78044780-Adonis-Notes-2011 - Alliance for Alternative Action THE ADONIS CASES 2011 propose amendments to the Constitution and call for the holding of a

78044780-Adonis-Notes-2011 - Alliance for Alternative...

This preview shows page 1 out of 172 pages.

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 172 pages?

Unformatted text preview: Alliance for Alternative Action THE ADONIS CASES 2011 propose amendments to the Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional convention. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES SECTION 27, ARTICLE 18, 1987 CONSTITUTION DE LEON VS. ESGUERRA (G.R. NO. 78059. AUGUST 31, 1987) MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: FACTS: In the May 17, 1982 Barangay elections, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain and the other petitioners Angel S. Salamat, et al., as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. On February 9, 1987, petitioner Alfredo M, de Leon received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 but signed by respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987 designating respondent Florentino G. Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. The designation made by the OIC Governor was "by authority of the Minister of Local Government." Also on February 8, 1987, Esguerra signed a Memorandum, antedated December 1, 1986 designating respondents Remigio M. Tigas, et al., as members of the Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality. Petitioners maintain that with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, Esguerra no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their successors. However, respondents rely on Section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution, which provided: SECTION 2. All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, if such appointment is made within a period of one year from February 25, 1986. ISSUE: Whether the designation of the respondents to replace petitioners was validly made during the one-year period which ended on February 25, 1987. HELD: NO. While February 8, 1987 is ostensibly still within the one year deadline under the Provisional Constitution, the same must be deemed to have been overtaken by Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution reading: “This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.” The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. Having become inoperative, Section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution could not be relied on by the respondent OIC Governor. The memorandum dated February 8, 1987 by the respondent OIC Governor could no longer have any legal force and effect. The act of ratification is the act of voting by the people. The canvass of the votes thereafter is merely the mathematical confirmation of what was done during the date of the plebiscite, and the proclamation of the President is merely the official confirmatory declaration of an act which was actually done by the Filipino people in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of the plebiscite. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES SECTIONS 1 & 2 ARTICLE 17, 1987 CONSTITUTION GONZALES VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (GR. NO L-28196, NOVEMBER 9, 1967) CONCEPCION, C.J.: FACTS: The Congress passed 3 resolutions simultaneously. The first, proposing amendments to the Constitution so as to increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180. The second, calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district, to be elected in the general elections. And the third, proposing that the same Constitution be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress. Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, became Republic Act No. 4913 providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned resolutions be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections. The petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said law contending that the Congress cannot simultaneously San Beda College of Law Based on ATTY. ADONIS V. GABRIEL lectures ISSUES: (1) Is Republic Act No. 4913 constitutional? (2) WON Congress can simultaneously propose amendments to the Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional convention? HELD: YES as to both issues. The constituent power or the power to amend or revise the Constitution, is different from the law-making power of Congress. Congress can directly propose amendments to the Constitution and at the same time call for a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments. Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is part of the inherent powers of the people — as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours— to make, and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the same explicitly grants such power. Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and Members of the House of Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as component elements of a constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they are the very source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself . Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority from the Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say on whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. Otherwise, they could brush aside and set the same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and to the rigid nature of our Constitution. Such rigidity is stressed by the fact that, the Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court, the power to declare a treaty unconstitutional, despite the eminently political character of treaty-making power. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES IMBONG VS. COMELEC 35 SCRA 28 (1970) FACTS: Petitioners Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, both interested in running as candidates in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, filed separate petitions for declaratory relief, impugning the constitutionality of RA 6132, claiming that it prejudices their rights as candidates. Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No.2 which called for the Constitutional Convention to propose Constitutional amendments. After its adoption, Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A. 4914 implementing said resolution, restating entirely the provisions of said resolution. Thereafter, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4 amending the Resolution No. 2 by providing that “xxx any other details relating to the specific apportionment of delegates, election of delegates to, and the holding of the Constitutional Convention shall be embodied in an implementing legislation xxx” Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A. 6132, implementing Resolution Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly repealing R.A. 4914. ISSUE: May Congress in acting as a legislative body enact R.A.6132 to implement the resolution passed by it in its capacity as a Constituent Assembly? HELD: YES. The Court declared that while the authority to call a Constitutional Convention is vested by the Constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting as a constitutional assembly, the power to enact the implementing details or specifics of the general law does not exclusively pertain to Congress, the Congress in exercising its comprehensive legislative power (not as a Constitutional Assembly) may pass the necessary implementing law providing for the details of the Constitutional Conventions, such as the number, qualification, and compensation of its member. The reasons cited by the Court in upholding the constitutionality of the enactment of R.A. 6132 are as follows: 1. Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Article XV of the Constitution, has authority to propose constitutional amendments or call a convention for the purpose by ¾ votes of each house in joint session assembled but voting separately. 2. Such grant includes all other powers essential to the effective exercise of the principal power by necessary implication. 3. Implementing details are within the authority of the Congress not only as a Constituent Assembly but also in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power which encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary implication withdrawn or removed by the Constitution from 1 Alliance for Alternative Action THE ADONIS CASES 2011 the ambit of legislative action so long as it does not contravene any provision of the Constitution; and 4. Congress as a legislative body may thus enact necessary implementing legislation to fill in the gaps which Congress as a Constituent Assembly has omitted. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES ARTICLE XVII, SECTION 15, 1973 CONSTITUTION OCCENA VS. COMELEC G.R. NO. L-56350, APRIL 2, 1981 FERNANDO, C.J.: FACTS: The challenge in these two prohibition proceedings is against the validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing constitutional amendments. Petitioners urged that the amendments proposed are so extensive in character that they go far beyond the limits of the authority conferred on the Interim Batasang Pambansa as successor of the Interim National Assembly. For them, what was done was to revise and not to amend. Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales, both members of the Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that framed the present Constitution, are suing as taxpayers. The rather unorthodox aspect of these petitions is the assertion that the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law. The suits for prohibition were filed respectively on March 6 and March 12, 1981. ISSUES: Whether or not the 1973 Constitution is already in effect. Whether or not the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose amendments. Whether or not the three resolutions are valid. HELD: 1.Yes. it is much too late in the day to deny the force and applicability of the 1973 Constitution. In the dispositive portion of Javellana v. The Executive Secretary, dismissing petitions for prohibition and mandamus to declare invalid its ratification, this Court stated that it did so by a vote of six to four. It then concluded: "This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect." With such a pronouncement by the Supreme Court and with the recognition of the cardinal postulate that what the Supreme Court says is not only entitled to respect but must also be obeyed, a factor for instability was removed. The Supreme Court can check as well as legitimate. In declaring what the law is, it may not only nullify the acts of coordinate branches but may also sustain their validity. In the latter case, there is an affirmation that what was done cannot be stigmatized as constitutionally deficient. The mere dismissal of a suit of this character suffices. That is the meaning of the concluding statement in Javellana. Since then, this Court has invariably applied the present Constitution. The latest case in point is People v. Sola, promulgated barely two weeks ago. During the first year alone of the effectivity of the present Constitution, at least ten cases may be cited. 2. Yes.The existence of the power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa is indubitable. The applicable provision in the 1976 Amendments is quite explicit. Insofar as pertinent it reads thus: "The Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the same powers and its Members shall have the same functions, responsibilities, rights, privileges, and disqualifications as the interim National Assembly and the regular National Assembly and the Members thereof." One of such powers is precisely that of proposing amendments. Article XVII, Section 15 of the 1973 Constitution in its Transitory Provisions vested the Interim National Assembly with the power to propose amendments upon special call by the Prime Minister by a vote of the majority of its members to be ratified in accordance with the Article on Amendments. When, therefore, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, upon the call of the President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E. Marcos, met as a constituent body it acted by virtue Of such impotence Its authority to do so is clearly beyond doubt. It could and did propose the amendments embodied in the resolutions now being assailed. 3. Yes.The question of whether the proposed resolutions constitute amendments or revision is of no relevance. It suffices to quote from the opinion of Justice Makasiar, speaking for the Court, in Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections to dispose of this contention. Whether the Constitutional Convention will only propose amendments to the Constitution or entirely overhaul the present Constitution and propose an entirely new Constitution based on an Ideology foreign to the democratic system, is of no moment; because the same will be submitted to the people for ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people, there can be no debate about the validity of the new Constitution. The fact that the present Constitution may be revised and replaced with a new one ... is no argument against the validity of the law because 'amendment' includes the 'revision' or total overhaul of the entire Constitution. At any rate, whether the Constitution is merely amended in part or revised or totally changed would become immaterial the moment the same is ratified by the sovereign people." WHEREFORE, the petitions are dismissed for lack of merit. San Beda College of Law Based on ATTY. ADONIS V. GABRIEL lectures THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES SECTIONS 1 & 2 ARTICLE 17, 1987 CONSTITUTION TOLENTINO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (GR. NO. L-34150, OCTOBER 16, 1971) BARREDO, J.: FACTS: A Constitutional Convention was called upon to propose amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines, in which, the delegates to the said Convention were all elected under and by virtue of resolutions and the implementing legislation thereof, Republic Act 6132. The Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1, amending section one of article 5 of the Constitution of the Philippines so as to lower the voting age to 18. Said resolution also provided in its Section 3 that the partial amendment, which refers only to the age qualification for the exercise of suffrage shall be without prejudice to other amendments that will be proposed in the future by the 1971 Constitutional Convention on other portions of the amended Section or on other portions of the entire Constitution. The main thrust of the petition is that Organic Resolution No. 1 and the other implementing resolutions thereof subsequently approved by the Convention have no force and effect as laws in so far as they are in contravention to Section 1 Article XV of the Constitution. Under the said provision, the proposed amendment in question cannot be presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all of the other amendments to be drafted and proposed by the Convention. ISSUE: Is the Resolution approved by the 1971 Constitutional Convention constitutional? HELD: NO. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention, insofar as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite, as well as the resolution of the respondent Comelec complying therewith are null and void. The Court is of the opinion that in providing for the questioned plebiscite before it has finished, and separately from, the whole draft of the constitution it has been called to formulate, the Convention's Organic Resolution No. 1 and all subsequent acts of the Convention implementing the same violate the condition in Section 1, Article XV that there should only be one "election" or plebiscite for the ratification of all the amendments the Convention may propose. We are not denying any right of the people to vote on the proposed amendment; We are only holding that under Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, the same should be submitted to them not separately from but together with all the other amendments to be proposed by this present Convention. Prescinding already from the fact that under Section 3 of the questioned resolution, it is evident that no fixed frame of reference is provided the voter, as to what finally will be concomitant qualifications that will be required by the final draft of the constitution to be formulated by the Convention of a voter to be able to enjoy the right of suffrage, there are other considerations which make it impossible to vote intelligently on the proposed amendment. No one knows what changes in the fundamental principles of the constitution the Convention will be minded to approve. To be more specific, we do not have any means of foreseeing whether the right to vote would be of any significant value at all. Who can say whether or not later on the Convention may decide to provide for varying types of voters for each level of the political units it may divide the country into. The root of the difficulty in other words, lies in that the Convention is precisely on the verge of introducing substantial changes, if not radical ones, in almost every part and aspect of the existing social and political order enshrined in the present Constitution. How can a voter in the proposed plebiscite intelligently determine the effect of the reduction of the voting age upon the different institutions which the Convention may establish and of which presently he is not given any idea? Clearly, there is improper submission. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES SANIDAD VS. COMELEC 73 SCRA 333 (1976) FACTS: President Marcos issued P.D. 991 calling for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies (“Barangay”) to resolve, among other things, the issues of martial law, the interim assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for the exercise by the President of his present powers. Thereafter, P.D.1031 was issued, amending P.D. 991 by declaring the provisions of P.D. 229 applicable as to the manner of voting and canvassing of votes in barangays for the national referendumplebiscite of October 16, 1976. P.D. 1033 was also issued, declaring therein that the question of the continuance of martial law will be submitted for referendum at the same time as the submission of his (President) proposed amendments to the Constitution through a plebiscite on October 16, 1976. Petitioner Sanidad filed suit for Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction, seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting said Referendum-Plebiscite on the basis that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitution, there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the 2 Alliance for Alternative Action THE ADONIS CASES 2011 constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution, hence, the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no legal basis. Petitioner Guzman filed another action asserting that the power to propose amendments to or revision of the Constitution during the transition period is expressly conferred to the interim National Assembly u...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture