CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 RA 1756 sought to amend some provisions of Art 18

Atty. Renato Galeon Transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution but it was
Reviewer by: Tanya Ibanez declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because
our Constitution is a rigid one, which cannot be amended
POLITICAL LAW by a simple legislation.
Branch of public law which deals with the
organization and operations of the governmental Flexible
organs of the State and defines the relations of the A kind of Constitution that can easily be amended by
State with the inhabitants of its territory. ordinary legislation.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION IS

Study of the maintenance and the proper balance A written, enacted and rigid Constitution. WRITTEN as it
between the authority represented by the three inherent is one whose precepts are embodied in one document.
and coercive powers of the State (eminent domain, It is ENACTED as it is formally struck off at a
police power, power of taxation) vis-à-vis the liberties of definite time and place following a conscious or
individuals as guaranteed under Article 3 of the 1987 deliberate effort taken by the people through plebiscite. It
Constitution. is RIGID because it cannot be changed by ordinary
legislation but only by a more cumbersome process of
Focal point of the study: change (through initiative and referendum).
The 1987 Constitution with cross-referencing to the 1935
and 1973 constitutions Congress cannot pass a law with the end in view of
amending the Constitution. Any such law contrary to the
WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION? Constitution should be inviolated, for the Constitution is
Constitution is the body of rules and maxims in the supreme law of the land to which all laws must
accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are conform and all persons must defer.
habitually exercised.
Since our Constitution is rigid
CONSTITUTION is the written instrument enacted by Congress cannot amend any of the provisions by
the direct action of the people by which the enacting law seeking to change them. Any purported
fundamental powers of the government are established, change or amendment must strictly comply with the
limited and defined and by which those powers are process outlined under Article 17 of the 1987
distributed among the several departments for their safe Constitution.
and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic.
Advantage of a Rigid Constitution
KINDS OF CONSTITUTION It can withstand capricious changes or those that are
brought not be legitimate needs but by passing whims
 Written v. Unwritten and fancies. Hence, our politicians cannot just tinker the
 Enacted v. Evolved provisions thereof easily, in accordance with their whims
 Rigid v. Flexible and fancies.

Written Disadvantage of a Rigid Constitution

The provisions are written but it is not the only It will hinder progress, instead of spurring it because it is
description. The provisions are embodied in a single difficult to amend if there is a legitimate need to bring
instrument or set of documents. about a change.

Unwritten CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD-WRITTEN

Does not necessarily mean that its provisions are not CONSTITUTION
written. The provisions are NOT embodied in a single
instrument or set of documents and are scattered in Broad
various sources. (e.g. judicial decisions, statutes, Should not only provide for the organizations of the
customs and traditions, opinions of jurists) government and cover all things or persons within its
territory, but should also be comprehensive to provide
Examples of countries with an unwritten Constitution: for contingency. It should not be like a history book. It
1. England should not only be an embodiment of a past, but must be
2. New Zealand able to anticipate the future.
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Australia Brief
It should limit itself to the basic principles sought to be
Enacted or Conventional implemented, leaving others to be supplemented by laws
Formally adopted at a definite time and place following a to be enacted by Congress. Should not be a codification
conscious effort of the body politic or a ruler. There is of laws.
formal adoption of the constitution, normally done in a
plebiscite. Definite
It should be clear and easily understood by the ordinary
Evolved or Cumulative people.
A product of political evolution. It is not formally adopted
at a definite and place and not formally ratified by the ESSENTIAL PARTS OF A GOOD-WRITTEN
people. (e.g. England, Ireland, Australia) CONSTITUTION

Rigid Constitution of Liberty

A kind of Constitution that can be amended only by a Refers to the part of the Constitution which sets forth the
formal and usually difficult process. fundamental, civil and political rights of the people and
imposes limitations in the exercise of government
Case in point: powers if only to secure the enjoyment of the civil and
Osmena v. Comelec political rights of the people.
 There was an attempt to shift the government from
 Article 3 - Bill of Rights presidential to parliamentary and from bicameral
Congress to unicameral. The SC characterized the
Constitution of Government change to be a revision because by allowing such would
Refers to the part of the Constitution outlining the alter the underlined principle in the Constitution.
organization of the government, enumerating the powers
of the government, laying down rules for its WAYS TO AMEND AND REVISE THE CONSTITUTION
administration and defining the illiterate.
Follow the amendatory process as outlined in Article 17
 Article 6 – Legislative Department of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
 Article 7 – Executive Department
 Article 8 – Judicial Department Two stages:
 Article 9 – Constitutional Commissions (COMELEC
CSC, COA) 1. Proposal stage – Proposed changes are being
formulated.
Constitution of Sovereignty
Refers to the part of the Constitution which outlines the Who can propose amendments or revisions?
process by which the Constitution may be amended or
revised. a. Congress (Sec 1 Art 17)
Amendments and Revisions
 Article 17 – Amendments or Revisions Vested with the power to amend and revise the
1987 Constitution and it needs ¾ votes of all its
RULES IN INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS members, voting separately.

Verba legis The Congress, however, cannot do this in the

If we are to interpret the provisions of the Constitution, exercise of their legislative power. It has to
ordinary words should be given ordinary meaning. transform itself into a constituent assembly with
(textualist approach) the primary task is to bring about change in the
Constitution.
Ratio legis et anima Constituent Assembly – composed of the
When there is doubt or ambiguity in interpreting the members of the Congress
provisions of the Constitution, it should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of the framers. (spirit and b. Constitutional Convention (Sec 1 Art 17)
purpose of the law) But if the wordings are clear, no Amendments and Revisions
need to apply this principle. Composed of persons who are not members of
the Congress. The members are elected at large
Case in point: Francisco v. House of Representatives on the basis of their expertise of Constitutional
Involves the impeachment of former Chief Justice law. A body distinct and separate from the
Davide Congress and Constituent Assembly.

Ut magis valeat quam pereat Who can create this body? (Sec 3 Art 17)
The Constitution has to be interpreted as a whole. The Congress by a vote of 2/3 of the members,
Related provisions of the Constitution must be voting separately, can call the Constitutional
interpreted altogether. Provisions dealing with the same Convention. But if the members of the Congress
subject matter should be construed as a whole, if only to are unable to decide whether or not to call the
effectuate the meaning thereof. Where there is a ConCon, then by a majority vote, they can ask
seeming inconsistency between some of the provisions, the people through a referendum.
there should be a conscious attempt to harmonize such
conflicting provisions, if only to give meaning to them. Question: If the Congress decides to call the
ConCon by a vote of 2/3 and enacts a law for
Case in point: Bayan v. Zamora the same purpose, but after which, it enacts a
subsequent law providing for the details of the
Take Note: composition of the ConCon by a majority vote, is
In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, the the subsequent law valid?
provisions should be regarded as self-executing
provisions. Imbong v. Comelec
The Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent
Self-executing provisions law which merely deals with the details of the
Applicable and enforceable at once, without need of composition of the ConCon is valid even if the
supplementing or enabling laws to be enacted by same is approved by the simple majority vote of
Congress. (e.g. Article Bill of Rights) the members of Congress. What is important is
that the first law calling the ConCon was
PROCESSES OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION approved by the required 2/3 votes of the
members of Congress.
1. Amendment – A piecemeal or isolated changes
of some provisions of the Constitution. Assuming further that pursuant to the first law
2. Revision – Complete rewriting or overhaul of enacted by Congress, the ConCon was
the Constitution. convened. How shall ConCon be regarded in
relation to Congress? Is ConCon superior or
Lambino v. Comelec inferior to Congress?
The Supreme Court succinctly ruled that even if the
purported change appears to be isolated in character,  Loomis v. Jackson
but if it already alters the underlined principle in the ConCon is superior to the Congress because
Constitution, then it shall be regarded as a revision. its task is to draft the fundamental law of the
land, a sovereign function.
 overturned its earlier pronouncement in
 Wood’s Appeal Santiago v. Comelec.
ConCon is inferior to the Congress because it
is merely a creation of Congress. (4) Limited only to amendments and not to
revisions
 Frantz v. Autry
ConCon is independent and co-equal with the (5) Petition to amend the constitution should be
Congress as long as it exists and confines signed by the people themselves as authors
itself within the sphere of its jurisdiction of and the draft amendments should be stated
revising or amending the Constitution. already in the petition

But what principle do we adhere to in the Lambino v. Comelec

Philippines? The Supreme Court held that any such
petition to amend the Constitution should be
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito signed by the people themselves as authors
ConCon is a co-equal body with Congress. and the draft amendment or amendatory
provisions shall be incorporated already in
Sec 1 in conjunction with Sec 3 of Art 17 – Congress the petition so as to prevent fraud and
may propose amendments to the Constitution by itself deception.
or it can call a ConCon.
2. Ratification stage – the proposed amendments or
When what is envisioned is a mere amendment, the revisions either sponsored by the Congress, ConCon
proposal is better made by the Congress because or proposed by the people themselves should be
calling a ConCon would entail gargantuan expense. submitted to the people in a plebiscite for their
approval or disapproval.
When what is envisioned is a revision or an overhaul
of the entire Constitution, it is advisable to entrust the (Sec 4 Art 17)
task to the Constitutional Convention, owing to the Ratification should not be held earlier than 60 days
presumed expertise of its members. but not later than 90 days following the approval of
the proposed/draft changes as authored either by
At the end of the day, the choice in the method of Congress or ConCon. But if the proposed changes
proposal is left to the sound judgment or discretion of are authored by the people, then the 60 to the 90 day
the members of the Congress. Such that while it is period should be counted not from the filing of petition
advisable of giving the task of revision to the ConCon, by the people but upon the issuance by the Comelec
there is nothing in law which prohibits the Congress of a certification attesting to the fact that the people’s
from undertaking the task itself. petition is sufficient in form and in substance.

Gonzalez v. Comelec Why is there a need for a definite time-frame?

The Supreme Court ruled that the Congress can do Because the framers of the 1987 constitution did not
both. While it is at best advisable for Congress to call want recurrence of what happened in the past where
the ConCon when the envisioned change partakes of there were cases that were filed questioning the
the nature of a revision, there is nothing in law which propriety of submitting the proposed amendments for
prohibits the Congress from undertaking the task ratification by the people.
itself.
Sanidad v. Comelec
c. People’s Initiative (Sec 2 Art 18) One of the issues was that according to Sanidad, the
Only Amendments people were only given 21 days within which to study
A new concept introduced to the 1987 and deliberate on the proposed changes and
Constitution allowing the people to propose by according to him, 21 is too short for such important
themselves some amendments to the issues to be discussed and intelligently studied by the
Constitution through the system of initiative. people.

This is subject to some limitations, however. Almario v. Alba 157 SCRA 69

This case involves several amendments and one
Limitations: amendment pertaining to the acquisition of private
properties through the method called grant would be
(1) Voting requirement – Petition must be deliberated by the people within a
supported by at least 12% of the registered period of just 67 days. Whereas the other proposed
voters with 3% per legislative district amendment dealing with urban land reform provides
only for 42 days. A petition was brought questioning
(2) Can only be availed once every 5 years. the propriety of the submission to the people of the
proposed amendment.
(3) Needs an enabling law to be enacted by
Congress. The Supreme Court held that 21 days is enough
because under the old Constitutions, it was uniformly
stated that ratification must be held not later than 3
Santiago v. Comelec months.
RA 6735 was declared as an insufficient
enabling law to govern the system of Hence, mindful of the rulings in the cases, the
initiative to amend the Constitution. framers of the 1987 Constitution already set a definite
time frame.
Lambino v. Comelec
Upon motion for reconsideration, RA 6735 Tolentino v. Comelec
was held to be a sufficient enabling law to ConCon was called pursuant to resolutions of both
govern the system of initiative. The ruling houses No. 2 and 4 issued an Organic Act No. 1
 submitting to the people in advance one amendment allowed to vote during the deliberation and excluded in
lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. The Supreme computing the required vote of ¾.
Court succinctly ruled that piecemeal submission of
amendments for ratification of the people is not A case was filed questioning the method by which such
allowed. It should be submitted to the people as a amendment was introduced. It was contented that if they
whole. factor in the 3 senators and 8 congressmen, then the
amendment was invalidly adopted because it fell short of
Gonzales v. Comelec the voting requirement.
The Supreme Court ruled that ratification may be
conducted on the same day as the general elections. The Supreme Court ruled that it had no power to resolve
It does not have to be special elections, it may be such issue, it being characterized as a political question.
synchronized with a general election.
However, in the recent cases
This was heavily criticized because according to But in the recent cases of Tolentino v. Comelec, Tanada
jurists, there should be a separate election or v. Cuenco Gonzalez v. Comelec, Sanidad v. Comelec,
plebiscite for that purpose. But this ruling was Santiago v. Comelec and Lambino v. Comelec, the court
reiterated in another case. now has the power to pass judgment on any issue
questioning the amendatory process by which any
There was an amendment sponsored by Congress to proposed changes in the Constitution are to be
increase the composition of its members from 120 to introduced. In reviewing the amendatory process
180, but there were two other resolutions of both pursuant to a case being filed, the court is exercising the
houses No. 2 and 4 calling the ConCon. power of judicial review.

The question is: If the SC allowed the people to vote Hence, the Mabanag ruling is now abandoned.
on the amendment proposed by the Congress, then
the people are expected to vote again in a later time Judicial Review
to the amendments proposed by the ConCon. Is this The power of the courts of justice to check the validity of
not also a piecemeal submission of amendments executive and legislative acts whether or not they are in
which the SC declared to be invalid in Tolentino v. accordance with the Constitution. Through this power,
Comelec? courts of law are now empowered to inquire into the
validity of executive and legislative acts to check if these
How to reconcile the two cases: acts are in conformity with the Constitution.
In the case of Gonzales, what are voted upon by the
people were the amendments proposed by Congress, In the exercise of judicial review, the Judiciary as a
whereas the remaining amendments would have to whole is not asserting its supremacy as it is not supreme
be proposed not by the same body, but by another, over the other two branches, but it is merely performing
the ConCon. And normally it would take time before its bounden duty under the Constitution to allocate
the ConCon could come up with the proposed conflicting claims of authority.
changes in the Constitution.
Hence, when the Judiciary performs its judicial power, it
Unlike in the case of Tolentino v. Comelec, the is not asserting its supremacy but that of the Constitution.
proposed amendments were all proposed by the
same body, the Constitutional Convention. Judicial review is only a part or component of judicial
power.
Occena v. Comelec
The Supreme Court ruled here is nothing wrong in JUDICIAL POWER (Art 7 Sec 1, 2nd par)
allowing the people to vote on the proposed Power of the court to settle actual controversies
amendments on the same day as the general involving rights which are legally enforceable and to
elections. determine whether or not there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of
JUDICIAL REVIEW any branch or instrumentality of the government.
The amendatory process in bringing about a change in
our Constitution is outlined under 15 of the 1987 Expanded concept of judicial review
Constitution. Assuming that there is a move to amend A new concept introduced in the 1987 constitution where
the Constitution by the Congress and there is a case courts of law are now empowered to scrutinize even the
being filed questioning the procedure adopted by discretionary powers given to other branches, if only to
Congress in proposing amendments to the Constitution, determine whether or not there is grave abuse of
can the courts of law take cognizance of this case or discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
should this issue be characterized as a political question?
Does this expanded concept of judicial review obliterate
The Supreme Court ruled that the court is powerless to what is known as political question? Can the courts now
resolve this kind of case because any such issue could pass judgments on these issues characterized as
well be characterized as a political question over which it political questions?
has no competent jurisdiction.
Distinguish between a purely political question and what
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito is not.
There was a purported change or amendment to be A purely political question is beyond the sphere of
introduced to the old Constitution regarding parity rights, judicial scrutiny. Hence, courts of law are not
giving rights to foreigners to own lands in the Philippines. empowered to decide those questions which are
The amendments were proposed by the Congress itself categorized as purely political questions. Otherwise, if it
but in the course of the deliberation of the purported is not a purely political question, there is a good chance
amendment, there were 3 senators who were not that such issue may be decided by the court.
allowed to vote and were not included in the computation
of the required vote of ¾. Similarly, there were also (e.g. elections for choosing the president – purely
around 8 congressmen who were suspended and not political question, but when his presidency is protested, it
can be validly decided by the Supreme Court and A copy of the petition or complaint questioning the
because it has nothing to do with wisdom of choice and validity of the law must be furnished with the office of the
something to do with procedure in elections) Solicitor-General, being the counsel for the State.
Because the Sol-Gen will defend the validity of the law
Assuming that the Congress proposed an amendment being assailed of as invalid.
lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, can the courts of
law dictate upon us that such proposed amendment is When what is being questioned is not a law enacted by
not sound? Congress, but rather a provision of an ordinance
A copy of the petition need not be furnished with the
No, it is a purely political question because it has office of the Sol-Gen. It is enough that the copy of the
something to do with the wisdom of the proposed petition or complaint is furnished with the provincial or
amendment. But whether or not such proposed city attorney.
amendment was validly submitted to the people for their
approval, then it can be decided by the courts because it FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
ceases it to a purely political question.
1. Checking Function
POLITICAL QUESTION The Judiciary can check if the acts of the executive
or legislative branch are in accordance of the
Tanada v. Cuenco Constitution.
That question which under the Constitution can be best
answered by the people in their exercise of sovereignty IBP v. Zamora
and in regards to which, full discretionary powers are Pres Erap exercised his calling out power and the
given to other branches of the government. SC reviewed his exercise of calling out power, to
determine if there has been grave abuse of
Are the lower courts also empowered to exercise discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
judicial review? Can they declare a law
unconstitutional? Osmena v. Comelec
Yes. They have the power and competence to declare a The SC checked the validity of RA 7056 which was
law unconstitutional pursuant to Art 8, sec 5, par 2, sub passed by Congress with the end in view of
par (a). Lower courts have the authority to resolve or amending some provisions of Art 18. The SC held
decide on the validity of a law, only that their decisions that the law was unconstitutional.
may still be reviewed, reversed, and modified by the
Supreme Court on appeal or certiorari. Serrano v. Maritime Gallant Services
The SC checked the validity of Section 10, par 5 of
Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court RA 8042 and declared the provision unconstitutional
for being violative of the equal protection clause.
What happens if after the release of judgment of
lower court invalidating a law, not one of the parties 2. Legitimating Function
filed a case on the decision? Would such declaration
necessarily bind the whole world or just the parties? Estrada v. Arroyo
It only binds the parties. It is only when such decision is The SC stamped legitimacy to the Arroyo
affirmed by the Supreme Court that it will become administration. There was a dispute whether or not
binding upon the whole world, because only decisions of Arroyo validly succeeded as the President of the
the Supreme Court would form part of the laws of the Phils. The SC held that Arroyo validly became the
land, under the principle of Stare Decisis. Hence, successor of Erap. (Justiciable question)
decisions of lower courts and even the CA are not
binding upon the whole world. At best, said decisions In re Saturnino Bermudez
may only be considered persuasive. The SC refused to resolve the issue of whether or
not the Aquino administration was a legitimate
However, administration. (Political question)
JM Tuason v. Court of Appels
The SC held that the CA had no jurisdiction to decide on How to reconcile the two cases:
the validity or invalidity of RA 2616, a law authorizing the It has something to do with the manner by which
expropriation of the Tatalo estate. This was questioned Arroyo and Aquino became the president. In the
before the CA by Rosefe and Dizon, the losing case of Aquino, she became the president not by
defendants in the ejectment cases. In connection with virtue of the Constitution, but through extra
the certiorari filed by the Rosefe and Dizon, the CA constitutional means via the people power. Her
issued an injunctive writ, seeking to enjoin the government was a revolutionary government. In fact,
enforcement of the writ issued by the lower court. the first declaration that she issued was that her
administration was constituted in defiance of the
In nullifying the writ issued by the CA, the SC held that 1973 Constitution.
the CA had no jurisdiction to decide on the
constitutionality of RA 2616. The CA acted without Whereas, in the case of Arroyo, she became the
authority in granting the injunctive writ because the rule president by virtue of the 1987 Constitution. In fact,
before, the CA can only validly issue injunctive writs in she swore to defend the 1987 Constitution.
connection with an appeal, and never in connection with
a certiorari. Hence, the CA acted beyond the scope of its 3. Symbolic Function
authority in granting the injunction.
Salonga v. Cruz Pano
But the rules now pursuant to 1997 RCC, Rule 65, Before the SC could decide the case petition filed by
the CA is now empowered to issue an injunctive writ Salonga, the criminal information charging Salonga
even in connection with a certiorari. with subversion was already dismissed upon order
of the Sec of Justice. Despite the withdrawal of the
Requirements criminal case against Salonga, the SC decided the
When the validity of a law is put in issue case on the merits because the SC saw the need to
 formulate doctrinal precepts for the guidance of the would indeed convene to propose amendments to
bench and the bar in respect to the determination in the Constitution.
the absence or presence of probable cause.
Symbolic in a sense that there was no longer actual Montesclaros v. Colemec
case or controversy, but just the same, the case was There was a pending bill in Congress seeking to
still decided on the merits by the SC. postpone the SK elections in 2002. This was
questioned by Montesclaros and those who would
There is no doubt that lower courts and the want to run as SK officers. When the bill was stll
Supreme Court can exercise judicial review, but pending, they already filed a petition seeking for the
courts cannot automatically take on the case and declaration of the bill as unconstitutional.The SC
decide the same threw out the petition because the filing thereof is
Because courts of justice are passive instruments, in still premature.
a sense that they can only act when their jurisdiction
is invoked as by filing the necessary complaint or Follows that if the case is already mooted by
information. Hence, even if there is a legal problem subsequent events, said petition must be dismissed
calling for the interpretation of an act in light of its outright.
conformity with the Constitution, the courts of law
cannot automatically take cognizance of that legal Gonzales v. Narvasa
problem. There has to be a case, complaint or Before the SC could resolve the case, the PCCR
petition to be filed before the courts of law before already ceased to exist. The issue posed in the case
they can act on the matter because they are passive became moot and academic with the cessation of
instruments. the operation of the PCCR.

