ART.

1 NATIONAL TERRITORY and features in said area, China could have not
possibly habituated the subject islands.
CURRENT CONTROVERSY WITH CHINA OVER a. WHEREAS for PH: drawing the EEZ from
the Subic or Zambales as baselines, the
SCARBOROUGH SHOAL (located in South China
Shoal definitely fall inside the PH-EEZ; and
Sea/West Philippine Sea)
said base shorelines are capable of human
Decision of International Tribunal on the law on the habitation without any further intervention.
seas (ITLO, aka Arbitration tribunal) b. As to proposed joint venture (per ITLOS): said
- not on whether China owns SCS, or whether PH owns proposal is not constitutional, since the EEZ is, as
WPS; since they actually pertain to the same waters; named is EXCLUSIVE for the PH and cannot be
- not on ownership of sea waters, since these waters subject to any joint venture with any other country
are international waters (being international waters, (we may hire other countries as contractors, or
anyone may use, except that ONE country will be engage other countries in financing; but definitely
granted exclusive rights to explore, develop, utilize the not enter into a joint venture)
waters as recognized ad provided for by the
UNCLOS; Note: the exclusivity of exploitation and use of our natural
- but on who had better rights to use, utilize, develop, resources (which extend to EEZ) is provided in Art. 12 of the
explore over the SCS/WPS; Constitution, but EEZ per se is not actually mentioned (nor
- decision on which country should have access or defined) in Constitution; although UNCLOS, as an international
have exclusive use of subject waters law, now form part of our laws due to Incorporation (Art. 2).
- PH and CHINA both signatories of UNCLOS;
Note: only US did not sign UNCLOS; reasons largely political;
US is more of a continent (thus sea water would be limited)
Chinas claims and thus US cannot agree with the measurements of territories
main contention: exclusive claim of ownership (thus, (i.e. US does not want to be held liable for any encroachment
waters are named South China Sea) in territories due to any covert spying activities); and US has
Bases: power and means to not sign UNCLOS unlike PH, PH has to
1. First to discover SCS support UNCLOS to protect itself and obtain support from the
Per ITLOS, contrary to Chinas claim: no proof that international community (i.e. against claims by China,
China first discovered Scarborough Shoal and sea Malaysia).
water around said Shoal; and even if assuming China
first discovered said Shoal, there is no proof showing
that they occupied the Shoal; emphasized: discovery IMPORTANT TERMS
will only give China inchoate right to claim the Shoal,
Internal waters
but never a right of ownership since China never
Pertain to and aka archipelagic waters per UNCLOS; found
occupied it.
inside (landwards) the straight baselines.
o WHEREAS PH proved that since 1940s
Territorial waters
(during the Japanese occupation), PH
12 nautical miles from the outermost straight
already put up a flag in the Shoal and
baselines/shorelines.
occupied the same.
Archipelagic sea lanes
2. China has used the waters for some time The right of way over the sea waters INSIDE the straight
(waters called SCS since China is using them) baselines (since there are islands in PH that are separated by
Per ITLOS: no indication that while China was using more than 24 miles). Per UNCLOS, there are vessels
area, it was at the exclusion of other states (i.e. no (especially those under stress) which may be allowed just to
proof of exclusivity of use in the SCS). pass through; thus right of way; but said right of way (i.e.
a. WHEREAS PH proved that PH has been archipelagic sea lanes) must be defined by PH laws, however,
fishing in the PWS even before the same is still pending in Congress so for now, no one may
controversy broke out. automatically enter PH internal waters unless given express
permission; said permission being granted only thru laws.
3. The two EEZs of China and PH are
overlapping so China suggests that China
and PH enter into a joint venture
As to overlapping (per ITLOS): NO OVERLAPPING
in the first place, since determination of EEZ must be
based on territories capable of human habitation and
economic development/activities/production.
a. Reason for claimed overlap: overlap is due to
China extending its claimed territory using as
baselines a group of islands reclaimed (islands
are underwater during high tide, thus China took
deliberate actions for their reclamation); but had
China not reclaimed, nor setup artificial structures
ART. 2 DECL. OF STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES CURRENT CONTROVERSY: PROPOSED
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BANGSAMORO
GENERAL The proposed Bangsamoro is not acceptable under the 1987
Constitution since the Constitution does not recognize an
Sometimes known as Political Creed of the associate state (to which the Bangsamoro is being likened).
Government. IF Bangsamoro will be patterned to the ARMM, it CAN pass
A declaration/enumeration of precepts, philosophies, the test of constitutionality and can be recognized as a political
principles underlying the operation of the government (all subdivision.
three branches). LEGAL BASES: directly, Art. 2 Sec. 1; and indirectly, Art. 1
DOES NOT confer rights to certain individual EXCEPT of the Constitution.
thru Section 16 (i.e. right of people to a balanced and CASE IN POINT: Province of North Cotabato v.
healthful ecology), nor impose obligations to the people Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)
or to the government. The GRP and the MILF were scheduled to sign a MOA of the
NOT self-executing: (a) cannot be invoked in court for Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP- MILF Tripoli Agreement
on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
purpose of determining WON a law or act of the
Petitioners sought to compel respondents to disclose and
government is violative (of Art. 2); (b) need laws to be furnish the complete and official copies of the MOA, prohibit
implemented. signing of the same, and the holding of public consultation
When violated: thereon; and to have the said MOA declared unconstitutional.
- A REMEDY political: do not vote for individual. SC issued a TRO enjoining the GRP from signing the same.
- NOT A REMEDY judicial action/review. ISSUE: WON MOA is unconstitutional.
CASE IN POINT: Taada v. Anggara HELD: Yes. MOA intends to vest upon the Bangsamoro
Recent decision concerning the violation of Art. 2s provisions. Juridical Entity the status of an associate state or, at any rate,
The World Trade Agreement (WTA) of the World Trade a status closely approximating it. The concept of association is
Organization (WTO). not recognized under the present Constitution.
PH is a member of WTO and a signatory of WTA (thus we
have foreign products competing with local-made ones).
Effects of WTA: REPUBLICANISM
a. Globalization of trade (e.g. foreign products cheaper than Is a system and/or kind of Democracy
local, good competition)
A representative type of government
b. Congress shall not pass laws contrary to the WTA
PH elects officials for a definite term
ISSUE: WON WTA is violative of Art. 2 Sec. 7 of the Government may be definite (same system) but
Constitution which provides that (a) foreign policies should be
administrations will change (may change way of
independent, (b) what must be stressed in the paramount
importance on National Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity.
management)
HELD: Art. 2 is not self-executing. In the absence of a law Manifestations of Republicanism
implementing Art. 2 Sec. 7, the same cannot be brought as 1. Existence of bill of rights
legal basis for a controversy questioning the legality of the acts 2. Rule of majority
of the government, nor can it be a source of judicial relief. 3. Government of laws and not of men
DICTA: There cannot be an absolute enjoyment of sovereignty 4. Observance of separation of powers
PH cannot survive on its own and thus must relate with other 5. Non-delegation of powers
countries so long as such relations are on bases of equality, 6. Public accountability
mutuality, reciprocity in so far as benefits are concerned. 7. Provision against passage of irrepealable laws
8. Popular suffrage/vote
Note: Of all provisions in Art. 2, only Sec. 16 is self-executory.
Manifestation #1: Existence of bill of rights
to ensure that powers are not concentrated in only one
person, entity, branch; that powers are divided amongst
ART. 2. SECTION 1 branches, where each observe separation and independence
in the exercise of their respective powers;
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and without the bill of rights, the possibility of having a tyrannical
republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and government is not remote; a mob rule instead of a Republic;
all government authority comes from them. bill of rights balances the authority of the government with the
rights of the individuals.
The Constitution recognizes only ONE state, the PH,
Manifestation #2: Rule of majority
and it is a Republican and is Democratic.
Basis for rule: almost impossible to obtain unanimous
Same fact can be indirectly established from Art. 1s approval on anything, thus constitution provides for a way to
definition of the national territory no mention of a arrive at a decision especially when it needs to be decided as a
Muslim state or any other state besides the PH. collegial body (e.g. Congress, Constitutional Commissions,
Judicial bodies)
 Underlying assumption: minority must follow majority since are currently subject to a TRO whilst said appropriation for RH
majority is assumed as the will of a greater number of people; law is still pending in court.
Risks in the rule: if not PROPERLY observed, a tyranny of
numbers instead of the voice of majority occurs;
Rights of the minority: since sovereignty does not come Manifestation #3: Government of laws, not of men
only from the majority but from everyone, this principle must be NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW we follow the law
properly observed to ensure that even rights of minority are regardless of position, status; we apply the law as it is.
respected rights of minority: (a) participation in debates and
discussion, (b) having an equal vote as those in the majority; CASE IN POINT: Villavicencio v. Lukban
FORMS of Majority: (A) Ordinary and (B) Qualified majority. Mayor ordered (no law issued to this effect) the deportation of
all prostitutes from Manila to Davao.
A. Ordinary Majority Mayors contentions: protecting the general welfare (public
CONGRESS regular sessions: health, safety, morals) of people in Manila.
- Attendance requirement: need only AS MINIMUM, a Prostitutes filed writ of habeas corpus before the SC.
quorum (i.e. half of total actual members plus one) ISSUE: Shall the judiciary permit a government of men instead
- Voting requirement: to pass a bill: need only majority of a government of laws?
(i.e. half plus one) of present members (while taking HELD: No. Regardless of the nobility of the mayors intentions,
note of quorum requirement) his order cannot prevail in the absence of laws empowering
SUPREME COURT En Banc to declare law unconstitutional: him to issue said order, or any law barring the women from
- Attendance requirement: need only AS MINIMUM, a choosing their own residence. Writ of habeas corpus granted.
quorum (i.e. half of total actual members plus one)
- Voting requirement: to pass a bill: need only majority Under the Constitution, all (incl. the women prostitutes) have
(i.e. half plus one) of those who actually participated the right to their own abode. Unless there is a law prohibiting
in the deliberation anyone from residing in a particular place, anyone has a right
to choose where he/she so decides to live.
B. Qualified Majority
CONGRESS more important decisions: CASE IN POINT: Rice case
- State of war: requiring 2/3 votes of the actual A law prohibiting the importation of rice was in effect.
members of Congress, voting separately; A government official, notwithstanding said law, imported rice.
- Amendment to Constitution: 3/4 votes of the actual Government officials contentions: there was shortage and
members of Congress, voting separately; people will starve, rice being a staple for Filipinos.
- Revocation/extension (but not affirmation) of ISSUE: Shall the judiciary permit a government of men instead
Declaration of Martial law, or Lifting of suspension of a government of laws?
of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: HELD: No. Regardless of how salutary the government
majority vote, JOINTLY; ONLY time Congress votes officials intentions was, where there is a law prohibiting the
jointly (senators votes have same weight as importation of rice, his intentions cannot supersede the law.
representatives votes; thus they can always be
Upon the government official invoking good faith, SC
outnumbered with the lower house in these kinds of
emphasized that PH is not a government of good intentions of
sessions);
men, but of laws.
Note: under 1973 Constitution, 10 votes as MINIMUM is
CASE IN POINT: Judge refusing to give out death penalty
required to declare laws as unconstitutional and remove law
from book of statutes. Death penalty, then, prescribed for convictions for rape; but the
presiding judge gave the reclusion perpetua due to his devout
Note: under 1987 Constitution, required to declare Catholic faith.
unconstitutional:
- IF 15 present = 15/2 = 7.5 = 8 votes Judge declared ignorant of law and was administratively
- IF 14 present = 14/2 = 7, + 1 = 8 votes charged.
- IF 13 present = 13/2 = 6.5 = 7 votes
Note: no matter how noble the Presidents intentions in
- IF 8 present = 8/2 = 4, + 1 = 5 votes
extinguishing drugs in PH, he has no right to execute anyone
- IF 7 present = no quorum
without due process.
Thus, with only 5 (as MINIMUM), SC can already declare a law
unconstitutional per the rule of majority (more liberal then 1973
Constitution).
Note: Only SC En Banc can reverse/modify an SC Divisions Manifestation #4: Observance of separation of powers
decision. Expressly granted: So long as a power is expressly granted
Note: All lower courtsonly one MR available; SCmay (political) to a particular branch, said power is discretionary and
entertain as many MRs as they wish (i.e. SC has own rules). is a political prerogative; and that branch therefore, under the
Note: As to TROs: Lower courtsautomatically lifted after 20 separation of powers cannot be interfered with.
days; SCindefinite, SC has discretion when to lift TRO. General: Political questions are outside the scope of the SC.
Exception: Alleged grave abuse of discretion resulting to
Note: RH law constitutional; but cannot be implemented just the lack or excess of jurisdiction (reviewed through Rule 65);
yet since the funds allocated for the purchase of contraceptives the ONLY time powers expressly granted (political) can be
reviewed; judicial review is available as remedy.
 Judicial review (see also JUDICIAL REVIEW below for detailed - That is: the original power to determine WON a
discussion): is expressly vested by the Constitution to the national emergency exists is with Congress; but
Judiciary as part of the expanded jurisdiction of the courts; delegated to President as to declaration only
judicial review is exercisable by ALL courts (except that Rule (supported by jurisprudence, see CASE IN POINT: Arroyo below)
65, and questions of constitutionality are exclusive to SC). - (see also Manifestation #5-A)

