POLITICAL LAW branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs

of the State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW a study of the structure and powers of the Government of the Philippines deals with certain basic concepts of Political Law, such as the nature of the State, the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of the majority that branch of public law which treats of constitutions, their nature, formation, amendment, and interpretation

CONSTITUTION The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials, must defer That body of rules and principles in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are regularly exercised That written instrument by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited, and defined and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments or branches for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the people

IMPORTANCE OF STUDY sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them (people are the source of the power Mandated by law: all educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricular

KINDS -

As to origin and history o o Conventional/Enacted written; deliberate intent to create a constitution Cumulative/Evolved unwritten; product of growth or long period of development originating in customs traditions, judicial decisions, etc.

As to form

o
o -

Written one which has been given definite written form at a particular time, usually by a Constitutional Convention Unwritten not codified in a single document

As to manner of amending them o o Rigid/Inelastic may only be amended by a special body and a formal process Flexible/Elastic may be altered in the same way as other laws

ADVANTAGE/DISADVANTAGE OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION Advantages o Clear and definite because it is prepared with great care and deliberation

o o o -

Cannot be easily bent or twisted by the legislature or the courts Protection it affords and rights it guarantees are apt to be more secure More stable and free from all dangers of temporary popular passion

Disadvantages o o Difficulty of its amendment Prevents the immediate introduction of needed changes and may thereby retard the healthy growth and progress of the state

CHARACTERISTICS OF A WELL WRITTEN CONSITUTION BRIEF: must confine itself to its basic principles otherwise it would never be understood by the public BROAD: must be comprehensive enough to provide for contingencies; must be adaptable to future situations DEFINITE: must not be ambiguous so that people may understand and to avoid conflict

ESSENTIAL PARTS Constitution of Government o o Deals with the framework of government and its powers, and defining the electorate Art. 6,7,8

Constitution of Liberty o Sets forth the fundamental rights of the people; imposes certain limitations to the powers of the government Art. 3

o -

Constitution of Sovereignty o Manner by which the constitution may be amended/ revised CONSTITUTION STATUTE Legislation from the peoples representatives Provides the subject of which it treats Intended to meet existing conditions only Statutes and other laws must conform to the Constitution

Legislation direct from the people Merely states the general framework of the law and government Intended not merely to meet existing conditions but to govern the future Supreme and fundamental law of the State

INTERPRETATION

1. Verba legis whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except
where technical terms are employed.

2. Ratio legis et anima where there is ambiguity, the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of the framers.

3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat the Constitution has to be interpreted as a whole. (Francisco v. HR, G.R. No.
160261, Nov. 10, 2003)

CONSTRUCTION

The provisions should be considered selfexecuting; mandatory rather than directory; and prospective rather than retroactive. (Nachura, Reviewer in Political Law, 2005 ed., p. 3)

1987 CONSTITUTION

Took effect on February 2, 1987; Announcement of ratification February 11, 1987 Consists of 18 Articles Conventional/Enacted, Written, Rigid/Inelastic Drafted by an appointive body called Constitutional Convention Fourth fundamental law to govern the Philippines since it became independent on July 4, 1946 1. Commonwealth Constitution (1935) 2. 1973 Constitution (Marcos regime) 3. Freedom Constitution (1986) 4. 1987 Constitution

Pres. Corazon Aquino: Proclamation No. 9 - Constitutional Convention composed of 50 members Most notable flaw: sheer length has deterred people from reading it, much less trying to understand it

Background of the 1987 Constitution 1. Proclamation of the Freedom Constitution a. Procalamation No. 1, February 25, 1986, announcing that she (Corazon Aquino) and VP Laurel were assuming power. b. Executive Order No.1, (Febrauary 28, 1986) c. Procalamation No.3, March 25, 1986, announced the promulgation of the Provisional (Freedom) Constitution, pending the drafting and ratification of a new Constitution. It adopted certain provisions in the 1973 Constitution, contained additional articles on the executive department, on government reorganization, and on existing laws. It also provided of the calling of a Constitutional Commission to be composed of 30-50 members to draft a new Constitution. 2. Adoption of the Constitution a. Proclamation No. 9, creating the Constitutional Commission of 50 members. b. Approval of the draft Constitution by the Constitutional Commission on October 15, 1986 c. Plebiscite held on February 2, 1987 d. Proclamation No. 58, proclaiming the ratification of the Constitution. 3. Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution: February 2, 1987 Features of 1987 Constitution 1. The new Constitution consists of 18 articles and is excessively long compared to the1935 and 1973 constitutions. 2. The independence of the judiciary has been strengthened with new provisions for appointment thereto and an increase in its authority, which now covers even political questions formerly beyond its jurisdiction. 3. The Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth and Marcos constitutions has been considerably improved in the 1987 Constitution and even bolstered with the creation of a Commission of Human Rights. AMENDMENT REVISION

Isolated or piecemeal change merely by adding, deleting, or reducing without altering the basic principle involved

A revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument altering the substantial entirety of the Constitution

Even if change is isolated in character but if it would affect the basic principles upon which the government operates it would constitute as a revision, not an amendment

STEPS IN AMENDMENT/REVISION

A. Proposal Stage (Section 1, Article 17)

a. By CONGRESS As a constituent assembly Upon vote of of all its members, voting separately It is logical that they vote separately since the also convene separately Tolentino v Comelec o SECTION 1, ARTICLE XV OF CONSTITUTION; CONGRESS AS CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION BY PEOPLE; ONLY ONE ELECTION TO BE HELD THEREFOR. The language of Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution is sufficiently clear. It says distinctly that either Congress sitting as a constituent assembly or a convention called for the purpose "may propose amendments to this Constitution," thus placing no limit as to the number of amendments that Congress or the Convention may propose. The same provision also as definitely provides that "such amendments shall be valid as part of the this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast as an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification," thus leaving no room for doubt as to how many "elections" or plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment or amendments proposed by the same constituent assembly of Congress or convention, and the provision unequivocally says "an election" which means only one.

b. By a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Congress can all for a Con-Con by vote of of its members; or May throw the issue to the electorate (referendum) where majority vote of all its members is needed Constitutional Delegates (Con-Con) Theories: o Con-Con is supreme over all branches because it is performing sovereign function Con-Con is made by Congress thus under its influence As long as confined in drafting the Constitution, Con-Con is regarded as a coequal body -> this theory is upheld in the Philippines

o o

Can Congress suggest amendments and at the same time call for a Con-Con? Yes

Gonzales v Comelec o The power to amend the Constitution or to propose, amendments thereto is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress (Sec. 1, Art, VI, Const.) It is part of the inherent powers of the people - as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours (Sec. 1, Art. II, Const.) to make and hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the same explicit]y grants such power (Sec. 1, Art. XV, Const.). Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and Members of the House of Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as component elements of a constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate from the Constitution - they are the very source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself.

c.

By PEOPLES INITIATIVE (Section 2, Article 17) Requirements: There must be a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters Every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters thereof The amendment through initiative is not made within 5 years following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution nor oftener than once every 5 years thereafter

GR: People can directly propose the amendment of the Constitution, not revision Other requirements: Petition should be directly signed by the people Proposal should be embodied in the petition itself (to prevent massive fraud) There must be a law passed by Congress to allow people to exercise initiative

Santiago v Comelec:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; 1987 CONSTITUTION; AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS; PROVISION ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO DIRECTLY PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, NOT SELFEXECUTORY. Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory. In his book, Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, stated: Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of amending the Constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, in the last analysis it still is dependent on congressional action. Bluntly stated the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. Stated otherwise, while the Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.

REQUISITES FOR VALID DELEGATION; SUFFICIENT STANDARD; CONSTRUED; R.A. 6735 MISERABLY FAILED TO SATISFY BOTH REQUIREMENTS. In every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his

functions. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid. Lambino v Comelec

The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition" is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.

California where the initiative clause allows amendments but not revisions to the constitution just like in our Constitution, courts have developed a two-part test: the quantitative test and the qualitative test. The quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions." The court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change. The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will "accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision." Whether there is an alteration in the structure of government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus, "a change in the nature of [the] basic governmental plan" includes "change in its fundamental framework or the fundamental powers of its Branches." A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also includes changes that "jeopardize the traditional form of government and the system of check and balances." Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group's initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's proposed changes overhaul two articles Article VI on the Legislature and Article VII on the Executive affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution. Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature. A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when the three great co-equal branches of government in the present Constitution are reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution. B. RATIFICATION STAGE ( Section 4, Article 17) o RATIFICATION o the direct approval by the people of the amendment to, or revision of the Constitution The final act to make any change in the Constitution valid as part thereof This power of ratification upholds the principle that sovereignty resides in the people

Holding of plebiscite DOCTRINE OF FAIR AND PROPER SUBMISSION Plebiscite must be held not earlier that 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision or certification of the Comelec of the sufficiency of the petition, as the case may be The minimum period of 60 days is deemed adequate to provide the voters sufficient information and time for intelligent consideration or study of the proposed change/revision The constituent body may fix the date within the period prescribed when the people may act. The time limit of 90 days prevents undue delay in the holding of the plebiscite.

Sanidad v Comelec

Time for deliberation is not short. The period from September 21 to October 16 or a period of 3 weeks is not too short for free debates or discussions on the referendum-plebiscite issues. The questions are not new. They are the issues of the day. The people have been living with them since the proclamation of martial law four years ago. The referendums of 1973 and 1975 carried the same issue of martial law. That notwithstanding, the contested brief period for discussion is not without counterparts in previous plebiscites for constitutional amendments. It is worthy to note that Article XVI of the Constitution makes no provision as to the specific date when the plebiscite shall be held, but simply states that it "shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such amendment or revision." Almario v Alba

REQUIREMENT FOR FAIR AND PROPER SUBMISSION ADEQUATELY MET. Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 directs the COMELEC to publish the amendments. The respondents assure us that publication in all provinces and cities, except a few where there are no local newspapers, has been affected and that Barangays all over the country have been enjoined to hold community gatherings for this purpose. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines and various civic organizations have taken a strong stand for or against the last two proposed questions. Television and radio programs regularly broadcast the amendments. The petitioners have failed to explain why, inspite of all the above, there is still fair and proper submission There is compliance with Article XVI, Section 2 of the Constitution, under which a proposed Constitutional amendment shall be submitted to a plebiscite "which shall be held not later than 3 months after the approval of such amendment." The proposed amendments under Questions 3 and 4, as embodied in Resolutions 105 and 113 of the Batasang Pambansa, were adopted on November 21 and December 19, 1983, respectively. From November 21, 1983, when Resolution No. 105 was adopted, up to January 27, 1984, there would be a spread of 67 days. On the other hand, from December 19, 1983, when Resolution No. 113 was adopted, up to January 27, 1984, there would be a spread of 39 days. o YES Simultaneous Ratification and General Election?

o Gonzales v Comelec
MEANING OF TERM "ELECTION" IN ART. XV, CONSTITUTION. There is in this provision nothing to indicate that the "election" therein referred to is a "special", not a general, election. The circumstance that three previous amendments to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections. RATIFICATION BY THE PEOPLE IN A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED. Nowhere in Sec. 1, Art. XV is it required that the ratification be thru an election solely for that purpose. It only requires that it be at "an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification." To join it with an election for candidates to public office, that is, to make it concurrent with such election, does not render it any less an election at which the proposed amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification. No prohibition being found in the plain terms of the Constitution, none should be inferred. Had the framers of the Constitution thought of requiring a special election for the purpose only of the proposed amendments, they could have said so, by qualifying the phrase with some word such as "special" or "solely" or "exclusively". They did not. o Almario v Alba There is no compelling reason why so much of the people's money should be spent for holding a separate plebiscite when the purpose, by and large, of the second is merely to confirm an existing Constitutional power

Can the Supreme Court review the amendment process?

Supreme Court can review the amendatory process but it cannot review the wisdom of the amendment for it would constitute a political issue They may only review issues with regards the process and determine if it is valid of not

DOCTRINE OF FAIR AND PROPER SUBMISSION Tolentino v Comelec o AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION; REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER SUBMISSION THEREOF TO PEOPLE. Amendments must be fairly laid before the people for their blessing or spurning. The people are not to be mere rubber stamps. They are not to vote blindly. They must be afforded ample opportunity to mull over the original provisions, compare them with the proposed amendments, and to reach a conclusion as the dictates of their conscience suggest, free from the incubus of extraneous or possibly insidious influences. We believe the word "submitted" can only mean that the government, within its maximum capabilities, should strain every efforts to inform every citizen of the provisions to be amended, and the proposed amendments and the meaning, nature and effects thereof. By this, we are not to be understood as saying that, if one citizen or 100 citizens cannot be reached, then there is no submission within the meaning of the word as intended by the framers of the Constitution. What the Constitution in effect directs is that the government, in submitting an amendment for ratification, should put every instrumentality or agency within its structural framework to enlighten the people, educate them with respect to their act of ratification or rejection. For as we have earlier stated, one thing is submission and another is ratification. There must be fair submission, intelligent consent or rejection.

DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY

If a law violates any norm of the constitution, that law is null and void; it has no effect. (This is an overstatement, for a law held unconstitutional is not always wholly a nullity) The American case of Marbury v. Madison laid down the classic statement on constitutional supremacy It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it. Constitutional supremacy produced judicial review. Angara v Electoral Commission o WHAT IS MEANT BY "JUDICIAL SUPREMACY". The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the Legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution.

SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES Angara v Electoral Comission o SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of various departments of government. For example, the Chief Executive under our Constitution is 80 far made a check on the legislative power that his assent is required in the enactment of laws. This, however, is subject to the further check that a bill may become a law notwithstanding the refusal of the President to approve it, by a vote of two-thirds or three-fourths, as the case may be, of the National Assembly. The President has also the right to convene the Assembly in special session whenever he chooses. On the other hand, the National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the sense that its consent through its Commission on Appointments is necessary in the

appointment of certain officers; and the concurrence of a majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of treaties. Furthermore, in its power to determine what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established, to define their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their support, the National Assembly exercises to a certain extent control over the judicial department. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments. And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.