TOPIC I.

INTRODUCTORY PRINCIPLES
1. Definition of Key Terms
a. Constitutional Law v. Political Law

Macariola v. Asuncion, Adm. Case No. 133-J, 31 May 1982

Political law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the
organization and operation of the governmental organs of the State and defines the
relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory (People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil.
887). It must be recalled that a political law embraces constitutional law, law of public
corporations, administrative law including the law on public officers and election.|||

b. Constitution v. Laws

Constitution – That body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of
sovereignty are habitually exercised [Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 4]. With particular
reference to the Constitution of the Philippines. That written instrument enacted by direct
action of the people by which the fundamental powers of the government are established,
limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the several departments
for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic [Malcolm, Philippine
Constitutional Law, p. &].

Laws –

2. The 1987 Philippine Constitution

a. Classification of a Constitution; Qualities of a good written Constitution;
Essential Parts of a Written Constitution
Classification of a Constitution
a) Written - is one whose precepts are embodied in one document or set of
documents
Unwritten - consists of rules which have not been integrated into a single, concrete
form but are scattered in various sources, such as statutes of a fundamental character,
judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs and traditions, and certain
common law principles [Cruz, Constitutional Law, pp. 4-5].
b) Enacted (Conventional) - is enacted, formally struck off at a definite time and place
following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler
 Evolved (Cumulative) - is the result of political evolution, not inaugurated at any specific
time but changing by accretion rather than by any systematic method [Cruz, ibid., p. 5].
c) Rigid - is one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process;
Flexible - is one that can be changed by ordinary legislation [Cruz, ibid., p. 5].

b. How to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution; Substantive Requirements and Procedure
 Article XVII, 1987 Constitution or through The Initiative and Referendum Act or RA
No. 6735
 Defensor Santiago v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 127325, 19 March
1997
 Lambino v. Commission on Elections, G. R. No. 174153,25 October 2006.

TOPIC II. THE CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS: THEORY OF JUDICIAL

REVIEW

1. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

 Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, G. R. No. 122156,
3 February 1997.

2. Interpretation/Construction of the Constitution

 Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, G. R. No. 160261, 10 November
2003.
 Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, 83815, 22
February 1991.

3. Judicial Review Characterized

 Article VIII, Section 1; Article VIII, Section 4(2)
 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 157584, 2 April 2009.
 Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G. R. Nos. 192935 &
193036, 7 December 2010.

4. Functions of Judicial Review

 Salonga v. Paño, G. R. No. 59524, [February 18, 1985].

 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G. R. No. 171396 [May 3, 2006].
 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Commission on Elections, G. R. No. 133486,
[January 28, 2000].

5. Who may exercise Judicial Review

  Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G. R. No. 74457, 20 March 1987.
 Garcia v. Drilon, G. R. No. 179267, 25 June 2013.
 Spouses Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 128448, 1 February 2001.

6. Requisites of the Exercise of Judicial Review

 Funa v. Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 184740, 11 February 2010.
 Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council,
G. R. No. 178552, 5 October 2010.

a. Actual case or controversy; Moot Academic; Exceptions to the Moot and Academic
Rule; Premature controversies
 Spouses Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., G. R. No. 204819, 8 April 2014.
 Belgica v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 208566, 19 November 2013.
 John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition v. Lim, GR No. 119775, 24 October 2003.
 Pormento v. Estrada, G. R. No. 191988 (Resolution), 31 August 2010.
 Philippine Associations of Colleges and Universities v. Secretary of Education, G. R. No. L-
5279, 31 October 1955.
 Lacson v. Perez, G. R. No. 147780, 10 May 2001.
 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No. 192302, 4 June 2014.
 Province of Batangas v. Romulo, G. R. No. 152774, 27 May 2004.
 Sanlakas v. Reyes, G. R. No. 159085 3 February 2004.
 Alunan III v.Mirasol, G. R. No. 108399, 31 July 1997.
 Araullo v. Aquino III, GR No. 209287, 1 July 2014.
 Tañada v. Angara, G. R. No. 118295, 2 May 1997.
 Philippine Press Institute, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G. R. No. 119694 (Resolution),
22 May 1995.

b. Legal Standing; Legal Standing as procedural technicality

 Chamber of Real Estate and Builder’s Association, Inc. v. Energy Regulatory Commission,
G. R. No. 174697, 8 July 2010.
 Advocates for Truth in Lending, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral Monetary Board, G. R. No. 192986,
15 January 2013.
 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G. R. No. 141284, 15 August 2000.
 Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G. R. No. 113105 19 August 1994.
 Akbayan v. Aquino, GR No. 170516, 16 July 2008.
 Oposa v. Factoran, GR No. 101083, 30 July 1993.
 Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait, eg. Toothed Whales,
Dolphins, Porpoises, and other cetacean species v. Secretary Angelo Reyes, GR No.
180771, 21 April 2015.
  Alan Paguia v. Office of the President, GR No. 176276, 25 June 2010.
 Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, GR No. 124360, 5 November 1997.
 Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, G. R.
No. 159139, 13 January 2004.
c. Timeliness
 Matibag v. Benipayo, GR No. 149036, 2 April 2002
d. Lis Mota
 Kalipunan ng DamayangMahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo, GR No. 20093, 22 July
2014
 Republic v. N. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc., GR No. 201501, 22 January 2018
 Laude v. Ginez-Jabalde GR No. 217456, 24 November 2015
 Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council GR No.
171101, 5 July 2011

7. Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality

a. Two views: Orthodox, Modern

Orthodox: an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes do duties; it

affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative, as if it had not been passed at all.
(Art. 7 CCP)

Modern View: Under this view, the court in passing upon the question of constitutionality does
not annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses to
recognize it and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no existence. The
court may give its reasons for ignoring or disregarding the law, but the decision affects the
parties only and there is no judgment against the statute. The opinion or reasons of the court
may operate as a precedent for the determination of other similar cases, but it does not strike
the statute from the statute books; it does not repeal, supersede, revoke, or annul the statute.
The parties to the suit are concluded by the judgment, but no one else is bound.

 Republic v. Court of Appeal, GR No. 79732, 8 November 1993

 De Agbayani v. Philippine National Bank, GR No. L-23127, 29 April 1971

b. Doctrine of Operative Fact- general rule (the void ab initio doctrine) that "an
unconstitutional act is not a law and in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed. The doctrine of operative fact is limited to
the effects of the declaration of unconstitutionality on the executive or
legislative act that is declared unconstitutional.
  Araullo v. Aquino III GR No. 209287, 1 July 2014
 Belgica v. Ochoa GR no. 208566, 208493, 209521, L-20768, 19 November
2013
 Hacienda Luisita v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Countil, GR. No.
171191, 22 November 2011
 League of Cities of the Philippines represented by LCP National President
Jerry P. renas, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al., GR No.
176951/GR No. 178056/GR No. 177499, Aug 24,2010
c. Partial Unconstitutionality
 Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy G.R No. 1242360
(Resolution), 3, Dec. 1997

The general rule is that where part of a statute is void as repugnant to the Constitution,
while another part is valid, the valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand
and be enforced. The presence of a separability clause in a statute creates the
presumption that the legislature intended separability, rather than complete nullity of
the statute. To justify this result, the valid portion must be so far independent of the
invalid portion that it is fair to presume that the legislature would have enacted it by
itself if it had supposed that it could not constitutionally enact the other. Enough must
remain to make a complete, intelligible and valid statute, which carries out the
legislative intent. . . .

The exception to the general rule is that when the parts of a statute are so mutually
dependent and connected, as conditions, considerations, inducements, or
compensations for each other, as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them
as a whole, the nullity of one part will vitiate the rest. In making the parts of the statute
dependent, conditional, or connected with one another, the legislature intended the
statute to be carried out as a whole and would not have enacted it if one part is void, in
which case if some parts are unconstitutional, all the other provisions thus dependent,
conditional, or connected must fall with them.

 Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R No. 169823-24, 174764-65, September 11,

2013

TOPIC III. DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

1. Purpose
 Pangasinan