But, even if a complaint or case is already filed, it Lacson v. Perez

does not also follow that it will be decided on the On May 2001, Arroyo declared a state of rebellion in
merits. Any such case which poses a legal question the city of Manila and this was questioned by Ping
or a question dealing with the validity or invalidity of Lacson. On May 6, she lifted the state of rebellion
a law, may only be decided if the case complies with and on that basis, the SC dismissed the petition of
the essential requisites for a valid exercise of judicial Lacson on the ground that it was already moot and
review. academic because of the subsequent lifting of the
declaration of rebellion.
FOUR ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW Exceptions:

1. Existence of an actual case or controversy  When the case presents a situation where
Before the courts of law can decide on a there is a grave or culpable violation of the
constitutional question, there has to be a case and Constitution.
an actual case or controversy. You cannot just go to
court and ask of for legal advisory opinion such as David v. Arroyo
asking about their opinion on the law of same sex They were arrested without a warrant of arrest
marriage. during the state of national emergency was in
force. Similarly, premises were searched
There has to be actual conflict of interest and without a search warrant. Since there was a
conflicting claims before the courts can validly act on culpable violation of the Constitution, the SC
a legal problem. decided on the merits of the case
notwithstanding the eventual lifting of the state
Petition for declaratory relief – petitioner asking for a of national emergency by Pres. Arroyo.
declarative judgment to inquire into his rights or
duties under a law, a contract, an ordinance, etc. An  When the case presents an issue which is of
action for declaratory relief may satisfy the paramount public interest
requirement on actual case because by filing the
petition, you are not merely asking for an advisory David v. Arroyo
because the law is there already, and what you are Issue posed is of grave importance to the
asking the court is to declare what your rights and public. Freedom of the press and expression.
duties under a law that is enacted. It is not therefore
similar to a legal advisory opinion.  When there is a need for the courts of law to
formulate doctrinal precepts for the guidance
In re Saturnino Bermudez of the bench and the bar.
SC threw out the petition when it was a petition for
declaratory relief because under Rule 63, any Salonga v. Cruz Pano
petition for declaratory relief must be filed only with Before the SC could decide the case petition
the RTC and not directly with the SC, which is not filed by Salonga, the criminal information
given the authority resolve petitions for declaratory charging Salonga with subversion was already
relief at the first instance. Also, the issue of the case dismissed upon order of the Sec of Justice.
partook of the nature of a political question. Despite the withdrawal of the criminal case
against Salonga, the SC decided the case on
Follows that if a petition is filed prematurely, said the merits because the SC saw the need to
petition must be dismissed outright. formulate doctrinal precepts for the guidance
of the bench and the bar in respect to the
Lozano v. Nograles determination in the absence or presence of
There was a House Res calling for the Congress to probable cause.
convene to consider amending the Constitution.
Lozano questioned it already and the SC held that it  When the issue in the case is capable of
was rather premature for Lozano to file the petition repetition yet evading review
because there was no showing that the Congress
 Alunan v. Mirasol 1. Demonstrate that there was illegal disbursement
There was a dispute regarding the authority of of public funds and that they were derived
the DILG to supervise the SK elections. But pursuant to the taxing and appropriation power
before the SC could decide on the case, there of Congress.
were already two SK elections that were
conducted. Notwithstanding the mootness of Kilosbayan v. Morato
the case, the SC nonetheless decided the The SC did not characterize the action as
case on the merits, if only to settle the issue partaking of a taxpayer’s suit because while
once and for all. admittedly the action involved disbursement of
public funds, the funds were not derived from
 When there are still other issues that are still the taxing or appropriation power of Congress
ripe for adjudication but by the operation of lotto.

Malaluan v.Comelec Gonzales v. Narvasa

Elections between Malaluan and Evangelista. The SC did not characterize the action as
Before the SC could decide the case, the term partaking of a taxpayer’s suit because while the
of office of the contested position had already action questions the disbursement of funds, the
expired. That could have rendered the case funds did not come from Congress but from the
moot and academic, but there was still another office of the President.
issue that was still ripe for adjudication – the
damages, the salaries which the Comelec Take Note:
directed Malaluan to pay to Evangelista. For a taxpayer suit to prosper, it is not enough
that the action involves illegal disbursement of
2. Constitutional question must be raised by the public funds. It needs to be established also that
proper party the funds were actually collected by virtue of the
The person questioning the validity of an act must taxing power of Congress and that the same are
have the legal standing. Otherwise, the petition will spent pursuant to the appropriation power of
be dismissed. Congress.

Gonzales v. Narvasa What should be established if you are suing as a

SC held that Gonzales had no legal standing to legislator?
bring the action because he was not claiming the
position held by Narvasa. SC dismissed the petition. 1. Demonstrate that the act complained of would
infringe your prerogatives as a legislator.
In re Saturnino Beermudez
SC dismissed the petition because Bermudez had Francisco v. House of Representatives
no legal standing to bring the action because he was The validity of the second impeachment
not claiming the positions held by ether Aquino or complaint filed against Davide. Francisco was
Laurel. joined by other petitioners who were members of
Congress and their legal standing was upheld as
Alan Paguia v. Office of the President valid by the SC. SC said that as legislators, they
Paguia filed a case questioning Gloria’s appointment had the right to question the illegal proceedings
of Chief Justice Davide as the representative to the before the House of Reps, otherwise if the
United Nations, for being violative of the Philippine proceedings will not be stopped, the petitioners
Service Act of 1991 which mandates that the who are legislators would be made to participate
mandatory retirement age of public officers is 65. SC in a patently illegal impeachment proceedings.
threw out the petition because Paguia had no legal
standing because he was not claiming the position What should be established if you are suing as a
held by Davide. voter or electorate?

What should be established if you are suing as a 1. Demonstrate that the act complained of
private citizen? somehow infringe your rights as voter.

1. Demonstrate that you suffered an injury or you Nicolas Lewis v. Comelec

stand to suffer an injury by reason of the act Nicolas Lewis was formerly a natural born
complained of. Filipina, and then she migrated and got
naturalized in the United States and became
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime American citizen. Later on, a law was enacted
He was aggrieved by the application of Sec 10 RA 9225 Citizenship Re-Acquisition Act of 2003.
par 5 RA 8042 because the monetary awards She applied to re-acquire her Filipino citizenship
due him was limited only to just 3 months. He and her petition was granted, making her a dual
had the legal standing to bring the action. citizen from the viewpoint of a third state.

David v. Arroyo After which, she tried to register as a voter for

He was arrested without a warrant, therefore, he her to be able to vote under the Absentee Voters’
had the legal standing to bring the action. Act while she was in the US. But her application
was denied by the Comelec because only OFWs
Ynot v. Immediate Appellate Court and not migrants could avail of the Absentee
He suffered damage by the outright confiscation Voters’ Act. She then filed a petition questioning
of his carabaos. the decision of the Comelec.

What should be established if you are suing as a Her personality and legal standing was
taxpayer? questioned by the respondents but the SC held
that Nicolas Lewis had the legal standing to
bring the action because her right as voter was
 prejudiced by the decision of the Comelec in  When the petition questioning the validity of an act
denying her application for registration as a is filed by way of a facial challenge
voter under the Absentee Voters’ Act.
You can mount this petition by way of a facial
Can the government question the validity of its own laws? challenge if you are questioning the validity of a
law because it is supposedly void for being vague
People v. Vera 65 Phil 56 or its scope is encompassing such that the same
There was this old commission act Act 4221 providing may seemingly be valid if applied to the petitioner,
that the act may be effective in provinces which could but the same would be invalid if applied to others.
allocate the salaries of probation officers. Suggesting
that for provinces which could not afford the salary of a A petition by way of a facial challenge normally
probation officer, the act may not be enforced in those can be lodged only if it has something to do with
provinces. the freedom of speech and of the press.

This was questioned by the office of the Solicitor Chavez v. Gonzales

General contending that this was violative of the equal Hello Garci tape. There was an attempt on the part
protection clause. The legal position of the Sol-Gen was of the government through Sec. Gonzales to
questioned by accused Vera and according to him, the silence the media and prohibiting the airing of the
government cannot question the validity of its own acts. hello Garci tape. Hence, any publisher, radio or tv
It is absurd. station which would air out the hello garci tape
may be penalized and their franchise may be
The SC held that the state has the right to question the cancelled.
validity of its own laws because more than anyone else,
it is the state which should be interested in seeing to it This was questioned by Frank Chavez, the former
that all its laws are valid and constitutional. Solicitor-General for being violative of the freedom
of speech and expression. His personality to bring
Can the Integrated Bar of the Philippines question the the action was challenged by the respondents.
validity of laws? According to Gonzales, Chavez did not have the
legal standing because he was not a media
Bayan v. Zamora practitioner and an owner of a tv or radio station.
SC held that the IBP does not have the legal standing to
bring the action, unless it can prove that any of its SC held that the petition filed by Chavez was by
members suffered injury by reason of the act complained way of a facial challenge.
of.
3. Constitutional question must be raised at the
Take Note: earliest opportunity
As a rule: If a petition is filed by a person who has no
legal standing to bring the action, such petition must be The issue questioning the validity of an act should
dismissed outright. be pleaded in the initiatory complaint or petition.
Otherwise, when one fails to incorporate that issue
Exceptions: in the complaint or petition itself, the issue may no
There are instances wherein even if the case is filed by a longer be taken up in the course of the trial and may
person who has no legal standing to bring the same, the not be considered in the course of the revision of
case may still be decided by the courts of law. decision nor on appeal.

 When the issue of the case is of transcendental At the inception, you should already be questioning
importance, of great importance to the public. the validity of an act or statute. Otherwise, it would
not be regarded as timely.
IBP v. Zamora
IBP was adjudged of having no legal standing to Umali v. Guingona
bring the petition but the SC decided the case Upon the filing of certiorari, he did not question the
because it has something to do with the validity of the creation of the Presidential
determination of whether or not President Erap Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption (PCAGC),
really had the calling out power. the body which investigated him. It was only after
encountering an adverse decision, that on motion for
Bayan v. Zamora reconsideration, he raised such issue.
Bayan was adjudged of having no legal standing
to bring the action but the SC decided the case The SC characterized the issue to be untimely. The
just the same on the merits because it involved the SC should have raised such in his action for
validity of the visiting forces agreement. certiorari.

 When what is asserted in a case is a public right. Serrano v. Gallant Maritime

Serrano did not raise the issue before the labor
Akbayan v. Aquino arbiter, nor on appeal, but on motion for
Akbayan filed a case asking that it be furnished a reconsideration before the NLRC, and raised it again
copy of the Japan-Philippines Economic before the CA. But nonetheless, the SC held that it
Partnership Agreement for them to scrutinize the was still timely for Serrano to have raised the issue
terms and conditions. The SC held that Akbayan in filing the certiorari before the CA because
had no legal standing to bring the action because administrative bodies like NLRC have no power to
it was not a party to the agreement, but declare a law unconstitutional. Hence, it would be
nonetheless, the SC decided the case on the useless for Serrano to raise such issue before the
merits, because Akbayan is asserting a public labor arbiter and NLRC, knowing that these bodies
right – right to public information Art 3 Sec 5, Art 2 do not have the authority to declare a law
Sec 28 transparency of governance. unconstitutional.
 Exceptions: Only Art 38 was voided.

 In criminal cases When can there be partial declaration of invalidity or

unconstitutionality of a law?
Even if you did not at first raise a constitutional
issue, you can still raise such issue at the If the questioned provision of a law is the heart and
subsequent stages of the proceedings at the soul of that law, then such provision is voided, it
discretion of the judge. If you are the accused follows that the entire law should also be voided.
and you failed to question the validity of a law at
the inception of the proceedings, you can still But if the questioned provision is not the heart and
raise the same at the discretion of the judge. soul of that law, then there should only be a partial
declaration of unconstitutionality. This can happen if
In civil cases, a constitutional issue may also be the two requisites are met.
raised at any stage if it is necessary in the final
determination of the case. Similarly in Two requisites:
administrative proceedings, a constitutional 1. Intention on the part of Congress to sustain the
issue may also be raised if it has something to remainder of the act, even if a portion thereof is
do with the jurisdiction of the courts, except declared unconstitutional. Expressed under the
when estoppel comes in. (You already invoked Separability clause.
the decision of the court, you ask affirmative 2. The remainder could stand independently as a
relief, and later on you question that it has no law minus the assailed provision.
jurisdiction of the case)
Orthodox View
4. Any such question or issue must be decisive of If the entire law is declared unconstitutional, it is to
the case. be regarded that it creates no rights, imposes no
obligations, it affords no protection and creates no
The issue must be decisive or must be the lis mota office. It is as if such law has not been written in the
of the case. It is controlling, or it is necessary to statute books.
resolve the issue, otherwise, the case may not be
validly decided. Normally, even when the case Osmena v. Comelec
involves a constitutional issue, if the courts can The SC considered RA 7056 as not having been
decide that case without necessarily touching that written at all.
particular issue, then the courts of law should do that,
out of respect to the other branches of the Operative Fact Doctrine
government. Because before a bill becomes a law, it Laws, prior to their being declared unconstitutional
has to be approved by Congress and the President. should be considered valid and be complied with.
A law therefore is the collective effort of Congress
and the office of the president. So if a case is filed Serrano de Agbayani v. PNB
questioning the validity of a law, the courts should
be careful in dealing with the issue. If they can Ynot v. Intermediate Appelate Court
decide the case without necessarily touching on that
particular issue, then they have to do that. When to apply the orthodox view vis-à-vis the
operative fact doctrine?
Sandueta v. Dela Costa 66 Phil 155 If the law has already been in effect for quite some
Sandueta was a judge of a court in Manila and an time, such that there are already vested rights
act was enacted reorganizing the Judiciary and acquired, what should be applied is the operative act.
pursuant to which, he accepted an interim
appointment in another place and so he vacated his But if no vested rights have been acquired, you
post. He was however, not extended a permanent apply the Orthodox view.
appointment in his new post.
Osmena v. Comelec
He went back to his old post, only to discover that it No vested rights have been acquired yet because it
was already occupied by Dela Costa. Sandueta then was assailed of being invalid at the very beginning.
questioned the validity of the re-organization act, Before it could validly take effect, the law was
alleging that it was violative of the security of tenure already questioned.
of judges.

The Supreme Court did not tackle such particular

issue. It decided the case on the basis of estoppel.
SC held that Sandueta by his acceptance of the
interim appointment in another sala, should be
deemed to have vacated his post.

EFFECTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
LAW
Should it be voided in its entirety or only a portion
thereof?

Ynot v. Intermediate Appelate Court

The entire executive order was invalidated.

Serrano v. Gallant Maritime

Only Sec 10 par 5 or RA 8042 was voided.

Salazar v. Achacoso