CASE IN POINT: Marcos v. Manglapus

Note: Political questions are those involving powers expressly
granted by the Constitution. Former-Pres. Marcos and family (then in Hawaii) sought to
return in PH. Then Pres. Cory Aquino barred the Marcos family
Note: When the SC, in turn commits a grave abuse, also from returning.
termed as overreaching, remedy available is impeachment.
ISSUE: WON Pres. Aquino has prerogative to prohibit the
Marcoses from returning to PH.
A. Congress, Legislative inquiry, Contempt HELD: Yes. Pres. Aquinos prohibition is within the scope of
Legislative inquiry (LI) is expressly granted/vested by the executive powers vested by the Constitution.
Constitution; and power to cite someone in contempt is
necessarily included in LI (otherwise, LI has not teeth) Also, powers of executive not limited to those specifically
- Controversy: do courts have the authority to enumerated in the Constitution; whatever power inherent in the
intervene (under their judicial review function)? government that is neither legislative nor judicial, is executive.
- That is: Judiciarys power to try controversies vs.
Legislatures power to conduct LI. CASE IN POINT: David et. al. v. Arroyo
- NO. As such would already be an encroachment of Arroyo declared national emergency when power to do so
the legislatures prerogative, LI being expressly shouldve been with Congress.
granted by the Constitution, and the power to cite ISSUE: WON Pres. Arroyo has prerogative to declare a state
someone in Contempt necessarily being a function to of national emergency.
dispense said power. HELD: Yes. Pres. Arroyo can declare (declare only) and not
- Available remedy: Rule 65 (grave abuse of precluded from declaring a state of national emergency; by that
discretion resulting to the lack or excess of mere declaration, no (emergency) power is given.
jurisdiction), though, is available as remedy for those
President is in best position to determine condition of PH. In
held in contempt by Congress.
doing so (declaring), the president is merely describing a
condition of the country at such point. However, no emergency
B. Decl. of martial law, Susp. of writ of habeas corpus powers shall be automatically vested to the President upon the
- President has prerogative to declare martial law (ML) same declaration. These powers remain with Congress and
and need not any affirmation from Congress; may only be delegated to the President (for that particular
- Condition: ML can only be declared during rebellion; instance only) through statute.
- Power not absolute: declaration of ML can still be
checked by Congress the president required to HOWEVER: when Arroyo started calling the AFP to execute
report/submit to Congress upon his declaration of ML; warrantless arrests to rallyists, etc., SC said: this is an exercise
the checking, in the technical sense, is in fact an of legislative power, which should not be exercised without the
encroachment of the presidents prerogative, but the express consent of the congress.
same remains to be constitutional, is it is likewise
expressly allowed by the Constitution itself. Note: Out of all systems of government, the Republican
- Upon submission: Congress not required to system is the most adversarial always checking.
convene congress will only convene upon an Note: quasi-judicial bodies can try or review grave abuse if
initiative to revoke, or upon the request from the issue concerns factual controversies and not questions or
president to extend the ML; law/constitutionality.
- That is: declaration of ML deemed automatically and
fully valid until revoked. Note: Supreme court not allowed to perform quasi-judicial
function to preserve its status and integrity.
C. Decl. of State of emergency/of war
- President can declare state of national D. Sharing of powers (see also discussion of permissible delegations
under Manifestation #5)
emergency/state of war this has been (in effect)
- The power to make laws (appropriation, taxation, police
delegated to the president since President has the
power) is exclusive with the legislature; exception:
best resources/intel to determine condition of PH, and
- Executive: delegated powers during state of rebellion;
WON an national emergency or state of war exists;
- Judiciary: delegated powers as to Rules of courts,
- Basis/type of emergency: ANYTHING (both natural
Bar, etc.;
and man-made)
- The power to make appointments exclusively with executive
- Rule/law-making restricted: remains exclusively
branch, exception:
with Congress, and can only be delegated to
- Power to appointment shared with each branch (e.g.
President through a statue to that effect (e.g. power to
Congress and SC can appoint their personnel
appropriate disbursements to cover operations
themselves) to preserve each branchs independence;
responsive to state of emergency/war); and scope of
