ART.
1 NATIONAL TERRITORY
CURRENT CONTROVERSY WITH CHINA OVER
SCARBOROUGH SHOAL (located in South China
Sea/West Philippine Sea)
Decision of International Tribunal on the law on the
seas (ITLO, aka Arbitration tribunal)
- not on whether China owns SCS, or whether PH owns
WPS; since they actually pertain to the same waters;
- not on ownership of sea waters, since these waters
are international waters (being international waters,
anyone may use, except that ONE country will be
granted exclusive rights to explore, develop, utilize the
waters as recognized ad provided for by the
UNCLOS;
- but on who had better rights to use, utilize, develop,
explore over the SCS/WPS;
- decision on which country should have access or
have exclusive use of subject waters
- PH and CHINA both signatories of UNCLOS;
Chinas claims
main contention: exclusive claim of ownership (thus,
waters are named South China Sea)
Bases:
1. First to discover SCS
Per ITLOS, contrary to Chinas claim: no proof that
China first discovered Scarborough Shoal and sea
water around said Shoal; and even if assuming China
first discovered said Shoal, there is no proof showing
that they occupied the Shoal; emphasized: discovery
will only give China inchoate right to claim the Shoal,
but never a right of ownership since China never
occupied it.
o WHEREAS PH proved that since 1940s
(during the Japanese occupation), PH
already put up a flag in the Shoal and
occupied the same.
2. China has used the waters for some time
(waters called SCS since China is using them)
Per ITLOS: no indication that while China was using
area, it was at the exclusion of other states (i.e. no
proof of exclusivity of use in the SCS).
a. WHEREAS PH proved that PH has been
fishing in the PWS even before the
controversy broke out.
3. The two EEZs of China and PH are
overlapping so China suggests that China
and PH enter into a joint venture
As to overlapping (per ITLOS): NO OVERLAPPING
in the first place, since determination of EEZ must be
based on territories capable of human habitation and
economic development/activities/production.
a. Reason for claimed overlap: overlap is due to
China extending its claimed territory using as
baselines a group of islands reclaimed (islands
are underwater during high tide, thus China took
deliberate actions for their reclamation); but had
China not reclaimed, nor setup artificial structures
and features in said area, China could have not
possibly habituated the subject islands.
a. WHEREAS for PH: drawing the EEZ from
the Subic or Zambales as baselines, the
Shoal definitely fall inside the PH-EEZ; and
said base shorelines are capable of human
habitation without any further intervention.
b. As to proposed joint venture (per ITLOS): said
proposal is not constitutional, since the EEZ is, as
named is EXCLUSIVE for the PH and cannot be
subject to any joint venture with any other country
(we may hire other countries as contractors, or
engage other countries in financing; but definitely
not enter into a joint venture)
Note: the exclusivity of exploitation and use of our natural
resources (which extend to EEZ) is provided in Art. 12 of the
Constitution, but EEZ per se is not actually mentioned (nor
defined) in Constitution; although UNCLOS, as an international
law, now form part of our laws due to Incorporation (Art. 2).
Note: only US did not sign UNCLOS; reasons largely political;
US is more of a continent (thus sea water would be limited)
and thus US cannot agree with the measurements of territories
(i.e. US does not want to be held liable for any encroachment
in territories due to any covert spying activities); and US has
power and means to not sign UNCLOS unlike PH, PH has to
support UNCLOS to protect itself and obtain support from the
international community (i.e. against claims by China,
Malaysia).
IMPORTANT TERMS
Internal waters
Pertain to and aka archipelagic waters per UNCLOS; found
inside (landwards) the straight baselines.
Territorial waters
12 nautical miles from the outermost straight
baselines/shorelines.
Archipelagic sea lanes
The right of way over the sea waters INSIDE the straight
baselines (since there are islands in PH that are separated by
more than 24 miles). Per UNCLOS, there are vessels
(especially those under stress) which may be allowed just to
pass through; thus right of way; but said right of way (i.e.
archipelagic sea lanes) must be defined by PH laws, however,
same is still pending in Congress so for now, no one may
automatically enter PH internal waters unless given express
permission; said permission being granted only thru laws.
ART. 2 DECL. OF STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
GENERAL
Sometimes known as Political Creed of the
Government.
A declaration/enumeration of precepts, philosophies,
principles underlying the operation of the government (all
three branches).
DOES NOT confer rights to certain individual EXCEPT
thru Section 16 (i.e. right of people to a balanced and
healthful ecology), nor impose obligations to the people
or to the government.
NOT self-executing: (a) cannot be invoked in court for
purpose of determining WON a law or act of the
government is violative (of Art. 2); (b) need laws to be
implemented.
When violated:
- A REMEDY political: do not vote for individual.
- NOT A REMEDY judicial action/review.
CASE IN POINT: Taada v. Anggara
Recent decision concerning the violation of Art. 2s provisions.
The World Trade Agreement (WTA) of the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
PH is a member of WTO and a signatory of WTA (thus we
have foreign products competing with local-made ones).
Effects of WTA:
a. Globalization of trade (e.g. foreign products cheaper than
local, good competition)
b. Congress shall not pass laws contrary to the WTA
ISSUE: WON WTA is violative of Art. 2 Sec. 7 of the
Constitution which provides that (a) foreign policies should be
independent, (b) what must be stressed in the paramount
importance on National Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity.
HELD: Art. 2 is not self-executing. In the absence of a law
implementing Art. 2 Sec. 7, the same cannot be brought as
legal basis for a controversy questioning the legality of the acts
of the government, nor can it be a source of judicial relief.
DICTA: There cannot be an absolute enjoyment of sovereignty
PH cannot survive on its own and thus must relate with other
countries so long as such relations are on bases of equality,
mutuality, reciprocity in so far as benefits are concerned.
Note: Of all provisions in Art. 2, only Sec. 16 is self-executory.
ART. 2. SECTION 1
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and
republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and
all government authority comes from them.
The Constitution recognizes only ONE state, the PH,
and it is a Republican and is Democratic.
Same fact can be indirectly established from Art. 1s
definition of the national territory no mention of a
Muslim state or any other state besides the PH.
CURRENT CONTROVERSY: PROPOSED
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BANGSAMORO
The proposed Bangsamoro is not acceptable under the 1987
Constitution since the Constitution does not recognize an
associate state (to which the Bangsamoro is being likened).
IF Bangsamoro will be patterned to the ARMM, it CAN pass
the test of constitutionality and can be recognized as a political
subdivision.
LEGAL BASES: directly, Art. 2 Sec. 1; and indirectly, Art. 1
of the Constitution.
CASE IN POINT: Province of North Cotabato v.
Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)
The GRP and the MILF were scheduled to sign a MOA of the
Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP- MILF Tripoli Agreement
on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Petitioners sought to compel respondents to disclose and
furnish the complete and official copies of the MOA, prohibit
signing of the same, and the holding of public consultation
thereon; and to have the said MOA declared unconstitutional.
SC issued a TRO enjoining the GRP from signing the same.
ISSUE: WON MOA is unconstitutional.
HELD: Yes. MOA intends to vest upon the Bangsamoro
Juridical Entity the status of an associate state or, at any rate,
a status closely approximating it. The concept of association is
not recognized under the present Constitution.
REPUBLICANISM
Is a system and/or kind of Democracy
A representative type of government
PH elects officials for a definite term
Government may be definite (same system) but
administrations will change (may change way of
management)
Manifestations of Republicanism
1. Existence of bill of rights
2. Rule of majority
3. Government of laws and not of men
4. Observance of separation of powers
5. Non-delegation of powers
6. Public accountability
7. Provision against passage of irrepealable laws
8. Popular suffrage/vote
Manifestation #1: Existence of bill of rights
to ensure that powers are not concentrated in only one
person, entity, branch; that powers are divided amongst
branches, where each observe separation and independence
in the exercise of their respective powers;
without the bill of rights, the possibility of having a tyrannical
government is not remote; a mob rule instead of a Republic;
bill of rights balances the authority of the government with the
rights of the individuals.
Manifestation #2: Rule of majority
Basis for rule: almost impossible to obtain unanimous
approval on anything, thus constitution provides for a way to
arrive at a decision especially when it needs to be decided as a
collegial body (e.g. Congress, Constitutional Commissions,
Judicial bodies)
 Underlying assumption: minority must follow majority since
majority is assumed as the will of a greater number of people;
Risks in the rule: if not PROPERLY observed, a tyranny of
numbers instead of the voice of majority occurs;
Rights of the minority: since sovereignty does not come
only from the majority but from everyone, this principle must be
properly observed to ensure that even rights of minority are
respected rights of minority: (a) participation in debates and
discussion, (b) having an equal vote as those in the majority;
FORMS of Majority: (A) Ordinary and (B) Qualified majority.
A. Ordinary Majority
CONGRESS regular sessions:
- Attendance requirement: need only AS MINIMUM, a
quorum (i.e. half of total actual members plus one)
- Voting requirement: to pass a bill: need only majority
(i.e. half plus one) of present members (while taking
note of quorum requirement)
SUPREME COURT En Banc to declare law unconstitutional:
- Attendance requirement: need only AS MINIMUM, a
quorum (i.e. half of total actual members plus one)
- Voting requirement: to pass a bill: need only majority
(i.e. half plus one) of those who actually participated
in the deliberation
B. Qualified Majority
CONGRESS more important decisions:
- State of war: requiring 2/3 votes of the actual
members of Congress, voting separately;
- Amendment to Constitution: 3/4 votes of the actual
members of Congress, voting separately;
- Revocation/extension (but not affirmation) of
Declaration of Martial law, or Lifting of suspension
of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
majority vote, JOINTLY; ONLY time Congress votes
jointly (senators votes have same weight as
representatives votes; thus they can always be
