====================== People
v. Linsangan ======================
- Tydings-Mcduffie Law- allowed the Filipinos to adopt
a constitutions but subject to the conditions prescribed in the Act.
- Required 3 steps:
- drafting and approval of the constitution must
be authorized
- it must be certified by the President
of the US
- it must be ratified by the people of
the Philippines at a plebiscite
- 1973 Constitution
- adopted in response to popular clamor
to meet the problems of the country
- March 16, 1967: Congress passed
Resolution No.2, which was amended by Resolution No. 4, calling a
convention to propose amendments to
the Constitution
- 1987 Constitution
- after EDSA Revolution
- also known as the 1987 Charter
====================== Ordillo
v. COMELEC
Issue: whether
the sole province of Ifugao can be validly constituted in the Cordillera
Autonomous Region under Section 15, Article 10.
RULING: No. the keywords
provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areas connotes that a region
consists of more than one unit. In its ordinary sense region means two or more
provinces, thus Ifugao cannot be constituted the Cordillera Autonomous Region.
====================== Marcos
v. Chief of Staff ======================
ISSUES:
- the meaning or scope of the words any
court in Section 17 Article 17 of the 1935 Constitution
- Who are included under the terms inferior court in section 2 Article 7.
RULING: Section 17 of Article
17 prohibits any members of the Congress from appearing as counsel in any
criminal case x x x. This is not limited to civil but also to a military court
or court martial since the latter is also a court of law and justice as is any
civil tribunal.
Inferior
courts are meant to be construed in its restricted sense and accordingly do not
include court martials or military courts for they are agencies of executive
character and do not belong to the judicial branch unlike the term inferior
court is.
Another
RULE: words used in one part are to receive the same interpretation when used
in other parts unless the contrary is applied/specified.
====================== Lozada
v COMELEC
The term “Batasang Pambansa,” which means the regular national assembly, found in many sections of the 1973 Constitution refers to the regular, not to the interim Batasang Pambansa.
Words which have acquired a technical meaning before
they are used in the constitution must be taken in that sense when such
words as thus used are construed.
====================== Aquino
v. COMELEC
ISSUE: what does the term
“incumbent president in sec. 3 of Article 17 of the 1973 Constitution refer to?
RULING: History shows that at
that time the term of President Marcos was to terminate on December 30, 1973,
the new constitution was approved on November 30, 1972 still during his
incumbency and as being the only incumbent president at the time of the
approval it just means that the term incumbent president refers to Mr. Marcos.
Justice
Antonio concurring opinion states: the only rational way to ascertain the
meaning and intent is to read its language in connection with the known
conditions of affairs out of which the occasion for its adoption had arisen and
then construe it.
====================== In
re Bermudez
RULING: Incumbent president referred to in section 5 of
Article 18 of the 1987 constitution refers to incumbent President Aquino
and VP Doy Laurel.
============== Civil
Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary ==============
ISSUE: whether EO 284, which authorizes a cabinet
member, undersecretary and assistant secretary to hold not more than two
positions in the government and GOCCs and to receive corresponding compensation
therefore, violates Sec. 13, Art. 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
The Court
examined the history of the times, the conditions under which the
constitutional provisions was framed and its object.
RULING: before the adoption
of the constitutional provision, “there was a proliferation of newly-created
agencies, instrumentalities and GOCCs created by PDs and other modes of
presidential issuances where Cabinet members, their deputies or assistants were
designated to head or sit as members of the board with the corresponding
salaries, emoluments, per diems, allowances and other prerequisites of office since
the evident purpose of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to impose a
stricter prohibition on the President, Vice President, members of the Cabinet,
their deputies and assistants with respect to holding multiple government
offices or employment in the Government during their tenure, the exception to
this prohibition must be read with equal severity.
On its
face, the language of Sec 13 Art. 7 is prohibitory so that it must be
understood as intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation of the
privilege of holding multiple government offices or employment.
================== Luz
Farms v. Secretary of DAR
ISSUE: Whether the term
“agriculture” as used in the Constitution embraces raising livestock, poultry
and swine.
Transcript
of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of
“agriculture” clearly shows that it was never the intention of the framers of
the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the
constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.
Agricultural
lands do not include commercial industrial, and residential lands.
RULING: it is evident in the
foregoing discussion that Sec 2 of RA 6657 which includes “private agricultural
lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising” in the
definition of “commercial farms” is INVALID, to the extent of the aforecited
agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform
program of the State.
====================== Montejo
v. COMELEC
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to transfer, by
resolution, one or more municipalities from one congressional district to
another district within a province, pursuant to Sec 2 of the Ordinance
appended to the 1987 Constitution.
RULING: The Court relied on the proceedings of the
Constitutional Commission on “minor adjustments” which refers only to the
instance where a municipality which has been forgotten is included in the enumeration of the
composition of the congressional district and not to the transfer of one
municipality from one district to another, which has been considered a
substantive or major adjustment
====================== Galman
v. Pamaran
================== Tolentino
v. Secretary of Finance
VAT Law, passage of bill involved are article 6 Sec. 24 and RA 7716 (VAT Law)
Court: rejected such interpretation. The bill originated from the HoR but can be modified in the Senate.
====================== Magtoto
v. Manguera
Sec 20 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution: “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. x x x Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence”
Court held that this specific portion of the mandate should be given a prospective application
====================== Co
v. Electric Tribunal
Sec. 1(3) Art. 4 of the 1987 Constitution states that those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority” are citizens of the Philippines has a retroactive effect as shown to the clear intent of the framers through the language used
====================== Manila
Prince Hotel v. GSIS
ISSUE: Whether or not the
sale at public bidding of the majority ownership of the Manila Hotel a
qualified entity can match the winning bid of a foreigner
RULING: resolution depends
on whether the issue is self executing or not. The court ruled that the
qualified Filipino entity must be given preference by granting it the option to
match the winning bid because the provision is self executing.
