CASE

ASSIGNMENTS - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

1. THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

a. CONSTITUTION DEFINED

b. SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION
Angara vs. Electoral Commission, GR L-45081, July 15, 1936

c. INTERPRETATION/CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION
Francisco vs. House of Representatives, GR 160261, Nov. 10,
2003
Verbal egis
Ratio legis et anima
Ut magis valeat quam pereat

Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, GR 83896, Feb.
22, 1991

d. SELF-EXECUTING and NON-SELF-EXECUTING provisions of the
Constitution
Are provisions of the Constitution self-executory? Or is there
a need for legislation to implement these provisions?
Oposa vs. Factoran, GR 101083, July 30, 1993
Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, GR 122156, Feb. 3, 1997
Taada vs. Angara, GR 118295, May 2, 1997
BFAR Employees vs. COA, GR 169815, Aug. 13, 2008
LATEST RULING:
o Imbong vs. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014
(note: case involves various issues, but focus
only on issue about right to health)
o Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013
(note: case involves various issues, but focus
only on issue about political dynasties)

e. AMENDMENT VS. REVISION
Steps in the amendatory process:
Proposal
o Congress
o Constitutional Convention
o People thru Initiative
Ratification
o Doctrine of Proper Submission

Amending the Constitution thru Initiative under R.A. 6735 -
Defensor-Santiago vs. Comelec, GR 127325, March 19, 1997

Amendment vs. Revisions

Quantitative Test
Qualitative Test
Lambino vs. Comelec, GR 174153, Oct. 25, 2006

Judicial Review of Amendments - Sanidad vs. Comelec, GR L-
44640, Oct. 12, 1976

f. POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Article VIII, Sec. 1, par. 2

Judicial Review - Angara vs. Electoral Commission, GR L-
45081, July 15, 1936

Requisites of Judicial Review
ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY
o When is there actual case or controversy?
- Guingona vs. CA, GR 125532
- Tanada vs. Angara, GR 118295
o When is there no actual case or controversy?
- Advisory Opinion
- Premature/Not
ripe
for
judicial
determination
PACU vs. Sec. of Education, GR L-
5279
Montesclaros vs. Comelec, GR
152295
- Moot and Academic Principle
Enrile vs. SET, GR 132986
Lacson vs. Perez, GR 147780
David vs. Arroyo, GR 171396
o Note: Courts will still decide cases otherwise
moot and academic if:
- There is a grave violation of the
Constitution;
- There is an exceptional character of the
situation and paramount public interest is
involved;
- The constitutional issues raised require
formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar and the public;
- The case is capable of repetition yet
evasive of review

 CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MUST BE RAISED BY

THE PROPER PARTY
o Direct Injury Test/Interest/Proper Party
- People vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56
- IBP vs. Zamora, GR 141284
- Senate vs. Exec. Secretary, GR 169777
- Automotive Industry Workers Alliance vs.
Romulo, GR 157509
o Summary of Rules
- The case involves constitutional issues
- FOR TAXPAYERS, there must be a claim
of illegal disbursement of public funds or
that the tax measure is unconstitutional;
- FOR VOTERS, there must be a showing of
obvious interest in the validity of the
election law in question;
- FOR CONCERNED CITIZENS, there must
be a showing that the issues raised are of
transcendental importance which must
be settled early;
- FOR LEGISLATORS, there must be a
claim that the official action complained
of infringes their prerogatives as
legislators.
- David vs. Arroyo, GR 171396
o Procedural technicality which may be set aside
by court (paramount public interest; transcend-
dental importance)
- Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110
- ITF vs. Comelec, GR 159139
o Facial Challenge
- Established rule: party can question the
validity of a statute only if, as applied to him, it is
unconstitutional
- Exception: Freedom of Expression
Overbreadth Doctrine
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, GR
148560; David vs. Arroyo, GR
171396
Void-for-Vagueness
Romualdez vs. Comelec, GR
167011; David vs. Arroyo, GR
171396

 CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MUST BE RAISED AT

THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY
o Matibag vs. Benipay, GR 149036

THE DECISION ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
MUST BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE CASE ITSELF
o Arcela vs. Judge Mangrobang, GR 152895
o David vs. Arroyo, GR 171396

Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality (two views)

Orthodox view Article 7 of the Civil Code
Modern View DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT
o Araullo vs. Aquino, GR 209287, July 1, 2014
(note: case involves various issues, but focus
only on issue about operative fact doctrine on
the latter part of the case)

Requisites of Partial Unconstitutionality:
Legislature must be willing to retain the valid
portion(s), usually shown by the presence of a
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE in the law; and
The valid portion can stand independently as law