III : CASES – The court reiterated that civil liability is independent and

can survive criminal acquittal if the facts prove the former by

G.R. NO. 155791. March 16, 2005 (Case Brief / Digest) a preponderance of evidence.
Jul 16, 2024 – Dr. Aguda’s testimony suggested two possibilities for
– Case Briefs Wilson’s injuries: a fall causing his head to hit a hard object or
Download PDF force applied by a blunt instrument. The testimony was
inconclusive in proving intent or a deliberate act.
**Title: Quinto vs. Andres and Pacheco (G.R. No. 139950)** – The totality of evidence did not sufficiently support that
**Facts:** Andres or Pacheco caused Wilson’s death intentionally or
On the morning of November 13, 1995, Edison Garcia and through negligence that surpassed the threshold for civil
Wilson Quinto, both eleven-year-olds, encountered Dante liability.
Andres and Randyver Pacheco near a drainage culvert in
Barangay San Rafael, Tarlac. Pacheco and Andres invited **Doctrine:**
Wilson to go fishing inside the culvert, but Garcia stayed The court reaffirmed that while civil actions are generally tied
outside due to the darkness. Pacheco, who possessed a to and initiated alongside criminal actions, the civil
flashlight, led Wilson and Andres inside the culvert. A few component may survive independently based on the weight
moments later, Pacheco emerged holding a fish and left of evidence demonstrating fault from the defendants (Article
silently. Andres came out carrying Wilson’s lifeless body. 100, Revised Penal Code; Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal
Andres informed Melba Quinto, Wilson’s mother, of her son’s Procedure).
death. The cadaver was buried without an autopsy, and
initially, no criminal charges were filed.
**Class Notes:**
On November 28, 1995, the NBI investigated and took sworn – **Elements of Homicide (by dolo)**: Prosecution must
statements from the involved parties. Pacheco denied prove (1) the death of the victim, (2) the death was due to a
involvement, claiming he saw Wilson’s dead body while criminal act, and (3) the accused’s agency in committing the
passing by on his carabao. Wilson’s body was exhumed on act.
February 29, 1996, and autopsied by Dr. Dominic Aguda, who – **Preponderance of Evidence**: In civil cases,
reported drowning and traumatic head injuries as the cause preponderance or superior weight of evidence is required,
of death. considering the facts, credibility, and probability of the
evidence.
– Reference: Section 1, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Evidence.
The NBI filed a homicide charge against Andres and Pacheco.
The RTC of Tarlac found probable cause and filed an **Historical Background:**
Information against them. During the trial, Dr. Aguda testified This case arises from the intertwining of criminal and civil
that the injuries indicated drowning possibly caused by aspects in Philippine jurisprudence. The historical context
external force. After presenting evidence, the prosecution emphasizes how criminal acquittals can affect civil actions,
rested, and the respondents moved for a demurrer to elucidating the separate but concurrent pathways for justice
evidence, which the RTC granted, leading to the dismissal of when criminal acts result in personal damage. The decision
the case for insufficiency of evidence. The petitioner illustrates evolving doctrinal clarity on the independence of
appealed the civil aspect to the Court of Appeals (CA), which civil liability, even in instances following criminal case
affirmed the RTC’s decision. dismissals.

**Issues:** **References:**
1. Whether the extinction of respondents’ criminal liability – Article 100, Revised Penal Code
also extinguishes their civil liability. – Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
2. Whether preponderant evidence exists to hold – Rule 133, Section 1, Revised Rules of Evidence
respondents civilly liable for Wilson Quinto’s death.

**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Extinguishing Civil Liability along with Criminal
Liability:**
The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the extinction
of the penal action does not necessarily extinguish the civil
action unless the acquittal is based on the fact that the
accused did not commit the criminal acts imputed.

2. **Preponderance of Evidence in the Civil Case:**

The court evaluated if preponderance of evidence existed to
hold respondents civilly liable. Unlike criminal cases, civil
liability requires proof by a preponderance of evidence, not
beyond reasonable doubt.
IV: CASES office "shall be six (6) years which shall commence on June 7,
1982 and shall continue until their successors shall have
237 Phil. 582 elected and shall have qualified", or up to June 7, 1988. It is
also their position that with the ratification of the 1987
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: Constitution, respondent OIC Governor no longer has the
authority to replace them and to designate their successors.
An original action for Prohibition instituted by petitioners
seeking to enjoin respondents from replacing them from On the other hand, respondents rely on Section 2, Article III
their respective positions as Barangay Captain and Barangay of the Provisional Constitution, promulgated on March 25,
Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Municipality of Taytay, 1986, which provided:
Province of Rizal.
"SECTION 2. All elective and appointive officials and
As required by the Court, respondents submitted their employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in
Comment on the Petition, and petitioners their Reply to office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive
respondents' Comment. order or upon the designation or appointment and
qualification of their successors, if such appointment is made
In the Barangay elections held on May 17, 1982, petitioner within a period of one year from February 25, 1986."
Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain and the By reason of the foregoing provision, respondents contend
other petitioners Angel S. Salamat, Mario C. Sta. Ana, Jose, C. that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials
Tolentino, Rogelio J. de la Rosa and Jose M. Resurreccion, as were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by
Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal virtue of the aforequoted provision and not because their
under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, otherwise known as the term of six years had not yet expired; and that the provision
Barangay Election Act of 1982. in the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of
Barangay officials to six (6) years must be deemed to have
On February 9, 1987, petitioner Alfredo M. de Leon received been repealed for being inconsistent with the aforequoted
a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 but signed by provision of the Provisional Constitution.
respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8,
1987 designating respondent Florentino G. Magno as Examining the said provision, there should be no question
Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. The that petitioners, as elective officials under the 1973
designation made by the OIC Governor was "by authority of Constitution, may continue in office but should vacate their
the Minister of Local Government." positions upon the occurrence of any of the events
mentioned.[1]
Also on February 8, 1987, respondent OIC Governor signed a
Memorandum, antedated December 1, 1986 designating Since the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution, there
respondents Remigio M. Tigas, Ricardo Z. Lacanienta, has been no proclamation or executive order terminating the
Teodoro V. Medina, Roberto S. Paz and Teresita L. Tolentino term of elective Barangay officials. Thus, the issue for
as members of the Barangay Council of the same Barangay resolution is whether or not the designation of respondents
and Municipality. to replace petitioners was validly made during the one-year
period which ended on February 25, 1987.
That the Memoranda had been antedated is evidenced by
the Affidavit of respondent OIC Governor, the pertinent Considering the candid Affidavit of respondent OIC Governor,
portions of which read: we hold that February 8, 1987, should be considered as the
effective date of replacement and not December 1, 1986 to
"x x x which it was antedated, in keeping with the dictates of
"That I am the OIC Governor of Rizal having been appointed justice.
as such on March 20, 1986;
"That as being OIC Governor of the Province of Rizal, and in But while February 8, 1987 is ostensibly still within the one-
the performance of my duties thereof, I among others, have year deadline, the aforequoted provision in the Provisional
signed as I did sign the unnumbered memorandum ordering Constitution must be deemed to have been overtaken by
the replacement of all the barangay officials of all the Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution reading:
barangay(s) in the Municipality of Taytay, Rizal;
"That the above cited memorandum dated December 1, 1986 "Sec. 27 - This Constitution shall take effect immediately
was signed by me personally on February 8, 1987; upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a
"That said memorandum was further deciminated (sic) to all plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all
concerned the following day, February 9, 1987. previous Constitutions."
"FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NONE. The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February
"Pasig, Metro Manila, March 23, 1987." 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution
Before us now, petitioners pray that the subject Memoranda must be deemed to have been superseded. Having become
of February 8, 1987 be declared null and void and that inoperative, respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely
respondents be prohibited from taking over their positions of on Section 2, Article III, thereof to designate respondents to
Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen, respectively. the elective positions occupied by petitioners.
Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the
Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 222), their terms of
Petitioners must now be held to have acquired security of LTWD opposed TMPC's application on the ground of the
tenure specially considering that the Barangay Election Act of exclusivity of its franchise.
1982 declares it "a policy of the State to guarantee and
promote the autonomy of the barangays to ensure their NWRB: Approved TMPC’s application for a CPC. NWRB held
fullest development as self-reliant communities".[2] Similarly, that LTWD’s franchise cannot be exclusive since exclusive
the 1987 Constitution ensures the autonomy of local franchises are unconstitutional and found that TMPC is
governments and of political subdivisions of which the legally and financially qualified to operate and maintain a
barangays form a part[3], and limits the President's power to waterworks system.
"general supervision" over local governments.[4] Relevantly,
Section 8, Article X of the same 1987 Constitution further LTWD appealed to the RTC.
provides in part:
RTC: Reversed NWRB's ruling. What is repugnant to the
"Sec. 8. - The term of office of elective local officials, except Constitution is a grant of franchise "exclusive in character" so
barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be as to preclude the State itself from granting a franchise to
three years x x x " any other person or entity than the present grantee when
Until the term of office of barangay officials has been public interest so requires. However, the Constitution does
determined by law, therefore, the term of office of six (6) not necessarily prohibit a franchise that is exclusive on its
years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982[5] face, meaning, that the grantee shall be allowed to exercise
should still govern. this present right or privilege to the exclusion of all others.

Contrary to the stand of respondents, we find nothing TMPC filed the present petition to challenge the RTC's ruling.
inconsistent between the term of six (6) years for elective
Barangay officials and the 1987 Constitution, and the same RULING
should, therefore, be considered as still operative, pursuant
to Section 3, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, reading: Petition granted.

"Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,

proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive # Title: Social Justice Society (SJS) et al. v. Dangerous Drugs
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain Board and Philippine Drug
operative until amended, repealed or revoked." Enforcement Agency (PDEA) & Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v.
WHEREFORE, (1) The Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Commission on Elections
Governor on February 8, 1987 designating respondents as ### Facts:
the Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen, respectively, This decision consolidates three petitions challenging the
of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, are both declared to be of constitutionality of Section 36 of
no legal force and effect; and (2) the Writ of Prohibition is Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
granted enjoining respondents perpetually from proceeding of 2002), which mandates
with the ouster/take-over of petitioners' positions subject of drug testing for various groups including candidates for public
this Petition. Without costs. office, secondary and tertiary
school students, officers and employees of public and private
SO ORDERED. offices, and persons charged
before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses. Each
CASE DIGEST] TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE vs. petition approached the law from
LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT (G.R. No. 166471) different angles:
March 22, 2011 1. **G.R. No. 161658 (Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v. Commission
on Elections)**: Filed by
Ponente: Carpio, J. Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., challenging the mandatory
drug testing for candidates for
FACTS public office as an additional, unconstitutional qualification.
2. **G.R. No. 157870 (Social Justice Society v. Dangerous
La Trinidad Water District (LTWD) is a local water utility Drugs Board and Philippine Drug
created under P.D. No. 198. It is authorized to supply water Enforcement Agency)**: Filed by the Social Justice Society,
for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes within the arguing that the sections
municipality of La Trinidad, Benguet. Sec. 47* of P.D. No. 198 mandating drug testing for students, officers, employees, and
states that its franchise is exclusive. certain charged persons
violated the constitutional right against unreasonable
In 2000, Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative (TMPC), a searches, the right to privacy, and
cooperative registered with the Cooperative Development constituted an undue delegation of legislative power.
Authority and organized to provide domestic water services 3. **G.R. No. 158633 (Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. v.
in Barangay Tawang, La Trinidad, Benguet, filed with the Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine
National Water Resources Board (NWRB) an application for a Drug Enforcement Agency)**: Filed by Atty. Manuel J.
certificate of public convenience (CPC) to operate and Laserna, Jr., citing similar arguments
maintain a waterworks system in Barangay Tawang. as the Social Justice Society.
### Issues:
1. Whether Section 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC The legal challenges arose in the context of the Philippine
Resolution No. 6486 impose an government’s intensified
additional qualification for candidates for senator and other campaign against illegal drugs, embodied in RA 9165. These
public offices beyond what the cases reflect tensions between
Constitution prescribes. public welfare objectives and constitutional rights to privacy
2. Whether the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug and against unreasonable
testing under RA 9165 for searches and seizures, highlighting the judiciary’s role in
students, employees, and persons charged with certain adjudicating these competing
crimes is constitutional. Interest
### Court’s Decision:
1. **G.R. No. 161658**: The Court held that Section 36(g) of
RA 9165 and COMELEC **Title:** Saturnino C. Ocampo, et al. vs. Rear Admiral
Resolution No. 6486 are unconstitutional for imposing an Ernesto C. Enriquez, et al.: The Libingan Ng Mga Bayani Burial
additional qualification on Controversy
candidates for public office beyond what is provided for in **Facts:**
the Constitution.
G.R. No. 157870. November 03, 2008 (Case Brief / Digest) The controversy began during the 2016 Presidential
© 2024 - batas.org | 2 Campaign when Rodrigo Duterte announced his intention to
2. **G.R. No. 157870 & G.R. No. 158633**: The Court allow Ferdinand Marcos’ burial at the Libingan Ng Mga
partially granted the petitions by Bayani ( LNMB). Upon winning the presidency, Duterte
declaring the mandatory drug testing of students (Section officially assumed office on June 30, 2016. By August of the
36(c)) and employees (Section same year, directives were issued by military officials to
36(d)) constitutional due to the compelling interest of the facilitate Marcos’ burial at the LNMB, in accordance with
state to prevent illegal drug use. Duterte’s verbal orders.
However, the Court declared Section 36(f) (mandatory drug
testing of persons charged with Various groups and individuals, consisting of human rights
certain crimes) unconstitutional for violating the right to advocates, victims of Martial Law, and several lawmakers,
privacy and self-incrimination. opposed the burial. They filed petitions with the Supreme
### Doctrine: Court seeking to halt Marcos’ interment at LNMB on several
– **Constitutional Qualifications for Candidates**: Statutory grounds, claiming the event would violate both legal statutes
provisions that add and moral principles given Marcos’ historical record of
qualifications for public office candidates beyond what the human rights violations and corruption during Martial Law.
Constitution stipulates are
unconstitutional. The petitions raised procedural issues, including justiciability,
– **Mandatory Drug Testing**: While the state has a locus standi, and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
compelling interest to curb drug use, Substantive issues focused on whether the respondents’
mandatory, suspicionless drug testing must be within the actions violated the Constitution, laws, or regulations
bounds of reasonableness and pertaining to the LNMB and whether Marcos’ burial there
accompanied by sufficient protective measures to pass contravened principles of justice and human rights.
constitutional muster. Mandatory
drug testing for individuals charged with crimes violates
constitutional rights to privacy and **Issues:**
against self-incrimination.
### Class Notes: 1. Whether the President’s decision to allow Marcos’ burial at
– **Qualifications for Public Office (Verbatim)**: The the LNMB presents a justiciable controversy.
qualifications for a Senator are 2. Whether petitioners possess locus standi.
provided in Section 3, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine 3. Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
Constitution. Any imposition beyond remedies was violated.
these qualifications by statute is unconstitutional. 4. Whether the issuance of the memorandum and directives
– **Legislative Delegation**: Delegating legislative power to for Marcos’ burial at the LNMB was done with grave abuse of
administrative agencies is discretion.
permissible when it is accompanied by clear guidelines and 5. Whether such burial violates constitutional provisions,
limitations. Mandatory drug laws, and principles pertaining to human rights and justice.
testing policies must be implemented within these
constraints. **Court’s Decision:**
– **Reasonableness in Searches**: The criteria for
determining the constitutionality of a The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the
search involve a balancing of the state interest against President did not exceed his discretion. The Court
individual privacy rights. determined that:
Administrative or suspicionless searches, like drug testing, – Procedural issues regarding justiciability, locus standi, and
must be reasonably designed in exhaustion of administrative remedies did not preclude the
this context. implementation of the burial. The petitions failed to
### Historical Background: demonstrate a direct injury that would confer them standing.
– On substantive grounds, no laws or guidelines expressly people. To all intents and purposes, it has become a part of
prohibited Marcos’ burial at LNMB. The powers vested in the the national... patrimony.
President regarding military and veterans’ affairs allowed
such decision. The Court deemed Marcos’ burial at LNMB a Issues:
political question outside its jurisdiction.
– Marcos, despite his controversial presidency, was that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is
recognized for his military service and status as a former clearly not self-executing... that the non-self-executing nature
president, criteria that made him eligible for burial at LNMB of Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is implied from the tenor of
under existing military regulations. the first and third paragraphs of the same section which
undoubtedly are not self-executing.
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM, GR No. 122156, 1997-02-03 Ruling:

Facts: The argument is flawed. If the first... and third paragraphs are
not self-executing because Congress is still to enact measures
The controversy arose when respondent Government Service to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises fully
Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the privatization owned by Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State
program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation still needs legislation to regulate and exercise authority
No. 50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through over... foreign investments within its national jurisdiction, as
public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding... in the third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same logic, the
shares of respondent MHC. The winning bidder, or the second paragraph can only be self-executing as it does not by
eventual "strategic partner," is to provide management its language require any legislation in order to give
expertise and/or an international marketing/reservation preference to qualified Filipinos... in the grant of rights,
system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability privileges and concessions covering the national economy
and performance of the Manila Hotel.[2] In a close bidding and patrimony. A constitutional provision may be self-
held on 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated: executing in one part and non-self-executing in another.[
petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino
corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or On the other hand, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987
15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is
Malaysian firm,... with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or
which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share, implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very
or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. words the provision does not require any... legislation to put
it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When our
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges,
bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary and concessions covering national economy and patrimony,
contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated 28 the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means
September 1995 matched the bid price of P44.00 per share just that
tendered by Renong Berhad.[4] In a subsequent letter dated
10 October 1995 petitioner sent a manager's check issued by qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our
Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos (P33,000,000.00) Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified
as Bid Security to match the bid of the Malaysian Group, circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such
Messrs. Renong Berhad x x x x[5]... which respondent GSIS right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the
refused to accept. subject; consequently, if there is no... statute especially
enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right
On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance,
GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that and from which all legislations must take their bearings.
the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi
GSIS and consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner came remedium.
to this Court on prohibition and mandamus. On In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony
pertains to heritage.[35] When the Constitution speaks of
18 October 1995 the Court issued a temporary restraining national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources
order enjoining respondents from perfecting and of the Philippines, as the Constitution could have very well
consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm. used the term natural resources,... but also to the cultural
heritage of the Filipinos.
In the main, petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII,
of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel Manila Hotel has become a landmark - a living testimonial of
has been identified with the Filipino nation and has Philippine heritage.
practically become a historical monument which reflects the
vibrancy of Philippine heritage and... culture. It is a proud For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute
legacy of an earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of
the nobility and sacredness of independence and its power the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with public interest;
and capacity to release the full potential of the Filipino its own historicity associated with our struggle for
sovereignty, independence and... nationhood. Verily, Manila
Hotel has become part of our national economy and
patrimony. Principles:

For sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is
purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the
majority and controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution
or owns the 51%... will have actual control and management are... self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are
of the hotel. In this instance, 51% of the MHC cannot be treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the
disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel legislature would have the power to ignore and practically
edifice stands. Consequently, we cannot sustain respondents' nullify the mandate of the fundamental law.[14] This can be
claim that the Filipino First Policy provision is not... applicable cataclysmic. That is... why the prevailing view is, as it has
since what is being sold is only 51% of the outstanding shares always been, that -... x x x x in case of doubt, the Constitution
of the corporation, not the Hotel building nor the land upon should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-
which the building stands. executing x x x x Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the
provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-
The term qualified Filipinos as used in our Constitution also executing, as a contrary rule would give the... legislature
includes corporations at least 60% of which is owned by discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be
Filipinos. effective. These provisions would be subordinated to the will
of the lawmaking body, which could make them entirely
In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits the highest meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed
bid in a public bidding concerning the grant of rights, implementing statute.
privileges and concessions covering the national economy
and patrimony, thereby exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there A constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part
is no question that the Filipino will have... to be allowed to and non-self-executing in another.
match the bid of the foreign entity. And if the Filipino
matches the bid of a foreign firm the award should go to the G.R. NO. 167324. July 17, 2007 (Case Brief / Digest)
Filipino. It must be so if we are to give life and meaning to the Aug 10, 2024
Filipino First Policy provision of the 1987 Constitution. For, – Case Briefs
while this may... neither be expressly stated nor Download PDF
contemplated in the bidding rules, the constitutional fiat is
omnipresent to be simply disregarded. To ignore it would be ### Title:
to sanction a perilous skirting of the basic law. **Tondo Medical Center Employees Association et al. vs.
Court of Appeals et al.**
The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the MHC, is not ### Facts:
just any commodity to be sold to the highest bidder solely for This case involves a legal challenge to the Health Sector
the sake of privatization. We are not talking about an Reform Agenda (HSRA) of the Department of Health (DOH)
ordinary piece of property in a commercial district. We are implemented from 1999 to 2004, and Executive Order No.
talking about a historic relic that has... hosted many of the 102 issued by President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. The
most important events in the short history of the Philippines petitioners, comprised of various hospital employee
as a nation. We are talking about a hotel where heads of associations and health advocacy groups, argue that these
states would prefer to be housed as a strong manifestation of reforms adversely affected economically disadvantaged
their desire to cloak the dignity of the highest state function Filipinos and certain government health workers.
to their... official visits to the Philippines. Thus the Manila
Hotel has played and continues to play a significant role as an 1. **HSRA Overview**: Launched in 1999, the HSRA outlined
authentic repository of twentieth century Philippine history five reform areas: fiscal autonomy for hospitals; funding for
and culture. In this sense, it has become truly a reflection of public health; local healthcare system development;
the Filipino soul - a place with a... history of grandeur; a most strengthening of health regulatory agencies; and expanded
historical setting that has played a part in the shaping of a National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) coverage. The
country. petitioners objected to fiscal autonomy provisions,
particularly the socialized user fees and corporate
WHEREFORE, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE restructuring of hospitals, claiming it imposed added burdens
INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, on indigent patients.
COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL are directed to CEASE 2. **Executive Order No. 102**: Issued on May 24, 1999, this
and DESIST from selling 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel order redefined the roles and responsibilities of the DOH
Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and... to ACCEPT the following the devolution of basic health services to local
matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL government units (LGUs). Key changes included the
CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% of the shares of preparation and implementation of a Rationalization and
the Manila Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share and Streamlining Plan (RSP) and redeployment of DOH personnel.
thereafter to execute the necessary agreements and The petitioners argued that such reorganization should have
documents to effect the sale, to issue the necessary... been passed by Congress rather than implemented by an
clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as may be executive order and alleged procedural defects in its
necessary for the purpose. implementation.
 the petitioners’ lack of standing and untimeliness of the
petition.
3. **Petitioners’ Arguments**: The groups filed a Petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Supreme 4. **Implementation Complaints**:
Court on August 15, 2001, which was referred to the Court of – The grievances about job relocations, diminished
Appeals (CA). They alleged violations of constitutional compensation, and transfer policies were not sufficiently
provisions on the right to health, equal protection, social specific or substantiated. Even if proven, such issues would
justice, labor protection, welfare of children, and women’s not invalidate the executive order itself but potentially the
rights. specific administrative actions under it.

4. **Procedural Posture**: The CA denied their petition due ### Doctrine:

to procedural defects, including lack of authority to self- 1. **Non-Self-Executing Provisions**: Articles of the
representation, lack of an injury to give them standing, filing Constitution that lay down general principles, policies, or are
beyond the prescribed period, and misapplying the remedy declarations of state objectives are typically not self-
of Certiorari. The CA also ruled that the constitutional executing and cannot serve as the sole basis for judicial
provisions cited by petitioners were not self-executing and action without supportive legislation.
did not provide a justiciable cause of action.
2. **Presidential Authority in Reorganization**: The
5. **Appeal to Supreme Court**: The petitioners then filed a President holds the continued authority to reorganize the
Motion for Reconsideration with the CA, which was denied, executive departments for administrative efficiency under
prompting this Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. the constitution and the Administrative Code, emphasized by
precedents from previous rulings.
### Issues:
1. **Justiciability of Health Sector Reforms**: Whether the ### Class Notes:
Court of Appeals erred in declaring the substantive issues – **Non-Self-Executing Provisions**: Constitutional policy
regarding the HSRA and Executive Order No. 102 as non- declarations require legislative action for enforcement
justiciable political questions and non self-executing (Tañada v. Angara, Basco v. PAGCOR).
principles. – **Presidential Reorganization Power**: Under Exec. Order
2. **Legality of Executive Order No. 102**: Whether the No. 292 (Administrative Code), the President can restructure
President exceeded his authority by issuing Executive Order executive departments to achieve efficiency (Domingo v.
No. 102 without Congressional legislation. Zamora, Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora).
3. **Procedural Correctness**: Whether the appellate court – **Article 7, Section 17 of the Constitution**: President’s
correctly prioritized procedural technicalities over issues of control over executive departments.
significant public interest. – **Provisions of Article II**: Though guiding state policies,
these are usually non judicially enforceable and serve as
### Court’s Decision: directives for legislative and executive actions.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s
decision, holding: ### Historical Background:
This case arose during a period of significant policy shift in
1. **Judicial Enforceability of Constitutional Provisions**: the Philippines’ healthcare system aimed at reorganizing and
– The Court reiterated that many of the constitutional streamlining the Department of Health operations to reflect
provisions cited (Art. II §§5, 9, etc.) were not self-executing decentralization under the Local Government Code. This era
but laid down general principles and state policies requiring saw an intensification of efforts to make government services
legislative action for enforcement. Provisions under Article III, more efficient and self-sustaining, reflective of global trends
dealing with equal protection and due process, required in public sector reform and fiscal autonomy. The ensuing
specific allegations of discriminative or due process legal conflicts highlighted the tension between administrative
violations, which were lacking. efficiency and social welfare commitments.

2. **Authority of the President**: Title: Imbong v. Ochoa: A Constitutional Inquiry into the
– The Court found that the President’s power to reorganize Philippines’ Reproductive Health Law
the executive department, including the DOH, was within the Facts: The Reproductive Health Law (RH Law), officially
authority vested by the Constitution (Art. VII §17) and the designated as Republic Act No. 10354, was enacted by the
Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292). Past rulings Philippine Congress on December 21, 2012, and signed into
confirmed the legitimacy of such reorganizations to enhance law by President Benigno Aquino III. This law aims to
administrative efficiency. guarantee universal access to methods of contraception,
fertility control, sexual education, and maternal care. Shortly
after its enactment, various petitioners, including James and
3. **Procedural Implications**: Lovely-Ann Imbong, on behalf of themselves and their minor
– The petitioners failed to substantiate claims of peculiar children, and several other individuals and groups, filed
injuries or discriminatory actions arising from the HSRA and petitions before the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Executive Order No. 102 implementation. The procedural challenging the law’s constitutionality on several grounds.
deficiencies upheld by the CA were found valid, re-stressing These petitioners argued that the RH Law infringes upon the
constitutional right to life of the unborn, the right to health,
the right to religious freedom, among others. The and various non-governmental organizations, question the
respondents in the case are key government officials tasked WTO Agreement’s compatibility with Philippine sovereignty
with the law’s implementation. The Supreme Court issued a and economic self-determination as mandated by the 1987
Status Quo Ante Order, temporarily halting the law’s Philippine Constitution.
implementation, and conducted a series of oral arguments to
hear both sides. The Philippines, represented by Secretary of the Department
of Trade and Industry Rizalino Navarro, was a signatory to the
Issues: The Supreme Court dealt with procedural and Final Act of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade
substantive issues, including: Negotiations, the outcome of which included the WTO
1. Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial Agreement. President Fidel V. Ramos sought the Senate’s
review over the controversy. approval of the WTO Agreement, stressing its potential for
2. Whether the RH Law violates the constitutional right to life improving Philippine access to foreign markets and attracting
of the unborn. investments, but without mentioning the possible downside
3. Whether the RH Law infringes on the right to health by to Philippine sovereignty and domestic industries.
promoting access to contraceptives.
4. Whether the RH Law violates the freedom of religion and
the right to free speech of individuals opposed to its The Senate, after deliberation, voted to concur with Ramos’
mandates. ratification through Senate Resolution No. 97. Following this
5. Whether certain provisions within the RH Law are void for concurrence, petitioners filed this present action challenging
being vague or for imposing involuntary servitude. the sufficiency and constitutionality of such concurrence and
the WTO Agreement’s impact on national sovereignty,
legislative power, and judicial authority.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that:
1. It has the authority to review the RH Law and that there is Issues:
an actual case or controversy, making the issue ripe for
judicial determination. 1. Whether the case involved a justiciable controversy or a
2. The RH Law does not violate the constitutional right to life political question beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.
of the unborn as it expressly prohibits abortion and only 2. Whether the provisions of the WTO Agreement and its
allows contraceptives that prevent the fertilization of the annexes contravene the nationalist economic provisions of
ovum. the Philippine Constitution, namely Sections 19 of Article II,
3. The RH Law does not infringe upon individuals’ right to and Sections 10 and 12 of Article XII.
health but upholds it by providing access to safe and legal 3. Whether the WTO Agreement impairs the legislative
family planning methods. power granted by the Constitution to the Philippines’
4. The requirement for religious objectors to refer patients Congress.
does not amount to a violation of religious freedom or free 4. Whether the WTO Agreement affects the judicial power of
speech, as it constitutes a reasonable regulation to achieve the Philippine Supreme Court, particularly concerning the
the law’s objective. Court’s rule-making authority.
5. Some provisions were declared unconstitutional for 5. Whether the Senate’s concurrence was valid, having only
overstepping the scope of power afforded to the covered the WTO Agreement and not the Final Act,
implementing bodies or for violating the due process rights of Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the
individuals. Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services.

Doctrine: The RH Law affirms the state’s obligation to protect Court’s Decision:
public health and respect individual religious beliefs while The Supreme Court dismisses the petition for lack of merit.
promoting reproductive health rights. It emphasizes a
balanced approach wherein the government may regulate 1. The Court holds it has jurisdiction over the controversy as
the exercise of religious beliefs if it involves acts that affect it involves allegations of grave abuse of discretion by the
public welfare, applying the “compelling state interest” test. Senate—an aspect duly reviewable by the judiciary to uphold
the Constitution.
2. The Court finds no conflict between the WTO Agreement
.R. No. 118295. May 02, 1997 (Case Brief / Digest) and the nationalist provisions of the Constitution,
Jan 13, 2024 emphasizing the Constitution itself advocates for a balanced
– Case Briefs approach to nationalism which does not exclude global trade
Download PDF participation.
3. In terms of legislative power, the Court acknowledges that
Title: Tañada et al. vs. Angara et al.: The Constitutionality of while sovereignty may be limited by international
Philippine Participation in the World Trade Organization agreements, the WTO Agreement provides sufficient
Facts: protection and benefits justifying such limitations.
The controversy at the heart of the case stems from the 4. Concerning judicial power, the Court sees no undue
Philippine Senate’s concurrence in the ratification of the impairment but rather a logical alignment with existing
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Philippine laws on patents, particularly in relation to the
Agreement). Petitioners, comprised of members of the burden of proof in intellectual property disputes.
Philippine Senate and House of Representatives, taxpayers,
5. The Senate’s concurrence is deemed sufficient and valid as DAP, asserting that the use of savings and unprogrammed
it was within the scope required by the Final Act, and the funds did not conform to the explicit provisions of the
specificity of concurrence in the WTO Agreement does not Constitution. They alleged that the respondent officials
signify a rejection of the other documents. gravely abused their discretion in implementing DAP.

Doctrine: Procedural Posture:

The Court reiterates the doctrine that by entering
international agreements, a state may consent to limit its 1. **Regional Trial Court:** The case originated from
sovereign rights in exchange for reciprocal commitments. The complaints filed in the RTC questioning the actions of the
Constitution incorporates generally accepted principles of executive branch in using savings and appropriations without
international law. Moreover, reciprocity is an inherent legislative approval as per the Constitution.
element in international agreements, and adherence to such 2. **Court of Appeals:** Subsequently, the case ascended to
agreements does not constitute an unqualified surrender of the Court of Appeals, with petitioners seeking annulment of
sovereignty. the executive actions under DAP. The Court of Appeals
upheld the executive’s actions.
Class Notes: 3. **Supreme Court:** Petitioners then elevated the matter
– Judicial review is pertinent to acts of legislative bodies to the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals’
claimed to infringe the Constitution. decisions. The consolidated petitions asked for certiorari and
– International agreements may limit aspects of state prohibition against the executive actions under DAP.
sovereignty.
– The constitutional provision of economic nationalism does **Issues:**
not prohibit external trade but encourages competitiveness
and engagement in global trade. 1. Whether the utilization of savings and unprogrammed
– Ratification of international treaties by the executive needs funds by the respondents under the DAP was
concurrence from the Senate to be binding and effective unconstitutional.
domestically. 2. Whether there were any illegal cross-border transfers of
appropriations, contrary to the constitutional provision
Historical Background: prohibiting such transfers.
The case arises from the Philippines’ involvement in the 3. Whether the use of unprogrammed funds was without
creation of the WTO. The WTO, formed out of trade meeting the revenue targets stipulated by the GAA.
negotiations from the latter half of the twentieth century, 4. Whether the Doctrine of Operative Fact applies to validate
seeks to foster global economic cooperation and trade the DAP’s prior acts considering their subsequent declaration
liberalization. The Philippines’ accession to the WTO signifies of unconstitutionality.
its commitment to integrate into the global economy, a step
in line with the economic policies and constitutional **Court’s Decision:**
principles of balance between national control and global **First Issue:** Utilization of Savings and Unprogrammed
interdependence. Funds
– **Ruling:** The Court held that the implementation of DAP
G.R. No. 209287. February 03, 2015 (Case Brief / Digest) did not comply with the statutory definition of “savings”
May 28, 2024 specified in the GAA. Savings could only be considered upon
– Case Briefs completion or discontinuance of a purpose for which an
Download PDF appropriation was legally available, but this was not adhered
to under DAP.
**Title:** Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287 et al.
**Facts:** **Second Issue:** Cross-Border Transfers
– **Ruling:** The Court found the cross-border transfers of
The case traces its origin to the implementation of the funds, wherein the executive branch utilized its savings to
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) by the Philippine augment appropriations in other branches of government, to
government, spearheaded by the executive branch headed be unconstitutional. This violated Section 25(5), Article VI of
by President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. The DAP’s stated the Constitution limiting such transfers within each branch’s
purpose was to accelerate government spending to stimulate own offices.
economic expansion by utilizing savings and unprogrammed
funds for priority projects. **Third Issue:** Use of Unprogrammed Funds
– **Ruling:** The Court ruled that the release of
– During the administration, several programs were funded unprogrammed funds required a certification that revenue
under DAP. These included the utilization of savings from the collections exceeded the revenue targets. The absence of
General Appropriations Act (GAA) for other purposes, alleged such certification made the disbursement and expenditure of
cross-border transfers of funds from one branch of these funds illegal.
government to another, and the use of unprogrammed funds
without meeting revenue targets.
– Petitioners, which included public officials and concerned **Fourth Issue:** Doctrine of Operative Fact
citizens, raised issues regarding the constitutionality of the
– **Ruling:** The Court ruled that the Doctrine of Operative
Fact allowed certain effects of the invalid DAP to remain he second, calling a convention to propose amendments to
effective to avoid disarray in government function and said Constitution, the convention to be composed of two (2)
prevent unfair prejudice to parties who had acted in good elective delegates from each representative district, to be
faith. elected in the general elections.

**Doctrine:**
1. **Strict Construction of Savings:** Savings are strictly In addition, the third, proposing that the same Constitution
construed under the Constitution, and only real savings, as be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the
defined by the completion or discontinuation of projects, House of Representatives to become delegates to the
qualify for augmentation. aforementioned constitutional convention, without forfeiting
2. **No Cross-Border Fund Transfers:** Section 25(5), Article their respective seats in Congress. Subsequently, Congress
VI of the Constitution prohibits the President or any head of passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, became
an office from using savings to augment appropriations in Republic Act No. 4913 providing that the amendments to the
other branches of government. Constitution proposed in the aforementioned resolutions be
3. **Utilization of Unprogrammed Funds:** Releases from submitted, for approval by the people, at the general
unprogrammed funds are conditional upon exceeding the elections.
targeted revenues within the fiscal year, as certified by the
National Treasurer.
4. **Doctrine of Operative Fact:** Declares that prior acts The petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said law
under an unconstitutional statute may remain effective if contending that the Congress cannot simultaneously propose
they were done in good faith, to prevent unjust results from amendments to the Constitution and call for the holding of a
the subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality. constitutional convention.

**Class Notes:**
– **Savings**: Appropriation balance that is free from any ISSUE(S):
obligation and arises from completion or discontinuation of
projects (per GAAs). Is Republic Act No. 4913 constitutional?
– **Cross-Border Transfers**: Violates the constitutional WON Congress can simultaneously propose amendments to
provision limiting fund transfers within respective branches. the Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional
– **Unprogrammed Funds**: Use contingent on exceeding convention?
revenue targets. YES as to both issues. The constituent power or the power to
– **Operative Fact Doctrine**: Validates effects of amend or revise the Constitution, is different from the law-
unconstitutional acts to prevent inequity and injustice for making power of Congress. Congress can directly propose
actions already undertaken in good faith. amendments to the Constitution and at the same time call
for a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments.
**Historical Background:**
Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose
The case reflects a significant moment for the judiciary’s role amendments thereto is not included in the general grant of
in checking executive overreach in the Philippines, legislative powers to Congress. It is part of the inherent
emphasizing the inviolability of constitutional provisions powers of the people — as the repository of sovereignty in a
related to public funds. The decision was a response to republican state, such as ours— to make, and, hence, to
concerns about the misuse of public funds through amend their own Fundamental Law. Congress may propose
mechanisms bypassing legislative authority, reinforcing the amendments to the Constitution merely because the same
separation of powers principle critical to Filipino governance. explicitly grants such power. Hence, when exercising the
same, it is said that Senators and Members of the House of
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner, Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as
vs. component elements of a constituent assembly. When acting
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DIRECTOR OF PRINTING and as such, the members of Congress derive their authority from
AUDITOR GENERAL, respondents. the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the
same function, for their authority does not emanate from the
G.R. No. L-28196 Constitution — they are the very source of all powers of
NOVEMBER 9, 1967 government, including the Constitution itself.

FACTS: Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly,

amendments to the Constitution, the members of Congress
The Congress passed 3 resolutions simultaneously. derive their authority from the Fundamental Law, it follows,
necessarily, that they do not have the final say on whether or
The first, proposing amendments to the Constitution so as to not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits.
increase the membership of the House of Representatives Otherwise, they could brush aside and set the same at
from a maximum of 120, as provided in the present naught, contrary to the basic tenet that ours is a government
Constitution, to a maximum of 180. of laws, not of men, and to the rigid nature of our
Constitution. Such rigidity is stressed by the fact that, the
Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court, the "RESOLUTION CONFIRMING IMPLEMENTATION
power to declare a treaty unconstitutional, despite the
eminently political character of treaty-making power. "On October 12, 1971, the Convention passed Resolution No.
24 submitted by Delegate Jose Ozamiz confirming the
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, GR authority of the President of the Convention to implement
No. L-34150, 1971-10-16 Organic Resolution No. 1, including the creation of the Ad
Hoc Committee and... ratifying all acts performed in
Facts: connection with said implementation."... the main thrust of
the petition is that Organic Resolution No. 1 and the other
After the election of the delegates held on November 10, implementing resolutions thereof subsequently approved by
1970, the Convention held its inaugural session on June 1, the Convention have no force and effect as laws in so far as
1971. they provide for the holding of a plebiscite coincident... with
the elections of eight senators and all city, provincial and
the Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 reading municipal officials to be held on November 8, 1971, hence all
thus: of Comelec's acts in obedience thereof and tending to carry
out the holding of the plebiscite directed by said resolutions
"CC ORGANIC RESOLUTION NO. 1 are null and... void, on the ground that the calling and holding
of such a plebiscite is, by the Constitution, a power lodged
"A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION ONE OF ARTICLE V OF exclusively in Congress, as a legislative body, and may not be
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES SO AS TO LOWER exercised by the Convention, and that, under Section 1,
THE VOTING AGE TO 18 Article XV of the Constitution, the proposed... amendment in
question cannot be presented to the people for ratification
"BE IT RESOLVED as it is hereby resolved by the 1971 separately from each and all of the other amendments to be
Constitutional Convention: drafted and proposed by the Convention.

"Section 1. Section One of Article V of the Constitution of the respondents and intervenors posit that the power to...
Philippines is amended to read as follows: provide for, fix the date and lay down the details of the
plebiscite for the ratification of any amendment the
'Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by (male) citizens of Convention may deem proper to propose is within the
the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are authority of the Convention as a necessary consequence and
(twenty-one) EIGHTEEN years or over and are able to read part of its power to propose amendments and that this...
and write, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for power includes that of submitting such amendments either
one year and in the... municipality wherein they propose to individually or jointly at such time and manner as the
vote for at least six months preceding the election.' Convention may direct in its discretion.

