Constitutional Law

Gil Garcia
June 20, 2017

[The constitution is not a] lawyers' document, it is for the people. [Its] language [should be] understood in
a sense that they have in common. The language employed in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. Its words should be given an ordinary
meaning, (not unless there are) technical terms enjoined (provided by the legislature)

In Domino vs. COMELEC

- About the term "resident", how it is interpreted by the supreme court

In Domino, this involves Sec 6 Art 6 or the essential requirements before you can run as a member of the
House of Representatives.

Among the essential requirements is that you must be resident of the district which you want to represent
for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.

The term here is “resident thereof”.

In this case, Domino filed a COC to represent the district of the province of Sarangani and declared in the
COC that he has been residing [in a totality] for one year and two months. (...) filed a petition to deny or
cancel the COC because according to him, he has not shown that he is a resident of that totality. He has
not shown that he has changed his residency or domicile.

What did Domino [give to] show that he was changing his residency from QC to Sarangani?

He had a copy of contract of lease (...) so he is claiming that he met this one-year residency requirement.

The COMELEC however believe that his opponent is [disqualified] being a candidate as representative of
the district of Sarangani.

So, Before we go to the issue of whether or not he is a resident of Sarangani, there is an issue on the term
"residence".

The court said that the term "residence", it means the same thing as "domicile". 3:02 To successfuly effect
a change of domicile, one must demonstrate: (1) an actual removal, or actual change of domicile, a bona
fide [pension], abandoning the former place of residence, establishing a new one, and (3) also (...) definite
acts that correspond to that purpose.

Now, was Domino able to meet those three requirements?

The court said no. He is merely a transient of Sarangani among other things. The court said that the
contract proves na dili sya magstay didto for a long while and since these officials are mandatory, they
have to be met, and therefore he is not allowed to run as representative having failed to meet the one of
the essential requirements for the purpose.

We go to the case of Pamatong vs COMELEC. We go now to the concept of [policy] vs self-executing

provision. The discussion here is the equal access clause in the Constitution. Pamatong wants to run for
President for 2004 elections, filed for COC for president in 2003 for 2004 elections.
The COMELEC declared the petitioner as a nuisance candidate because the candidate is he could not wage
an election campaign and he is not nominated by any political party or not supported by registered []

What did Pamatong do?

He cited Article 2, his right to equal access of opportunities for public service. Article 2 is declaration of
principles for state policies. He asserted that he has a right so he must be given an equal access.

The issue: Whether or not Section 26 of Article 2 is a self-executing provision

No. The court said here that this provision here is under article 2 of the constitution which provides for
mere declarations of principles of state policies. What is the character of these provisions under Article 2?
They are generally considered not self-executing they're bestowed (...) according a far more different
treatment to the Article 2. This article provides for general principles of state policies, therefore these
articles are not self-executing.

What do they do? What is the purpose of these articles? They merely provide guidelines for executive or
legislative action. This cannot be executed without any act or law. Therefore, the court ruled that there is
no constitutional right for you or anyone to run for presidency.

Running for presidency is merely what? Its not a right. Its just a privilege, and since it is a privilege, it can
be regulated by law.

When we go to the concept of the supremacy of the constitution, once again, it is the fundamental law of
the land. Laws should not be inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, otherwise, it will be
deemed unconstitutional.

KIDA VS. SENATE

With several important discussions

Organic act of ARMM

A law was passed 9054, amendment to the organic law must comply with 2 requirements. 1. there must
be a super majority vote from the congress, house of representatives, and senate

2/3 of each house for majority

2. Any amendment would be ARMM organic law would need a plebescite to be effective. After that, we
have several laws which follow RA 9054 9142 9333 and 10153

It is argued that these laws failed to comply with super majority vote AND plebescite requirements
therefore they should not be given [] because they do not comply with the previous law requiring those
requirements

There are many issues here

1. synchronization issue

these laws provide for the date of the election of the local officials of armm most recently in RA 10153.
Now in the meantime since it was discovered here that synchronization is mandated by the
constitutionparticularly in article 10, nakasynchronize ang local and national elections, and since lahi ang
date na nakaset. Dapat isynchronize. There would be a period na walay local officials voted until the day of
the synchronized elections.

so what do they do with that period?

