INTRODUCTION

I.

Constitutional Law

Is the study of the structure and powers of the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines.
Is the study of the maintenance of the proper balance between authority as
represented by the 3 inherent powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the Bill
of Rights
It also deals with certain basic concepts of Political Law, such as:
1. Nature of the State
2. Supremacy of the Constitution
3. Separation of Powers, and
4. Rule of the Majority
POLITICL LAW - A 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.

II.

The Constitution
A. Definition
The document, which serves as the fundamental law of the state. The body of rules
and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually
exercised.
The written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the
fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined, and by
which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and
useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic.
B. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
I.

Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must
conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land
must defer.

II.

No act shall be valid, regardless of its intentions, if the same is running

encounter with the Constitution.

III.

The Constitution must ever remain supreme; all must bow to the mandate of
this law.

C. Parts of the Constitution

I.

Constitution of Liberty - the series of prescriptions setting forth the

fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations
on the powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those
rights (Art. 3).

II.

Constitution of Government - the series of provisions outlining the

organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain
rules relative to its administration, and defining the electorate (Arts. 6, 7, 8, &
9).

III.

Constitution of Sovereignty - the provisions pointing out the mode or

procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law
may be brought about (Art. 17).

D. Characteristics of a Good Written Constitution

The provisions of which has been reduced into writing and embodied in one or more
instruments at a particular time, and can only be amended by a formal and usually
difficult process.
I.
II.
III.

Broad comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency.

Brief confine to basic principles to be implemented
Definite to prevent ambiguity

E. Self-executing vs. Non-self-executing Provisions

Self-executing provision one which is complete in itself and becomes operative
without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies a
sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected.
Non-Self-Executing Provision one, which lays down a general principle.
III.

The Constitution of the Philippines, is:

1. A Written Constitution Its provisions of which has been reduced into writing and
embodied in one or more instruments at a particular time, and can only be amended
by a formal and usually difficult process.
2. A Conventional or Enacted Constitution It was formally struck off at a definite time
and place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by the constituent body or
ruler.
3. A Rigid Constitution It may not be amended except through a special process
distinct from and more involved than the method of changing ordinary laws. It
supposed that by such a special procedure, the constitution is rendered difficult to
change and thereby acquires a greater degree of stability.
A. Pre-1987 Constitution
Planas vs. COMELEC G.R. No. L-35925, January 22, 1973
(Plebiscite Case)

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary 50 SCRA 33

(Ratification Case)
FACTS:
Marcos declared the Philippines under martial law on September 21, 1972. Upon its declaration,
Congress was padlocked, and full legislative authority was vested upon Marcos via rule of decree.
Many prominent members of the opposition, notably Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Jos W. Diokno,
among others, was arrested and placed in military stockades.
The proceedings of the 1971 Constitutional Convention were still continuing despite the declaration
of martial law. Eventually, on November 29, 1972, the Convention approved the new constitution.
The next day, Marcos issued Presidential Decree 73, "submitting to the Filipino people for
ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971
Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefore," as well as setting the plebiscite for
said ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973. At this instance,
Charito Planas (a staunch critic and later vice-mayor of Quezon City) filed a case (known as the
Plebiscite Cases, Planas v. COMELEC (1973)) before with the Supreme Court calling the stop the
proposed ratification upon the grounds, among others, that the Presidential Decree "has no force
and effect as law because the calling... of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of
the same, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters,
and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively
in Congress..." and "there is no proper submission to the people there being no freedom of speech,
press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents
thereof."
On January 15, 1973, while the Plebiscite Cases were being heard in the Supreme Court,
Proclamation 1102, was signed by the President which states that the 1973 Constitution was
supposedly ratified by an overwhelming majority of all the votes cast by the members of all the
Barangays throughout the Philippines.
By virtue of the said decree, the Supreme Court dismissed the case for being moot and academic,
without prejudice to the filing of a case questioning the validity of Proclamation 1102. Thus, the
Ratification cases came into being for the purpose of questioning such Proclamation.

ISSUES
1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a justiciable or political and therefore a nonjusticiable question?
2. Has the Constitution proposed by the 1071 Constitutional Convention been ratified validly
conformably to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions?
3. Has the aforementioned proposed Constitution been acquiesced in by the people?
4. Are the petitioners entitled to relief?5. Is the aforementioned proposed Constitution in force?

HELD:

1. Six members of the court hold that the issue of the validity of Proclamation No 1102 presents a
justicicable and non political question. Justices Makalintal and Castro did not vote squarely on this
question, but, only inferentially, in their discussion of the second question. Justice Barredo
qualified his vote, stating that inasmuch as it is claimed that there has been approval by the
people, and, in the affirmative, the Court may determine from both factual and legal angles whether
or not Article XV of the 1935 Constitution has been complied with. Justices Makasiar, Antonio and
Esguerra, or three members of the court hold that the issue is political and beyond the ambit of
judicial inquiry.
2. Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, etc or six members of the court also
hold that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified
in accordance with Article XV, section 1 of the 1935 Constitution which provides only one way for
ratification that is, :in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only
by qualified and duly registered voters. Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that as to
whether or not the 1973 Constitution, has been validly ratified pursuant to Article XV, I still
maintain that in the light of traditional concepts regarding the meaning and intent of said Article,
the referendum in the Citizens Assemblies, specially in the manner the votes are casts, reported and
canvassed, falls short of the requirements thereof. In view, however, of the fact that I have no
means of refusing to recognize as a judge that factually there was voting and that a majority of the
votes were for considering as approved the 1973 Constitution without the necessity of the usual
form of plebiscite followed in past ratifications, I am constrained to hold that, in the political sense,
if not in the orthodox legal sense, the people may be deemed to have cast their favorable votes in
the belief that in doing so they did the part required of them by Article XV, hence, it may be said
that in its political aspect, which is what counts most, after all, said Article has been substantially
complied with, and in effect, the 1973 Constitutionally ratified.
Justices MAkasiar, Antonio, Esguerra or three members of the court hold that under their view
there has been in effect substantial compliance with the constitutional requirements for valid
ratification.
3. No majority vote has been reached by the court. Four members of the court, Barredo, MAkasiar,
Antonio, Esguerra hold that the people have already accepted the 1973 Constitution. Two members
of the court, hold that there can be no free expression, and there has been no expression by the
people qualified to vote all over the Philippines, of their acceptance or repudiation of the proposed
Constitution under Martial Law. Three members expressed their lack of knowledge or competence
to rule on the question. Justices Makalintal and Castro joined by Teehankee in their statement that
under a regime of martial law with the free expression of opinions through the usual media
restricted they have no means of knowing to the point of judicial certainty whether the people have
accepted the Constitution.
4. Six members of the court voted on the strength of the view that the effectivity of the said
Constitution in the final analysis is the basic and ultimate question posed by these cases to resolve
which considerations other than judicial and therefore beyond the competence of this court, are
relevant and unavoidable. Four members of the court voted to deny respondents motion to
dismiss and give due course to the petitions.
5. Four members of the court hold that it is in force by virtue of the peoples acceptance thereof;
Four members of the court cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes on the third
question that they could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have accepted the
Constitutional Convention is not in force.
As a result, there are not enough votes to declare the new Constitution is not in force. All the

aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed. There is no further obstacle to the new Constitution
being considered in force and effect.
Aquino vs. Enrile 59 SCRA 183
Sanidad vs. COMELEC GR No. 44640 October 12, 1976
(Affirming the Validity of Javellana)
FACTS:
On 2 September 1976, President Marcos issued PD 991 calling for a national referendum on 16
October 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve, among other things, the issues of
martial law, the interim assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period of
its existence, the length of the period for the exercise by the President of his present powers.
On 22 September 1976, the President issued another related decree, PD 1031, amending the
previous PD 991, by declaring the provisions of PD 229 providing for the manner of voting and
canvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national referendumplebiscite of 16 October 1976. Quite relevantly, PD 1031 repealed inter alia, Section 4, of PD 991.
On the same date, the President issued PD 1033, stating the questions he submitted to the people in
the referendum-plebiscite on 16 October 1976. The Decree recites in its "whereas" clauses that the
people's continued opposition to the convening of the interim National Assembly evinces their
desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a
new interim legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendumplebiscite of October 16. The Commission on Elections was vested with the exclusive supervision
and control of the October 1976 National Referendum-Plebiscite.
Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V. Sanidad, father and son, commenced a petition for Prohibition
with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding and
conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without force and effect
Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the Constitution, as
well as Presidential Decree 1031, insofar as it directs the Commission on Elections to supervise,
control, hold, and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on 16 October 1976. They contend
that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise
the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. As a consequence, the
Referendum- Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis.
Another action for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction was instituted by Vicente M. Guzman, a
delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, asserting that the power to propose amendments
to, or revision of the Constitution during the transition period is expressly conferred on the interim
National Assembly under action 16, Article XVII of the Constitution.
Still another petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction was filed on 5 October 1976 by
Raul M. Gonzales, his son Raul Jr., and Alfredo Salapantan to restrain the implementation of PDs
relative to the forthcoming Referendum- Plebiscite of October 16.
ISSUE:
Whether the President may call upon a referendum for the amendment of the Constitution.

HELD:
NO. Section 1 of Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution on Amendments ordains that:
1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by the National
Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or by a constitutional
convention
2. The National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a
constitutional convention or, by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question
of calling such a convention to the electorate in an election.
Section 2 thereof provides that Any amendment to, or revision of this Constitution shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later
than three months a after the approval of such amendment or revision."
In the present period of transition, the interim National Assembly instituted in the Transitory
Provisions is conferred with that amending power. Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions reads
"The interim National Assembly, upon special call by the interim Prime Minister, may, by a
majority vote of all its Members, propose amendments to this Constitution. Such amendments shall
take effect when ratified in accordance with Article Sixteen hereof." There are, therefore, two
periods contemplated in the constitutional life of the nation, i.e., period of normalcy and period of
transition. In times of normalcy, the amending process may be initiated by the proposals of the (1)
regular National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or (2) by a
Constitutional Convention called by a vote of two-thirds of all the Members of the National
Assembly. However the calling of a Constitutional Convention may be submitted to the electorate in
an election voted upon by a majority vote of all the members of the National Assembly. In times of
transition, amendments may be proposed by a majority vote of all the Members of the interim
National Assembly upon special call by the interim Prime Minister.
In sensu striciore, when the legislative arm of the state undertakes the proposals of amendment to
a Constitution, that body is not in the usual function of lawmaking. It is not legislating when
engaged in the amending process. Rather, it is exercising a peculiar power bestowed upon it by the
fundamental charter itself. In the Philippines, that power is provided for in Article XVI of the 1973
Constitution (for the regular National Assembly) or in Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions (for
the interim National Assembly). While ordinarily it is the business of the legislating body to
legislate for the nation by virtue of constitutional conferment, amending of the Constitution is not
legislative in character. In political science a distinction is made between constitutional content of
an organic character and that of a legislative character. The distinction, however, is one of policy,
not of law. Such being the case, approval of the President of any proposed amendment is a
misnomer. The prerogative of the President to approve or disapprove applies only to the ordinary
cases of legislation. The President has nothing to do with proposition or adoption of amendments
to the Constitution.
Occena vs. COMELEC GR No. L-56350 April 2, 1981
(Affirming the Validity of Javellana)
Phil. Bar. Association vs. COMELEC GR No. 72915 December 20, 1985
B. 1987 Constitution