I.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Definition and Divisions of Political Law
Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77 (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 define the
relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory (People vs. Perfecto)

B. Definition of Constitutional Law; Distinguished from Political Law

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Constitutional law forms a distinct branch of jurisprudence
dealing w/ the legal principles affecting the nature, adoption, amendment, and
operation of the constitution.

It is the study of maintenance of the proper balance between authority as

represented by the three inherent powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by
the Bill of Rights.

POLITICAL LAW- It embraces constitutional law, administrative law, law of public

officers, laws on elections, and the law of public corporations.

C. Constitution
DEFINITION:"It is the written instrument by which the fundamental powers of
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.
(Malcohm and Laurel)

D. THEORETICAL BASIS (THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY)

It states that the constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a
social contract whereby the people have surrendered their common powers to the
State for the common good.

2. FUNCTION
• Prescribes the framework of the system of government
• Assigns to the several departments of government their duties, responsibilities,
powers, and duties.
• Establishes fixed principles on which the government is founded.
3. Classification
• WRITTEN CONSTITUTION -- one the provisions of w/c have been reduced
to writing and embodied in one or more instruments at a particular time. The
US Constitution is a classical example of a written constitution.Written
constitutions have been also called conventional or enacted, bec. they are
given definite form by a steadily constituted body, the constitutional
convention, at a particular time.
• UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION -- one w/c has not been committed to writing
at any specific time but is the accumulated product of gradual political and
legal development. The English Constitution is the modern example of this
class. Unwritten constitutions have been known also as cumulative or
evolved, bec. they are not formulated at any definite time but are rather the
outcome of a political evolutionary process.
 • RIGID CONSTITUTION-- when it may not be amended except through a
special process distinct from and more involved than the method of changing
ordinary laws. It
is supposed that by such a special procedure, the constitution is rendered
difficult to change and thereby acquires a greater degree of stability.
• FLEXIBLE CONSTITUTION-- A constitution is classified as flexible when it
may be changed in the same manner and through the same body that enacts
ordinary legislation. The British Constitution is flexible.

4. Essential qualities of a written constitution

A good written Constitution must be brief, broad, and definite and as to its contents,
it should contain at least three sets of provisions.
5. Parts of a constitution
a. CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT deals with the framework of the
Government and its powers, and defining the electorate.
b. CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY setting forth the fundamental rights of the
people and imposing certain limitations on the powers of the government as
means of securing of these rights
c. CONSTITUTION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY pointing out the mode or
procedure for amending or revising the constitution
6. Interpretation of the Constitution
• Verba Legis , wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be
given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed.
• Where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words of the
Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its
framers.
• Ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be interpreted as a
whole.

Francisco v. House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, Nov.10, 2003

XXX interpreting and enforcing laws are harmonized to achieve a unity of
governance, guided only by what is in the greater interest and well-being of the
people. Verily, salus populi est suprema lex (The welfare of the people is the
Supreme law).

7. Supremacy of the constitution

Mutuc vs. Comelec, 36 SCRA 228 (1970)
The concept of the Constitution as the fundamental law, setting forth the criterion
for the validity of any public act whether proceeding from the highest official or the
lowest functionary, is a postulate of our system of government. That is to manifest
fealty to the rule of law, with priority accorded to that which occupies the topmost
rung in the legal hierarchy. The three departments of government in the discharge
of the functions with which it is entrusted have no choice but to yield obedience to
its commands. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed. Congress in the
enactment of statutes must ever be on guard lest the restrictions on its authority,
whether substantive or formal, be transcended. The Presidency in the execution of
the laws cannot ignore or disregard what it ordains. In its task of applying the law to
the facts as found in deciding cases, the judiciary is called upon to maintain
inviolate what is decreed by the fundamental law. Even its power of judicial review
to pass upon the validity of the acts of the coordinate branches in the course of
adjudication is a logical corollary of this basic principle that the Constitution is
paramount. It overrides any governmental measure that fails to live up to its
mandates. Thereby there is a recognition of its being the supreme law.
Alih et., al., vs. Castro, 151 SCRA 279 (1987)

Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997

• A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and
administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable
except by the authority from which it emanates.
It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It
prescribes the permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to
the different departments their respective powers and duties, and establishes
certain fixed principles on which government is founded.
The fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to
which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private
rights must be determined and all public authority administered.
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract
violates any norm of 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. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and
supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract.

II. AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

Article XVII, Sections 1,2 & 3
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by
the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the
total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No
amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a
constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the
electorate the question of calling such a convention.
A. Amendment vs. Revision
B. Proposal
1. By Congress
2. By Constitutional Convention
Gonzales vs. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774 (1968)

3. By the people thru initiative (See R.A. 6735 August 4, 1989)

Santiago vs. Comelec, G.R. 127325, March 19, 1997
Issue: Is R.A. No. 6735 sufficient to enable amendment of the Constitution by
people’s initiative? The Court held that R.A. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system
of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Under the said law, initiative on
the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are not
accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in
part, the Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only do so with
respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions." The use of the clause "proposed laws
sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed" denotes that
R.A. No. 6735 excludes initiative on amendments to the Constitution.Also, while the
law provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum and for Local Initiative
and Referendum, no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This
means that the main thrust of the law is initiative and referendum on national and
local laws. If R.A. No. 6735 were intended to fully provide for the implementation of
the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a
subtitle therefor, considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or
hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose.

Lambino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006

[T]he very term "constitution" implies an instrument of a permanent and
abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicate the will
of the people that the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the
substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding
nature.
The significance of the term "amendment" implies such an addition or change
within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better
carry out the purpose for which it was framed.
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the
constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of
checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial
entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the
constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds,
reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Revision generally
affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally affects
only the specific provision being amended.
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and separable
provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment is to improve specific
parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to
suppress specific portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged to be
dangerous. In revision, however, the guiding original intention and plan
contemplates a re-examination of the entire document, or of provisions of the
document which have over-all implications for the entire document, to determine
how and to what extent they should be altered. (bernas)

C. Submission
Tolentino vs. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702 (1971)
What the Constitution in effect directs is that the government, in submitting an
amendment for ratification, should put every instrumentality or agency within its
structural framework to enlighten the people, educate them with respect to their act
of ratification or rejection. For we have earlier stated, one thing is submission and
another is ratification. There must be fair submission, intelligent consent or
rejection.

D. Ratification - Article XVII, Section 4, Paragraphs 1 & 2

Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under section 1 hereof shall be
valid when ratified by a majority votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sicty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such
amendment or revision.
Any amendment under section 2hereof (Constitutional Convention) shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held
earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the certification by the COMELEC of
the sufficiency of the petition.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.
A. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review

Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)

P: Courts are authorized by the people to be the only organ which can be called
upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between and among the
constituent units thereof
 1987 Constitution provides that:
Section 1 x x x
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
government
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
xxx
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance or regulation in question
Judicial review is indeed an integral component of the delicate system of checks and
balances which, together with the corollary principle of separation of powers, forms
the bedrock of our republican form of government and insures that its vast powers
are utilized only for the benefit of the people for which it serves.
Francisco v. House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, Nov.10, 2003
Judicial review is essential for the maintenance and enforcement of the separation
of powers and the balancing of powers among the three great departments of
government through the definition and maintenance of the boundaries of authority
and control between them.
Truly political questions are thus beyond judicial review, the reason for respect of
the doctrine of separation of powers to be maintained.
B. Requisites of Judicial Review
(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he
must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;

Locus standi or legal standing or has been defined as a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as
a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.

real-party-in-interest- concept of civil procedure

rule on standing- has constitutional underpinnings.

that standing because of its constitutional and public policy underpinnings, is very
different from questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the real party in
interest or has capacity to sue.
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
It is a well-settled maxim of adjudication that an issue assailing the constitutionality
of a governmental act should be avoided whenever possible. Court will assume
jurisdiction over a constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential
requisites of a judicial inquiry into such a question are first satisfied. Thus, there
must be an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible
of judicial determination, the constitutional question must have been opportunely
raised by the proper party, and the resolution of the question is unavoidably
necessary to the decision of the case itself.
Article VIII, Section 5(2)

Prematurity:
PACU vs Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806 (1955)
• P: “Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might, under the law,
withdraw the permit of one of the petitioners does not constitute a justiciable
controversy.”
Mariano vs Comelec, G.R. No. 119694 March 7, 1995
• A petition premised on many contingent events, the happening of which is
uncertain presents a hypothetical issue and thus, is not ripe for judicial
determination
Cutaran v. DENR, G.R. No. 134958, January 31, 2001
• While the application for a certificate of ancestral land claim is being
processed, one cannot say if it shall be approved or denied. Hence, there is
no government act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse
effect on the legal right of the person contesting its validity.
Montesclaros v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152295. July 9, 2002

Mootness:
A case becomes moot when there are facts, injuries and heated arguments but for
some
reason the legal problem has become stale. When a case is moot and academic, it
ceases to be a case and controversy. Any decision reached by the court would not
be conclusive on the parties.
Exceptions to mootness:
1) If the question is capable of repetition and evasive of review.
2) If there exit a mere possibility of collateral legal consequences if the court does
not act.
3) Voluntary cessation from the wrongful act by the defendant, if he is free to
return to his old ways.
Ripeness
A constitutional question may come to the court either too early or prematurely, so
that it
is still abstract (advisory opinion), or too late, so that the court's decision would no
longer affect the parties (mootness). The court must resolve constitutional issues
only when they come to it at the right time (ripeness).

Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec, DAR, G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997
Gonzales v. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835. August 14, 2000
A petition questioning the creation of the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional
Reform should be deemed moot and academic after the said PCCR was dissolved by
the President
Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001
A petition questioning the declaration of a state of rebellion is moot and academic
after the said declaration is lifted by the President
Defunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)

Exceptions to Mootness:
Acop v. Guingona, G.R. No. 134855, July 2, 2002

Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. 159085, February 3, 2004

Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. 164978, October 13, 2005
2. Proper Party
A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an
injury as a result of the act complained of
Joya vs PCGG, G.R. 96541, August 24, 1993
When petitioners fail to show any justification for relaxing the rules, a petition
seeking to stop the PCGG from selling paintings and silverware of the Marcosses
filed by a party who is not directly affected cannot be allowed
The rule is settled that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law
or governmental act may be heard and decided by the court unless there is
compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: that the question
must be raised by the proper party; that there must be an actual case or
controversy; that the question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity;
and, that the decision on the constitutional or legal question must be necessary to
the determination of the case itself. 6 But the most important are the first two (2)
requisites.
This is premised on Sec. 2, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court which provides that every
action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest,
and that all persons having interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the
relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs. The Court will exercise its power of
judicial review only if the case is brought before it by a party who has the legal
standing to raise the constitutional or legal question. "Legal standing" means a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or
will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged. The term "interest" is material interest, an interest in issue and to be
affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question
involved, or a mere incidental interest. 8 Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff
must be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right
of some third and related party.
Agan v. PIATCO, G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003
NAIA concessionaires and service contractors have the requisite standing in a case
where they allege that the PIATCO contracts will nullify their existing contracts
between them and MIAA and/or international airlines
CHR Employees Assoc. v. CHR, G.R. 155336, Nov. 25, 2004
CHR Employees association has the requisite standing to question the CHR’s power
to reclassify positions as the said reclassification intends to “eat up the pie” of the
budget for personnel services. Hence, the members of the CHREA will suffer direct
personal injury if the reclassification is upheld.
Citizen Standing:
Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)
When the question involves a public right and the object of the mandamus is to
procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party
in interest, it being sufficient that he is a citizen interested in having the laws
executed.
The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed
outright on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to
bring the instant petition. The view is submitted that in the absence of any showing
that petitioners are personally and directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged
non-publication of the presidential issuances in question said petitioners are
without the requisite legal personality to institute this mandamus proceeding, they
are not being "aggrieved parties" within the meaning of Section 3, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.
At this point, however, we need to emphasize that this Court has the discretion to
take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the requirements of an actual case
or legal standing when paramount public interest is involved. 18 We find however
that there is no such justification in the petition at bar to warrant the relaxation of
the rule.
Chavez v. PEA and Amari, G.R. 133250, July 9, 2002
When the petition seeks to compel the performance of a constitutional duty, any
citizen has the standing to bring the action.
Associational Standing:
KMU Labor Center vs. Garcia, G.R. 115381, Dec. 23, 1994
Members of the KMU who avail of the use of buses, trains, and jeepneys everyday
are directly affected by the burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in passenger
fares. They therefore have standing to question the increase in transportation fares
allowed by the DOTC
John Hay PAC. v. Lim, G.R. No. 119775, Oct. 24, 2003
RA 7227 expressly requires the concurrence of the local government unit affected
and consequently, they are vested with the standing to question the creation of a
Special Economic Zone
IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000
the IBP President has no direct personal interest to be affected by the deployment
of Marines in Metro Manila. Even the IBP’s interest, assuming the president was
authorized to represent it, is not direct
Executive Secretary v. CA, 429 SCRA 781, May 25, 2004
Kilosbayan v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994)
Taxpayer’s Standing:
U.S. v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974)
A generalized claim of interest that is shared with the general public is insufficient
to give a citizen a standing to bring the suit as there is no particular concrete injury
alleged that may be suffered by the operation of the statute.
ITF v. Comelec, G.R. No. 159139. Jan. 13, 2004
The fact alone that it is alleged that bidding was defective and that the winning
bidder is not qualified makes it a matter of public concern and imbued with public
interest. Thus, the individual petitioners, as citizens would have standing to bring
the suit.
Jumamil v. Café, G.R. 144570, September 21, 2005
Voter’s Standing:
Tolentino v. Comelec, 420 SCRA 438, January 21, 2004

Legislative Standing:
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998)
Governmental Standing:
People v. Vera, 65 Phil 56, November 16, 1937
Facial Challenge:
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001
3. Earliest Opportunity
Umali v. Guingona, 305 SCRA 533 (1999)
4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions
Arceta v. Mangrobang, G.R. No. 152895. June 15, 2004
Mandatory Notice
Mirasol v. CA, G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001
C. Functions of Judicial Review
Mitra vs Comelec, 104 SCRA 58 (1981)
Salonga vs Cruz-Pano, 134 SCRA 438 (1985)
Javier v. Comelec, 144 SCRA 194 (1988)
D. The Exercise of Judicial Review
Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987)
P: Lower courts can pass upon the validity of statutes in the first instance. The
power is lodged in courts, though ultimately, it falls on the Supreme Court
Under Section 1 of Article VIII
“JUDICIAL POWER SHALL BE VESTED IN ONE SUPREME COURT AND IN SUCH LOWER
COURTS AS