- The power to try cases and decide controversies is exclusive
delegated law-making powers only limited to those for
with the judiciary, exception:
which the emergency was declared.
- Executive: administrative cases
 o Tried/settled with the department first, and - National emergency: emergency that affects the
not directly with the courts; exhaustion of whole nation (may be manmade, or natural calamity).
administrative remedies; quasi-judicial - Emergency powers: congress enables the president
function; through a law to disburse public funds.
- Legislative: Legislative inquiry and Contempt; - But SC said in the Arroyo case that the president can
electoral tribunals (one for each house) declare such, only that he/she cannot be vested with
o Tried/settled with the department first, and emergency powers without the express consent of the
not directly with the courts; exhaustion of congress
administrative remedies; quasi-judicial - (see full discussion under Manifestation #4-C, and CASE IN POINT:
function; Arroyo above)
- State of lawlessness/lawless violence President has the
Note: PDAF is not a constitutional sharing of powers. power to call the AFP to help in solving lawless violence.
Congress does not only determine for which the money is - On declaration of a State of WAR only congress can
spent, but Congress also executes the budget. This is against declare such, through 2/3 votes of each house
the separation of powers. - However, the president is never barred in declaring
state of war even if no declaration was made by
Note: Disbursement Acceleration Fund of Pres. Aquino, is congress yet, but he cannot exercise emergency
likewise unconstitutional put in single account as savings and powers
not included in budget; then spent by president at his - NOTE: Purpose of delegation: (1) not a plenary power, it is
discretion; no appropriation. This is also against the separation limited (scope extends only to the purpose for which the
of powers. emergency was called);
Note: COMELEC has original and appellate jurisdiction over - Example: during Yolanda
election controversies; and the decisions COMELEC render President cannot pass a legislation legalizing
are final, except when grave abuse is attendant. prostitution in order for people there to earn money
Note: Presidential electoral tribunal is purely judicial only SC because the government has no money.
reviews, and COMELEC no longer has any jurisdiction; thus, - NOTE: Delegation is only for a limited period of time, it
no appeals. ceases, but shall, in notice on the next adjournment of the
congress (next session), if it is not withdrawn earlier by a
resolution;
E. Exercise of Judicial Review
- NOTE: Withdrawal of emergency powers need not be
Judicial review is the remedy and safeguard provided by the
approved by the president, because withdrawal is not a law,
1987 Constitution as part of the expanded judicial powers of
but a resolution by Congress
the judiciary to ensure (a) that the separation of powers is
- Is there a change that the Congress and President can
properly maintained; and (b) that despite each branchs
exercise emergency powers? yes, if it has not ceased after
independence from each other, there is no grave abuse of
the next session.
discretion resulting to the lack or excess of jurisdiction, nor are
those unjustly affected by such grave abuse left without any
A.2 Another delegation of legislative power: Taxation powers
available remedy.
(see discussion on JUDICIAL REVIEW below).
- General: Taxation powers (imposition can only be done,
originally, by law power of Congress)
- Exception: President can impose tariffs wharf dues, import
Manifestation #5: Non-delegation of powers and export costs.
Rationale/Principle: delegated powers cannot be re- - e.g. Increase of VAT from 10% - 12%, no usurpation
delegated (unless with consent from the peoplethe original of legislative powers by Arroyo. She was just
delegators): implementing what the DOF and NEDA ascertained.
Branches vested by Constitution ratified by People
Pursuant to above (as to Congress), legislation is more of a B, C, D above see KWIN and Warrior Notes.
DUTY than a power of Congress;
Exception: Permissible delegations (to adapt with changing Note: Bill-making contest not unconstitutional since the bills
times); delegated to: made by the participants serve only as suggestions; actual
- From Congress (legislative powers are the most deliberation, processing, passage still with Congress.
delegated powers): per Sec. 23 and 28 of Art. 6 to Note: Despite the manifestation of non-delegation of
A. President; legislative powers, legislation has, in fact, become the most
B. Administrative bodies; delegated power in heeding the call of changing times.
C. Local government units;
D. People (thru initiative, referendum).
- From Executive: e.g. power to appoint (see also
discussion on Sharing of powers under Manifestation #4-D)

A. Permissible delegation to President

A.I National emergency, lawlessness/rebellion, war:
- President may declare (only declare), at his own discretion, a
State of national emergency; emergency powers, however, can
be delegated thru statute.
JUDICIAL REVIEW Effects: generally retroactive as if law never existed
(see detailed discussion of E.5 DECISIONS and E.6 EFFECTS after elaboration
Judicial Power adjudication, deciding won rights are on requisites below);
violated under existing laws. Requisites: There are four (ALL must concur), to wit:
Judicial Review form part of judicial power the E.1. Actual case or controversy;
power to inquire into the existence of grave abuse of E.2. Raised by appropriate party;
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction E.3. Raised at earliest opportunity; AND
(JUDICIAL INQUIRY). E.4. Constitutionality must be the ultimate issue.
- This cannot be exercised by courts at any time
courts are passive, cannot act on its own; someone E.1 REQUISITE 1: Actual case or controversy
should go to court and ask for judicial relief main - PRESUMPTION: Laws are valid/voidable (i.e. for all purposes
purpose should be to seek relief: valid until declared unconstitutional); thus, there must be an
o Complain that act is unconstitutional; actual case assailing said validity for the courts to disturb the
o Court has no choice but to review the law or presumption;
act; - CASE: when there are conflicting rights based on
o WON it is unconstitutional or the act constitutionality of law;
constitutes grave abuse of discretion; - NO case: NO rights violated: NO need to question
constitutionality;
Judicial review is the remedy and safeguard provided - At time of filing with the SC, issue/controversy must
by the 1987 Constitution as part of the expanded already/still exist not yet moot and academic:
- General: must continue to exist up to resolution of
judicial powers of the judiciary to ensure (a) that the
case (otherwise, will be dismissed by the SC at any
separation of powers is properly maintained; and (b) that
stage of the proceedings as soon as issue ceases to
despite each branchs independence from each other, exist);
there is no grave abuse of discretion resulting to the - Exception: (a) possible to be repeated; (b)
lack or excess of jurisdiction, nor are those unjustly transcendental importance to the public.
affected by such grave abuse left without any available
remedy.

