CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Amendments and Revision to the Constitution

Tuesday, July 11, 2017
5:39 PM
Political law defined as the branch of public law.

Consti law is the study of the maintenance of the proper balane of the authority of the
state with its inherent powers as: taxation, eminent domain, and police power.

The focal point of the study is the 1987 Philippine Constitution that took effect Feb 2,
1987. From time to time, we will have cross references to the other constitutions
especially on national territory and citizenship.

Constitution body of rules and maxims where the powers of sovereignty … [Cooley]

Malcolm - a written instrument enacted by direct action of people by which the

inherent powers of the state are defined, limited, and established. It is for the benefit of
the body politic. It provides for a framework of the system of government, and it
provides for the certain principles of which our government operates.

There are the written constitution [embodied in a single document or a set of

documents] from unwritten [does not mean it is unwritten. These provisions are not
embodied in a single instrument. Rather, the provisions are separated in various sources
like statutes enacted by Congress, case law, customs, etc.].

Evolved/cumulative [result of a political evolution. UK is an example.] v.

conventional/enacted [Consciously adopted or ratified by the people [Philippines] or
the ruler [Japan]]. Tracked down at a definite time and place.

Rigid [It is one which is difficult to amend/change.] [Philippines] v. flexible. [One that
can easily be amended].

1987 Constitution is written, enacted, and rigid. One that is difficult to amend. What do
you think is the advantage of having a rigid constitution?

It can withstand capricious changes, or changes that are not dictated by legitimate
means. This kind of Constitution has a character of permanency. It was likened to a
mountain in a storm.

Disadvantage: The Constitution would hamper Congress due to rigidity.

Essential qualities of a constitution:

• Broad [cover essentials. Not only organizations, but able to anticipate the future.
Provide for some contingencies. It should not be like a history book]
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

• Brief - as much as possible, it should only provide for the basi policies of the state,
leaving the details to Congress.

• Definite - provision should be clear, so it can be understood by the people.

Especially the ordinary citizens.

The different parts of a good constitution:

• Constitution of Liberty - Sets forth our basic and fundamental civil and political
rights. It also limits government power as a means to enjoy these rights. Found
under article 3.

• Constitution of Government - part of the constitution which outlines the

organization of the govt. allocates powers to different branches, Found under Art
6, 7, 8 , 4

• Constitution of Sovereignty - Amendatory process by which we could change

the Constitution itself. Article 17 of the 1987 Constitution.

> How to interpret the provisions of the Constitution <

Outlined by Francisco v. House of Representatives

[Memorize that latin stuff. Verba legis, ratio legis et anima [ambiguity in
interpreting, resort must be had to those who crafted the constitution.] ut magis
valeat quam pereat [wherever there are two or more related provisions in our
constitution, then these shall be construed altogether as to effectuate the
meaning thereof. SEEN IN BAYAN v. ZAMORA] as a matter of general rule, the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution must be regarded as self-executing laws, unless
otherwise provided. [most of the provisions of Art 2 are not considered as self-
executing provisions. These are merely expressions of public policy. Good example
which is not considered self-executing is Art 2 Sec 17. Congress shall provide the
implementation of People's Initiative. SANTIAGO v. COMELEC case]

APPLICATION OF SECOND RULE RATIO LEGIS ET ANIMA: This was used.

Impeachment complaint had different interpretations. First impeachment by Erap
was filed but not initiated. It was dismissed at the Committee of Justice and such
ruling was not overturned in the plenary session of the House of Reps. What was
initiated was the one by Gibo. That's why they believed there was only one
impeachment complaint against Davide. It was resolved by saying that filing of
impeachment complaint cannot be differentiated from initiation. They are
basically the same. They came up with that ruling with the deliberation of the
framers of the 1987 Constitution. Particularly from Regalado Majo or something. He
understood that filing the impeachment complaint shall not differentiated from
initiation thereof.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

APPLICATION OF THIRD RULE: Two provisions section 21, art 7 and Art 18 Section 25
should be construed together. They should be read together because they are
complementary. Related provisions must be construed altogether so as to
effectuate the meaning thereof.

Our constitution is a rigid constitution, one that is difficult change. How can we
possibly change the entire Philippine Constitution?

a. Amendment vis-a-vis provision - it's a piecemeal or isolated change.

b. Revision - it is a rewrite of the entire constitution or an overhaul.

Take note in Lambino that even when the purported change is isolated in
character but has the effect of changing the principles radically, then it must be
regarded as amounted to a revision. If you change the provision which states the
Philippines is a republic state to a communist one. It is a revision. Although it
appears to be isolated in character, it is far reaching in nature. While it is true that
amendment goes to piecemeal changes, there is an instance where the isolated
change partakes of the nature of revision. It would change the way our
government works.

Two tests whether the change can be characterized as amendment or revision:

a. Quantitative - a test by using or determining the number of provisions that would

be affected by the purported change. [Lambino case - about 1O5 would be
changed]

b. Qualitative - Effect of the purported change. Even if it seems isolated in

character, but it has a far reaching effect, then the change can be characterized
as amounting to revision. THIS IS THE CONTROLLING DOCTRINE!!

WHO CAN PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO OR REVISIONS TO OUR CONSTITUTION?

a. Sanidad v. Comelec [Marcos had the power to change the Consti, but it was
not a period of normalcy. Marcos was executive and legislative] ONLY IN PERIODS
OF NOT NORMALCY.

b. THOSE WHO CAN ACTUALLY PROPOSE: Congress, Constitutional Convention, and

People's Initiative.

AMENDMENTS BY CONGRESS

Sec1 Article 17, Congress can propose revisions and amendments to the Constitution.
This is done by extraordinary legislative proceedings, not ordinary. If Congress intends to
change or amend the Constitution, the Congress needs to change itself into a
constituent assembly with a 3/4 votes of all the members of Congress. By revising the
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Consti, the Congress is performing a constituent act, an act supposedly performed by

the people.

It is not specified if it is computed joint or separate. THIS WAS SEEN IN THE LOZANO v.
NOGRALES CASE. Lozano was of the view that the 3/4 vote was separate.

To Atty Galeon, the petition is very important. Even if the issue is important, the Supreme
Court did not rule on the Lozano case. It is suggested that there is this ambiguity; the
framers were entertaining the idea of changing from bicameral to unicameral.

Majority of the view are saying it should be computed separately. 3/4 from House of
Reps and 3/4 Senate. Almost always, it is required that the voting be done separately.
Seen in the declaration of the existence of war. There is joint session, but the voting is
done separately. It will be easier for the Congress to revote. Only instance where they
are conducted to have a joint session and vote in declaration of Martial Law;
otherwise, there would be a deadlock.

Judicial Review and Continuation of

Amendments
Thursday, July 13, 2017
5:32 PM
Constitutional Convention

It is a body dinstinct and separate from Congress, while Con Ass is composed of
members of Congress. Members of the Con Con will have to be elected in an election
called for that purpose. They are not necessarily members of Congress. They are
elected based on their expertise.

Con Con can be made by Congress. It is a 2/3 vote of all members of Congress. It is
suggested that they be computed separately. But when Congress cannot decide, then
by a simple majority vote, 1/2 + 1, Congress can present to the electorate whether to
call the Con Con. If Congress will not decide whether or not to call Con Con, the
Congress can present the issue to the people for the calling of a Con Con. This is a
provision that is criticized.

It is because it is a circuitous procedure. It is also expensive. Cannot the Congress

decide for themselves? It would entail expenses, but what can we do? It is part of the
Constitution.

Let us assume that Congress by 2/3 enacted a law creating a Con Con. Assume further
that after that law is enacted by 2/3, Congress enacted a subsequent law by a simple
majority vote that provides the mechanics by which election and procedure of Con
Con members and their salary.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

The subsequent law providing for the salary was only approved or redacted by a simple
majority vote. Is this subsequent vote of majority valid?

Yes, the vote is valid. This is the case of Imbong v. Comelec. The subsequent law
providing for the salaries of the members was enacted by a simple majority vote. The
Supreme Court upheld the validity thereof. 2/3 is only needed for the Con Con. That is
the ruling.

Let us assume that by 2/3 the Congress created a Con Con without question. What
would be the status of the Con Con in relation to the separate powers of government?
Is Con Con regarded as supreme over the other three? Its primary task is for the revision
of the Constitution. Is it superior or inferior?

