AMENDMENT AND REVISION; PEOPLES INITIATIVE The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiative upon

a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is petition by the people. This means two essential elements must be present. 1. The people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. 2. As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. As to the proper scope of a people initiative, the court said it could only propose amendments and not to extend revisions. Only congress or a constitutional convention can propose both amendments and revisions to the constitution. A change in the form of government from presidential and bicameral congress to parliamentary and unicameral legislature constitutes revisions and not amendment. Revisions broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-andbalances or where the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended. A change in the structure of government is a revision of the constitution, as when the three co-equal branch of the government in the present constitution are reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in the constitution. A shift from the present bicameralpresidential system to a unicameral-parliamentary system is revision of the constitution. Merging the legislative and executive branches is a radical change in the structure of the government. The abolition alone of the office of the president as the locus of executive power alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes a revision of the constitution. Likewise, the abolition of one chamber of congress alters the system of checks-and-balances within the legislature. NATIONAL TERRITORY

The Philippines is an archipelagic state. Magallona vs. Ermita; - RA 9522 is a statutory tool demarcating the countrys maritime zones and continental shelf under UNCLOS III, not one delineating Philippine territory. - The court explained that baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf baseline laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. - UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional international law typology, States acquire or lose territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription, not by executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves. - In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters subject to the treatys limitations and conditions for their exercise. STATE IMMUNITY While immunity of the state from suits is the general rule, there are certain recognized exceptions such as when the government itself initiates the case. The court held that when the government itself is the suitor, immunity from suit cannot be effectively invoked. The court held that a government agency, such as the DECS can be sued without its permission as a result of its being privy to the deed of donation over a disputed property. Thus, when it voluntarily gave its consent to the donation, any dispute that may arise from it would necessarily bring petitioner DECS down to the level of an ordinary citizen of the state vulnerable to a suit by an

interested or affected person. (Department education, division of albay vs onate)

of

As for the execution aspect, the court held: it is basic that government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments. (Hidalgo vs Republic) Like NEA, UP is a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued. Thus, also like NEA, it cannot evade execution, and its funds may be subject to garnishment or levy. However, before execution may be had, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA. It is the COA which has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing the government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, including GOCCs and their subsidiaries. (Lockheed vs UP) The court said in essence that execution could not ensue simply because there was a judgment. UP holds the money has a trust fund. Moreover, COA has to have its say first before money could be released to satisfy the judgment. Despite its establishment as a body corporate, the UP remains to be a chartered institution performing a legitimate government function. All the funds going into the possession of the UP, including any interest accruing from the deposit of such finds in any banking institution constitute a special trust fund, the disbursement of which should always be aligned with the UPs mission and purpose and should always be subject to auditing by the COA. UPs trust fund may only be utilized only for the specific purpose for which the trust was created or the funds received. (UP vs Dizon) The suability of a government official depends on whether the official concerned was acting within his official or jurisdictional capacity and whether the acts done in the performance of official functions will result in a charge or financial liability against the government. The defense of state immunity from suit does not apply in causes of action which do not seek to impose a charge or financial liability against the state. While the doctrine of state immunity appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent,

it is applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The suit is regarded as one against the state where satisfaction of the judgment against the officials will require the state itself to perform a positive act such as the appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the damages awarded against them. SEPARATION OF POWERS; EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE Under the doctrine of separation of powers, executive privilege may be invoked which would have the effect of exempting the executive from disclosure requirements applicable to the ordinary citizen or organization where such exemption is necessary to the discharge of highly important executive responsibilities involved in maintaining governmental operations, and extends not only to military or diplomatic secrets but also to documents integral to an appropriate exercise of the executive domestic decisional and policy making functions, that is, those documents reflecting the frank expression necessary in intra-governmental advisory and deliberative communications. However, the mere fact tat a type of information is recognized as privileged does not, however, necessarily mean that it would be considered privileged in all instances. Such declaration leaves the congress in the dark on how the requested information could be classified as privileged. Under the constitutional power of control, the president can direct all government entities, in the exercise of their functions under existing laws to adopt a uniform ID collection and ID format to achieve savings, efficiency, reliability, compatability and convenience. It was also held that court sheriffs cannot enforce a barangay conciliation amicable settlement agreement. If they participate in that regard they may be administratively liable. Both the barangay chairman and the lupon are components of the local government unit which in turn is subsumed under the executive branch of government. As the intended execution of the settlement in this instance was inherently executive in nature and therefore, extrajudicial, it necessarily follows that judicial officers cannot participate in the exercise. (solway vs pascasio)

In our system of government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex reassignment. The need for legislative guidelines becomes particularly important in this case where the claims asserted are statute based (from male to female reassignment). To reiterate, the statutes define who may file petitions for change of first name and for correction or change of entries in the civil registry, where they may be filed, what grounds may be invoked, what proof must be presented and what procedures shall be observed. If the legislature intends to confer on a person who has undergone sex reassignment the privilege to change his name and sex to conform with his reassigned sex, it has to enact legislation laying down the guidelines in turn governing the conferment of that privilege. And on that score, [i]t might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a person may be recognized as having successfully changed his sex. However, this Court has no authority to fashion a law on that matter, or on anything else. The Court cannot enact a law where no law exists. It can only apply or interpret the written word of its co-equal branch of government, Congress. The legislative policy as embodied in Republic Act No. 9165 in deterring dangerous drug use by resort to sustainable programs of rehabilitation and treatment must be considered in light of this Courts constitutional power of administrative supervision over courts and court personnel. The legislative power imposing policies through laws is not unlimited and is subject to the substantive and constitutional limitations that set parameters both in the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of legislation. As such, it cannot limit the Courts power to impose disciplinary actions against erring justices, judges and court personnel. Neither should such policy be used to restrict the Courts power to preserve and maintain the Judiciarys honor, dignity and integrity and public confidence that can only be achieved by imposing strict and rigid standards of decency and propriety governing the conduct of justices, judges and court employees. (OCA vs Reyes) From the constitutional perspective, a necessary starting vantage point in this consideration is the principle of separation of powers through the recognition of the independence of each branch of

government and through the protection of privileged and confidential documents and processes, as recognized by law, by the rules and by Court policies. The Court further explained that [t]he doctrine [of separation of powers] inures not by express provision of the Constitution, but as an underlying principle that constitutes the bedrock of our system of checks and balances in government whereby [e]ach branch is considered separate, co-equal, coordinate and supreme within its own sphere, under the legal and political reality of one overarching Constitution that governs one government and one nation for whose benefit all the three separate branches must act with unity. Necessarily under this legal and political reality, the mandate for each branch is to ensure that its assigned constitutional duties are duly performed, all for the one nation that the three branches are sworn to serve, obey and protect, among others, by keeping the government stable and running. The Court's mandate, in so far as these constitutional principles are concerned, is to keep the different branches within the exercise of their respective assigned powers and prerogatives through the Rule of Law. In the judiciary, privileges against disclosure of official records create a hierarchy of rights that protect certain confidential relationships over and above the publics evidentiary need or right to every mans evidence. Accordingly, certain information contained in the records of cases before the supreme court are considered confidential and are exempt from disclosure. DELEGATION OF POWERS This is based on the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. Department secretaries cannot delegate their duties as members of the NPB, much less their power to vote and approve board resolutions because it is their personal judgment that must be exercised in the fulfillment of such responsibility. (NPC DAMA vs NAPOCOR) May the legislative body of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao create new provinces? No, it is beyond the authority of ARMM to create provinces and

cities. The Court declared that Section 19, Article VI of R.A. No. 9054 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces and cities, and MMA Act 201 creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan is void. (During the May 2007 elections, the COMELEC provided for the legislative district of Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City. In this petition, Sema contends that Shariff Kabunsuan is entitled to its own representative in Congress.) Provinces and Cities May Only Be Created by Congress. The creation of any of the four local government units province, city, municipality or barangay must comply with three conditions. First, the creation of a local government unit must follow the criteria fixed in the Local Government Code. Second, such creation must not conflict with any provision of the Constitution. Third, there must be a plebiscite in the political units affected. There is neither an express prohibition nor an express grant of authority in the Constitution for Congress to delegate to regional or local legislative bodies the power to create local government units. And, while under its plenary legislative powers, Congress can delegate to local legislative bodies the power to create local government units, subject to reasonable standards and provided no conflict arises with any provision of the Constitution, and while there is no provision in the Constitution that conflicts with the delegation to regional legislative bodies of the power to create municipalities and barangays, provided Section 10, Article X of the Constitution is followed, the creation of provinces and cities is another matter. The reason primarily is the fact that the creation of provinces and cities entails the creation of legislative districts the power to create a province or city inherently involves the power to create a legislative district. The power to create a province, or a city with a population of 250,000 or more, requires also the power to create a legislative district. Even the creation of a city with a population of less than 250,000 involves the power to create a legislative district because once the citys population reaches 250,000, the city automatically becomes entitled to one representative. For Congress to delegate validly the power to create a province or city, it must also delegate at the same time the power to create a legislative district, a power Congress cannot validly delegate.

STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now embodied in Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of international law, which we have now adopted as part of the law of the land. On the doctrines of transformation and incorporation, the Court had this to say: Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation while Art. II, 2 provides for incorporation of the generally accepted principles of international law which refers to norms of general or customary international law which are binding on all states, i.e., renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity, a persons right to life, liberty and due process, and pacta sunt servanda, among others. Clearly, customary international law is deemed incorporated into our domestic system. (DOH vs Pharmahealth) One of the ways by which access to public office could be democratized is by publishing the presence of vacant positions. What happens if that publication is made before actual vacancy? The resulting appointments are rendered void. It is State policy that opportunities for government employment shall be open to all qualified citizens and employees shall be selected on the basis of fitness to perform the duties and assume the responsibilities of the positions. It was precisely in order to ensure transparency and equal opportunity in the recruitment and hiring of government personnel that Republic Act No. 7041 was enacted. The CSC is required to publish the lists of vacant positions and such publication shall be posted by the chief personnel or administrative officer of all local government units in the designated places. The vacant positions may only be filled by the appointing authority after they have been reported to the CSC as vacant and only after publication.

Here, the publication of vacancies was made even before the positions involved actually became vacant. Accordingly, the appointments violated Section 2 of R.A. No. 7041, and are therefore invalid. LEGISLATURE Congress main task is enacting laws. Inquiries in aid of legislation vs Question hour That while attendance of a member of the congress was meant to be discretionary in the question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation. (senate vs ermita) The 1987 constitution recognizes the power of investigation not just of congress but also of any of its committees. The right to be assisted by a counsel can only be invoked by a person under custodial investigation suspected for the commission of a crime and therefore attaches only during such custodial investigation. Since petitioners were invited to the public hearings as resource persons conducted by the congress, they cannot validly invoke their right to counsel. (sabio vs gordon) The creation of a new or additional legislative district, such as in legislative apportionment or reapportionment does not have to go through a plebiscite. The concern of Sec. 10 of Art. X of the constitution requiring a plebiscite is the commencement, termination or modification of local government units corporate existence and territorial coverage. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction dictates that prior recourse to the House is necessary before a party may bring his or her petition to court. the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or an administrative complaint. Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative inquiry is an essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an administrative investigation.

[o]n-going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of legislation, and further held that [w]hile Sabio and Standard Chartered Bank advert only to pending criminal and administrative cases before lower courts as not posing a bar to the continuation of a legislative inquiry, there is no rhyme or reason that these cases doctrinal pronouncement and their rationale cannot be extended to appealed cases and special civil actions awaiting final disposition before this Court. Only the constitution may deprive the legislative in crafting laws. Only the Constitution may operate to preclude or place restrictions on the amendment or repeal of laws. Constitutional dictum is of higher order than legislative statutes, and the latter should always yield to the former in cases of irreconcilable conflict. Irrepealable laws deprive succeeding legislatures of the fundamental best senses carte blanche in crafting laws appropriate to the operative milieu. The same rationale for prohibiting irrepealable laws applies as well to provisions imposing restraints on future amendatory laws. A law which requires a supermajority, such as 2/3 vote in order for it to be amended or repealed constitutes an irrepealable law and therefore could not be given recognition. Making reference to the second sentence of Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution,1 the Court concluded: The provision draws a plain and clear distinction between the entitlement of a city to a district on one hand, and the entitlement of a province to a district on the other. For while a province is entitled to at least a representative, with nothing mentioned about population, a city must first meet a population minimum of 250,000 in order to be similarly entitled. The use by the subject provision of a comma to separate the phrase each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand from the phrase or each province point to no other conclusion than that the 250,000 minimum population is only required for a city, but not for a province. Plainly read, Section 5(3) of the Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population only for a city to be entitled to a representative but not so for a province.
1

Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.

The Court stated that: (a) certifications on demographic projections can be issued only if such projections are declared official by the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB); (b) certifications based on demographic projections can be issued only by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer: (c) intercensal population projections must be as of the middle of every year. In short, any population projection forming the basis for the creation of a legislative district must be based on an official and credible source.

In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No., the following procedure shall be observed: 1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on

the number of votes they garnered during the elections.

2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each. 3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated. 4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.