Political Law Review
one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House
Fransisco v. House of Rep
FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of
Representatives adopted a Resolution,
sponsored by Representative Felix William D.
Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on
Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of
legislation, on the manner of disbursements
and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development
Fund (JDF)." On June 2, 2003, former President
Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment
complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide
Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for
"culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal
of the public trust and other high crimes." The
complaint was endorsed by Representatives
Rolex T. Suplico, Ronaldo B. Zamora and
Didagen Piang Dilangalen, and was referred to
the House Committee. The House Committee
on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the
first impeachment complaint was "sufficient in
form," but voted to dismiss the same on
October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in
substance. To date, the Committee Report to
this effect has not yet been sent to the House in
plenary in accordance with the said Section 3(2)
of Article XI of the Constitution. Four months
and three weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003
of the first complaint or on October 23, 2003, a
day after the House Committee on Justice voted
to dismiss it, the second impeachment
complaint was filed with the Secretary General
of the House by Representatives Gilberto C.
Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella
against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.,
founded on the alleged results of the legislative
inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House
Resolution. This second impeachment
complaint was accompanied by a "Resolution of
Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at least
of Representatives
ISSUE: Whether the resolution thereof is a
political question has resulted in a political
crisis.
HELD: From the foregoing record of the
proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission, it is clear that judicial power is not
only a power; it is also a duty, a duty which
cannot be abdicated by the mere specter of this
creature called the political question doctrine.
Chief Justice Concepcion hastened to clarify,
however, that Section 1, Article VIII was not
intended to do away with "truly political
questions." From this clarification it is gathered
that there are two species of political questions:
(1) "truly political questions" and (2) those
which "are not truly political questions." Truly
political questions are thus beyond judicial
review, the reason for respect of the doctrine of
separation of powers to be maintained. On the
other hand, by virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of
the Constitution, courts can review questions
which are not truly political in nature.
Lambino v. COMELEC
Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced
gathering signatures for an initiative petition to
change the 1987 constitution, they filed a
petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite
that will ratify their initiative petition under RA
6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition
had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what
was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their
petition changes the 1987 constitution by
modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4
of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed
changes will shift the present bicameral-
presidential form of government to unicameral-
parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition
due to lack of enabling law governing initiative
petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec
ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement
the initiative petitions.
Issue: Whether or Not the Lambino Groups
initiative petition complies with Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments
to the Constitution through a peoples
initiative.
Whether or Not this Court should revisit its
ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735
incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential
terms and conditions to implement the
initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Constitution.
Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion in denying due course to the
Lambino Groups petition.
Held: According to the SC the Lambino group
failed to comply with the basic requirements for
conducting a peoples initiative. The Court held
that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of
discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on
Direct Proposal by the People
The petitioners failed to show the court that the
initiative signer must be informed at the time of
the signing of the nature and effect, failure to
do so is deceptive and misleading which
renders the initiative void.
2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII
of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through
Initiatives
The framers of the constitution intended a clear
distinction between amendment and
revision, it is intended that the third mode of
stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may
propose only amendments to the constitution.
Merging of the legislative and the executive is a
radical change, therefore a constitutes a
revision.
3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not
Necessary
Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not
change the result because the present petition
violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative,
must first comply with the constitution before
complying with RA 6735. Petition is dismissed.
Ermita v. Magalona
Facts:
In March 2009, R.A. 9522 was enacted by the
Congress to comply with the terms of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified
on February 27, 1984.
Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned
the validity of RA 9522 as they contend, among
others, that the law decreased the national
territory of the Philippines. Some of their
particular arguments are as follows:
1. RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime
territory, and logically, the reach of the
Philippine states sovereign power, in
violation of Article 1 of the 1987
Constitution, embodying the terms of
the Treaty of Paris and ancillary
treaties.
 2. RA 9522 opens the countrys waters
landward of the baselines to maritime
passage by all vessels and aircrafts,
undermining Philippine sovereignty and
national security, contravening the
countrys nuclear-free policy, and
damaging marine resources, in violation
of relevant constitutional provisions.
3. RA 9522s treatmentof the KIG as
regime of islands not only results in
the loss of a large maritime area but
also prejudices the livelihood of
subsistence fishermen.
Hence, petitioners files action for the writs of
certiorari and prohibition assails the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95221 (RA
9522) adjusting the countrys archipelagic
baselines and classifying the baseline regime of
nearby territories.
Issues: Whether or not RA 9522, the
amendatory Philippine Baseline Law is
unconstitutional.
Discussions:
The provision of Art I 198 Constitution clearly
affirms the archipelagic doctrine, which we
connect the outermost points of our
archipelago with straight baselines and consider
all the waters enclosed thereby as internal
waters. RA 9522, as a Statutory Tool to
Demarcate the Countrys Maritime Zones and
Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, gave
nothing less than an explicit definition in
congruent with the archipelagic doctrine
Rulings:
No. The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional. It
is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Countrys
Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under
UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine
Territory. It is a vital step in safeguarding the
countrys maritime zones. It also allows an
internationally-recognized delimitation of the
breadth of the Philippines maritime zones and
continental shelf. Additionally, The Court finds
that the conversion of internal waters into
archipelagic waters will not risk the Philippines
as affirmed in the Article 49 of the UNCLOS III,
an archipelagic State has sovereign power that
extends to the waters enclosed by the
archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth
or distance from the coast. It is further stated
that the regime of archipelagic sea lanes
passage will not affect the status of its
archipelagic waters or the exercise of
sovereignty over waters and air space, bed and
subsoil and the resources therein. The Court
further stressed that the baseline laws are mere
mechanisms for the UNCLOS III to precisely
describe the delimitations. It serves as a notice
to the international family of states and it is in
no way affecting or producing any effect like
enlargement or diminution of territories.