Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

by the main provisions of the newly amended

Constitution. Subsequent events accept the

I. Statutes reality that we are no longer governed by the
A. Statutes, in general transitory provisions of the Constitution. This
form of government is essentially
parliamentary with presidential features.
Legaspi vs Secretary of Finance
Benigno Aquino, Jr. vs
political Law Forms of Government
Commission on Elections
Facts: Legaspi, then incumbent member of
the interim Batasang Pambansa, petitioned to 62 SCRA 275 Political Law De Jure vs De
declare Presidential Decree 1840 granting Facto Government Marcos as a De Jure
tax amnesty and filing of statement of assets President Under the 1973 Constitution
and liabilities and some other purposes In January 1975, a petition for prohibition was
unconstitutional. He argued that said decree filed to seek the nullification of some
was promulgated despite the fact that under Presidential Decrees issued by then President
the Constitution (T)he Legislative power shall Ferdinand Marcos. It was alleged that Marcos
be vested in a Batasang Pambansa (Sec. 1, does not hold any legal office nor possess any
Article VIII) and the President may grant lawful authority under either the 1935
amnesty only with concurrence of the Constitution or the 1973 Constitution and
Batasang Pambansa. therefore has no authority to issue the
ISSUE: Whether or not the President (PM) can questioned proclamations, decrees and
issue such decrees. orders.

HELD: It is to be observed that the original ISSUE: Whether or not the Marcos
text mentions President (Prime Minister). This government is a lawful government.
is so because . . . The incumbent President of HELD: Yes. First of, this is actually a quo
the Philippines shall be the Prime Minister and warranto proceedings and Benigno Aquino, Jr.
he shall continue to exercise all his powers et al, have no legal personality to sue because
even after the interim Batasang Pambansa is they have no claim to the office of the
organized and ready to discharge its president. Only the Solicitor General or the
functions, and likewise he shall continue to person who asserts title to the same office can
exercise his powers and prerogatives under legally file such a quo warranto petition.
the 1935 Constitution and the powers vested
On the issue at bar, the Supreme Court
in the President and the Prime Minister under
affirmed the validity of Martial Law
this Constitution.Parenthetically, the term
Proclamation No. 1081 issued on September
Incumbent President employed in the
22, 1972 by President Marcos because there
transitory provisions could only refer to
was no arbitrariness in the issuance of said
President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Aquino vs.
proclamation pursuant to the 1935
Commission on Elections, 62 SCRA
Constitution; that the factual bases (the
275). After the April 7 amendments there
circumstances of lawlessness then present)
exists no longer a President (Prime Minister)
had not disappeared but had even been
but A President and A Prime Minister. They
exacerbated; that the question as to the
are now two different offices which cannot be
validity of the Martial Law proclamation has
held by a single person not a transitory one
but a regular one provided for and governed
been foreclosed by Section 3(2) of Article XVII including (1) Order dated August 4, 1970
of the 1973 Constitution. sustaining respondent Ricardo Ciprianos motion
to dismiss on the authority of Republic Act
Under the (1973) Constitution, the President,
6126/Rental Law and (2) Order dated October
if he so desires; can continue in office beyond 16, 1970 denying the motion for reconsideration
1973. While his term of office under the 1935 of the 1st Order.
Constitution should have terminated on
December 30, 1973, by the general Respondent/Defendant Ciprianos house was
referendum of July 27-28, 1973, the sovereign built on the property of plaintiff/petitioner
people expressly authorized him to continue spouses Espiritus by virtue of an oral contract of
in office even beyond 1973 under the 1973 lease. Cipriano was their lessee since 1954.
Constitution (which was validly ratified on Before 1969 the lease was on year-to-year
January 17, 1973 by the sovereign people) in arrangement, rentals being then payable at or
order to finish the reforms he initiated under before the end of the year. Starting January 1969
Martial Law; and as aforestated, as this was the lease was converted to a month-to-month
the decision of the people, in whom basis and rental was increased to P30 a month by
sovereignty resides . . . and all government the lessors. Their dispute emanated on the
authority emanates . . ., it is therefore beyond failure of Cipriano to pay rental since January
the scope of judicial inquiry. The logical 1969 at the monthly rate mentioned.
consequence therefore is that President
Marcos is a de jure President of the Republic This lead to the filing of a complainant of
of the Philippines. Unlawful Detainer against Cipriano in the
Municipal Court of Pasig, Rizal, with a favorable
decision for lessors Espiritu. Respondent
Cipriano filed a motion to dismiss said complaint
invoking the prohibitory provision of R.A. 6126,
1. Kinds of statutes which was upheld by the Trial Court in the 2
a. Permanent Orders assailed by spouses Espiritu.

Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by II. ISSUE

subsequent ones, and their violation or
non-observance shall not be excused by RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE
disuse, or custom or practice to the PROHIBITORY PROVISION OF R.A. 6126
b. Temporary
SC found the petition of spouses Espiritu
meritorious, thus, reversing the Trial Courts
ESPIRITU, ET. AL. VS. CIPRIANO, ET.AL. Decision and ordering the Trial Court for the
G.R. NO. L-32743 February 15,1974 prompt disposition of Civil Case No. 338-M on
the merits in accordance with RA 6031.
The increase in the rental was warranted/valid.
This is a petitiion for certiorari filed by spouses It has effected in January 1969. The law in
Primitivo and Leonora A. De Espiritu seeking the question took effect on June 17, 1970 or after 1
nullification of two orders of the Court of First years after the increase in rentals had been
Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Br. XV/Trial Court effected. The law had a limited period of
operation as in fact it was so worded in clear and Homeowners' Association of the Philippines, Inc.
unequivocal language that: and its President, Vicente A. Rufino, to nullify
Municipal Ordinance No. 4841 of the City of
Manila, approved on December 31, 1963, to take
Section 1. No lessor of a dwelling of a effect on January 1, 1964. Which is an ordinance
unit or of land on which anothers regulating rentals of lots and building for
dwelling is located shall, during the residential purposes. After appropriate
period of one year from March 31, proceedings, the Court of First Instance of Manila
1970, increase the monthly rental rendered judgment declaring said ordinance
"ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal and void ab
agreed upon between the lessor and
initio without pronouncement as to costs. The
the lesses prior to the approval of this lower court struck down the questioned ordinance
Act when said rental does not exceed upon the ground that the power to "declare a state
three hundred pesos (P300) a month. of emergency ... exclusively pertains to
Congress"; that "there is no longer any state of
Hence, the prohibiton against the increase in emergency" which may justify the regulation of
house rentals; that said ordinance disconstitutes
rentals was effective on March 1970 up to
an unreasonable and unjustified limitation on the
March 1971. Outside and beyond that period use of private properties and arbitrarily
the law did not, by the express mandate of the encroaches on the constitutional rights of
Republic Act, operate. property owners"; that the power of the City of
Manila to "regulate the business of ... letting or
IV. LEGAL BASIS subletting of lands and buildings" does not
include the authority to prohibit what is forbidden
in said ordinance; and that the same cannot be
1. THE SUBJECT PROVISION AFFECTS deemed sanctioned by the general welfare clause
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS HENCE A STRICT in the City Charter. Hence, this appeal by the
AND PROSPECTIVE CONSTRUCTION Mayor of Manila Said Ordinance.
THEROF IS IN ORDER. Issue: Whether or not ordinance 4841 is
2. AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW IS unconstitutional
Decision: the decision appealed from should be
as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
SAYS. Rationale: The practical reason for the
3. EXPRESSIUM FACIT CESSARE TACITUM requirement that a statute passed to meet a given
NO REASONABLE IMPLICATION THAT emergency, should limit the period of its
THE LEGISLATURE EVER INTEDED TO effectivity, is that, otherwise, a new and different
law would be necessary to repeal it, and said
period would, accordingly, be "unlimited,
RETROACTIVE EFFECT MAY BE indefinite, negative and uncertain", so that "that
ACCORDED TO THE SAME (INTENT OF which was intended to meet a temporary
THE LAWMAKERS CAN BE VERIFIED ON emergency may become a permanent law",9
THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE CONGRESS because "Congress might not enact the repeal,
ON HOUSE BILL 953 WHICH BECAME and, even if it would, the repeal might not meet
with the approval of the President, and the
R.A. 6126)
Congress might not be able to override the veto".
In line with the basic philosophy underlying the
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE authority to affect individual rights, this Court felt
PHILIPPINES, INC. and VICENTE A. RUFINO, that Commonwealth Act No. 671, otherwise
VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF known as the Emergency Powers Act, was meant
MANILA, ET AL. to be and "became inoperative when Congress
G.R. No. L-23979 August 30, 1968 met in regular session on May 25, 1946," and that
Executive Orders Nos. 62, 192, 225 and 226
Facts: This is an action, against the Municipal promulgated subsequently thereto "were
Board and the Mayor of the City of Manila, for a issued without authority of law", because,
declaratory relief. It was brought by the otherwise, said emergency regulations would
purport to be in force for an indefinite and corporation, should be considered a part of our
unlimited period of time, and, hence, would be legal system.

The same considerations impelled the Court to

invalidate Executive Order Nos. 545 and 546,
issued on November 10, 1952. Indeed, otherwise
"the result would be obvious unconstitutionality", c. In respect to application: prospective or
by making permanent a law intended to afford a retroactive
relief for a temporary emergency, the length of d. In respect to operation: declaratory,
which should be "fixed in the law itself and not
dependent upon the arbitrary or elastic will of
curative, mandatory,
either Congress or the President". directory, substantive, remedial, and penal
e. In respect to form: affirmative or negative
We have not overlooked the fact that the cases
adverted to refer particularly to the constitutional B. Enactment of Statutes
provision authorizing Congress, "in times of war
or other national emergency", to delegate to the
President, "for a limited period", and subject to
1. Legislative power of Congress
specified "restrictions", the power "to promulgate
rules and regulations to carry out a declared Article VI, 1987 Constitution
national policy". We are inclined to believe, SECTION 1
however, that in providing that the lifetime of the
authority given must be "for a limited period", the The legislative power shall be vested in the
framers of our Charter were influenced by the fact Congress of the Philippines which shall
that powers were being delegated to the
Executive, as much as by the circumstance that, consist of a Senate and a House of
since the cause for the grant of power was Representatives, except to the extent reserved
temporary, so should the grant be, for the effect
cannot remain in existence upon the removal of to the people by the provision on initiative
its cause. In fact, Congress has, in actual
practice, accepted this limitation upon its exercise
and referendum.
of police power to meet a condition of emergency.
Thus, Commonwealth Act No. 499 regulated the Occena vs. ComelecG.R. No. L-56350 April
transfer of vessels and of shipping facilities, 2, 1981Facts:
effective until adjournment of the next regular The challenge in these two prohibition
session of the National Assembly. This was
followed by Commonwealth Act No. 689 which proceedings against the validity of three
penalized speculation on rents of buildings Batasang Pambansa Resolutions
destined for dwelling purposes, but only "for a proposing constitutional amendments
period of two (2) years after its approval." This Act
goes further than merely assailing their
was amended by Republic Act No. 66 which, inter
alia, extended its period of effectivity to "four (4) alleged constitutional infirmity. The rather
years after it approval." unorthodox aspect of these petitions is the
assertion that the 1973 Constitution is not
Needless to say, the powers of municipal the fundamental law. The three Resolutions
corporations delegated thereto by the National
Government cannot escape the inherent were: 1) Resolution No. 1 proposing an
limitations to which the latter as the source of amendment allowing a natural-born citizen
said powers is subject. Then, again, since our of the Philippines naturalized in a foreign
law on municipal corporations is, in principle,
country to own a limited area of land for
patterned after that of the United States, the rule
therein, to the effect that "in a proper case, residential purposes 2) Resolution No. 2
emergency legislation, limited in time, may be dealing with the Presidency, the Prime
enacted under the police power" of a municipal Minister and the Cabinet, and the National
Assembly; and 3) Resolution No. 3 on the amendments could be proposed. That is not
amendment to the Article on the a requirement as far as a constitutional
Commission on Elections. The three convention is concerned. It is not a
resolutions were approved by the requirement either when, as in this case, the
Interim Batasang Pambansa sitting as a Interim Batasang Pambansa exercises its
constituent assembly on February 5 and constituent power to propose amendments.
