Tolentino vs COMELEC; G.R. No. L-34150; 16 Oct 1971; 41 SCRA 702
Tolentino vs COMELEC; G.R. No. L-34150; 16 Oct 1971; 41 SCRA 702 FACTS: The Constitutional Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 which seeks to amend the Constitution in lowering the voting age. COMELEC resolved to inform the Constitutional Convention that a plebiscite will be held to ratify the proposed constitutional amendment. ISSUE(S): Whether or not Organic Resolution No. 1 and all its organic acts should be rendered NULL and VOID. HELD: YES. The amendment proposed to be submitted to the plebiscite is only the first amendment the Convention proposed. The Court holds that plebiscite being called for the purpose of…
Almario vs Alba; G.R. No. L-66088; 25 Jan 1984; 127 SCRA 69
Almario vs Alba; G.R. No. L-66088; 25 Jan 1984; 127 SCRA 69 FACTS: The Filipino electorate will vote in a plebiscite to either approve or reject amendments to the Constitution proposed by six COMELEC resolutions. Petitioners seek that the electorate be given more time to study the meaning and implications of Resolutions 105 and 113 before they be asked to answer Questions 3 and 4. ISSUE(S): Whether or not Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people on a later date. HELD: YES. The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments are beyond the power of the…
Gonzales vs COMELEC; G.R. No. L-28196; 09 Nov 1967; 21 SCRA 774
Gonzales vs COMELEC; G.R. No. L-28196; 09 Nov 1967; 21 SCRA 774 FACTS: Congress enacted RA 4913, an act providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in Resolution of Both Houses Nos. 1 to 3 be submitted for the approval by the people in a plebiscite to be jointly held with the general elections. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to review a resolution of Congress for unconstitutionality. HELD: When proposing an amendment to the Constitution, senators and members of the House of Representatives are acting as component elements of a constituent assembly who derive their authority…
Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC; G.R. No. 127325; 19 Mar 1995; 270 SCRA 106
Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC; G.R. No. 127325; 19 Mar 1995; 270 SCRA 106 FACTS: Atty. Jesus Delfin filed a petition seeking to amend the Constitution by people’s initiative. COMELEC issued an order for Delfin to cause publication of said petition and the notice of hearing. ISSUE(S): Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over the Delfin Petition. HELD: NO. A petition for initiative must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.
Occena vs COMELEC; G.R. No. 56350; 02 Apr 1981; 104 SCRA 11
FACTS: Petitioners challenged the validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions (1) proposing an amendment allowing a natural-born citizen of the Philippines naturalized in a foreign country to own a limited area of land for residential purposes; (2) dealing with the Presidency, the Prime Ministry and the Cabinet, and the National Assembly; and (3) amending the Article on the Commission on Election. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the 1973 Constitution is a fundamental law. HELD: YES. In Javellana vs The Executive Secretary, the Court held that there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect.
Imbong vs COMELEC; G.R. No. L-32432; 11 Sep 1970; 35 SCRA 28
FACTS: Congress passed Resolution No. 2 which called for a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) to propose constitutional amendments. The ConCon shall be composed of two delegates form each representative district who shall have the same qualifications as those of congressmen. It later passed Resolution No. 4 amending Resolution No. 2, providing that the convention shall be composed of 320 delegates apportioned among existing representative districts according to the number of inhabitants. Each representative district shall be entitled to at least two delegates with the same qualifications as congressmen. Finally, it enacted RA 6132 implementing Resolution Nos. 2 and 4. ISSUE(S): Whether…
Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary; G.R. No. 83896; 22 Feb 1991; 194 SCRA 317
FACTS: Executive Order No. 284 allows members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to their primary position. ISSUE(S): Whether or not Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional. HELD: YES. The language of Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution is prohibitory so that it must be intended to be positive and unequivocal negation of the privilege of holding multiple government offices or employment.
Magallona et.al. vs Ermita; G.R. No. 187167; 16 Aug 2011; 655 SCRA 476
Magallona et.al. vs Ermita; G.R. No. 187167; 16 Aug 2011; 655 SCRA 476 FACTS: Congress enacted RA 9522, amending RA 3046 and making it compliant with the terms of the UNCLOS III. In so doing, RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the ocation of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as “regimes of the islands” whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones. ISSUE(S): Whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional. HELD: YES. RA 9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime zones and…