Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Amendment and Revision

 Read Article 17 of 1987 Constitution

Q: What are the 3 entities which can only propose to change Constitution?

1. Congress – ¾ of all members of Congress ; No Decision of its impretation

2. Constitutional Convention – 2/3 of all members

3. People though people’s initiative upon petition signed by atleast 20% total registered
voters in the Philippines, of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3%
of the registered voters therein. (20%-3%)

What are the 2 ways by which Constitution can be changed?

1. Amendment – it change that adds, reduces and deletes without altering the basic
principles under Constitution. i.e change in the qualification of Congressman

2. Revision – it change that alters the basic principle underlying the constitution. If the
changes the basic structure of Government/ change the basic constitutional principle in
Constitution.

From Presidential to Parliamentary – Revise/change the Article 6 and Article 7 ; In


parliamentary, there is fusion of Executive and Legislative.

SEE CASE: Lambino Vs. COMELEC

In this case, SC employed 2 Tests to determine whether the change is amendment


or revision.

1. Qualitative Test – refers to quality of change effected in the constitution. If it


changes the underlying principle of constitution- it is revision.

2. Quantitative Test – refers to numbers; if more than 50% of the provision of


the constitution are changed. Then, the change effected is revision.

The change that people’s initiative that is trying to propose is revision.


People’s initiative is limited to amendment of the Constitution

SC held that people’s initiative cannot be used to introduce or propose revision to the
Constitution. SC interpreted Article 17 Sec 1 and 2 that while there’s an express provision
that amendment can be effected through people’s initiative, there’s no mention that the
revision of constitution can be made through people’s initiative. Hence, the change in
constitution through people’s initiative is limited only to amendment.

National Territory
Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution defines Philippine Territory. Is the definition in our
Constitution internationally binding? Are other states bound to respect the way we define
our territory?

Answer: No. Our Constitution is municipal law. It is not internationally binding. We need
to prove our entitlement on our territorial claims under the rules on international law
because the way we define our Territory is not binding under international Law.

What is the nature of our State?

It is archipelagic State. Under the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea:

(a) "archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by one or more


archipelagos and may include other islands;

(b) "archipelago" means a group of islands, including parts of islands,


interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely
interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an
intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically
have been regarded as such.

Before the UNCLOS, archipelagic states are governed by 3 mile rule/ Canon-Ball Rule.
The reach of the canon-ball, 3 nautical miles from the baseline. The extent of territorial
sea under the Canon-Ball rule is 3 nautical miles from the shore.

In international water – any foreign states can fish and pass without restriction.

As an archipelagic State, it is recognized or treated as on contiguous territory.

Connect the outermost island of Philippine archipelago and draw an imaginary, all the
waters inside the baseline are considered internal waters of the Philippines by baseline.

The above is reflected in our Constitution – “ the waters around, between, and connecting
the island of the archipelago regardless of its breadth and dimension shall form part of
internal waters of the Philippines.
Archipelagic doctrine is not yet internationally accepted

The waters inside the baseline is not considered as internal waters but only archipelagic
waters.

Difference between Internal Waters and Archipelagic Waters

If it is treated as internal water, it is subject to plenary jurisdiction of coastal or


archipelagic state. A foreign vessel cannot pass through it without permission.

If it is archipelagic waters, though a state can territorial claim over it, it cannot deprive
the foreign vessels of their rights to innocent passage.

See Case: Magalona Vs. Ermita

Purpose of RA 9522 – Base Line

SC held that under UNCLOS, each coastal state/state party has the obligation to
determine their own baseline to know the extent the Philippine’s maritime zone.

LEGAL CONCEPTS:

4 maritime

1. Territorial sea – 12 nautical miles from the baseline. Philippine has sovereign
over it subject to the rights of innocent passage.
2. Contiguous zones – 24 nautical Miles from the base line.
3. Exclusive Economic Zones– 200 nautical miles from the baseline. We have rights
to explore, manage and exploit resources therein.
4. Continental shelf - comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that
extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land
territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of
200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea
is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to
that distance. The coastal state has right to explore and exploit its natural
resources.