THREE THEORIES:

a. Lumiz v. Jackson cited in textbook. Con Con is to be regarded as a body

superior to the other branches of government. It is to perform a task to draft the
fundamental law of the land which is the highest law of the land. Theory of
__________________.

b. Woods Appeal. Con Con should be regarded as a body inferior to the three
branches for the reason that Con Con is created by Congress.

c. Franz v. Olley [?] Con Con should be regarded as a co-equal body for as long as
it confines itself to its task which is drafting the fundamental law of the land. It is the
theory we adhere to in our jurisdiction.

Con Con has the power to amend and revise.

Article 17 Sec 3. empowers Congress to create a Con Con. The question is can
Congress by itself directly propose amendments to the Consti or even a revision thereof
and at the same time create a Con Con.?

GONZALES V. COMELEC: Gonzales argued that as much as the Consti used the term or,
he opined that Congress can do both. IT can only do either of the two. Either propose
amendments or create a Con Con.

SUPREME COURT DISAGREED. What is desirable for Congress to perform either of the
two, but it is up to the judicious wisdom of the members of the Congress. THIS IS
CONSIDERED A POLITICAL QUESTION! If at all, it should be decided by members of
Congress. The SC could not substitute its judgment with that of the Congress, lest there
be a violation of the separation of powers.

The 1987 Constitution has a new provision that could not be found under the 1935 and
1973 Constitution. It is the provision empowering the people to propose amendments to
the Constitution through the People's Initiative. It is something new and novel to the
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

1987 Constitution. But you take note that while the people are given such authority, any
such authority is not unbridled. There are restrictions imposed.

WHAT IS IT?:

a. Only limited to amendments [Lambino v. Comelec]. After all Art 17 Sec 2

expressly mentions that People's Initiative only applies to amendments, not
revision. The reason is plain and evident. Could you imagine if the whole
population wants a revision? It would be a never ending story since people
cannot agree with each other in totality.

b. It would have to come in a 12% of all registered voters where at least 3% of all
legislative districts are represented by registered voters thereof. This is the downfall
of Delfin. They asked COMELEC to help them look for signatures. It was declared
insufficient by the Supreme Court.

c. This cannot be availed of within five years following the 1987 Constitution, nor
more than once every five years thereof. Article 17 Sec. 2.

d. There should be an enabling law for this. Mentioned expressly under the last part
of Article 17. Congress should provide for the implementation of the people's right
to propose amendments. As was announced in the case of Lambino, the petition
thereof must be signed by the people themselves and not the so called
representatives. The text must also be incorporated with the petition itself so that
there will be no fraud. In the proposed textual provisions, there was deceit since
they did not properly present provisions found in the actual text such as term limits
being unrestricted and the ability to propose even more amendments. This is also
one of the issues raised in Santiago v. Comelec [enabling law]. RA 6735 is not
sufficient to govern People's Initiative. It was again raised in Lambino. On motion
for reconsideration on Lambino, majority of the justices of Supreme Court had a
change of heart. RA 6735 was enough to govern People's Initiative. Just the same,
they threw out the Lambino case since it was defective.

DO WE HAVE A LAW GOVERNING PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE?

RA 6735 was made sufficient, but it is not clear whether that sentiment is confirmed by
Supreme Court. We could try. After all, majority were of the opinion that it was enough
to govern People's Initiative.

[1] PROPOSAL STAGE

[2] RATIFICATION STAGE

The revision of the Constitution is presented to people through a plebiscite for approval
or disapproval. Gonzales v. Comelec: other than questioning authority of Congress to
propose amendments and create a Con Con. He questioned the timing of the
ratification. It was scheduled with the general elections. If at all, Congress has the
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

authority to propose amendments, it should be presented to the people in a special

election, not simultaneously with the general election. People cannot deliberate on the
proposed amendments. Our Supreme Court said it is still an issue left to the sound
wisdom of Congress. When the law does not distinguish, we should not also distinguish.
That issue caught up in Oxena v. Comelec [?] SC still said there is nothing wrong if
Congress times the special election with the general election.

Another case is the Tolentino v. COMELEC case. One particular amendment was
supposed to be submitted to the people in advance - the reduction of voting age from
21 to 18. Tolentino was not opposed to the lowering, but the manner of bringing up the
amendment. It was supposed to be brought up with the other amendments. All the
amendments should be presented altogether to the people for their approval or
disapproval. The SC sided with the people. IT MERELY MENTIONED ELECTION [ART17
Sec15] Mentions election in a singular setting for which all amendments should be
presented together.

