1

CONSTI 1 TRANSCRIPTION
JUNE 25, 2018

In the matter, whether or not, in case of doubt in the interpretation of a provision whether it’s a self-executing or not.
How do you interpret it? The general rule is that, we interpret the provision as self-executing and the court explained the
reason for such an interpretation in many cases.

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs GSIS

Pertaining to the Filipino-first policy where the court said that that provision, while it may be found in an article of the
Constitution that provide for the policies, the court said that reading that provision, it already provides for an enforceable
right. It can by itself be a basis for a legal right or claim. Therefore, it is self-executing.

DOMINO vs COMELEC
The Court discussed here the plain-meaning rule, verba legis, of the meaning of the word ‘resident’ in Article XVI. This
came about because there was an issue as to how do you interpret this word resident? Where do you find this term? It’s
in Article 6, Section 6 on the requirements before a person can be a member of the House of Representatives. Before you
can be a member of that house, among others, you have to be a resident of the district where you shall be elected for a
period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of election. And so what was contested here is that the
term resident. When do we consider a person as a resident?
How does this issue came about?
Domino filed a COC to represent the Province of Sarangani in the House of Representatives. He claimed it in his COC that
he has resided in that locality for one year and two months. And then he won in the election of course. His opponent
challenged that victory by, among others, claiming that he falsify the COC because, in fact, he is not a resident of Sarangani.
His presence there was merely temporary. He did not mention to reside in that locality. What would the document that
he presented said that he had lease contract and etc. Of course on the other hand Domino argued that “I am a resident
of this locality”.

So, is Domino a resident of the Province of Sarangani for this one year?

The Court in this case said that he is not.

Is the interpretation of the word residence in its common acceptance or meaning is usually the law, among others, is a
requirement for qualification for elective office and this term residence is synonymous or being as the same thing as
domicile which requires therefore that if you are going to interpret that word resident with domicile, it means that, not
only should you intend to reside in this place, there must be an act, also personal presence in that place coupled with
conduct indicative of your intention to stay in that place.
How can we change the domicile? Because according to the opponent of Domino, he resided in another locality and then
he just transferred to this place, Sarangani, because he cannot be known in another place because probably he exceeded
the term limit so he transferred for the purpose of being able to run for a representative.
The court said that before you successfully effect the change of domicile, you must demonstrate actual removal or actual
change of domicile. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and
definite acts which corresponds with the purpose.
What was the document presented by Domino proving that he changed his domicile? A Lease contract. But in this case,
though this is an old case, even in subsequent cases the Court also said that you cannot use subjective grounds regarding
whether or not a proper qualification. The court said that that lease contract purports impermanence, transiency and it
doesn’t generally show permanency of abandonment, required of law, of one’s original domicile. But in subsequent cases
the Court became lenient because if you require him to have a house in the said locality you will be adding in the
requirements, which should not be allowed. The Court said that, in interpreting the word domicile is synonymous with
 2

resident. He was not able to prove that he is now a resident of this locality and therefore he is disqualified from
representing that district in HOR.

PAMATONG vs COMELEC
Here, we have Elly Pamatong, who is a candidate, he filed a COC to run for president but the COMELEC declared him and
35 other people as nuisance candidates because, among others, he could not mount a nationwide campaign and so,
Pamatong went to the Supreme Court challenging this resolution of the COMELEC because according to him, under Article
II, Section 26 of the Constitution, he has the right to run for public office. He allege that it violates his equal access to right
or opportunities for public service.

Is he correct?

The Court said that he is wrong because this provision is not self-executing. He cannot file this petition under Article II
which enumerates Declaration of Principles and State Policies and therefore these are guidelines and not enforceable
rights. The Court emphasized here, that there’s no such thing as a constitutional right to run for or hold public office. You
hold an office as a trust. You merely hold it as a privilege nothing in the plain language of the provision invoked by
Pamatong justifies the interpretation of the sort.
What about the nature of Article II? This provision or public law declares merely general principles, which are as a rule,
not self-executing. When we say that a provision is not self-executing, there would be a need for an implementing
legislation before this can be a source of enforceable rights. Since we can find the equal-access clause in the Section 26 of
Article II , the court said that just like the rest of the policies enumerated therein, this provision does not partake any
judicially enforceable constitutional right but a mere guideline for legislative or executive action. That is the purpose why
there are enumeration of policies and State principles. These are not supposed to give you enforceable rights but these
are mere guidelines not only for the executive and the legislature for the formulation of laws and a guideline in their
policy-making, but also for the judiciary to guide them in their decision making. So, no enforceable right, Pamatong cannot
claim therefore that there is a violation thereof.

TONDO MEDICAL vs CA
In 1999, the DOH launched this HSRA or Health Sector Reform Agenda which provides for the five areas of reform. First
area is to provide a fiscal autonomy to government hospitals.
What do you mean by Fiscal Autonomy?
Autonomy in so far as the management of their finances is concerned where you can impose fees and etc. so that you
can’t be dependent of subsidy or support from the national government. That is one of the agenda of this HSRA. Now, this
was challenged, this first agendum, by Tondo Medical. What was the reason? According to the petitioner, if you follow
this reform, you will grant public hospitals the power to impose fees on their clientele. Therefore, when we’re talking
about governmetn hospitals, we’re talking about indigents, those who can’t afford and not so financially well of. Of course
they go to government hospitals to have free access to health programs and imposing this reform of fiscal autonomy what
will happen to them?
What was the argument of those who stick to uphold these agenda? Their argument is that “what was your basis Tondo
Medical for invoking or claiming that this agendum is unconstitutional?”
Tondo Medical enumerated that this agendum is in violation of Article II, Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 18, among other
provisions they enumerated as having been violated by this reform. The point of these articles is that we should offer free
access to the poor or indigents to hospitals then if we charge fees, then we would limit that access to medicines as well
as free medical services. Tondo Medical filed the case before the Court of Appeals and the CA disagreed with Tondo
Medical because according to CA, these agenda cannot be considered to have violated these provisions of the Constitution
because in the first place they are not self-executing provisions.

Who is correct?
 3

CA is correct, as a general rule, we follow that rule that a provision is self-executing. The provisions of the Constitution are
considered as self-executing in general and therefore don’t require further legislation.
What was the reason? Why is that self-executing instead of not self-executing?
If they are not treated as self-executing, that’s not the general rule, the mandate of the Constitution can be easily nullified
by the inaction of the Congress. The Court said that in order to not let that happen, we interpret provisions, as a general
rule, to be self-executing.
What is the legal value of these principles in Article II? They are not self-executing therefore they are only used by the
executive and legislative in the formulation of policies and the judiciary as gauge or guide in the exercise of their judicial
review but they cannot give rise to a cause of action in the courts because they do not embody judiciary enforceable
constitutional rights.
Why is this the rule for general principles and policies?
Why can’t these policies be sources of enforceable rights?
The Court said, to declare that these provisions are enough to guide the full exercise of the rights therein, would be
impractical, if not, unrealistic, because the concepts espoused within these provisions are very broad. The State shall
promote social justice in all cases but only to interpret that is the only interpretation? So, there has to be a valid or
acceptable parameter. It’s not that you only pick this provision as is and use it as a source of right because it is overly
broad, impractical and unrealistic.

So, the HSRA is not unconstitutional laws.

BCDA vs COA
In 1992, we have the passage of RA 7227, creating this BCDA or Bases Convention and Development Authority. And in this
law, the Board of Directors of this BCDA has the power to determine its own organizational structure and in the costs
thereof adapt the compensation and benefits scheme which is equivalent to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilpinas. That’s a very
generous compensation package or scheme if you follow that. Anyway, so using that authority under the law, BCDA issued
an issuance which granted these year-end benefits to contractual employees as well as regular employees and its board
members. That started in 1996 but it was disallowed sometime in 2003 by the COA because it violated a Circular by the
DBM. Now BCDA claims that COA cannot do this because it would violate several provisions of the constitution, particularly
Article II, Sections 15 and 18 which provides for the maintenance of peace and order, protection of life and liberty,
promotion of general welfare and the State also affirms labor as a primary social economic force so if the 10000 year-end
benefit will be lost, it would result to a violation of the Constitution where there would no longer be peace and order,
protection of life, liberty and etc.

Is the BCDA correct?

The Court said no. Article II, again is not a source of enforceable rights for Article II provides for the declaration of principles
and State policies. Generally, ideological principles and policies are not the source of enforceable rights. These provisions
are not self-executing, therefore, you cannot claim that you have any right under these articles.

ABAS KIDA vs SENATE

The Court emphasized here the principle of Constitutional supremacy. You cannot deviate from the Constitution because
as we learned from the first meeting, Constitution is supreme above all.
 4

Q: What happened to this case?

A: RA 9054 was passed that amended the ARMM Charter and set their election of their regional officials to the second
Monday of September 2001.
Q: But let’s start first to the history before we go to the issue. After the effectivity of 1987 Constitution, two years after,
what was enacted on August 1, 1989?
A: RA 6734 or the Organic act that establishes ARMM and scheduled the first regular election for regional officials, was
enacted on August 1, 1989.
Q: Then there were laws that succeeded this RA 6734 which amended it, what are these laws?
A: These laws are;
 RA 9054 which moved the said election to second Monday of September 2001.
 RA 9140 which further set the 1st regular election to Nov. 26, 2001.
 RA 9333 which set for the third time the ARMM regional election to the second Monday of August 2005.
 RA 10153 which originated from the House of Representatives.
Q: However, these laws were challenged. What was the problem with these laws anyway?
A: Firstly, Article 18, Section 1 of the Constitution, mandates the synchronization of elections hence, the amendment that
would move the election to another date would be unconstitutional.
Q: The issue on synchronization. There is a requirement in the RA 9054 that before you can amend this law and etc., there
is a requirement. What was RA 9054 imposed?
A: RA 9054 imposed to comply with the supermajority requirement, which would mean, the requirement is more than the
majority requirement set by the Constitution for the Congress.
Q: What law described the supermajority requirement? One of the laws enumerated a while ago imposed this
supermajority requirement. What law is that?
A: RA 9054
Q: Yes this law imposed the supermajority requirement before any amendment to the Organic act. How many votes?
A: 2/3 votes from the Congress, voting separately.
Q: Yes, that’s the requirement of this supermajority. What else? Another requirement before an amendment can validly
take effect?
A: The plebiscite requirement.
Q: Yes, plebiscite is needed subject by the local inhabitants of this locality to effect amendment thereof. So, let’s go now
to the ruling of the Supreme Court. Now, in so far as the issue of the synchronization is concerned, there’s a discussion by
the SC who wants to effect verba legis or plain-meaning rule, now, what was the provision or article of the Constitution
which requires the synchronization of the elections?
A: Article XVIII, Section 1
Q: What was the word that was … in by the Supreme Court here to be at issue? There was an issue here that the election
of the ARMM should not be synchronized because it’s not in the Constitution. It is not blank election because of what was
being held in the ARMM is a regional election, not a blank election, therefore there’s no need for synchronize it. What was
the word?
A: Local election
Q: The Court said here that the ARMM regional election be included among the elections to be synchronized because it
is, a local election. It is a local election based on the wording and structure of the Constitution and in constitutional
construction, words should be used and understood in the sense that they are in common use and given the ordinary
meaning. So that’s how the SC interpreted that local includes regional. The reason why verba legis, because the
Constitution is not a lawyer’s document. It’s supposed to be understood by all.
Now, let’s go to the supermajority requirement issue. Why is this a constitutional issue? What provision of the Constitution
is this inconsistent with?
A: Article VI, Section 16 paragraph 3
Q: Generally, what is the required number of votes before a Congress can pass, repeal and amend laws?
 5

A: Majority
Q: Only majority vote is required. So this is the provision that crashes with the requirement of RA 9054, which requires a
total vote, it would be more difficult for future Congresses to amend this laws because we have to contend with this voting
requirement and the Court said that requirement gives the law a kind of nature or characteristic that it becomes an
irrepealable law which is repugnant to this system of government. Why is that, because the Congress is supposed to be
plenary and current Congress cannot bind or limit the powers of the future Congress by enacting an irrepealable laws. The
Court said that this certain requirement gives that law a resemblance of being an irrepealable law. Now, let’s go to the
plebiscite requirement. Is it required in the supposed amendments here?
A: No because Article X, Section 18 states that only amendments or revision to Organic Act has the requirement of
plebiscite.
Q: The Constitution only requires, under Article X, Section 18, that you can impose a plebiscite requirement if you have
the following amendments or laws creation by autonomous region, determination of its provinces, cities and geographic
areas included in that autonomous region based on the structure of the government, region’s judicial system, if your
amendments touched these matters then a plebiscite is required which means that the Supreme Court try to operate
totally, the plebiscites, as long as you fall within the instances why a plebiscite is required. Now by the supposed laws here
do they fall under the instances that would require a plebiscite?
A: No
Q: In 2012, the Court resolved the Motion for Reconsideration of this case. Well, the Court defined it to finality. The court
has decided that the synchronization in mandated in the Constitution and it includes the ARMM elections, also the Court
ruled that the laws challenged here really do not amend RA 9054 or the Organic law because these laws doesn’t change
anything but just set the definite schedule by which the elections are to be held. Those changes are not considered
amendments. Nevertheless, even if they are considered as amendments, because the requirement of the supermajority
vote and plebiscite requirement are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, they are unconstitutional,
therefore, have no force and effect. There’s no need, therefore, for the supermajority vote and the plebiscite before these
supposed amendments can take effect.

CHAVEZ vs JBC
We have here the case involving the composition of the JBC and the interpretation of the phrase ”a representative of
Congress”. When we say a plebiscite at the election for a representative, how many objects are you referring to? You’re
only talking about one, ‘A representative’. There is a law in the Constitution such in Article VIII which provides for the
composition of the JBC. What is the JBC anyway? It’s the Judicial and Bar Council who strains the applicants for positions
in the Judiciary as well as in the office of the Ombudsman, among other government positions. So this is somehow the
strainer or the one who determines who are qualified. This JBC is composed of how many members? Only seven members
and who are these?
The Chief Justice, the Secretary of Justice and a representative of Congress. These three are the ex officio members. When
we say ex officio, they hold their membership in the JBC because they are the Chief Justice, the Secretary of Justice and
the representative of Congress, there’s no need for them to be appointed for holding these positions in their ex officio
capacity is a part of their duties. Who are the rest? A representative of Integrated Bar, professor of law, a retired member
of the SC and a representative of a private sector. So seven members in all.
In 1994, this composition, however, was changed by the JBC, instead of seven, an eighth member was added to the JBC
because two representatives of the Congress began sitting in the JBC. They add one hand vote each. This was challenged
by Chavez, former Solicitor General, because according to him, this JBC is not following the provision of the Constitution
so far as its composition is concerned. They now have eight members, when the Constitution allows only seven.

So who is correct here?

 6

What we need to discuss here is the unambiguity of the provision. When we say unambiguous it is not conclusive, it is
clear, there is no need for any interpretation and the phrase involved here is ‘a representative of Congress’. Do we still
need to calculate or compute how many representative is needed from the Congress?
The Court said that the JBC is composed only of seven members because of the word used the singular letter ‘a’ preceding
‘representative of Congress’ is unequivocal, clear and leaves no room for any other construction.When the words of the
Statute or Constitution are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, they must be given the literal meaning and applied
without any attempted interpretation. And there’s also a maxim, “Noscitur a sociis” which means that a meaning of a
word may be known for its accompanying words under the doctrine. The meaning of questionable words or phrases in a
statute may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of the word or phrase associated with it. What’s the point? The
point here is do not read provisions of the law or the Constitution in isolation, you read it in the entire document, that’s
how you interpret it, that’s the concept of noscitur a sociis. Now here, the Court applied the doctrine instead that the
word Congress as used in this provision is used its generic sense. And what are the words accompanied with it? ‘A
representative of Congress’. Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice, a Representative of IBP, a professor of law aside from the
fact that they denote singularity, there’s also this use of word Congress. Congress was not emphasized here by the
provision to represent or to mean both houses because the point of the provision is that, the three great departments of
the government are represented in the JBC, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Congress or the Legislature. One
representative each. So that’s noscitur sociis.
In the empire of this law, the Court,of course, have held its own decision and emphasized that. There was an argument
used that there was just an oversight because there was a failure on the part of the framers of the Constitution to make
the proper adjustment when there was a shift from unicameralism to bicameralism because of that oversight because
before there was only unicameral but because they wanted to be bicameral, two houses of Congress, they forgot and they
still used the word Congress even they already adopted bicameral character of the legislature. Is that argument correct?
The Court said no. The framers reposed their wisdom envision in one supreme Constitution to be the ultimate expression
of the principles and the framework upon which the government and society were to operate and therefore, when we
interpret Constitutional provisions, the Court relies on the basic postulates that the framers meant what they said when
they used the words in the Constitution. The language used in the Constitution must be taken to have been deliberately
chosen for a definite purpose. Every word there was selected with precision because they are supposed to mean that way.
Every word must be interpreted to exude its deliberate intent to which must be maintained inviolate against disobedience
and defiance.
So the Court cannot accept that this was a mere error of the framers.

GENERAL PROVISIONS (ARTICLE XVI)

We’ll only discuss some of the provisions enumerated here.
Section 1 talks about the flag of the Philippines. Don’t take that for granted because we have a law that requires us to sing
in fervor whenever there’s a flag ceremony. Is it required that there’s really a flag in front of you before you stand up? No.
Section 3, the State may not be sued without its consent.
Sections 4 and 5 talks about the Armed Forces of the Philippines which shall be composed of a citizen armed force which
shall undergo military training and serve as may be provided by law. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the security
of the State.
Yes because they are our first line of defense against invaders. What about the police? Is it under the Armed Forces of the
Philippines? It can be noted that they are under the AFP during Marcos regime however now, Section 6 of Article XVI state
that the State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character hence,
they’re only civilians now.
Section 11, the ownership of Mass Media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives
or associations, wholly owned and managed by such citizens.
So the required ownership 100% before a corporation can engage in Mass Media.
How about the advertising industry? What is the required ownership? It should be owned by Filipino citizens or
corporations or associations at least 70% of its capital are owned by such citizens.
 7

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The most important of which is the requirements or conditions for the exercise of judicial review. You need to memorize
and understand these requirements.

FUNA vs AGRA
There’s an issue on the holding of multiple offices of this Agra. Agra is so smart that he have the office of Secretary of
Justice and the Solicitor General, all at once , concurrently but under the Constitution, particularly Article VII , Section 13,
Cabinet members, among other officials, cannot hold any other position or employment during their tenure unless
otherwise is provided in the Constitution. Now, Agra was appointed as the Acting SOJ, so he is the SOJ and therefore a
cabinet member but he was also appointed as Acting Sol. Gen., so now he has two offices in violation of this provision.
Agra admitted that he hold two offices concurrently.
So the case went to the SC and the main issues here which was discussed by the SC are what the requirements are before
any court can entertain a case challenging an act or law to be unconstitutional. We have the requirements for judicial
review of the Constitutionality of a certain act or law.
What is the purpose? Why do we need these requirements?
So that the Supreme Court will not swamp with so many cases, left and right and would help them to sort before the Court
can rule or even accept this challenge against the Constitutionality of an act or law.
What are these four requisites?
A. There must be an actual case or controversy
-There must be parties and rights involved to have an actual case. There must be an actual case. The case
must not be moot and academic meaning, the issue was already resolved and there’s no need for any review
anymore
B. The party must have locus standi or legal standing
-The point is, why would the court give you such relief when you’re not entitled to that relief? It’s part of
the requirement of cause of action
C. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity
-It should not be delayed or mere after thought, hence, that must be raised immediately at the earliest
opportunity.
D. The issue of the constitutionality must be very lis mota of the case
-Meaning the resolution of the constitutionality of this act or law resolves the case not that it only
impasses the case.

So, this locus standi or legal standing requirement, how was this interpreted, generally, by the Supreme Court? Is it strictly
construed or literally? Literal or strict? How did they apply?
The Court here, to have a legal standing you have to show as the suitor, the petitioner, that you will sustain a direct injury
however, the Court has time and again acted liberally on the concept of this legal standing requirement. What is, generally,
the exception that is usually invoked when the party has the legal standing? What doctrine or the case of what kind of
importance?
Transcendental importance. We ought and treated this requirement as technicality that can be brushed aside if the party
challenging this specific act or law can show the case is of transcendental important, meaning, far-reaching in effect and
the Court has discussed when a case is of transcendental importance. Going back to the issue of locus standi, the Court
has enumerated here the instances before you can have legal standing;
1) For a taxpayer, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is
unconstitutional
2) For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question
3) For concerned citizens, there must be a showing of issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be
settled early
 8

4) For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their prerogative as legislators.
Transcendental importance meaning it has far-reaching implications and there is a need now to promulgate rules that will
guide the bench, bar, and the public in future analogous cases.
Going back to the issue of the actual case or controversy, the case must not be moot and academic.
When is a case moot and academic?
It is one that ceases to present justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would
be of no practical use or value.
This requirement, however, that it should not be moot and academic, even if the case is moot and academic, the Court
can still resolve that case if the following requisites are present;
1) There was a grave violation of the Constitution
2) The case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest
3) The constitutional issue raised required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and
the public
4) The case was capable of repetition, yet evading review.
In ruling of this case, the Court said that it set aside the technicality on the standing as well as the fact that the case was
already moot because Agra already resigned from his position as the Acting Solicitor General, so there’s no issue but the
Court still resolved it and ruling the merits, the Court said that Agra cannot hold any office while he is the Solicitor General
or he is the Secretary of Justice because he would be a member of the cabinet and that was proscribed under the
Constitution , unless the Constitution itself allows it.