2010 political law notes and cases

8/13/2019 2010 Political Law Notes and Cases

1/362


2/362

"ag'pan City

PART I

DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS

1. Define: a. Political Lawis that branch of public law which deals with theorganization and operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines therelations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory. P!"PL! #S. P!$%!&'"( )*Phil. ++,-

b. &onstitutional Law

c. &onstitution d. dministrative Law e. Law of Public "fficers f. Law on Public &orporations g. !lection Law h. Distinction between Political Law and &onstitutional Law

/. $ead: 0&$"L #S. 23D4! S35&"5( 11) S&$ ,,

'he provision in the &ode of &ommerce 0ade

effective in the Philippines in 1++,- which prohibits 6udges(6ustices( etc.( public officers- from engaging in businesswithin the territorial 6urisdiction of their courts is politicalin nature and therefore( said provision was deemedabrogated when there was a change of sovereignty fromSpain to the 3nited States at the turn of the century.Political laws are deemed abrogated if there is a change ofsovereignty and unless re7enacted under the new sovereign(the same is without force and effect.

*. 'he Supremacy of the &onstitution

$ead: 1. 03'3& #S. &"0!L!&( *8 S&$ //+ /. 05L P$5&! 9"'!L #S. 4SS( /8, S&$ )+

constitution is a system of fundamental laws forthe governance and administration of a nation. t issupreme( imperious( absolute and unalterable e;cept by theauthority from which it emanates. t has been defined as the

/

/


3/362

fundamental and paramount law of the nation. t prescribesthe permanent framewor< of a system of government(assigns to the different departments their respective powersand duties( and establishes certain fi;ed principles onwhich government is founded. 'he fundamental conception

in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all otherlaws must conform and in accordance with which allprivate rights must be determined and all public authorityadministered.

3nder the doctrine of constitutional supremacy( if alaw or contract violates any norm of the constitution thatlaw or contract whether promulgated by the legislative orby the e;ecutive branch or entered into by private personsfor private purposes is null and void and without any forceand effect. 'hus( since the &onstitution is the fundamental(

paramount and supreme law of the nation( it is deemedwritten in every statute and contract.

dmittedly( some constitutions are merelydeclarations of policies and principles. 'heir provisionscommand the legislature to enact laws and carry out thepurposes of the framers who merely establish an outline ofgovernment providing for the different departments of thegovernmental machinery and securing certain fundamentaland inalienable rights of citizens. provision which laysdown a general principle( such as those found in rt. ofthe 1=+, &onstitution( is usually not self7e;ecuting. >ut aprovision( which is complete in itself and becomesoperative without the aid of supplementary or enablinglegislation( or that which supplies sufficient rule by meansof which the right it grants may be en6oyed or protected( isself7e;ecuting. 'hus a constitutional provision is self7e;ecuting if the nature and e;tent of the right conferred andthe liability imposed are fi;ed by the constitution itself( sothat they can be determined by an e;amination andconstruction of its terms( and there is no languageindicating that the sub6ect is referred to the legislature foraction.

). ?inds of &onstitution

a- written or unwrittenb- rigid and fle;iblec- cumulative or conventional

*

*


4/362

@. AMENDMENT OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION (Art. XVII)

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this

Constitution may be proposed by:

[1] The Congress upon a vote of of a its!embers" or

[#] A constitutiona Convention.

Section #. Amendments to this Constitution may

i$e%ise be directy proposed by the peope through

initiative upon a petition of at east 1#& of the tota

number of registered voters, of %hich every egisative

district must be represented by at east '& of the

registered voter therein. (o amendment under this

Section sha be authori)ed %ithin five *+ years foo%ing

the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than onceevery five years thereafter.

The Congress sha provide for the

impementation of the e-ercise of this right.

Section '. The Congress, by a vote of #' of a its

members, ca a constitutiona convention, or by a

ma/ority vote of a its !embers, submit to the eectorate

the 0uestion of caing such a convention.

Section . Any amendment to, or revision of, this

Constitution under Section 1 hereof sha be vaid %hen

ratified by a ma/ority of the votes cast in a pebiscite

%hich sha be hed not earier than si-ty days nor ater

than ninety days after the approva of such amendment or

revision.

Any amendment under Section # hereof sha be

vaid %hen ratified by a ma/ority of the votes cast in a

pebiscite %hich sha be hed not ater than ninety days

after the certification by the C2!343C of the

sufficiency of the petition.

/, >ar Auestion in Political Law:Auestion: 0ay &ongress by B votes of all its members whether voting 6ointly or

separately- 0!5D any provision of the &onstitutionC

)

)


5/362

nswer: 5o. t can only propose amendments by B votes of all its members. provision is amended only after it was ratified by ma6ority of the votes cast during theplebiscite called to amend or re6ect the proposed amendments-

5"'!: mendments to( or revision of the &onstitution is #LD only when

approved by a ma6ority of the votes cast during the plebiscite( not by the votes of the0embers of &ongress.

/. $ead: $.. 8,*@

$euisites for a valid peopleEs initiative toamend the &onstitutionF distinctionsbetween amendment and revision.

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO(together with 8(*/,(=@/ registered voters vs. '9!

&"00SS"5 "5 !L!&'"5S( 4.$. 5o. 1,)1@*("ctober /@( /8( @@ S&$ 18

&arpio( 2.

%acts:

Petitioners filed a Petition for nitiative and $eferendum with the &"0!L!& to amendthe 1=+, Philippine &onstitution( particularly rticles # and # to replace the presentPresidential7>icameral system of government to Parliamentary73nicameral system usingSection /( rt. G# of the &onstitution. Petitioners claim that their petition was signed by

8(*/,(=@/ million voters all over the country and the same constitutes over 1/H of all theregistered voters in the entire country and that more than *H of the registered voters in everylegislative district signed the same in accordance with Section /( rt. G# of the &onstitution.'he petition to change the &onstitution involves sections 17, of rticle #F Sections 17) ofrticle # and an rticle G# entitled I'ransitory ProvisionsJ. 'he petitioners prayed withthe &"0!L!& that after due publication of their Petition( the &"0!L!& should submit thefollowing proposition in a plebiscite for the votersE ratification:

D" K"3 PP$"#! '9! 0!5D0!5' "%$'&L!S # 5D # "% '9! 1=+, &"5S''3'"5(&95454 '9! %"$0 "% 4"#!$50!5' %$"0

'9! P$!SD!5'L >&0!$L '" 35&0!$L7P$L0!5'$K SKS'!0( 5DP$"#D54 $'&L! G# S '$5S'"$KP$"#S"5S %"$ '9! "$D!$LK S9%' %$"0 "5!SKS'!0 '" '9! "'9!$C

'he &"0!L!& dismissed the petition citing 0$0 D!%!5S"$ S5'4"#S. &"0!L!&( /, S&$ 18 where it was held that:

@

@


6/362

$ 8,*@ intended to include the System ofnitiative on mendments to the &onstitution( but is(unfortunately( nadeuate to cover that system underSection /( rt. G# of the &onstitution. ; ; ; .

'he foregoing brings us to the conclusion that $8,*@ is incomplete( inadeuate or wanting in essentialterms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments tothe &onstitution is concerned. ts lacunae on thissubstantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured byIempoweringJ the &"0!L!& to promulgate such rulesand regulations as may be necessary to carry the purposesof this act.

&onsidering the said dismissal( petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme&ourt on &ertiorari and 0andamus alleging rave abuse of discretion and to set aside the

&"0!L!&E Decision and to compel the latter to give due course to their initiativepetition.

'9!SS3!S:

1. 9!'9!$ '9! L0>5" 4$"3PES P!''"5 &"0PL!S'9 S!&'"5 /( $'&L! G# "% '9! &"5S''3'"5"5 0!5D0!5'S '" '9! &"5S''3'"5 '9$"349P!"PL!ES 5''#!F

/. 9!'9!$ '9! &"3$' S9"3LD $!#S' 'S $3L54 5D!%!5S"$7S5'4" #S. &"0!L!&( D!&L$54 '9'$ 5". 8,*@ I5&"0PL!'!( 5D!A3'! "$ 5'545 !SS!5'L '!$0S 5D &"5D'"5SJ '"0PL!0!5' '9! 5''#! &L3S! "5 P$"P"SLS '"0!5D '9! &"5S''3'"5F and

*. 9!'9!$ '9! &"0!L!& &"00''!D 4$#! >3S!"% DS&$!'"5 5 D!5K54 D3! &"3$S! '" '9!L0>5" 4$"3PES P!''"5.

9 ! L D:

'here is no merit to the petition.

'he Lambino group miserably failed to comply with the basic reuirements of the&onstitution for conducting a peopleEs initiative. 'hus( there is even no need to revisitSantiago( as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino 4roupEsglaring failure to comply with the basic reuirements of the &onstitution. s such( thereis li


7/362

Section /( rticle G# of the &onstitution is the governing constitutionalprovision that allows a peopleEs initiative to propose amendments to the &onstitution.'his Section provides:

ISection /. mendments to this &onstitution may

li!S9"5 '" '9! P!"PL! 9!5 '9!K $! S?!D'" S45C

0$. S3$!M. 'hat can be reasonably assumed( 0adamPresident.

0$. $"D$4": hat does the sponsor meanC 'he draft isready and shown to them before they signC 5ow( whoprepares the draftC

0$. S3$!M: 'he people themselves( 0adamPresidentNs it is envisioned( any %ilipino can preparethat proposal and pass it around for signature.

&learly( the framer !f the C!nt"t#t"!n "ntended that the $draft !f the%r!%!ed &!nt"t#t"!na' amendment h!#'d e $read* and h!+n t! the %e!%'e

$ef!re the* ",n #&h %r!%!a'. The framer %'a"n'* tated that $ef!re the* ",n

there " a'read* a draft h!+n t! them. The framer a'! $en-""!ned that the

%e!%'e h!#'d ",n !n the %r!%!a' "te'f e&a#e the %r!%!nent m#t $%re%are the

%r!%!a' and %a "t ar!#nd f!r ",nat#re.

'he essence of amendments Idirectly proposed by the people through initiativeupon a petitionJ S '9' THE ENTIRE ROOSAL ON ITS FACE IS AETITION B/ THE EOLE.'his means two /- essential elements must be present:

,

,


8/362

1. 'he people must author and must sign the entire proposal. 5o agent orrepresentative can sign for and on their behalfF

/. s an initiative upon a petition( '9! P$"P"SL 03S' >! !0>"D!D5 P!''"5.

'hese essential elements are present only if the full te;t of the proposedamendments is first shown to the people who will e;press their assent by signing suchcomplete proposal in a petition. 'hus( an amendment is ID$!&'LK P$"P"S!D >K'9! P!"PL! '9$"349 5''#! 3P"5 P!''"5 I "5LK % '9!P!"PL! S45 "5 P!''"5 '9' "&5'5S '9! %3LL '!G' "% '9!P$"P"S!D 0!5D0!5'S.

'he petitioners bear the burden of proving that they complied with theconstitutional reuirements in gathering the signatures777that the petition contained( orincorporated by attachment( the full te;t of the proposed amendments.

'he Lambino 4roup did not attach to their present petition a copy of thedocument containing the proposed amendments and as such( the people signedinitiative petition without ut whatever results the revision may produce( the factor thatcharacterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention and planauthorized to be carried out. 'hat intention and plan must contemplate aconsideration of all the provisions of the &onstitution to determine whichone should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole documentshould be replaced with an entirely new one.

5Amendment7of the &onstitution( on the other hand( envisages achange or only a few specific provisions. 'he intention of an act to amendis not to consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of

+

+


9/362

considering that possibility. 'he intention rather is to improve specificparts of the e;isting constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essentialon account of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seemobsolete( or dangerous( or misleading in their effect.

( NOTE : 2n (ovember #8, #889, the Supreme Court in its 6esoution of the !otion for6econsideration of 4ambino, %hie it denied the !otion for 6econsideration for ac$of merit insofar as they %ant the peopes initiative petition to be presented to the

peope in a pebiscite, it hed that ten *18 members voted to decare that 6A (o. 9;'+

A>3?@AT3 and therefore, peopes initiative may be avaied of

by the peope provided they sha compy %ith the strict re0uirements of Section #, Art.

B


10/362

consideration of all the provisions of the &onstitution to determine whichone should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole documentshould be replaced with an entirely new one.

5Amendment7of the &onstitution( on the other hand( envisages a

change or only a few specific provisions. 'he intention of an act to amendis not to consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or ofconsidering that possibility. 'he intention rather is to improve specificparts of the e;isting constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essentialon account of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seemobsolete( or dangerous( or misleading in their effect. S5&"( #icente(P9LPP5! P"L'&L L-

). $ead: a) MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO, 78 Phil. 1 b) GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 77

Th!"! is #$ %"$hibi&i$# '$" C$#("!ss &$ %"$%$s! a!#*!#&s &$ &h!C$#s&i&+&i$# a#* a& &h! sa! &i! all '$" &h! $#v!#i#( $' a C$#s&i&+&i$#al C$#v!#&i$#

&$ a!#* &h! C$#s&i&+&i$#. Th! -$"* $"/ i# &h! %"$visi$# 0C$#("!ss, +%$# a v$&! $' $' all i&s !b!"s OR 324 A $#s&i&+&i$#al C$#v!#&i$#/ +#*!" S!&i$# 1, A"&. 5VII

als$ !a#s AN6/.

) TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC, 1 SCRA 72

6$&"i#! $' P"$%!" S+bissi$#/ !a#s all &h! %"$%$s!* a!#*!#&s &$ &h!

C$#s&i&+&i$# shall b! %"!s!#&!* &$ &h! %!$%l! '$" &h! "a&i'ia&i$# $" "!!&i$# a& &h! sa!&i!, #$& %i!!!al.

*) SANI6A6 vs. COMELEC, 79 SCRA 999 !) ALMARIO vs. ALBA, 127 SCRA :;

I' &h!


11/362

ideals and aspirations( promote the common good( conserveand develop our patrimony( and secure to ourselves and ourposterity the blessings of independence and democracyunder the rule of law and a regime of truth( 6ustice(freedom( love( euality( and peace( do ordain and

promulgate this &onstitution.

/. 4LPK #S. $3M( 8) Phil. /1

t is almost trite to say now that in this country we en6oyboth religious and civil freedom. ll the officers of the4overnment( from the highest to the lowest( in ta


12/362

fluvial( and aerial domains( including its territorial sea( theseabed( the subsoil( the insular shelves( and othersubmarine areas. 'he waters around( between andconnecting the islands of the archipelago( regardless oftheir breadth and dimensions( form part of the internal

waters of the Philippines.

1. hat is the most significant change in this rticle( compared with those of the 1=*@and 1=,* &onstitutionsC

/. hat is the archipelago theory or archipelagic doctrineC

*. 0ethods used in fi;ing the baseline from which the territorial belt is measured:

a. 'he normal baseline method b. 'he straight baseline method

). $ead: 'he Law of the Sea: ts ma6or implications to the Philippines( by 2ustice 2orge$. &ouia( p. *1( Philippine Law 4azette( #ol. +( 5o.1.

@. $.. *)8$.. @))8

8. Definitions:

a. 'erritorial sea b. nternal or inland waters c. high seas or international seas d. sea7bed e. sub7soil f. nsular shelves g. other submarine areas

,. $eason and effect of having an rticle on the 5ational 'erritory. +. $ead:

1- =residentia >ecree (o. 1+9 D Eune 11, 1;F0a


13/362

AND STATE POLICIES

Section 1. The =hiippines is a democratic

and repubican State. Sovereignty resides

in the peope and a government authority

emanates from them.

a. 'he basic principles underlying the 1=*@( 1=,* and 1=+, &onstitutions.

b.0anifestations of a republican state.

c. Define QstateQ

COLLECTOR VS. CAMPOS R@E6A, 2 SCRA 29

d. !lements of a state. Define each:

1. people /. territory *. sovereignty ). government

e. Different meanings of the word IpeopleJ as used in the constitution:

1. as inhabitants rt. G( Sec. 1F rt. ( Sec. /-F

/. as citizens PreambleF rt. ( Sec. 1 R )F rt. ( Sec. ,-F

*. as voters rt. #( Sec. )-

f. presidential R parliamentary forms of government

$ead:

1. %$!! '!L!P9"5! "$?!$S 35"5 #S. "PL!( 1+ S&$ ,@,

'he government of the Philippines under the 1=,* &onstitution isIessentially presidential with parliamentary features.J

/. L!4SP #S. S!&. "% %55&!( 11@ S&$ )1+

'he form of government is Iessentially parliamentary with presidentialfeatures.J

1*

1*


14/362

g. 'wo7fold function of the government.

$ead:

1)BACANI VS. NACOCO, 1 Phil. :8 Mi#is&"a#& 3!"!l= *i"!&$"=4 a#*

C$#s&i&+!#& 3Ma#*a&$"=4 ?+#&i$#s)

2) ACC?A VS. C@GCO, 9 SCRA :;

Due to comple;ities of the changing society( thetwo7fold function of the government as classified byPresident ilson is no longer relevant.

h. Parents Patriae

$ead:

1) GOVT. VS. MONTE 6E PIE6A6, 9 Phil 798 2) CABANAS VS. PILAPIL, 8 SCRA ;

i. De 6ure govt.C De facto govt.C

$ead: 1. A35" #S. &"0!L!&( 8/ S&$ /,@$# &h! *! +"! as%!&)2. I# R! S'3$55" >!$03D!M( 1)@ S&$ 18

government formed as a result of a peopleEs revolution(is considered de 6ure if it is already accepted by the familyof nations or other countries liritain( 4ermany( 2apan( and others.

*. !strada vs. 0acapagal R Desierto( infra.

6. 'he three *-


15/362

enemy in the course of war( and which is denominated agovernment of paramount force( as the cases of &astine( in0aine( which was reduced to >ritish possession in the warof 1+1/( and 'ampico( 0e;ico( occupied during the warwith 0e;ico( by the troops of the 3nited States.

c. nd the third is that established as an independentgovernment by the inhabitants of a country who rise ininsurrection against the parent state of such as thegovernment of the Southern &onfederacy in revolt notconcerned in the present case with the first


16/362

'he doctrine upon this sub6ect is thus summed upby 9allec


17/362

an invasionF and as between the state and the individualsthe evil would be scarcely less( it would be hard fore;ample that payment of ta;es made under duress shouldbe ignored( and it would be contrary to the general interestthat the sentences passed upon criminals should be annulled

by the disappearance of the intrusive government .Q 9all(nternational Law( ,th ed.( p. @1+.- nd when theoccupation and the abandonment have been each anincident of the same war as in the present case(postiminyapplies( even though the occupant has acted as conuerorand for the time substituted his own sovereignty as the2apanese intended to do apparently in grantingindependence to the Philippines and establishing the so7called $epublic of the Philippines. 'aylor( nternationalLaw( p. [email protected]

l. Sovereignty: 1. legal /. political

m. 'he doctrine of sovereignty as auto7limitationC $ead:

1. REAGAN VS. COMMISIONER O? INTERNAL REVEN@E, 9 SCRA ;:8

Q>y the greement( it should be noted( thePhilippine 4overnment merely consents that the 3nitedStates e;ercise 6urisdiction in certain cases. 'he consentwas given purely as a matter of comity( courtesy( ore;pediency. 'he Philippine 4overnment has not abdicatedits sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippineterritory or divested itself completely of 6urisdiction overoffenses committed therein. 3nder the terms of the treaty(the 3nited States 4overnment has prior or preferential butnot e;clusive 6urisdiction of such offenses. 'he Philippine4overnment retains not only 6urisdictional rights notgranted( but also all such ceded rights as the 3nited States0ilitary authorities for reasons of their own decline toma


18/362

commands paramount. ts laws govern therein( andeveryone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. 'hatis the e;tent of its 6urisdiction( both territorial and personal.5ecessarily( liases in the Philippines are not sub6ectto ta; by the Philippine 4overnment because that is what is provided for the $P 3S0ilitary >asis greement.

#. Section #. The =hiippines renounces %ar as an

instrument of nationa poice, adopts the generayaccepted principes of internationa a% as part of the a%

of the and and adheres to the poicy of peace, e0uaity,

/ustice, freedom, cooperation, and amity among a

nations.

a. difference between aggressive R defensive war

b. $ead:

1. 0!2"%% #S. D$!&'"$ "% P$S"5S( = Phil. ,

'he Philippines adopts the 3niversal Declaration of9uman $ights since it is a generally accepted principle ofinternational law. s such( it should be applied to illegalaliens li


19/362

Q'he meaning of Qreasonable timeQ depends uponthe circumstances( specially the difficulties of obtaining apassport( the availability of transportation( the diplomaticarrangements concerned and the efforts displayed to sendthe deportee away. &onsidering that this 4overnment

desires to e;pel the alien( and does not relish


20/362

bound together with the 3nited States and with 2apan to theright and obligation contained in the treaties between thebelligerent countries. 'hese rights and obligation were noterased by our assumption of full sovereignty. f at all ouremergency as a free state entitles us to enforce the right on

our own of trying and punishing those who committedcrimes against crimes against our people. n this connectionit is well to remember what we have said in the case ofLaurel vs. 0isa ,8 Phil.( *,/-:

*. SL"54 #S. 9!$0"S"( =, S&$ 1/1). 43S'5 #S. !D3( ++ S&$ 1=@

'he Heneva Convention on 6oad Signs andSignas, is also considered part of the law of thePhilippines since the same is a generally accepted principle

of international law in accordance with the ncorporationclause of the &onstitution.

@.8. $!K!S #S. >4'S54(1/@ S&$ @@*

$espondent 0ayor posed the issue of the applicabilityof "rdinance 5o. ,/=@ of the &ity of 0anila prohibitingthe holding or staging of rallies or demonstrations within aradius of five hundred @- feet from any foreign missionor chancery and for other purposes. t is to be admitted thatit finds support n the previously uotedArtice ## of theBienna Convention on >ipomatic 6eations. 'here wasno showing( however( that the distance between thechancery and the embassy gate is less than @ feet. !ven ifit could be shown that such a condition is satisfied. it doesnot follow that respondent 0ayor could legally act the wayhe did. 'he validity of his denial of the permit sought couldstill be challenged. t could be argued that a case ofunconstitutional application of such ordinance to thee;ercise of the right of peaceable assembly presents itself.s in this case there was no proof that the distance is lessthan @ feet( the need to pass on that issue was obviated(Should it come( then the ualification and observation of2ustices 0a


21/362

whenever its application would collide with aconstitutionally guaranteed right such as freedom ofassembly andTor e;pression( as in the case at bar( regardlessof whether the chancery of any foreign embassy is beyondor within @ feet from the situs of the rally or

demonstration.

Section '. Civiian authority is, at a times supreme over

the miitary. The armed forces of the =hiippines is the

protector of the peope and the State.


22/362

Section 9. The separation of church and State sha be

invioabe.

$ead: 1) PAMIL VS. TELERON, 8: SCRA 19

2) GERMAN VS. BARANGAN, 19 SCRA 15"'!: $ead the dissenting opinions in both cases-

*- "ther provisions: "ther provisions on church R state:

1. $'. ( Sec. @. 5o law shall be made respecting an establishment ofreligion( or prohibiting the free e;ercise thereof. 'he free e;ercise anden6oyment of religious profession and worship( without discrimination orpreference( shall forever be allowed. 5" $!L4"3S '!S' S9LL >!

$!A3$!D %"$ '9! !G!$&S! "% L "$ P"L'&L $49'S.

/. $'. #( Sec. /+ *-. &haritable institutions( churches( mosues( non7profitcemeteriesNactually( directly and e;clusively used for religious( charitable(or educational purposes shall be e;empt from ta;ation.

*. $'. #( Sec. /= ./-. 5o public money or property shall be appropriated(applied( paid( for the benefit( directly or indirectly( for the use( benefit( orsupport of any sect( church( denomination or religion( e;cept when suchpriest( minister.. is assigned to the armed forces( or to any penal institution(or government orphanage or leprosarium.

). $'. G( &( /@-. $eligious denominations and sects shall not beregisteredNas political parties. 5"'!: $eligious organizations are alsoprohibited ion connection with sectoral representatives under rt. #-

@. $'. G#( Sec. **-. t the option in writing by parents( religion shall beallowed to be taught to their children in elementary and high schools withinthe regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by religiousauthorities to which said children belong( without additional cost to thegovernment.

Sections ;. The State sha pursue an independentforeign poicy.


23/362

Section F. The =hiippines, consistent %ith the nationa

interest, adopts and pursues a poicy of freedom from

nucear %eapons in its territory.

1. meaning of Qnuclear7freeQ PhilippinesF

/. . rt. G#( Secs. ) R /@

Sections . The State sha promote a /ust and dynamic

socia order that %i ensure the prosperity and

independence of the nation and free the peope from

poverty through poicies that provide ade0uate socia

services, promote fu empoyment, a rising standard of

iving, and an improved 0uaity of ife for a..

Section 18. The state sha promote socia /ustice in a

phases of nationa deveopment.

Section 11. The state vaues the dignity of every human

person and guarantees fu respect for human rights.

a. $ead together with entire provisions of rticle G

Section 1#. The State recogni)es the sanctity of famiyife and sha protect and strengthen the famiy as a basic

autonomous socia institution.


24/362

that the parents have the Inatural and primary right in rearing their child for civicefficiencyNJ

b- 0!K!$ #S. 5!>$S?( /8 3S /8 1=//- c- P!$&! #S. S"&!'K "% SS'!$S( /8+ 3S @1 1=/@-

law reuiring small 5S #S. PLPL( @+ S&$ =)

Section 1'. The State recogni)es the vita roe of the

youth in nationDbuiding and sha promote and protect

their physica, mora, spiritua, inteectua, and socia

%e being.


25/362

#LL!4S #S. S3>D"( 1= S&$ 1"P"S #S. %&'"$5( 2uly *( 1==*F

n a broader sense( this petition bears upon the rightof %ilipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the

petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts ofQinter7generational responsibilityQ and Qinter7generational6ustice.Q Specifically( it touches on the issue of whether thesaid petitioners have a cause of action to Qprevent themisappropriation or impairmentQ of Philippine rainforestsand Qarrest the unabated hemorrhage of the countrys vitallife support systems and continued rape of 0other !arth.Q

'he minors7petitioners have the personality to suesince the case deals with the timber licensing agreementsentered into by the government which if not stopped would

be pre6udicial to their future. 'his is so because the D!5$holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors andsucceeding generations the natural resources of the country.'he sub6ect matter of the complaint is of common andgeneral interest not 6ust to several( but to all citizens of thePhilippines. &onseuently( since the parties are sonumerous( it( becomes impracticable( if not totallyimpossible( to bring all of them before the court. eli


26/362

en6oyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a littledifferently( the minors assertion of their right to a soundenvironment constitutes( at the same time( the performanceof their obligation to ensure the protection of that right forthe generations to come.

'he complaint focuses on one specific fundamentallegal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecologywhich( for the first time in our nations constitutionalhistory( is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.Section 18( rticle of the 1=+, &onstitution e;plicitlyprovides:

Sec. 18. 'he State shall protect and advancethe right of the people to a balanced and healthfulecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of

nature.'his right unites with the right to health which isprovided for in the preceding section of the samearticle:Sec. 1@. 'he State shall protect and promotethe right to health of the people and instill healthconsciousness among them.

hile the right to a balanced and healthful ecologyis to be found under the Declaration of Principles and StatePolicies and not under the >ill of $ights( it does not followthat it is less important than any of the civil and politicalrights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to adifferent category of rights altogether for it concernsnothing less than self7preservation and self7perpetuationaptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners theadvancement of which may even be said to predate allgovernments and constitutions. s a matter of fact( thesebasic rights need not even be written in the &onstitution forthey are assumed to e;ist from the inception of human


27/362

come generations which stand to inherit nothing butparched earth incapable of sustaining life.

'he right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with itthe correlative duty to refrain from impairing the

environment.

s a matter of logic( by finding petitioners cause ofaction as anchored on a legal right comprised in theconstitutional statements above noted( the &ourt is in effectsaying that Section 1@ and Section 18- of rticle of the&onstitution are self7e;ecuting and 6udicially enforceableeven in their present form. 'he implications of this doctrinewill have to be e;plored in future casesF those implicationsare too large and far7reaching in nature even to be hinted athere.

Section 1F. The State affirms abor as a primary socia

economic force.


28/362

a. Do we practice the free enterprise system in the Philippines or is it the welfarestate conceptC Distinguish the two.

b. $ead: &&% #S. &34&"( * S&$ 8)= N$&! R!a* &h! s!%a"a&! $%i#i$#$' '$"!" Chi!' +s&i! ENRIJ@E ?ERNAN6O $#l=)

'he Philippines never practiced the free enterprise system. t is thewelfare7state concept which is being followed as shown by the constitutionalprovision on agrarian reform( housing( protection to laborN 5"'!( however(that the 1=+, &onstitution have provisions which provide for Ifree enterprise-

PHILIPPI! C"C"#T $!SICCAT"RS VS%PHILIPPI! C"C"#T A#TH"RIT&, 2' SCRA

10

0endoza( 2.