Naa bay overcapacity? Or can the president elect officers in charge? The synchronization is mandated by
the constitution so we have to follow the laws that set the synchronized day

2. requirement on amending the organic law of armm

The amendment process is provided in RA 9054 particularly in section 1 article 17 of this law, the super
majority, plebiscite requirement. Are these requirements to amend the law valid? Do these requirements
have to be followed?

(Student) The Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the constitution because there was an
enlargement of the requirement pursuant to section 18 article 10 of the constitution which only requires
majority vote of the constituency of the plebiscite called for that purpose. The 2/3 requirement is
unconstitutional.

Why is the super majority unconstitutional?

(Student) Because it countered section 16 paragraph 2 article 6 of the constitution which provides that the
majority of each House shall constitute the quorum to do business so the super majority voting
requirement would mean it will be hard to repeal this law

What is the normal vote?

(Student) The majority vote of each house

There are only a number of votes required of the constitution under that article, article 6. Its the majority
vote of the members of the houses. Because this law (requires) 2/3, higher than the one half requirement
of the constitution, it is unconstitutional, if not inconsistent with the constitution.

It gives this law, what kind of nature?

It gives this law a character of an irrepealable law. According to the court, irrepealable laws are anathema
to (...). The laws (of the) existing Congress cannot bind future Congresses, whatever acts they do. They
cannot limit or (...) the exercise of legislature by passing laws which would make it difficult for these future
bodies of legislature [to pass] an act to repeal, amend the existing laws. To impose a 2/3 requirement
here, it renders the law almost irrepealable, very difficult to achieve, so the Court said that that provision
is unconstitutional.

Now what about the plebescite requirement? Was it Constitutional?

(Student) No. Because there was an enlargement of the requirement.

What was required in the Constitution to be quantified in the plebescite?

Section 18 of Article 10 of the Constitution provides that the creation of the autonomous region shall be
effective when approved by the majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in the plebescite called
for the purpose.
The plebescite requirement is required ONLY for the creation of autonomous regions, for determining
which provinces in (...) these areas will be included in the autonomous regions.

What do these laws provide, (in RA 9054) sa mga gipangchallenge na laws diri?

(Student) These laws merely provide for the dates of the election.

First of all, there was no amendment in the first place of the organic act, because what is provided in the
organic act of the ARMM is the date of the first elections, and after that there was no setting when (...)
and that is why we have subsequent laws to set the date of subsequent elections. There was no
amendment, because there was no setting of the elections date in the first place. Still the court discussed
the concept of irrepealable laws and plebiscite requirement, the court said here that this plebescite
requirement enlarged the requirement to appeal and to repeal this law. (...). Kani lang ang instance, if
there is, a creation of an autonomous region that a plebescite is required. And since there is nothing which
does that under these new laws, there is no need for a plebiscite.

The court emphasized here, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land so any laws inconsistent with
the constitution shall be struck down, or its tradition shall be struck down to be unconstitutional.

22:26
In the 2012 case of Kida vs Senate
Synchronization is mandated
The subsequent laws did not happen
The supermajority vote gives the law an irrepealable character which is why it must be struck down

On the issue of appointing officers in charge prior to the holding of subsequent elections, the court said
that that would be the most feasible alternative, because the limit of the term is set in the Constitution,
but this appointment of OIC is a mere transitory measure, temporary lang sya, until the holding of the
subsequent elections. The court said that that is an acceptable alternative.

Now we have the case of Chavez vs JBC emphasizing again Constitutional supremacy as well as the the
*verbal Legis doctrine* 23:49

This involves the Judicial Bar Council (JBC). It is created by Article 8 Section 8. The provision paragraph 1
provides that it is created (the JBC). And who are the members?
(1) the chief justice
(2) secretary of justice and (a) representative of Congress as ex officio Members, they are representatives
of the many branches of the government.
There are also four regular members:
a representative of the Integrated Bar,
a professor of law,
a retired Member of the Supreme Court,
and a representative of the private sector

Totalling a number of seven members.

