POLITICAL LAW
Morillo Digests
CONSTUTIONAL LAW 1
CASE DIGESTS
Atty. J. Arcilla
I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
RE: PROCLAMATION NO. 3; MARCH 25, 1986;
LEGITIMACY OF CORAZON AQUINO GOVERNMENT
LAWYER’S LEAGUE vs. CORAZON AQUINO
GR no. 73748, May 22, 1986
Facts:
Lawyers League questioned the legitimacy of
President Corazon Aquino. They claimed that the said
government is illegal because its establishment was
not in accordance to the 1973 Constitution.
Issue:
W/N the government of President Corazon
Aquino was illegal.
Ruling:
NO, the government of Pres. Corazon Aquino
not illegal.
The SC provided that the question of
legitimacy regarding the government of President
Corazon Aquino belongs to the realm of politics where
only the people of the Philippines are the Judge. The
People have made the judgment and they have
accepted the government of Pres. Aquino to be in
effective control of the entire country.
The petition is dismissed because Lawyer’s
League have no locus standi or personality to sue and
their petition states no cause of action.
RE: PROCLAMATION NO. 3; MARCH 25, 1986;
DECLARATION OF CORAZON AQUINO AS THE
PRESIDENT
IN RE: SATURNINO BERMUDEZ
GR no. 76180, October 24, 1986
Facts:
Petitioner Saturnino Bermudez questioned
paragraph 1 of Section 5, Article XVIII of the proposed
1986 Constitution claiming that it is not clear as to
whom it refers. He asked the SC to declare and
answer the question of the construction and
definiteness as to who, among President Aquino (and
VP Laurel), and President Marcos (and VP Tolentino)
is being referred under the said Section.
Issue:
W/N President Aquino and not President
Marcos is being referred to under Sec. 5, par.1, Art.
XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution.
Ruling:
YES, It is the President C. Aquino (and her VP
S. Laurel) are being referred to under the aforesaid
section.
Bermudez’ allegation of vagueness is
manifestly gratuitous, it being a matter of public
record and common public knowledge that the
Constitutional Commission refers therein to
incumbent Pres. C. Aquino and VP S. Laurel and no
other persons.
II. NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
EFFECTIVITY OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
ALFREDO DE LEON, Et. al vs.
BENJAMIN ESGUERRA, Et. al
GR no. 78059, August 31, 1987
Facts:
In the May 17, 1982 Barangay Elections,
Alfredo De Leon was elected Brgy. Captain and the
others as Brgy. Councilmen of Brgy. Dolores, Taytay,
Rizal under BP 222 (Brgy. Election Act of 1982). On
February 9, 1987, De Leon received a Memorandum
signed by the OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra
designating Florentino Magno as Brgy. Captain of
Brgy. Dolores. The designation made by OIC
Governor Esguerra was “by authority of the Minister of
Local Government.”
De Leon filed an original action for Prohibition
before the SC praying that the subject Memoranda be
declared null and void, claiming that with the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution, OIC Governor
Esguerra no longer has authority to replace them and
to designate their successors. On the other hand, OIC
Governor Esguerra relies on Art. II, Sec. 3, of the
Provisional Constitution and contend that the terms of
office of elective and appointive officials were
abolished.
Issue:
1. W/N The Memorandum should be declared null
and void?
2. Whether or not the designation of Florentino
Magno to replace Alfredo De Leon was validly
made?
Ruling:
1. YES, The Memorandum issued by OIC
Governor Esguerra is declared to have no legal
effect and force. Since the promulgation of the
Provisional Constitution, there has been no
proclamation or executive order terminating the
term of elective Barangay Officials.
2. NO, Art. II, Sec. 3 of the Provisional Constitution
is deemed to have been overtaken by Sec. 27,
Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution which
provides; “This Constitution shall take effect
immediately upon its ratification by a majority of
the votes cast is a plebiscite held for the
1
 POLITICAL LAW
Morillo Digests
purpose and shall supersede all previous
Constitution.
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a
plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, the
Provisional Constitution must be deemed to
have been superseded. Having become
inoperative, OIC Governor Esguerra could no
longer rely on Sec. 2, Art. III thereof to designate
Florentino Magno to the elective positions
occupied by Alfredo De Leon.
III. AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
AMENDMENT OR REVISION;
QUALITATIVE TEST v. QUANTITATIVE TESTS
RAUL LAMBINO vs. COMELEC
505 SCRA 160, October 25, 2006
Facts:
Raul Lambino’s group commenced the
gathering of signatures for an initiative petition to
change the 1987 Constitution. They filed a petition
with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify
their initiative petition. Lambino’s group initiative
petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying
Secs. 1-7 of Art. VI (Legislative Department) and Secs.
1-4 of Art. VII (Executive Department). These
proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-
Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
form of government.
COMELEC issued a Resolution denying
Lambino group’s petition for lack of enabling law
governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution.
Issue:
W/N Lambino Group’s initiative violates Sec.
2, Art. XVII of the Constitution.
Ruling:
YES, A people’s initiative to change the
Constitution applies only to an amendment of the
Constitution and not to its revision.
Revision broadly implies a change that alters
a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the
principle of separation of powers or the system of
checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the
change alters the substantial entirety of the
constitution, as when the change affects substantial
provisions of the constitution. On the other hand,
Amendment broadly refers to a change that adds,
reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle
involved.
Where the initiative clause allows
amendments but not revisions to the constitution,
courts have developed a two-part test: (a) quantitative
test, and (b) qualitative test. The quantitative test asks
whether the proposed change is “so extensive in its
provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial
entirety’ of the constitution by the deletion or
alteration of numerous existing provisions.” The
2
qualitative test ask whether the change will
“accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature
of our basic governmental plan as to amount to
revision.”
Under both tests, the Lambino Group’s
initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment.
Quantitatively, Lambino Group’s proposed changes
overhaul two articles (Art. VI and Art. VII) affecting a
total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.
Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially
the basic plan of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral
legislature.
A change in the structure of government is a
revision of the Constitution. Lambino Group’s initiative
is a revision and not an amendment. Therefore, the
present initiative is void and unconstitutional because
it violates Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution limiting
the scope of a people’s initiative to “Amendments to
this Constitution.”
CONGRESS ACTING AS CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
v. CONGRESS ACTING AS LEGISLATIVE BODY
IMBONG vs. COMELEC
35 SCRA 28, September 11, 1970
Facts:
Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales are
interested in running as a candidates for delegates to
the Constitutional Convention. They both impugn the
constitutionality of RA 6131, claiming that it prejudices
their rights as candidates.
On March 16, 1967, Congress (acting as a
Constituent Assembly) passed Resolution no. 2 which
called for a Constitutional Convention to propose
constitutional amendments to be composed of two
delegates from each representative district who shall
have the same qualification as those of Congressman,
to be elected on the second Tuesday of November
1970. After the adoption of Resolution no. 2 but
before the November Elections that year, Congress
(acting as Legislative Body) enacted RA 4914,
implementing Resolution no. 2.
On June 17, 1969, Congress (acting as
Constituent Assembly) passed Resolution no. 4
amending Resolution no. 2. On August 24, 1970,
Congress (acting as legislative body) enacted RA
6132 expressly repealing RA 4914.
Manuel Imbong impugns the constitutionality
of RA 6132.
Issue:
W/N the enactment of RA 6131 by the
Congress acting as a legislative body is constitutional.
Ruling:
YES, the SC sustain the constitutionality of
the enactment of RA 6131 by Congress acting as a
legislative body in the exercise of its broad law-
making authority, and not as a Constituent Assembly.
 POLITICAL LAW
Morillo Digests
Congress (acting as a Constituent Assembly)
has full and plenary authority to propose
Constitutional amendments or to call a Constitutional
Convention for the purpose. The grant to Congress as
a Constituent Assembly of such plenary authority to
call a constitutional convention includes all other
powers essential to the effective exercise of the
principal power granted.
While the authority to call a constitutional
convention is vested by the Constitution solely and
exclusively in Congress acting as a Constituent
Assembly, the power to enact the implementing
details (such as RA 6132) does not exclusively pertain
to Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly. Such
implementing details are matters within the
competence of Congress in the exercise of its
comprehensive legislative power, which power
encompasses all matters not expressly or by
necessary implication withdrawn or removed by the
Constitution from the ambit of legislative action.
When Congress acting as a Constituent
Assembly omits to provide for such implementing
details after calling a constitutional convention,
Congress acting as a legislative body can enact the
necessary implementing legislation to fill in the gaps.
PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE; GOVERNING STATUTE
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC
GR no. 127325, March 19, 1997
Facts:
Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with Comelec a
“Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term
Limits of Elective Officials, by People’s Initiative (Delfin
Petition). Delfin and the members of the Movement for
People’s Initiative intend to exercise the power to
directly propose amendments to the Constitution
granted under Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. As
required in COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, signature
stations shall be established all over the country.
On the other hand, Miriam Defensor-Santiago
filed a special civil action before the SC, arguing that
the Constitutional provision on people’s initiative to
amend the Constitution can only be implemented by
law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been
passed, SB 1290 is still pending before the Senate
Committee on Constitutional Amendments. Moreover,
RA 6735 failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on
the Constitution. RA 6735 covers only laws and not
constitutional amendments because the latter take
effect only upon ratification and not after publication.
The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the
Constitution, not revision thereof.
Issue:
W/N RA 6735 was intended to or cover
initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
Ruling:
NO, RA 6735 is not intended to or cover
initiative on amendments to the Constitution. First,
Sec. 2 of the RA 6735 does not suggest an initiative
on amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of
the word “Constitution” therein was a delayed
afterthought. That word is neither germane or relevant
to the said section, which exclusively relates to
initiative and referendum on national laws and local
laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section is
silent as to amendments on the Constitution.
Second, RA 6735 does not provide for the
contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution.
Sec. 5(c) thereof requires statement of the proposed
lw sought to be enacted, approved or rejected,
amended or repealed, as the case may be. It does not
include the provisions of the Constitution sought to be
amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution.
Third, there is no subtitle provided for initiative
on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to
the latter simply means that the main thrust of RA
6735 is initiative and referendum on national and local
laws.
RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or
wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
concerned.
REQUIREMENTS OF PEOPLE’S
INITIATIVE ON THE CONSTITUTION
LAMBINO vs. COMELEC
505 SCRA 160, October 25, 2006
Facts:
Raul Lambino’s group commenced the
gathering of signatures for an initiative petition to
change the 1987 Constitution. They filed a petition
with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify
their initiative petition under Sec. 5(b) and (c) and Sec.
7 of RA 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Act).
Lambino’s group alleged that their petition
had the support og 6,327,952 individuals consisting
at least 12% of all registered voters, with each
legislative district represented by at least 3 % of its
registered voters. These proposed changes will shift
the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a
Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
COMELEC issued a Resolution denying
Lambino group’s petition for lack of enabling law
governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution. COMELEC invokes the ruling in Santiago
vs. Comelec declaring RA 6735 inadequate to
implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend
the Constitution.
Issue:
W/N Lambino Group’s initiative petition
complies with Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution on
amendments to the Constitution amendments to the
Constitution through a people’s initiative.
3
 POLITICAL LAW
Morillo Digests
Ruling:
NO, Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution allows
a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution, stating: “Amendments to the
Constitution may x x x be directly proposed by the
people though initiative upon a petition x x x “
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 2 essential
elements must be present; (1) The people must author
and sign the entire proposal. No agent or
representative can sign on their behalf; and (2) As an
initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition.
The Lambino Group submitted a copy of the
signature sheet before the SC, however, there is not a
single word, phrase, or sentence of the of their
group’s proposed changes in the signature sheet.
Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of
the proposed changes is attached to it. The signature
sheet merely asks a question whether the people
approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the
Unicameral-Parliamentary system of government. It
does not show to the people the draft of the proposed
changes before they are asked to sign the signature
sheet. Clearly, the signature sheet is not the “petition”
that the framers of the Constitution envisioned when
they formulated the initiative clause in Sec. 2, Art. XVII
of the Constitution.
RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION;
PLEBISCITE; SCHEDULE
GONZALES vs. COMELEC
GR no. L-28196, November 9, 1967
Facts:
On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the
House of Representatives passed the following
resolutions:
1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1,
proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the
Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so
as to increase the membership of the House of
Representatives from a maximum of 120, as
provided in the present Constitution, to a
maximum of 180, to be apportioned among the
several provinces as nearly as may be according
to the number of their respective inhabitants,
although each province shall have, at least, one
(1) member;
2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose
amendments to said Constitution, the convention
to be composed of two (2) elective delegates
from each representative district, to be "elected
in the general elections to be held on the second
Tuesday of November, 1971;" and
3. R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article
VI, of the same Constitution, be amended so as
4
to authorize Senators and members of the House
of Representatives to become delegates to the
aforementioned constitutional convention,
without forfeiting their respective seats in
Congress.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which,
upon approval by the President, on June 17, 1967,
became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the
amendments to the Constitution proposed in the
aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be
submitted, for approval by the people, at the general
elections, which shall be held on November 14, 1967.
Issue:
May the proposed amendments be submitted
at a plebiscite scheduled on the same day as the
regular elections?
Ruling:
YES. The term “election” in article XV of the
1935 Constitution does not indicate that the “election”
therein referred to is a “special”, not a general
election. The circumstance that three previous
amendments to the Constitution had been submitted
to the people for ratification in special elections
merely shows that congress deemed it best to do so
under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not
negate its authority to submit proposed amendments
for ratification in general elections.
RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC
41 SCRA 702, October 16, 1971
Facts:
Petition for prohibition to restrain the
COMELEC from holding a plebiscite on No. 8, 1971,
at which the proposed constitutional amendment
“reducing the voting age” in Art. V, Sec.1, Constitution
to 18 years “shall be submitted” for ratification by the
people pursuant to Organic Resolution No. 1 of the
Constitutional Convention of 1971 by declaring said
resolution to be without the force and effect of law in
so far as they direct the holding of the plebiscite and
by also declaring the act of the COMELEC performed
and to be done by it in obedience to the aforesaid
Convention resolutions to be null and void, for being
violative of the Constitution.
The COMELEC issued a Resolution holding a
plebiscite on November 8, 1971.
Issue:
Is it within the powers of the Constitutional
Convention of 1971 to order the holding of a
plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed
amendment reducing to 18 years the age for the
exercise of suffrage under Art. V, Sec.1, Constitution
proposed in the Convention’s Organic Resolution No.
1 in the manner and form provided in said resolution
 POLITICAL LAW
Morillo Digests
and the subsequent implementing acts and resolution
of the Convention?
Ruling:
NO, SC granted the petition of Tolentino. The
Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional
Convention of 1971, insofar as it provide for the
holding of a plebiscite on November 8, 1971 as well
as the resolution of the COMELEC complying
therewith are declared by the SC to be null and void.
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 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 it has
to from a harmonious whole.
The SC is of the opinion that the present
Constitution does not contemplate in Art. XV, Sec. 1
as plebiscite or “election” wherein the people are in
the dark as to frame of reference they can base their
judgment on.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS
SANIDAD vs. COMELEC
73 SCRA, October 12, 1976
Facts:
Pres. Marcos issued PD 991 calling for a
national referendum for the Citizen Assemblies
(Barangays) to resolve the issues of martial law, its
replacement, the period of its existence, the length of
the period for tile exercise by the President of his
present powers. 20 days after, President issued PD
1031, amending PD 991,by declaring the provisions of
PD 229 providing for the manner of voting and
canvass of votes in Citizen Assemblies applicable to
the national referendum-plebiscite. On the same date,
President issued PD 1033, stating the questions to be
submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite
on Oct. 16, 1976.
Pablo and Pablito Sanidad commenced a
Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction
seeking to declare without force and effect PD 991
and 1033. They contend that under the 1935/1973
Constitution there is no grant to the incumbent
President to exercise the constituent power to
propose amendments to the new Constitution. Hence,
the referendum-plebiscite on Oct. 16 has no
constitutional or legal basis.
In its comment, the COMELEC(SOL-GEN)
maintains that the issue raised is political in nature,
beond judicial cognizance of the SC and that only the
incumbent President has the authority to exercise
constituent power. Hence, the referendum-plebiscite
is a step towards normalization.
Issue:
W/N the issue raised is political in nature
which is beyond the ambit of the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
NO, the SC disagree with the contention of
the Solicitor General that the question at bar is
political in nature. The amending process both as to
proposal and ratification, raises a judicial question.
This is especially true in cases where the power of
the Presidency to initiate the of normally exercised by the
legislature, is seriously doubted. Under the terms of the
1973 Constitution, the power to propose amendments o the
constitution resides in the interim National Assembly in the
period of transition (See. 15, Transitory provisions). After that
period, and the regular National Assembly in its active
session, the power to propose amendments becomes ipso
facto the prerogative of the regular National Assembly (Sec.
1, pars. 1 and 2 of Art. XVI, 1973 constitution). The normal
course has not been followed. Rather than calling the
National Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent
assembly the incumbent President undertook the proposal
of amendments and submitted the proposed amendments
thru Presidential Decree 1033 to the people in a
Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. Unavoidably, the
regularity regularity of the procedure for amendments,
written in lambent words in the very Constitution sought to
be amended, raises a contestable issue. The implementing
Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033, which
commonly purport to have the force and effect of legislation
are assailed as invalid, thus the issue of the validity of said
Decrees is plainly a justiciable one, within the competence
of this Court to pass upon. Section 2 (2), Article X of the new
Constitution provides: "All cases involving the
constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or law may
shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court en banc
and no treaty, executive agreement, or law may be declared
unconstitutional without the concurrence of at least ten
Members. ..." The Supreme Court has the last word in the
construction not only of treaties and statutes, but also of the
Constitution itself The amending, like all other powers
organized in the Constitution, is in form a delegated and
hence a limited power, so that the Supreme Court is vested
with that authorities to determine whether that power has
been discharged within its limits.
Political questions are neatly associated with
the wisdom, of the legality of a particular act. Where
the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or
validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely
justiciable or non-political.
The SC cannot accept the view of the Solicitor
General, in pursuing his theory of non-justiciability,
that the question of the President's authority to
propose amendments and the regularity of the
procedure adopted for submission of the proposal to
the people ultimately lie in the judgment of the A clear
Descartes fallacy of vicious circle. Is it not that the
people themselves, by their sovereign act, provided
for the authority and procedure for the amending
process when they ratified the present Constitution in
1973? Whether, therefore, the constitutional provision
has been followed or not is the proper subject of
inquiry, not by the people themselves of course who
5
 POLITICAL LAW
Morillo Digests
exercise no power of judicial but by the Supreme
Court in whom the people themselves vested that
power, a power which includes the competence to
determine whether the constitutional norms for
amendments have been observed or not. And, this
inquiry must be done a prior not a posterior i.e.,
before the submission to and ratification by the
people.