REMEDIAL LAW is that branch oflaw which prescribes the respondent was late in filing his protest because

e in filing his protest because he filed the protest

method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion after December 3.).
6. Ynsua calims that there was no constitutional or legal provision
[Bustos vs. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640]. It is also known as which stated that members of the NA cannot be contested after
Adjective Law. SUBSTANTIVE LAW is one which creates, confirmationof the NA.. EC denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss.
defines, and regulates rights. Petitioner then files a protest to the Supreme Court (SC) questioning
EC’s jurisdiction over the case. ( Petitioner argues that, EC could
Substantive law is the set of laws that governs how members only regulate proceedings, that SC has jurisdiction to pass upon
of a society are to behave. Substantive law defines rights and fundamental questions in the issue since it is an interpretation of the
constitution)
responsibilities in civil law, and crimes and punishments in 7. The Solicitor General (SolGen) argues that EC is a constitutional
criminal law. It may be codified in statutes or exist through body which has jurisdiction to try all contested cases re:elections and
precedent in common law. said acts is beyond SC. Further, Res #8 did not deprive EC of its
jurisdiction. Since EC acquired jurisdiction over the election protest,
Judicial Power the Motion to dismiss filed in EC is not reviewable by the SC.

1. 012 Angara vs. Electoral Commission 2. Tolentino v. COMELEC

[G.R. L-45081; July 15, 1936 ]
TOPIC: Judicial Review; Theory and Justification of Judicial Review G.R. No. L-34150; October 16, 1971
PONENTE: Laurel, J. Ponente: Barredo, J.

FACTS: FACTS:
After the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention held
1. In the election of Sept. 17, 1935, Angara (herein petitioner) and
Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo, Dionision Mayor (Respondents) were on November 10, 1970, the convention held its inaugural session on
candidates voted to be members of the national assembly (NA) for June 1, 1971. On the early morning of September 28, 1971, the
the first district of the Province of Tayabas. Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 which seeks to amend
2. On Oct 7, 1935, Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of the NA Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution, lowering the voting age to
for the said district. On November 15, 1935, he took his oath of 18. On September 30, 1971, COMELEC resolved to inform the
office. Constitutional Convention that it will hold the plebiscite together with
3. On Dec 3, 1935, the NA in session assembled, passed Resolution No. the senatorial elections on November 8, 1971. Arturo Tolentino filed a
8 confirming the election of the members of the National Assembly petition for prohibition against COMELEC and prayed that Organic
against whom no protest had thus far been filed. Resolution No. 1 and acts in obedience to the resolution be null and
4. On Dec 8, 1935, Ynsua, filed before the Electoral Commission a void.
“Motion of Protest” against the election of Angara. On Dec 9, 1935,
the EC adopted a resolution, par. 6 of which fixed said date as the ISSUE:
last day for the filing of protests against the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the NA, notwithstanding the previous 1. Does the court have jurisdiction over the case?
confirmation made by the NA. 2. Is the Organic Resolution No. 1 constitutional?
5. Angara filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that by virtue of the NA
proclamation, Ynsua can no longer protest (the prescribed period for HELD:
filing of protests had already ended on December 3, and the
1. The case at bar is justiciable. As held in Gonzales vs. Comelec, people of the proposed constitution; and the election held to ratify the
the issue of whether or not a resolution of Congress, acting as a proposed constitution was not a free election, hence null and void.
constituent assembly, violates the constitution is a justiciable one and
thus subject to judicial review. The jurisdiction is not because the
Following that, petitioners prayed for the nullification of Proclamation
Court is superior to the Convention but they are both subject to the
Constitution. No. 1102 and any order, decree, and proclamation which have the
same import and objective.
2. The act of the Convention calling for a plebiscite on a single
amendment in Organic Resolution No. 1 violated Sec. 1 of Article XV
of the Constitution which states that all amendments must be
submitted to the people in a single election or plebiscite. Moreover, the ISSUES:
voter must be provided sufficient time and ample basis to assess the
amendment in relation to the other parts of the Constitution, not
separately but together.
1. Whether or not the issue of the validity of Proclamation No.
1102 is a justiciable or political question, and therefore non-
3. Javellana vs Executive Secretary et al. GR No. L-36142 justiciable.
2. Whether or not the constitution proposed by the 1971
FACTS: Constitutional Convention has been ratified validly conforming
to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.
3. Whether or not the proposed Constitution has been acquiesced
On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided
in (with or without valid ratification) by the people.
the sequel of plebiscite cases, Javellana filed this suit against the 4. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled for relief.
respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions 5. Whether or not the proposed Constitution by the 1971
of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitutional Convention in force.
Constitution. This is a petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen and a
qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for himself and in
behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated. Javellana also HELD:
alleged that the President had announced the immediate
implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents First. To determine whether or not the new constitution is in force
including. depends upon whether or not the said new constitution has been
ratified in accordance with the requirements of the 1935 Constitution.
Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in It is well settled that the matter of ratification of an amendment to the
implementing the said proposed constitution upon ground the that the constitution should be settled applying the provisions of the
President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to constitution in force at the time of the alleged ratification of the old
create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution.
constitution; without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino The issue whether the new constitution proposed has been ratified in
accordance with the provisions of Article XV of the 1935 Constitution procedure therein mostly followed is such that there is no reasonable
is justiciable as jurisprudence here and in the US (from whom we means of checking the accuracy of the returns filed by the officers who
patterned our 1935 Constitution) shall show. conducted said plebiscites. This is another patent violation of Article X
of the 1935 Constitution which form part of the fundamental scheme
Second. The Constitution does not allow Congress or anybody else to set forth in the 1935 Constitution, as amended, to insure the "free,
vest in those lacking the qualifications and having the disqualifications orderly, and honest" expression of the people's will. For this, the
mentioned in the Constitution the right of suffrage. alleged plebiscite in the Citizen’s Assemblies is null and void, insofar
as the same are claimed to have ratified the revised Constitution.
The votes of persons less than 21 years of age render the proceedings
in the Citizen’s assemblies void. Proceedings held in such Citizen’s Third. Proclamation No. 1102 is not an evidence of ratification. Article
Assemblies were fundamentally irregular, in that persons lacking the X of the 1935 Constitution places COMELEC the "exclusive" charge
qualifications prescribed in Article V Section 1 of the 1935 to the "the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the
Constitution were allowed to vote in said Assemblies. And, since there conduct of elections," independently of the Executive. But there is not
is no means by which the invalid votes of those less than 21 years of even a certification by the COMELEC in support of the alleged results
age can be separated or segregated from those of the qualified voters, of the citizen’s assemblies relied upon in Proclamation No. 1102.
the proceedings in the Citizen’s Assemblies must be considered null Also, on January 17, 1973 neither the alleged president of the
and void. Federation of Provincial or City Barangays nor the Department of
Local Governments had certified to the President the alleged result of
Viva voce voting for the ratification of the constitution is void. Article the citizens' assemblies all over the Philippines. The citizen’s
XV of the 1935 Constitution envisages with the term "votes cast" assemblies did not adopt the proposed constitution. It is to my mind a
choices made on ballots – not orally or by raising hands – by the matter of judicial knowledge that there have been no such citizen’s
persons taking part in plebiscites. This is but natural and logical, for, assemblies in many parts of Manila and suburbs, not to say, also, in
since the early years of the American regime, we had adopted the other parts of the Philippines.
Australian Ballot System, with its major characteristics, namely,
uniform official ballots prepared and furnished by the Government and Fourth. The Court is not prepared to concede that the acts the officers
secrecy in the voting, with the advantage of keeping records that and offices of the Executive Department, in line with Proclamation
permit judicial inquiry, when necessary, into the accuracy of the No. 1102, connote recognition of or acquiescence to the proposed
election returns. Constitution.

The plebiscite on the constitution not having been conducted under the A department of the Government cannot “recognize” its own acts.
supervision of COMELEC is void. The point is that, such of the Barrio Recognition normally connotes the acknowledgment by a party of the
Assemblies as were held took place without the intervention of the acts of another. Individual acts of recognition by members of Congress
COMELEC and without complying with the provisions of the Election do not constitute congressional recognition, unless the members have
Code of 1971 or even of those of Presidential Decree No. 73. The performed said acts in session duly assembled. This is a well-
established principle of Administrative Law and of the Law of Public
Officers. The compliance by the people with the orders of martial law Fifth. Four (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Barredo,
government does not constitute acquiescence to the proposed Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra hold that it is in force by virtue of the
Constitution. Neither does the Court prepared to declare that the people's acceptance thereof; 4 members of the Court, namely, Justices
people's inaction as regards Proclamation No. 1102, and their Makalintal, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee cast no vote thereon on
compliance with a number of Presidential orders, decrees and/or the premise stated in their votes on the third question that they could
instructions, some or many of which have admittedly had salutary not state with judicial certainty whether the people have accepted or
effects, issued subsequently thereto, amounts to a ratification, adoption not accepted the Constitution; and 2 members of the Court, namely,
or approval of said Proclamation No. 1102. The intimidation is there, Justice Zaldivar and myself voted that the Constitution proposed by
and inaction or obedience of the people, under these conditions, is not the 1971 Constitutional Convention is not in force; with the result,
necessarily an act of conformity or acquiescence. there are not enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not
in force.
As regards the applicability to these cases of the "enrolled bill" rule, it
is well to remember that the same refers to a document certified to the 4. Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No
President for his action under the Constitution by the Senate President 160261, November 10, 2003
and the Speaker of the House of Reps, and attested to by the respective SEPTEMBER 16, 2018
Secretaries of both Houses, concerning legislative measures approved
FACTS:
by said Houses. Whereas, Proclamation No. 1102 is an act of the
President declaring the results of a plebiscite on the proposed
In late 2001 House of Representatives (HOR) of the 12th Congress
Constitution, an act which Article X of the 1935 Constitution denies
adopted its Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings. The new
the executive department of the Government. rules superseded impeachment Rules of the 11th Congress. Secs. 16
and 17 of these Rules state that impeachment proceedings are deemed
In all other respects and with regard to the other respondent in said initiated (1) if House Committee on Justice deems the complaint
case, petitions therein should be given due course, there being more sufficient in substance, or (2) if the House itself affirms or overturns
than prima facie showing that the proposed Constitution has not been the findings of the House Committee on Justice on the substance of the
ratified in accordance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, either complaint, or (3) by filing or endorsement before the HOR Secretary
General by one-thirds of the members of the House.
strictly, substantially, or has been acquiesced in by the people or
majority thereof; that said proposed Constitution is not in force and
effect; and that the 1935 Constitution is still the Fundamental Law of A few months later, HoR passed a resolution directing the Committee
on Justice to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the
the Land, without prejudice to the submission of said proposed
manner of disbursements and expenditures by Chief Justice Davide of
Constitution to the people at a plebiscite for its ratification or rejection the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).”
in accordance with Articles V, X and XV of the 1935 Constitution and
the provisions of the Revised Election Code in force at the time of
such plebiscite.
In June 2003, former President Estrada files the first impeachment 2) Whether Sec. 16 & 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in
complaint against Chief Justice Davide and 7 Associate Justices of SC Impeachment Proceedings approved by the HoR are unconstitutional –
for “culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and YES
other high crimes.” The complaint was referred to the House
Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003 in accordance with Section 3.) Whether or not the certiorari jurisdiction of the court may be
3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. invoked – YES

On October 13, 2003, the HOR Committee on Justice found the first RATIO:
impeachment complaint “sufficient in form.” However, it also voted to
dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in
substance. Ten days later, on October 23,2003, Teodoro and 1. The second impeachment complaint falls under the one-year bar
Fuentebella filed a second impeachment complaint against CJ Davide, under the Constitution.
founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry on the JDF.
The second impeachment complaint was accompanied by a “resolution 2. Sec 16 and 17 of House Impeachment Rule V are unconstitutional.
of Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by at least one-third of all the
Members of the House of Representatives.
The Supreme Court employed three principles in deciding the case:

Several petitions were filed with the SC by members of the bar,

1) Whenever possible, the words in the Constitution must be given
members of the House of Representatives, as well as private
their ordinary meaning (verbal egis);
individuals, all asserting their rights, among others, as taxpayers to
stop the illegal spending of public funds for the impeachment
proceedings against the Chief Justice. The petitioners contend that 2) If there is ambiguity, the Constitution must be interpreted according
Article XI, Section 3 (5) of the 1987 Constitution bars the filing of the to the intent of the framers; and
second impeachment complaint. The constitutional provision states
that “(n)o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same 3) The Constitution must be interpreted as a whole.
official more than once within a period of one year.”

Applying these principles, to “initiate” in its ordinary acceptation

Speaker Jose de Venecia submitted a manifestaiton to the SC stating means simply to begin. The records of the debates by the framers
that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case as it affirm this textual interpretation. From the records of the
would mean an encroachment on the power of HoR, a co-equal branch Constitutional Convention and the amicus curiae briefs of its two
of government. members (Maambong and Regalado), the term “to initiate” in Sec 3(5),
Art. XI of the Constitution refers to the filing of the impeachment
ISSUES/HELD: complaint coupled with taking initial action by Congress on the
complaint.
1.) Whether the filing of the second impeachment complaint violates
Sec. 3(5), Article XI of the Constitution—YES By contrast, Secs. 16 and 17 state that impeachment proceedings are
deemed initiated (1) if House Committee on Justice deems the
complaint sufficient in substance, or (2) if the House itself affirms or
overturns the findings of the House Committee on Justice on the
substance of the complaint, or (3) by filing or endorsement before the
HOR Secretary General by one-thirds of the members of the House.

In this light, Secs. 16 and 17 of the House Rules of Procedure for

Impeachment are unconstitutional because the rules clearly contravene
Sec. 3 (5), Art. XI since the rules give the term “initiate” a different
meaning from filing and referral.

Hence, the second impeachment complaint by Teodoro and

Fuentebella violates the constitutional one-year ban.

3. The certiorari jurisdiction of the court may be invoked.

The Supreme Court, in exercising its expanded power of judicial

review, only carried out its duty as stated in Section 1, Article VIII,
which mandates the judicial department to look into cases where there
has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the different
branches of government. Here, it only reviewed the constitutionality of
the Rules of Impeachment against the one-year ban explicitly stated in
the Constitution. Consequently, the contention that judicial review
over the case would result in a crisis is unwarranted.

The judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its helm as the final arbiter,
effectively checks on the other departments in the exercise of its power
to determine the law. It must declare executive and legislative acts
void if they violate the Constitution. The violation of Article XI,
Section 3(5) of the Constitution is thus within the competence of the
Court to decide.

5.