outnumbered with the lower house in these kinds of
sessions);
Note: under 1973 Constitution, 10 votes as MINIMUM is
required to declare laws as unconstitutional and remove law
from book of statutes.
Note: under 1987 Constitution, required to declare
unconstitutional:
- IF 15 present = 15/2 = 7.5 = 8 votes
- IF 14 present = 14/2 = 7, + 1 = 8 votes
- IF 13 present = 13/2 = 6.5 = 7 votes
- IF 8 present = 8/2 = 4, + 1 = 5 votes
- IF 7 present = no quorum
Thus, with only 5 (as MINIMUM), SC can already declare a law
unconstitutional per the rule of majority (more liberal then 1973
Constitution).
Note: Only SC En Banc can reverse/modify an SC Divisions
decision.
Note: All lower courtsonly one MR available; SCmay
entertain as many MRs as they wish (i.e. SC has own rules).
Note: As to TROs: Lower courtsautomatically lifted after 20
days; SCindefinite, SC has discretion when to lift TRO.
Note: RH law constitutional; but cannot be implemented just
yet since the funds allocated for the purchase of contraceptives
are currently subject to a TRO whilst said appropriation for RH
law is still pending in court.
Manifestation #3: Government of laws, not of men
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW we follow the law
regardless of position, status; we apply the law as it is.
CASE IN POINT: Villavicencio v. Lukban
Mayor ordered (no law issued to this effect) the deportation of
all prostitutes from Manila to Davao.
Mayors contentions: protecting the general welfare (public
health, safety, morals) of people in Manila.
Prostitutes filed writ of habeas corpus before the SC.
ISSUE: Shall the judiciary permit a government of men instead
of a government of laws?
HELD: No. Regardless of the nobility of the mayors intentions,
his order cannot prevail in the absence of laws empowering
him to issue said order, or any law barring the women from
choosing their own residence. Writ of habeas corpus granted.
Under the Constitution, all (incl. the women prostitutes) have
the right to their own abode. Unless there is a law prohibiting
anyone from residing in a particular place, anyone has a right
to choose where he/she so decides to live.
CASE IN POINT: Rice case
A law prohibiting the importation of rice was in effect.
A government official, notwithstanding said law, imported rice.
Government officials contentions: there was shortage and
people will starve, rice being a staple for Filipinos.
ISSUE: Shall the judiciary permit a government of men instead
of a government of laws?
HELD: No. Regardless of how salutary the government
officials intentions was, where there is a law prohibiting the
importation of rice, his intentions cannot supersede the law.
Upon the government official invoking good faith, SC
emphasized that PH is not a government of good intentions of
men, but of laws.
CASE IN POINT: Judge refusing to give out death penalty
Death penalty, then, prescribed for convictions for rape; but the
presiding judge gave the reclusion perpetua due to his devout
Catholic faith.
Judge declared ignorant of law and was administratively
charged.
Note: no matter how noble the Presidents intentions in
extinguishing drugs in PH, he has no right to execute anyone
without due process.
Manifestation #4: Observance of separation of powers
Expressly granted: So long as a power is expressly granted
(political) to a particular branch, said power is discretionary and
is a political prerogative; and that branch therefore, under the
separation of powers cannot be interfered with.
General: Political questions are outside the scope of the SC.
Exception: Alleged grave abuse of discretion resulting to
the lack or excess of jurisdiction (reviewed through Rule 65);
the ONLY time powers expressly granted (political) can be
reviewed; judicial review is available as remedy.
 Judicial review (see also JUDICIAL REVIEW below for detailed
discussion): is expressly vested by the Constitution to the
Judiciary as part of the expanded jurisdiction of the courts;
judicial review is exercisable by ALL courts (except that Rule
65, and questions of constitutionality are exclusive to SC).
Note: Political questions are those involving powers expressly
granted by the Constitution.
Note: When the SC, in turn commits a grave abuse, also
termed as overreaching, remedy available is impeachment.
A. Congress, Legislative inquiry, Contempt
Legislative inquiry (LI) is expressly granted/vested by the
Constitution; and power to cite someone in contempt is
necessarily included in LI (otherwise, LI has not teeth)
- Controversy: do courts have the authority to
intervene (under their judicial review function)?
- That is: Judiciarys power to try controversies vs.
Legislatures power to conduct LI.
- NO. As such would already be an encroachment of
the legislatures prerogative, LI being expressly
granted by the Constitution, and the power to cite
someone in Contempt necessarily being a function to
dispense said power.
- Available remedy: Rule 65 (grave abuse of
discretion resulting to the lack or excess of
jurisdiction), though, is available as remedy for those
held in contempt by Congress.
B. Decl. of martial law, Susp. of writ of habeas corpus
- President has prerogative to declare martial law (ML)
and need not any affirmation from Congress;
- Condition: ML can only be declared during rebellion;
- Power not absolute: declaration of ML can still be
checked by Congress the president required to
report/submit to Congress upon his declaration of ML;
the checking, in the technical sense, is in fact an
encroachment of the presidents prerogative, but the
same remains to be constitutional, is it is likewise
expressly allowed by the Constitution itself.
- Upon submission: Congress not required to
