University of Cebu College of Law Constitutional Law 2 Instructor, Atty. RLGEspina Course 1. Preliminaries 1. Constitution, Constitutional Law, Political Law, defined 2. Punpose 3. Classification 4. Qualities ofa good written consttition 5. Essential parts of a good written constitution 6. Interpretation/Construction of the Constitution Francisco vs. House of Representatives, GR No, 160261, November 10, 2003 7. Self-executing provisions ‘Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G-R. No, 122136, February 03, 1997 Pamatong vs. Comelec, GR. No, 161872, Aprit 13, 2008 8, Amendmenvrevision 1. Definition ». Constituent vs. Legislative power «Steps in the amendatory process Article XVI Defensor Santiago vs. COMELEC, GR No. 127525, March 19, 1997 Lambino vs. COMELEC. G.R. No. 174153, October 26, 2006 9. Poxcer of Judicial Review 4. Definition Section 1, Article VIIT Section 4(2), Article VIIL ». Who exercises the power of judicial review Section 5(2), Article VII Mirasol vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128448, February }, 2001, ©. Requisites of judicial review Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 / Rep. Bice! C. Lagman, eta. vs. Exec, See. Paguito N. Ochoa, Jr, etal, GR. No, 192935 & GR. No. 19303, December 7, 2010, ‘Gonsttutonal aw 2-GouseOaine age TS UG Gott Owe | 1 § Postet ) | |1. Actual ease or controversy Lacson vs. Perez. G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001 Ennile vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal and Pimentel, G.R No. 132986, May 19, 2008 David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 Sanlakas vs. Executve Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004 Arturo M. De Castro-vs. Judicial and Bar Council, eta, GR.No. 191002, GR.No. 191032, GR. No. 191057, AM, No, 10-2-5.8C.GR. No. 191149, GR. No. 191342, March 17, 2010. Atty Evil C Pormento vs. Joseph “Erap” Ejerctto Estrada and ‘Commission on Elections, GR. No. 191988, August 31, 2010 2. Must be raised by the proper party IBP vs, Zamora, G.R No, 141284, August 13, 2000 ‘Senate vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006 Chavez vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008 Opie vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 3. Mast be raised atthe earliest possible opportunity Matibog vs. Benipayo, G.R. No, 149036, April 2, 2002 4. Must be the lis mots ofthe case Arceta vs. Judge Mangrobang, G.R. No, 152895, June 15, 2004 Dante ¥. Liban, eal vs. Richard J. Gordon, G.R. No, 175352, amuary 18, 2011, 4. Bffcets of declaration of unconsttutionatity ‘partial unconstiutionalty Claudio S. Yap v. Taenamaris Ship's Management and hntermare Martie Agencies, Ine, G.R. No. 179532. May 30, 2011. League of Ciies of the Philippines represented by LCP National President Jerry P. Trenas, et el. vs. Commission on Elections, et al, G.R. No. 1769SU/G.R. No. 177499/G.R. No, 178056, August 24, 2010, TL, Fundamental Powers of the State |. Inherent powers ofthe State: definition, elements, distinctions and limitations 2 Police power 1. Definition b. Scope/characteristics Iohong vs. Hermanas, 101 Phil 1135 Thus. Videogram Regulatory Board, 151 SCRA 208 Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 —_ Constitutional Law age 2 of 15 | | | | | | | | |«© Who exercises the power MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, G R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000 Francisco vs. Fernando, G.R No, 166501, November 16, 2006 MMDA vs. Viron Transportation, GR. No. 170656, August 15, 2007 4. Tests for valid exercise 1. Lavwfl subject Lim vs. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649 Sangalang vs. Inermediate Appellate Court, 176 SCRA 719 Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 2. Lawful means Lorenzo vs. Director of Health, 50 Phil 395 Ynot vs. Inermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 689 City Government of Quezon City vs, Ercia, 122 SCRA 759 City of Mantia vs. Judige Laguio, GR. No. 118127, April 12, 2005, 3. Power of eminent domain «& Definition’Scope Section 9, Article It ‘Section 18, Article X11 Section 4 and 9, Article XI Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative vs. Court of Appeais. G.R. No. 109338, November 20, 2000 . Who may exercise the power Masitip vs, ity of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006 Requsites for exercise 1Necessity Lageao vs. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004 2. Private property Republic vs. PLDT. 26 SCRA 620 (City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, 40 Phil 349 3. Taking inthe constitutional sense Ayala de Roxas vs. City of Manila, 9 Phil 215 People vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil 44 Republic vs. Castel, 58 SCRA 336 (City of Government of Quezon City vs. Bricia, 122 SCRA 759 4. Public use ‘Reyes vs. Nattonal Housing Authority. G.R. No. 147511, January 20, 2003 ‘Manosca vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 Constitutional Law 2 ~ Course Outline Page 3 0f15 | | |