Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Primary purpose
Ascertain intent of framers as expressed in lanauge of Consti and the people adopting it.
Not just for a part timeof framing, a continuing instrument to govern not only the present.
Used in one part must have same interpretation when used in other parts.
Aids to Construction
Aquino v. Comelec
New consti- Nov 30, 1972 approved. Si marcos pa dec 30 pa matatpos upo nya.
Rule: What is the intention underlying the provision, object sought to be accomplished by its
adoption., and evils, if ano ipprevent.
CCivil Liber v. Exec Sec: EO 284 authorizes cab member, undersec, asst sec to hold not more than 2 postions
in govt.
Violates Sec 13 Art 7 of 1987 Consti.- Pres, VP, and Cab, deputies cant hold any other offce or employment
during tenure.
Zintention- before, madami offices agencies newly created at marmi naghahawak ng office na to.with added
salary. Some took adv for purpo of enrichment.
If framers adopted diff ruling, they seek to overrule? Hndi b courts lng pwede
Changes on phraseology
Prov requiring judges to render judg within specific periods from date of submission
Const as whole
Not reqd to retain essence of Hb 11197, Tolentino v. sec of finance. Originate exclusively means inititated.
May stil undergo extensive changes, it would deny the senate of power to propose agreements.
Senate no prohibited to file in senate a substitute bill in ant of receipt of the bill from HR. basta nakahold bago
dumating HBill
Mandatory or directory
GR- mandatory,
Manda or directory- based on grds of expediency.so that hndi nakabase sa leg if ignore or not.
Prospective or Retrsospective
Self-executing- complete by itself, becomes operative without aid of supplementary or enabling leg.
Legislature pwde pa rin mageenact ng laws to facilitate exercise of powers granted b consti.
Verbal egis
Whenever possible, given ord meaning Except where tech terms employed
Francisco v. HoR
Art XI of Consti enumerates 6 grds forimpeachment: other high crimes and bat of pub trust
Grounds for imp- political questions , no boundaries for bet of pub trust and other high crimes.
Act of initiating- filinf action of complaint, faciliatate forst action with intention to set complaint moving
Imp case- legal controv must b decided by senate, House may bring case to senate by cote of 1/3
Imp proceed- before may case, may proceedings and iinitiaite” it consists of the 3 steps
HoR – initiate is diff from file. Filre: 1) by A verified complaint for imp by any member of Hor 2) by any cit
upon a reso of endorsement by any member 2) by at lease 1/3 of all member of the house
Processing of comp by HoR, 1/3 voting if yes, Articles of Impeachment prepared na. (House now initiates imp
case)
Senate: as imp court- an official is succeffully charged with imp case before senate.
One year bar not violated, Hor yet to act on it as collective body
Impeachment proceedings not single act, complexsys of acts. With beginning, middle and end.
No imp proceeding initiated against same official more than oncewithin a period of one yr. wala
dapatsecond Verf Comp.
David V. Arroyo
Prov 1: Calling out power only, arfp anf polcicr to prevent supper LV
Prov 2: Take care: ensure laws are faithfully executed, Pres shall have control of all exec depts., buraus, ofices.
#1 To enforce obiedience to all the laws and to all decrees orders and regulations prom by me personally or
upon my direction.
Lifted from PP1081 of Marcos. Which granted PMarcos leg power. Such statement is the enabling clause.
Arroyo granted ordinance power to issu, Eos, Admin Or, Mc, etc.
PDs are statutes same power ng leg issued by Pres during marital law under 1973 Consti.
Cant call military to enforce customs laws, laws gvnin family, prop relations oblicon and the like.
Sec 17, Art 12: “ temp take over or direct operation of any privowned utility or business af with pub interest.”
Sec 23, Art 6: In times of war, 2/3 of congress both house, joint assembled, seprate
Senate of PH v. Ermita
Constitutionality of EO 454, bars appearance of exec officials from appearing and being asked question
bfore leg bodies or comm without pres consent.
Locus standi: Must have substantial interest in case and he sustained or will suatin direct injury
Senate may standing, funda right ess to intenlligent puclic decision making, stifles ability to access
information crucial to law making
Citizen suit- must be firect and personal, pag assertion of public right, satisfieds reqt of pub interest.
Transcend mptance-
2) Presence of clear case of disregardof a constitutional or stat prohibition by the pub resp
agency or instrumentality of govt.
3) Lack of any party w a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions na nireraise.
Actual case: P- meron dahil exec officials absent sa hearings NRail prject and wiretapping controv. R-
wala kasi no showing that Arroyo withdheld her consent or phib the appearance of inv officials. Officials
merely communicated absence. Apprehension lng yan na iaause ni Pres. Powes nya
Immaterial kugn may showing. Mere implementation of EO464 resulted in absence of officials na.
Constitutionality: won withholding info barring officials presence before congress. violated
COnsti in consid of power of inquiry ng congress?
Arnault leading witness in cotrvo sa anomalous purchase of buenavista and tmabobong estates
by Rural Progress Admin.
Executive priv
That it is priv does not mean it would be considered priv in all instances
Pres priv must be balanced ag pub interest in fair admin of crim justice
Almonte v. Vasquez- acknoqleddged certain type of infor govt may withhold from public.
Info on investigations of crimes by law enforcement bfore prosec of accused exempted fr right to
info.
Sec. 1- BOTH REQURIE OFFICIALS COVERED BY THEM to secure consent of Pres prior to
appearing bfore congress.
But in in aid of Leg, required unless, may valid claim of exe priv.
Sec 2 and 3:all officials reqd to secure consent of president prior to appearing bfore either
house of congress.
EO 464 covers persons with priv infor upon det by designated head of ofc or by Pres.. This is
misuse of doctrine. It refers to specific category of info.
Ito yung must first secure consent of Pres para payagan sya magappear. Basis is det of pres
kung may priv infor si tao
So kung hindi umattend, implied claim of priv by consent of Pres. They cant attend without
consent.
Letter that says they cannot attend bago ipermit ni pres doesn’t excplicityly invoke valid claim of
priv, or their ground is recog to justify absence.
Congress has the right to know why thr info is withheld. Not sufficient na i=dineclre lang ni
president or a certain dept head says its privilege. Makes congress blind
Must be with formal claim of privilege, without specific claim, hndi malalaman kung part of
tradl priv.
Sec 3 claim is invalid. Not asserted. Kasi walang precise and certin reasons for claim. Merely
invokes EO 464 coupled with announcement na wala consent si Pres.
Right to information- not onky the power of inquiry but right of people to information.
Even if exec branch only, needs publicarion. Had direct effect in the right of the people.