LAW

DEFINITION

Sanchez Roman defines LAW as a rule of conduct, just, obligatory, promulgated by the
competent authority for the common good of a people or nation, which constitutes an
obligatory rule of conduct for all its members.

POLITICAL LAW PART I
DEFINITIONS & CONCEPTS
1. Define: a. Political Lawis that branch of public law which deals with the organization and
operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the
inhabitants of its territory. (PEOPLE VS. PERFECTO, 43 Phil. 887)
b. Constitutional Law
c. Constitution
d. Administrative Law
e. Law of Public Officers
f. Law on Public Corporations
g. Election Law
h. Distinction between Political Law and Constitutional Law
2. Read: MACARIOLA VS. JUDGE ASUNCION, 114 SCRA 77
The provision in the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges, justices, etc., (public officers) from
engaging in business within the territorial jurisdiction of their courts is political in nature and
therefore, said provision was deemed abrogated when there was a change of sovereignty from
Spain to the United States at the turn of the century. Political laws are deemed abrogated if there is
a change of sovereignty and unless re-enacted under the new sovereign, the same is without force
and effect.
3. The Supremacy of the Constitution
Read: 1. MUTUC VS. COMELEC, 36 SCRA 228
2. MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408
A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It
is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates. It
has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes the permanent
framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments their respective powers
and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is founded. The
fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must
conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority
administered.
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or
entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect.
Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and contract.
Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their provisions
command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers who merely
establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of the governmental
machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens. A provision which
lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not
self-executing. But a provision, which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of
supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the
right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-
executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms,
and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action.
4. Kinds of Constitution
a) written or unwritten
b) rigid and flexible
c) cumulative or conventional
5. AMENDMENT OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION (Art. XVII)
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
[1] The Congress upon a vote of of all its Members; or
[2] A constitutional Convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voter therein. No
amendment under this Section shall be authorized within five (5) years following the ratification of
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, cal a constitutional convention, or by a
majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty
days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in
a plebiscite which shall be held not later than ninety days after the certification by the COMELEC of
the sufficiency of the petition.
NOTE: Amendments to, or revision of the Constitution is VALID only when approved by a majority of
the votes cast during the plebiscite, not by the votes of the Members of Congress.
2. Read: R.A. 6735
Requisites for a valid peoples initiative to amend the Constitution; distinctions between amendment
and revision.
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO , together with 6,327,952 registered voters vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160
Carpio, J.
Facts:
Petitioners filed a Petition for Initiative and Referendum with the COMELEC to amend the 1987
Philippine Constitution, particularly Articles VI and VII to replace the present Presidential-Bicameral
system of government to Parliamentary-Unicameral system using Section 2, Art. XVII of the
Constitution. Petitioners claim that their petition was signed by 6,327,952 million voters all over the
country and the same constitutes over 12% of all the registered voters in the entire country and that
more than 3% of the registered voters in every legislative district signed the same in accordance with
Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. The petition to change the Constitution involves sections 1-7
of Article VI; Sections 1-4 of Article VII and an Article XVII entitled Transitory Provisions. The
petitioners prayed with the COMELEC that after due publication of their Petition, the COMELEC
should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters ratification:
DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION,
CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL BICAMERAL TO A
UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY
PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?
The COMELEC dismissed the petition citing SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 where it
was held that:
RA 6735 intended to include the System of Initiative on Amendments to the Constitution, but is,
unfortunately, Inadequate to cover that system under Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. x x x .
The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in
essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by empowering the COMELEC
to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry the purposes of this act.
Considering the said dismissal, petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on Certiorari
and Mandamus alleging rave abuse of discretion and to set aside the COMELEC Decision and to
compel the latter to give due course to their initiative petition.
The Issues:
1. WHETHER THE LAMBINO GROUPS PETITION COMPLIES WITH SECTION 2, ARTICLE
XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH
PEOPLES INITIATIVE;
2. WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD REVISIT ITS RULING IN DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS.
COMELEC, DECLARING THAT RA NO. 6735 INCOMPLETE, INADEQUATE OR WANTING IN
ESSENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE INITIATIVE CLAUSE ON
PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION; and
3. WHETHER THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING
DUE COURSE TO THE LAMBINO GROUPS PETITION.
H E L D:
There is no merit to the petition.
The Lambino group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for
conducting a peoples initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present
petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Groups glaring failure to comply with the
basic requirements of the Constitution. As such, there is likewise no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the COMELEC.
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a
peoples initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This Section provides:
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE
PEOPLE through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number
of registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention vividly explain the meaning of the amendment
directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition. Thus:
MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a
constitutional amendment. IS THE DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT READY TO BE SHOWN TO THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE ASKED TO SIGN?
MR. SUAREZ. That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and shown to them before they
sign? Now, who prepares the draft?
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam PresidentAs it is envisioned, any Filipino can
prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature.
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the draft of the proposed constitutional
amendment should be ready and shown to the people before they sign such proposal. The
framers plainly stated that before they sign there is already a draft shown to them. The framers
also envisioned that the people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must
prepare the proposal and pass it around for signature.
The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition IS
THAT THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL ON ITS FACE IS A PETITION BY THE PEOPLE. This means two
(2) essential elements must be present:
1. The people must author and must sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can
sign for and on their behalf;
2. As an initiative upon a petition, THE PROPOSAL MUST BE EMBODIED IN A PETITION.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown
to the people who will express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an
amendment is DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A
PETIITON ONLY IF THE PEOPLE SIGN ON A PETITION THAT OCNTAINS THE FULL TEXT OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
The petitioners bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in
gathering the signaturesthat the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of
the proposed amendments.
The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition a copy of the document containing the
proposed amendments and as such, the people signed initiative petition without knowing the
actual amendments proposed in the said initiative. Instead , the alleged 6.3 million people who
signed the petition had to rely the representations of Atty. Lambino. Clearly, Atty. Lambino and his
group deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation.
2. A peoples initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution
and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress and a Constitutional Convention can propose both
amendments and revisions to the Constitution. This is clear under Section 1 of Art. XVII of the
Constitution.
Where the intent and language of the Constitution under Section 2 of Art. XVIII clearly withhold from
the people the power to propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions
even as they are empowered to propose amendments. The two are distinguished as follows:
Revision is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document [Constitution]. It may
result in the rewriting whether the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps some of
its important provisions. But whatever results the revision may produce, the factor that characterizes
it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention
and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution to determine
which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced with
an entirely new one.
Amendment of the Constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change or only a few specific
provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire
constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to improve specific parts of the
existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or
to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect.
MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, et al. Vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 &
June 10, 1997
RA 6735 intended to include the System of Initiative on Amendments to the Constitution, but is,
unfortunately, Inadequate to cover that system. Section 2 Art. XVII is not self-executory and unless
Congress provides for its implementation , it would remain in the cold niche of the Constitution. RA
6735 in all its 23 sections mentions the word Constitution only in section 2 and Section 3 as
compared to the initiative on statutes and local legislation. The foregoing brings us to the
conclusion that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions
insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive
matter are fatal and cannot be cured by empowering the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and
regulations as may be necessary to carry the purposes of this act.
Enumerate the steps to be followed and the requisites to be met in order that the people may
proposed the amendments, repeal, amend or enact a law or provision of the Cnstitution.
3. What are the different modes of amending the constitution? Distinguish Revision from
amendment of the Constitution.
Revision is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document [Constitution]. It may
result in the rewriting whether the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps some of
its important provisions. But whatever results the revision may produce, the factor that characterizes
it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention
and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution to determine
which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced with
an entirely new one.
Amendment of the Constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change or only a few specific
provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire
constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to improve specific parts of the
existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or
to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect. (SINCO,
Vicente, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW)
4. Read: a) MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO, 78 Phil. 1
b) GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774
There is no prohibition for Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution and at
the same time call for the convening of a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. The
word or in the provision Congress, upon a vote of of all its members; OR [2] A constitutional
Convention under Section 1, Art. XVII also means AND.
c) TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702
Doctrine of Proper Submission means all the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall
be presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at the same time, not piecemeal.
d) SANIDAD vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333
e) ALMARIO vs. ALBA, 127 SCRA 69
If the question regarding the proposed amendment to the Constitution deals with its
necessity, expediency or wisdom, the same is political in nature and beyond the power of the
courts to decide.
f) MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 ACRA 106

Reference:
Political Law Reviewer by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan
College of Law, University of the Cordilleras
Baguio City