Professional Documents
Culture Documents
775
776
777
778
siderable portion of the people may not know how over 160 of the
proposed maximum of representative districts are actually
apportioned by RBH No. 1 among the provinces in the
Philippines. It is not improbable, however, that they are not
interested in the details of the apportionment, or that a careful
reading thereof may tend, in their simple minds, to impair a clear
vision thereof. Upon the other hand, those who are more
sophisticated may enlighten themselves sufficiently by reading
the copies of the proposed amendments posted in public places,
the copies kept in the polling places and the text of the contested
resolutions, as printed in full on the back of the ballots they will
use.
Same Judicial power to nullify executive or legislative acts,
not violative of principle of separation of powers.The system of
checks and balances underlying the judicial power to strike down
acts of the Executive or of Congress transcending the confines set
forth in the fundamental law is not in derogation of powers,
pursuant to which each department is supreme within its own
sphere.
Same Determination of conditions for submission of
amendments to people purely legislative.The determination of
the conditions under which the proposed amendments shall be
submitted to the people is concededly a matter which falls within
the legislative sphere.
779
780
781
782
783
784
Urging the latter to refrain from implementing Republic Act No. 4913
785
78 Phil. 1.
Supra.
786
786
81 Phil. 818.
10
11
787
13
14
15
16
Supra.
788
788
789
18
790
The provision does not support the view that, upon the
expiration of the period to make the apportionment, a
Congress which fails to make it is dissolved or becomes
illegal. On the contrary, it implies necessarily that
Congress shall continue to function with the representative
districts existing at the time of the expiration of said
period.
It is argued that the abovequoted provision refers only
legislative body, whose members were chosen for a term of three (3) years
(Section 1, Art. VI, of the Original Constitution).
791
791
792
793
23
24
25
53 Phil. 866.
794
794
284 Mich. 677, 280 NW 79, citing RCL Robson v. Cantwell, 143 SC 104,
141 SE 180, citing RCL Geiger v. Kobilka, 26 Wash 171, 66 P 423, Am. St.
Rep. 733 and many others.
795
795
796
797
798
799
posted therein until after the election. At least ten copies of said
amendments shall be kept in each polling place to be made
available for examination by the qualified electors during election
day. When practicable, copies in the principal native languages,
as may be determined by the Secretary of the Interior, shall also
be kept therein.
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
808
809
810
811
78 Phil. 1 (1947).
812
813
814
815
Italics supplied.
816
816
817
1889, p. 311
1889, p. 311
818
819
820
821
For the reasons given, our vote is that Republic Act 4913
must be stricken down as in violation of the Constitution.
Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur. Reyes, J.B.L.,
Dizon and Angeles, JJ., concur in the result herein reached
in a separate opinion.
REYES, J.B.L., J., concurring:
I concur in the result with the opinion penned by Mr.
Justice Sanchez. To approve a mere proposal to amend the
Constitution requires (Art. XV) a threefourths (3/4) vote of
all the members of each legislative chamber, the highest
majority ever demanded by the fundamental charter, one
higher even than that required in order to declare war (Sec.
24, Article VI), with all its dire consequences. If such an
overwhelming majority, that was evidently exacted in order
to impress upon all and sundry the seriousness of every
constitutional amendment, is asked for a proposal to
amend the Constitution, I find it impossible to believe that
it was ever intended by its framers that such amendment
should be submitted and ratified by just a majority of the
822
ANNOTATION
JUDICIAL
DEFERENCE
QUESTIONS
TO
POLITICAL
Taada vs. Cuenco, L10520, Feb. 28, 1957 Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez
Elections, et al., 73 Phil. 288 (1941) Avelino v. Cuenco, L2821, Mar. 4 &
14, 1949 Cf. also Dissenting Opinion of Justice Concepcion (now Chief
Justice) in Aytona v. Castillo, et al., L19313, Jan. 20, 1962.
3
L3920 (1950).
4
Id.
823
823
Osmea, Jr. v. Pendatun, et al., L17144, Oct. 28, 1960, citing Clifford
10
11
Id. See also Lacson v. Roque, L6225 (1953) Jover v. Borra, L6782,
824
824
14
15
Ibid. The Cabili case was decided upon the authority of Alejandrino
825
17
18
826
20
21
Nov. 9, 1967.
22
23
827
828
29
the legal issue posed is the effect of the adjournment of a special session of
Congress upon ad interim appointments made prior thereto.
30
Inocentes, supra.
The question raised in the Aytona case was whether an incoming
President could, before Congress had met in regular or special session,
validly withdraw ad interim appointments made by the outgoing
President, in order that the Commission on Appointments could not act,
even if it wanted to, on said appointments. This question was decided in
the affirmative.
In declining to disregard the President's Administrative Order No. 2
(withdrawing the ad interim appointments of the outgoing President) in
the Aytona case, the Supreme Court considered the circumstances
surrounding the issuance of the 350 appointments, of which therein
petitioner Aytona were one, in the night of December 29, 1961, such as the
scramble in Malacanang of candidates for positions trying to get their
written appointments or having such appointments changed to more
convenient places the fact that such mass appointments were issued a
few hours before the inauguration of the new President. Thus, after
observing that the appointing President could not have exercised the care
necessary to insure that said appointments would be approved by a
Commission on Appointments different from that existing at the time of
the appoint
829
829
The case of Herrera v. Liwag, et al, L20079, Sept. 30, 1963, comes
squarely within the above qualification in the Aytona ruling.
31
32
55 O.G. 8641.
33
830
34
35
L4221, 48 O.G. 3391 (1952). See Art. VII, Sec. 10 (2), Philippine
Constitution.
36
831
39
40
Cf. Sec. 69, Rev. Adm. CodeExecutive Order No. 455 (1951).
Forbes, et al. v. Tiaco, et al., supra Cf. Sec. 10 (2), Art. VII,
Philippine Constitution.
43
832
Ibid
833
833
47
48
49
50
834
52
53
54
55
56
57
835
59
60
836
63
837
64
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.