On September 30, 1971, COMELEC "RESOLVED to inform the his only purpose in filing the petition being to comply with his
Constitutional Convention that it will hold the plebiscite on sworn duty to prevent, whenever he can, any violation of the
condition that: Constitution of the Philippines even if it is committed in the
course of or in connection with the most laudable...
"(a) The Constitutional Convention will undertake the undertaking
printing of separate official ballots, election returns and tally
sheets for the use of said plebiscite at its expense; Issues:

"(b) The Constitutional Convention will adopt its own Petition for prohibition principally to restrain the respondent
security measures for the printing and shipment of said Commission on Elections "from undertaking to hold a
ballots and election forms; and plebiscite on November 8, 1971", at which the proposed
constitutional amendment "reducing the voting age" in
"(c) Said official ballots and election forms will be delivered Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution of the
to the Commission in time so that they could be distributed
at the same time that the Commission will distribute its Philippines to eighteen years "shall be submitted" for
official and sample ballots to be used in the elections on ratification by the people pursuant to Organic Resolution No.
1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971, and the
November 8, 1971." subsequent implementing resolutions, by declaring said
resolutions to be without the force and effect of law... in so
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING IMPLEMENTATION far as they direct the holding of such plebiscite and by also
declaring the acts of the respondent Commission (COMELEC)
"On October 12, 1971, the Convention passed Resolution No. performed and to be done by it in obedience to the aforesaid
24 submitted by Delegate Jose Ozamiz confirming the Convention resolutions to be null and void, for being violative
authority of the President of the Convention to implement of the
Organic Resolution No. 1, including the creation of the Ad
Hoc Committee and... ratifying all acts performed in Constitution of the Philippines.
connection with said implementation."
Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to
1971 to order, on its own fiat, the holding of a plebiscite for the Constitution merely because the same... explicitly grants
the ratification of the proposed amendment reducing to... such power. (Section 1, Art. XV, Constitution of the Philip-
eighteen years the age for the exercise of suffrage under pines) Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that
Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution proposed in the Senators and members of the House of Representatives act,
Convention's Organic Resolution No. 1 in the manner and not as members of Congress, but as component elements of
form provided for in said resolution and the subsequent a... constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members
implementing acts and resolution of the of Congress derive their authority from the Constitution,
unlike the people, when performing the same function, (Of
Convention? amending the Constitution) for their authority does not...
emanate from the Constitution - they are the very source of
Ruling: all powers of government, including the Constitution itself.

We are left with no alternative but to uphold the jurisdiction "Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose
of the Court over the present case. It goes without saying amendments thereto is not included in the general grant of
that We do this not because the Court is superior to the legislative powers to Congress (Section 1, Art. VI, Constitution
Convention or that the Convention is subject to the control of the Philippines) It is part of the inherent powers of the
of... the Court, but simply because both the Convention and people - as... the repository of sovereignty in a republican
the Court are subject to the Constitution and the rule of law, state, such as ours (Section 1, Art. II, Constitution of the
and "upon principle, reason and authority," per Justice Philippines) - to make, and, hence, to amend their own
Laurel, supra, it is within the power, as it is the solemn duty Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to
of the Court, under the existing the Constitution merely because the same... explicitly grants
such power. (Section 1, Art. XV, Constitution of the Philip-
Constitution to resolve the issues in which petitioner, pines) Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that
respondents and intervenors have joined in this case. Senators and members of the House of Representatives act,
not as members of Congress, but as component elements of
The Court holds that there is, and it is the condition and a... constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members
limitation that all the amendments to be proposed by the of Congress derive their authority from the Constitution,
same Convention must be submitted to the people in a single unlike the people, when performing the same function, (Of
"election" or plebiscite. amending the Constitution) for their authority does not...
emanate from the Constitution - they are the very source of
It being... indisputable that the amendment now proposed to all powers of government, including the Constitution itself.
be submitted to a plebiscite is only the first amendment the
Convention will propose We hold that the plebiscite being The language of the constitutional provision aforequoted is
called for the purpose of submitting the same for ratification sufficiently clear. It says distinctly that either Congress sitting
of the people on November 8, 1971 is not... authorized by as a constituent assembly or a convention called for the
Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, hence all acts of purpose "may propose amendments... to this Constitution,"
the Convention and the respondent Comelec in that direction thus placing no limit as to the number of amendments that
are null and void. Congress or the Convention may propose. The same
provision also as definitely provides that "such amendments
We... are of the conviction that in providing for the shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by
questioned plebiscite before it has finished, and separately a... majority of the votes cast at an election at which the
from, the whole draft of the constitution it has been called to amendments are submitted to the people for their
formulate, the Convention's Organic Resolution No. 1 and all ratification," thus leaving no room for doubt as to how many
subsequent acts of the Convention... implementing the same "elections" or plebiscites may be held to ratify any
violate the condition in Section 1, Article XV that there should amendment or amendments proposed by the same...
only be one "election" or plebiscite for the ratification of all constituent assembly of Congress or convention, and the
the amendments the Convention may propose. provision unequivocally says "an election" which means only
one.
under Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, the same
should be submitted to them not separately from but We are of the opinion that the present Constitution does not
together with all the other amendments to be proposed by contemplate in Section 1 of Article XV a... plebiscite or
this present Convention. "election" wherein the people are in the dark as to frame of
reference they can base their judgment on. We reject the
Principles: rationalization that the present Constitution is a possible
frame of reference, for the simple reason that... intervenors
Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose themselves are stating that the sole purpose of the proposed
amendments thereto is not included in the general grant of amendment is to enable the eighteen year olds to take part
legislative powers to Congress (Section 1, Art. VI, Constitution in the election for the ratification of the Constitution to be
of the Philippines) It is part of the inherent powers of the drafted by the Convention. In brief, under the... proposed
people - as... the repository of sovereignty in a republican plebiscite, there can be, in the language of Justice Sanchez,
state, such as ours (Section 1, Art. II, Constitution of the speaking for the six members of the Court in Gonzales, supra,
Philippines) - to make, and, hence, to amend their own "no proper submission".