Purpose of Baseline Law

Baseline law is statutory mechanism of a state party to delimit with precision the extent
of their maritime zones. It has nothing to do with the extent of our territory under Article
1. Baseline law doesn’t increase and decrease the national territory of the Philippines.
Kalayaan Group of Island and Scalborough Shoal

The classification of KGI and Scarborough Shoal as Regime of Islands is consistent with
the Philippines’ sovereignty. Had RA 9522 enclosed the islands as part of the
archipelago, the country will be violating UNCLOS III since it categorically stated that
the length of the baseline shall not exceed 125 nautical miles.

RA 9522 is constitutional

The UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitution’s delineation
of internal waters. Petitioners contend that RA 9522 transformed the internal waters of
the Philippines to archipelagic waters hence subjecting these waters to the right of
innocent and sea lanes passages, exposing the Philippine internal waters to nuclear and
maritime pollution hazards.

The Court emphasized that the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water
lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine
areas underneath, regardless whether internal or archipelagic waters. However,
sovereignty will not bar the Philippines to comply with its obligation in maintaining
freedom of navigation and the generally accepted principles of international law. It can
be either passed by legislator as a municipal law or in the absence thereof, it is deemed
incorporated in the Philippines law since the right of innocent passage is a customary
international law, thus automatically incorporated thereto.

This does not mean that the states are placed in a lesser footing; it just signifies
concession of archipelagic states in exchange for their right to claim all waters inside the
baseline. In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its
exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all
living and non-living resources within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the
international community since the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If
the maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international community will of
course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.

Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit

Article 16 Section 3 – The state cannot be sued without its consent.

See: Equality of states


Coverage: State diplomatic agents, foreign agents acting under directives of sending
state, United Nations, International organizations (organized or formed by states or
independent states).

Suit is directed to public officer – a suit against a state (TEST)

Who in the end will be liable? If the Government is liable, it is a suit against State.
Therefore, it requires consent.

Suit is directed to public officer – No prior consent is required; Mandamus and Prohibition

To compel him to do something as required or mandated by law.

To compel payment of damages which is appropriated

What are the forms of consent?

1. Express Consent - General Law or Special Law

ACT 3088 – Claims for money (Filing the claim before Commission on Audit).
LGU is municipal corporation. Law provides that it can sue or be sued.

2. Implied Consent – When the government commences the suit/litigation or the


government enters into contracts* ( not automatic waiver).

*Determine if the government entered into contract into governmental capacity/ purely
proprietary.

*Classify the government agency

- If it is incorporated, there’s a law creating the agency. If the law provides that the
agency can sue or be sued.

-Unincorporated – Determine the function of agency. (Governmental/Purely Proprietary).

What is the scope of the consent?

Consent to be sued does not include the consent to the execution of judgment against the
State.

Execution of Judgment
Governmental assets are outside the commerce of man. Hence, they cannot be subject to
execution, attachment or garnishment. Article 6 Section 29 Par 1 – No public money
shall be paid out national treasury except pursuant to an appropriation law.

The injured party must file money claim with the COA; if claim is warranted, COA will
recommend to the DBM for proper appropriation to satisfy the claim.

Funds belonging to GOCCs are not exempt from garnishment. (i.e SSS, GSIS, Landbank,
DBP). Consent to pay is not required.

But not automatic – if GOCC is still receiving appropriation of the government. The
money or assets are governmental assets.

Funds belonging Municipal Corporation are exempt from execution, attachment and
garnishment. Consent to pay is required.

Under the Local Government Code, public money shall be disbursed pursuant to
appropriation ordinance.

Remedy to enforce claim: File claim for petition for mandamus to compel the Local
Government Unit to enact appropriation ordinance.

See Case Doctrines:

1. Concept of Immunity from Suit cannot be used to commit injustice to the people.
2. Revocation of donation which is the cause of action of plaintiff is not a money claim
arising from contracts. Hence, filing a claim with the COA is not necessary. Since the
government failed to comply with the condition of the donation, the donor can revoke
the donation.
3. Consent to be sued does not consent to pay.
4. UP assets/funds are governmental assets. Thus, not subject to execution.
5. The fact that the government entered into contracts does not mean that it implied
waive its immunity suit. If the government enters into a contract in a proprietary
capacity, there is an implied consent to be sued.
6. The claim of immunity by foreign government agency must be proven by evidence.
7. Certification of the DFA that the foreign government agency is immune from suit
must be respected.
Separation of Powers
See Case: Belgica Vs Ochoa; Declaration of Nullity of PDAF

Separation of Powers – Concept

Constitution provides the allocation of powers to the 3 governmental branches including


the constitutional commissions. Thus, these 3 departments must discharge their functions
within the limits conferred by the Constitution.

2 ways by which separation of powers can be violated

1. Impermissible interference – interferes with the exclusive prerogative belonging to


other branch of the government.
2. Impermissible assumption of function

Power to promulgate rules and regulation

Administrative regulations - relates to the concept of power of subordinate legislation. It


has an effect of law. So long as the delegation in accordance with the law.

Case Doctrines:

1. It is within the President to appoint officers (i.e SBMA head- Incumbent mayor). in the
executive branch. Congress can provide the qualification but the discretion to appoint
belongs exclusively to the President. There is impermissible assumption of function to
appoint by the Congress.
2. Petition for Quo warranto questioning the election of senate president was dismissed by
SC. The position for Senate President is the only position in the senate that the Constitution
mandates to be elected. The election of senate minority floor leader is purely internal to the
senate. It is something that the Court. To grant the petition operates an impermissible
interference.
3. The violation of the Senate rules is not a violation of constitution.
4. Legislative veto – is the provision of law requiring the president or any admin agency to
present to propose implementing rules and regulation subject to the approval of the joint
committee of the congress before they take effect. It is unconstitutional. From the moment
the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its
committee the implementation violates the principle of separation. Issuance of
Implementing Rules and Regulation is in the nature of implementation of the law.
5. The Supreme Court defines the Pork Barrel System as the collective body of rules and
practices that govern the manner by which the lump-sum discretionary funds primarily
intended for local projects are utilized through the respective participations of the
branches of the government including its members.
2 Kinds – Congressional and Presidential Pork Barrel.

SC held Pork Barrel System violates the principle of separation powers because of the
authority of the legislator to participate in post enactment phases of project
implementation. These post enactment measures which governs the areas of project
identification, fund release, fund and realignment are not within the functions of
congressional committee hence allowing the legislators to intervene with the duties
which properly belong to the sphere of budget execution of executive branch.

Delegation of Legislative Powers

Valid delegation of Legislative Powers must comply the 2 tests:

a. Completeness test- the law must be complete in all its terms so there’s nothing more left
the delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it. It sets forth therein the policy
to be executed or carried out by the delegate.
b. Sufficient Standard test –it is intended to map out the boundaries of delegate’s authority
by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be
pursued.

Case doctrines:

1. (Declaration of State Emergency – Philippine Tribune is closed under Arroyo


Administration) SC held that the closure of Philippine Tribune- a public utility is invalid.
If there’s no congressional authority for the President to exercise emergency powers, she
cannot exercise emergency powers.
2. Belgica case- Malampaya Funds which can be used on any other purposes as may be
directed by President is unconstitutional because there is undue delegation of legislative.
The discretionary power of the President is unbridled.
3. Mandatory testing vying for appointive position – Provision on drugs law and COMELEC
passed a resolution that a candidate must undergo mandatory testing. The provision is
unconstitutional adds qualifications of a certain candidate as prescribed by the
Constitution. It violates Article 3 Section 6 of the constitution.
4. Apportionment of Legislative Districts - Section 5 of Article 6; territory of legislative must
be adjacent, contiguous and compact as far as practicable and to prevent gerrymandering.

Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC – Apportionment of legislative district does not require


plebiscite. The criteria established under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution
only apply when there is a creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of
boundaries of a province, city, municipality, or barangay; in this case, no such creation,
division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundaries of a local government unit took
place; and R.A. No. 9371 did not bring about any change in Cagayan de Oro’s territory,
population and income classification; hence, no plebiscite is required.
Aquino Vs. COMELEC – Under the Constitution. "Each city with a population of at least
two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.". The
250,000 population is required only to city but not on the province.

Aldaba Vs. COMELEC – Re: Lone district of Malolos. SC has held unconstitutional
because it violates the provision that the territory of legislative must be adjacent,
contiguous, compact as far as practicable.

SEMA Vs. COMELEC – Re: Shariff Kabunsuan. Under the organic law of ARMM,
ARMM is empowered to create province through ordinance of regional assembly. The
provision is unconstitutional. SC has held that the creation of province carries with it the
creation of legislative district. The power to apportion of legislative district belongs to the
Congress alone. Regional assembly cannot create province through ordinance of regional
assembly.

Non-establishment Clause
The respondent did not violate the Constitution by issuing and selling the commemorative postage
stamps. Ruiz acted under the provision of Act No. 4052, which contemplates no religious purpose
in view, giving the Director of Posts the discretion to determine when the issuance of new postage
stamps would be “advantageous to the Government.” Of course, the phrase “advantageous to the
Government” does not authorize the violation of the Constitution. In the case at bar, the issuance
of the postage stamps was not intended by Ruiz to favor a particular church or denomination. The
stamps did not benefit the Roman Catholic Church, nor were money derived from the sale of the
stamps given to that church. The purpose of issuing of the stamps was to actually take advantage
of an international event considered to be a great opportunity to give publicity to the Philippines
and as a result attract more tourists to the country. In evaluating the design made for the stamp, it
showed the map of the Philippines instead of showing a Catholic chalice. The focus was on the
location of the City of Manila, and it also bore the inscription that reads “Seat XXXIII International
Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937.” In considering these, it is evident that there is no violation
of the Constitution therefore the act of the issuing of the stamps is constitutional.

Power of Appropriations
Araullo Vs. Aquino - “DAP Case – Disbursement Allocation Program”

Article 6 Section 29 Par. 1 - No money shall be paid out treasury except in pursuant to
appropriation law.

Article 6 Section 25 Par. 5-No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations;
however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law,
be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices
from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
Acts and practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program, National Budget Circular No.
541 and related executive issuances UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being in violation of Section
25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers, namely:

1. The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the
declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as
savings prior to the end of the fiscal year without complying with the statutory definition
of savings contained in the General Appropriations Acts.

Pooling of funds such as DAP coming from the withdrawal of unreleased appropriations
or unobligated allotments do not constitute savings. When the President suspends or stops
expenditure of funds, savings are not automatically generated until it has been established
that such funds or appropriations are free from any obligation or encumbrance, and that the
work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized has been completed,
discontinued or abandoned.

2. The power to augment cannot be used to fund non-existent provisions in the GAA. It
violates Article 6 Section 29 Par. 1 - No money shall be paid out treasury except in
pursuant to appropriation law.

3. Cross-border transfers are constitutionally impermissible. The cross-border transfers of


the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the
Executive is unconstitutional.

Legislative Inquiries

Article 6 Sec 21 – Legislative Inquiries – Purpose to elicit information to be used for future legislation.
Senate can compel the attendance to testify in the investigation.

SC held that the Congress’ power of inquiry, being broad, encompasses everything that concerns the
administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It even extends “to
government agencies created by Congress and officers whose positions are within the power of Congress
to regulate or even abolish. (Sabio Vs. COMELEC – Re: PCGG Chairman)

Article 6 Sec 22 – Question Hour – Oversight function; The Congress can only request for the appearance
of the Cabinet Secretary.

Cases Doctrines:

Senate Vs. Ermita - When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department
heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by
the mere fact that they are department heads. Only one executive official may be exempted from
this power — the President on whom executive power is vested, hence, beyond the reach of
Congress except through the power of impeachment. It is based on her being the highest official
of the executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-equal branch of government which
is sanctioned by a long-standing custom.
Neri Vs. Senate - If the secretary or any official in Executive department invokes presidential
communication privilege, he cannot be subject of congressional power of inquiry

Study: Presidential communication privilege requisites. Limitations of Senate Inquiry (1) In aid
of legislation (2) duly published rules (3) the right of person being investigated shall be respected.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi