CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 1 | Bantay

JUN. 22, 2013

SOCIAL CONTRACT – agreement of the people.

- People having the power, agreeing for the common good, to establish a system of governance → common good.

- Concentration of power can lead to abuse. Counterbalance – check (rights)

HOW TO READ THE AGREEMENT

- Supreme Court announces how we interpret the constitution. - RULES: verba legis, intent of the people as makers (as a whole),

as a whole.

CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION – power and delegation of power.

- Questions the GRANT of power. - People → State → through a government → executive,

legislative, judiciary (for the purposes of efficiency and counterchecks).

- Conflict sources 1) WON it has been given to the government (decision should come to the PEOPLE) 2) There be questions as to which branch certain kinds of power rest.

- WON such power has been delegated by the people. If yes, to which branch?

- FRAMEWORK: Judicial review. o What does the Supreme Court do? What was their

framework in resolving the particular issue? o JUDICIAL REVIEW – usurpation? NO.

- ANGARA VS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION – Provision was not there in the 1935 Constitution. Justice Laurel: Will it make a difference? NO. The courts will still exercise the power due to possibility of the arising of conflicts; it is their DUTY. Judiciary is the CONSTITUTIONALITY ORGAN.

- BECAUSE by looking at the framework of the Constitution (social contract) decided by the people, and not by those who wrote it – DELEGATION and DISTRIBUTION → outcome: separation of powers (even if we do enumeration of powers, there will still be conflicts).

- The whole of the government – for the service of the common good. But pursuance of the common good ay require for a lot of actions. Laurel: in moments of crisis, in great need. o We want a government that can act immediately.

Because of that expectancy, departments are HARD-PRESSED to the point that in trying to address a particular crisis, there is a tendency to go overboard. Government is REACTIVE (because of the expectation of the people – demand action).

o ISSUE: LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT – misuse of judiciary funds.

o Impeachment is a political process. Anyone can be impeached, even if you are the Chief Justice.

- FRANCISCO VS. HOR: it is not within their jurisdiction. o Congress is challenging the issue. o Executive – execute; Legislative – enact; Judiciary – to

adjudicate or resolve disputes. o Look at the acts → Judiciary needs to resolve actual

cases (can result from within the constitution; interpreting the boundaries) → It is not reserved to the legislature (political question) and it is still bound to be reviewed.

o It is not a political question because resolution of the question involves determining WON the requirements in the Constitution have been complied with – IT IS NOT purely within the discretion of Congress, so it is subject review.

o JUDICIAL SUPREMACY: there is no usurpation → they just wanted to solve the controversy, which is within the power of the JUDICIARY.

o CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION: what the term ‘initiate’ means.

o When we LITIGATE in a constitutional case, we are exercising the power of JUDICIAL REVIEW by using the Constitution as a standard.

SUMMARY: In the Constitution, we have agreed to delegate to the state power → government → in the Constitution, the power was DISTRIBUTED → While there may be separation of powers, conflicts may arise → overlaps may arise → in resolving the conflict, they determine whether they are kept within their boundaries set by the Constitution.

- You will see the intention of people for keeping each branch in such boundaries.

- What is it people want? PREAMBLE, declaration of Principle and State Policies.

PREAMBLE: states the purpose of the Constitution; statement of purpose.

- Describes the ideal society and the values that should be promoted, as well as the structural requirements.

- WHY IT IS IMPORTANT: the preamble serves as a guide for the judicial branch to ascertaining the meaning of ambiguous provisions.

- Where can we see the intent of the framers: PREAMBLE.

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLE AND STATE POLICIES

- These are not immediately executory. It is only in the most exceptional cases (Oposa vs. Factoran – giving their standing ONLY, not a REMEDY) that the declaration can be a basis of a demand.

- OBJECTIVE: serves a guide to the departments (legislature – legislative agenda; executive – administrative policy; SC – on how it is going to read the constitution) of the government.

NOTE: my recitation on Vinuya vs. Romulo and PHAP vs. Duque.

HOW WE SITUATE THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.

- Section 2: adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.

NATIONAL TERRITORY – our Court can only exercise its power within its territory:

A. Philippine archipelago – land, air, waters in between, baselines. x Philippine archipelago

a) Land b) Air c) Baselines – we are an archipelago. The waters in

between our islands are international waters. o Straight baseline method (archipelagic

principle [UNCLOS]) – not following the curvature of the land.

1. Rectangular in nature. 2. International Tribunal on the Law

of the Sea – in case of disputes (overlaps).

d) Internal waters

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 2 | Bantay

B. Historic Title – treaties (Treaty of ParWashington).

x Batanes and some islands in the south are not included. C. Where Philippines exercise its administrative jurisdiction – under

the municipal law.

STATE IMMUNITY

- INTERNATIONAL LAW: The state cannot be sued in another sovereign. o Diplomatic officials o NO PROSECUTION

- DOMESTIC LAW: immunity of the republic (the people who are sovereign) and the immunity of the President (as a matter of convenience; who prosecutes? The executive. We cannot tie his hands).

- It can only be sued if it WAVES ITS IMMUNITY FROM SUIT. o It can be sued to ask to pay for just compensation when

IT ENTERS A CONTRACT. o You can sue the secretaries, but not the President. o You cannot sue the Congress (people), but you can sue

the agencies. o Presidents can be sued AFTER his term, unless they are

still prescribed (based on the nature of the crime, periods are given).

JUN. 29, 2013

REVIEW:

- VISION provided for in the PREAMBLE and the POLICY GUIDE (declaration of principles and State policies) for construing the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution.

- Intent of the framers (not just the members of the ConCon but also the framers being the people).

- Aspirations are very significant in using it to construe. NATONAL TERRITORY: The Constitution is the contract of the people → we need a territory. o Archipelagic doctrine (straight baselines), historical title

(occupation), uncontested exercise of jurisdiction. - STATE IMMUNITY:

o International law – based on the equality of states. States are sovereign within their reigns. But because of reciprocity, that sovereignty is acknowledged by other states (principle of reciprocity).

o Municipal and domestic law – the state is immune from suit. The state cannot be sued without its consent but if the state has waived its immunity through expressed or implied waiver → provided for by the law (expressed); when the republic exercise its propriety prerogative and enters into contracts (implied). Example: Under the procurement law: contract of sale – the republic represented by the agency or the head of the agency may be sued. Art VIII, Sec. 1: the SC can determine if there has

been a lack of jurisdiction; excess of discretion. President as head of state and government is

immune from suit while his in office. The immunity can only be lost after the term. The executive branch is only made up of one person: President → whole executive branch will be paralyzed.

If it is a direct action against the president, we have to wait for term or tenure to be over.

There is no prohibition of the President from instituting of an action, if he so wishes. Example: libel suit against Luis Beltran (Philippine Star).

x SC said it depends to the President.

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Marriage – inviolable special contract.

Constitution – can be amended.

How can we go about the business of making changes in our constitution?

- Why the need to differentiate them? We want changes in the agreement, the question is what kind of changes? – THE PROCEDURE. The courts can see WON we can comply with the procedures of the amendment. o PUNO said they should mean the same thing. When you

say amendment, it will cover ALL kinds of changes. o AMENDMENT – NON-STRUCTURAL.

i. By the Congress (added action) acting as a Constituent assembly to PROPOSE amendments: by the vote of ¾

x People should ratify it after. ii. Constitutional Convention – NOT the Congress. It

will be conflict of interest. x Creates a new office. x Elections for MEMBERS or DELEGATES.

iii. People’s Initiative – by a petition signed by at least 12% of all the registered voters and at least 3% of EACH legislative district.

x All needs ratification by the people. x Not a springboard for structural changes

BECAUSE IN PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE, A FULL TEXT SHOULD BE ATTACHED. THE AMENDMENT SHOULD ONLY CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT.

x It does not include a DEBATE. They just sign and sign. It is its inherent limitation, not because we are depriving the people because they can still act through their chosen representatives who will debate for YEARS.

x Only fit in AMENDING just A FEW provisions that are limited in scope.

x More fit for LOCAL LEGISLATION and laws of local application. Example: changes of the charter of the City of Baguio filed in Congress and approved by the Senate and vetoed by the President.

o REVISION – most radical form of amendment. STRUCTURAL CHANGE: distribution of powers. Revisions have to be filtered and tested through

structured debates and does not require rigid consultations systems.

1. Con Ass; 2. Con Con.

NOTE: NO PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE.

LAMBINO VS. COMELEC - REVISION - Qualitative Test – The whole system of government will be

changed. - Quantitative Test – 105 revisions will be affected. - What is required for a valid people’s initiative? A PROPOSAL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 3 | Bantay

AND HERE, THERE IS NONE. - Clearly specified. All the changes in the 105 sections should be

INCLUDED. Unless, it will be a form of GRAND DECEIT. - Court: The proposal must be very, very clear, unless it is NOT

VALID. It must expressly state how the change will be made, provision by provision.

- It cannot be just a number of signatories attached after the proposal.

MAY THE ISSUE OF AMENDMENT BE THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW? – YES.

- Substance: NO. It is political, BUT … - Can the Courts take cognizance of the amendments? Why? If it

has to do with PROCEDURE, they CAN. When the procedure is provided for in the Constitution, as the branch of the government that is called to see if there is a violation in the Constitution, the SC has jurisdiction. It is their DUTY to tell if there is a violation and or compliance of the procedures in the Constitution. The constitution includes the LIMITATION on the power of the people. o Because it is a process that leads to the people making a

decision, it becomes political in that sense. But since the Constitution provides procedures, it sets limitations.

o The people can CHANGE THE PROCEDURE OF THE AMENDMENT but it needs to undergo a process.

- STEPS: o PROPOSAL

SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC - Is there a law providing for the amendment of the Constitution

through people’s initiative? NONE. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735 is INSUFFICIENT because there was nothing provided for. Only for national and local amendment of laws.

- The COMELEC filled in the GAP through Resolution no. 2300 → IT IS AN ASURPATIONOF THE CONGRESS’S POWER and violate the separation of powers.

o SUBMISSION

TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC: - A proposal of reducing the voting age ahead of the ratification of

the proposal to the amendments of the Constitution. - DOCTRINE OF PROPER SUBMISSION – submission of

piecemeal amendments is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. - All the amendments must be submitted for ratification at ONE

PLEBICITE (general election) ONLY – verba legis. - WHY? For the people to know they will vote ON. They would

have to be given a proper time frame of reference in arriving at their decision.

- IT MUST FIRST BE COMPLETE. It should be everything or nothing.

o RATIFICATION

JUDICIAL REVIEW

- CONTEXT and FOUNDATION of system of government provided for our Constitution (by the people) where we have the government, which is divided in 3 branches with 3 separate powers.

- Grant AND distribution of delegated power. - Laureta and Maravilla: ISSUE:

o ISSUE: WON his decisions can even be subjected to an indirect review by any other agencies.

o Atty. Laureta counselled his client to file the case against the Supreme Court in the TANODBAYAN (Sandiganbayan) for rendering an unjust decision.

o The case is final. Even if it’s not, can it be subject to review? NO because will result in the violation of the Constitution. You can review on the basis of abuse of discretion, but only through IMPEACHMENT (Legislative).

o The constitution does not say EXACTLY that the decision cannot be reviewed by anybody → When the Constitution divided the power, it meant EXPLICIT DIVISION. By the very distribution of powers, it gave rise to: A decision of the SC cannot be reviewed by any

other branch. o ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION: boundaries delineate the

POWER of each of the branches. o Components of the distribution:

Separation of the power Inherent checks and balance – an internal

mechanism to check that the branches are kept only within each boundaries.

DEMETRIA VS. ALBA - PD: gave authority to the president to transfer funds from one

agency to another. - Issue: WON the president can do that? NO. This a power of

appropriation, which is for the Legislature and the Court has the jurisdiction to review the validity of the PD. o Not in the 1935 Constitution, but in the 1987 Constitution.

ANGARA VS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION - Angara, Sr. ran as an assembly man, his opponent filed a

protest. - Moot and academic the filing of the dates? - ELECTORAL COMMISSION – members of the National

Assembly and pre-empts the National Commission. - ISSUE 1: Whose jurisdiction are we talking about? Supreme

Court’s. WON the Court can take cognizance of the case. YES. NOTE: This case gave the constitutional justification of judicial review. LAUREL: The SC has jurisdiction over the ELECOM: separation of powers granted by Constitution (through separate articles for each branch) but check and balances maintain coordination among the branches. When there are conflicts between the boundaries of powers and functions of each branch, the Judiciary has the power to review and resolve these conflicts through Judicial Review (referred to as Judicial Supremacy). This however is limited to actual cases and controversies.

o CONCEPCION (1987 CONSTITUTION) – POWER to DUTY.

o EXPLANATION: 1) Delegation of power. 2) Separation of powers – no branch of government

should be more powerful than other. 3) Check and balance: balance of power. 4) TO CHECK THE OTHER BRANCHES.

JUL. 06, 2013

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 4 | Bantay

THE HEART OF CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION: JUDICIAL REVIEW

- Basis: the fact that there was separation of powers implied one branch to determine if some other department have kept within their boundaries.

- The constitution provided for the boundaries among the three branches.

- Possibility of allegations of a branch going beyond its boundaries in responding to certain situations → which will invariably affect RIGHTS of individuals.

1. CONTEXT/ACTUAL CASE: It’s not because there was an ACTION, someone has to suffer an INJURY first so that the person can bring the matters to the Court (actual case of controversy that involves right and some right must be prejudiced: allegation of excess or lack of jurisdiction). o There must be someone who has a right that has

been violated. o The judicial branch is the ONLY branch that can

naturally determine WON a right has been violated.

2. JUDICIAL STANDING 3. ACTS OF GOVERNMENTS ARE PRESUMED

CONSTITUTIONAL: the constitutionality will only be looked into if there are no other ways to resolve it (lis mota).

4. MUST BE RAISED IN THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY: estoppel because of inaction. o POLITICAL QUESTION: “we, the sovereign

Filipino people”: it is the matter of policy because the people have to decide for it → over and above the government.

1. People can the only ones who can decide: AMENDMENT (SUBSTANCE).

2. Duty of the Court is to determine if the processes had been complied for and the provision needs to be followed religiously.

o LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE DUTIES: Cannot be interfered by Courts.

o WON the issue is justiciable or the issue is not because it is a political question.

MIRANDA VS. AGUIRRE (Executive Secretary) - ISSUE: WON it is a political question. JUSTICIABLE because it is

not as regards to the choice but to the PROCEDURE. - Who should participate in the plebiscite? Provided for by law. - If what we’re talking about WON they agree, THAT’S POLITICAL.

But if the issue is WON the procedure provided for in the Constitution and Local Government Code followed.

VINUYA VS. ROMULO - Exclusive powers of the President. The right has not yet

blossomed to customary law. - Why are foreign relations POLITICAL IN NATURE?

LA-BUGAL VS. RAMOS - Mining Act has a provision about a policy allowing foreign-owned

companies (“service contracts”). FTAAs are not allowed in the constitution.

- POLITICAL QUESTION: It is not so much about the law, it is

based on ECONOMIC POLICIES vis-à-vis the natural resources. If there is a clear violation then basically, this is about ECONOMIC POLICY (best left in the economic and trade manager of the country [President] and not on the judges).

- PANGANIBAN: This will all go down to the level of policy and the courts are not equipped. Any resort to the courts will only resort to circus. NO STABILITY because of the composition of the Supreme Court.

- You cannot determine [economic] POLICY through judicial means. Actually, the judiciary has the most limited power (only on actual controversies or if there is a grave excess or lack of jurisdiction; MOST RESTRICTIVE). o The only law it can make are laws of procedure/courts,

and judicial decisions (Civil Code). o JUSTICIABLE because there is an actual case and

controversy. But even if there is a controversy, if it political, it is outside of the purview of the judiciary.

o NO MORE POLITICAL QUESTIONS because of the provisions about grave abuses of discretions? Of course not.

POLITICAL QUESTIONS - THOSE FOR THE PEOPLE LEFT TO DECIDE, PREROGATIVE OF THE TWO OTHER BRANCHES, THOSE WHICH THE COURTS ARE NOT EVEN COMPETENT TO DECIDE (there are other more competent agencies).

REQUISITES (technical guidelines for convenience/filtering process that was adopted by the Court in order to prevent it being flooded with cases, which in its made, it should not even deciding):

A. Actual case or controversy. o Premature or moot (temporal: only during a certain time

there is actually a case. BEFORE: premature; AFTER: MOOT).

o When there is an actual injury based on the violation of a right; involving a (1) legally demandable right that is (2) violated.

PACU VS. Secretary of Education: - No permit given to the school has been revoked. - Only an anticipation – there is no right violated YET, thus no

issue.

MARIANO VS. COMMISSION: - Binay might run again. There is no case or controversy yet.

MONTECARLOS VS. COMELEC: - Proposed bill only. There is no right conferred in a bill. - It is only when it becomes a law.

o EXCEPTION: if the issue is capable of repetition. x Logic behind it even though there is no actual

case or controversy: to be able to act proactively by using technical rules of procedures.

x There is a loophole: it’s a scheme to use the rules of courts as shields.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 5 | Bantay

ATLAS VS. DAR: - Court does not want to embarrass Congress so they waited for a

while before taking action. o It was a mistake; they were not reading the laws they are

passing. The INTENTION is to exclude fishponds and prawn farms. It is only after it passed that they realized they made a mistake.

o It gave them time to AMEND it to correct the mistake. So it has become moot and academic.

LACSON VS. PEREZ: - Proclamation of “state of rebellion”. - SC: Case is dismissed because the state of rebellion has already

been lifted. Hence, there is no more necessity to decide → MOOT AND ACADEMIC.

- Exception: (Gutierrez) To the mind of the Court, there is still an actual controversy. THE EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE POWER BY USING THE TECHINICAL PROCEDURES OF COURT AS A SHIELD.

A. Capable of repetition but evading review. – justifies the Courts’ intervention, even if it will no longer qualify on the rules set by the Court. The Court can easily go around that, because they made it.

B. The doctrines of the SC cannot be repealed and amended. Only by the Supreme Court en banc.

PIMENTEL VS. ERMITA: - There is still a need to resolve the issue. - Mooted because the appointments were already submitted to the

Commissions on Appointments. - But when Congress adjourns, there will be appointments issued. - SUBSTANTIVE THINGS: acting appointees – a new kind of

appointees. - You file a case (1) in the guise of questioning something, but you

want the court to legitimize what you have done. - Sometimes, respondents had more to gain when a case is filed

against them.

B. Standing o He/she has a right that has been violated and it

resulted to a direct injury to you. o The first thing you need to establish is to DEFINE what

kind of standing you have. o It is easier to say that you are the proper party if you

sustained direct injury (example: when you are arrested without a warrant).

o DIRECT INJURY:

JOYA VS. PCGG – NO STANDING - The only way he can gain standing if the property is part of the

public domain or the national patrimony. - IF the paintings in question are made by a FILIPINO painter,

even if it was presumed to be a private estate, it will still be of something of transcendental importance.

AGAN VS. PIATCO – WITH STANDING

- Petitioners: employees of private concessionaires.

o Concessionaires may do other business, but the employees will be laid off and they will have no other work to do.

o They will feel more the economic lost.

CHREA VS. CHR – WITH STANDING - Employees are challenging the use of the savings to upgrade the

salaries of LAWYERS because the Commission is having a difficult time of finding good lawyers – in investigating human rights violations.

- UNFAIR because there will be an increase for some workers but, not the members of the UNION.

- Discrimination against the union. Those who are technical and highly confidential will get increases.

- WON the union is a corporate entity. NO. Because they are not registered as a mechanism to give standing. With that, the court said they filed, not as a union, but as INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES. BECAUSE OF THAT, THERE WILL BE DIRECT INDIVIDUAL INJURY. o Court RULED AGAINST, due to distortion of salaries

(Salary Standardization Law). That is why it FOUND a way to give the union members standing.

AUTOMOTIVE VS. ROMULO – NO STANDING - EO that put the NLRC (adjudicatory) under the Executive Branch

(Department of Labor). - NLRC got a union to file the case against the government. - The union do not have standing BECAUSE EO will prejudice their

rights and interests. The union is under the Department of Labor. The union will not suffer an injury under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor.

C. Earliest opportunity D. Lis mota

JUL. 20, 2014

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:

a. Actual case or controversy. b. Standing – a petitioner will have standing when there is an

allegation of a violation of his right that gives rise to an actual case. o Certain people can file. o Classes of persons who can: How can they file a case IN

REPRESENTATION of others? o CITIZEN STANDING

x When may a citizen file a petition as a citizen? x PUBLIC RIGHT: belong to all of citizens. Right of

everyone → injures everyone. Example: right to information, suffrage

x INDIVIDUAL RIGHT: right to remain silent, counsel, due process. Equal protection. DUE PROCESS: you have to wait to be

injured before you can file. Example: due process: you have to wait to be penalized first, before you can file.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 6 | Bantay

TANADA VS. TUVERA - WON they have standing because they did not show any injury

(the PDs are not published, so they do not know). - By the very nature of the right, it is the duty of the government to

publish the issuances of general character. Otherwise, there is no basis for their enforceability.

- Art. 3 of CC: Ignorance of the law excuses no one. - It is only when there is publication that people can be held

accountable for the compliance of the provisions of the law. If it is not published, people will not know – violative of due process.

- When someone files a case to compel publication, to compel Executive branch to do its duties – BASICALLY to comply with the constitution.

CHAVES VS. PEA - He has standing because of: 1) Right of citizens to information on

matters of public concern, 2) Equitable distribution of alieanable lands of the public domain among Filipino citizens.

- AS LONG AS ITS PUBLIC DOMAIN, which is owned by all of the people in common. It’s the citizens’.

- We have the right to be informed on the negotiations. - What if you went to the GSIS to demand information on loans

given by GSIS to high government officials because you want to find out if the GSIS has been giving favourable treatment to high government officials to the detriment of ordinary employees? YES. o May the GSIS be compelled to give you that information?

YES. o Do you have the right to demand that information? YES. o RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO INFORMATION ON

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST INCLUDING FUNDS HELD BY GOVERNMENT.

o If he questions it under a member of GSIS, he will be a proper party because he is part owner.

o TAXPAYER’S STANDING x When can they file a suit? Improper of illegal

disbursement of funds. x To find out whether a tax payer can file a suit,

there should be proof of illegal disbursement of tax because they are being made to pay for something that is illegal (example: illegal contract).

x There is no escape from taxation and anyone can file as long as there is an allegation of unlawful disbursement of public funds.

ITF VS. COMELEC - Alleged unlawful disbursement of funds: they granted the project

to the supplier who is not qualified. o Failed technical evaluation.

- This is clearly illegal because the contract was awarded to the company THAT DID NOT participate in the bidding.

o The one who participated in the bidding did not have the technical and financial capabilities Æ created a consortium so they can provide the service.

o It is illegal to award to a company that is different from the ones who bid. That consortium needs to be repackaged.

- Sadly, COMELEC has paid already when the Court decided on this. In fact the supplier was trying to collect the balance because it has delivered the hardware and software, which cannot even be used. o Who are accountable: officials of the COMELEC.

o Why does ITF have standing? YES. Filed by is individual members of the ITF, and they are tax payers, with or without tax payers.

o Individual members enjoin the individual members of the foundation, and they can qualify as tax payers.

o Do they need to attach their ITR? NO, because ALL PEOPLE ARE TAX PAYER and indirect tax payers → Consumer’s tax, VAT.

o COMELEC should have DECLARED FAILURE OF BIDDING and advertise for a new one again.

O VOTER’S STANDING

TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC - Former Senator Tolentino (Civil Law book) as one of the

petitioners. - People only voted for 12 and 13 were proclaimed. - When they sued as voters, they were suing for ALL of the voters.

The voters were not even given the chance for senator number 13. They did not even know they were voting for 13.

- Petition is DISMISSED. o Doctrine applied: Constructive notice (legal fiction) –

they should have known that they are voting for the 13th senator with a 3-year term.

o Law: in case there is a resolution, COMELEC should hold an election for the election of candidates to fill in the vacancies. What was missing was THE CALL.

o Once there is vacancy, automatically, COMELEC is supposed to hold an election. Even if they did not tell us, the mechanism to address the law should have been known to us.

o No sense to nullify this to hold an election for a candidate who will just stay for 3 years.

- The proclamations are valid. There will not be much of a difference if it is invalidated.

o ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING x Association: an agroupation of individuals with

similar interests. x When can they file for or in behalf of they own

members? When members equally shared a right, and because of a violation of it, they shared an injury.

x We are talking about the rights of the members. The right and the injury are equally shared by the members.

x THEY ARE REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION.

KMU VS. GARCIA - Represents persons riding busses, trains. - LTFRB abdicated its functions and gave it to the bus companies.

The regulated becomes the regulator. - Why can KMU file the case? What is involved is a violation of a

common right and injury of its members. - The very charter of KMU mandates that the organization should

represent the interest of its members.

EXEC SEC VS. CA - Does ARCO-Phil have standing? It depends on the interest it is

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 7 | Bantay

representing. - If it is representing the rights of the recruitment company

members from operating, IT HAS STANDING. - IT HAS NO STANDING because the injuries that are going to be

suffered by unskilled workers will not be suffered by its members.

IBP VS. ZAMORA - Marines were instructed by the President to patrol the shopping

malls. President eventually withdrew the order and the malls had to hire their own security.

- IBP filed a case and wanted to protect the rule of law. NO STANDING. There was no allegation of a violation of any of its members. They did not show any right, violation, injury to its members. No one will stop them from going to the malls?

- BUT because of its transcendental importance (real threat).

KILOSBAYAN VS. GUINGONA - Standing? Not really. - Kilosbayan – NGO but the contract s between the government

and a private entity. o The nature if a procedural requirement: the Court has

wide discretion when to apply it. o EXCEPTION: TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE:

WILL RESULT TO FOREIGN CONTROL OF THE LOTTO / GAMBLING – repercussions on morality, economy.

o The Court is worried on who will benefit from the operation of the online lottery → everything will be under control of the company.

- Lotto is the biggest source of revenue. - The court sees something to be tried in the case, so even if the

petitioner has no legal standing, they asserted the issue is of transcendental importance.

o LEGISLATIVE STANDING x When challenging a law is within petitioner’s

power.

OPLE VS. TORRES - AO is a LAW. The substance is legislation and this should have

issued by Congress so he, as a member of Congress, should have been one of those who participated in the deliberation.

- The President has usurped his and other Congressmen and Senators’ power to pass something like this. o This is a LIMITATION OF RIGHT OF PRIVACY. o He only body who can provide such limitation is only

Congress. o There is something that needs to be deliberated b the

representative of the people themselves, not just of one person (President).

- If the issuance is just an order for heads of agencies, t will not violate Ople’s rights because it is ADMINISTRATIVE. BUT if you require everyone to accomplish a bio data, that is a limitation of their constitutional right.

- For the purposes of affiliation, they can get information and they can because of the safeguards.

o GOVERNMENTAL STANDING

PEOPLE VS. VERA: Assailing the constitutionality and validity of the PROBATION LAW. - Why? Because it constitutes undue delegation. That the law will

be effective in a province once there is an appointment of a probation officer. The assembly delegated to the province WON the law will be effective. Result: some provinces will have it, some will NOT.

- Granted that it might constitute undue delegation of power, why should the government question its own law? It’s the primary duty of the government to abide by and protect the Constitution. It is trying to uphold the constitution because it will violate the separation of powers. National assembly → delegated power to local government → violation.

- Government cannot allow the violation of the Constitution.

o FACIAL CHALLENGE – when the validity of the statute is challenged on its face (mere textual reading will clearly show the invalidity of the act; void on its face).

x A party can question the validity of a statute only if, as applied to him, it is unconstitutional.

x The only time a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is when it operates in the area of freedom of expression.

x Only on two grounds: Vagueness – when even men of common

intelligence will not be able to understand; when it is so incomprehensible that men of common intellect cannot make sense of it.

Provisions are so contradictory to each other – VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS. When you use terms that are

incapable of comprehension. In what cases:

Over-breadth – when it so broad that it impinges on constitutionally protected rights.

x Unconstitutional because they violate the constitution itself (Art III).

x In what cases: speech, expression, religion (1st amendment rights).

ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN - RA 7080: An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime –

CONSTITUTIONAL. - You cannot apply facial to penal laws → penal laws have in

terorem effect that they are so severe, they will scare you in committing them (“chilling effect”). The harshness is required to scare you from committing them. o Penal laws are necessarily severe (fear of punishment,

fear of speed of process). - There is no vagueness at all. It is clear that he must have done 2

of the acts, otherwise there will be no combination (more than one). If you commit one, it will fall in the RPC.

c. Earliest opportunity d. Necessity

AUG. 03. 2013

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 8 | Bantay

MIDTERMS (10 pts essay type questions [60%] and MCQ [4 choices: 40%; 5 pts each TOTAL of 8; stock knowledge of BASIC principle of the provisions we are discussing]).

To be answered in well-written paragraphs.

LEGAL STANDING: one of the 4 technical requirements.

- One is in representation of himself and others who share the same right/interest/ensure proper appropriation and expenditure of public funds and property/all voters whose right to suffrage has been violated/legislator to protect his prerogative to legislate/government/facial challenge.

- FACIAL CHALLENGE: ANYONE can challenge because the law is void on its face. o VAGUE: violative of the due process. o BROAD: impinges on right (speech/expression). o Not applicable in PENAL legislation because they have

interorem effect (“chilling effect”). 1. It’s supposed to provide HIGH penalty. 2. DISSENT: PUNO: previously limited to violation of

rights, and does not exclude the application of rule of facial where a penal law had been under scrutiny.

3. LIMIT the application to cases which are covered by the BILL OF RIGHTS on the preferred rights (speech, expression, religion).

4. Raised by JUSTIC LEONEN: RP RH Arguments. 5. PETITIONERS: WHOLE LAW IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, not specific provisions.

EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY: WHEN do you raise the issue of constitutionality?

- Can you raise constitutionality in MTC? May MTC declare a law unconstitutional? NO.

- What is earliest opportunity? If you file the case directly in the SC.

- What is the lowest level will the court be able to decide the constitutionality of the law? RTC/CFI.

- Where do you bring the appeal? To the SC directly. o Not to CA because they only look at the facts.

- When a law is declared unconstitutional by RTC, is it the end of it? NO. It will be brought to the SC.

- Do you have to file it directly to the SC? NO. - DIRECTLY: only when transcendentally important. - But if you are challenging the constitutionality of City of municipal

ordinance, where should you go? RTC because the law is of local application.

UMALI VS. GUINGONA - What was being challenged? Unconstitutionality of the PCAGC. - It was the commission that investigated him. What is PET’s

theory? HE cannot be dismissed by the investigation of that commission because that omission is unconstitutional.

- Why does the commission offend the constitution? - LEVELS OF PET’S ARGUMENTS:

o He’s arguing against jurisdiction (creation of that commission was a violation of that commission).

x ISSUE: WON he can even be investigated by the body? If not, then the results are null and void.

x PET that body is a violation of the Constitution and the output must not be the basis of the President to remove PET from office.

x IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE UNDER THE CONSTITUION, THE OFFICE OF

OMBUDSMAN HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THE CASE.

o Is there a constitutional issue because the President has created a body at arrogate the function of Ombudsman.

- Was it raised in the earliest consideration? NO. Since he filed first in the RTC, it should have been raised on his first pleading and his petition for prohibition with prayer for TRO.

- In this case, he raised the issue only after there is ALREADY a judgment against him so he came up with a new theory in his MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

- When it is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue, it must be raised in the EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY, so the Courts will know. o If clearly, the commission is unconstitutional, they don’t

even have to go to the MERITS/FACTS of the case because the output is already NULL AND VOID.

o If AT A LATER TIME: you wasted the time of the Court. o JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE: has to be RESOLVED FIRST.

If it turns out there is no jurisdiction, THERE IS NO BASIS TO PROCEED.

- Court says: We cannot solve it anymore. You should have raised it in the EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.

- HOWEVER, even if we resolve it, it is now MOOT AND ACADEMIC.

LIS MOTA: that the only way to resolve the case IS TO SOLVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

- Only when it is absolutely required that the constitutional issue be resolve, that the COURT will resolve.

- Without resolving the constitutionality, the case will NOT be resolved.

- Policy of AVOIDANCE: resolving the constitutional issue because it involve sand act of other branched to be NULLIFIED.

- There is NO OTHER CHOICE but to decide on the constitutional issue.

- If there is NO OTHER WAY, the courts will decide because it is THEIR DUTY.

ACRCETA VS. MANGROBANG - Was the constitutionality the very lis mota because it is no longer

the lis mota of this case? Because the Court has already decided in Lozada vs. Martinez.

- Can they raise it again? No. It can no longer be raised AGAIN. - Even the supposed constitutional issue is no longer an issue. IT

has already been resolved by the Court. - Is it the very lis mota? No. - Does Court have to reiterate the ruling? No because it is

already PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND. Otherwise, it will give rise to instability because same issues will be raised.

- Stability of Court requires that when the Court rules the constitutionality of the case, that’s already it.

MAYBE: FOR MIDTERMS, WE COULD INCLUDE WRITING THE FIRST PART OF A PETITION (to establish the requirements of judicial review).

AFTER REQUIREMENTS, SUBSTANCE IS NEXT: WON that particular branch kept on its power or went beyond it (abuse).

- The Court never finds out, it never tries to determine its unconstitutionality BECAUSE ALL ACTS ARE PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONAL pursuant to the separation of powers.

- Who has the burden of proving the constitutionality? The petitioners.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 9 | Bantay

- It is the burden of government, Sol. Gen. to show that the law is constitutional? No.

CONGRESS: two branches that are co-equal: SENATE and HOR (Art. VI).

- The composition: SENATE 24 senators related at large (Sec. 2, Art. VI). o QUALIFICATION: (Sec. 3) natural-born citizen, 35 years

of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, resident of the country for at least 2 years.

o TERM OF OFFICE: (Sec. 4) 6 years, not more than two consecutive terms.

- HOR: composed of district representative (legislative 80%; party-list 20%). o How many? Does not exceed 250, unless provided by

the law. o Congress can still create districts (2013 elections:

Camarines Sur, QC, Cavite. o 1 district: at least 250,000 people. o QUALIFICATIONS: (Sec. 6) natural-born citizen, 25 years

old, able to read and write, registered voter in the district in which he will be elected, resident of not less than 1 year.

o TERM OF OFFICE: (Sec. 7) 3 years, not more than 3 consecutive years.

- CHANGE IN TERM OF OFFICE: HOR: 4 years to 3 years. o In the case of President, there is no re-election. He will

not have to worry for re-election: political will AND plan for action (heavy reliance on President’s agenda).

o If you are going to institute drastic projects, you will not owe something for the 2nd part of your term.

o BOTH houses are led by those in the same party as the President.

o CONGRESS: Each congress will have a term of 3 years. Laws will have to be passed would have to be passed during that time as compared to 4 years.

x Does that make a difference? A lot. Half of each year is allocated for (16th Congress) the BUDGET; one-half for other matters to be considered by Congress.

x It is now difficult to pass BIG LAWS. After 1987, the strategy is to divide the big laws into smaller parts and have them passed (Example: laws protecting children).

x Revision of the Penal Code: UP (internally funded): if they come up with their output, it cannot be passed in 3 YEARS.

- What do you think will happen to the bills passed by the Party-list? They became adjuncts of the traditional political parties. o NOW: The Party-list went to Belmonte and aligned

themselves WITH the government. LEFT-leaning Æ OPPOSITION (divided MARTIN ROMUALDEZ and ZAMORA); swing vote (BAYAN).

x Mainstreaming of the party-list instead of representing their constituencies.

- DISTRICTS: there are district representatives. o The constitution puts limits on the creation of districts.

SEMA VS. COMELEC - How does that impact on districts? At first look, it will only apply

on Art. X.

- How did Carpio build the analytical framework in this case? Art. VII, 1973 Constitution. WON ARMM has the power to make provinces and WON that will collide with the power to create legislative districts. If it will, then, ARMM cannot create them.

- It cannot create the province of SK because doing so will create a NEW LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT because Congress may only create a new district.

- ARMM → creation of ARMM (9054) → creation of provinces, THUS SK is validly created; part of regional autonomy.

- CARPIO: Read the constitution as a WHOLE. o You have to take ART. X AND THE ARMM LAW as

limited by the other provisions of the Constitution. o Who may create legislative districts? Only the Congress.

Each province can only have 1 legislative district. o It should be read as a LIMITATION of the powers of the

Congress. - Why was SK created? To give Ampatuans their part. - What will happen if Cotabato City will be part of SK? Sema will

never win the election. Sema is at a disadvantage. He did not even raise the issue of legislative districts and their creations.

- ARMM created a new province. - To resolve the issue of Sema’s case, the lis mota is the

constitutionality of the act of the province (Art. VI). - Did the regional government have the power to create provinces?

No. - In the end, Sema could still have Cotabato. WINNER:

MANGUGADATU.

ACIAS VS. COMELEC - Issue is the creation of what? 1935 Constitution, no requirement

of population. - Why did the Court nullify the creation of new districts? - Will Congress be held liable for not following their own rules? No.

ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE. - What is the primary reason? Does Congress have the power to

legislate additional districts? YES, but Congress was arbitrary. o In full accord of judicial review. o Was there grave abuse? YES. Determination was

arbitrary. It seems to have been done for political considerations because there is no rhyme and reason why the one with smaller population have more seats.

- Court: there should be PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. Now fixed.

TAN VS. COMELEC - What was created? Negros del Norte (new district). - What is the problem with that? Why is it unconstitutional? That

for something like that, it is not enough that it is legislated, it must also be ratified by a plebiscite by all of those affected.

- It is the voters of the WHOLE province who shall have to vote.

- PARTY-LIST: How many party-list Congressmen we are supposed to have? 20% of the members of the HOR. o How do we find out? Everyone in the ballot may elect

ONE party-list. How do we know how many will have seats?

1. How many they should be? FORMULA. 2. Such being the case, how do we now choose the

party-list representatives? x 2% threshold: everyone who reaches 2%

will get one guaranteed seat. x Maximum of 3 seats per party. .

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 10 | Bantay

x Proportionate ranking (first party). What is the effect of this ranking? Rank on the basis of votes they received.

x No. of seats still remaining. o Who can now form party-list?

ATONG PAGLAUM VS. COMELEC: SECTORAL parties representing organized and underrepresented sectors; OLD RULE. - HELD: NEW RULE: SECTORAL: nation, regional and sectoral. - No requirement that they are marginalized and

underrepresented. - Requirement: How will we distinguish them from Congress? As

long as they do not represent districts. - Example: AKO BICOL [regional]? YES. ANG WARAY [ethno-

linguistic group]? YES. - Can LP (MPP) register as party-list? No, BUT AN ARM OF IT. - Are political parties from registering? YES. By representing a

sector. - ANG LADLAD? YES. Sectoral. - IBP? No, created by the Court. Example: Association of Lawyers

in the Phil? YES. - Why did the court say the OLD RULE is wrong? The reason is in

the Constitution itself. This is required ONLY DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD. Constitution: In the first 2 elections, there will be representative from sectors which are marginalized, underrepresented; NATIONAL, REGIONAL, SECTORAL.

- OLD RULE was only an exemption when there is no law yet on the election of party-list.

- COM. MONSOD: The rule is no longer the same. LP as it is, NO. But LP-Youth, YES. o May political parties participate? YES, as long as they will

not field candidates for the districts. - NOW: “open to everyone.”

o Let’s say I am the Governor of Pampanga, and my Son is the Mayor, and I have Son no. 2, what will I do? I will establish a new party-list. DO I even have to point to marginalized and underrepresented? No.

o Does the Congressman have to be poor even if it represents the poor? NO, it is enough that you represent the interest of the party.

x Can COMELEC interfere with however they want to use their budget? NO.

x As long as they were nominated by the members of the party-list.

o QUALIFICATION: Same as district representatives. o Even coalitions in HOR are rewarded with Chairmanships

of committees. Why? Because there is a committee budget.

- RESIDENCY: What is meant by residency? o Do you expect district representative to LIVE in their

district? NO, they only have district offices. It’s not where he ACTUALLY lives?

o The whole rational as what? It’s because of your strong ties (Imelda: home of her family).

o Does it matter if your Congressman lives in Manila and a resident of Pampanga? NO, not required by the constitution. But since his family is rooted there, then he is deemed to have strong ties there.

AQUINO VS. COMELEC - Court: Why he has a condominium in Makati: it can be that he

just wanted to run. - They presumed he had to be with his wife (Manila).

- His substantive ties are in Tarlac, because he is an Aquino. - If he will not tell them why he moved, the court will assume that

he intends to return in Tarlac. - GATCHALIAN, CONGUANCO: where they established their (2)

business.

MARCOS VS. COMELEC - You intention to CONNECT in that place because of strong

interest. - NOT ACTUALLY RETURNING there.

o What will make you want to stay in that place? ANIMUS MENENDI.

o What if for instance I vote in Bulacan if I live in 4th district of QC, and my ancestral home is in 3rd district of QC? YES, because that is my mother’s hometown.

TORAYNO VS. COMELEC: - COURT: He registered in hometown but he now lives in CDO

(where he established his office as a governor for a while). - Let’s take a look at the ties. Does he have ties in CDO? YES. - The proof of residency was sufficient that would legally sufficient

to constitute a change of his Domicile of birth. - Not return literally, but to CONNECT to that place.

- ELECTION: 2nd Monday of May every 3 years. - SPECIAL ELECTION – in case of vacancy, for a remaining

period of at least 1 year for a Senator. o If the period is less than 1 year, (in Senate: they don’t do

anything) (Congress: Speaker of the House will appoint a caretaker).

o Two requirements: 1. There must be a declaration of a vacancy by the

body. 2. There must be a valid call for election.

TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC - Was there a declaration? Yes, Resolution No. 84. Is there a call

of the COMELEC? NONE. They forgot. - COURT: the voters deemed to have constructive notice for the

election of 13 candidates. - HONASAN: 10 million votes will be disenfranchised. Will there be

a right impeded for those who did not vote for him? No.

- SENATE: OFFICERS: o Can the Court intervene in the election of officers of the

Senate? No. o SANTIAGO: The minority leader should come from them

(her and Tatad).

AUG. 10, 2013

The composition, qualification and terms of office of the Members of the Congress. We looked at the allocation of districts, the matter of party-list elections, and the primary requirement, which is residency.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 11 | Bantay

TODAY: the election, the organization and sessions, the salaries, electoral tribunals. NEXT WEEK: Midterms, 2 hours. DO NOT EXPECT TO GET HIGH GRADES. ELECTIONS: 2 kinds. ORGANIZATION and SESSIONS of the CONGRESS. - Who are the officers of the Congress? ONLY the Speaker and

the Senate President: Constitutional provision. All the other officers are to be provided by the rules determined by each House.

- All that the constitution requires are those to officers. Why? Certification, succession, Sen. Pres. (Chair of COA). They hold important offices so their positions are provided for in the Constitution.

- When we talk of separation of powers, it is within the separate powers.

SANTIAGO VS. GUINGONA - In the Senate, there is a senate president. There are only 2 in the

minority, there is only Santiago and Tatad but Guingona was appointed as minority leader.

- Under the Rules of the Senate, the minority leader is ex oficio a member of all the committees and he can stand up in all he sessions to speak.

- BOTH the MAJORITY and MINORITY are now effectively controlled by the MAJORITY.

- Did the Senate President act in grave abuse of discretion? NO. Why not? In the Constitution, we can only intervene in relation to the position of Senate President because that is the only thing provided for in the Constitution.

- Why would the Court intervene? NO because that goes beyond what we can review. In the Rules of the Senate, there is even nothing about the selection of the majority and minority leader. THERE’S NOTHING.

- REASON: Why did we, the people, leave it to the Senate or House to choose their own officers? The matter of necessity WON such officers are needed are actual matters of internal affairs. Can they choose as many as they want or none? So, it’s a matter of what? Can we even inquire of the necessity? NO BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE considering the political realities they are facing now.

- Court: NO RIGHT BY SANTIAGO BEING VIOLATED (Bill of Rights).

- Why did we, the people, allow that? Because in a later provision, for us the people, there is only one output of the Senate → “enrolled bill” → the only thing that is important and the only limitation (requirements of the passage of the bill).

- REALIZATION: Basically, it’s up to each chamber. Example: Bicameral conference committee, do they meet? NO. What is important is there is a report and there are signatures.

- Court: Okay, so the minority is marginalized because a member of the majority had been designated as the minority leader → THAT IS SOMETHING THEY SHOULD NEGOTIATE WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS.

- SENATE: constructivist opposition, if not, they can effectively be shut out. So they cooperate so they can get committee chairmanship, they can get their bills passed. Is that in violation of the constitution? NO.

- It is difficult to pass laws;; that’s why there are a lot of NEGOTIATIONS, starting with the national budget.

- What is the requirement of a quorum? Regular quorum is

MAJORITY (50% + 1), supermajority (2/3, ¾). But for ordinary business, a quorum is just the majority.

o How do you determine a quorum? How can there be a quorum if they are not there? In the Senate, the rules are very simple. QUORUM: 13 senators. Sen. Pres. Calls for the roll Æ usually 5 (Se. Pres., Majority Leader, Minority Leader, author of the bill, opposition) only, hehe. Senate IS STRICTER.

o HOR: “Mr. Speaker, I move for the dispense for the calling of the roll.” THERE SO MANY OF THEM.

o What about the committees? That will depend on the House. How do you determine the quorum in a hearing?

o In the Senate, the only time they are mostly present: PLENARY SESSION because there is TV coverage.

AVELINO V. CUENCO: What is the issue? WON 12 senators constitute a quorum. - How many walked out? 10, leaving 12. - Why did they walk out? Because Sen. Tanada want the Senate

Pres. To be CHARGED. But when they left, there were 12 left, and what did the 12 do? They voted for a president and president voted all seats are vacant, and designated officials.

- So what did the former Sen. Pres. Do and challenged the quorum.

- Is the matter of the quorum something the Court can inquire into? No. Why not?

- POLITICAL QUESTION. Can the Courts still do that under 1987 Constitution? It can. Because of the provision if there has been a grave abuse of discretion.

- So for the purposes of the quorum, the one outside the country can NOT be counted. TOTAL: 23; QUORUM: 12.

- It encouraged the parties to resolve the matters among themselves because the Court is very, very hesitant.

- RULES OF PROCEEDINGS: Each house may determine its own

house of proceedings. Is that absolute? (Sec. 16, 3). NO. PACETE VS. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS: NOT ABSOLUTE. What is the limitation on the prerogative of the House in determining its rules of proceedings? Rules of Proceedings should NOT VIOLATE ANY RIGHT OF THE AN INDIVIDUAL. - Pacete was already appointed AND confirmed, and SOMEONE

filed a motion for reconsideration, which effectively NULLIFIED his confirmation.

- Under their rules, upon FILINF of the motion for reconsideration, that will nullify/withdraw the confirmation. Can the Court review that? IT IS IN THE RULES.

- Does he already have a vested right? Does any of the officers have a vested public right? NO.

- But you can only be revoked for JUST CAUSE → VIOLATVE OF DUE PROCESS, with notice or hearing. In this case, there are NONE.

- THEY CAN COME UP WITH THEIR OWN RULES BUT IF THE RIHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL (ART. III), THE COURT CAN STEP IN AND NULLIFY THE ACT. Is there a violation of separation of powers? NO because the Court is protecting the right PROVIDED In the Constitution.

ARROYO VS. DE VENECIA: Wanted to question the quorum. - He was claiming there was a grave abuse of discretion and there

is a violation, not only of the process, but also of RIGHTS. - Will the Court intervene in favour of Joker? NO. Why not? He is

prevented from speaking! o Will the Court even look at the presence of the quorum?

NO. o The court will not intervene because? The Court

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 12 | Bantay

intervened in FRANCISCO and OPLE. o What is the distinction? Why is the court being selective?

In the case FRANCISCO, it is in the prerogative of the house with a limitation which is a provision on impeachment provided for in the constitution.

o THE ONLY LIMITATIONS ARE FOR THE DUE ENACTMENT OF THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL.

- Are the rules within the prerogative of the House? Yes. Is it absolute? No. The constitution provides for the powers vis-à-vis the rights. So what happens when you have the limitations of the power that will give rise to the rights?

- There are no rights impeded but it is NOTFOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE.

- DISCIPLINE: What is the rule of discipline? Each house can

penalized members by virtue of expulsion or suspension of NO MORE THAN 60 days by 2/3 votes. o Whose interests are being pursued here? PEOPLE, NOT

OF THE ASSEMBLYMAN. For them expulsion is better because you can elect them again.

ALEJANDRINO VS. QUEZON - The Court said IT CANNOT review. Constitution provides:

expulsion and suspension which is the prerogative of the Legislature.

- Can you invoke rights because he was suspended after the ethics community hearing? NO. Thus, he was suspended indefinitely. In the absence of any limitations of rights being invoked, can the Court do something? No, only to provide a cap in the Constitution to avoid repetition.

OSMENA VS. PANDATU: privilege speech attacking the President. - Osmena was suspended for 15 months. Can the Court

intervene? NO. - In fact congress can choose to discipline his members for

anything. The grounds for discipline are NOT provided for in the Constitution itself. It is up to the Houses to determine WHAT CONSTITUTE FOR DISORDERLY/UNRULY CONDUCT.

- Even outside the session? YES, IN FACT. If there is a complaint, there will be a hearing in the Ethics Committee. The only right protected if the Congressman’s right to DUE PROCESS.

SANTIAGO VS. SANTIGANBAYAN - SANDIGANBAYAN is the anti-graft court → under the Judiciary.

They can order warrant of arrest and the preventive suspension of the accused.

- SANTIAGO was charged for acts WHEN SHE WAS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, but she was being suspended when she was ALREADY PART of the Legislature. Would something like that violate the Constitution? NO.

- Shouldn’t the Sandiganbayan (RA 3019) formally request to the Senate Pres.? Or may it DIRECTLY ISSUE the order?

- Once you are a public official, that accountability sticks even after you have left a particular office as long as you are alive, even your heirs.

- What is the role of the judiciary? To adjudicate. It was just adjudicating the provisions in the Anti-Graft and Corruption Law. May the legislative ignore that? No, if it does, it will violate the Constitution.

- ISSUE: WON it is a question of power or rights. Is there an intrusion in the power? NO.

- So the judicial branch DOES NOT NEED to prove to the Ethics Committee of the Congress that there is just cause for

suspension: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION IS DISTINCT FROM DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF THE CONGRESS.

- TWO ACTS from different branches of the government by virtue of their respective powers.

- JOURNAL AND RECORD:

o Journal: usually an abbreviated account of the daily proceedings → action taken, that’s why you put the votes. Is it conclusive? No. The only thing conclusive is the “enrolled bill.” VALUE: evidence that the bill went through the required proceedings of due enactment.

o Record: a word for word transcript of the deliberations of Congress. SC will not go beyond this. It will only check the ENROLLED BILL. VALUE: it is considered when the Court CONTRUES the law when it is trying to find the INTENTION of the law-makers.

o Why does the constitution provide for them? o ENROLLED BILL ALWAYS PREVAIL because that is the

final output. CASCO VS. GIMENEZ: “urea formaldehyde.” - Complete reverse of the intention. - Can it decide that what the Congress really intend was “urea

formaldehyde” → ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE CONTROLS EVEN IF there was a mistake.

- Can the Court correct the mistake? NO. Why? The court cannot correct the mistake because it is bound by the enrolled bill. In fact, the Court cannot go beyond that even if there is a very, very obvious mistake.

- It cannot use its power to adjudicate by correcting → REMEDY: curative legislation. Otherwise, they will be violating the separation of powers.

- Court said NO, they cannot acquire jurisdiction. US VS. PONS - PONS: the law was passed in violation of the Constitution. Why

did he say that? Because the session is supposed to end on Feb. 28 and the bill was passed on March 01.

- Can the Court look at the RECORDS? NO because they are bound by the RECORD.

- When the journal says that the session finished on Feb.28, that is the TRUTH.

- CONSTUTIONAL PROVISION: Congress shall keep a journal of proceedings solely within their power.

- When the documentation says this is what happened, THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.

o ENROLLED BILL TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE JOURNAL, AND THE LATTER TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE RECORD.

MORALES VS. SUBIDO - What happened: the one who typed it MADE A MISTAKE and no

one read it before signing and it resulted to an absurd situation when a police officer cannot be a police officer :P

- Why did the Court go beyond the enrolled bill? Did the Court actually abandoned the enrolled bill?

- Was there an enrolled bill in the first place? NO because of the withdrawal of the signature? NONE. The Court followed the hierarchy because there is no enrolled bill.

- The enrolled bill STILL NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | AUF SOL 2013 Page 13 | Bantay

ASTORGA VS. VILLEGAS - The law is by-passing the vice-mayor, as in the law itself. - Can the Court go beyond the enrolled bill and go beyond the

journal? YES because no more enrolled bill. - There is no enrolled bill to speak of so they went to the journal. - WE FOLLOW THE HEIRARCHY IF WE PRESUPPOSES THAT

THERE IS AN ENROLLED BILL, BUT EVEN IF THERE ARE MISTAKES, BUT THE ENROLLMENT ARE DONE REGULARY, CAN THE COURT INTERVENE? NO. REMEDY → AMENDMENT.

- SESSIONS: How many sessions the Congress have? 3. Starts in

July and 30 days before election. o SPECIAL SESSIONS: President calls it FOR WHAT

PURPOSE? Held when the Congress is otherwise adjourned. Usually after the end of elections and by the end of their terms TO PASS PRIORITY MEASURES, TO PASS THE BUDGET before the end of the year. PROBLEM: QUORUM. Often, they will not attend.

o JOINT SESSION: two cases: (1) when Congress convenes for the canvassing of the Presidential election and o proclaim the next Pres. and VC, (2) declaration of state of war (defensive, not of aggression).

- SALARIES AND BENEFITS o Constitution can provide by the salary but can be

increased by the members of the Congress. o What is the MECHANISM? How does that work?

Congress can increase the salary but the increase will be made effective upon the finishing of ALL the term of the Congress.

o To avoid pursuance of vested interest. - EXEMPTION FROM ARREST: OBJECTIVE: So the people will

not be deprived from representation. PARAMETERS: If the sentence of the crime does not exceed by 6 years.

PEOPLE VS. JALOSJOS: Statutory rape: RECLUSION PERPETUA. - Does he enjoy exception? NO. - Can he attend the sessions? NO. That will violate equal

protection because everyone will have to serve their sentence. - SPEECH AND DEBATE:

o What is the protection given to them? They cannot be charged will libel. They can be delivered anywhere unless they are performing their official duties.

JIMENEZ VS. CABANGBANG: he made an open letter; Chairman of the National Defense Committee. - Shouldn’t that be considered as privileged speech? NO because

it is an OPEN LETTER and is NOT DIRECTED TO ANYONE whom someone can take action.

- One of the requirements from privilege speech is YOU ARE DOING IT PURSUANT TO A MORAL, SOCIAL DUTY. If the open letter is privileged, he should have addressed it to someone who can take action after it.

DISQUALIFICATION: 1. Holding of both offices. 2. Appearing as a counsel. 3. Exercising their profession. 4. There is no conflict of interest → disclose.

END -