Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Notes on Constitutional Law Joseph Brian Torres Perez CONSTITUTIONAL LAW POLITICAL LAW Defined: People v.

v. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887 Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77

THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION Nature of the Constitution Definition: Written instrument by which the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among several departments, for their more safe and useful exercise, for the benefit of the body politic; Both a grant and a limitation of governmental authority. Classification Qualities and essential parts of a good written Constitution Ratification Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 33

Constitutional Construction Perfecto v. Meer, 85 Phil 552 Endencia v. David, 93 Phil 696 Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 152 SCRA 284

Self-executing provisions Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR 122156, Feb. 3, 1997

Constitutional History Pre-1935 Constitution Schurman Commission; Taft Commission; Spooner Amendment; Philippine Bill of 1902; Jones Law of 1916; Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 1935 Constitution Declaration of Martial Law Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183 - Validity of Martial Law = SC Held: Political question

1973 Constitution (effectivity date: Jan. 17, 1973) Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 33 - Sc Held: 1973 Constitution is enforceable; however, Justice Teehankee in his dissenting opinion, thinks that the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution should be on April 1973 because it would be in connection with the finality of Javellana v. Executive Secretary 1986 Snap Presidential Election

Notes on Constitutional Law Joseph Brian Torres Perez Philippine Bar Association v. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 455 - Challenges the act for snap elections as a violation of the 1973 Constitution; SC Held that this is a political question. People Power Revolt Proclamation No. 1, Feb. 25, 1986 - Aquino assumes office thru the people Proclamation No. 3, Mar 25, 1986 Lawyers League v. Aquino, GR 73748, May 22, 1986 - challenges the legality of the presidency; SC Held: this is a political question

In re: Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160 - This is asking for Declaratory relief, but the question is to whos government does the relief is being asked, the Aquino-Laurel or the Marcos-Tolentino? The SC Held: no power for declaratory relief in this case. Freedom Constitution 1987 Constitution In re: Letter of Reynato Puno, June 29, 1992, 210 SCRA - In this case it is being reiterated that the Auino presidency is a Revolutionary government

Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602 - questioned the effectivity date of the 1987 Constitution? Choices: a. Feb. 2, 1987 (date of plebiscite) b. Feb. 11, 1987 (date of proclamation) Answer: It should be February 2, 1987 since the Constitution itself stated in its provisions (Art. 18, Sec. 27) that it should be effective upon the date when it will be ratified, in this case the date of the plebiscite and not the date of proclamation AMENDMENT PROCESS ( Article XVII ) Amendment vs. Revision Procedure: 1. Proposal a. By Congress b. By a Constitutional Convention Theories on Position of Constitutional Convention

c. By the people thru Initiative (Sec. 2) this only applies to amendments

RA 6735 (Initiative & Referendum Law) Note: RA 6735 failed to further legislate the provisions of the Constitution on amending the Constitution thru people initiative. Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec, GR 127325, March 19, 1997

- Sc Held: that the law, as worded, did not apply to Constitutional amendments (RA 6735); insufficient to implement Constitutional amendments thru people initiative because there is no law that would implement the provisions of the

Notes on Constitutional Law Joseph Brian Torres Perez Constitution on People Initiative (Amendments). Sec. 2, therefore, is not selfexecuting. 2. Ratification Doctrine of Proper Submission Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702

Judicial Review of Amendments Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 33 Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333 - upheld the Presidents authority to propose amendments; a product of unusual times

POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (Article VIII, Sec. 4 (2)) Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, GR 134577, Nov. 18, 1998

Judicial Supremacy vs. Constitutional Supremacy Political vs. Justiciable Question

Baker v. Carr, 396 US 186- justiciablequestion - basic theory: existence of the power to Judicial Review- rooted in the grant of judicial power

Nixon v. US, 506 US 224 political question Goldwater v. Carter, 444 US 996, 62 L.Ed.2d. 428 Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333 Estrada v. Arroyo, GR 146738, March 2, 2001

Presumption of Constitutionality Lim v. Pacquing, GR 115044, Jan. 27, 1995 Requisites of Judicial Review Judicial review- power to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari final judgments and orders of lower courts in cases constitutionality of a treatylaw (Art. 8, sec. 4 par 2)

1. Actual Case or Controversy

Note: Commitment to adversorial system: The court has no authority to pass upon issues of Constitutionality through advisory opinions; there should be an actual case or controversy Board of Optometry v. Colet, GR 122241, July 30, 1996 - no actual case; declaratory relief only Mariano v. Comelec, 242 SCRA 211 - this case is hypothetical; no actual case Fernandez v. Torres, 215 SCRA 489 - Speculative; Petitioner not yet denied of his rights

Ripeness Defined: Ripe for adjudication- governmental act challenged should have direct adverse effect on individual challenging the act City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 US 95, 75 L.Ed.2d. 675 - This case is speculative; victim has only has the right for damages

Notes on Constitutional Law Joseph Brian Torres Perez Mootness DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 US 312, 40 L.Ed.2d. 164 - this case is moot and academic, thus, no case or controversy 2. Proper Party Note: Standing => locus standi => standing in law Defined: Complainant/challenger should have personal or substantial interest in the case Conventional Standing Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490, 45 L.Ed.2d. 343 Representative Standing Jus Tertii Standing (Third person standing) Craig v. Boren, 429 US 190, 50 L.Ed.2d. 397 Transcedental importance to the public Note: Paramount public interest, especially to clear doubts of the public

Tatad v. Garcia, 243 SCRA 436 - this case is about questioning the contract of the LRT

Kilosbayan v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 - this case is about the right of the petitioners to challenge the validity or constitutionality of the lotto contract of PCSO on the ground that it is of transcedental importance to the public Kilosbayan v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 Kilosbayan v. Morato (Recon.), GR 118910, Nov. 16, 1995

Standing of members of Congress Philconsa v. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506 Bagatsing v. Committee on Privatization, GR 112399, July 14, 1995

Standing of Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) IBP v. Zamora, GR 141284, Aug. 15, 2000 - The SC held that the IBP in this case has no standing but due to the importance to the community, for public safety, the SC ruled on the issue Standing of the Government to question its own laws People v. Vera, 65 Phil 56 Taxpayers Suits Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, Oct. 10, 2000 - Lack locus standi: but SC ruled in view of paramount importance and constitutional significance Gonzales v. Narvasa, GR 140835, Aug. 14, 2000

3. Question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity 4. Constitutional question must the very lis mota of the case lis mota defined: Essence of the subject matter of the case; (according to a law dictionary)existing or anticipated litigation Doctrine of Purposeful Hesitation Drilon v. Lim, GR 112497, Aug. 4, 1994

Notes on Constitutional Law Joseph Brian Torres Perez Functions of Judicial Review Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality Doctrine of Operative Fact Republic v. CA, GR 79732, Nov. 8, 1993