27, 1981which the date of plebiscite has Resolution No. 1 proposing an amendment
been set on April 7, 1981. It is thus within the allowing a natural-born citizen of
90-day period provided by the Constitution. the Philippines naturalized in a foreign
Issues: country to own a limited area of land for
(1) Whether or not the 1973 Constitution is residential purposes was approved by the
a fundamental law.(2) Whether or not the vote of 122 to 5; Resolution No. 2 dealing
Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power with the Presidency, the Prime Minister and
to propose amendments.(3) Whether or not the Cabinet, and the National Assembly by a
the three-fourth votes is necessary to vote of 147 to 5 with 1 abstention; and
propose amendments as wellas the standard Resolution No. 3 on the amendment to the
for proper submission.(4) Whether or not Article on the Commission on Elections by a
the three BatasangPambansa Resolutions vote of 148 to 2 with 1 abstention The three
proposing constitutional amendments are resolutions were approved by the Interim
valid. BatasangPambansa sitting as a constituent
Held: assembly on February 5 and 27, 1981, thus
Yes, the Interim BatasangPambansa has the making them valid.
power and privilege to propose
amendments. On January 17, 1973, the
present Constitution came into force and Arturo Tolentino vs Secretary of
effect. With such a pronouncement by the Finance
Supreme Court and with the recognition of 235 SCRA 630 (1994) 249 SCRA 635 (1995)
the cardinal postulate that what the Political Law Origination of Revenue Bills
Supreme Court says is not only entitled to EVAT Amendment by Substitution
respect but must also be obeyed, a factor for
Arturo Tolentino et al are questioning the
instability was removed. Thereafter, as a
constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known
matter of law, all doubts were resolved. The
as the Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT)
1973Constitution is the fundamental law.
Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill
The existence of this power is indubitable as did not exclusively originate from the House of
the applicable provision in the 1976 Representatives as required by Section 24,
Amendments is quite explicit. The Article 6 of the Constitution. Even though RA
Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed
constituent body, can propose amendments. the 3 readings in the HoR, the same did not
In that capacity, only a majority vote complete the 3 readings in Senate for after the
is needed. It would be an indefensible 1streading it was referred to the Senate Ways
proposition to assert that the three-fourth & Means Committee thereafter Senate
votes required when it sits as a legislative passed its own version known as Senate Bill
body applies as well when it has been 1630. Tolentino averred that what Senate
convened as the agency through which could have done is amend HB 11197 by striking
out its text and substituting it with the text of
SB 1630 in that way the bill remains a House
Bill and the Senate version just becomes the
text (only the text) of the HB. (Its
ironic however to note that Tolentino and co-
petitioner Raul Roco even signed the said
Senate Bill.)
ISSUE: Whether or not the EVAT law is
procedurally infirm.
HELD: No. By a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court
rejected the challenge, holding that such
consolidation was consistent with the power
of the Senate to propose or concur with
amendments to the version originated in the
HoR. What the Constitution simply means,
according to the 9 justices, is that the initiative
must come from the HoR. Note also that there
were several instances before where Senate
passed its own version rather than having the
HoR version as far as revenue and other such
bills are concerned. This practice of
amendment by substitution has always been
accepted. The proposition of Tolentino
concerns a mere matter of form. There is no
showing that it would make a significant
difference if Senate were to adopt his over
what has been done.