and
need to balance the principles of legality and stability during such
obligations of private individuals. This principle aims to maintain
periods, and therefore accords a degree of validity to the actions of de
order and stability during periods of political upheaval.
facto governments, particularly those of an administrative nature.
●​ Non-Recognition: The Philippine government may choose not to
formally recognize a de facto government, especially if it came to
B06 Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, GR L-5, 17 September 1945, En
power through unconstitutional means. Non-recognition,
Banc, Feria [J];
however, does not necessarily negate the validity of its
Facts:
day-to-day administrative acts.
51
●​ The case involves petitioner Co Cham and respondents Eusebio
3.​ Do the present courts of the Commonwealth of the Philippines
Valdez Tan Keh and Judge Arsenio P. Dizon of the Court of First
have jurisdiction to continue proceedings in actions pending in
Instance of Manila.
the courts during the Japanese military occupation?
●​ The case arose after the liberation of the Philippines from
Japanese occupation during World War II.
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that the judicial acts and proceedings of
●​ On January 2, 1942, Japanese forces occupied Manila, and the
the courts under the Japanese-sponsored government, which are
Japanese Commander in Chief established the Philippine
not of a political complexion, were valid and remained valid after
Executive Commission, which later transitioned into the Republic
the liberation of the Philippines.
of the Philippines.
2.​ The Court held that General MacArthur's proclamation did not
●​ During the Japanese occupation, Co Cham initiated civil case No.
invalidate judicial processes, as it was not intended to violate the
3012 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, under the jurisdiction
of the Japanese-sponsored government.
principles of international law.
3.​ The Court decided that the present courts of the Commonwealth
●​ After the liberation of Manila in February 1945, General Douglas
of the Philippines have jurisdiction to continue the proceedings in
MacArthur issued a proclamation on October 23, 1944, declaring
cases pending in the courts during the Japanese military
all laws, regulations, and processes of any government other than
occupation.
the Commonwealth of the Philippines null and void.
●​ Co Cham sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Dizon to
continue the proceedings in civil case No. 3012.
●​ Judge Dizon refused, citing the proclamation and the lack of
Ratio:
1.​ The Court reasoned that the governments established during the
Japanese occupation were de facto governments, and under
international law, the acts and proceedings of de facto
jurisdiction to continue proceedings initiated under the
governments are valid. The judicial acts and proceedings of these
Japanese-sponsored government.
governments, which are not of a political nature, remained valid
Issue:
after the liberation of the Philippines by virtue of the principle of
1.​ Are the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts established
postliminy, which maintains the validity of judicial acts done
under the Japanese-sponsored government valid and binding
under the control of an invader when they are not of a political
after the liberation of the Philippines?
complexion.
2.​ Did General MacArthur's proclamation of October 23, 1944,
2.​ The Court interpreted General MacArthur's proclamation, stating
invalidate all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts
that the phrase "processes of any other government" should not
under the Japanese-sponsored government?
be construed to include judicial processes. The Court emphasized
that international law principles dictate that judicial acts and
52
proceedings of de facto governments remain valid after the
preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive
occupied territory is liberated. Therefore, it was presumed that
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
General MacArthur did not intend to invalidate judicial processes.
3.​ The Court explained that the continuity of law principle dictates
that laws and courts continue to exist unless explicitly repealed.
The courts of the Commonwealth, which were reestablished after
the liberation, are considered to have been in continued existence
and thus have jurisdiction to continue proceedings in cases
pending during the Japanese occupation. The Court also noted
that enabling laws or acts are necessary only when former courts
are abolished or their jurisdiction is significantly changed.
also Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, GR L-5, 16 November 1945, En Banc
Resolution, Feria [J]
Sections 9 and 11, RA 8189.
Section 9. Who may Register. All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law who are at least eighteen (18) years of age, and who
shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year, and in the
place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months
immediately preceding the election, may register as a voter.
Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or
country solely by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in
private or public service, educational activities, work in the military or
naval reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, the National Police Forces, or confinement or detention in
government institutions in accordance with law, shall not be deemed to
D. People
have lost his original residence.
1. As Inhabitants
Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have reached the
2. As Electors
required age or period of residence but, who, on the day of the election
a. Qualifications. Section 1, Article V, 1987 Constitution. See also
Sections 9 and 11, RA 8189.
shall possess such qualifications, may register as a voter.
Section 10. Registration of Voters. A qualified voter shall be registered in
Art. V. SUFFRAGE
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not
otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and
who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the
place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately
the permanent list of voters in a precinct of the city or municipality
wherein he resides to be able to vote in any election. To register as a
voter, he shall personally accomplish an application form for registration
as prescribed by the Commission in three (3) copies before the Election
Officer on any date during office hours after having acquired the
qualifications of a voter.
53
●​ The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on
B07 Kabataan Partylist vs Commission on Elections, GR 221318, 16
December 1, 2015, to halt the deactivation process pending
December 2015, En Banc, Perlas-Bernabe [J];
resolution of the case.
Facts:
Issue:
●​ The case "Kabataan Party-List v. Commission on Elections" (G.R.
1.​ Is RA 10367, which mandates biometrics validation for voter
No. 221318) was decided on December 16, 2015, by the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.
registration, unconstitutional?
2.​ Are COMELEC Resolutions Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013, which
●​ Petitioners, including Kabataan Party-List represented by
Representative James Mark Terry L. Ridon and Marjohara S. Tucay,
implement RA 10367, unconstitutional?
Ruling:
along with other youth leaders, challenged the constitutionality of
●​ The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Republic Act No. (RA) 10367.
●​ The temporary restraining order issued on December 1, 2015, was
●​ RA 10367, known as "An Act Providing for Mandatory Biometrics
Voter Registration," was signed into law by President Benigno S.
Aquino III on February 15, 2013.
●​ The law mandates the use of biometric technology to establish a
clean, complete, permanent, and updated list of voters.
●​ Registered voters without biometrics data must submit
dissolved.
Ratio:
●​ The Supreme Court held that the right to vote is not a natural right
but a privilege granted by the state, subject to regulation.
●​ The requirement for biometrics validation is a procedural
regulation, not a substantive qualification, and does not violate
themselves for validation, failing which their registration would be
the constitutional prohibition against imposing literacy, property,
deactivated.
or other substantive requirements on the right to suffrage.
●​ COMELEC issued Resolutions Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013 to
●​ The biometrics validation requirement serves a compelling state
implement this law, including procedures for validation,
interest in ensuring credible elections by preventing electoral
deactivation, and reactivation of voter registration records.
fraud, such as flying voters and multiple registrations.
●​ Petitioners argued that the biometrics validation requirement
●​ The regulation was deemed the least restrictive means to achieve
imposed an additional substantial qualification on the right to
this interest, as it only required voters to undergo a one-time
suffrage, violated due process, and was not justified by a
validation process.
compelling state interest.
●​ They sought to have RA 10367 and the related COMELEC
resolutions declared unconstitutional and to prevent the
●​ Procedural due process requirements were met, as the public was
sufficiently informed about the biometrics validation requirement
and the consequences of non-compliance.
deactivation of voters without biometric information.
54
●​ COMELEC conducted a comprehensive information campaign
●​ The same day, she filed a petition with the Bureau of Immigration
and made efforts to facilitate the validation process.
(BI) for the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, which was
●​ The Court dismissed the petitioners' arguments about the poor
experience of other countries with biometrics registration as
confirmed by the BI.
●​ On the same day, she filed her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for
speculative and beyond the scope of judicial review.
the 2010 National Elections to run as congresswoman for the First
●​ The Court clarified that the COMELEC has the authority to set
deadlines for administrative necessities, rejecting the argument
District of Quezon City.
●​ On December 28, 2009, Crisologo filed a petition before the
that the deadline for validation violated the continuing
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) to exclude Tan from the voter's
registration system under RA 8189.
list, arguing she was not a Filipino citizen when she registered and
did not meet the residency requirement.
See also Akbayan-Youth v. Commission on Elections, GR 147066, 26
●​ The MeTC ruled in favor of Crisologo, excluding Tan from the
March 2001, En Banc, Buena [J],
voter's list.
●​ Tan appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which
Kabataan Party-List Representative v. Commission on Elections, GR
reversed the MeTC's decision, stating her subsequent acts
189868, 15 December 2009, En Banc, Carpio Morales [J]
cured the questioned citizenship.
●​ Crisologo filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
B08 Tan v. Crisologo, GR 193993, 8 November 2017, Third Division,
Appeals (CA), which annulled the RTC's decision and
Martires [J]
reinstated the MeTC's ruling.
Facts:
●​ Tan then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the
●​ Petitioner: Vivenne K. Tan
●​ Respondent: Vincent "Bingbong" Crisologo
●​ Tan was born to Filipino parents and became a naturalized U.S.
Supreme Court.
Issue:
1.​ Was Tan a Filipino citizen at the time she registered as a voter on
citizen on January 19, 1993.
●​ On October 26, 2009, Tan applied to be registered as a voter in
October 26, 2009?
2.​ Does the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act
Quezon City, claiming Filipino citizenship by birth.
●​ Her application was approved by the Election Registration Board
(ERB) on November 16, 2009.
●​ On November 30, 2009, Tan took an Oath of Allegiance to the
No. 9225 have a retroactive effect?
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that Tan was not a Filipino citizen at the
time she registered as a voter on October 26, 2009.
Republic of the Philippines before a notary public in Makati City.
55
2.​ The Supreme Court held that the reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 does not have a
retroactive effect.
Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the
ballot.
(1) Secrecy of ballots
Ratio:
●​ The right to vote is reserved for Filipino citizens, as stated in the
1987 Philippine Constitution and Republic Act No. 8189.
●​ On October 26, 2009, Tan had not yet taken her Oath of Allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines, which she did on November 30,
2009.
●​ Therefore, Tan was not a Filipino citizen when she registered as a
voter.
●​ Republic Act No. 9225 allows natural-born Filipino citizens who lost
their citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country to
(a) Exit polls
B09 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections,
GR 133486, 28 January 2000, En Banc, Panganiban [J]
Facts:
●​ ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation contested COMELEC En
Banc Resolution No. 98-1419 dated April 21, 1998.
●​ The resolution approved a restraining order to prevent ABS-CBN
and others from conducting exit surveys during the May 11, 1998
reacquire it.
●​ The law does not have a retroactive effect and distinguishes
between those who reacquired their citizenship and those who
elections.
●​ COMELEC issued the resolution based on information that
ABS-CBN intended to conduct exit polls and broadcast the
retained it.
●​ Tan's inclusion in the voter's list was irregular, affirming the CA's
decision to exclude her from the list.
b. Secrecy of ballots and absentee voting. Section 2, Article V, 1987
Constitution
results immediately.
●​ COMELEC believed this might conflict with the official count and
the unofficial quick count by Namfrel.
●​ ABS-CBN argued that the resolution violated their constitutional
rights to freedom of speech and of the press.
●​ The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on May
ART. V. SUFFRAGE
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and
sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified
Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the
illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they
shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the
9, 1998, allowing the exit polls to proceed.
●​ The case was brought to the Supreme Court to determine
whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the restraining order.
Issue:
1.​ Did COMELEC act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a
56
restraining order enjoining ABS-CBN or any other group from
4.​ The Court noted that exit polls are a form of expression that
conducting exit polls during the May 11, 1998 elections?
provides valuable information and can contribute to the integrity
2.​ Is the petition moot and academic since the May 11, 1998 election
has already been held?
of elections by preventing fraud and election-fixing.
5.​ The Court highlighted that the prohibition was too broad and did
3.​ Was the petition premature due to ABS-CBN's failure to seek a
not consider less restrictive means to address COMELEC's
reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution?
Ruling:
concerns.
6.​ The Court concluded that the absolute ban on exit polls was an
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
unjustifiable restriction on the freedoms of speech and of the
discretion in issuing the restraining order, and the petition was
press.
granted. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court was
made permanent.
(b) Invalidation due to marking
2.​ The Court held that the issue was not moot and academic, as the
implications of the resolution on the fundamental freedom of
B0A Perman v. Commission on Elections, GR 174010, 8 February 2007, En
expression transcended the past election.
Banc, Tinga [J];
3.​ The Court found that the petition was not premature, as the
urgency of the matter and the transcendental constitutional
issues justified direct resort to the Supreme Court.
Ratio:
Facts:
●​ Petitioner Laisan T. Perman and private respondent Lino Landong
Iddong were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay
Tipo-Tipo Proper, Tipo-Tipo, Basilan during the Synchronized
1.​ The Supreme Court emphasized that the freedoms of speech and
of the press are fundamental principles of democratic
government and are protected under the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.
2.​ The Court applied the "clear and present danger" test, which
requires that any restriction on these freedoms must be justified
by a danger of such substantive character that the state has a
right to prevent.
3.​ COMELEC's arguments that exit polls could cause disorder and
confusion were deemed speculative and insufficient to justify a
total ban.
Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections on July 15, 2002.
●​ The Barangay Board of Canvassers proclaimed Iddong as the
winner by a margin of 67 votes.
●​ Perman filed an election protest with the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court (MCTC) of Lamitan, Tipo-Tipo-Tuburan, Lamitan, Basilan,
docketed as Election Protest Case No. 11-02.
●​ The MCTC invalidated 83 ballots in favor of Iddong for being
marked and deducted these from his total votes.
●​ On July 9, 2004, the MCTC declared Perman as the winner by a
majority of 13 votes.
●​ Iddong appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
57
●​ On February 23, 2005, the COMELEC First Division validated the
●​ The COMELEC En banc determined that the presumption that the
previously invalidated ballots and ruled in favor of Iddong,
ballots were filled by two persons before being cast was rebutted
restoring his victory by a margin of 67 votes.
by evidence showing that the ballots were tampered with
●​ Perman's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC
En banc on July 31, 2006.
post-deposit.
●​ The COMELEC's detailed scrutiny revealed that the insertions were
●​ Perman filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 64 of
made by a single person using different colored pens to ensure
the Rules of Court, seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),
the insertions were noticeable, indicating tampering after the
Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and/or Status Quo Ante Order.
ballots were cast.
●​ The Court also addressed the two ballots for Perman, which were
invalidated for being marked with encircled numbers "16" and "15,"
respectively.
Issue:
●​ The Court agreed with the COMELEC's assessment that these
●​ Did the COMELEC En banc commit grave abuse of discretion
marks were intended to identify the ballots, thus compromising
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its appreciation of
the contested ballots?
the secrecy of the vote.
●​ The Supreme Court emphasized that findings of fact by the
Ruling:
COMELEC, when supported by substantial evidence, are final and
●​ The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and
affirmed the COMELEC's resolutions dated February 23, 2005, and
non-reviewable under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
●​ Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the COMELEC's
July 31, 2006.
resolutions were affirmed.
●​ The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
COMELEC En banc in its appreciation of the contested ballots.
Ratio:
See also Locsin v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, GR
204123, 19 March 2013, En Banc, Leonen [J]
●​ The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC En banc's findings that
the contested ballots were tampered with after being deposited
(c) Rule on misplaced votes; Neighborhood rule
in the ballot box.
●​ The Court relied on Rule 23 under Section 211 of the Omnibus
B0B Velasco v. Commission on Elections, GR 166931, 22 February 2007,
Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), which states that any ballot filled by
En Banc, Carpio [J]
two distinct persons before being deposited in the ballot box is
Facts:
null and void.
58
●​ The case involves Ranilo A. Velasco vs. Commission on Elections
and Benigno C. Layesa, Jr., G.R. No. 166931, decided on February 22,
●​ The Supreme Court partly granted Velasco's petition.
●​ The Court ruled that the vote in Exhibit "10" was valid for Layesa,
2007.
while the votes in Exhibits "9" and "13" were deemed stray and not
●​ The dispute arose from the barangay elections held on July 15,
2002, in Sta. Ana, San Pablo City.
credited to him.
●​ Consequently, the Court declared Ranilo A. Velasco as the duly
●​ Ranilo A. Velasco and Benigno C. Layesa, Jr. were among four
candidates for the position of Punong Barangay.
●​ Velasco was initially declared the winner with 390 votes, while
Layesa received 375 votes.
●​ Layesa contested the results, claiming some of his votes were
wrongly excluded, and filed an election protest in the Municipal
Trial Court.
●​ Velasco attempted to dismiss the protest but later
counterclaimed for a revision of ballots from another precinct.
●​ The trial court found the election results tied at 390 votes each
after revising the contested ballots and ordered a drawing of lots.
●​ Velasco appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
which upheld the trial court's decision on February 10, 2003.
●​ Both parties sought reconsideration, leading to further disputes
over specific ballots.
●​ COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Second Division's decision on
January 18, 2005.
elected Punong Barangay of Sta. Ana, San Pablo City.
Ratio:
●​ The Court's decision relied on Section 211 (19) of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881, which defines stray votes.
●​ It emphasized the need for liberality in interpreting ballots to
reflect voters' intent while adhering to electoral rules.
●​ Exhibit "10" was validated as the voter's intent was clear, with
Layesa's name written alongside "Charman," indicating a vote for
him as Punong Barangay.
●​ Exhibits "9" and "13" had Layesa's name written in areas not
designated for the contested office, leading to their classification
as stray votes.
●​ The unusual placement of Layesa's name suggested either an
attempt to identify the ballots or a misunderstanding of where to
write candidates' names, reinforcing the stray classification.
●​ The ruling underscored that respecting voters' will must not
compromise fundamental electoral laws.
●​ Velasco subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
against COMELEC's resolutions.
(2) Absentee voting
Issue:
●​ The main issue is whether COMELEC correctly credited Layesa with
(a) Overseas. See RA 9189, as amended by RA 10590
the votes from the contested ballots, specifically Exhibits "9," "10,"
and "13."
Ruling:
B0C Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, GR 157013, 10 July 2003, En
Banc, Austria-Martinez [J]
59
Facts:
winning candidates for President and Vice-President shall be
●​ The case "Macalintal v. Commission on Elections" involves a
petition for certiorari and prohibition.
proclaimed as winners by Congress?
3.​ Independence of COMELEC: May Congress, through the Joint
●​ Filed by Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal against the Commission on
Congressional Oversight Committee created in Section 25 of
Elections (COMELEC), Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo, and
Republic Act No. 9189, exercise the power to review, revise, amend,
Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management Emilia T.
and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations that the
Boncodin.
COMELEC shall promulgate without violating the independence of
●​ The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of certain
provisions of Republic Act No. 9189, the Overseas Absentee Voting
Act of 2003.
the COMELEC under Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution?
Ruling:
1.​ Section 5(d): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of
●​ The law provides a system for overseas absentee voting by
qualified Filipino citizens abroad.
Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 9189.
2.​ Section 18.5: The Court declared Section 18.5 of the law
●​ Macalintal argued that some provisions violated the 1987
unconstitutional insofar as it empowers the COMELEC to proclaim
Constitution, particularly concerning the independence of the
the winning candidates for President and Vice-President, as this
COMELEC and the residency requirement for voters.
power is vested in Congress.
●​ The Supreme Court decided the case on July 10, 2003, with Justice
3.​ Sections 19 and 25: The Court declared Sections 19 and 25 of the
Austria-Martinez as the ponente.
law unconstitutional for violating the independence of the
Issue:
COMELEC by subjecting its Implementing Rules and Regulations to
1.​ Residency Requirement: Does Section 5(d) of Republic Act No.
the review, revision, amendment, and approval of the Joint
9189, which allows the registration of voters who are immigrants
or permanent residents in other countries by their mere act of
executing an affidavit expressing their intention to return to the
Congressional Oversight Committee.
Ratio:
1.​ Residency Requirement: The Court reasoned that Section 5(d) of
Philippines, violate the residency requirement in Section 1 of Article
Republic Act No. 9189 does not violate the residency requirement
V of the Constitution?
in Section 1, Article V of the Constitution. The provision allows
2.​ Proclamation of Winners: Does Section 18.5 of the same law, which
immigrants and permanent residents abroad to register as voters
empowers the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for
by executing an affidavit expressing their intention to return to the
national offices and party-list representatives, including the
Philippines within three years. This affidavit serves as proof that
President and the Vice-President, violate the constitutional
they have not abandoned their domicile in the Philippines. The
mandate under Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution that the
Court emphasized that the Constitution mandates Congress to
60
provide a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
●​ The Philippine Embassy in the U.S. informed them that they did not
abroad, and this provision is in line with that mandate.
meet the one-year residence requirement as prescribed by the
2.​ Proclamation of Winners: Regarding Section 18.5, the Court held
Constitution.
that the power to proclaim the winning candidates for President
●​ The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) maintained that dual
and Vice-President is vested in Congress under Section 4, Article
citizens could not exercise the right of suffrage under the
VII of the Constitution. Therefore, the provision in the law that
Overseas Absentee Voting Law (OAVL).
grants this power to the COMELEC is unconstitutional.
●​ Consequently, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and
3.​ Independence of COMELEC: The Court found that Sections 19 and
mandamus on April 1, 2004, to compel COMELEC to allow them to
25 of the law violate the independence of the COMELEC as
mandated by Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution. The
vote.
●​ COMELEC filed a comment on April 30, 2004, recommending the
provisions subject the COMELEC's Implementing Rules and
Regulations to the review, revision, amendment, and approval of
denial of the petition.
●​ The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation
the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee, which constitutes
stating all qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens, may
undue interference with the COMELEC's constitutional mandate to
exercise the right of suffrage but noted the conclusion of the 2004
enforce and administer election laws independently.
elections rendered the petition moot and academic.
●​ The Supreme Court acknowledged that the broader issue of
B0D Nicolas-Lewis v. Commission on Elections, GR 162759, 4 August
allowing dual citizens to vote as absentee voters in future
2006, En Banc, Garcia [J]
elections remained unresolved.
Facts:
Issue:
●​ The case "Nicolas-Lewis v. Commission on Elections" (G.R. No.
●​ Can dual citizens who have retained or reacquired Philippine
162759) was decided on August 4, 2006.
citizenship under R.A. 9225 vote as absentee voters under R.A. 9189
●​ Justice Garcia penned the decision.
●​ Petitioners, including Loida Nicolas-Lewis, are dual citizens who
despite not meeting the one-year residence requirement?
Ruling:
reacquired their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act (R.A.) No.
●​ The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners.
9225.
●​ Dual citizens who have retained or reacquired Philippine
●​ These petitioners sought to register and vote as overseas
citizenship under R.A. 9225 may exercise the right to vote under
absentee voters under R.A. 9189.
the system of absentee voting provided by R.A. 9189.
Ratio:
61
●​ The Court's decision was grounded in Sections 1 and 2 of Article V
●​ Nicolas-Lewis challenged the constitutionality of Section 36.8 of
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9189, as amended by R.A. No. 10590, and
●​ Section 1 prescribes a residency requirement for the right to vote.
Section 74 (II) (8) of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
●​ Section 2 authorizes Congress to create a system for absentee
Resolution No. 10035.
voting, suggesting that non-residents may be allowed to vote as
●​ These provisions prohibit any person from engaging in partisan
an exception.
political activities abroad during the 30-day overseas voting
●​ R.A. 9189 was enacted to enfranchise as many overseas Filipinos
as possible, including those who do not meet the residency
period.
●​ The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9189) was
requirement.
enacted to ensure that qualified Filipino citizens abroad could
●​ The legislative intent behind the Constitution and R.A. 9189 was to
extend voting rights to Filipinos abroad who have not abandoned
exercise their right to vote.
●​ In 2012, amendments were proposed and later enacted as R.A. No.
their domicile of origin.
●​ R.A. 9225 implicitly acknowledges that dual citizens are likely
10590, which included the contested Section 36.8.
●​ Nicolas-Lewis alleged that she and other Filipinos abroad were
non-residents and grants them the same right of suffrage as
prohibited by Philippine consulates from conducting information
absentee voters under R.A. 9189.
campaigns, rallies, and outreach programs in support of their
●​ The intention was to enfranchise as many Filipino citizens abroad
as possible.
candidates for the 2016 Elections.
●​ The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on
●​ Denying dual citizens the right to vote would contradict the
April 19, 2016, partially enjoining the implementation of the
legislative intent.
questioned provisions, except within Philippine Embassies,
●​ COMELEC admitted that the scope of overseas absentee voting
Consulates, and other Posts where overseas voters may exercise
had been expanded to include dual citizens.
●​ Therefore, dual citizens could exercise the right to vote through
the absentee voting scheme provided by R.A. 9189.
their right to vote.
Issue:
1.​ Is Section 36.8 of R.A. No. 9189, as amended by R.A. No. 10590,
unconstitutional for violating the right to speech, expression,
B0E Nicolas-Lewis v. Commission on Elections, GR 223705, 14 August
2019, En Banc, Reyes J. Jr. [J]
Facts:
assembly, and suffrage?
2.​ Does the provision deny substantive due process and equal
protection of laws?
●​ The case involves petitioner Loida Nicolas-Lewis, a dual citizen of
the Philippines and the United States.
3.​ Does the provision violate the territoriality principle of Philippine
criminal law?
62
Ruling:
1.​ The Supreme Court declared Section 36.8 of R.A. No. 9189, as
amended by R.A. No. 10590, unconstitutional.
2.​ The Court made the temporary restraining order permanent,
extending its application within Philippine Embassies, Consulates,
and other posts where overseas voters may exercise their right to
vote.
Ratio:
●​ The Court's decision was based on the principle that the
prohibition on partisan political activities abroad during the
30-day overseas voting period constitutes an impermissible
content-neutral regulation that is overbroad and violates the free
speech clause under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
●​ The Court emphasized that freedom of expression, especially
political speech, is a fundamental right in a democratic society.
●​ The prohibition was found to be more extensive than necessary to
achieve the government's interest in maintaining the integrity and
order of the electoral process.
●​ The Court noted that the restriction was not narrowly tailored and
did not provide ample alternative means for individuals to
exercise their right to participate in partisan political activities.
●​ The overbroad language of the law, which did not specify
particular locations or limit the prohibition to candidates, resulted
in a chilling effect on free speech.
●​ The Court concluded that the provision's sweeping and absolute
prohibition without any qualification was unconstitutional.
(b) Local. See Section 12, RA 7166; and RA 10380
63