DOCTRINES sought and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous
interpretation already given in a case by the highest court of the land.
Ocampo vs Enriquez / Lagman vs Medialdea (2016)
Marcos Burial
The second sentence of Sec. 17 of Art. VII is likewise not violated by
public respondents. Being the Chief Executive, the President represents
the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by
the officials and employees of his or her department. Under the Faithful
Execution Clause, the President has the power to take "necessary and
proper steps" to carry into execution the law. The mandate is self-
executory by virtue of its being inherently executive in nature and is
intimately related to the other executive functions. It is best construed as
an imposed obligation, not a separate grant of power. The provision
simply underscores the rule of law and, corollarily, the cardinal principle
that the President is not above the laws but is obliged to obey and
execute them.
Marbury vs Madison (1803)
Judicial Review
1. A law repugnant against the constitution is void
2. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which the
state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have
appellate jurisdiction.
Angara vs Electoral Commission (1936)
Election Protest Deadline
The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the
National Assembly, is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it
had remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging of that
power in the Electoral Commission is an implied denial of the exercise
of that power by the National Assembly.
Endencia vs David (1953)
Judges’ Salary Taxation
The interpretation and application of the Constitution and of statutes is
within the exclusive province and jurisdiction of the judicial department,
and that in enacting a law, the Legislature may not legally provide
therein that it be interpreted in such a way that it may not violate a
Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying the hands of the courts in their
task of later interpreting said statute, especially when the interpretation
Francisco vs House of Representatives (2003)
Davide’s 1st and 2nd Impeachment Proceedings
It is basic that all rules must not contravene the Constitution which is the
fundamental law. If as alleged Congress had absolute rule making
power, then it would by necessary implication have the power to alter or
amend the meaning of the Constitution without need of referendum.
J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration (1970)
Interpretation
Expropriation was constitutional
The question if one of constitutional construction (of interpreting the
constitution). The task is to ascertain the realization of the purpose of
the framers and of the people in adopting the Constitution. It is assumed
that that the words in the constitutional provisions express the
objectivity sought to be attained. They are to be given their ordinary
meaning except when technical terms are employed in which case the
significance attached to them prevails. This case is such a case and is
therefore one of minimal construction. The congress has the legislative
will to expropriate and subdivide lands it deems to be fit for sale.
Moreover, it cannot be denied that congress has the capacity to exercise
such authority. The language employed is not swathed in obscurity
(because congress has the legislative power as stated in the constitution).
It is presumed that the constitution suffices to govern the life of the
people not only at the present time but also in the indefinite future. The
constitution though does not give rigid answers but is flexible and
accommodates the problems the future may pose.
Ramon Gonzales vs COMELEC (1967)
Congress as Constitutional Assembly
Plebiscite Simultaneous with General Election
The power to amend as well as the power to propose amendments to the
Constitution is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to
Congress. Such powers are not constitutionally granted to Congress. On
the contrary, such powers are inherent to the people as repository of
sovereignty in a republican state. That being, when Congress makes
amendments or proposes amendments, it is not actually doing so as
Congress; but rather, it is sitting as a constituent assembly. Such act is
not a legislative act. Since it is not a legislative act, it is reviewable by
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final say whether or not
such act of the constituent assembly is within constitutional limitations.
Raul Lambino vs COMELEC (2006)
1
 People’s Initiative
The framers of the Constitution intended that the “draft of the proposed
constitutional amendment” should be “ready and shown” to the people
“before” they sign such proposal. The framers plainly stated that “before
they sign there is already a draft shown to them.” The framers also
“envisioned” that the people should sign on the proposal itself because
the proponents must “prepare that proposal and pass it around for
signature.”
The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a
petition by the people. This means two essential elements must be
present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal.
No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an
initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed
amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by
signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is
“directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” only
if the people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed
amendments.
Pablo Sanidad vs COMELEC (1976)
President sits as Legislature in Emergency
The President can propose amendments to the Constitution and he was
able to present those proposals to the people in sufficient time. The
President at that time also sits as the legislature.
Josue Javellana vs Executive Secretary (1973)
Ratification
Underage Voters
Plebiscite not Supervised by Comelec
4-2-3 vote by the Court
1. The votes of persons less than 21 years of age render the proceedings in
the Citizen’s assemblies void.
2. The plebiscite on the constitution not having been conducted under the
supervision of COMELEC is void.
3. 4-2-3 Votes means the Constitution is in force.
Province of North Cotabato vs Government of the Republic of the
Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (2008)
Sovereignty
MILF MOA-AD
Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE)
The Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this
jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less does it provide for
a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory for
independence.
Even assuming arguendo that the MOA-AD would not necessarily sever
any portion of Philippine territory, the spirit animating it – which has
betrayed itself by its use of the concept of association – runs counter to
the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic.
The MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and
laws. Not only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying
them, namely, the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP
and the BJE, are unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the
associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to
independence.
Merlin Magallona vs Secretary Eduardo Ermita (2011)
UNCLOS
UNCLOS may term our waters as “archipelagic waters” and that we
may term it as our “internal waters”, but the bottom line is that our
country exercises sovereignty over these waters and UNCLOS itself
recognizes that. However, due to our observance of international law,
we allow the exercise of others of their right of innocent passage. No
modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid
innocent passage that is exercised in accordance with customary
international law without risking retaliatory measures from the
international community.
In Re: the South China Sea Arbitration; Philippines vs China (2016)
South China Sea
Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of
generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—
without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the
exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not
overlapped by any possible entitlement of China. The Tribunal finds that China
has, by virtue of the conduct of Chinese law enforcement vessels in the vicinity
of Scarborough Shoal, created serious risk of collision and danger to Philippine
vessels and personnel.
2
3