Aids to Interpretation – Legaspi v.

Minister of Finance – L-58289, 07/24/82 – Barredo, J

Facts: Valentino Legaspi, member of the interim Batasang Pambansa, petitioned SC to declare PD 1840 unconstitutional.

PD 1840 “granting tax amnesty and filing of statement of assets and liabilities and some other purposes,” was made in
pursuance of Amendment 6 of the Constitution. Legaspi contends that the President can grant amnesty with the
concurrence of the Batassang Pambansa. Additionally, PD 1840 was unconstitutional because Legaspi believed that
Amendment 6 was already repealed since the plebiscite of 1981. The list of allegations are as follows:

1. That PD 1840 was issued in pursuance of Amendment 6 of the Constitution, pursuant to Proclamation 1595, which
took effect on Oct 27 ‘96
2. That the decree was issued despite the fact legislative power was vested only in the BP and tax amnesty requires
concurrence
3. That Amendment 6 was not one of the powers of the President due to it being repealed in the Apr 7 ’81 plebiscite
4. That respondents intend to implement PD 1840 to all taxpayers
5. That, as a BP member, the PD wasn’t brought to the attention of the BP for concurrence
6. That PD 1840 is null and void for being passed without BP concurrence
7. That the PD, since it’s the first issuance after Martial Law as lifted and the April 7 amendments, brings to the test
the validity of the exercise of standby emergency powers invoked in Amendment 6

Issue: Whether the 1973 Constitution as amended by Plebiscite-Referendum of 1976, retained the same amendments,
more particularly Amendment No. 6, after it was again amended in the Plebiscite held on April 7, 1981?

Held: No.

Constitutional interpretation not only requires literal application. It is also important to take the intention of the laws with
respect to their historical background. The legislature that Secs 1-2 Art 8 Const (1973) refers to is the interim Batasan
Pambansa created by Amendment 2; Amendments 3 and 4 are inseparable from Amendment 2 as it made adjustments
to it. The 1981 plebiscite’s reference to Amendment 2 has no intention to convert or upgrade the interim Batasan into a
regular Batasang Pambansa. Therefore, the Batasan is still interim.

Legaspi misunderstood Amendment 6. He believed that it vested legislative powers only upon the President/Prime
Minister, and since the 1981 removed the position of President/Prime Minister, nobody in the government can exercise
legislative powers. Amendment 6 allows the President to exercise legislative power during emergencies or whenever the
interim BP fails to act adequately in the President’s judgment. The purpose of Amendment 6 was to allow the President
to exercise emergency powers without the need to declare martial law nationwide.

Four measures built into the Constitution to cope with emergencies:

- Emergency powers expressly delegated by the Batasan

- Calling out the armed forces
- Suspension of habeas corpus
- Martial law

Out of these 4, the public would dislike martial law the most. Amendment 6 seeks to remedy this by granting legislative
powers to the President in times of emergencies that don’t necessarily warrant martial law to be declared again.
Amendment 6 is the middle ground between martial law and the 3 other measures given; therefore, Amendment 6 is a
safeguard from the declaration of martial law.

Lastly, Sec 2 Art 7 only applies when the President is exercising executive clemency. PD 1840 was made with the President’s
legislative powers pursuant to Amendment 6. Since the President issued PD 1840 as a legislator, he doesn’t need the
concurrence of the Batasan; he is exercising concurrent authority vested by the Constitution.

Wherefore, petition denied.

Aids to Interpretation – Legaspi v. Minister of Finance – L-58289, 07/24/82 – Barredo, J
Important Provisions/Statutes:

PD 1840: “granting tax amnesty and filing of statement of assets and liabilities and some other purposes,”

Proc1595/Amend.6: Whenever in the judgment of the President, there exists a grave emergency or a threat or
imminence thereof, or whenever the interim Batasang Pambansa or the regular National
Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment
requires immediate action, he may in order to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees,
orders, or letters of instruction, which shall form part of the law of the land.

Sec 1 Art 8 ’73 Const: Legislative power shall be vested in a Batasang Pambansa

Sec 16 Art 7 ’73 Const: All powers vested in the President of the Philippines under the 1935 Constitution and the laws of
the land which are not herein provided for or conferred upon any official shall be deemed and are
hereby vested in the President unless the Batasang Pambansa provides otherwise.

Amendment 3: The incumbent President of the Philippines shall be the Prime Minister and he shall continue to
exercise all his powers even after the interim Batasang Pambansa is organized and ready to
discharge its functions, and likewise he shall continue to exercise his powers and prerogatives
under the 1935 Constitution and the powers vested in the President and the Prime Minister under
this Constitution.
Aids to Interpretation – Montejo v. COMELEC – GR 118702, 03/16/95 – Puno, J.
Facts: Cirilo Montejo, Rep. of First District of Leyte, pleaded for the annulment of Sec 1 of Resolution 2736 of COMLEC,
which redistributed the districts of Leyte, on the ground that it violated the equality of representation. Montejo sought to
transfer the municipality of Tolosa from his district to the 2nd district, however, Rep Sergio Apostol of the 2nd district
opposed this proposal. The case involves the exercise of legislative powers of redistricting and reapportionment by
COMELEC.

Due to the effectivity of the Local Government Code on 01/01/92, Sec 462, the sub-province of Biliran became a regular
province by plebiscite conducted by COMELEC. Due to an inequality in the distribution of the inhabitants and
municipalities in Leyte, COMELEC consulted the representatives of the 5 districts. In Resolution 2736, it transferred
Capoocan to the 2nd district; the municipality of Palompon to the 4th and 3rd district. However, the composition of the 1st
and 5th district was not affected. Montejo moved for reconsideration noting the inequal distribution between the 1st and
2nd districts. He alleged that the 1st district has 178,688 registered voters while the 2nd had 156,462 with a difference of
22,226 voters. He proposed that the municipality of Tolosa, with 7,700 voters, be transferred from the 1st to the 2nd district.

Apostol argued against this stating that the adjustment done involved the least disruption of the territorial composition
of each district and that the adjustment complied with the constitutional requirement that each district comprises, as far
practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Montejo insisted that Sec 1of Res. 2736 violates the principle of
equality of representation in the Constitution. OSG sided with Montejo. Apostol then responded saying that COMLEC had
no jurisdiction to promulgate the Resolution and that, assuming it had jurisdiction, the Resolution was in accordance with
the Constitution.

Issue: Is Sec 1 of Resolution 2736 void?

Held: Yes. To answer this issue, the constitutional power of COMELEC to transfer municipalities from one district to
another must be related to the resolution. The powers of COMELEC as enforcer and admin of election laws are given in
Sec 2(c) Art 9 Const. COMELEC didn’t invoke this provision but instead relied on the Ordinance “Apportioning the Seats of
the House of Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines to the Different Legislative Districts in Provinces and Cities
and the Metropolitan Manila Area,” appended to the Const. as a source of power of redistricting; which is traditionally
regarded as a part of the power to make laws.

The ordinance became necessary because of Proclamation 3 issued by Cory Aquino, under the Provisional Constitution,
which abolished the Batasan Pambansa. Justice Davide, the Ordinance’s author, revealed that the Constitutional
Commission had to resolve some prejudicial issues before holding the first congressional elections under the 1987 Const.
Among these issues were: whether the House Reps would be elected by district or province; who will apportion the
districts; and how the apportionment should be made. Davide presented 3 options for apportionment by law to Aquino:
Aquino herself apportions; COMELEC will be the one to apportion; or the Const. Commission exercises the power to
apportion by way of an Ordinance appended to the Constitution. In this process, COMELEC was denied the major power
of legislative apportionment. Section 2 of the Ordinance empowers COMELEC only to make minor adjustments of the
reapportionment made.

The meaning of “minor adjustments,” was made clear in the debates within the Commission where it meant that there
should be no change in the allocations per district. Sec 3 of the Ordinance doesn’t allow COMELEC any authority to transfer
municipalities from one district to another; it merely allows COMELEC to adjust the number of members, not
municipalities.

Hence, COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it promulgated Sec 1 of
Resolution 2736 transferring the municipality of Capoocan of the 2nd district and Palompon of the 4th district to the 3rd
district. Furthermore, the conversion of Biliran to a regular province and the resulting imbalance is a problem of
reapportionment where the remedy rests with Congress, not SC. Sec 5(4) Art 6 Const. gives Congress the power to
reapportion: “Within 3 years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of
legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.”
Aids to Interpretation – Montejo v. COMELEC – GR 118702, 03/16/95 – Puno, J.
Ordinance: “Apportioning the Seats of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines to the
Different Legislative Districts in Provinces and Cities and the Metropolitan Manila Area,”

Sec 1 - For purposes of the election of Members of the House of Representatives of the First
Congress of the Philippines under the Constitution proposed by the 1986 Constitutional
Commission and subsequent elections, and until otherwise provided by law, the Members thereof
shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila Area as follows:

Sec 2 - The Commission on Elections is hereby empowered to make minor adjustments of the
reapportionment herein made.

Sec 3 - Any province that may hereafter be created, or any city whose population may hereafter
increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following
election to at least one Member or such number of Members as it may be entitled to on the basis
of the number of its inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in paragraph (3), Section
5 of Article VI of the Constitution. The number of Members apportioned to the province out of
which such new province was created or where the city, whose population has so increased, is
geographically located shall be correspondingly adjusted by the Commission on Elections but such
adjustment shall not be made within one hundred and twenty days before the election."