Consti – intended to be more or less permanent
*take note of Francisco case
- principles of consti construction
- verba legis, ordinary meaning, ambiguity; that’s when u resort
to construction to determine intent of consti framers; consider
circumstances when consti was drafted; consider purpose
-consider consti as a whole (if there are conflicting provisions,
you harmonize)
- remember history of 1987 consti
- judicial review (there’s always an issue re: jurisdiction)
-expanded certiorari jurisdiction (Francisco)
-self-executing v non-self-executing
-features of consti
-ordinary v technical sense (GR: ordinary; unless words used
needs technical sense)
Consti provides for automatic appellate review
Ordinary v. Technical Sense
Marcos: ordinary sense
Ruffy: technical sense
Krivenko: foreigner bought a property and wanted to register property
to his name. register of deeds refused. The word “agricultural” should be
interpreted in its technical sense to include residential lands. At that time,
agricultural, mineral and timber are the only classifications of land.
Tanada v Cuenco: composition of the electoral tribunal
No standard rule if prov is mandatory or directory
-you have to determine the intent of the prov: in this case, afford
impartial determination of electoral protest
Court ruled: directory!
Gonzalez: Ramon Gonzales claims that congress is a de jure congress
because congress failed to pass apportionment which should be done
every 3 years. Such provision is mandatory, according to him. SC said
failure to comply w/ mandatory prov should not declare act of congress
as __.
Prospective v Retroactive
Hagonoy: case started prior to 1987 consti. No orig charter. Does not
fall under CSC jurisdiction but under NLRC. SC: prov of 1987 consti
cannot be applied retroactively. It should be applied prospectively w/o
prejudice to the right of Villanueva to file. SC did not decide the case so
no idea where Hagonoy should file
Filoteo: extrajudicial confession: made prior to 1987 consti effectivity.
It was valid under 1973 consti. SC said: bill of rights is different from a
penal law wherein the latter gives retroactive effect favorable to the
accused.
Co: retroactive effect because it gives a curative effect.
AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
>art 17 not self-executing
>3/4 vote: separately or jointly voting? Political question
>manner of voting: power given by consti is given to a bicameral
congress. Therefore, they should vote separately
Gonzalez: proposed amendments were passed (House Resos 1, 2) then
the law was passed to ratify reso 1 and 3. Issue: can congress propose
amendment and call for a constitutional convention? Done in general or
special election? SC ruled on jurisdiction of the court: it has the power to
exercise judicial review. SC said that power of congress came from the
consti. Therefore, SC can decide whether acts of congress is within or
beyond consti. If issue is on limits of authority of congress, then court
can take cognizance of the case. SC said that both can be held
simultaneously. SC does not distinguish between general or special
election. Time frame: there was sufficient notice to the people to enable
them to ratify.
Imbong: Congress, when acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to
Art. XV of the Constitution, has full and plenary authority to propose
Constitutional amendments or to call a convention for the purpose, by a
three-fourths vote of each House in joint session assembled but voting
separately. Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 calling for a constitutional
convention were passed by the required three-fourths vote.
Tolentino: After convening, Raul Gonzalez became a delegate of the
consti convention. Passed organic reso 1, lowering the voting age req.
consti convention decided to have this proposal ratified. Tolentino: this
should not be allowed. Pwede ba paisa-isa ratification? Does the
convention have the power to call it a plebiscite? SC: “election” – use in
its ordinary menaing; so singular lang. for the people to arrive at an
intelligent judgment as to its acceptability. No proper submission in this
case. As a whole dapat isusubmit. Last issue not addressed by SC but in
Gonzalez case: the determination of conditions is a matter which falls
under the legislative sphere. (accdg to ma’am)
Sanidad: 1973 consti in effect. Power of pres to propose amendments
to the constitution. At this time, pres has exec and legislative power. SC
said (based on transitory provs), yes. Pres has prerogative as to when to
convene congress. Distinction of (1)referendum and (2)plebiscite: (1)
consultative; (2) part of amendatory process
Occena: Issue: force and effectivity of 1973 consti (javellana v exec sec):
no more judicial obstacle, then such consti is considered in force and
effect. Should be entitled to respect. No distinction between
amendments and revisions yet.
Santiago: Whether there is an implementing legislation for initiating
people’s initiative? Signature gathering for proposed amendments to
consti: lifting the term limits for elected officials. Whether lifting term
limits is a revision or amendment? NO IMPLEMENTING
LEGISLATION. Signature gathering is not how you initiate a petition.
Hindi yung file muna bago signature campaign. Dapat andun na dapat
yung signatures. Amendment or revision? No decision by SC pero
decided in the case of Lambino wherein revision v amendment
distinction is discussed.
Lambino: cha-cha initiative! Signatures 6.3billion were gathered already.
Bicameral presidential to unicameral parliamentary change: proposal.
Logrolling: nullify entire proposition. Proposal should be “direct
proposal” by the people. Dapat may proof na nabasa ng mga nagsign.
Nakaattach dapat full text ng proposal sa signatures. Such requirements
are unbending; no exceptions. Distinction of amendment v revision:
initiative applied to amendments only. Quantitative test vs qualitative
test: First, the quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is so
extensive in its provisions as to change directly the “substance entirety”
of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous provisions.
The court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not
consider the degree of the change. Second, the qualitative test, which
inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the
Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will “accomplish
such far-reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan
as to amount to a revision”. The Lambino proposal constituted a
revision, not simply an amendment, of the Constitution, because it
involved a change in the form of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and a shift from the present bicameral to a unicameral
legislature.
ELEMENTS OF STATE:
-population, territory, government, sovereignty
Laurel: sovereignty is not lost. You do not suspend the exercise of
sovereignty
Gozo: an aspect of sovereignty includes right to self-determination and
self-restriction. You only give up a portion of an exercise of a right. Even
if there is belligerent occupation, Philippines will remain sovereign.
Preamble
not a source of right but a declaration that phil people are sovereign.
Used only as an aid.
[MEMORIZE ART 1 SEC 1]
National territory
It is a municipal law. Only applied to us. Kahit wala sa consti pero may
basis sa int’l law, you will not be deprived of sovereignty in that area.
UNCLOS
Purpose: to have a legal order in the use, exploitation, conservation of
marine environment
ARCHIPELAGIC STATE
Magallona case (baselines):
RA9522 adjusted the country’s archipelagic baselines and classified the
baseline regime of nearby territories. Amended the old Baselines law
(RA3046), which was compliant to UNCLOS I and codified the
sovereign right of states parties over their territorial sea but did not
determine its breadth. RA9522, is compliant with UNCLOS III, which
prescribes the water-land ratio, length and contour of baselines of
archipelagic states like the Philippines and sets the deadline for the
application for the extended continental shelf. RA9522 therefore
shortened 1 baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around
the archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely the Kalayaan
Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as “regimes of islands”
whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
Constitutional.
First, RA9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime
zones and continental shelf under the UNCLOS III, and not to delineate
Philippine territory. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition
or loss of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating sea-use rights over
maritime zones, contiguous zone, and continental shelves that UNCLOS
III delimits. On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA9522 are
enacted by the state parties to mark out specific basepoints along their
coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to
serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the
maritime zones and continental shelf. Thus, they are nothing but
statutory mechanisms for the states parties to delimit with precision the
extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this gives
notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the
maritime space and submarine areas within which states parties exercise
treaty-based rights.
Second, RA9522’s use of the framework of regime of islands to
determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal are
not inconsistent with the Philippines’ claim of sovereignty. Petitioners
believe that such weakens our territorial claim. A look at RA3046 and
RA9522 show that the latter mainly followed the base points mapped by
the former; under both, the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal are still
outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine archipelago.
RA9522, by optimizing the location of the basepoints, increase the
Philippines’ total maritime space. Congress, if they included both islands
inside our baselines, might be accused of “departing to an appreciable
extent from the general configuration of the archipelago.”
Third, RA9522 and UNCLOS III are not incompatible with the
Constitution’s delineation of internal waters. Petitioners contend that the
law converts internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence subjecting
them to the right of innocent passage. Philippines still exercises
sovereignty over these waters under UNCLOS III. The political branches
of the Philippine government, in the competent discharge of their
constitutional powers, may pass legislation designating routes within the
archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage. In the
absence of municipal legislation, international law norms in UNCLOS
III operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or
archipelagic waters, subject to the treaty’s limitations and conditions for
their exercise.
PCA case: [not really comprehensive; read with case summary] not
an issue of sovereignty. China claims that tribunal has no jurisdiction.
Tribunal ruled otherwise. Historic title (exception) only applies to
internal waters and territorial sea. If not, then historic right can be
claimed. Three requirements for claiming historic right: (1) convention;
(2) acquiescence; (3) passage of time of that exercise of right and
acquiescence. Tribunal said that China can’t claim historic right. Maritime
zones of china and PH do not overlap. (Submissions 1 and 2)
Submission 3 – scarborough shoal: both claim sovereingty. Still a matter
to be decided in the future
Reed bank is totally submerged; part of phil EEZ kasi no overlap
Mischief reef: part of EEZ