CASE IN POINT: Marcos burial case

ISSUE: WON the president committed grave abuse of E.2 REQUISITE 2: Raised by appropriate party
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. - Party initiating the review must not be the Court motu proprio;
HELD: NO. It was a discretionary power of the president, a - To be a direct proper party:
political question case was dismissed. All the president did General:
was to enforce the law, because Marcos qualified to be buried i. Locus standi; AND
there. ii. Been directly aggrieved or have sustained injury
(must be ACTUAL or atleast IMMINENT/potential)
Libingan ng mga Bayani is just a name does not mean only Exceptions:
heroes are buried there. i. ANY person Declaration of Martial Law;
ii. ANY person Lifting of writ of Habeas Corpus;
Justiciable vs. Political Questions: iii. ANY person Constitution - validity of ratification
General rule: only justiciable questions can be reviewed process (NOT on contents of proposal; but on
(review thru Rule 45); since political questions (involving process only);
powers expressly granted by the Constitution and delving iv. ANY taxpayer anomalous disbursements (contrary
into the wisdom of other branches) are beyond the courts to law, amounting to misappropriation or malversation
review and are answerable ONLY by the people. of public funds);
Exception: when said political prerogative (i.e. political v. ANY taxpayer exorbitant tax rates;
question is exercised with grave abuse of discretion: vi. ANY voter when issue involves the right to vote;
- Expressly granted: expressly granted by the 1987 vii. or General requirements/rules may be waived by the
Constitution to the Judiciary; thus, in a sense, there SC (i.e. ANYONE can be an appropriate party) when
no longer is any difference between justiciable and the issue is of:
political questions since both are now subject to a. transcendental importance to the public, or
review of the courts except that political questions b. paramount to public interest.
are only reviewed at the instance of grave abuse;
that is, thru Rule 65 as distinguished from Rule 45 Note: Intergenerational party (Oposa vs. Factoran) was
political questions then become justiciable questions appreciated as proper party in invoking the right to a balanced
when grave abuse is attendant. and healthful ecology.
- As relief and remedy: with the 1987 Constitution
vesting said expanded power (and duty) of judicial E.3 REQUISITE 3: Raised at earliest opportunity
review, relief is now available for allegations of grave - General rule:
abuse of discretion; a. Unconstitutionality must be specifically alleged; AND
- NOT motu proprio: the court however cannot, on its b. must have been raised at earliest stage in trial.
own, review other branches; a third party must allege c. Thus, you cannot raise question of un/constitutionality
and bring an action for review before the court. for the first time on appeal.
- Exception: When un/constitutionality may be raised anytime: CASE IN POINT: Araullo v. Aquino
a. Issue is on JURISDICTION; DAP case.
b. CRIMINAL case as a matter of defense/appeal; OR
ISSUE: WON full-reversal/general rules, as to effects, are also
c. CIVIL cases (a) when un/constitutionality is the Lis
applicable to infrastructure already erected thru DAP.
Mota (see discussion of Lis Mota in E.4 REQUISITE 4 below).
HELD: NO. DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT: In extra-
ordinary circumstances, in the light of equity and justice,
E.4 REQUISITE 4: Constitutionality must be the ultimate issue
projects implemented and incidents and effects thereto (i.e.
- The issue on un/constitutionality must be the Lis Mota
infrastructure) are retained.
(translates ultimate issue) of the case; that is, without said
issues resolution, the case cannot be closed;
- All other possible means to resolve the case must have been Note: Constitutional questions can be raised: (a) directly to
exhausted; and the question on un/constitutionality can no Supreme Court En Banc; or (b) to RTC, but scope of effectivity
longer be evaded without the Court, in effect, failing in its would only be within same locality (e.g. ordinances).
duties as the judiciary. Note: ONLY SC (constitutionality issues are always decided
En Banc; SC circular 89-2) decisions on un/constitutionality
E.5 DECISIONS on un/constitutionality of laws can be binding on whole PH.
(see SC attendance and voting requirements under Manifestation #2)
Note: Lower courts are advised by SC to be very cautious in
- When found valid:
conducting judicial review; to EXHAUST ALL OTHER grounds
- Law is affirmed, confirmed and ratified;
(e.g. technicalities, if they must) before resorting to or
- Since validity of law is already presumed;
entertaining questions of un/constitutionality (see E.4 REQUISITE 4:
- Double negative declaration: the law is NOT
Constitutionality must be the ultimate issue below for details).
UNconstituional.
- When found invalid: Note: When MINIMUM votes (i.e. 5 at least, see SC attendance and
- Couched: the law is UNConstitutional. voting requirements under Manifestation #2) not obtained, case is
dismissed, constitutionality is upheld (see also E.5 DECISIONS and
E.6 EFFECTS when laws are declared unconstitutional E.6 EFFECTS when laws are declared unconstitutional below).
(see SC attendance and voting requirements under Manifestation #2)
- General: Unconstitutionality retroacts; full-reversal; not a law
since inception; as if law was never written, and thus:
- confers no rights;
- affords no protection;
- imposes no obligation;
- e.g. you refund all you have received on account of
law declared unconstitutional;
- Exception: DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT:
- For reasons of EQUITY and JUSTICE, under extra-
ordinary circumstances (e.g. finding unconstitutional
a law creating an office or appointment which has
persisted for more than a decade, thus affecting all
salaries, decisions, contracts, etc. entered into and
expended on account of said office or appointment)
- NOTE: where said doctrine is only an exception to the
general rule, this should be specified by the SC in the
decision should not be presumed.

CASE IN POINT: Chavez v. JBC

Congress represented by two representatives (i.e. one per
house), whereas Constitution prescribes ONE
REPRESENTATIVE per body only.
The excess representation was declared unconstitutional.
Where it was through said excess representation that
nominations including nominations in the Judicial and Bar
Council (JBC) where made, rendering the same
unconstitutional would likewise render nominations void,
affecting, amongst others:
a. judges/justices appointments;
b. salaries;
c. court decisions (some as old as decades ago).
ISSUE: WON full-reversal/general rules, as to effects, are also
applicable to JBC nominations (and a-c above).
HELD: NO. DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT: In extra-
ordinary circumstances, in the light of equity and justice,
nominations and incidents and effects thereto are retained.
ART. 2 DECL. OF STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES Shared powers: (see CASE IN POINT: Araullo v. Aquino above)
- Making of laws:
GENERAL o President: Sec 23 Art. 6 (emergency powers)
o SC: Rules of court, admission to the bar, etc.
Not self-executing, except Section 16; - Executive power to appoint:
o SC appoint its personnel, except the
Separation of powers:
justices/judges;
- Constitution assigns powers to the 3 branches;
o Congress can also appoint their personnel.
- Those powers are prerogative, or discretionary
- Judicial power
powers;
o Congress contempt power
- Other branches must respect the prerogative powers;
Impeachment
- No usurpation of powers shall happen, other branches
o Executive branch Decisions of
cannot check them, unless the constitution provides
administrative bodies adjudicating rights and
for it;
obligations of parties in conflict (quasi-judicial
- Examples:
functions)
1. Implementation of law should only be the power
of the president, not the congress (pork barrel
case);
ART. 2. SECTION 2
2. Other branches cannot compel the President to
implement laws (see CASE IN POINT: CAFGU case
below) Incorporation Clause
3. Congress cannot tell the Supreme court on how
to interpret the law. The salary of the members of Do we absolutely renounce war?
congress is fixed by law Congress said in - No, we only renounce offensive war
interpretation through a law that their salaries Who DETERMINES State of war?
should be tax free, because to subject it to - Congress
taxation it will result to a decrease in their
Who DECLARES war?
salary. SC said Power to interpret the constitution
- President, as the commander-in-chief
is not vested on the congress.
- But he cannot exercise emergency powers without the
4. Bar flunkers law Congress reduced the passing
declaration of congress
percentage from 75 to 70; SC disagreed under
NOTE: Adoption of International laws as part of our
the constitution, the admission to the bar is not a
power of the congress domestic laws.
- Head of State is immune from suit, even if there is no
CASE IN POINT: CAFGU case such law provided here in the Philippines
Civilian armed forces.
When Cory Aquino took over, she did not like the CAFGU. How to adopt international laws? (2 WAYS)
Theres a law providing for the legitimacy of the CAFGU, 1. Transformation method transform generally
however, what Cory did was that she did not implement the accepted principles of International Law to a domestic
budget appropriation for the CAFGUs, so it wasnt able to law; NOT automatic.
operate anymore 2. Incorporation method generally accepted
The President cannot dictate what laws should be passed on principles of International Law are automatically
the congress, neither can he go to supreme court and compel adopted, congress doesnt need to pass a law. It is
the congress if they do not want to make laws. adopted as part of the legal system even without a
domestic law; courts will apply them just as domestic
laws, in absence of an applicable law. ADOPTED BY
Complications
THE PHILIPPINES.
- Examples:
1. the power of the president to appoint
prerogative power of the President. However, the Sources of generally accepted principles:
consti allows checking through Commission of 1. Ratified Treaties concurred by 2/3 votes of the
appointments (composed by members of the members of the senate
congress) affirms the appointments;
2. Making of laws, discretionary power of a CASE IN POINT: Pimentel vs. Exec Secretary
congress. However it can be checked by the (ROME STATUTE: Establishment of an International Criminal
president- veto power (however congress can Court).
override the prerogative veto power of the It was signed by Estrada after seeing Bush sign it, even before
president); the congress ratified it. Estrada resigned. Bush withdrew his
3. Application of the laws: Prerogative of the signature and warned his allies. Arroyo (now president) then
Supreme Court however can be checked by did not pass the treaty to the senate for concurrence. Senate
(1) President: can grant pardon to the convict; (2) went to Supreme Court to compel President to submit the
Congress: can repeal the law. treaty to Senate for concurrence.
HELD: It is the prerogative of the President, and even if the
Senate will concur, if the President will not ratify it, it will not be
ratified. (Prerogative of president) (READ THE CASE NALANG CASE IN POINT: LGBT case (ANG LADLAD PARTY)
LOL) Yugyarta principle demand for equal rights for LGBT
ISSUE: Does Yugyarta principle qualify as a general principle
2. Norms of general or Customary Laws pacta sun
of International Law which should then be adopted in the
servanda for as long as a treaty is signed by the
Philippines under the Incorporation clause
president, even if not concurred by senate, we are
HELD: NO. We are not prepared. This are principles which are
bound by it (presumption of good faith); this principle
not reflective of the current state of the Philippine society
is an example of a norm that is adopted in the
Philippines.
o REQUIREMENTS for a norm or a customary IN CASES OF CONFLICT between a treaty or
law to be adopted in the Philippines: (review generally accepted norms and principles of International
this kay dili klaro ang recording): Law and a statute passed by congress (i.e. if it cannot
a. Established, widespread, and consistent be harmonized):
practice on the part of the state; AND - If decided by local courts (it is their obligation to
b. Obligatory: the practice in question is uphold our own laws) Statutes prevail.
rendered obligatory through a rule of law - If decided by tribunals other than our own courts
requiring it. General Rule:
a. Latest modifies or repeals the earlier law
CASE IN POINT: Mejares, et. al. vs. Javier b. Equal status of IL and domestic laws
Recognition of foreign judgment. - If a treaty was ratified after the passage of a law: then
There was a case filed in the court of Hawaii for violation of you treat the treaty as an amendment to the domestic
human rights against the Marcoses, by the victims of martial law.
law. They filed for damages (at that time, the Marcoses were - Treaty vs Constitution? Constitution prevails.
still in Hawaii). Petitioners won the case. But there were no
properties identified in America. It was enforced in the CASE IN POINT: Ichong vs. Hernandez
Philippines: There was a treaty guaranteeing rights granted to Filipinos
- There was no treaty between the US and the Philippines should be the same as rights granted to Chinese nationals (ex:
recognizing or being bound by each others judgments engaging in business). Subsequently, the Retail Trade Law
- However, there is a general norm that they do respect each was passed by congress, prohibiting foreigners to engage in
others judgments retail trade business (ex: sari-sari stores) to protect the
- Thus, it (the foreign judgment) was allowed to be valid here in economy of the country. Ichong questioned the validity of the
the Philippines statute.
HELD: uphold the law. It is an exercise of the States
3. Treaties that have become part of the customary laws
sovereignty (police power), it cannot be bargained away by a
(we are not a signatory to it);
treaty
CASE IN POINT: Coroda vs. Jalandoni Besides, it was more recent, so it repealed the former treaty
Creation of a military commission.
Coroda: Military commission has no jurisdiction because we
are not a signatory to ____ treaty.
HELD: although we are not a signatory to it, it has become part
of the customary laws.

CASE IN POINT: DOH vs Pharmaceuticals Incorporated

Required label: Breast milk is best for babies, domestic law
still pending.
WHO created a law, which became a customary law, requiring
such.
HELD: PH should adopt the said law.

CASE IN POINT: Llamanzares vs. COMELEC

Grace Poe, foundling.
Basis for her citizenship Convention on the reduction of
statelessness:
- we are not a signatory to it, but it has become a customary
law;
- Operates under a presumption: a child born in a country with
unknown parents it is presumed that that child is Filipino.
HELD: She was declared a natural born.

4. Other accepted principles: human rights, anti-racism,

human rights of a child (right to citizenship).
 ART. 2. SECTION 3 2. Religious sect cannot be registered as a political
party;
Manifestations: 3. Provisions (see Nachura p. 83):
1. President as the commander-in-chief, highest civilian a. Sec. 29 (2) Art. VI prohibition against
authority; appropriation for sectarian benefits;
2. Congress appropriates public funds for the military; b. Sec. 5 (2) Art. VI no sectoral representative
3. Court martials (military only) to discipline members of from the religious sector
the AFP, decisions are subject to the decision of the 5. Prohibition of disbursement of public funds for the
President; support of religious sectors;
4. Military members cannot run for public office while in 6. However, priests who work in AFP, penal institutions,
service, they should retire or stop serving in the govt. orphanage receives allowances or subsidies
military; (no violation here because it is merely incidental, not
5. Existence of PNP (civilian in character). primary).
There are exceptions:
CASE IN POINT: Gudali vs. Senga 1. Rule: Church not subject to property tax (all
properties, actually, directly, and exclusively and
Gudali was a high ranking official with was called for legislative
actually used for religious purpose).
inquiry. AFP Chief of staff Senga told him not to go, but he
Thus: Example: You own a land, you leased it to the
went. He disclosed to the senate that in the last elections, fraud
Iglesia ni Cristo
was rampant (military officers were the ones who wrote names
o Is your land subject to property tax? NO
of candidates on ballots). He was prosecuted in a court martial.
o The church building? NO
Detained and dismissed from service.
o The income you derive from the rentals?
HELD: court martial is only a means of making him
YES, subject to income tax.
accountable to the commander in chief. He is accountable to
2. Optional teaching of religion in public schools:
the President directly, not to the Congress.
o If there is a written consent of the
- He broke the chain of command.
parents/guardians;
- It is a violation of the supremacy of the civilian authority.
o It does not entail additional cost to the school
or to the state;
CASE IN POINT: IBP vs Zamora
o It should be taught during school hours by an
Deployment of marines in malls. accredited religion teacher.
HELD: no violation was committed. Marines are there not take 3. Public funds may be used if the priest is working in
over the duty of the police, they were only there to render aid. AFP, penal institutions, govt. charities, etc.
4. In terms of educational institutions, generally, only
PNP and AFP tasks: Filipino citizens are allowed to own private
- AFP: outside threats educational institutions, except if the owner is a
- PNP: inside threats religious groups, even if all foreigners, they can own
schools.

ART. 2. SECTION 4
ART. 2. SECTION 7
Revival of ROTC is justifiable in this provision.
See CASE IN POINT: Tanada vs. Angara (WTO provision) enjoyment of
sovereignty not absolute.

ART. 2. SECTION 5
ART. 2. SECTION 8
CASE IN POINT: Chavez vs. Romulo
HELD: Right to bear arms is a mere statutory creation, it Nuclear weapons:
cannot be considered an inalienable or absolute right. Due
- Prohibition of nuclear weapons not absolute
process is not required if it will be taken away, given that it is
- Consistent with national interest
not a property nor a property right.
- Nuclear power plant NOT prohibited

ART. 2. SECTION 6 ART. 2. SECTION 9

Based on history, where friars were officiating in Less in life more in law: promotion of SOCIAL JUSTICE,
elections (serving as COMELEC chief). HUMAN RIGHTS.
Manifestations: What are the provisions in the
Constitution that support the separation of church from
state?
1. State has no religion;
 ART. 2. SECTION 12 ART. 2. SECTION 26

Sanctity of the family life. CASE IN POINT: Pamintuan (Pamatong) vs. COMELEC
Pamatong named Nuisance Candidate.
CASE IN POINT: Imbong vs. Ochoa Pamatong invokes Sec. 26.
RH Law free contraceptives for the poor HELD: Section 26 of Art. 2 is not self-executing
HELD: What is prevented is fertilization; RH Law is
constitutional. Political dynasty not defined through a law.

ART. 2. SECTION 14

CASE IN POINT: Garcia vs. Drilon (RA 9262) ART. 4 CITIZENSHIP

VAWC Law:
- Not limited to physical; GENERAL
- Not giving support to the family form of economic violence.
BAR EXAM QUESTION:
A person may have more than one citizenship.
Telegram company did not accept a woman who applied. (6
months maternity benefits, from 60 days). (wala niya gitiwas Nationality vs. Citizenship:
kay nalingaw syag storya lol) - NATIONALITY used in relation to an international
community as a particular race; broader term.
(See Nachura p. 85) o You may be a Filipino national but not a
Filipino citizen, when you acquired foreign
citizenship and come back here in the
Philippines;
ART. 2. SECTION 16 o Limited in capacity to acquire lands;
o Not allowed to run for public office.
Right to a balanced and healthful ecology. - CITIZENSHIP focused on the internal political life of
the
CASE IN POINT: Oposa vs. DENR Sec.
HELD: Self-executing

ART. 2. SECTION 17

Prioritize education.

CASE IN POINT: Guingona vs. Carague

HELD: State is never barred in attending to other priorities
other than education. The provision that provides for the
highest budgetary priority of education is not mandatory, but
merely directory

ART. 2. SECTION 22

Ancestral domains private lands.

ART. 2. SECTION 23

NGOs now have a chance in legislation through the

party-list system.