'he Philippine &onstitutions( starting from the 1=*@document( 9#! $!P3D'!D laiss!K 'ai"! or thedoctrine of free enterpriseas an economic principle( andalthough the present &onstitution enshrines free enterpriseas a policy( it nevertheless reserves to the government thepower to intervene whenever necessary to promote thegeneral welfare.

s such( free enterprise does not call for theremoval of Iprotective regulationsJ for the benefit of the

general public. 'his is so because under rt. G( Sections8 and =( it is very clear that the government reserves thepower to intervene whenever necessary to promote thegeneral welfare and when the public interest so reuires.

Section #1. The State sha promote comprehensive rura

deveopment and agrarian reform.

a. $ead together with Secs. )71( rticle G of the 1=+, &onstitution

b. $ead PD /, 7 as to the e;tent of land reform under the 0$&"S regime

c. $ead $ *+)) R 8*+=( as amended 7 '9! &"D! "% 4$$5 $!%"$0S "%'9! P9LPP5!S $ead the policy of the state on this matter-

d .$ead the &"0P$!9!5S#! 4$$5 $!%"$0 P$"4$0 L( $ 5o.88@, as signed into law by the President on 2une ,( 1=++.

/+

/+


29/362

e. $ead:

ssociation of Small Landowners vs. 9on. Secretary of grarian $eform( 2uly 1)(1=+=

Sections ##. The State recogni)es and promotes the right

of indigenous cutura communities %ithin the frame%or$

of nationa unity and deveopment.

'o be discussed later with rt. G( Secs. 1@7 /1.

"ther provisions on indigenous cultural communities:

1. rt. #( Sec. @/- /. rt. G( Secs. 1@ 7 /1 *. rt. G( Sec. @

). rt. G( Sec. 8 @. rt. G#( Sec. 1, 8. rt. G#( Sec. 1/

Section #'. The State sha encourage nonDgovernmenta,

community based, or sectora organi)ations that promote

the %efare of the nation.

Section #. The State recogni)es the vita roe of

communication and information in nationDbuiding.

Section #+. The State sha ensure the autonomy of oca

governments.

a. Define a+&$#$=

b. See rt. G

$ead the 1==1 5ew Local 4overnment &ode and enumerate its provisionsevidencing QautonomyQ to local government units.

Section #9. The State guarantee e0ua access toopportunities for pubic service, and prohibit poitica

dynasties as may be defined by a%.

Section #;. The State sha maintain honesty and integrity

in the pubic service and ta$e positive and effective

measures against graft and corruption.

/=

/=


30/362

'o be discussed under rticle G.

a. Please see $ *1=( 'he nti74raft and &orrupt Practices ct( as amended by$ *),( PD ,, and >P 1=@..

b. PD ,)=( 2uly 1+( 1=,@( which grants immunity from prosecution to givers ofbribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery other than graft cases againstpublic officers.

c. $ 1*,=. %orfeiture in favor of the State any property found to have beenillegally acuired by a public officer or employee.

Section #F. Sub/ect to reasonabe conditions prescribed by

a%, the State adopts and impements a poicy of pubic

discosure of a its transactions invoving pubic interest.

Power of &ongress to conduct inuiries inaid of legislationF Public disclosure ofgovernment transactions

CAMILO L. SABIO -. 1ORDON( 4.$. 5o. 1,)*)("ctober 1,( /8( @) S&$ ,)

Sandoval74utierrez( 2.

The Fa&t=

"n %ebruary /( /8( Senator 0iriam Defensor Santiago introduced PhilippineSenate $esolution 5o. )@@ Senate $es. 5o. )@@-( 1O) Idirecting an inuiry in aid oflegislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines "verseas'elecommunications &orporation P"'&-( Philippine &ommunications Satellite&orporation P9L&"0S'-( and P9L&"0S' 9oldings &orporation P9&- due tothe alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective >oard of Directors.J'he pertinent portions of the $esolution read:

>HEREAS( in the last uarter of /@( the representation and

entertainment e;pense of the P9& s


31/362

allegedly advanced to '& without any accountability report given to P9&and P9L&"0S'F

9!$!S( the Phili%%i#! S&a"( in its 1/ %ebruary // issuereported that the e;ecutive committee of Philcomsat has precipitately

released P/8@ million and granted P1/@ million loan to a relative of ane;ecutive committee memberF to date there have been no payments given(sub6ecting the company to an estimated interest income loss of P11./@million in /)F

9!$!%"$!( e "t re!'-ed that the %r!%er SenateC!mm"ttee ha'' &!nd#&t an "n?#"r* "n a"d !f 'e,"'at"!n2 !n the

an!ma'!# '!e "nrred * the h"'"%%"ne O-erea

Te'e&!mm#n"&at"!n C!r%!rat"!n (OTC)2 h"'"%%"ne

C!mm#n"&at"!n Sate''"te C!r%!rat"!n (HILCOMSAT)2 and

h"'&!mat H!'d"n, C!r%!rat"!n (HC) d#e t! the a''e,ed

"m%r!%r"et"e "n the !%erat"!n * the"r re%e&t"-e !ard !f d"re&t!r.

"n 0ay +( /8( &hief of Staff $io &. nocencio( under the authority of Senator$ichard 2. 4ordon( wrote &hairman &amilo L. Sabio of the P&44( one of the hereinpetitioners( inviting him to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting 6ointlyconducted by the C$i&&!! $# G$v!"#!#& C$"%$"a&i$#s a#* P+bli E#&!"%"is!s andC$i&&!! $# P+bli S!"vi!s. 'he purpose of the public meeting was to deliberate onSenate $es. 5o. )@@./O8"n 0ay =( /8( &hairman Sabio declined the invitation becauseof prior commitment.*O,At the ame t"me2 he "n-!


32/362

&hairman Sabio( &ommissioners bcede( &onti( 5ario( and 2avierF and theP&44Es nominees ndal and 2alandoni alleged: 'i"s&, respondent Senate &ommitteesdisregarded Section )b- of !.". 5o. 1 without any 6ustifiable reasonF s!$#*, theinuiries conducted by respondent Senate &ommittees are not in aid of legislationF &hi"*,the inuiries were conducted in the absence of duly published S!#a&! R+l!s $' P"$!*+"!

G$v!"#i#( I#


33/362

$ead together with Section ,( rticle ( Sec. /( rt. # and Section 1( rt. G ofthe 1=+, &onstitution.

PART VARTICLE VI - THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 1. The egisative po%er sha be vested in the

Congress of the =hiippines %hich sha consist of a

Senate and a Jouse of 6epresentatives, e-cept to the

e-tent reserved to the peope by the provision on initiative

and referendum.

a. Define legislative power 7 >asic concepts of the grant of legislative power:

1. it cannot pass irrepealable laws /. principle of separation of powers *. non7delegability of legislative powers

7 reason for principle that the legislature cannot pass irrepeablable laws

7 Separation of Powers

$ead: a.ANGARA VS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION, :9 Phil. 19;

b. PLANAS VS. GIL, :7 Phil. :2 . L@ZON STEVE6ORING VS. SSS, 9 SCRA 178 *. GARCIA VS. MACARAIG, 9; SCRA 1:

e. >ondoc vs. 9$!'( Sept. /8( 1==1 f. D!%!5S"$ S5'4" #S. &"0!L!&( /, S&$ 18

b. 5ature of legislative power

c. hat are the limitations to the grant of legislative powers to the legislatureC

d. !;plain the doctrine of non7delegation power.

e. Permissive delegation of legislative power.

1) S!. 29 2) $' A"&il! VI E!"(!#= %$-!"s &$ &h! P"!si*!#& i#as! $' -a" $" $&h!" #a&i$#al !!"(!#=, '$" a lii&!* %!"i$* a#* s+b!&

&$ s+h "!s&"i&i$#s as C$#("!ss a= %"$vi*!, &$ !>!"is! %$-!"s

#!!ssa"= a#* %"$%!" &$ a""= $+& a *!la"!* #a&i$#al %$li=. @#l!ss

**

**


34/362

s$$#!" -i&h*"a-# b= R!s$l+&i$# $' C$#("!ss, s+h %$-!"s shall !as!

+%$# &h! #!>& a*$+"#!#& &h!"!$'.

2) S!. 28 2) $' A"&il! VI. Th! C$#("!ss a= b= la-, a+&h$"iK!

&h! P"!si*!#& &$ 'i> -i&hi# s%!i'i!* lii&s, a#* s+b!& &$ s+h lii&a&i$#s

a#* "!s&"i&i$#s as i& a= i%$s!, &a"i'' "a&!s, i%$"& a#* !>%$"&


35/362

During the period from September ) to "ctober /=(1=8) the President of the Philippines( purporting to actpursuant to Section 8+ of the $evised dministrative &ode(issued !;ecutive "rders 5os. =* to 1/1( 1/) and 1/8 to1/=F creating thirty7three **- municipalities

'he third paragraph of Section * of $epublic ct5o. /*,( reads:

>arrios shall not be created or their boundaries altered northeir names changed e;cept under the provisions of this ctor by ct of &ongress.

Pursuant to the first two /- paragraphs of the sameSection *:

ll barrios e;isting at the time of the passage of thisct shall come under the provisions hereof.

3pon petition of a ma6ority of the voters in the areasaffected( a new barrio may be created or the name of ane;isting one may be changed by the provincial board of theprovince( upon recommendation of the council of themunicipality or municipalities in which the proposed barriois stipulated. 'he recommendation of the municipal councilshall be embodied in a resolution approved by at least two7thirds of the entire membership of the said council:Provided( however( 'hat no new barrio may be created ifits population is less than five hundred persons.

9ence( since 2anuary 1( 1=8( when $epublic ct5o. /*, became effective( barrios may Qnot be created ortheir boundaries altered nor their names changedQ e;ceptby ct of &ongress or of the corresponding provincialboard Qupon petition of a ma6ority of the voters in the areasaffectedQ and the Qrecommendation of the council of themunicipality or municipalities in which the proposed barriois situated.Q Petitioner argues( accordingly: Qf thePresident( under this new law( cannot even create a barrio(can he create a municipality which is composed of severalbarrios( since barrios are units of municipalitiesCQ

0oreover( section 8+ of the $evised dministrative&ode( upon which the disputed e;ecutive orders are based(provides:

*@

*@


36/362

'he 4overnor74eneral- President of thePhilippines may by e;ecutive order define the boundary( orboundaries( of any province( subprovince( municipality(Otownship municipal district( or other political subdivision(and increase or diminish the territory comprised therein(

may divide any province into one or more subprovinces(separate any political division other than a province( intosuch portions as may be reuired( merge any of suchsubdivisions or portions with another( name any newsubdivision so created( and may change the seat ofgovernment within any subdivision to such place therein asthe public welfare may reuire: Provided( 'hat theauthorization of the Philippine Legislature- &ongress ofthe Philippines shall first be obtained whenever theboundary of any province or subprovince is to be defined orany province is to be divided into one or more

subprovinces. hen action by the 4overnor74eneral-President of the Philippines in accordance herewith mainaUgonan*8 Phil. @),-( which( he claims( has settled it. Such claimis untenable( for said case involved( not the creation of anew municipality( but a mere transfer of territory from analready e;isting municipality &ardona- to anothermunicipality >inaUgonan-( liinaUgonanO*) Phil. @1+( @1=7@/1- in conseuence of the fi;ing anddefinition( pursuant to ct 5o. 1,)+( of the commonboundaries of two municipalities.

t is obvious( however( that( whereas the power tofi; such common boundary( in order to avoid or settleconflicts of 6urisdiction between ad6oining municipalities(may parta


37/362

the law creating said municipalities the authority to createmunicipal corporations is essentially legislative in nature.

lthough 1a &ongress may delegate to anotherbranch of the 4overnment the power to fill in the details in

the e;ecution( enforcement or administration of a law( it isessential( to forestall a violation of the principle ofseparation of powers( that said law:

a- be complete in itself it must set forth therein thepolicy to be e;ecuted( carried out or implemented by thedelegate and

b- fi; a standard the limits of which aresufficiently determinate or determinable to which thedelegate must conform in the performance of his functions.

ndeed( without a statutory declaration of policy( thedelegate would in effect( ma


38/362

that the phrase Qas the public welfare may reuire(Q in saidSection 8+( ualifies all other clauses thereof. t is true thatin &alalang vs. illiams , Phil. ,/8- and People vs.$osenthal 8+ Phil. */+-( this &ourt had upheld QpublicwelfareQ and Qpublic interest(Q respectively( as sufficient

standards for a valid delegation of the authority to e;ecutethe law. >ut( the doctrine laid down in these cases as all6udicial pronouncements must be construed in relation tothe specific facts and issues involved therein( outside ofwhich they do not constitute precedents and have nobinding effect. 'he law construed in the &alalang caseconferred upon the Director of Public or


39/362

ugust 1( 1=1=( the 4overnor74eneral issued aproclamation fi;ing the price at which rice should be sold.ugust +( 1=1=( a complaint was filed against thedefendant( ng 'ang 9o( charging him with the sale of riceat an e;cessive price as follows:

'he undersigned accuses ng 'ang 9o of a violation of!;ecutive "rder 5o. @* of the 4overnor74eneral of thePhilippines( dated the 1st of ugust( 1=1=( in relation withthe provisions of sections 1( / and ) of ct 5o. /+8+(committed as follows:'hat on or about the 8th day of ugust( 1=1=( in the city of0anila( Philippine slands( the said ng 'ang 9o(voluntarily( illegally and criminally sold to Pedro 'rinidad(one ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos P.+-(which is a price greater than that fi;ed by !;ecutive "rder

5o. @* of the 4overnor74eneral of the Philippines( datedthe 1st of ugust( 1=1=( under the authority of section 1 ofct 5o. /+8+. &ontrary to law.

3pon this charge( he was tried( found guilty and sentencedto five months imprisonment and to pay a fine of P@(from which he appealed to this court( claiming that thelower court erred in finding !;ecutive "rder 5o. @* of1=1=( to be of any force and effect( in finding the accusedguilty of the offense charged( and in imposing the sentence.'he official records show that the ct was to ta


40/362

that it may be issued Qfor any cause(Q and leaves theuestion as to what is Qany causeQ to the discretion of the4overnor74eneral. 'he ct also says: Q%or any cause(conditions arise resulting in an e;traordinary rise in theprice of palay( rice or corn.Q 'he Legislature does not

specify or define what is Qan e;traordinary rise.Q 'hat isalso left to the discretion of the 4overnor74eneral. 'he ctalso says that the 4overnor74eneral( Qwith the consent ofthe &ouncil of State(Q is authorized to issue and promulgateQtemporary rules and emergency measures for carrying outthe purposes of this ct.Q t does not specify or define whatis a temporary rule or an emergency measure( or how longsuch temporary rules or emergency measures shall remainin force and effect( or when they shall tay the organic law of the Philippine slands and the&onstitution of the 3nited States all powers are vested inthe Legislative( !;ecutive and 2udiciary. t is the duty ofthe Legislature to ma


41/362

other words( does the ct delegate legislative power to the4overnor74eneralC >y the "rganic Law( all Legislativepower is vested in the Legislature( and the power conferredupon the Legislature to ma


42/362

when the administrative agency concerned( respondent5'& in this case( establishes a rate( its act must both benon7 confiscatory and must have been established in themanner prescribed by the legislatureF otherwise( in theabsence of a fi;ed standard( the delegation of power

becomes unconstitutional. n case of a delegation of rate7fi;ing power( the only standard which the legislature isreuired to prescribe for the guidance of the administrativeauthority is that the rate be reasonable and 6ust. 9owever( ithas been held that even in the absence of an e;pressreuirement as to reasonableness( this standard may beimplied.

t becomes important then to ascertain the nature ofthe power delegated to respondent 5'& and the mannerreuired by the statute for the lawful e;ercise thereof.

Pursuant to !;ecutive "rders 5os. @)8 and 1=8(respondent 5'& is empowered( among others( to determineand prescribe rates pertinent to the operation of publicservice communications which necessarily include thepower to promulgate rules and regulations in connectiontherewith. nd( under Section 1@g- of !;ecutive "rder5o. @)8( respondent 5'& should be guided by thereuirements of public safety( public interest andreasonable feasibility of maintaining effective competitionof private entities in communications and broadcastingfacilities. Li


43/362

fi;ing7power of 5'& is ad6udicatory and hence uasi76udicial( not uasi7 legislativeF thus( notice and hearing arenecessary and the absence thereof results in a violation ofdue process.

$espondents admit that the application of a policyli


44/362

6udicial character( the valid e;ercise of which demandsprevious notice and hearing.

'his rule was further e;plained in the subseuentcase of 'he &entral >an< of the Philippines vs. &loribel( et

al. to wit:

t is also clear from the authorities that where thefunction of the administrative body is legislative( notice ofhearing is not reuired by due process of law See"ppenheimer( dministrative Law( / 0d. L.$. 1+@( /)(supra( where it is said: f the nature of the administrativeagency is essentially legislative( the reuirements of noticeand hearing are not necessary. 'he validity of a rule offuture action which affects a group( if vested rights ofliberty or property are not involved( is not determined

according to the same rules which apply in the case of thedirect application of a policy to a specific individual- ... t issaid in ,* &.2.S. Public dministrative >odies andProcedure( sec. 1*( pages )@/ and )@*: side fromstatute( the necessity of notice and hearing in anadministrative proceeding depends on the character of theproceeding and the circumstances involved. n so far asgeneralization is possible in view of the great variety ofadministrative proceedings( it may be stated as a generalrule that notice and hearing are not essential to the validityof administrative action where the administrative body actsin the e;ercise of e;ecutive( administrative( or legislativefunctionsF but where a public administrative body acts in a6udicial or uasi76udicial matter( and its acts are particularand immediate rather than general and prospective( theperson whose rights or property may be affected by theaction is entitled to notice and hearing.

'he order in uestion which was issued byrespondent lcuaz no doubt contains all the attributes of auasi76udicial ad6udication. %oremost is the fact that saidorder pertains e;clusively to petitioner and to no other.%urther( it is premised on a finding of fact( althoughpatently superficial( that there is merit in a reduction ofsome of the rates charged7 based on an initial evaluation ofpetitioners financial statements7without affordingpetitioner the benefit of an e;planation as to what particularaspect or aspects of the financial statements warranted acorresponding rate reduction. 5o rationalization wasoffered nor were the attending contingencies( if any(

))

))


45/362

discussed( which prompted respondents to impose as muchas a fifteen percent 1@H- rate reduction. t is not far7fetched to assume that petitioner could be in a betterposition to rationalize its rates vis7a7vis the viability of itsbusiness reuirements. 'he rates it charges result from an

e;haustive and detailed study it conducts of the multi7faceted intricacies attendant to a public service underta


46/362

Section '. (o person sha be a Senator uness he is a

naturaDborn citi)en of the =hiippines, and, on the day of

the eection, is at east '+ years of age, abe to read and

%rite, a registered voter, and a resident of the =hiippines

for not ess than # years immediatey preceding the day of

the eection.

Section . The term of office of the Senators sha be si-

years and sha commence, uness other%ise provided by

a%, at noon on the '8thday of Eune ne-t foo%ing their

eection.

(o Senator sha serve for more than t%o

consecutive terms. Bountary renunciation of the office

for any ength of time sha not be considered as an

interruption in the continuity of his service for the fu

term for %hich he %as eected.

Aualifications( term of office( etc.( of asenator or member of the 9ouse of$epresentatives.

Dr#,0tet"n, re?#"rement !n a''

&and"date ef!re the"r &ert"f"&ate !f

&and"da&* +"'' e adm"tted * the

COMELEC2 #n&!nt"t#t"!na'.

SOCIAL :USTICE SOCIET/ (S:S)DAN1EROUS DRU1S BOARD and

HILIINE DRU1 ENFORCEMENT

A1ENC/ (DEA)2

ATT/. MANUEL :. LASERNA2 :R -.

DAN1EROUS DRU1S BOARD and

HILIINE DRU1 ENFORCEMENT

AUILINO . IMENTEL2 :R. Va.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS2

4.$. 5o. 1818@+( 5ovember *( /+

VELASCO2 :R.2E.=

n these


47/362

O/students of secondary and tertiary schools( O*officers and employees of public andprivate offices( andO) persons charged before the prosecutorEs office with certainoffenses( among other personalities( is put in issue.

s far as pertinent( the challenged section reads as follows:

S!&. *8.A+&h$"iK!* 6"+( T!s&i#(.uthorized drug testing shallbe done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drugtesting laboratories accredited and monitored by the D"9 to safeguard theuality of the test results. ; ; ; 'he drug testing shall employ( amongothers( two /- testing methods( the screening test which will determinethe positive result as well as the type of drug used and the confirmatorytest which will confirm a positive screening test. ; ; ; 'he followingshall be sub6ected to undergo drug testing:

; ; ; ;

c- Students of secondary and tertiary schools.Students ofsecondary and tertiary schools shall( pursuant to the related rules andregulations as contained in the schoolEs student handboo< and with noticeto the parents( undergo a random drug testing ; ; ;F

d- "fficers and employees of public and private offices."fficersand employees of public and private offices( whether domestic oroverseas( shall be sub6ected to undergo a random drug test as contained inthe companyEs wor< rules and regulations( ; ; ; for purposes of reducingthe ris< in the wor


48/362

"n December /*( /*( the &ommission on !lections &"0!L!&- issued$esolution 5o. 8)+8( prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testingof candidates for public office in connection with the 0ay 1( /) synchronizednational and local elections. 'he pertinent portions of the said resolution read as follows:

9!$!S( Section *8 g- of $epublic ct 5o. =18@ provides:

S!&. *8.A+&h$"iK!* 6"+( T!s&i#(.; ; ;

; ; ; ;

g- ll candidates for public office ; ; ; both in the national orlocal government ha'' #nder,! a mandat!r* dr#, tet.

9!$!S( Section 1( rticle G of the 1=+, &onstitution

provides that public officers and employees must at all times beaccountable to the people( serve them with utmost responsibility( integrity(loyalty and efficiencyF

9!$!S( by reuiring candidates to undergo mandatory drugtest( the public will


49/362

S!&. ). P"!%a"a&i$# a#* %+blia&i$# $' #a!s $' a#*i*a&!s.>efore the start of the campaign period( the O&"0!L!& shall preparetwo separate lists of candidates. 'he first list shall consist of thosecandidates who complied with the mandatory drug test while the secondlist shall consist of those candidates who failed to comply with said drug

test. ; ; ;

S!&. @.E''!& $' 'ail+"! &$ +#*!"($ a#*a&$"= *"+( &!s& a#* 'il!*"+( &!s& !"&i'ia&!.5o person elected to any public office shall enterupon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug testand filed with the offices enumerated under Section / hereof the drug testcertificate herein reuired. !mphasis supplied.-

Petitioner uilino A. Pimentel( 2r.( a senator of the $epublic and a candidate forre7election in the 0ay 1( /) elections(@O1filed a Petition for &ertiorari and Prohibitionunder $ule 8@. n it( he see


50/362

and the Philippine Drug !nforcement gency PD!- from enforcing paragraphs c-(d-( f-( and g- of Sec. *8 of $ =18@ on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm.%or one( the provisions constitute undue delegation of legislative power when they giveunbridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing.%or another( the provisions trench in the eual protection clause inasmuch as they can be

used to harass a student or an employee deemed undesirable. nd for a third( a personEsconstitutional right against unreasonable searches is also breached by said provisions.

1.R. N!. 37G66A&&=. Ma#+!l . Las!"#a, ". v. 6a#(!"$+s6"+(s B$a"* a#* Phili%%i#! 6"+( E#'$"!!#& A(!#=-

Petitioner tty. 0anuel 2. Laserna( 2r.( as citizen and ta;payer( also see and PD!assert( S2S and Laserna failed to allege any incident amounting to a violation of theconstitutional rights mentioned in their separate petitions.8O/

t is basic that the power of 6udicial review can only be e;ercised in connectionwith a b$#a 'i*!controversy which involves the statute sought to be reviewed.,O* >uteven with the presence of an actual case or controversy( the &ourt may refuse to e;ercise6udicial review unless the constitutional uestion is brought before it by a party havingthe reuisite standing to challenge it.+O) 'o have standing( one must establish that he orshe has suffered some actual or threatened in6ury as a result of the allegedly illegalconduct of the governmentF the in6ury is fairly traceable to the challenged actionF and thein6ury is liernas( '9! 1=+, &"5S''3'"5 "% '9! $!P3>L& "% '9! P9LPP5!S: &"00!5'$K =*= /*-.= O@G$#Kal!s v. Na"vasa( 4.$. 5o. 1)+*@( ugust 1)( /( **, S&$ ,**( ,).1 O8Ta&a* v. S!"!&a"= $' &h! 6!%a"&!#& $' E#!"(= ( 4.$. 5os. 1/)*8 R 1/,+8,( 5ovember @( 1==,(/+1 S&$ **( *)=F6! G+ia v. COMELEC( 4.$. 5o. 1),1/( 0ay 8( 1==/( /+ S&$ )/( )//.

@

@


51/362

&ourt is wont to rela; the rule on l$+s s&a#*i owing primarily to the transcendentalimportance and the paramount public interest involved in the enforcement of Sec. *8 of$ =18@.

The C!n!'"dated I#e

'he principal issues before us are as follows:

1- Do Sec. *8g- of $ =18@ and &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. 8)+8 impose anadditional ualification for candidates for senatorC &orollarily( can &ongress enact a lawprescribing ualifications for candidates for senator in addition to those laid down by the&onstitutionC and

/- re paragraphs c-( d-( f-( and g- of Sec. *8( $ =18@ unconstitutionalCSpecifically( do these paragraphs violate the right to privacy( the right againstunreasonable searches and seizure( and the eual protection clauseC "r do they constitute

undue delegation of legislative powerC"mente' et"t"!n

(C!nt"t#t"!na'"t* !f Se&. 6G, !f RA 83G7 and

COMELEC Re!'#t"!n N!. G@G)

n essence( Pimentel claims that Sec. *8g- of $ =18@ and &"0!L!&$esolution 5o. 8)+8 illegally impose an additional ualification on candidates forsenator. 9e points out that( sub6ect to the provisions on nuisance candidates( a candidatefor senator needs only to meet the ualifications laid down in Sec. *( rt. # of the&onstitution( to wit: 1- citizenship( /- voter registration( *- literacy( )- age( and @-residency. >eyond these stated ualification reuirements( candidates for senator neednot possess any other ualification to run for senator and be voted upon and elected asmember of the Senate. 'he &ongress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify theseualification standards( as it cannot disregard( evade( or wea


52/362

Someone has said that the powers of the legislative department of the4overnment( liL& "% '9! P9LPP5!S: &"00!5'$K 8) 1==8-.18 O1/d.1, O1*S!!concurring opinion inG$ v. C$isi$# $# El!&i$#s( 4.$. 5o. 1),,)1( 0ay 1( /1( *@,S&$ ,*=( ,@*.

@/

@/


53/362

t ought to be made abundantly clear( however( that the unconstitutionality of Sec.*8g- of $ =18@ is rooted on its having infringed the constitutional provision definingthe ualification or eligibility reuirements for one aspiring to run for and serve assenator.

S:S et"t"!n(C!nt"t#t"!na'"t* !f Se&. 6G&2 d2 f2 and , !f RA 83G7)

'he drug test prescribed under Sec. *8c-( d-( and f- of $ =18@ for secondaryand tertiary level students and public and private employees( while mandatory( is arandom and suspicionless arrangement. 'he ob6ective is to stamp out illegal drug andsafeguard in the process Ithe well being of Othe citizenry( particularly the youth( from theharmful effects of dangerous drugs.J 'his statutory purpose( per the policy7declarationportion of the law( can be achieved via the pursuit by the state of Ian intensive andunrelenting campaign against the traffic


54/362

young are more critically impaired by into;icants and are more inclined to drugdependency. 'heir recovery is also at a depressingly low rate.1=O1@

'he right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this 6urisdiction as a facet ofthe right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure /O18 under

Sec. /( rt. /1O1,

of the &onstitution. >ut while the right to privacy has long come intoits own( this case appears to be the first time that the validity of a state7decreed search orintrusion through the medium of mandatory random drug testing among students andemployees is( in this 6urisdiction( made the focal point. 'hus( the issue tendered in theseproceedings is veritably one of first impression.

3S 6urisprudence is( however( a rich source of persuasive 6urisprudence. ithrespect to random drug testing among school children( we turn to the teachings ofV!"#$#ia Sh$$l 6is&"i& 7 v. A&$# V!"#$#ia- and B$a"* $' E*+a&i$# $'I#*!%!#*!#& Sh$$l 6is&"i& N$. ;2 $' P$&&a-a&$i! C$+#&=( !& al.v. Ea"ls( !& al. B$a"*$' E*+a&i$#-(//O1+both fairly pertinent 3S Supreme &ourt7decided cases involving the

constitutionality of governmental search.n V!"#$#ia( school administrators in #ernonia( "regon wanted to address the

drug menace in their respective institutions following the discovery of freuent drug useby school athletes. fter consultation with the parents( they reuired random urinalysisdrug testing for the schoolEs athletes. 2ames cton( a high school student( was deniedparticipation in the football program after he refused to undertaernas( &"5S''3'"5L $49'S 5D S"&L D!05DS//)7//, /)-./* O1= 'he right of the people to be secure in their persons( houses( papers( and effects( againstunreasonable searches and seizures( shall not be violated( and no arrants shall issue( but upon probable cause(supported by "ath or affirmation( and particularly describing the place to be searched( and the persons or thingsto be seized.

@)

@)


55/362

'he 3S Supreme &ourt held that the policy constituted reasonable search under the%ourth/)O/ and 1)th mendments and declared the random drug7testing policyconstitutional.

n B$a"* $' E*+a&i$#( the >oard of !ducation of a school in 'ecumseh(

"


56/362

of the student population( doubtless a legitimate concern of the government( are to bepromoted and protected. 'o borrow from V!"#$#ia( IOdeterring drug use by our5ationEs schoolchildren is as important as enhancing efficient enforcement of the5ationEs laws against the importation of drugsJF the necessity for the State to act ismagnified by the fact that the effects of a drug7infested school are visited not 6ust upon

the users( but upon the entire student body and faculty./8O//

5eedless to stress( therandom testing scheme provided under the law argues against the idea that the testingaims to incriminate unsuspecting individual students.

2ust as in the case of secondary and tertiary level students( the mandatory butrandom drug test prescribed by Sec. *8 of $ =18@ for officers and employees of publicand private offices is 6ustifiable( albeit not e;actly for the same reason. 'he &ourt notesin this regard that petitioner S2S( other than saying that Isub6ecting almost everybody todrug testing( without probable cause( is unreasonable( an unwarranted intrusion of theindividual right to privacy(J/,O/*has failed to show how the mandatory( random( andsuspicionless drug testing under Sec. *8c- and d- of $ =18@ violates the right to

privacy and constitutes unlawful andTor unconsented search under rt. ( Secs. 1 and /of the &onstitution./+O/)Petitioner LasernaEs lament is 6ust as simplistic( sweeping( andgratuitous and does not merit serious consideration. &onsider what he wrote withoutelaboration:

'he 3S Supreme &ourt and 3S &ircuit &ourts of ppeals havemade various rulings on the constitutionality of mandatory drug tests inthe school and the wor


57/362

certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the stateEs e;ercise of police power. **O/=

s the warrantless clause of Sec. /( rt of the &onstitution is couched and ashas been held( IreasonablenessJ is the touchstone of the validity of a government search

or intrusion.*)O*

nd whether a search at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is6udged by the balancing of the government7mandated intrusion on the individualEsprivacy interest against the promotion of some compelling state interest.*@O*1 n thecriminal conte;t( reasonableness reuires showing of probable cause to be personallydetermined by a 6udge. 4iven that the drug7testing policy for employeesWWand studentsfor that matterWWunder $ =18@ is in the nature of administrative search needing whatwas referred to in V!"#$#ia as Iswift and informal disciplinary procedures(J theprobable7cause standard is not reuired or even practicable. >e that as it may( the reviewshould focus on the reasonableness of the challenged administrative search in uestion.

'he first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the nature of the

privacy interest upon which the drug testing( which effects a search within the meaningof Sec. /( rt. of the &onstitution( intrudes. n this case( the office or wor


58/362

%or another( the random drug testing shall be undertaut the more important consideration lies in

the fact that the test shall be conducted by trained professionals in access7controlledlaboratories monitored by the Department of 9ealth D"9- to safeguard against resultstampering and to ensure an accurate chain of custody.*,O**n addition( the $$ issued bythe D"9 provides that access to the drug results shall be on the Ineed to


59/362

and the well7defined limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in theconduct of the random testing( we hold that the challenged drug test reuirement is( underthe limited conte;t of the case( reasonable and( !"($( constitutional.

Li


60/362

f2 and , !f RA 83G7)

3nli


61/362

%ho, as provided by a%, sha be eected through a partyD

ist system of registered nationa, regiona and sectora

parties or organi)ations.

[#] The partyDist representatives sha constitute

#8& of the tota number of representatives incudingthose under the partyDist. Ior three *' consecutive terms

after the ratification of this Constitution, K of the seats

aocated to partyDist representatives sha be fied, as

provided by a%, by seection or eection from the abor,

peasant, urban poor, indigenous cutura communities,

%omen youth, and such other sectors, as may be provided

by a%, e-cept the reigious sector.

['] 3ach egisative district sha comprise, as far

as practicabe, contiguous, compact and ad/acent

territory. 3ach city %ith a popuation of at east onehundred fifty thousand, or each province, sha have at

east one representative.

[] Lithin ' years foo%ing the return of every

census, the Congress sha ma$e a reapportionment of

egisative districts based on standards provided in this

section

$e7apportionment of a single legislativedistrict to maagabuyo %!&i&i$#!"- to prevent the&ommission on !lections COMELEC- from implementing $esolution 5o. ,+*,

)@ O1 3nder $ule 8@ of the $ules of &ourt.

81

81


62/362

on the ground that $epublic ct 5o. =*,1)8O/W the law that $esolution 5o. ,+*,implements W is unconstitutional.

BAC1ROUND FACTS

"n "ctober 1( /8( &agayan de "roEs then &ongressman &onstantino4. 2araula filed and sponsored 9ouse >ill 5o. @+@=: In ct Providing for thepportionment of the Lone Legislative District of the &ity of &agayan De"ro.J),O* 'his law eventually became $epublic ct $..- 5o. =*,1.)+O) tincreased &agayan de "roEs legislative district from one to two. %or the electionof 0ay /,( &agayan de "roEs voters would be classified as belonging to eitherthe first or the second district( depending on their place of residence. 'heconstituents of each district would elect their own representative to &ongress aswell as eight members of the Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#(s$*.

Section 1 of $.. 5o. =*,1 apportioned the &ityEs ba"a#(a=s as follows:

L!(isla&iv! 6is&"i&s 'he lone legislative district of the&ity of &agayan De "ro is hereby apportioned to commence in thene;t national elections after the effectivity of this ct. 9enceforth(barangays >onbon( >ayabas( ?auswagan( &armen( Patag( >ulua(ponan( >aialulang(Lumbia( Pagalungan( 'agpangi( 'aglimao( 'uburan( Pigsag7an('umpagon( >ayanga( 0ambuaya( Dansulihon( 'ignapoloan and>isigan shall comprise the first district while barangays0acabalan( Puntod( &onsolacion( &amaman7an( 5azareth(0acasandig( ndahag( Lapasan( 4usa( &ugman( %S &atanico('ablon( gusan( Puerto( >ugo( and >alubal and all urbanbarangays from >arangay 1 to >arangay ) shall comprise thesecond district.)=O@

"n 0arch 1*( /,( the &"0!L!& !# Ba#promulgated $esolution 5o.,+*,@O8implementing $.. 5o. =*,1.

Petitioner $ogelio >agabuyo filed the present petition against the&"0!L!& on 0arch /,( /,.@1O, "n 1 pril /+( the petitioner amended thepetition to include the following as respondents: !;ecutive Secretary !duardo!rmitaF the Secretary of the Department of >udget and 0anagementF the&hairman of the &ommission on uditF the 0ayor and the members of theSa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#(s$* of &agayan de "ro &ityF and its >oard of&anvassers.@/O+

)8 O/In ct Providing for the pportionment of the Lone Legislative District of the &ity of &agayan De "ro.J), O*R$ll$( p. /1).)+ O)I*.,p. /@.)= O@I*.( p. /@.@ O8I*.( pp. /*7/).@1 O,I*.( pp. *7//.@/ O+I*.( pp. 87=*

8/

8/


63/362

n as


64/362

funds were illegally disbursed without prior approval by the sovereign electorateof &agayan De "ro &ity.@)O1

THE ISSUES

'he core issues( based on the petition and the partiesE memoranda( can belimited to the following contentious points:

1- Did the petitioner violate the hierarchy of courts ruleF if so( should theinstant petition be dismissed on this groundC

/- Does $.. 5o. =*,1 merely provide for the legislative reapportionment of&agayan de "ro &ity( or does it involve the division and conversion of alocal government unitC

*- Does $.. 5o. =*,1 violate the euality of representation doctrineC

OUR RULIN1

E&e%t f!r the "#e !f the h"erar&h* !f &!#rt r#'e2 +e f"nd the

%et"t"!n t!ta''* +"th!#t mer"t.

Th! hi!"a"h= $' $+"&s

%"i#i%l!.

'he Supreme &ourt has original 6urisdiction over petitions for certiorari(prohibition( a#*a+s(


65/362

and laclaclac


66/362

; ; ;

*- !ach legislative district shall comprise( as far aspracticable( continuous( compact( and ad6acent territory. !ach city

with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand( or eachprovince( shall have at least one representative.

)- ithin three years following the return of everycensus( the &ongress shall ma


67/362

so that the people can be effectively heard. s above stated( the aim of legislativeapportionment is Ito eualize population and voting power among districts.J8,O/*

9ence( emphasis is given to the number of people representedF the uniform andprogressive ratio to be observed among the representative districtsF andaccessibility and commonality of interests in terms of each district being( as far as

practicable( continuous( compact and ad6acent territory. n terms of the peoplerepresented( every city with at least /@( people and every provinceirrespective of population- is entitled to one representative. n this sense(legislative districts( on the one hand( and provinces and cities( on the other( relateand interface with each other. 'o ensure continued adherence to the reuiredstandards of apportionment( Section @)- specifically mandates reapportionmentas soon as the given standards are met.

n contrast with the eual representation ob6ective of rticle #( Section @(rticle G( Section 1 e;pressly spea


68/362

division of the congressional district formerly covering San 2uan and0andaluyong into separate districts( we confirmed this distinction and the factthat no plebiscite is needed in a legislative reapportionment. 'he plebiscite issuecame up because one was ordered and held for 0andaluyong in the course of itsconversion into a highly urbanized city( while none was held for San 2uan. n

e;plaining why this happened( the &ourt ruled that no plebiscite was necessary forSan 2uan because the ob6ective of the plebiscite was the conversion of0andaluyong into a highly urbanized city as reuired by rticle G( Section 1 theLocal 4overnment &odeF the creation of a new legislative district only followedas a conseuence. n other words( the apportionment alone and by itself did notcall for a plebiscite( so that none was needed for San 2uan where only areapportionment too< place.

'he need for a plebiscite under rticle G( Section 1 and the lac< ofreuirement for one under rticle #( Section @ can best be appreciated by aconsideration of the historical roots of these two provisions( the nature of the

concepts they embody as heretofore discussed( and their areas of application.A Bi& $' is&$"=.

nMaias v. COMELEC(,/O/+we first 6urisprudentially ac


69/362

feature of republican institutionsJ as e;pressed in the leading case of Maias v.COMELEC.,@O*1 'he case ruled that ineuality of representation is a 6usticiable(not a political issue( which ruling was reiterated in M$#&!$ v. COMELEC.,8O*/

5otably( no issue regarding the holding of a plebiscite ever came up in these casesand the others that followed( as no plebiscite was reuired.

rticle #( Section / of the 1=,* &onstitution retained the concept ofeual representation Iin accordance with the number of their respectiveinhabitants and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratioJ with each districtbeing( as far as practicable( contiguous( compact and ad6acent territory. 'hisformulation was essentially carried over to the 1=+, &onstitution( distinguishedonly from the previous one by the presence of party7list representatives. nneither &onstitution was a plebiscite reuired.

'he need for a plebiscite in the creation( division( merger( or abolition oflocal government units was not constitutionally enshrined until the 1=,*

&onstitution. 9owever( as early as 1=@=( $.. 5o. //8)

,,O**

reuired( in thecreation of barrios by Provincial >oards( that the creation and definition ofboundaries be +%$# %!&i&i$# $' a a$"i&= $' &h! v$&!"s i# &h! a"!as a''!&!*./n1=81( the &harter of the &ity of &aloocan $.. 5o. */,+- carried this further byreuiring that the IA& shall &a! !''!& a'&!" a a$"i&= $' v$&!"s $' &h!M+#ii%ali&= $' Cal$$a# v$&! i# 'av$" $' &h! $#v!"si$# $' &h!i" +#ii%ali&=

i#&$ a i&= i# a %l!bisi&!.J 'his was followed up to 1=,/ by other legislativeenactments reuiring a plebiscite as a condition for the creation and conversion oflocal government units as well as the transfer of si&i$sfrom one legislative unit toanother.,+O*) n 1=,*( the plebiscite reuirement was accorded constitutionalstatus.

3nder these separate historical trac


70/362

Na&+"! a#* A"!as $' A%%lia&i$#.

'he 'e,"'at"-e d"tr"&t that rticle #( Section @ spea


71/362

the people affected by the creation( division( merger( abolition or alteration ofboundaries of local government units through a plebiscite.

'hese considerations clearly show the distinctions between a legislativeapportionment or reapportionment and the division of a local government unit.

9istorically and by its intrinsic nature( a legislative apportionment does not mean(a#* *$!s #$& !v!# i%l=( a division of a local government unit where theapportionment taonbon( >ayabas( ?auswagan(&armen( Patag( >ulua( ponan( >aialulang( Lumbia( Pagalungan( 'agpangi( 'aglimao('uburan( Pigsag7an( 'umpagon( >ayanga( 0ambuaya(Dansulihon( 'ignapoloan and >isigan shall comprise the firstdistrict while barangays 0acabalan( Puntod( &onsolacion(&amaman7an( 5azareth( 0acansandig( ndahag( Lapasan( 4usa(&ugman( %S &atanico( 'ablon( gusan( Puerto( >ugo and >alubaland all urban barangays from >arangay 1 to >arangay ) shallcomprise the second district.

3nder these wordings( no division of &agayan de "ro &ity as a politicaland corporate entity ta


72/362

effect on the Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#s$*( however( is not directly traceable to $..5o. =*,1 but to another law W $.. 5o. 88*8+@O)1W whose Section * provides:

S!&'"5 *. "ther &ities. 'he provision of any law to thecontrary notwithstanding the &ity of &ebu( &ity of Davao( and any

other city with more than one representative district shall haveeight +- councilors for each district who shall be residents thereofto be elected by the ualified voters therein( provided that the citiesof &agayan de "ro( Mamboanga( >acolod( loilo and other citiescomprising a representative district shall have twelve 1/-councilors each and all other cities shall have ten 1- councilorseach to be elected at large by the ualified voters of the said cities:Provided( 'hat in no case shall the present number of councilorsaccording to their charters be reduced.

9owever( neither does this law have the effect of dividing the &ity of &agayan de

"ro into two political and corporate units and territories. $ather than divide thecity either territorially or as a corporate entity( the effect is merely to enhancevoter representation by giving each city voter more and greater say( both in&ongress and in the Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#s$*.

'o illustrate this effect( before the reapportionment( &agayan de "ro hadonly one congressman and 1/ city council members citywide for its population ofappro;imately @(.+8O)/ >y having two legislative districts( each of them withone congressman( &agayan de "ro now effectively has two congressmen( eachone representing /@( of the cityEs population. n terms of services for cityresidents( this easily means better access to their congressman since each one nowservices only /@( constituents as against the @( he used to represent.'he same goes true for the Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#(s$*with its ran


73/362

'he petitioner argues that the distribution of the legislative districts isuneual. District 1 has only =*(,1= registered voters while District / has 1/,(,1.District 1 is composed mostly of rural ba"a#(a=s while District / is composedmostly of urban ba"a#(a=s.+,O)*'hus( $.. 5o. =*,1 violates the principle ofeuality of representation.

clarification must be made. 'he law clearly provides that the basis fordistricting shall be the #+b!" $' &h! i#habi&a#&sof a city or a province( #$& &h!#+b!" $' "!(is&!"!* v$&!"s therein. e settled this very same uestion in!""!"a v. COMELEC++O))when we interpreted a provision in$.. 5o. ,188and&"0!L!&$esolution5o./*1* that applied to the Province of 4uimaras. ecategorically ruled that thebasisfordistrictingisthenumberofinhabitantsoftheProvince of 4uimarasby municipalitybased on the official 1==@ &ensus ofPopulation as certified toby 'omas P. frica( dministrator of the5ationalStatistics"ffice.

'he petitioner( unfortunately( did not provide information about the actualpopulation of &agayan de "ro &ity. 9owever( we ta


74/362

reuirements are satisfied despite some numerical disparity if the units arecontiguous( compact and ad6acent as far as practicable.

'he petitionerEs contention that there is a resulting ineuality in thedivision of &agayan de "ro &ity into two districts because the ba"a#(a=sin the

first district are mostly rural ba"a#(a=swhile the second district is mostly urban(is largely unsubstantiated. >ut even if bac& 5o. ,7)1 PL-. 'he&"0!L!&Es resolution in 5>& 5o. ,7)1 PL- approved the recommendationof tty. lioden D. Dalaig( 9ead of the 5ational >oard of &anvassers 5>&-Legal 4roup( to deny the petition of >5' for being moot. >5' filedbefore the &"0!L!& !n >anc( acting as 5>&( a P!&i&i$# &$ P"$lai &h! ?+llN+b!" $' Pa"&=Lis& R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s P"$vi*!* b= &h! C$#s&i&+&i$#.

=1 O),T$bias v. Abal$s( 4.$. 5o. L711),+*( December +( 1==)( /*= S&$ 18.=/

=*

,)

,)


75/362

'he following are intervenors in 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,1: rts >usiness andScience Professionals >S-( angat 'ayo '-( and &oalition of ssociations ofSenior &itizens in the Philippines( nc. Senior &itizens-.

Petitioners in 4.$. 5o. 1,=/=@ >ayan 0una( bono( and dvocacy for'eacher !mpowerment 'hrough ction( &ooperation and 9armony 'owards!ducational $eforms 'eacher- in a petition for certiorari with mandamusand prohibition(=)O*assails 5>& $esolution 5o. ,78=@O)promulgated on = 2uly/,. 5>& 5o. ,78 made a partial proclamation of parties( organizations andcoalitions that obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast under the Party7List System. 'he &"0!L!& announced that( upon completion of the canvass ofthe party7list results( it would determine the total number of seats of each winningparty( organization( or coalition in accordance with V!&!"a#s ?!*!"a&i$# Pa"&= v.COMELEC=8O@ V!&!"a#s-.

!strella DL Santos( in her capacity as President and %irst 5ominee of the#eterans %reedom Party( filed a motion to intervene in both 4.$. 5os. 1,=/,1and 1,=/=@.

The Fa&t

'he 1) 0ay /, elections included the elections for the party7listrepresentatives. 'he &"0!L!& counted 1@(=@(= votes cast for =* partiesunder the Party7List System.=,O8

"n /, 2une //( >5' filed aP!&i&i$# &$ P"$lai &h! ?+ll N+b!" $'Pa"&=Lis& R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s P"$vi*!* b= &h! C$#s&i&+&i$#( d

2010 political law notes and cases

Documents