====================== People v.

Linsangan ======================
Tydings-Mcduffie Law- allowed the Filipinos to adopt a constitutions but subject to the
conditions prescribed in the Act.
Required 3 steps:
drafting and approval of the constitution must be authorized
it must be certified by the President of the US
it must be ratified by the people of the Philippines at a plebiscite
1973 Constitution
adopted in response to popular clamor to meet the problems of the country
March 16, 1967: Congress passed Resolution No.2, which was amended by
Resolution No. 4, calling a convention to propose amendments to the
Constitution
1987 Constitution
after EDSA Revolution
also known as the 1987 Charter
====================== Ordillo v.
COMELEC ======================
ISSUE: whether the sole province of Ifugao can be validly constituted in the Cordillera
Autonomous Region under Section 15, Article 10.

RULING: No. the keywords provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areas connotes
that a region consists of more than one unit. In its ordinary sense region means two or more
provinces, thus Ifugao cannot be constituted the Cordillera Autonomous Region.

====================== Marcos v. Chief of

Staf ======================
ISSUES:
the meaning or scope of the words any court in Section 17 Article 17 of the
1935 Constitution
Who are included under the terms inferior court in section 2 Article 7.
RULING: Section 17 of Article 17 prohibits any members of the Congress from appearing as
counsel in any criminal case x x x. This is not limited to civil but also to a military court or
court martial since the latter is also a court of law and justice as is any civil tribunal.

Inferior courts are meant to be construed in its restricted sense and accordingly do not
include court martials or military courts for they are agencies of executive character and do
not belong to the judicial branch unlike the term inferior court is.

Another RULE: words used in one part are to receive the same interpretation when used in
other parts unless the contrary is applied/specified.

====================== Lozada v
COMELEC ======================
RULING:
The term Batasang Pambansa, which means the regular national assembly, found in many
sections of the 1973 Constitution refers to the regular, not to the interim Batasang
Pambansa.
Words which have acquired a technical meaning before they are used in the constitution
must be taken in that sense when such words as thus used are construed.

====================== Aquino v.
COMELEC ======================
ISSUE: what does the term incumbent president in sec. 3 of Article 17 of the 1973
Constitution refer to?

RULING: History shows that at that time the term of President Marcos was to terminate on
December 30, 1973, the new constitution was approved on November 30, 1972 still during
his incumbency and as being the only incumbent president at the time of the approval it just
means that the term incumbent president refers to Mr. Marcos.
Justice Antonio concurring opinion states: the only rational way to ascertain the meaning
and intent is to read its language in connection with the known conditions of affairs out of
which the occasion for its adoption had arisen and then construe it.

====================== In re Bermudez ======================

RULING: Incumbent president referred to in section 5 of Article 18 of the 1987 constitution

refers to incumbent President Aquino and VP Doy Laurel.

============== Civil Liberties Union v. Executive

Secretary ==============

ISSUE: whether EO 284, which authorizes a cabinet member, undersecretary and assistant
secretary to hold not more than two positions in the government and GOCCs and to receive
corresponding compensation therefore, violates Sec. 13, Art. 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
The Court examined the history of the times, the conditions under which the constitutional
provisions was framed and its object.

RULING: before the adoption of the constitutional provision, there was a proliferation of
newly-created agencies, instrumentalities and GOCCs created by PDs and other modes of
presidential issuances where Cabinet members, their deputies or assistants were designated
to head or sit as members of the board with the corresponding salaries, emoluments, per
diems, allowances and other prerequisites of office since the evident purpose of the framers
of the 1987 Constitution is to impose a stricter prohibition on the President, Vice President,
members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with respect to holding multiple
government offices or employment in the Government during their tenure, the exception to
this prohibition must be read with equal severity.

On its face, the language of Sec 13 Art. 7 is prohibitory so that it must be understood as
intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation of the privilege of holding multiple
government offices or employment.

================== Luz Farms v. Secretary of

DAR ==================
ISSUE: Whether the term agriculture as used in the Constitution embraces raising
livestock, poultry and swine.
Transcript of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of
agriculture clearly shows that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution
to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated
agrarian reform program of the Government.
Agricultural lands do not include commercial industrial, and residential lands.
RULING: it is evident in the foregoing discussion that Sec 2 of RA 6657 which includes
private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising in the
definition of commercial farms is INVALID, to the extent of the aforecited agro-industrial
activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State.

====================== Montejo v.
COMELEC ======================

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to transfer, by resolution, one or more
municipalities from one congressional district to another district within a province, pursuant
to Sec 2 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.

RULING: The Court relied on the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission on minor
adjustments which refers only to the instance where a municipality which has been
forgotten is included in the enumeration of the composition of the congressional district and
not to the transfer of one municipality from one district to another, which has been
considered a substantive or major adjustment

====================== Galman v.
Pamaran ======================
The phrase no person shall be x x x compelled in a criminal case be a witness against
himself is changed in such a way the words criminal cases had been deleted simply means
that it is not limited to criminal cases only.

================== Tolentino v. Secretary of

Finance ==================

FACTS: Contention of the petitioner: RA 7716 did not originate exclusively from the HOR as
required by the Constitution because it is the result of the consolidation of two distinct bills.

VAT Law, passage of bill involved are article 6 Sec. 24 and RA 7716 (VAT Law)

Court: rejected such interpretation. The bill originated from the HoR but can be modified in
the Senate.

====================== Magtoto v.
Manguera ======================

RULING:
Sec 20 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution: no person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself. x x x Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be
inadmissible in evidence
Court held that this specific portion of the mandate should be given a prospective
application

====================== Co v. Electric
Tribunal ======================
RULING:
Sec. 1(3) Art. 4 of the 1987 Constitution states that those born before January 17, 1973 of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority are
citizens of the Philippines has a retroactive effect as shown to the clear intent of the framers
through the language used

====================== Manila Prince Hotel v.

GSIS ======================
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale at public bidding of the majority ownership of the Manila
Hotel a qualified entity can match the winning bid of a foreigner

RULING: resolution depends on whether the issue is self executing or not. The court ruled
that the qualified Filipino entity must be given preference by granting it the option to match
the winning bid because the provision is self executing.