Constitutional Law 1 | Atty.

Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |

14 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS have been abrogated because where there is
change of sovereignty, the political laws of
POLITICAL LAW the former sovereign, whether compatible or
● Branch of public law which deals with the not with those of the new sovereign, are
organization and operations of the automatically abrogated, unless they are
governmental organs of the State and defines expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the
the relations of the State with the inhabitants new sovereign.
of its territory. (Case in point: Macariola v.
Asuncion, Adm. Case No. 133-J, 31 May SCOPE OF POLITICAL LAW
1982) ✓ Administrative Law

✓ Constitutional Law
Macariola v. Asuncion ✓ Law on Elections

✓ Law on Municipal Corporations

CASE PROBLEM : Is Article 14 of the Code of
Commerce political law? Explain how the ✓ Law on Public Officers
Supreme Court arrived at a decision.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
● It is the study of the maintenance of the proper
Facts:
balance between authority as represented by the
● Respondent judge was charges for having
three inherent powers of the State and the liberty
violated Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, the
as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. (Case in point:
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Civil
Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service
Service Rules, and the Canons of Judicial Ethics,
Insurance System, G.R. No. 122156)
when he associated himself with the Traders
DOCTRINE OF CONSTITIONAL SUPREMACY
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as a
● “If a law or contract violates any norm of the
stockholder and a ranking officer while he was a
constitution that law or contract whether
judge of the Court of First Instance.
promulgated by the legislative or by the executive
Issue:
branch or entered into by private persons for
● Whether or not the respondent judge violated
private purposes is null and void and without any
Article 14 of the Code of Commerce.
force and effect.” (Case in point: Manila Prince
Ruling:
Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System,
● Political Law has been defined as that branch of
G.R. No. 122156)
public law which deals with the organization and
operation of the governmental organs of the
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS
State and define the relations of the state with the
inhabitants of its territory
● It may be recalled that political law embraces CASE PROBLEM : How did the Supreme Court
constitutional law, law of public corporations, comprehensively define a Constitution in this
administrative law including the law on public case?
officers and elections.
● Specifically, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce
partakes more of the nature of an CASE PROBLEM : What reason did the
Supreme Court use in disqualifying Renong
administrative law because it regulates the
Berhad? Provide a clear explanation of the
conduct of certain public officers and Court’s decision.
employees with respect to engaging in
business; hence, political in essence.
● It is significant to note that the present Code of FACTS:
Commerce is the Spanish Code of Commerce ● GSIS, pursuant to the privatization program of the
of 1885, which was extended to the Philippines Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50
by the Royal Decree of August 6, 1888, which to dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through
effect as law in the jurisdiction on December 1, public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and
1888. outstanding shares of respondent MHC.
● Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to ● Only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila
the United States and later on from the United Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation,
States to the Republic of the Philippines, Article

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or contracts must conform with the fundamental law
15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and of the land. Those which violate the Constitution
● Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT- lose their reason for being.
Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the ● Paragraph V. J. 1 of the bidding rules provides that
same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or [i]f for any reason the Highest Bidder cannot be
P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this
● Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the to other Qualified Bidders that have validly
winning bidder/strategic partner and the execution submitted bids provided that these Qualified
of the necessary contracts, petitioner in a letter to Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in
respondent GSIS dated 28 September 1995 terms of price per share.
matched the bid price of P44.00 per share ● In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits
tendered by Renong Berhad, and was able to sent the highest bid in a public bidding concerning the
a manager’s check issued by Philtrust Bank for grant of rights, privileges and concessions
thirty-three Million Pesos (P33,000,000.00) as Bid covering the national economy and patrimony,
Security to match the bid of Renong Berhad, which thereby exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no
GSIS refused to accept. question that the Filipino will have to be
● Hence, petitioner came to the court on prohibition allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity.
and mandamus. Petitioner relies on par. V., And if the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign
subpar. J, of the bidding rules. firm the award should go to the Filipino.
ISSUE: ● It must be so if we are to give life and meaning
Whether GSIS should give preference to the petitioner, to the Filipino First Policy provision of the 1987
a Filipino corporation, over Renong Berhad, Constitution.
a foreign corporation, in the sale of the controlling -----------------------------------------------------------------------
shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation.
RULING: CONSTITUTION
● A constitution is a system of fundamental laws ● is a system of fundamental laws for the
for the governance and administration of a governance and administration of a nation.
nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and ● It prescribes the permanent framework of a
unalterable except by the authority from which it system of government, assigns to the different
emanates. It has been defined as the departments their respective powers and duties,
fundamental and paramount law of the nation. and established certain fixed principles on which
● It prescribes the permanent framework of a the government is founded.
system of government, assigns to the different ● It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable
departments their respective powers and duties, except by
and establishes certain fixed principles on which
government is founded. The fundamental
conception in other words is that it is a supreme CLASSIFICATIONS OF A CONSTITUTION
law to which all other laws must conform and ✓ WRITTEN vs. UNWRITTEN
in accordance with which all private rights must be
determined and all public authority administered. ✓ ENACTED vs. EVOLVED
● Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if ✓ RIGID vs. FLEXIBLE
a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution that law or contract whether
Written
promulgated by the legislative or by the executive
● The provisions are written but it is not the only
branch or entered into by private persons for
description. The provisions are embodied in a
private purposes is null and void and without
single instrument or set of documents.
any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution
Unwritten
is the fundamental paramount and supreme law of
● Does not necessarily mean that its provisions are
the nation, it is deemed written in every statute
not written. The provisions are NOT embodied in
and contract.
a single instrument or set of documents and are
● Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional
scattered in various sources. (e.g. judicial
supremacy, the subject constitutional
decisions, statutes, customs and traditions,
provision is, as it should be, impliedly written
opinions of jurists)
in the bidding rules issued by respondent
Enacted or Conventional
GSIS, lest the bidding rules be nullified for
● Formally adopted at a definite time and place
being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic
following a conscious effort of the body politic or a
principle in constitutional law that all laws and

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
ruler. There is formal adoption of the constitution, ● To prevent ambiguity in its provisions which could
normally done in a plebiscite. result in confusion and divisiveness among the
Evolved or Cumulative people.
● A product of political evolution. It is not formally
adopted at a definite place and not formally ratified ESSENTIAL PARTS OF A GOOD WRITTEN
by the people. (e.g. England, Ireland, Australia) CONSTITUTION
Rigid
● A kind of Constitution that can be amended only ✓ Constitution of Liberty
by a formal and usually difficult process.
- Refers to the part of the Constitution which sets
Flexible
forth the fundamental, civil and political rights of
● A kind of Constitution that can easily be amended
the people and imposes limitations in the exercise
by ordinary legislation.
of government powers if only to secure the
enjoyment of the civil and political rights of the
people.
THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION IS
A written, enacted and rigid Constitution. WRITTEN
(ART. 3- BILL OF RIGHTS)
as it is one whose precepts are embodied in one
document. It is ENACTED as it is formally struck off at
a definite time and place following a conscious or ✓ Constitution of Government
deliberate effort taken by the people through plebiscite. - Refers to the part of the Constitution outlining the
It is RIGID because it cannot be changed by ordinary organization of the government, enumerating the
legislation but only by a more cumbersome process of powers of the government, laying down rules for
change (through initiative and referendum) its administration and defining the electorate.

Congress cannot pass a law with the end in view of (ARTS. 6-9 OF 1987 CONSTITUTION)
amending the Constitution. Any such law contrary to
the Constitution should be inviolate, for the Constitution ✓ Constitution of Sovereignty
is the supreme law of the land to which all laws must
- Refers to the part of the Constitution which
conform and all persons must defer.
outlines the process by which the Constitution may
be amended or revised.
Since our Constitution is rigid
Congress cannot amend any of the provisions by
(ART. 17- AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS)
enacting law seeking to change them. Any purported
change or amendment must strictly comply with the
process outlined under Article 17 of the 1987
Constitution.

QUALITIES OF A GOOD CONSTITUTION

✓ BROAD

✓ BRIEF

✓ DEFINITE

BROAD
● It provides for the organization of the entire
government and covers all persons and things
within the territory of the State and also because it
must be comprehensive enough to provide for
every contingency.
BRIEF
● Must confine itself to basic principles to be
implemented with legislative details more
adjustable to change and easier to amend.
DEFINITE

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
TOOLS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices
CONSTRUCTIONS of the Supreme Court for “culpable violation of
✓ Verba Legis the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust
and other high crimes.” The complaint was
- Plain meaning rule
endorsed by House Representatives, and was
- Textualist approach or intent
referred to the House Committee on Justice on 5
- Whenever possible the words used in the
August 2003 in accordance with Section 3(2) of
Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning,
Article XI of the Constitution. The House
except when technical terms are employed
Committee on Justice ruled on 13 October 2003
(Case in point: Francisco, Jr. vs. House of
that the first impeachment complaint was
Rep.)
“sufficient in form,” but voted to dismiss the
✓ Ratio Legis et anima same on 22 October 2003 for being insufficient in
- Interpretation according to spirit substance.
- Words of the Constitution should be interpreted in ● The following day or on 23 October 2003, the
accordance with the intent of the framers second impeachment complaint was filed with the
- Originalism (intent of the framers; original Secretary General of the House by House
understanding of the people) Representatives against Chief Justice Hilario G.
(Case in point: Francisco, Jr. vs. House of Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the
Rep.) legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned
✓ Ut magis valeat quam pereat House Resolution. The second impeachment
complaint was accompanied by a “Resolution of
- The constitution has to be interpreted as a whole.
Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by at least 1/3
- Related provisions of the Constitution must be
of all the Members of the House of
interpreted altogether. Provisions dealing with the
Representatives.
same subject matter should be construed as a
● Various petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
whole, if only to effectuate the meaning thereof.
mandamus were filed with the Supreme Court
Where there is a seeming inconsistency between
against the House of Representatives, et. al., most
some of the provisions, there should be a
of which petitions contend that the filing of the
conscious attempt to harmonize such conflicting
second impeachment complaint is
provisions, if only to give meaning to them.
unconstitutional as it violates the provision of
(Case in point: Civil Liberties Union v. Executive
Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution that “no
Secretary)
impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once
within a period of one year.”
CASE PROBLEM : How did the SC interpret said ISSUE:
provision using the three tools? Whether or not the power of judicial review extends to
those arising from impeachment proceedings.
Francisco v. House of Representatives RULING:
● Yes, the power of judicial review extends to
FACTS: those arising from impeachment proceedings.
● On 28 November 2001, the 12th Congress of the ● JUDICIAL SUPREMACY. The Constitution itself
House of Representatives adopted and approved has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary
the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment as the rational way. And when the judiciary
Proceedings, superseding the previous House mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it
Impeachment Rules approved by the 11th does not assert any superiority over the other
Congress. departments; it does not in reality nullify or
● On 22 July 2002, the House of Representatives invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts
adopted a Resolution, which directed the the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by
Committee on Justice “to conduct an investigation, the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of
in aid of legislation, on the manner of authority under the Constitution and to establish
disbursements and expenditures by the Chief for the parties in an actual controversy the rights
Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary which that instrument secures and guarantees to
them.
Development Fund (JDF).
● To determine the merits of the issues raised in the
● On 2 June 2003, former President Joseph E.
instant petitions, the court must necessarily turn to
Estrada filed an impeachment complaint (first
the Constitution itself which employs the well-
impeachment complaint) against Chief Justice
settled principles of constitutional construction.

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
● Verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words
used in the Constitution must be given their
● The two petitions in this case sought to declare
unconstitutional Executive Order No. 284 issued
ordinary meaning except where technical terms
by then President Corazon C. Aquino.
are employed.
● Thus, in J.M. Tuason & Co ., Inc. v. Land Tenure ● The petitioners alleged that Section 1, 2 and 3 of
Administration, the court declared: EO 284 contravenes the provision of Sec. 13,
● We look to the language of the document itself in Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
our search for its meaning. We do not of course ISSUE:
stop there, but that is where we begin. It is to be Whether or not the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII
assumed that the words in which constitutional of the 1987 Constitution insofar as Cabinet members,
provisions are couched express the objective their deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the
sought to be attained. They are to be given their broad exceptions made for appointive officials in
ordinary meaning except where technical terms general under Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B
are employed in which case the significance thus RULING:
attached to them prevails. As the Constitution is ● The SC ruled in the negative.
not primarily a lawyer's document, it being ● As to Verba Legis - On its face, the language
essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should of Section 13, Article VII is prohibitory so that
ever be present in the people's consciousness, its it must be understood as intended to be a
language as much as possible should be positive and unequivocal negation of the
understood in the sense they have in common privilege of holding multiple government
use.
offices or employment. Verily, wherever the
● Ratio legis est anima. The words of the
language used in the constitution is
Constitution should be interpreted in accordance
with the intent of its framers. prohibitory, it is to be understood as intended
● And so did this Court apply this principle in Civil to be a positive and unequivocal
Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary negation.The phrase "unless otherwise
● A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction provided in this Constitution" must be given a
is the intention underlying the provision under literal interpretation to refer only to those
consideration. Thus, it has been held that the particular instances cited in the Constitution
Court in construing a Constitution should bear in itself.
mind the object sought to be accomplished by its
● As to Ratio Legis Est Anima - But what is
adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be
indeed significant is the fact that although
prevented or remedied. The object is to ascertain
the reason which induced the framers of the Section 7, Article IX-B already contains a
Constitution to enact the particular provision and blanket prohibition against the holding of
the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, multiple offices or employment in the
in order to construe the whole as to make the government subsuming both elective and
words consonant to that reason and calculated to appointive public officials, the Constitutional
effect that purpose. Commission should see it fit to formulate
● Ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution another provision, Sec. 13, Article VII,
is to be interpreted as a whole. Thus, in
specifically prohibiting the President, Vice-
Chiongbian v. De Leon:
President, members of the Cabinet, their
● [T]he members of the Constitutional Convention
could not have dedicated a provision of our deputies and assistants from holding any
Constitution merely for the benefit of one person other office or employment during their
without considering that it could also affect others. tenure, unless otherwise provided in the
● There exists no constitutional basis for the Constitution itself.
contention that the exercise of judicial review over ● Evidently, from this move as well as in the
impeachment proceedings would upset the different phraseologies of the constitutional
system of checks and balances. Verily, the provisions in question, the intent of the
Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and
framers of the Constitution was to impose a
"one section is not to be allowed to defeat another.
stricter prohibition on the President and his
Civil Liberties Union v. The Exec. Sec. official family in so far as holding other offices
or employment in the government or
FACTS: elsewhere is concerned. Moreover, such
intent is underscored by a comparison of

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Section 13, Article VII with other provisions of
the Constitution on the disqualifications of
certain public officials or employees from
holding other offices or employment.
● As to Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat - It is a
well-established rule in constitutional
construction that no one provision of the
Constitution is to be separated from all the
others, to be considered alone, but that all the
provisions bearing upon a particular subject
are to be brought into view and to be so
interpreted as to effectuate the great
purposes of the instrument. Sections bearing
on a particular subject should be considered
and interpreted together as to effectuate the
whole purpose of the Constitution and one
section is not to be allowed to defeat another,
if by any reasonable construction, the two
can be made to stand together.
● "unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII cannot
possibly refer to the broad exceptions
provided under Section 7, Article IX-B of the
1987 Constitution. To construe said
qualifying phrase as respondents would
have us do, would render nugatory and
meaningless the manifest intent and
purpose of the framers of the Constitution
to impose a stricter prohibition on the
President, Vice-President, Members of the
Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with
respect to holding other offices or
employment in the government during their
tenure.

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray