POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests

Part III (The 1987 Constitution) Page 1 of 5

III. The 1987 Constitution

ERNESTO FRANCISCO, JR. VS. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261 November 10, 2003 Ccarpio Morales, j.: Facts: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). Then on June 2, 2003, former President Joseph Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices. The complaint was endorsed and was referred to the House Committee in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first impeachment complaint was "sufficient in form, but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance. On October 23, 2003, a second impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution. This second impeachment complaint was accompanied by a "Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of Representatives. Issues: 1. Can the Court make a determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense? 2. Whether or not Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment adopted by the 12th Congress are unconstitutional. 3. Whether or not the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution. Held: 1. No. Such a determination is a purely political question which the Constitution has left to the sound discretion of the legislation. Although Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution enumerates six grounds for impeachment, two of these, namely, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust, elude a precise definition. 2. Yes. The provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI as they give the term "initiate" a meaning different from "filing." 3. Yes. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same official within a one year period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. In fine, considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed on June 2, 2003 and the second impeachment complaint filed was on October 23, 2003, it violates the constitutional prohibition against the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same impeachable officer within a one-year period. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (CHREA) VS. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS GR 155336, 25 November 2004 Chico-Nazario J: Facts: On 14 February 1998, Congress passed Republic Act 8522, otherwise known as the General Appropriations Act of 1998. It provided for Special Provisions Applicable to All Constitutional Offices Enjoying Fiscal Autonomy. The last portion of Article XXXIII covers the appropriations of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). These special provisions tackles Organizational Structure and the Use of Savings. On the strength of these special provisions, the CHR, through its then Chairperson Aurora P. Navarette-Recia and Commissioners Nasser A. Marohomsalic, Mercedes V. Contreras, Vicente P. Sibulo, and Jorge R. Coquia, promulgated Resolution A98-047 n 04 September 1998, adopting an upgrading and reclassification scheme among selected positions in the Commission. Annexed to said resolution is the proposed creation of ten additional plantilla positions, namely: one Director IV position,

*antonio|arrellano|calvan|cayaban|federio|quinto|quintos|salendab|santos|sta.ana|tecson|valencia|villanueva|zulueta*

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests

Part III (The 1987 Constitution) Page 2 of 5

with Salary Grade 28 for the Caraga Regional Office, four Security Officer II with Salary Grade 15, and five Process Servers, with Salary Grade 5 under the Office of the Commissioners. On 19 October 1998, CHR issued Resolution No. A98-055 providing for the upgrading or raising of salary grades of certain positions in the Commission. It, likewise, provided for the creation and upgrading of other positions. To support the implementation of such scheme, the CHR, in the same resolution, authorized the augmentation of a commensurate amount generated from savings under Personnel Services. By virtue of Resolution A98-062 dated 17 November 1998, the CHR collapsed the vacant positions in the body to provide additional source of funding for said staffing modification. Among the positions collapsed were: one Attorney III, four Attorney IV, one Chemist III, three Special Investigator I, one Clerk III, and one Accounting Clerk II. The CHR forwarded said staffing modification and upgrading scheme to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) with a request for its approval, but the then DBM secretary Benjamin Diokno denied the request. In light of the DBMs disapproval of the proposed personnel modification scheme, the Civil Service Commission (CSC)-National Capital Region Office, through a memorandum dated 29 March 1999, recommended to the CSC-Central Office that the subject appointments be rejected owing to the DBMs disapproval of the plantilla reclassification. Meanwhile, the officers of the Commission on Human Rights Employees Association (CHREA), in representation of the rank and file employees of the CHR, requested the CSC-Central Office to affirm the recommendation of the CSCRegional Office. CHREA stood its ground in saying that the DBM is the only agency with appropriate authority mandated by law to evaluate and approve matters of reclassification and upgrading, as well as creation of positions. The CSCCentral Office denied CHREAs request in a Resolution dated 16 December 1999, and reversed the recommendation of the CSC-Regional Office that the upgrading scheme be censured. CHREA filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CSC-Central Office denied the same on 9 June 2000. Given the cacophony of judgments between the DBM and the CSC, CHREA elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the pronouncement of the CSC-Central Office and upheld the validity of the upgrading, retiling, and reclassification scheme in the CHR on the justification that such action is within the ambit of CHRs fiscal autonomy. The CHREA filed the petition for review. Issue: Whether CHREA is a proper party to bring the suit in Court. Held: It has been held in a multitude of cases that a proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. Here, CHREA, which consists of rank and file employees of CHR, protests that the upgrading and collapsing of positions benefited only a select few in the upper level positions in the Commission resulting to the demoralization of the rank and file employees. This sufficiently meets the injury test. Indeed, the CHRs upgrading scheme, if found to be valid, potentially entails eating up the Commissions savings or that portion of its budgetary pie otherwise allocated for Personnel Services, from which the benefits of the employees, including those in the rank and file, are derived. Further, the personality of the CHREA to file this case was recognized by the CSC when it took cognizance of the CHREAs request to affirm the recommendation of the CSC-National Capital Region Office. CHREAs personality to bring the suit was a non-issue in the Court of Appeals when it passed upon the merits of this case. Thus, neither should our hands be tied by this technical concern. Indeed, it is settled jurisprudence that an issue that was neither raised in the complaint nor in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY G.R. No. 83896 February 22, 1991 Fernan, C.J.: Facts: The constitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 issued by then President Corazon Aquino is being challenged by petitioners on the principal submission that it adds exceptions to Section 13, Article VII other than those provided in the Constitution. According to petitioners, by virtue of the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution," the only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in Government are those provided in the Constitution. Petitioners maintain that this Executive Order which, in effect, allows members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions, albeit subject to the limitation therein imposed, runs counter to Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Issue: Whether Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional.

*antonio|arrellano|calvan|cayaban|federio|quinto|quintos|salendab|santos|sta.ana|tecson|valencia|villanueva|zulueta*

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests

Part III (The 1987 Constitution) Page 3 of 5

Held: Yes. A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention underlying the provision under consideration. The Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied . Although Section 7, Article I-XB already contains a blanket prohibition against the holding of multiple offices or employment in the government subsuming both elective and appointive public officials, the Constitutional Commission should see it fit to formulate another provision, Sec. 13, Article VII, specifically prohibiting the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants from holding any other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution itself. Evidently, from this move as well as in the different phraseologies of the constitutional provisions in question, the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition on the President and his official family in so far as holding other offices or employment in the government or elsewhere is concerned. It is a well-established rule in Constitutional construction that no one provision of the Constitution is to be separated from all the others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument. Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand together. In other words, the court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one which may make the words idle and nugatory. MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS 267 SCRA 408; G.R. No. 122156; 3 Feb 1997 Bellosillo, J: Facts: Respondent GSIS, pursuant to the privatization program under Proclamation No. 50 dated December 8, 1986, decided to sell through a public bidding 30-51% of the shares of respindent Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). The winning bidder "is to provide management expertise and/or an international marketing/reservation system, and financial suppport to strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila Hotel. Sept 18, 1995: two bidders participated in the auction; one was petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corp, who wanted to buy 51% of the shares at Php41.85 each, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, which bid for the same number of shares at Php44 each *pertinent provisions of bidding rules: - if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of shares, GSIS may offer this to other Qualified bidders - the highest bidder will only be declared the winner after 1) execution of the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC and 2)securing the requisite approvals of the GSIS/MHC, Committee on Privatization and Office of the Govt Corporate Counsel Sept 28, 1995-pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder, petitioner matched the bid price of the Malaysian firm Oct 10, 1995-petitioner sent a manager's check issued by Philtrust Bank as bid security Oct 17, 1995-petitioner, wishing to stop the alleged "hurried" sale to the foreign firm, filed the case in the SC Oct 18, 1995-Court issues TRO Petitioner: (Manila Prince Hotel) 1. invokes Art12, Sec10, Par.2, and argues that the Manila Hotel was covered by the phrase "national patrimony" and hence cannot be sold to foreigners; selling 51% would be tantamount to owning the business of a hotel which is owned by the GSIS, a GOCC, the hotel business of respondent GSIS being a part of the tourism industry which undoubtedly is part of the national economy. 2. petitioner should be preferred over its Malaysian counterpart after it has matched the bid, since the bidding rules state 'if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of shares, GSIS may offer this to other Qualified bidders, namely them

*antonio|arrellano|calvan|cayaban|federio|quinto|quintos|salendab|santos|sta.ana|tecson|valencia|villanueva|zulueta*

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests

Part III (The 1987 Constitution) Page 4 of 5

Respondents:(Govt Service Insurance System, Manila Hotel Corp, COP, OGCC) 1. Art12, Sec10, Par.2: merely a statement of policy/principle; requires enabling legislation 2. Manila Hotel does not fall under the term national patrimony; prohibition is against the State, not the GSIS as a separate entity 3. the constitutional provision is inapplicable as since what is being sold are outstanding shares, not the place itself or the land; 50% of equity is not part of national patrimony. 4. the reliance of the petitioners on the bidding rules is misplaced; the condition/reason that will deprive the highest bidder of the award of shares has not yet materialized hence the submission of a matching bid is premature 5. prohibition should fail for respondent GSIS did not exercise its discretion in a capricious manner, did not evade duty or refused to d a duty as enjoined by law. Similarly mandamus should fail since they have no clear legal right to demand anything Issue: 1. Whether or not the constitutional provision is self-executory- YES 2. Whether or not the term "national patrimony" applies to the Manila Hotel- YES 3. Whether or not the term "qualified Filipinos" applies to the MPH- YES 4. Whether or not the GSIS, being a chartered GOCC, is covered by the constitutional prohibition- YES Held: 1. Admittedly, some constis are merely declarations of policies and principles. But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative w/o the aid of enabling legislation , or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected is self-executing. Modern constis are drafted upon a different principle and have often become extensive codes of law intended to operate directly. If the consti provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law, which can be cataclysmic. In case of doubt, the Consti should be considered self-executing rather than not. Though this presumption is in place, the legislature is not precluded from enacting further laws to enforce the consti provision so long as the contemplated statute squares with the consti. Also a consti provision may be self executing on one part and not on the other/s. Respondents also rely on jurisprudence that are "simply not in point"-Basco v PAGCOR, Tolentino v Sec of Finance, Kilosbayan v Morato. A reading of the provisions involved in these cases clearly shows that they are not judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines of laws, manifested in the very terms of the provisions. Res ipsa loquitur. As opposed to Art12, Sec10, Par.2 which is a mandatory, positive command, complete in itself, needing no further guidelines, creating a right where none existing before, that right being that qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And where there is a right, there is a remedy. 2. in plain language, patrimony means heritage, referring not only to natural resouces but to the cultural heritage of Filipinos as well. Manila Hotel has become a landmark-a living testament of Philippine heritage. 3. "qualified" according to the Consti commission refers to 1)companies whose capital or controlling stock is wholly owned by citizens of the Phil, 2) the fact that the company can make viable contributions to the common good, because of credible competency and efficiency. By giving preferrence to Phil comapnies or entities it does not mean that they should be pampered; rather they should indeed "qualify" first with the requirements that the law provides before they can even be considered as having the preferential treatment of the state accorded to them.In the 1st place, MPH was selected as one of the qualified bidders, which meant that they possessed both requirements. "in the granting of economic rights, privileges and concessions, when a choice is between a "qualified foreigner " and a "qualified Filipino", the latter shall be chosen"

4.

the sale of the 51% of MHC could only be carried out with the prior approval of the State through the COP. "state action" refers to 1)when activity engaged in is a public function, 2)when govt is so significantly involved in the actor as to make the govt responsible for his action

*antonio|arrellano|calvan|cayaban|federio|quinto|quintos|salendab|santos|sta.ana|tecson|valencia|villanueva|zulueta*

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests 3)when govt has approved or authorized the action.

Part III (The 1987 Constitution) Page 5 of 5

Act of GSIS selling the shares falls under the 2nd and 3rd categories. Also, when the Consti refers to state it refers not only to the people but also to govt as elements of the state. Hence, the GSIS, being part of govt, although chartered, is still covered by the provision. MABANAG VS. VITO GR L-1123, 5 March 1947 Tuason, J: Facts: Three senators and eight representatives had been proclaimed by a majority vote of the Commission on Elections as having been elected senators and representatives in the elections held on 23 April 1946. The three senators were suspended by the Senate shortly after the opening of the first session of Congress following the elections, on account of alleged irregularities in their election. The eight representatives since their election had not been allowed to sit in the lower House, except to take part in the election of the Speaker, for the same reason, although they had not been formally suspended. A resolution for their suspension had been introduced in the House of Representatives, but that resolution had not been acted upon definitely by the House when the petition for prohibition was filed. As a consequence these three senators and eight representatives did not take part in the passage of the congressional resolution, designated "Resolution of both houses proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to be appended as an ordinance thereto," nor was their membership reckoned within the computation of the necessary three-fourths vote which is required in proposing an amendment to the Constitution. If these members of Congress had been counted, the affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have been short of the necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of Congress. The petition for prohibition sought to prevent the enforcement of said congressional resolution, as it is allegedly contrary to the Constitution. The members of the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor General, and the Director of the Bureau of Printing are made defendants. Eight senators, 17 representatives, and the presidents of the Democratic Alliance, the Popular Front and the Philippine Youth Party. Issue: Whether the Court may inquire upon the irregularities in the approval of the resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. Held: It is a doctrine too well established to need citation of authorities, that political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provision. This doctrine is predicated on the principle of the separation of powers, a principle also too well known to require elucidation or citation of authorities. The difficulty lies in determining what matters fall within the meaning of political question. The term is not susceptible of exact definition, and precedents and authorities are not always in full harmony as to the scope of the restrictions, on this ground, on the courts to meddle with the actions of the political departments of the government. If a political question conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the political departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds the judges under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that respect. If ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has to be a political question. The two steps complement each other in a scheme intended to achieve a single objective. It is to be noted that the amendatory process as provided in section I of Article XV of the Philippine Constitution "consists of (only) two distinct parts: proposal and ratification." There is no logic in attaching political character to one and withholding that character from the other. Proposal to amend the Constitution is a highly political function performed by the Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. The exercise of this power is even in dependent of any intervention by the Chief Executive. If on grounds of expediency scrupulous attention of the judiciary be needed to safeguard public interest, there is less reason for judicial inquiry into the validity of a proposal then into that of a ratification.

*antonio|arrellano|calvan|cayaban|federio|quinto|quintos|salendab|santos|sta.ana|tecson|valencia|villanueva|zulueta*