Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6. Can there be an election despite the fact that there was no vacancy (PBA v
COMELEC)?
- No, the Constitution provides that there can only be an election when there is a
vacancy. However, during the Marcos era, such an election occurred when President
Marcos instructed the COMELEC to hold a snap election. He said that he would
relinquish his post once (a.) an election is held; (b.) a winner is announced; and (c.)
the winner/s assume or ascend to office.
7. The power of Judicial Review lies with the Supreme Court. Is the power also
conferred with the lower courts?
- Yes. Article VIII Sec 5 Par 2 implies that the power also lies with the lower/inferior
courts. The provision provides for the Supreme Courts authority to review decisions
regarding constitutionality of statutes, laws, treaties, and whatnot.
8. Is there a difference between EDSA 1 and EDSA 2?
- Yes. EDSA 1 was a change in government brought by the peaceful February
Revolution. This effected a forceful ejection of President Marcos as president of the
Republic. Cory Aquino replaced him in his stead. The change in government was
extra constitutional.
The revolutionary government of Cory Aquino gave the chief executive wide powers
including the power to legislate and appoint (In Re: Letter to Justice Puno)
EDSA 2, however, the change in government was intra constitutional. As opposed to
EDSA 1, EDSA 2 was an exercise of the peoples right to freedom of speech and
assembly; however, the event successfully pushed the then President Ejercito
Estrada to resign from his post (Estrada v Desierto).
9. When can the Supreme Court rule on questions considered political?
- When the President exercises emergency powers under Art VII Sec 18 Par 3, the
Supreme Court is empowered to review the factual circumstances or wisdom behind
the imposition of Martial upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen.
10. What is the difference between the Doctrine of Transcendental Importance v the
Doctrine of Personal Injury?
The Doctrine of Personal Injury refers to the standing of a person. The key question is
whether said person will suffer or benefit from the judgment of a suit (Minoza v
Lopez). The Doctrine of Transcendental Importance can be called upon if any of the
following 3 is satisfied: (a.) clear and grave disregard for the Constitution; (b.) nature
of public funds involved; and (c.) lack of a party with more direct interest.
11. What is the general rule in the power of augmentation?
- In the case of Araullo v Aquino III, petitioners invoke Art VI Sec 25 Par 5 as an
argument against respondents approach to augmentation. Augmentation refers to
additional funding for a specific item already appropriated by law. Said item should
have deficient funding. The additional funding will come from savings created from
other projects within their respective department. The power to augment lies with the
President, Senate President, House Speaker, Chief Justice, and other heads of
constitutional bodies provided that they only augment within their respective
departments.
12. Is the DAP constitutional?
- Yes. The DAP is not unconstitutional, however, certain parts of the DAP were
declared unconstitutional such: (a.) the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from
- The Philippine Assembly is composed entirely of Filipinos. Its first speaker was
Osmena.
- Gave the first definition of the citizens of the Philippines: all inhabitants of the
Philippine islands who were subjects of Spain as of 11 April 1899, who
continued to reside therein, and all the children born subsequent thereto.
Jones Law
- On 29 August 1916, the US Congress passed the Jones Law, otherwise known as the
Philippine Autonomy Act.
- It established a tripartite government with real separation of powers; this was the
prototype of our present set-up. The executive power was in the hands of an
American Governor-General, who was independent of the Legislature, and who was
given the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and impose martial law without
the recommendation of the Legislature. The Legislature was now composed of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, all composed of Filipinos (The President of
the Senate was Manuel L. Quezon). The judiciary continued to be made up of the
Supreme Court, the CFIs and Justice of Peace Courts.
- The definition of who were citizens of the Philippines first enunciated in the
Philippine Bill of 1902, was carried over by the Jones Law.
24. What is the term of the President under the 1987 Constitution? Is Estrada eligible
to run for President?
Under Art VII Sec 4 of the 1987 Constitution, the president shall have a term of six
years. The President shall not be eligible for re-election under the same office.
No Vice President shall serve for more than two successive terms.
No. Estrada is not eligible to run for President once more. Pursuant to Art VII Sec 4 of
voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as
an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was
elected. Estrada relinquished his role as president in EDSA II (Estrada v Desierto)
25. Terms of Office under the 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitution?
- When the 1935 Constitution came into force, the President had a term of 6 years.
However, during the 1940 amendment to the 1935 Constitution the term was
changed to 4 years with chance to serve for a maximum of 2 years.
Under the 1973 Constitution, Art VII Sec 3 of which provides that the president shall
have a term of six years.
