Showing Page:
I. The Philippine Constitution
A. Definition
written instrument by which the fundamental
powers of the government are established,
limited, and defined and by which these powers
are distributed among several departments, for
their safe and useful exercise, for the benefit of
the body politic
1987 Constitution was made by the 1986
Constitutional Commission
Fundamental laws for governance or
administration of a nation (Manila Prince Hotel
vs GSIS)
B. Purpose
Provide a permanent framework for a system of
Assign to the several departments their respective
powers and duties
Establish certain principles on which the
government is founded
C. Classification
Israel, New
Zealand, Saudi,
Enacted (Conventional)
Framed at a part
in time
Evolved (Cumulative)
Product of
Hard to amend
PH CONSTI: Written, enacted and rigid
Qualities of a good written constitution
1. Broad
o Comprehensive for every contingency
o Embody the past, reflect the present and
anticipate the future
2. Brief
o Basic principles
o Should be able to adapt readily through
3. Definite
o Least ambiguity
o Exceptions: “vague words” make it more
malleable in light of new
D. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
Basic and paramount law to which all laws must
No act shall be valid if it is in conflict with the
If a law/contract violates any norm of the
Constitution, the law/contract where promulgated
by the executive/legislative departments entered
into by private persons is null and void without any
force/effect (Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS).
In contracts, the constitution is deemed
embedded/written though not explicitly said. Court
can still interpret its validity
E. Constitution as the fundamental law of the land
Marbury v Madison
Marbury was a midnight appointee by then President John
Adams. Madison as the secretary of state refused to deliver
his appointment. In US jurisprudence, an appointment is
done through: Nomination Appointment Comission.
Midnight appointees are done to extend the power of the
president beyond his term.
Marbury files for a writ of mandamus directly in the
Supreme Court on the basis of Judicial Act 1789; however
there an inconsistency shows in Art III, Sec 2 which shows
APPELLATE (vs original) jurisdiction is awarded to SC.
ISSUE: WON the US Supreme Court has the authority to
review acts of Congress to determine constitutionality.
RULING: YES. The courts are bound to take notice of the
Constitution, and it is emphatically the province and duty of
the judicial department to say what the law is. HOWEVER
Art III Sec 2 precedes, the Judicial Act of 1789, thus The
Supreme Court of the United States does not have original
jurisdiction to hear disputes not enumerated in the U.S.
Constitution; however, it has appellate jurisdiction over all
judicial proceedings and is emphatically the province and
duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
*power of judicial review not explicitly stated in US consti
vs in 1987 PH Consti.
Republic V Sandiganbayan
PCGG created AFP Board through Executive Order 1. On 27
July 1987, the AFP Board issued a Resolution on its findings
and recommendation on the reported unexplained wealth of
Ramas The Amended Complaint alleged that Ramas was the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army until 1986. On
the other hand, Dimaano was a confidential agent of the
Military Security Unit, Philippine Army, assigned as a clerk-
typist at the office of Ramas. A search and seizure
investigation was conducted wherein several personal items
of Dimaano were seized. Respondent erred that these items
were illegally seized and thefore excluded as evidence.
ISSUE: WON the lack of Consti afforded petitioners to
invoke any exclusionary right (Right to search and seizure)
RULING: YES. We hold that the Bill of Rights under the
1973 Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum. However, we rule that the protection accorded
to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration
remained in effect during the interregnum. Nevertheless,
even during the interregnum the Filipino people continued
to enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration, almost
Showing Page:
the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973
The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the
de jure government, assumed responsibility for the State's
good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the
Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant
requires each signatory State "to respect... and to ensure to
all individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights[45] recognized in the present
Covenant." Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the
revolutionary government had the duty to insure that "[n]o
one shall be... subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his privacy, family, home or
The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a
signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that "[n]o one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his property.".
Gudani V Senga
Facts: The Senate invited Gen. Gudani and Lt. Col. Balutan
to clarify allegations of 2004 election fraud and the surfacing
of the “Hello Garci” tapes. PGMA issued EO 464 enjoining
officials of the executive department including the military
establishment from appearing in any legislative inquiry
without her consent. AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Senga issued a
Memorandum, prohibiting Gen. Gudani, Col. Balutan et
al from appearing before the Senate Committee without
Presidential approval. However, the two appeared before the
Senate in spite the fact that a directive has been given to
them. As a result, the two were relieved of their assignments
for allegedly violating the Articles of War and the time
honoured principle of the “Chain of Command.” Gen. Senga
ordered them to be subjected before the General Court
Martial proceedings for willfuly violating an order of a
superior officer.
ISSUE: WON the President has the authority to issue an
order to the members of the AFP preventing them from
testifying before a legislative inquiry.
RULING: Yes. The SC hold that President has
constitutional authority to do so, by virtue of her power as
commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence a military
officer who defies such injunction is liable under military
justice. National defense lies in the discipline of the
military culture. At the same time, any chamber of
Congress which seeks the appearance before it of a military
officer against the consent of the President has adequate
remedies under law to compel such attendance. Any
military official whom Congress summons to testify before
it may be compelled to do so by the President. If the
President is not so inclined, the President may be
commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of
the military officer. Final judicial orders have the force of
the law of the land which the President has the duty to
faithfully execute.
SC ruled in Senate v. Ermita that the President may not
issue a blanket requirement of prior consent on executive
officials summoned by the legislature to attend a
congressional hearing. In doing so, the Court recognized
the considerable limitations on executive privilege, and
affirmed that the privilege must be formally invoked on
specified grounds. However, the ability of the President to
prevent military officers from testifying before Congress
does not turn on executive privilege, but on the Chief
Executive’s power as commander-in-chief to control the
actions and speech of members of the armed forces. The
President’s prerogatives as commander-in-chief are not
hampered by the same limitations as in executive privilege.
Article 7, Section 18: The president shall be the
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Nicolas V Romulo
FACTS: The petitioner contends that the VFA is not
effective because even if concurred in the Senate, it was
not concurred in the US.
Ruling: The VFA is valid because it is not a treaty that
must be concurred. The VFA implements the treaty, the
Mutual Defense Treaty. The VFA does not provide for
policy, it provides for jurisdiction which is its substance.