However, in 1994, the composition of the JBC was substantially altered. How?
(Student) First, they appointed two representatives, one from the Senate, one from the House of
Representatives
25:18

What was their vote in the JBC?

(Student) One half vote, sir
Eventually, in 2000 and 2001, these representatives were given one full vote each, therefore the JBC is
now composed of eight members.

So Chavez is now questioning the practice of the JBC, (because) the Constitution clearly provides or limits
the same to seven members.

What's the issue here?

(Student) W/N the JBC should have seven or eight members. The court said it should be seven. Because in
the Constitution, the use of the singular letter “a” preceding “representative of Congress” is unequivocal
and leaves no room for any other construction. It is indicative of what the members of the Constitutional
Commission had in mind, that is, Congress may designate only one (1) representative to the JBC. Had it
been the intention that more than one (1) representative from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the
Framers could have, in no uncertain terms, so provided.

So the court said the provision is clear and unambiguous. If there is no ambiguity, there would be no need
for judicial construction. The useof the singular letter "a" preceding the words "representative of
Congress" is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

If the words (of the Constitution) are clear and (free from ambiguity), it must be given its literal meaning.

Verba legis non est recedendum - from the words of a statute there should be no departure.

Also, the words of the [Constitution must be understood in its common use].

Now, the court also discussed the doctrine of Noscitur a sociis. What is that? What is this maxim about?

This means that the meaning of a word is or maybe known from the accompanying words. Again, we
emphasize that Constitution and its provisions are not interpreted in isolation. They have to be interpreted
as a whole.

So when we see the provision, kinsa may kauban aning (...) representative. Chief justice. Secretary of
justice. (... Etc.)

So singular tanan. Why would we have a different meaning for the representative of Congress? Because of
that (we interpret it as a whole) there is only clear intent. We only provide for a singular member or
representative of Congress in the JBC.

What is the practical purpose for the seven-member composition?

(Student) To provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting.

To break a tie.

Since the court has declared that the practice of the JBC of having eight members is unconstitutional, did it
nullify all the acts done by JBC prior to the nullification of the practice?

(Student) No, Sir. Under the doctrine of operative facts, actions previous to the declaration of
unconstitutionality are legally recognized. (They are not nullified. This is essential in the interest of fair
play.)

So the court [applied] the doctrine of operative acts and recognized acts prior to the declaration of
unconstitutionality. These acts are binding. They have legal effect.
(...)

But of course, [henceforth], the JBC only has seven members. 30:02

In the 2013 case of Chavez, the court [...] discussion [that the] JBC should only be composed of seven
members.

Now, one of the arguments raised was that there was an oversight carrying the provisions of the
Constitution. Dapat daw mali daw ning "a" representative because prior to the [...] of the Constitution,
there was unicameralism.

Now, bicameral daw, dapat double ang [votes] because there are now two houses. But the court said that
that is incorrect. The language used in the Consitution was taken to have been deliberately [...] for a
definite purpose. Wala sya [gibugna] by the framers of the Constitution.

The court relies on the postulate [...] that the Framers [...], therefore it was not carried over by mere
oversight.

Now we go to the theory of judicial review.

Why is there a need for the courts to review acts, to review laws [...] and [...] issues. And [...] this subject
noh, why does the Supreme Court or lower courts for that matter, why do these courts rule on the
unconstitutionality or constitutionality of a law or act?

So we have this [...] of judicial review.

Before we go there, we go to the concept of separation of powers. As you should know, there are three
branches of the government: the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. The purpose of dividing these
institutions is to provide for a checks and balances mechanism so that one body will not be left to exercise
his power absolutely. The executive [...] executes the laws. The legislatives passes the laws. So [the courts]
check noh, whether there is compliance with the standards set by the law in the executive, et cetera.

So there is a checks and balances mechanism. The executive cannot just do anything it wants. It can only
do so if it is legally or constitutionally sanctioned [for allowing]. The legislature on the other hand is
checked by the Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution. It cannot pass laws, [ex post facto] laws et
cetera, laws [which by the due process] laws. This is the checks and balances mechanism [installed] in the
Constitution.

In the very old case of Angara vs. Electoral Commission, the court discussed here that concept.

Angara was determined to be a member-elect of the National Assembly [which probably at that time
Congress nila], for the province of Tayabas. He was a representative of Tayabas in the national assembly. In
December 8, 1935, his opponent filed before the Electoral Commission an election protest against him.
Angara, take note that it was filed on December 8, Angara went to the Electoral Commission and filed a
motion to dismiss the protest because the National Assembly has already declared him to be a member of
the assembly, and by subsequent resolution set the deadline for filing a protest at December 3, 1935. And
since the protest was filed on December 8, out of time [na daw].

The Electoral Commission, on the other hand, took cognizance of the complaint because it has its own
resolution. It set the deadline for the receipt of complaints [or] protests on December 9, 1935, so sulod pa
sa date.
So who would be correct here? Is it the declaration of the national assembly, or is it the Electoral
Commission?

So before going to that issue, where do we see this separation of powers in the Constitution [based on the
expressed provision of the Constitution stating power should be separated et cetera]?

It is because of the fact that the provisions are divided into articles. One article is devoted to the
executive, legislative, and to the judiciary. That is how powers are separated.

Why is there a separation of powers? So that it does not follow from the fact the powers [... separate and
distinct that they are allowed to exercise the powers without restraint and absolutely and independent of
each other. Again, the purpose is to check each other.

There are examples here of how that checks and balances mechanism works.

What does the judiciary do?

So this is the theory of judicial review, the judiciary in turn with which the Supreme Court is the [ arbiter; it
checks the other departments exercise of its power and determine whether or not the act or the law is
consistent with the constitution, and if they are not, they can be declared unconstitutional.

Now, does judicial supremacy exist? Now that the the Supreme court, the judiciary, has power to declare
the acts of the executive and legislative as unconstitutional, does this make the body supreme over the
two? Is it superior to the two?

The court said that no. They are equal in powers. The purpose of the judicial review is only to check
whether or not these questioned acts are consistent with the Constitution, even if it is admitted that the
executive has the Power of the Sword, the legislative has the Power of the Purse. The Supreme Court or
the Judiciary, on the other hand, has the power [inferred by the Constitution], and therefore nullified the
acts of these other departments if they are inconsistent with the fundamental law.

Can the Judiciary pass hypothetical questions?

The court said no. There must be actual issues, actual cases or controversies. 36:57

Does it pass upon the wisdom of the [situation]? Does it venture into the, tama ba ning gihimo nila na to?
Wise ba ni?

The court said it does not pass upon the wisdom, justice or expediency of the situation. It just checks
whether the act or law is consistent with the Constitution, nothing to do with the wisdom of that law or
act.

So the court said here that the Electoral Commission is a constitutionally created body as well, and
therefore it has its own powers, among which is to set the date for election protests. So this is a restriction
on the power of the National Assembly then to set the deadlines because that has nothing to do with the
National Assembly. That is the power of the Electoral Commission. Therefore, the date set by the Electoral
Commission, which is December 9, is controlling. So tama na girecognize nila ang protest ni Ynsua. All that
discussion comes from that simple answer.

In the case of Metrobank vs. Tobias, something to do with the exercise [of the] expanded power of the
Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution to check whether or not acts done are in grave abuse of
discretion.
Here, Tobias was charged with estafa by Metrobank because he used a falsified title to secure a loan. So
[...] filed a case to the prosecutor, it was found out that he can be charged noh for a criminal case before
the court. So Tobias went to the Secretary of Justice [appealing the finding of the prosecutor, and
prosecutor was [reversed], there was no probable cause.

So Metrobank, aggrieved, went to the Supreme Court to question the exercise of this Secretary of Justice
reversing the finding of probable cause.

Was there grave abuse of discretion? The court said here, no.

So, when can courts intervene in the acts of legislative and executive?

First, [it is settled[ that they cannot directly decide matters upon which full discretionary authority is given
to the executive or legislative branch, or to substitute his own judgment for that. But it can pass upon
issues, matters, if there is a question on the exercise of that discretion if it is done with grave abuse.

What is grave abuse of discretion? It is an exercise or abuse of discretion which is so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty. We will discuss more of this concept in the subsequent cases noh.
It's not something you can easily prove this grave abuse of discretion. [It requires many cases of[ before
the appellate courts or Supreme Court also...

Another case which involves the separation of powers is the case of RE: COA Opinion

Facts of the case?

(Student) An underpayment amounting to P221,021.50 resulted when five (5) retired Supreme Court
justices purchased from the Supreme Court the personal properties assigned to them during their
incumbency in the Court. The COA attributed this underpayment to the use by the Property Division of the
Supreme Court of the wrong formula in computing the appraisal value of the purchased vehicles.
According to the COA, the Property Division erroneously appraised the subject motor vehicles by applying
Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) Joint Resolution No. 35.

So there is this issue on the payment daw kay several justices of the [...] Supreme Court purchased
property from the Supreme...of course, naa silay [discount] [because] they served the court, they
purchased it for a lesser amount. Now this was found by the COA to be not consistent with its own
issuances. Naa silay COA guidelines, and they found out na baba na kaayo ang valuation na gihatag sa
[katong mga gibaligya na properties]. There was an undervaluation. There was a wrong formula used in
computing the appraisal value. So mao tong findings sa COA.

So nitubag si Property Division of the Supreme Court [...] we did not follow your formula, we followed this
CFAG Joint Resolution formula. And it recommended to the Supreme Court that the COA should respect
the in-house computation based on the CFAG formula. CFAG is a special group [of] constutional bodies, It
involves the Supreme Court, COA, the Civil Service Commission, COMELEC, the Commission on Human
Rights, and the Office of the Ombudsman.

These bodies have fiscal autonomy which we will noh, later.

Anyway, they used this formula, and according to the Property Division of the Supreme Court, they should
follow this formula.

So who is correct? Whose formula should be followed? COA or the CFAG formula?

The court again discussed the separation of powers and emphasized judicial independence in this case.
Why should the departments be independent of each other? Though they can check each other that they
should act independently. Dili pwede mag-intrude na walay basis. Ang judiciary sa legislative: "oy walay
wisdom inyong law", ang executive pud: "uy, Supreme Court, et cetera they should follow this, whatever".
Why, what is the purpose of this independence in these three branches?

(Student) So they can freely exercise their mandate to resolve [...] as a whole, should work in the discharge
of its constitutional functions free of restraints and influence from the other branches, save only for those
imposed by the Constitution itself.

Before we go to the judicial independence noh, the powers of government must be divided to avoid
concentration of these powers in any one branch. Right now, in the executive department under this
administration is exhausting all its powers sanctioned by the Constitution. That's why noh the other
departments are also shook. [...] So that is the purpose why there is independence para dili
maconcentrate sa one department ang [...] nila.

The court emphasized here the doctrine of judicial independence, na it encompasses the idea that judges
can freely exercise their mandate to resolve justiciable issues. Therefore when they do that, they cannot
be influenced by the other branches of the government. So that is the point of judicial independence.
45:32 That is why they are given fiscal autonomy in the judiciary. They are given the power to manage
their funds to an extent so that they [won't be beholden to the legislature] who has the power to issue the
money.

Fiscal autonomy, what is it? What is fiscal autonomy?

(Student) A guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch
that their needs require.

Yes, noh. That body [with fiscal autonomy] can dispose of its funds to the extent which is allowed in the
Constitution. It cannot be hampered by the imposition noh [of the other departments] [na] dapat nay
inani inani na requirements, precisely because they are given fiscal autonomy.

The court emphasizes here to enhance judicial independence. The courts cannot be obstructed of their
freedom to use or dispose of their funds for the purposes of [...] their judicial functions. 46:54 Otherwise,
it would compromise the independence of this branch of government, and its decisions would be tainted
[...].

So here, the courts used those doctrines to uphold the formula used by the court in determining the value
of those properties precisely because it has fiscal autonomy and it has the freedom to use that formula. It
serves as the basis in allowing the sale of the Judiciary s properties to retiring Justices of the Supreme
Court. And the use of its formula, noh, realizes that fiscal autonomy concept given to the Supreme Court,
to the Judiciary.

We have the case of CSC vs. Ramoneda-Pita. You will learn later on, or now, that the SC is the only
[branch] that has administrative jurisdiction over its own officials and employees, judges, justices, to the
lowest-ranking member of the court. It is the Supreme Court which decides whether or not they are
administratively liable. So that's what happened here.

In this case, Ramoneda-Pita joined the judiciary before. It was found out by the Civil Service Commission
that she did not take the exam, this career service professional exam. Someone else took the exam for her.
So [there was] an investigation so she was recommended dismissed from the service. Apparently,
Ramoneda-Pita found her way to the court, the [grounds] of the judiciary. Still, it was discovered na pag
abot niya sa judiciary, nagfile man sya ug kanang PDS and then she checked in her PDS that she had no
pending case [or she was not administratively guilty when in fact she was already dismissed from the
service because of what she did. She falsified her PDS and that is administratively penalized.

Now the CSC also conducted their investigation on the matter and recommended that she should be
dismissed from service. Ramoneda-Pita argued that the CSC does not have jurisdiction over her. It is the
SC. So dapat daw ang SC ang magdecide w/n she should be dismissed from the service.

Is she correct? The court said no. Although it recognized that the SC had administrative power over all its
employees and officers, the doctrine thats applied here is the doctrine of estoppel. She participated in the
proceedings before the civil service. Whatever outcome it had with her full participation would be binding
on her. But we take note of the general rule. When [... 50:11 the SC is applying consistently its rulings that
it has jurisdiction over its employees. So we cannot file a case against a member of the SC. But here it does
not apply because she was already [estopped] when she participated [in the proceedings of the Civil
Service Commission.

Let's go to the case of Garcia vs. Drilon. This case questions the constitutionality of RA 9262 or the [...]
because according to the husband here violates the equal protection mentioned [and the due process
clause]. This is so unfair daw to husbands because they can be easily imprisoned [or they can be easily
coerced] by their wives or their partners, because of this law. So according to him, it violates the due
process clause and the equal protection clause. [Not equal daw ang bababe lalake...this law violates that
principle.]

Is the RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Act Against Women and their Children, is it unconstitutional?

(Student) No, sir. Because it does not violate the equal protection clause.

Why does it not violate the equal protection clause. What is equal protection, anyway?

(Student) It means that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed.

Where can we find equal protection in the Consitution?

In Section 1, Article III in the Bill of Rights. Equal protection shall be observed. The equal protection clause
guarantees the quality of those who are situated in the same situation. It does not, [however], exclude the
possibility of [...]. Meaning the law, or [whatever we have to apply] [...] subjects which are 53:02 similarly
situated. Therefore, if there are subjects that are not similarly situated, and the n mag-apply ang law sa
ilaha, it could not violate the equal protection clause because they are not similarly situated.

So here, the court emphasized that there is a disparity between men and women, [so that's why there
court recognizes that there is no violation of the equal protection clause] precisely because men and
women are not equally situated. [Dili kailangan kung unsa mag apply sa babae, mag apply sa lalake]. So
the court discussed that the men are powerful blah blah blah et cetera.

But we emphasize here the power of the Supreme Court to nulliffy an act or a law. Can the Supreme
Court, in nullify, or studying, determining whether an act is constituitonal or not, concern itself with the
wisdom of the policy or law?

I said this earlier noh, that it does not concern itself with the wisdom of a policy or law. So whatever is
determined by Congress at the time it passed the law, its wisdom, [it will not be touched upon by the
Court]. It will only determine if it's constitutional or unconstitutional.
Bantog giingon ni Garcia that Article III section 1 was violated by this law. So mao to gidetermine kung
constitutional or not, not if the law was wise or unwise. So the court said it cannot supplant the wisdom of
Congress.

What, therefore, is the remedy of the husband here if he wants that law changed, since the Supreme
Court said it cannot change its law for him?

He should go to Congress. Ipa-amend nya ang RA 9262. Not go to the Supreme Court to change the law for
him.

[bell rings]