26. What are the amendments to the 1935 and 1937 Constitutions? What are the
proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution?
- The 1935 Constitution had 3 amendments. The first amendment in 1940 had 3
effects: (a.) decreased the term of the president to 4 years with the possibility of
reelection; (b.) created a bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House of
Representatives; and (c.) the creation of an independent constitutional body known
as the Commission on Elections. The second was the parity rights amendments in
1947 (Mabanag v Lopez Vito). Finally, the third was the 1967 amendment that
created the 1973 Constitution.
The 1973 Constitution was amended four times: the first was the granting of
legislative powers to the president (Sandidad v COMELEC); the second was the
increase in retirement age of Justices and Judges of the Supreme Court from 65 to 70;
the third was the change in form of Government from a Parliamentary to Presidential;
and lastly, the fourth, was the creation of the post of Vice-President to succeed the
President in the instance of death.
26. What are the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution?
- The following are the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution: (a.) increase
of term of president (Santiago v COMELEC); (b.) shift from a presidential form to a
parliamentary (Lambino v COMELEC and Lozano v Nograles)
27. What were the relevant provisions under the Freedom Constitution?
- The most relevant provision under the 1986 Freedom Constitution was Article 5. The
said article mandated the creation of a constitutional assembly all members
appointed by the president to draft in an expeditious manner a new Constitution.
28. When did the 1987 Constitution Take Effect?
- Pursuant to Art XVIII Sec 27 The 1987 Constitution took effect at the day it was
submitted to the people for ratification 2 February 1987 (De Leon v Esguerra).
The 1987 Constitution, however, was proclaimed in 11 February 1987.
29. Was the Corazon Aquino administration acting as a revolutionary government?
- Yes. The Corzaon Aquino administration was a revolutionary government insofar as
the revolution it led EDSA I successfully overthrew an oppressive regime. EDSA I
was an extra constitutional act of the state and by virtue of such the resulting
government is classified as revolutionary. At the time, Corazon Aquino had wide
powers as head of the government conferred upon her was both the executive and
legislative power (In Re Letter to Justice Puno).
30. What is the case of Santiago v COMELEC?
Art XVII Sec 2 is not self-executing. RA 6735 does not provide for a method or
procedure on constitutional amendments only on national and local concerns such as
national statutes and local legislation.
31. What is the case of Marbury v Madison?
Marbury comes to the Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus
invoking Act of Congress 1789 which grants said court original jurisdiction on
Mandamus. However, article III of the US Constitution provides that the SC will only
have original jurisdiction on ambassadors, ministers, and consuls. Marbury does not
fall in any of these.
32. When is an issue considered Moot and Academic?
- A case is considered Moot and Academic when for some reason or another the issue
becomes stale. In the cases of Pomedor v Estrada, Quino v COMELEC, and Quizon v
COMELEC, the cases became moot because the issues that caused the controversy
disappeared because of supervening events. There will be no benefits to either party
of the case should the Court decide to rule upon it.
However, the Court, in the exercise of sound discretion, may choose to hear cases
otherwise moot if: (a.) there is a grave violation of the constitution; (b.) exceptional
character and the paramount public interest involved; (c.) need to formulate a
guiding principle for the bench, bar, and the people; and (d.) if the issue is capable of
repetition but evading review.
33. Is there a right to revolution enshrined in the Constitution?
- No. It would be self-destructive for a Constitution to enshrine and recognize a right
of the people to revolution. The nature of a Constitution is to set-up a government
and provide for an orderly way effect change to the government. A revolution
contradicts this nature.
34. What is the case of In Re Saturnina v Bermuda?
Petitioner for declaratory relief, the Supreme Court does not hear cases for such
petition. Petitioner seek to clarify who the president in Art VII Sec 18 in the transitory
provision is being referred to. This suit amounts to a suit to a president who cannot
be sued (Art XVII Sec 3). The legitimacy of an administration or president is not a
justiciable controversy.
35. Uy v Sandiganbayan
36. Which provisions of the Constitution are self-executing? Which are not?
- The case of Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS provides that all statutes under the 1987
Constitution should be considered self-executing with the exemption of Article II.
However, in the case of Oposa v Factoran, the Court made an exemption to the
exemption from the general rule, i.e. sections 15 and 16 of Art II are considered to be
self-executing.
37. What is the case of Province of North Cotabato v Government of the Republic of
the Philippines?
38. Discuss Citizenship in the Philippines.
Pursuant to Article IV Sec 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the following are citizens of the
Philippines: (a.) those who are citizens at the time of adoption of the constitution; (b.)
those whose mothers or fathers are citizens of the Philippines; (c.) those who born
before January 11 1973 and elect citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
(d.) those naturalized according to law.
By virtue of Art IV Sec 2, the first 3 on the above-cited list are considered natural
born Filipinos. Item number 3 was a correcting provision to fix the anomaly caused by
the articles on citizenship under the 1973 Constitution those who are born of a
Filipino mother but alien father under the regime of the 1935 Constitution and elect
citizenship before January 11 1973 are considered natural born under the regime of
the 1973 Constitution by virtue of Art IV sec 1 of the 1973 Constitution; however,
those who are born of a Filipino mother and alien father under the regime of the 1935
Constitution but elect citizenship after 11 January 1973 are considered naturalized
Filipinos by virtue of Art IV sec 2 of the 1973 Constitution. This makes for 2 types of
citizenship under the same group of people; thus, the 1987 Constitution sought to
correct this with Art 4 Sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
When aliens are naturalized under our laws, there are corresponding effects on the
minor children of the adults naturalized; such: (a.) if a child is born in the Philippines
succeeding the naturalization of his parents, then said child is automatically a citizen;
(b.) at the time of naturalization of a parent, the dependent child shall also acquire
citizenship; (c.) if at the time of naturalization a minor child is not residing in the
Philippines, then he is only a citizen until he reaches the age majority, unless he
takes permanent resident in the Philippines before reaching the age of majority.
One may lost his citizenship according to the following: (a.) cancellation of
naturalization certificate; (b.) served armed forces of enemy state; (c.) naturalization
in a foreign country; (d.) deserter of the Philippine armed forces; (e.) took oath of
allegiance in another sovereign; and (f.) renunciation of citizenship
It maybe reacquired through the following: (a.) direct act of Congress; (b.)
Naturalization; and (c.) Repatriation.
39. Is the PDAF unconstitutional?
- Yes. The PDAF and similar other discretionary lump sum funds were declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The 5 primary issues regarding the case are
as follows: (a.) violation of separation of powers; (b.) non-delegability of legislative
powers; (c.) accountability; (d.) check and balances; (e.) LGU autonomy; and (f.)
political dynasties.
(a.) With PDAF the legislative is granted the task of selecting the implementing
agency for each project a task reserved for the executive department. Further, the
Congress still take an active role in the identification of projects where funds are to
be allocated even after the passage of the GAA
(b.) The power to appropriate rests in the Congress alone, no individual member of
the Congress may appropriate funds for a project that they identify
(c.) Congress has an oversight over acts of the Executive; however, in the PDAF
system, Congress plays an active role in the execution of appropriations. It is, thus,
not possible for Congress to take a disinterested role in its oversight function over the
executive.
(d.) Congress also deprives the president of his Veto power
(e.) It should be the LGU who is identifying projects to be executed in their own local
domains or jurisdiction, not Congress
(f.) Court did not hear this part
40. What is the difference between the Citizen Retention Reacquisition Act and the
Citizen Repatriation Act?
Reacquisition
CA 63 How citizenship can be reacquired?
a.
By naturalization
b.
Repatriation (of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corp: Provided, That a
woman who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be
repatriated in accordance with the provisions of this Act after the termination of the
marital status-only need oath of allegiance and registration in the proper civil
registry)
c.
Direct act of Congress
RA 9925 (2003)
An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship
Permanent
o Retention of PHL Citizenship- take oath
o Derivative Citizenship- unmarried child below 18 y/o
o Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities- suffrage, election (Overseas Absentee
Voting Act of 2003)
Aug. 29, 2003 signed into law by Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
Also known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
In the case of AASJS vs Datumanong, the Court says that RA 9225 does is recognize
dual citizenship and on its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance.
Repatriation
RA 8171
An Act Providing for the Repatriation of Filipino Woman Who Have Lost their PHL
Citizenship by Marriage to Aliens and of Natural Born Filipinos
Sec. 1. Filipino women who have lost their PHL Citizenship by marriage to aliens &
natural- born Filipinos who have lost their PHL citizenship including their minor
children, on account of political and economic necessity may reacquire PHL
citizenship through repatriation in the manner provided in Sec. 4 of CA No. 63
Provided that applicant is not a:
1.
Person opposed to organized government
2.
Person defending or teaching propriety of violence, personal assault
3.
Person convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude
4.
Person suffering mental alienation or incurable contagious disease
Sec 2. Oath of allegiance