convene congress will only convene upon an
initiative to revoke, or upon the request from the
president to extend the ML;
- That is: declaration of ML deemed automatically and
fully valid until revoked.
C. Decl. of State of emergency/of war
- President can declare state of national
emergency/state of war this has been (in effect)
delegated to the president since President has the
best resources/intel to determine condition of PH, and
WON an national emergency or state of war exists;
- Basis/type of emergency: ANYTHING (both natural
and man-made)
- Rule/law-making restricted: remains exclusively
with Congress, and can only be delegated to
President through a statue to that effect (e.g. power to
appropriate disbursements to cover operations
responsive to state of emergency/war); and scope of
delegated law-making powers only limited to those for
which the emergency was declared.
- That is: the original power to determine WON a
national emergency exists is with Congress; but
delegated to President as to declaration only
(supported by jurisprudence, see CASE IN POINT: Arroyo below)
- (see also Manifestation #5-A)
CASE IN POINT: Marcos v. Manglapus
Former-Pres. Marcos and family (then in Hawaii) sought to
return in PH. Then Pres. Cory Aquino barred the Marcos family
from returning.
ISSUE: WON Pres. Aquino has prerogative to prohibit the
Marcoses from returning to PH.
HELD: Yes. Pres. Aquinos prohibition is within the scope of
executive powers vested by the Constitution.
Also, powers of executive not limited to those specifically
enumerated in the Constitution; whatever power inherent in the
government that is neither legislative nor judicial, is executive.
CASE IN POINT: David et. al. v. Arroyo
Arroyo declared national emergency when power to do so
shouldve been with Congress.
ISSUE: WON Pres. Arroyo has prerogative to declare a state
of national emergency.
HELD: Yes. Pres. Arroyo can declare (declare only) and not
precluded from declaring a state of national emergency; by that
mere declaration, no (emergency) power is given.
President is in best position to determine condition of PH. In
doing so (declaring), the president is merely describing a
condition of the country at such point. However, no emergency
powers shall be automatically vested to the President upon the
same declaration. These powers remain with Congress and
may only be delegated to the President (for that particular
instance only) through statute.
HOWEVER: when Arroyo started calling the AFP to execute
warrantless arrests to rallyists, etc., SC said: this is an exercise
of legislative power, which should not be exercised without the
express consent of the congress.
Note: Out of all systems of government, the Republican
system is the most adversarial always checking.
Note: quasi-judicial bodies can try or review grave abuse if
issue concerns factual controversies and not questions or
law/constitutionality.
Note: Supreme court not allowed to perform quasi-judicial
function to preserve its status and integrity.
D. Sharing of powers (see also discussion of permissible delegations
under Manifestation #5)
- The power to make laws (appropriation, taxation, police
power) is exclusive with the legislature; exception:
- Executive: delegated powers during state of rebellion;
- Judiciary: delegated powers as to Rules of courts,
Bar, etc.;
- The power to make appointments exclusively with executive
branch, exception:
- Power to appointment shared with each branch (e.g.
Congress and SC can appoint their personnel
themselves) to preserve each branchs independence;
- The power to try cases and decide controversies is exclusive
with the judiciary, exception:
- Executive: administrative cases
 o Tried/settled with the department first, and
not directly with the courts; exhaustion of
administrative remedies; quasi-judicial
function;
- Legislative: Legislative inquiry and Contempt;
electoral tribunals (one for each house)
o Tried/settled with the department first, and
not directly with the courts; exhaustion of
administrative remedies; quasi-judicial
function;
Note: PDAF is not a constitutional sharing of powers.
Congress does not only determine for which the money is
spent, but Congress also executes the budget. This is against
the separation of powers.
Note: Disbursement Acceleration Fund of Pres. Aquino, is
likewise unconstitutional put in single account as savings and
not included in budget; then spent by president at his
discretion; no appropriation. This is also against the separation
of powers.
Note: COMELEC has original and appellate jurisdiction over
election controversies; and the decisions COMELEC render
are final, except when grave abuse is attendant.
Note: Presidential electoral tribunal is purely judicial only SC
reviews, and COMELEC no longer has any jurisdiction; thus,
no appeals.
E. Exercise of Judicial Review
Judicial review is the remedy and safeguard provided by the
1987 Constitution as part of the expanded judicial powers of
the judiciary to ensure (a) that the separation of powers is
properly maintained; and (b) that despite each branchs
independence from each other, there is no grave abuse of
discretion resulting to the lack or excess of jurisdiction, nor are
those unjustly affected by such grave abuse left without any
available remedy.
(see discussion on JUDICIAL REVIEW below).
Manifestation #5: Non-delegation of powers
Rationale/Principle: delegated powers cannot be re-
delegated (unless with consent from the peoplethe original
delegators):
Branches vested by Constitution ratified by People
Pursuant to above (as to Congress), legislation is more of a
DUTY than a power of Congress;
Exception: Permissible delegations (to adapt with changing
times); delegated to:
- From Congress (legislative powers are the most
delegated powers): per Sec. 23 and 28 of Art. 6 to
A. President;
B. Administrative bodies;
C. Local government units;
D. People (thru initiative, referendum).
- From Executive: e.g. power to appoint (see also
discussion on Sharing of powers under Manifestation #4-D)
A. Permissible delegation to President
A.I National emergency, lawlessness/rebellion, war:
- President may declare (only declare), at his own discretion, a
State of national emergency; emergency powers, however, can
be delegated thru statute.
- National emergency: emergency that affects the
whole nation (may be manmade, or natural calamity).
- Emergency powers: congress enables the president
through a law to disburse public funds.
- But SC said in the Arroyo case that the president can
declare such, only that he/she cannot be vested with
emergency powers without the express consent of the
congress
- (see full discussion under Manifestation #4-C, and CASE IN POINT:
Arroyo above)
- State of lawlessness/lawless violence President has the
power to call the AFP to help in solving lawless violence.
- On declaration of a State of WAR only congress can
declare such, through 2/3 votes of each house
- However, the president is never barred in declaring
state of war even if no declaration was made by
congress yet, but he cannot exercise emergency
powers
- NOTE: Purpose of delegation: (1) not a plenary power, it is
limited (scope extends only to the purpose for which the
emergency was called);
- Example: during Yolanda
President cannot pass a legislation legalizing
prostitution in order for people there to earn money
because the government has no money.
- NOTE: Delegation is only for a limited period of time, it
ceases, but shall, in notice on the next adjournment of the
congress (next session), if it is not withdrawn earlier by a
resolution;
- NOTE: Withdrawal of emergency powers need not be
approved by the president, because withdrawal is not a law,
but a resolution by Congress
- Is there a change that the Congress and President can
exercise emergency powers? yes, if it has not ceased after
the next session.
A.2 Another delegation of legislative power: Taxation powers
- General: Taxation powers (imposition can only be done,
originally, by law power of Congress)
- Exception: President can impose tariffs wharf dues, import
and export costs.
- e.g. Increase of VAT from 10% - 12%, no usurpation
of legislative powers by Arroyo. She was just
implementing what the DOF and NEDA ascertained.
B, C, D above see KWIN and Warrior Notes.
Note: Bill-making contest not unconstitutional since the bills
made by the participants serve only as suggestions; actual
deliberation, processing, passage still with Congress.
Note: Despite the manifestation of non-delegation of
legislative powers, legislation has, in fact, become the most
delegated power in heeding the call of changing times.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial Power adjudication, deciding won rights are
violated under existing laws.
Judicial Review form part of judicial power the
power to inquire into the existence of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
(JUDICIAL INQUIRY).
- This cannot be exercised by courts at any time
courts are passive, cannot act on its own; someone
should go to court and ask for judicial relief main
purpose should be to seek relief:
o Complain that act is unconstitutional;
o Court has no choice but to review the law or
act;
o WON it is unconstitutional or the act
constitutes grave abuse of discretion;
Judicial review is the remedy and safeguard provided
by the 1987 Constitution as part of the expanded
judicial powers of the judiciary to ensure (a) that the
separation of powers is properly maintained; and (b) that
despite each branchs independence from each other,
there is no grave abuse of discretion resulting to the
lack or excess of jurisdiction, nor are those unjustly
affected by such grave abuse left without any available
remedy.
CASE IN POINT: Marcos burial case
ISSUE: WON the president committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
HELD: NO. It was a discretionary power of the president, a
political question case was dismissed. All the president did
was to enforce the law, because Marcos qualified to be buried
there.
Libingan ng mga Bayani is just a name does not mean only
heroes are buried there.
Justiciable vs. Political Questions:
General rule: only justiciable questions can be reviewed
(review thru Rule 45); since political questions (involving
powers expressly granted by the Constitution and delving
into the wisdom of other branches) are beyond the courts
review and are answerable ONLY by the people.
Exception: when said political prerogative (i.e. political
question is exercised with grave abuse of discretion:
- Expressly granted: expressly granted by the 1987
Constitution to the Judiciary; thus, in a sense, there
no longer is any difference between justiciable and
political questions since both are now subject to
review of the courts except that political questions
are only reviewed at the instance of grave abuse;
that is, thru Rule 65 as distinguished from Rule 45
political questions then become justiciable questions
when grave abuse is attendant.
- As relief and remedy: with the 1987 Constitution
vesting said expanded power (and duty) of judicial
review, relief is now available for allegations of grave
abuse of discretion;
- NOT motu proprio: the court however cannot, on its
own, review other branches; a third party must allege
and bring an action for review before the court.
Effects: generally retroactive as if law never existed
(see detailed discussion of E.5 DECISIONS and E.6 EFFECTS after elaboration
on requisites below);
Requisites: There are four (ALL must concur), to wit:
E.1. Actual case or controversy;
E.2. Raised by appropriate party;
E.3. Raised at earliest opportunity; AND
E.4. Constitutionality must be the ultimate issue.
E.1 REQUISITE 1: Actual case or controversy
- PRESUMPTION: Laws are valid/voidable (i.e. for all purposes
valid until declared unconstitutional); thus, there must be an
actual case assailing said validity for the courts to disturb the
presumption;
- CASE: when there are conflicting rights based on
constitutionality of law;
- NO case: NO rights violated: NO need to question
constitutionality;
- At time of filing with the SC, issue/controversy must
already/still exist not yet moot and academic:
- General: must continue to exist up to resolution of
case (otherwise, will be dismissed by the SC at any
stage of the proceedings as soon as issue ceases to
exist);
- Exception: (a) possible to be repeated; (b)
transcendental importance to the public.
E.2 REQUISITE 2: Raised by appropriate party
- Party initiating the review must not be the Court motu proprio;
- To be a direct proper party:
General:
i. Locus standi; AND
ii. Been directly aggrieved or have sustained injury
(must be ACTUAL or atleast IMMINENT/potential)
Exceptions:
i. ANY person Declaration of Martial Law;
ii. ANY person Lifting of writ of Habeas Corpus;
iii. ANY person Constitution - validity of ratification
process (NOT on contents of proposal; but on
process only);
iv. ANY taxpayer anomalous disbursements (contrary
to law, amounting to misappropriation or malversation
of public funds);
v. ANY taxpayer exorbitant tax rates;
vi. ANY voter when issue involves the right to vote;
vii. or General requirements/rules may be waived by the
SC (i.e. ANYONE can be an appropriate party) when
the issue is of:
a. transcendental importance to the public, or
b. paramount to public interest.
Note: Intergenerational party (Oposa vs. Factoran) was
appreciated as proper party in invoking the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology.
E.3 REQUISITE 3: Raised at earliest opportunity
- General rule:
a. Unconstitutionality must be specifically alleged; AND
b. must have been raised at earliest stage in trial.
c. Thus, you cannot raise question of un/constitutionality
for the first time on appeal.
- Exception: When un/constitutionality may be raised anytime: CASE IN POINT: Araullo v. Aquino
a. Issue is on JURISDICTION; DAP case.
b. CRIMINAL case as a matter of defense/appeal; OR
ISSUE: WON full-reversal/general rules, as to effects, are also
c. CIVIL cases (a) when un/constitutionality is the Lis
applicable to infrastructure already erected thru DAP.
Mota (see discussion of Lis Mota in E.4 REQUISITE 4 below).
HELD: NO. DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT: In extra-
ordinary circumstances, in the light of equity and justice,
E.4 REQUISITE 4: Constitutionality must be the ultimate issue
projects implemented and incidents and effects thereto (i.e.
- The issue on un/constitutionality must be the Lis Mota
infrastructure) are retained.
(translates ultimate issue) of the case; that is, without said
issues resolution, the case cannot be closed;
- All other possible means to resolve the case must have been Note: Constitutional questions can be raised: (a) directly to
exhausted; and the question on un/constitutionality can no Supreme Court En Banc; or (b) to RTC, but scope of effectivity
longer be evaded without the Court, in effect, failing in its would only be within same locality (e.g. ordinances).
duties as the judiciary. Note: ONLY SC (constitutionality issues are always decided
En Banc; SC circular 89-2) decisions on un/constitutionality
E.5 DECISIONS on un/constitutionality of laws can be binding on whole PH.
(see SC attendance and voting requirements under Manifestation #2)
Note: Lower courts are advised by SC to be very cautious in
- When found valid:
conducting judicial review; to EXHAUST ALL OTHER grounds
- Law is affirmed, confirmed and ratified;
(e.g. technicalities, if they must) before resorting to or
- Since validity of law is already presumed;
entertaining questions of un/constitutionality (see E.4 REQUISITE 4:
- Double negative declaration: the law is NOT
Constitutionality must be the ultimate issue below for details).
UNconstituional.
- When found invalid: Note: When MINIMUM votes (i.e. 5 at least, see SC attendance and
- Couched: the law is UNConstitutional. voting requirements under Manifestation #2) not obtained, case is
dismissed, constitutionality is upheld (see also E.5 DECISIONS and
E.6 EFFECTS when laws are declared unconstitutional E.6 EFFECTS when laws are declared unconstitutional below).
(see SC attendance and voting requirements under Manifestation #2)
- General: Unconstitutionality retroacts; full-reversal; not a law
since inception; as if law was never written, and thus:
- confers no rights;
- affords no protection;
- imposes no obligation;
- e.g. you refund all you have received on account of
law declared unconstitutional;
- Exception: DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT:
- For reasons of EQUITY and JUSTICE, under extra-
ordinary circumstances (e.g. finding unconstitutional
a law creating an office or appointment which has
persisted for more than a decade, thus affecting all
salaries, decisions, contracts, etc. entered into and
expended on account of said office or appointment)
- NOTE: where said doctrine is only an exception to the
general rule, this should be specified by the SC in the
decision should not be presumed.

CASE IN POINT: Chavez v. JBC

Congress represented by two representatives (i.e. one per
house), whereas Constitution prescribes ONE
REPRESENTATIVE per body only.
The excess representation was declared unconstitutional.
Where it was through said excess representation that
nominations including nominations in the Judicial and Bar
Council (JBC) where made, rendering the same
unconstitutional would likewise render nominations void,
affecting, amongst others:
a. judges/justices appointments;
b. salaries;
c. court decisions (some as old as decades ago).
ISSUE: WON full-reversal/general rules, as to effects, are also
applicable to JBC nominations (and a-c above).
HELD: NO. DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT: In extra-
ordinary circumstances, in the light of equity and justice,
nominations and incidents and effects thereto are retained.
ART. 2 DECL. OF STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
GENERAL
Not self-executing, except Section 16;
Separation of powers:
- Constitution assigns powers to the 3 branches;
- Those powers are prerogative, or discretionary
powers;
- Other branches must respect the prerogative powers;
- No usurpation of powers shall happen, other branches
cannot check them, unless the constitution provides
for it;
- Examples:
1. Implementation of law should only be the power
of the president, not the congress (pork barrel
case);
2. Other branches cannot compel the President to
implement laws (see CASE IN POINT: CAFGU case
below)
3. Congress cannot tell the Supreme court on how
to interpret the law. The salary of the members of
congress is fixed by law Congress said in
interpretation through a law that their salaries
should be tax free, because to subject it to
taxation it will result to a decrease in their
salary. SC said Power to interpret the constitution
is not vested on the congress.
4. Bar flunkers law Congress reduced the passing
percentage from 75 to 70; SC disagreed under
the constitution, the admission to the bar is not a
power of the congress
CASE IN POINT: CAFGU case
Civilian armed forces.
When Cory Aquino took over, she did not like the CAFGU.
Theres a law providing for the legitimacy of the CAFGU,
however, what Cory did was that she did not implement the
budget appropriation for the CAFGUs, so it wasnt able to
operate anymore
The President cannot dictate what laws should be passed on
the congress, neither can he go to supreme court and compel
the congress if they do not want to make laws.
Complications
- Examples:
1. the power of the president to appoint
prerogative power of the President. However, the
consti allows checking through Commission of
appointments (composed by members of the
congress) affirms the appointments;
2. Making of laws, discretionary power of a
congress. However it can be checked by the
president- veto power (however congress can
override the prerogative veto power of the
president);
3. Application of the laws: Prerogative of the
Supreme Court however can be checked by
(1) President: can grant pardon to the convict; (2)
Congress: can repeal the law.
Shared powers: (see CASE IN POINT: Araullo v. Aquino above)
- Making of laws:
o President: Sec 23 Art. 6 (emergency powers)
o SC: Rules of court, admission to the bar, etc.
- Executive power to appoint:
o SC appoint its personnel, except the
justices/judges;
o Congress can also appoint their personnel.
- Judicial power
o Congress contempt power
Impeachment
o Executive branch Decisions of
administrative bodies adjudicating rights and
obligations of parties in conflict (quasi-judicial
functions)
ART. 2. SECTION 2
Incorporation Clause
Do we absolutely renounce war?
- No, we only renounce offensive war
Who DETERMINES State of war?
- Congress
Who DECLARES war?
- President, as the commander-in-chief
- But he cannot exercise emergency powers without the
declaration of congress
NOTE: Adoption of International laws as part of our
domestic laws.
- Head of State is immune from suit, even if there is no
such law provided here in the Philippines
How to adopt international laws? (2 WAYS)
1. Transformation method transform generally
accepted principles of International Law to a domestic
law; NOT automatic.
2. Incorporation method generally accepted
principles of International Law are automatically
adopted, congress doesnt need to pass a law. It is
adopted as part of the legal system even without a
domestic law; courts will apply them just as domestic
laws, in absence of an applicable law. ADOPTED BY
THE PHILIPPINES.
Sources of generally accepted principles:
1. Ratified Treaties concurred by 2/3 votes of the
members of the senate
CASE IN POINT: Pimentel vs. Exec Secretary
(ROME STATUTE: Establishment of an International Criminal
Court).
It was signed by Estrada after seeing Bush sign it, even before
the congress ratified it. Estrada resigned. Bush withdrew his
signature and warned his allies. Arroyo (now president) then
did not pass the treaty to the senate for concurrence. Senate
went to Supreme Court to compel President to submit the
treaty to Senate for concurrence.
HELD: It is the prerogative of the President, and even if the
Senate will concur, if the President will not ratify it, it will not be
ratified. (Prerogative of president) (READ THE CASE NALANG
LOL)
2. Norms of general or Customary Laws pacta sun
servanda for as long as a treaty is signed by the
president, even if not concurred by senate, we are
bound by it (presumption of good faith); this principle
is an example of a norm that is adopted in the
Philippines.
o REQUIREMENTS for a norm or a customary
law to be adopted in the Philippines: (review
this kay dili klaro ang recording):
a. Established, widespread, and consistent
practice on the part of the state; AND
b. Obligatory: the practice in question is
rendered obligatory through a rule of law
requiring it.
CASE IN POINT: Mejares, et. al. vs. Javier
Recognition of foreign judgment.
There was a case filed in the court of Hawaii for violation of
human rights against the Marcoses, by the victims of martial
law. They filed for damages (at that time, the Marcoses were
still in Hawaii). Petitioners won the case. But there were no
properties identified in America. It was enforced in the
Philippines:
- There was no treaty between the US and the Philippines
recognizing or being bound by each others judgments
- However, there is a general norm that they do respect each
others judgments
- Thus, it (the foreign judgment) was allowed to be valid here in
the Philippines
3. Treaties that have become part of the customary laws
(we are not a signatory to it);
CASE IN POINT: Coroda vs. Jalandoni
Creation of a military commission.
Coroda: Military commission has no jurisdiction because we
are not a signatory to ____ treaty.
HELD: although we are not a signatory to it, it has become part
of the customary laws.
CASE IN POINT: LGBT case (ANG LADLAD PARTY)
Yugyarta principle demand for equal rights for LGBT
ISSUE: Does Yugyarta principle qualify as a general principle
of International Law which should then be adopted in the
Philippines under the Incorporation clause
HELD: NO. We are not prepared. This are principles which are
not reflective of the current state of the Philippine society
IN CASES OF CONFLICT between a treaty or
generally accepted norms and principles of International
Law and a statute passed by congress (i.e. if it cannot
be harmonized):
- If decided by local courts (it is their obligation to
uphold our own laws) Statutes prevail.
- If decided by tribunals other than our own courts
General Rule:
a. Latest modifies or repeals the earlier law
b. Equal status of IL and domestic laws
- If a treaty was ratified after the passage of a law: then
you treat the treaty as an amendment to the domestic
law.
- Treaty vs Constitution? Constitution prevails.
CASE IN POINT: Ichong vs. Hernandez
There was a treaty guaranteeing rights granted to Filipinos
should be the same as rights granted to Chinese nationals (ex:
engaging in business). Subsequently, the Retail Trade Law
was passed by congress, prohibiting foreigners to engage in
retail trade business (ex: sari-sari stores) to protect the
economy of the country. Ichong questioned the validity of the
statute.
HELD: uphold the law. It is an exercise of the States
sovereignty (police power), it cannot be bargained away by a
treaty
Besides, it was more recent, so it repealed the former treaty

CASE IN POINT: DOH vs Pharmaceuticals Incorporated

Required label: Breast milk is best for babies, domestic law
still pending.
WHO created a law, which became a customary law, requiring
such.
HELD: PH should adopt the said law.

CASE IN POINT: Llamanzares vs. COMELEC

Grace Poe, foundling.
Basis for her citizenship Convention on the reduction of
statelessness:
- we are not a signatory to it, but it has become a customary
law;
- Operates under a presumption: a child born in a country with
unknown parents it is presumed that that child is Filipino.
HELD: She was declared a natural born.

4. Other accepted principles: human rights, anti-racism,

human rights of a child (right to citizenship).
 ART. 2. SECTION 3
Manifestations:
1. President as the commander-in-chief, highest civilian
authority;
2. Congress appropriates public funds for the military;
3. Court martials (military only) to discipline members of
the AFP, decisions are subject to the decision of the
President;
4. Military members cannot run for public office while in
service, they should retire or stop serving in the
military;
5. Existence of PNP (civilian in character).
CASE IN POINT: Gudali vs. Senga
Gudali was a high ranking official with was called for legislative
inquiry. AFP Chief of staff Senga told him not to go, but he
went. He disclosed to the senate that in the last elections, fraud
was rampant (military officers were the ones who wrote names
of candidates on ballots). He was prosecuted in a court martial.
Detained and dismissed from service.
HELD: court martial is only a means of making him
accountable to the commander in chief. He is accountable to
the President directly, not to the Congress.
- He broke the chain of command.
- It is a violation of the supremacy of the civilian authority.
CASE IN POINT: IBP vs Zamora
Deployment of marines in malls.
HELD: no violation was committed. Marines are there not take
over the duty of the police, they were only there to render aid.
PNP and AFP tasks:
- AFP: outside threats
- PNP: inside threats
ART. 2. SECTION 4
Revival of ROTC is justifiable in this provision.
ART. 2. SECTION 5
CASE IN POINT: Chavez vs. Romulo
HELD: Right to bear arms is a mere statutory creation, it
cannot be considered an inalienable or absolute right. Due
process is not required if it will be taken away, given that it is
not a property nor a property right.
ART. 2. SECTION 6
Based on history, where friars were officiating in
elections (serving as COMELEC chief).
Manifestations: What are the provisions in the
Constitution that support the separation of church from
state?
1. State has no religion;
2. Religious sect cannot be registered as a political
party;
3. Provisions (see Nachura p. 83):
a. Sec. 29 (2) Art. VI prohibition against
appropriation for sectarian benefits;
b. Sec. 5 (2) Art. VI no sectoral representative
from the religious sector
5. Prohibition of disbursement of public funds for the
support of religious sectors;
6. However, priests who work in AFP, penal institutions,
govt. orphanage receives allowances or subsidies
(no violation here because it is merely incidental, not
primary).
There are exceptions:
1. Rule: Church not subject to property tax (all
properties, actually, directly, and exclusively and
actually used for religious purpose).
Thus: Example: You own a land, you leased it to the
Iglesia ni Cristo
o Is your land subject to property tax? NO
o The church building? NO
o The income you derive from the rentals?
YES, subject to income tax.
2. Optional teaching of religion in public schools:
o If there is a written consent of the
parents/guardians;
o It does not entail additional cost to the school
or to the state;
o It should be taught during school hours by an
accredited religion teacher.
3. Public funds may be used if the priest is working in
AFP, penal institutions, govt. charities, etc.
4. In terms of educational institutions, generally, only
Filipino citizens are allowed to own private
educational institutions, except if the owner is a
religious groups, even if all foreigners, they can own
schools.
ART. 2. SECTION 7
See CASE IN POINT: Tanada vs. Angara (WTO provision) enjoyment of
sovereignty not absolute.
ART. 2. SECTION 8
Nuclear weapons:
- Prohibition of nuclear weapons not absolute
- Consistent with national interest
- Nuclear power plant NOT prohibited
ART. 2. SECTION 9
Less in life more in law: promotion of SOCIAL JUSTICE,
HUMAN RIGHTS.
 ART. 2. SECTION 12 ART. 2. SECTION 26

Sanctity of the family life. CASE IN POINT: Pamintuan (Pamatong) vs. COMELEC
Pamatong named Nuisance Candidate.
CASE IN POINT: Imbong vs. Ochoa Pamatong invokes Sec. 26.
RH Law free contraceptives for the poor HELD: Section 26 of Art. 2 is not self-executing
HELD: What is prevented is fertilization; RH Law is
constitutional. Political dynasty not defined through a law.

ART. 2. SECTION 14

CASE IN POINT: Garcia vs. Drilon (RA 9262) ART. 4 CITIZENSHIP

VAWC Law:
- Not limited to physical; GENERAL
- Not giving support to the family form of economic violence.
BAR EXAM QUESTION:
A person may have more than one citizenship.
Telegram company did not accept a woman who applied. (6
months maternity benefits, from 60 days). (wala niya gitiwas Nationality vs. Citizenship:
kay nalingaw syag storya lol) - NATIONALITY used in relation to an international
community as a particular race; broader term.
(See Nachura p. 85) o You may be a Filipino national but not a
Filipino citizen, when you acquired foreign
citizenship and come back here in the
Philippines;
ART. 2. SECTION 16 o Limited in capacity to acquire lands;
o Not allowed to run for public office.
Right to a balanced and healthful ecology. - CITIZENSHIP focused on the internal political life of
the
CASE IN POINT: Oposa vs. DENR Sec.
HELD: Self-executing

ART. 2. SECTION 17

Prioritize education.

CASE IN POINT: Guingona vs. Carague

HELD: State is never barred in attending to other priorities
other than education. The provision that provides for the
highest budgetary priority of education is not mandatory, but
merely directory

ART. 2. SECTION 22

Ancestral domains private lands.

ART. 2. SECTION 23

NGOs now have a chance in legislation through the

party-list system.