Constitutional Law 1 Atty. Jamon Part 1 Introduction A.

The Constitution as a Social Contract -It is a handcuff to restrain the government from encroaching upon the rights of the People, not the other way around. Atty. Antonio Jamon -It is a balance between authority and liberty. Atty. Antonio Jamon Constitutional Law it is the study of the maintenance of the proper balance between the authority as represented by the three inherent powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Constitution the document which serves as the fundamental law of the state; that written instrument enacted by the direct action of the government are established, limited and distributed among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise, for the benefit of the body politic. B. How to read the Constitution -Francisco v. House of Representatives Principles of Constitutional Construction: 1. Verba Legis Wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning, except where technical terms are employed. 2. Ration Legis Est Anima The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the Intent of its framers. 3. Ut Magi Valeat Quam Pereat The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole. C. A framework for constitutional litigation Francisco v. House of Representatives Essential Requisites for 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; 3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and 4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very list mota of the case. Part II Amendment of the Constitution A. Amendments v. Revision Amendments alteration of one or a few specific and isolated provision of the Constitution Revision reexamination of the entire Constitution or an important cluster of provisions in the Constitution. B. Proposal 1. By Congress as a constituent assembly - Section 1 (1), Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution: 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; 2. By Constitutional Convention - Section 1 (2), Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution: Sec. 1. Any Amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: xxx (2) A Constitutional Convention. -Section 3, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution: Sec. 2. The Congress may, by a vote of two -third 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. -Section 4, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution: Sec. 4. Any amendment to, or revision, of this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor alter then ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision. Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the Sufficiency of the Petition. -Gonzales v. Comelec -The Congresss power to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution is a constituent power emanating from the People through the Constitution as they are the very source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself.

- The plebiscite may be done either through special or general election for the Constitution does not qualify. But ideally it should be special so as to submit it to the people for their approval independent of the election of public officials. - The determination of conditions under which the proposed amendments or revisions shall be submitted to the people is concededly a matter which falls within the legislative sphere. - The choice of which constituent assembly should initiate amendments or revisions is a matter of wisdom left to the discretion of Congress. 3. By the people thru intitiative -Section 2, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution: Sec. 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 represent by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five year 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. - Santiago v. Comelec -The system of initiative on the Constitution under Sec. 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory; thus, it requires an enabling law. Also, it is confined to amendments only, not revisions of the Constitution. - Lambino v. Comelec - In order for a petition to be a valid initiative, it must first comply with the requirements of Sec. 2, Article XVII, of the Constitution even before complying with R.A. 6735 (System of Initiative and Referendum). It must also contain only one (1) subject. C. Submission -Section 4, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution, supra. -Tolentino v. Comelec -All amendments to be proposed by the Constitutional Convention must be submitted to the people in a single election or plebiscite. -In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only the sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution with which is has to form a harmonious whole. A proposal to amend the Constitution should be submitted to the people not separately from but together with all the other amendment to be proposed by the Constitutional Convention. D. Ratification -Section 4, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution, supra. Part III. Judicial Review A. Separation of Powers -In Re: Wenceslao Laureta -Judicial power is by no means a display of arrogance but a restatement of the fundamental principle of separation of powers and checks and balances under a republican form of government, that the three co-equal branches of the government - executive, legislative, and judicial are each supreme and independent within the limits of its own sphere. Neither one can interfere with the performance of the duties of the other. -Demetria v. Alba -Where the legislature or the executive branch is acting within the limits of its authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to interfere with the former. But where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government had assumed to do, as void. This is the essence of judicial power conferred by the Constitution in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. - 7 Pillars of Judicial Restraint a. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a legislation unless it is the last resort, and is a necessity in the determination of the important issues between individuals. b. The Court will not decide questions of constitutionality unless it is absolutely necessary to the case. c. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law outside the context of the facts to which is it to be applied. d. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question if there are some other grounds to which it can be decided.

e. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute when a complainant fails to show that he is injured by its operation. f. The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute when the complainant has once benefited from it. g. When the constitutionality of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, the Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statue is possible of resolving it. B. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review -Angara v. Electoral Commission -The Constitution has rationally provided the Judiciary the power to determine the nature, scope and extent of the powers of government. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the Legislature, but only asserts the solemn an d sacred obligation assigned to it be by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees them. This is judicial supremacy which properly is the power of the judicial review under the Constitution. C. Justiciable and Political Questions -Miranda v. Aguirre - Political question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It refers to those questions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people ion their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. -A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act of omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by aw, for said breach of right. -Francisco v. House of Representatives, Supra. -There are two species of political questions: (1) truly political questions and (2) not truly political questions. The former is beyond judicial review, while the former is subject to the review of the court. -The determination of a truly political question from a non-justiciable political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. If there are, the courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government property acted within such limits. D. Requisites of Judicial Review 1. Actual Case or Controversy Prematurity: -PACU v. Secretary of Education -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. -Where the petitioning private schools are actually operating by virtue of permits issued to them by the Secretary of Education under a law, who is not show to have threatened to revoke their permits, there is no justiciable controversy that would authorize the courts to pass upon the constitutionality of the law. -Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest therein, however intellectually solid the problem may be. -Mariano v. Comelec -The petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent events. Considering that these contingencies may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy. -Montesclaros v. Comelec -Petitioners prayer to prevent Congress from enacting into law a proposed bill lowering membership age in the SK does not present an actual justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed bill creates no rights and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty. The Court has no power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional because that would be in the nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress. -Mootness -Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec, DAR -The provisions that the petitioners are refuting are now repealed and excluded from the coverage of CARL. IN view of the foregoing, the

question concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the passage of a new law which repealed the same. -Lacson v. Perez -All the petitions assailing the declaration of a state of rebellion of PGM and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis both in fact and in law. Significantly, PGMA ordered the lifting of the declaration of a state of rebellion in Metro Manila. Accordingly, the instant petitioners have been rendered moot and academic. -Exceptions to Mootness: -Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary -As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of actual controversies. Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is ca pable of repetition yet evading review. -Pimentel, Jr. v. Ermita -As an exception to the rule of mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. In the present case, the mootness of the petition does not bar its resolution. The question of constitutionality of the Presidents appointment of department secretaries in an acting capacity while Congress is in session will arise in every such appointment. 2. Proper Party -Joya v. PCGG -One having no rights or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action. The courts will exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is brought before by a party who has 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. 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 unrelated party. -Agan v. Piatco -The question on legal standing is whether such parties have alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that the sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties bi reason of the statute or act complained of. -CHREA v. CHR -A proper party is one who ahs sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. -Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v. Romulo -Even with the presence of an actual case or controvery, the Supremen Court may refuse to exercise judicial review unless the constitutional question is brought before it by a party having the requisite standing to challenge it. -For a citizen to have standing, he must establish that he has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. -A taxpayers suit is properly brought only when there is an exercise of the spending or taxing power of Congress. -Citizen Standing -Tanada v. Tuvera -The right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the law. If petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding, it would indeed be difficult to conceive of any other person to initiate the same, considering that the Solicitor General, the government officer generally empowered to represent the people, has entered his appearance for respondents in the case. -Chavez v. PEA -In this case, the right of citizens to information on matters of public concern and application of constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino citizens, are enough to give rise to a citizens standing.

-Associational Standing -KMU v. Labor Center -The petitioner, whose members had suffered and continue to suffer grave and irreparable injury and damage from the implementation of the questioned memoranda, circulars and/or orders, has shown that it has a clear legal right that was violated and constitutes to be violated with the enforcement of the challenged memoranda, circulars and/or orders. KMU members, who avail the use of buses, trains, and jeepneys everyday, are directly affected by the burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in passenger fares. They are part of the millions of commuters who comprise the riding public. Certainly, their rights must be protected, not neglected or ignored. -IBP v. Zamora -The IBP primarily anchors its standing o its alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Apart from this declaration, however, the IBP asserts no other basis in support of its locus standi. The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in the case. This is too general an interest which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry. Based on the standards above-stated; the BIP has failed to present a specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the case. -It should also be noted that the interest of the National President of IBP who signed the petition, is his alone, absent a formal board resolution authorizing him to file the present action. To be sure, members of the BAR those in the judiciary included, have varying opinions on the issue. Moreover, no injury sustained by them was shown. The injury they were contending is presumed, not personal in character, and is likewise too vague, highly speculative and uncertain to satisfy the requirement of standing. -Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Jr. -A partys standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. The court may brushed aside technicality when the issue is of transcendental importance to the public, -Executive Secretary v. CA -An association has standing to complain of injuries of its members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of interest if its members are affected by their action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents. -Taxpayers Standing -ITF v Comelec -Taxpayers are allow to sue when there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds, or if public money is being deflected to any improper purpose; or when petitioners seek to restrain respondent from wasting public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. -Voters Standing -Tolentino v. Comelec -In questioning, in their capacity as voters, the petitioners assert a harm classified as a generalized grievance. This generalized grievance is shared in substantially equal measure by a large class of voters, if not all the voters, who voted in that election. -The court may relax the requirement on standing and exercised their discretion to give due course to voters suit involving right of suffrage. -Legislative Standing -Ople v. Torres -The petitioner, as senator, is possessed of the requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the there is a usurpation of legislative power. -Governmental Standing -People v. Vera -The person who impugns the validity of a statute 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. It goes without saying that if Act. 4221 really violates the Constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. OF greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon eh fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws. -Facial Challenge -Estrada v. Sandiganbayan -A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible chilling effect: upon protected speech. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. -Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from the very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State

may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful l conducts. In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. The over breadth and vagueness doctrines then have a special application only to free speech cases. 3. Earliest Opporunity -Umali v. Guingona -As regards the issue of constitutionality of PCAGC, it was only posed by the petitioner in his motion of reconsideration before the RTC of Makati. It was certainly too late to raise the said issue for the first time at such late stage of the proceedings below. 4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions Arceta v. Mangrobang

Marbury v. Madison Facts

therefore void. It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what

On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adamss term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adamss term. William Marbury (P) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jeffersons Secretary of State, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. Issues 1. 2. 3. Does Marbury have a right to the commission? Does the law grant Marbury a remedy? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void? 4. Can Congress expand the scope of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution? 5. Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus? Holding and Rule (Marshall) 1. Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission. The order granting the commission takes effect when the Executives constitutional power of appointment has been exercised, and the power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed. The grant of the commission to Marbury became effective when signed by President Adams. 2. Yes. The law grants Marbury a remedy.The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the law for a remedy. The President, by signing the commission, appointed Marbury a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment. Having this legal right to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission, a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right for which the laws of the country afford him a remedy. 3. Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and 5. 4.

the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution. The Constitution states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction. If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction. It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and is therefore a matter of original jurisdiction. Disposition Application for writ of mandamus denied. Marbury doesnt get the commission.