I.

Political Law branch of public law: a. Organization and operations of govtl organs AND b. Relations of the State with inhabitants

Scope: 1. Consti Law maintenance of the proper balance between powers of the State and liberty 2. Admin Law organization of govt, competence of admin authorities, individual remedies for violation of rights 3. LocGov 4. Law of PubOff 5. Election Law II. Phil Constitution a. Nature written instrument / enacted by direct action of the people / by which the fundamental powers of govt are established, limited, defined and distributed among several depts / for the benefit of the body politic b. Purposes 1. To prescribe permanent framework of system of govt 2. To assign respective powers and duties to several depts. 3. To establish first principles on which govt is founded c. Classification 1. Written or unwritten Written embodied in one document or set of documents Unwritten scattered in various sources 2. Enacted (conventional) or evolved (cumulative) Enacted formally struck off at a definite time and place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler Cumulative result of political evolution; changing by accretion 3. Rigid or flexible Rigid can be amended only by a formal and difficult process

Flexible can be changed by ordinary legislation d. Qualities of a good written Consti 1. Broad comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency 2. Brief confined to basic principles 3. Definite e. Essential parts of a good written Consti 1. Liberty fundamental civil and political rights as limitations on govt powers 2. Government 3. Sovereignty mode or procedure to effect formal changes in the fundamental law f. Interpretation/Construction of the Consti 1. Verba legis ordinary meaning, exc for technical terms 2. Ratio legis est anima intent of the framers, history of the times, conditions and circumstances under which Consti was framed 3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat to be interpreted as a whole 4. Resort to interpretation only when plain meaning of the word is not clear 5. In case of doubt - Self-executing rather than not - Mandatory rather than directory - Prospective rather than retroactive 6. Self-executing provisions - Complete in itself - Supplies a sufficient rule for the enjoyment or protection of a right - Fixes nature and extent of right and liability imposed

Political Law. Alegre2013

g. Brief Consti history 1. Malolos Constitution - Calderon proposal - First republican constitution in Asia - Promulgated Jan 21, 1899 - Framed by revolutionary convention 2. American Regime & Organic Acts a) Treaty of Paris cession of Phil Islands by Spain to US

b) Mckinleys Instructions (April 7, 1900) military to civil government; establishment of Phil Commission c) Spooner Amendment to the Army Appropriation Bill (March 2, 1901) creation of the Office of the Civil Governor; transfer to executive authority from military governor to civil governor d) Phil. Bill (July 1, 1902) Phil Commission (Upper House) and Phil Assembly (Lower House) e) Jones Law/Phil Autonomy Act (Aug 29, 1916) principal organic act until 1935 Consti; 3 branches of govt f) Tydings-McDuffie Act/Phil Independence Act (March 24, 1934) drafting of Consti to establish Commonwealth Govt 3. The 1935 Constitution - By Constitutional Convention - Ratified in a plebiscite - Amended in 1939, 1940, and 1947 4. The Japanese (Belligerent) Occupation - Second Phil Republic 5. The 1973 Constitution - By constitutional convention (RA 6132) Imbong v COMELEC SC upheld validity of RA 6132; RA 6132 was only an exercise of legislative power and does not need vote of all members of Congress, voting separately; Congress already exercised constituent power in adopting Reso of Both Houses 2 and 4 Tolentino v COMELEC ConCon may not submit piecemeal amendments which would deprive the people of a proper frame of reference Planas v COMELEC and other plebiscite cases case to prohibit conduct of plebiscite already moot and academic because of Proc 1102 declaring that the 1973 Consti has been ratified and has come into force and effect Javellana v Exec Sec upheld validity of the ratification of the 1973 Consti by acquiescence of the people

Sanidad v COMELEC upheld the authority of President Marcos to propose amendments to the Consti with the Interim National Assembly not convened Phil Bar Association v COMELEC petition to prohibit holding of snap election dismissed Lawyers League for a Better Phils v Aquino the Cory Aquino govt was not only a de facto but a de jure govt 6. The 1987 Constitution a. Proclamation of the Freedom Constitution b. Adoption - By Constitutional Commission - Effectivity: Feb 2, 1987, date of plebiscite (De Leon v Esguerra) 7. Amendment a. Amendment v revision (Lambino v COMELEC) Revision alters a basic principle in the Consti OR alters its substantial entirety Amendment - change that adds, reduces, deletes, w/o altering basic principle Two-part TEST: Quantitative Test examines number of provisions affected (how extensive is the proposed change) Qualitative Test-qualitative effects of the proposed change b. Constituent v Legislative Power (Imbong v COMELEC, supra) c. d. Steps in the amendatory process i. Proposal by: 1. CONGRESS of all members (voting separately) 2. CONCON called into existence by 2/3 of all members of Congress OR majority vote of all members of Congress with plebiscite 3. PEOPLES INITIATIVE petition of at least 12% of total number of registered voters, every legislative district to be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.

Political Law. Alegre2013

 Lambino v COMELEC RA 6735 is sufficient and adequate for a peoples initiative Limitation: once every 5 yrs only; applies only to amendments, not revisions Requirements: i. people must author and sign ii. the proposal must be embodied in the petition ii. Ratification 1. Majority of votes cast in a plebiscite 2. Plebiscite within 60-90 days from approval of Congress/ConCon or from certification of sufficiency by COMELEC 3. Plebiscite may be held on regular elections 4. Only one plebiscite (Tolentino) 5. DOCTRINE OF PROPER SUBMISSION there can no longer be a question on whether the time given to the people to determine the merits of the proposed amendment is adequate, because the Constitution itself prescribes the time frame within which plebiscite is to be held III. The Power of Judicial Review a. Defn: duty of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in light of their conformity with the Constitution (ArtVIII,S1&4(2)) b. Who may exercise power: even lower courts (Ynot v IAC, Mirasol v CA), but exercise should be with grave care and considerable caution and SolGen should be notified (R64, S3) c. Functions: i. checking ii. legitimating iii. symbolic

d. Requisites i. actual case or controversy conflict of legal rights; assertion of opposite claims John Hay v Lim controversy must be definite and concrete Davis v Federal Election Commission actual controversy must be extant at all stages of the review PACU v Sec of Educ request for advisory opinion not an actual case; declaratory relief is ripe for adjudication Province of Batangas v Romulo issue must not be moot and academic, one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events David v Macapagal-Arroyo exceptions to the moot and academic principle: a. Grave violation of the Consti b. Paramount public interest is involved c. Issue requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public d. Capable of repetition yet evading review Montesclaros v COMELEC a proposed bill is not subject to judicial review since it creates no rights and imposes no duties ii. Locus standi/Legal Standing one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of; real party in interest in private actions; a procedural technicality which may be set aside by the Court in view of the importance of the issues involved People v Vera DIRECT INJURY TEST personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result IBP v Zamora interest means material interest (interest affected by the challenged official act) David v Macapagal-Arroyo Requirements for standing: 1. Case involves constitutional issues 2. Taxpayers illegal disbursement of public funds or tax measure is unconstitutional

Political Law. Alegre2013

3. Voters showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question 4. Concerned citizens issue is of transcendental importance and must be settled early 5. Legislators - official action complained of infringes their prerogatives as legislators Information Technology Foundation v COMELEC taxpayers allowed to sue 1. Claim of illegal disbursement of public funds 2. Public money is being deflected to any improper purpose 3. Seeking to restrain the wasting of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law Cruz v DENR, J. Mendozas concurring opinion FACIAL CHALLENGE using the Overbreadth Doctrine allowed only in the area of freedom of expression; party can challenge validity of statute even though it is not unconstitutional as applied to him, but it might be if applied to others not before the court; permitted in the interest of preventing a chilling effect on freedom of expression Romualdez v COMELEC, citing David v Arroyo VOID FOR VAGUENESS a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application; subject to same principles governing Overbreadth Doctrine iii. Raised at the earliest possible opportunity Matibag v Benipayo earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same Estarija v Ranada petitioner raised the issue at the earliest opportunity because the Office of the Ombudsman is without jurisdiction to entertain questions of the constitutionality of a law iv. Lis mota decision on constitutional question must be determinative of the case; based on the doctrine of separation of powers IV. Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality

a. Orthodox view an unconstitutional act is not a law; inoperative as if it had not been passed at all b. Modern view certain legal effects of the statute prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be recognized V. Partial Unconstitutionality separability clause

Political Law. Alegre2013