Another case is Sanidad v. Comelec. It questioned Marcos's power to submit laws.

Marcos has both executive and legislative power. He had power to propose laws.
Marcos had the authority, but people would only be given 21 days on the vital
amendments tht were to be introduced in the 1973 constitution. According to Sanidad,
these issues were very important so people should be given enough time to decide on
the proposed amendments. However, SC provided that 21 days was long enough. It is
well within 9O day period. A similar issue was reached in the case of Almario v. Alba
where it was argued by petitioner that people were not given enough time to
deliberate on proposed to amendments which were urban land reform, then the grant
of public lands where the people only had 42 days to deliberate. SC used Sanidad. It is
well within the 9O day period for the approval or disapproval of the amendments.

It is because of these that the 1987 Consti put a definite time for them to decide. Under
Sec 4 Art 17 of the 1987 Consti the plebiscite should not be held earlier than sixty days
but not later than 9O days. [In between 6O-9O days]. If it was proposed by people,
then it is timed from the time that the COMELEC found the forms sufficient.

Plebiscite v. Referendum

Both processes involve the approval of the people. However, the difference is:

Plebiscite is the proposed ratification. Referendum confers consultation to issues of vital

importance and significance.

Under the 1935 Constitution, 1973, and 1987 Consti, there are procedures attended to
the amendment or revision of the Consti. Suppose the procedures are not followed. A
case is filed specifically for this purpose. Is that case cognizable by the court of justice?

It is a political question and a justiciable question at different vantage points. [Case:

IDK] It was argued by petitioners that the required votes were not obtained since
senators and house of reps were not allowed to participate because of election
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

protests filed against them. If those members should be included, then the 2/3 votes
were not obtained. That was a valid issue. It pertains to the procedure to amending the
old Constitution. The SC did not squarely rule on that issue. They did not have the power
to review amendatory process in such political question. BUT beginning Sanidad,
Gonzales, Tolentino, Lambino, etc. Our court has invariably held that in matters of
amendments and revision procedures are justiciable questions. What is not at issue is
the wisdom of the Constitution, but the validity of the procedures. They are no longer
considered a political question. When the courts of justice review these, they can
review through the use of the principle of the exercise of judicial review.

JUDICIAL REVIEW: part and parcel of judicial power. Simply a component. It pertains to
the authority or power of the courts of justice to test validity of the executive and
legislative branches in conformity to the Constitution. The judiciary is not asserting its
superiority, but it is merely doing its function under the constitution. They uphold the
supremacy of the Constitution. It is an integral component of judicial power. Art 8 Sec.
1. TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION…. BASTA
NAA SA CONSTI OYST.

As worded, our concept of judicial review has already been expanded such that the
courts of law can now review power of other branches, but only limited to whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion, not the sufficiency. Grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction.

Does this do away with what we know as political question? Can the courts of law pass
judgment on political question?

Political question: question of policy, wisdom. TANADA v. CUENCO: Question or issue

best decided by people in exercise of their sovereign power, or full discretionary power
is given to the other branches of government.

Sec 1, Paragraph 2, Art8: can now decide on not truly political questions. It is an
expanded concept of judicial review. FRANCISCO v. HOUSE OF REPS: While it is true that
there is an expanded concept of judicial review, yet we have to make a distinction of
a purely political question [courts of justice cannot pass judgment thereof] [issue
dealing wisdom of an act: ex= voting age from 21-18, whether or not the law is sound or
not; not a justiciable question] and a non-pure political question [can be reviewed by
courts of law].

Election: as to who should become the President/more qualified = pertains to wisdom.

SC cannot rule over this issue. It is an issue that is best answered by the people
themselves. But whether or not there is electoral fraud or rigging of votes, then that is a
justiciable issue. It does not involve wisdom but the procedure.

Deliberation of bills in Congress: not a justiciable question since it is premature and it is

more about the wisdom.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Sec 4. Article 8 Par 2: supreme Court has jurisdiction over all cases involving the
constitutionality of any treaty, executive agreement, or law. Anything regarding
constitutionality of regulations in question. They can review acts of the President and
Congress.

WHO CAN EXERCISE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW?

Ynot v. IAC is vividly telling that the power of judicial review is not exclusive to the SC. It
can also be validly exercised by lower courts like the RTC, etc. Legal basis is Sec 5
Paragraph 2 Sub Par A of Article 8. It provides in essence that the courts have the
power to review, amend, appeal. CHECK CONSTI!

The lower courts can decide validity and invalidity of the law, but it is subject to review
by the higher courts. Reviewed on appeal and certiorari.

J.M. Tuason v. Court of Appeals: It had no jurisdiction on the issue of Judge Caluag. Did
SC mean CA could not exercise judicial review? NO. What was filed by Dizon is
CERTIORARI. IT IS NOT A CONTINUATION OF THE CASE BEFORE. IT IS A SPECIAL CIVIL
ACTION. Court of Appeals an only file exactive relief. IT CAN REVIEW APPEALS BY REVIEW
BUT NOT CERTIORARI. It is in this context that the CA cannot review the invalidity or
validity of the act. NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE INJUNCTiVE RELIEF.

HOW ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE OR QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES? : NO! As ruled in the case of

Serrano v. Gallant Maritime. Serrano questioned constitutionality of certain act on
motion for reconsideration. It eventually reached Supreme Court. Supreme Court said it
was pointless to have pointed it out to the quasi-judicial bodies because they do not
have the authority to declare a law invalid. Their primary task is to enforce the law as it
is unless said law is declared invalid the courts of justice.

OMBUDSMAN etc. CANNOT DECLARE A LAW INVALID. [Some random case].

Let us assume case is filed in the RTC whereby the validity of law is put on issue. Then
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. Declared the law invalid for being unconstitutional.
The decision may be reviewed by CA on appeal or certiorari, but no one pursued the
appeal. No one questioned the ruling of RTC. DOES THAT JUDGMENT RENDER THE LAW
INVALID?

It would only bind the parties. As for others, the law still stands. Only decision of Supreme
Court as binding.

Petition for declaratory relief: what his rights are under a law. Declaration of the law as
invalid. If a party questions the validity of a law enacted by Congress or an act of the
President, he has to furnish a copy of such decision to the Solicitor General. He needs to
be notified. Sec 4, rule 63. city atty. Or fiscal should be furnished a copy of the
declaratory relief.

If it is declared unconstitutional, it should be furnished to the solicitor general.

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:

a. Checking function: determining validity of an Act of the Pres or Congress

[Serrano v. Gallant Maritime; Osmena v. Comelec; IBP v. Zamora - check validity of
Estrada to call out forces.]

b. Legitimizing function: [Estrada v. Arroyo - legitimacy of Arroyo administration.

Arroyo was an impostor. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arroyo. Supreme Court
gave legitimacy to Arroyo Administration]. Different in Saturnino Bernudez bec.
Aquino admin was extra constitutional while Arroyo was intra-constitutional.

c. Symbolic Function: [Salonga v. Pano] Even if issue is mooted, Supreme Court

decided on the merits of symbolic function to guide the bench and the bar in the
determination of the absence. Also in ABS CBN Corp Case bec it was already
done, but SC decided case to educate bench and bar.

ELEMENTS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:

Courts of law are passive instruments. They can only perform power of judicial review if it
is invoked. Courts of law may only function if their function is invoked with a case. What
is presented before a court of law is the validity or invalidity of the act of congress, etc.
Before it can act to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse, the
following requirements should be met:

a. Actual case or controversy

Before the courts of law can exercise this, the case must provide an actual conflict
of legal claims, interest that are susceptible to judicial adjudication. One cannot
just go to court of legal advisory opinion.

Petition of declaratory relief: It is a requirement that there is a will, law, contract,

etc: actual act. There is already an act/law. The person files a case to determine
his rights. It is not a hypothetical case. BERNUDEZ CASE: petition for declaratory
relief was dismissed. It is not filed directly to the Supreme Court, but the RTC. He
went to Supreme Court first, which is not the procedure.

MOOT AND ACADEMIC: [GONZALES v. NARVASA] - This case was mooted by

subsequent events, and this was enough to dismiss the case.

Where the case is mooted by subsequent events, that will merit the dismissal of the
case outright. That is nothing but a general law. This rule admits of some
exceptions.

1. Culpable violation of the Constitution

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

[David v. Arroyo] Warrant of arrest in violation of Article 3 Sec 2 of the Constitution.

Where there is a culpable violation, the SC ruled on that violation.

2. The case involves an issue of paramount interest and importance.

[David v. Arroyo] Delegation of power coming to Congress.