The policy of the treaty is mutual aid. For treaties like this,
there must be mutuality and reciprocity to be effective. It
was not necessary to submit the VFA for advice and
consent to the US Senate, but merely to the US Congress
under the Case Zeblocki Act within 60 days after its
Article 18, Section 25: After the expiration in 1991 of the
agreement between the ROP and the USA concerning
military bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities
shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a
treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and when the
Congress so requires ratified by a majority of the votes
cast by the people in a national referendum held for that
purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the contracting
F. History of the Philippine Constitution: Landmark
events and documents leading to the adoption of the
1987 Constitution.
1521: Magellan arrived in the PH
1521-1854: Spanish Rule
o PH Independence, 1
Republic of PH
under Aguinaldo
o Malolos Constitution (democratic-
parliamentary but President was the
Dec 10 1898-Treaty of Paries
o 1
Ph Comission: Schurman
o 2
Ph Commission-Taft Commission
1907-PH Assembly thru Phil. Bill 1902 (change to
bicameral legislature)
1916- PH Autonomy Act/Jones Law
Showing Page:
1935- 1935 Constitution under the Tydings
McDuffie Act; 10 year transition period
1942-1945: Japanese Invasion; 1943 Constitution
1946-US Forces withdrew
1948-1965- Pres. Quirino Magsaysay Garcia
Macapagal Marcos
o P.D. 1081
o 1973 Constitution draft under P.D. 1102
that was ratified by the Citizens
Assembly* (Javellana v Executive)
1981-Martial Law lifted. Call for snap elections
o Snap Elections
o EDSA Revolution
o Aquino became president “De
jure/revolutionary government”
o Freedom Constitution
o Feb 11: Birth of 1987 Consti
G. Three Parts of a Constitution
1. Constitution of Liberty Article III (provisions that
guarantee individual fundamental liberties against
government abuse)
2. Constitution of Government Article VI-VIII
(divisions which set up government structure)
3. Constitution of Sovereignty Article XVII,
Transitory Provisions) (Provisions which outline the
process whereby sovereign people may change the
H. Manner of Interpreting the Constitution
1. Verba legis
whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution
must be given their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed
that of the meaning defined in the dictionary
2. Ratio legis est anima
words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of
the drafters
“reason is the law is animate/conclusive”
based on deliberations/talks on deliberations
weakest basis of interpretation of all &
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat
the Consti should be interpreted as a whole
and read as a singular unit
read a consti provision with awareness of its
relation with the whole constitution
No provision is to be separated from all
Self Executing & Non-Self Executing
Self Executing: Does not need a legislative
enactment to become effective
Non-Self Executing: Needs a legislative enactment
(i.e. Art II, Declaration of State Policies and
Principles, Bill of Rights)
Guides to Constitutional Interpretation
1. Text of the Consti
2. Intent
3. Precedent (aka Cases)
4. Policy
Civil Liberties Union v Exec Secretary
FACTS: Petitioners: Ignacio P. Lacsina, Luis R. Mauricio,
Antonio R. Quintos and Juan T. David for petitioners in
83896 and Juan T. David for petitioners in 83815. Both
petitions were consolidated and are being resolved jointly
as both seek a declaration of the unconstitutionality of
Executive Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C.
Aquino on July 25, 1987.
Executive Order No. 284, according to the petitioners
allows members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and
assistant secretaries to hold other than government offices
or positions in addition to their primary positions.
ISSUE: W/N EO 284 is unconstitutional
RULING: Yes. In the light of the construction given to
Section 13 of Article VII, Executive Order No. 284 is
unconstitutional. By restricting the number of positions that
Cabinet members, undersecretaries or assistant secretaries
may hold in addition their primary position to not more that
two positions in the government and government
corporations, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple
offices or employment in direct contravention of the
express mandate of Sec. 13 of Article VII of the 1987
Constitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless
otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.
The phrase “unless otherwise provided in this constitution”
must be given a literal interpretation to refer only to those
particular instances cited in the constitution itself: Sec. 3
Art VII and Sec. 8 Art. VIII.
Article 7, Section 13: The President, Vice-President, the
Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants
shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution,
Showing Page:
hold any other office or employment during their
tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or
indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in
any business, or be financially interested in any contract
with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by
the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not,
during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries,
chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their
Sarmiento v Mison
In 1987, then President Corazon Aquino appointed
Salvador Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs
without submitting his nomination to the Commission on
Appointments. Herein petitioners, both of whom happened
to be lawyers and professors of constitutional law, filed the
instant petition for prohibition on the ground that the
aforementioned appointment violated Section 16, Art. VII
of the1987 Constitution. Petitioners argued that the
appointment of a bureau head should be subject to the
approval of the Commission on Appointments.
ISSUE: WON the appointments of the heads of bureaus are
required to be confirmed by the commission on
Ruling: No. During the deliberation of the 1987
Constitution, the word “bureau” was deleted from the
provision that lists those that required confirmation from the
commission on appointments. It follows then that the
appointments of the heads of bureaus are not subject to
confirmation. It should be expressly stated in order to put a
check and balance in the absolute power top appoint
guaranteed by the executive.
Article 7, Section 16: The President shall nominate and,
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments,
appoint the heads of the executive departments,
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or
officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are
vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint
all other officers of the Government whose appointments
are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom
he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress
may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower
in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the
heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether
voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be
effective only until disapproved by the Commission on
Appointments or until the next adjournment of the
Marcelino v Cruz
FACTS: Petitioner, Marcelino was charged with rape in the
COFI. Trial commenced and case was submitted for decision
on Sept. 4, 1975 and the decision was made on Nov. 28 1975
and was filed for promulgation. Certifications were also sent
to concerned parties. On the day of promulgation, counsel
for the accused moved for its postponement raising the issue
in this case on the alleged loss of the jurisdiction of the trial
court for failure to decide a case within 90 days from
submission thereof invoking Section 11 [1) of Article X of
the 1973 Constitution. Case was reset for promulgation on
Jan 19, 1976; however petitioner already filed for a
prohibition and writ of habeas corpus on January 12, 1976
and TRO was given on January 16, 1976 restraining
respondent judge from promulgating decision. hence the
Issue: WON case can be void under 1973 Constitution
Ruling: NO. The date of promulgation does not necessarily
coincide with the date of its delivery could not serve as the
reckoning date due to logistical reasons beyond the control
of the judge. To hold that non-compliance by the courts
results in loss of jurisdiction would make the courts through
which conflicts are resolved the very instruments to foster
unresolved cases merely on logistical reasons. Failure to
follow only hold administrative sanctions.
Article 10, Section 11 [1] of the 1973 Constitution Upon
the effectivity of this Constitution, the maximum period
within which a case or matter shall be decided or resolved
from the date of its submission, shall be eighteen months
for the Supreme Court, unless reduced by the Supreme
Court, twelve months for all inferior collegiate courts,
and three months for all other inferior courts.
Article VIII, Sec 15 (1) , 1987 Constitution: All cases or
matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be
decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by
Directory Laws
Mandatory Laws
Non compliance does
not invalidate the judgement on
the theory that if the statute had
intended such result, it clearly
would have indicated it
(American Tupe Founders Co.
v Justice’s Court)
Matters that are
merely procedural
Showing Page:
the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate
courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
Vera v Avelino
The Commission on Elections submitted to the Congress of
the Philippines and the President pursuant to section 4
Article X of the Constitution a report that by reason of certain
specified acts of terrorism and violence in the Provinces of
Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, and Tarlac, the voting in the said
region did not reflect the true and free expression of the
popular will.
Senate approved the Pedatun Resolution whoch states that
pending the termination of the protest lodged against the
election of Vera et al, they shall not be sworn or seated as
members of the chamber. Petitioners pray for the annulment
of the resolution while respondents assail its validity.
Issue: W/N the courts have jurisdiction on the matter
Ruling: NO. It was established in the cases of Alejandrino,
Severino and Abueva that the separation of powers on the
three branches of government remains. Courts cannot dictate
the executive and the legislative without gross usurpation of
power.The correct interpretation of Sec 17, Article VI is that
the tribunal has powers over “contests” wherein it is defined
that statutory contest in which the contestant seeks not only
to oust the intruder, but also to have himself inducted into
the office. In the instant case there is NO contest filed by the
respondents in the Pedantun resolution, only an inquiry as to
the qualification of the petitioners given the state of votes in
said provinces. The court affirmed that it is within the
inherent right of the legislature to determine who shall be
admitted to its membership. it is the Senate who enacted
the Pedatun resolution and not the Electoral Tribunal as
there is no contest. Court cannot also question those who
enacted the Pedatun Resolution as under Art VI, Sec 15
senators and congressmen cannot be questioned in any other
place for any speech/debate made in congress.
Article VI, Sec 17 The Senate and the House of
Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal
which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective
Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of
nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and
the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the
House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall
be chosen on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and the parties or organizations
registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall
be its Chairman.
Theories and Approaches to Constitutional Interpretation
Living Constitution
Current meaning is
most important
Marriage then and
now have different
Justice and
meaning at the
time it was written
Original meaning
of authors, people
and intention
Enforce the way
the law is written
Verba Legis
Weigh the costs
and benefits
Looking in intent
Structure of the
What is the
purpose of the
Judicial Activism
Judicial review +
personal opinions
Legislating from
the bench
Judicial Restraint
Minimal roles
IBP v Zamora
The petitioners seek a temporary restraining order to nullify
on constitutional grounds, specifically Sec 18 Article 7 of the
1987 Constitution to order Pres. Estrada’s order in
commanding the deployment of the Philippine Marines and
join the PNP in patrolling the metropolis due to the increase
of crimes. Estrada gave a Letter of Instruction to the PNP
Chief to conduct joint visibility patrols (PNP & AFP) for the
purpose of crime prevention and suppression. IBP files a
petition to annul as they were violative of the constitution on
the grounds that 1) no emergency situation (Art. 2 Sec 3 of
the 1987 Consti) 2) Deployment is an incursion of the
military in a civilian function of government (Article XVI
Section 5 (4)) and 3) it creates a dangerous tendency to rely
on the military to perform civilian function.
Issue: WON the calling of the AFP to conduct joint patrols
with the PNP violates constitutional provisions on civilian
supremacy over the military.
Ruling: NO. The court also ruled that the President did
not commit grave abuse of discretion in the deployment
of the marines as it was stated by the framers of the
Constitution to grant the President the widest leeway and
broadest discretion in using the power to call out the AFP
as it is a lesser and more benign power compared to the
power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
and the power to impose martial law. Constitution does not
require requisites in the ‘calling out power’. Thus the
deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breech of
civilian supremacy clause in Sec. 3 Article II of the
Constitution nor does it amount to an “insidious incursion”
of the military in the task of law enforcement in violation of
Section 5(4) Article XVI of the Constitution.
Article VII Sec 18. The President shall be the
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may
Showing Page:
call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or
rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for
a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or
any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight
hours from the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
the President shall submit a report in person or in writing
to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote
of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or
special session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined
by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist
and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four
hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and
agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply
only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any
person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
Article II, Sec 3. Civilian authority is, at all times,
supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the
Philippines is the protector of the people and the State.
Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the
integrity of the national territory.
Article XVI, Sec 5(4) No member of the armed forces in
the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or
designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the
Government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or any of their subsidiaries.
Francisco v HOR
A class action was initiated by several members of the
general public regarding the 2
impeachment complaint on
CJ Hilario Davide on the grounds that (1) it was
unconstitutional based on Sec 3 (1) of Article 11 of the 1987
Constitution (2) that Section 16 & 17 of the Rules of
Procedure adopted by the 12
congress was unconstitutional.
HOR contends that (1) court had no jurisdiction to hear,
much less prohibit the HOR which is an independent and co-
equal branch of the government. Speaker De Venecia:
Constitution has excluded impeachment proceedings from
the coverage of judicial review as it is a political action
Senate contends that There was no justiciable issue
presented at the time of filing (1) Constitutional duty to
constitute itself as an impeachment court commences upon
receipt of Articles of Impeachment and (2) Principal issues
raised by the petitioners pertain exclusively to the HOR.
3 ways an impeachment complaint is deemed “initiated”
1. The day the Committee on Justice finds the
verified complaint/resolution to be sufficient in
2. the date that the House votes to overturn or affirm
im the finding of the said committee that the
verified complaint and/or resolution as the case
may be is not sufficient in substance.
3. In cases where it is endorsed by ⅓ of the members,
it is deemed initiated at the time it is filed with the
Sec. General.
When there is a favorable vote within the members of the
HOR means that there is a case for impeachment= YOU
are charged with an impeachment case.
When the articles of impeachment and trial by senate occurs
YOU are tried for your charges.
Issue: W/N the 2
impeachment is unconstitutional under
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
Ruling: YES. There was already an impeachment complaint
filed at the time of the 2
impeachment complaint. (see 3
ways an impeachment is deemed initiated). Regarding the
issue of Impeachment being a solely political question vested
in the Senate, the court ruled that though exclusive power to
initiate impeachment cases vests upon them, the Constitution
provides several limitations of such power embodied in
Sections 3(2), (3), (4), (5) of Article XI. They also argue that
there is no constitutional basis that the exercise of judicial
review over impeachment proceedings upsets the checks and
balances stating ut magis valeat quam pereat wherein the
constitution must be interpreted as a whole.
Article XI, Sec 3, par 1-8
1. The House of Representatives shall have the
exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
2. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed
by any Member of the House of Representatives or
by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by
Showing Page:
any Member thereof, which shall be included in the
Order of Business within ten session days, and
referred to the proper Committee within three
session days thereafter. The Committee, after
hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members,
shall submit its report to the House within sixty
session days from such referral, together with the
corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be
calendared for consideration by the House within ten
session days from receipt thereof.
3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the
House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable
resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the
Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The
vote of each Member shall be recorded.
4. In case the verified complaint or resolution of
impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the
Members of the House, the same shall constitute the
Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate
shall forthwith proceed.
5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once within a
period of one year.
6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and
decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for
that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or
affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is
on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of
all the Members of the Senate.
7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend
further than removal from office and
disqualification to hold any office under the Republic
of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall
nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution,
trial, and punishment, according to law.
8. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on
impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of
this section.
Every statute is deemed valid
o In respect to the legislative who passess the law and
the executive that enacts it. Given that is has
undergone due process, to render it unconstitutional
unless provided for beyond ROD by the courts
would upset the checks and balances of the 3
When a provision of the constitution violates a statute,
they should be reconciled first; however if
irreconcilable, the provision is upheld.
What is not expressly/impliedly prohibited y law may
be done except when it is contrary to morals, customs
and public order (KOR v DMCI)
Constitutional Convention is supreme to other depts
because it exercises powers that are in nature of
sovereign powers BUT it is inferior to the constitution
itself as it is a creation of legislature. IT IS an
independent and co-equal as long as it exists within
the sphere of jurisdiction.
Alba v Evangelista
FACTS: Republic Act No. 603 created the City of Roxas.
Section 8 thereof provides that the vice mayor shall be
appointed by the president. Pursuant to the law, Vivencio
Alajar was appointed as the mayor. Later on, the president
sent communication to Alajar telling him that he will be
replaced by a new appointee, Juliano Alba. Alba was then
declared as the acting mayor. Alajar refused to leave his
post and he filed a quo warranto case before Judge Jose
Evangelista who ruled in favor of him. Alba appealed
before the Supreme Court. Alba argued that section 2545 of
the Revised Administrative Code provides: Appointment of
City Officials. The President of the Philippines shall
appoint, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments of the Congress of the Philippines, the
mayor, the vice-mayor . . . and he may REMOVE at
pleasure any of the said officers . . . Alajar however insisted
that the above provision is incompatible with the
constitutional inhibition that “no officer or employee in the
Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for
cause as provided by law”, because the two provisions are
mutually repugnant and absolutely irreconcilable.
Issue: WON Sec 3 of RA 603 is violative of the
Term: Length of time to hold the position
Tenure: Term during which the incumbent ACTUALLY
holds office.
Ruling: NO. Under Art 6 of the Constitution, the congress
can legally make the tenure of certain officials dependent
upon the President. It is the legislative’s power to enact
laws that fixes the term of officials in the executive, hence
RA 603 which limits the tenure of the VM of RC to be at
the pleasure of the president. Sec 8 RA 603 is referring to
is the expiration of the tenure which an ordinary mode
of terminating official relations. The tenure which is
fixed in the position of the VM rests upon the pleasure
of the president and it is inhis absolute discretion to
change or to expire the term of a sitting officer for a
new one. Removal is only a violation of laws when there is
a fixed term. Sec 8 RA 603 provides no fixity of tenure.
Only that the appointed member sits at the pleasure of the
Article IX-B, Sec 2 (3) No officer or employee of the civil