Briones, Angenica Ellyse P.

Enhancement Activity/Outcome:

A. Discuss/Explain the following terms and concepts:

1. Judicial Review Functions and Requisites

FUNCTION:

Has the power to declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation unconstitutional.

REQUISITES:

1. There must be an actual case or controversy

2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the property party

3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity

4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.

2. Plebescite vs. Referendum vs. Ratification

PLEBESCITE:

electoral process by which an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected by the people.

REFERENDUM:

power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose.

It may be of two classes, namely:

1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed
by Congress.

2. Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance
enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.

RATIFICATION:

Affirmation of a previous and unauthorized Act; ratification has the effect of putting the Act in the same
 position as if it had been originally authorized

3. Political question vs. Justiciable controversy/question

POLITICAL QUESTION:

Question of policy vested by the Constitution exclusively in either the people, in the exercise of their
sovereign capacity, or in which full discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of the
Government

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION:

disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of
wrongs for violations of such rights.

4. Doctrine of Constitutional supremacy

Means that if a law or contract violates the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the
legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void
and without any force and effect.

B. Read the following cases and discuss the decision of the Supreme court integrating the concepts learned
as cited hereinabove.

1. Interpretaion of the Constitution

Perfecto vs. Meer GR. L-2348 February 27, 1950

Facts: In April, 1947 the Collector of Internal Revenue required plaintiff-appellee to pay income tax upon his
salary as member of this Court during the year 1946. After paying the amount, he instituted this action in the
Manila Court of First Instance contending that the assessment was illegal, his salary not being taxable for the
reason that imposition of taxes thereon would reduce it in violation of the Constitution.

Issue: Whether or not the imposition of an income tax upon this salary in 1946 amount to a diminution thereof.

Ruling: The Supreme Court held that unless and until the Legislature approves an amendment to the Income Tax
Law expressly taxing "that salaries of judges thereafter appointed", salaries of judges are not included in the word
"income" taxed by the Income Tax Law. Two paramount circumstances may additionally be indicated, to wit:
First, when the Income Tax Law was first applied to the Philippines 1913, taxable "income" did not include
salaries of judicial officers when these are protected from diminution. That was the prevailing official belief in the
United States, which must be deemed to have been transplanted here; and second, when the Philippine
Constitutional Convention approved (in 1935) the prohibition against diminution off the judges’ compensation,
the Federal principle was known that income tax on judicial salaries really impairs them.

Edencia vs. David GR 6355-56

Issue: Whether or not Republic Act No. 590, particularly section 13, can justify and legalize the collection of
income tax on the salary of judicial officers.

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine laid down in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer, to the effect
that the collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a diminution thereof and so violates the
Constitution. It is further held that the interpretation and application of the Constitution and of statutes is within
the exclusive province and jurisdiction of the Judicial department, and that in enacting a law, the Legislature may
not legally provide therein that it be interpreted in such a way that it may not violate a Constitutional prohibition,
thereby tying the hands of the courts in their task of later interpreting said statute, especially when the
interpretation sought and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous interpretation already given in a case
by the highest court of the land.

Nitafan vs. CIR GR 78780 July 23, 1987

ISSUE: Whether or not members of the Judiciary are exempt from income taxes.

Ruling: No.The Court held that the salaries of Justices and Judges are properly subject to a general income tax
law applicable to all income earners and that the payment of such income tax by Justices and Judges does not fall
within the constitutional protection against decrease of their salaries during their continuance in office and the
ruling that "the imposition of income tax upon the salary of judges is a diminution thereof, and so violates the
Constitution" in Perfecto vs. Meer, as affirmed in Endencia vs. David must be declared discarded. The framers of
the fundamental law, as the alter ego of the people, have expressed in clear and unmistakable terms the meaning
and import of Section 10, Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution that they have adopted.

2. Self executing provisions

Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS

FACTS: The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell through public bidding 30% to
51% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC).

In a close bidding, two bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC), a Filipino
corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian
firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per
share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.

Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder and the execution of the contracts, the
MPHC matched the bid price in a letter to GSIS. MPHC sent a manager’s check to the GSIS in a
subsequent letter, which GSIS refused to accept. On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that GSIS has
disregarded the tender of the matching bid, MPHC came to the Court on prohibition and mandamus.

Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila
Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical monument which
reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture.

Respondents assert that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a statement of
principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires implementing legislation(s).

ISSUE:Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-executing.

RULING:Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.

A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Article II of the 1987 Constitution,
is usually not self-executing. But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the
aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the
right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.

Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate,
the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional
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.
 In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command
which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its
enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation.

Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC GR 127325 March 19, 1997 with discussion on Initiative

1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend Constitution, to liftterm limits of
elective officials, by people’s initiative. Delfin wanted COMELEC to controland supervise said people’s
initiative the signature-gathering all over the country. Theproposition is: “Do you approve of
lifting the term limits of all elective governmentofficials, amending for the purpose Sections 4 )
and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of ArticleVII, and Section 8 of Article 8 of Article X of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution?” SaidPetition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at
least12% total number of registered voters in the country, it will be formally filed with
theCOMELEC.COMELEC in turn ordered Delfin for publication of the petition. Petitioners Sen. Roco etal
moved for dismissal of the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatorypetition properly
cognizable by the COMELEC.a. Constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the Constitution
can only beimplemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been
passed.b.Republic Act No. 6735 provides for 3 systems on initiative but failed to provide anysubtitle on
initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative. Thisdeliberate omission
indicates matter of people’s initiative was left to some future law.c.COMELEC has no power to provide
rules and regulations for the exercise of people’sinitiative. Only Congress is authorized by the
Constitution to pass the implementinglaw.d. People’s initiative is limited to amendments to the
Constitution, not to revisionthereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision.e. Congress
nor anygovernment agency has not yet appropriated funds for people’s initiative.ISSUE:Whether or not
the people can directly propose amendments to the Constitution throughthe system of initiative under
Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.HELD:REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735It was intended to
include or cover people’s initiative on amendments to the Constitutionbut, as worded, it does not
adequately cover such intiative. Article XVII Section 2 of the1987 Constitution providing for amendments
to Constitution, is not self-executory. While he Constitution has recognized or granted the right of the
people to directly proposeamendments to the Constitution via PI, the people cannot exercise it if
Congress, forwhatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.FIRST: Contrary to the assertion
of COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not suggestan initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The
inclusion of the word “Constitution”therein was a delayed afterthought. The word is not relevant to the
section which issilent as to amendments of the Constitution.SECOND: Unlike in the case of the other
systems of initiative, the Act does not providefor the contents of a petition for initiative on the
Constitution. Sec 5(c) does not includethe provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended, in the
case of initiative on theConstitution.THIRD: No subtitle is provided for initiative on the
Constitution. This conspicuoussilence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the Act is
initiative andreferendum on national and local laws. The argument that the initiative on amendmentsto
the Constitution is not accepted to be subsumed under the subtitle on NationalInitiative and
Referendum because it is national in scope. Under Subtitle II and III, theclassification is not based on the
scope of the initiative involved, but on its nature andcharacter.National initiative – what is proposed to
be enacted is a national law, or a law which onlyCongress can pass.Local initiative – what is proposed to
be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance orresolution which only legislative bodies of the governments
of the autonomous regions,provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays can pass.Potestas delegata
non delegari potestWhat has been delegated, cannot be delegated. The recognized exceptions to the
ruleare: [1] Delegation of tariff powers to the President; [2] Delegation of emergency powersto the
President; [3] Delegation to the people at large; [4] Delegation to localgovernments; and [5]
Delegation to administrative bodies.COMELECEmpowering the COMELEC, an administrative body
exercising quasi judicial functions,to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of
legislative authority. Inevery case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the
delegation itselfis valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the
policyto be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a standard –the limits
of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable – to which the delegatemust conform in the
performance of his functions. Republic Act No. 6735 failed tosatisfy both requirements in
subordinate legislation. The delegation of the power to theCOMELEC is then invalid.COMELEC
RESOLUTION NO. 23 nsofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on
amendmentsto the Constitution is void. COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations
toimplement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to theConstitution
through the system of initiative. It does not have that power under RepublicAct No. 6735.Whether the
COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a petitionsolely intended to obtain an
order: (a) fixing the time and dates for signature gathering;(b) instructing municipal election officers to
assist Delfin’s movement and volunteers inestablishing signature stations; and (c) directing or
causing the publication of theunsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987
Constitution.DELFIN PETITIONCOMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE
OFDISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION. Even if it be conceded exgratia that RA 6735 is a
full compliance with the power of Congress to implement theright to initiate constitutional
amendments, or that it has validly vested upon theCOMELEC the power of subordinate
legislation and that COMELEC Resolution No.2300 is valid, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretionin entertaining the Delfin Petition.The Delfin Petition does not
contain signatures of the required number of voters.Without the required signatures, the
petition cannot be deemed validly initiated. TheCOMELEC requires jurisdiction over a petition for
initiative only after its filing. Thepetition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its
filing is cognizable by theCOMELEC, sitting en banc.Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory
petition under RA6735 and COMELECResolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given
cognizance of by the COMELEC.The petition was merely entered as UND, meaning undocketed. It was
nothing morethan a mere scrap of paper, which should not have been dignified by the Order of
6December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order directing Delfin andthe oppositors to
file their memoranda to file their memoranda or oppositions. In sodignifying it, the COMELEC acted
without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretionand merely wasted its time, energy, and
resources.Therefore, Republic Act No. 6735 did not apply to constitutional amendme