3. To guide the bench and the bar

[Salonga v. Pano] The SC instead of dismissing case, they decided it on the merits
of educating the bench and the bar. Also the ABS-CBN.

4. When issue is capable of repetition yet evading review.

[Alunan III v. Mirasol] DILG ELECTIONS. The issue could be repeated if the same was
not ruled. ALSO ABS-CBN CORPORATION [Elections were already over but SC
decided on this merit].

5. Other issues which are still ripe for adjudication.

[Malaluan v. COMELEC] Pertains to the election of Kidapawan Cotabato. Main

issue was mooted when who between them was validly elected, but there was still
another issue that was ripe for adjudication.

a. Raised by proper party.

The second requirement or one who has locus standi such that when the petition is
filed by a person who has no locus standi, then expect that the case will be
dismissed ouright. [Lozano v. Nograles] [Saturnino v. Bernudez - questioned who
the President and VP related to in Article 18. Case was dismissed] [Gonzales v.
Narvasa - questioned the creation of the PCCR because it was not created by the
Congress, but the President; ruled that if at all it should have been Congress who
should've questioned the Creation. It was dismissed by the Supreme Court]. For
you to possess that authority, you must present to the Court that you have
substantial interest or you are directly/personally injured. Requirement sine qua
non that a person should raise the legal question with locus standi.

Requirements if:

1. Citizen: It a requirement that the petitioner must demonstrate that he must suffer
an injury by reason of the act of the law. Failing that, the case may be dismissed.
[YNOT v. IAC - involved confiscation of carabaos. Questioned validity of 626-A.]
{Serrano v. Gallant - questioned the diminution of the payment given to him.
Serrano was prejudiced by the application because of the back wages.] [David v.
Arroyo - Injured by the act of government without a warrant of arrest. It's clearly
shown that the petitioners suffered injuries by the act made thereof].
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

2. Taxpayer Suit: If the action is brought by taxpayer suit, he must show he is a

taxpayer and there was an illegal disbursement of public funds. It must have
something to do with the spending or taxing power of the Congress. [Gonzales v.
Narvasa - argued that even if he was unable to prove direct injury, but he must be
given due course because of the taxpayer suit. SC disagreed. There was an
allegedly illegal disbursement fund, but it was not related to the Congress. It came
from the Office of the President.] [Kilosbayan v. Morato - Filed action by taxpayer
suit. The contract was illegal by means of illegal disbursement. But it did not come
from Congress, but the operation of lotto.] [Francisco v. House of Reps - Taxpayer
suit was held valid because the illegal disbursement of funds came from the taxing
power or spending of Congress].

3. Legislator: Infringe his right as a member of Congress. Cases filed by these

legislators in Francisco v. House of Reps were sustained because the members
would be part of the impeachment proceedings compelled to participate.
[Senate v. Office of the President - Erap ratified the rome Statute. Treaty signed by
Erap but did not give it to the Senate for concurrence. For a treaty to be valid, it
has to be ratified 2/3 vote of Senate. Respondent argued that it was a political
question bec. It is the prerogative of Erap to sign the treaty. SC sustained the
Senate. While Senate has the legal standing, they cannot compel the President to
give it to the Senate. As a condition, it would not become valid.]

4. Voter: Allege and prove that he is a registered voter, and the act would violate
his right as such. [Nicholas Lewis v. Comelec GR 162759. Dual citizen from the
vantage point of the third part state. Ra 9189. COMELEC did not favor such
application. Nicholas Lewis is not applicable to vote because that law is exclusive
to OFWs of which Lewis was not. She was a businesswoman in the US. Her legal
standing question. SC ruled that indeed the act of the Comelec would infringe the
right of Lewis as a voter. Legal standing was sustained.]

CAN GOVERNMENT QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF ITS OWN LAWS?

People v. Vera 65 Philippines 66. Issue was the validity of RA 4221. In that case, the
accused applied for probation [person will not be put behind bars, but required to
commit community service]. In application, there would be inequality of the
private complainant. That law would only be available in provinces which could
afford the salary of a probation officer. In other provinces, there will be no
appropriation for such.

If there is anybody who is more interested in whether its laws are valid, it should be
the state. It should act as the parent for the people. Parens Patriae.

[IBP v. Zamora] - Until and unless the act would prejudice IBP, then its claim alone
as a group of lawyers cannot give them locus standi.

THIS RULE ADMITS OF SOME EXCEPTIONS:

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

1. When the issue in the case is brought about by the person who has no legal
standing is of transcendental importance.

[IBP case - IBP had no legal standing, yet the SC ruled that the issue was of
transcendental importance. It had something to do with the calling out power of
the President. It's also the same in Bayan v. Zamora, where the VFA was
questioned. Bayan had no legal standing, yet the SC gave due course to the
provision and decided based on the merits. This is because of its transcendental
importance.

[Lozano v. Nograles: case dismissed because there was no legal standing despite
an issue which seemingly was of transcendental importance [3/4 vote separate or
joint?].

2. When what is asserted in that case is a public right.

[Akbayan v. Aquino - Akbayan petitioned the court to furnish a copy of the JPEPA.
Contention that petition should be dismissed outright since it is not a party to the
agreement. However, it was their right to public information - a public right. SC
proceeded to decide the case.]

3. When the action is brought by way of a facial challenge.

Question the validity of the law as void for being vague. When the law is vague,
you can question it. Also when it is overbreadth in application - invalid when
applied to others but not to petitioner. Problem is, facial challenge may only be
mounted if the action hinges on the freedom of expression. [David v. Arroyo -
petitioners questioned PP 1O17 by way of facial challenge. SC did not uphold
such challenge noting that the question was not about the freedom of
expression].

Case in point [Chavez v. Gonzales Feb 15, 2OO8 - Hello Garci Scandal. At first
Gloria denied that it was her talking to Garcia, but it was in radio among others.
Gonzales issued a directive to close establishment that would air out the hello
garci tape. Gonzales argued that Chavez had no legal standing by way of not
owning a radio station. He was sustained in the respect that what was involved
was the exercise of the freedom of expression. There was an attempt of Gonzales's
part to silence media. Directive of Gonzales declared invalid by Supreme Court.]

a. Raised by the earliest opportunity.

If the person raising the issue is the respondent or defendant himself, then he
should raise the question in the case. Failing that, the issue may no longer be
entertained by the courts of law.

[UMALI v. GUINGONA - Only after encountering an adverse decision, Umali only

raised it then the constitutionality question. SC said that it was too late in the date
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

for Umali to raise issue because it should have been raised in the very first pleading
in RTC, but only raised it on Motion for Reconsideration. Not considered kindly by
the Supreme Court].

It presupposes that the body must be clothed with the authority to pass judgment
thereof. The forum must have the authority to decide over questions of validity.
[Serrano v. Gallant: He did not question validity of the questioned RA in the NLRC,
but only did it upon motion for reconsideration in NLRC. Raised to CA to the SC. It
was argued that Serrano could no longer raise the issue because he raised it only
on motion for reconsideration. SC said that the NLRC and Labor Arbiter had no
authority to declare a law invalid. Only courts of justice could declare a law
invalid. Administrative bodies don't have the authority to declare the question of
provision invalid.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. In criminal cases, the belated raising of the constitutional issue can be addressed
with the discretion of the court. It can be decided on the trial court depending on
its discretion. You must plead this at the earliest opportunity because the court
would otherwise not be faulted since it is at its own discretion.

2. Civil case allows late raising if it is determinative of the case.

3. In any case involving administrative case, it can be raised at any time of the
proceedings if it is the question of the jurisdiction of the court [unless if estoppel is
involved].

a. Lis mota of the case. The constitutional issue must be decisive of the case.

Where the case can be decided without passing judgment of the invalidity of the
act, then it has to be done by the court out of respect to the other co-equal
branches of government. [Sandueta v. Dela Costa: an act enacted by Congress.
Sandueta was a trial court judge, and she accepted with the enactment a
temporary appointment in another court thereby vacating his post. JUST READ THE
REVIEWER. By accepting another post, Sandueta was already in estoppel.
Supreme Court did not touch validity or invalidity of the act. It used another
ground to decide the case.]

What if the law is declared invalid? Should we recognize its effects?

Article 7 - where law is declared invalid, law has been not written at all. Does not
create any office. OSMENA v. COMELEC application in Art 7

Serrano de Agbayani and Ynot had the operative fact doctrine.

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

WHEN TO APPLY: Where the question of law has already been effective for a
couple of years that vested right would already be approved, then that is when it
is applied.