You are on page 1of 4

JURY SYSTEM "A shift to the grand jury system and the jury trial system in the Philippines

will require an
amendment of its current Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, in order to make a citizens right to a grand jury
and to jury trial a constitutionally-sanctioned human right."
To my mind, the SC may not promulgate a shift to a trial by jury basically because it would require an amendment
to the Bill of Rights to make it a citizen's right, as pointed out in the blog. Additionally, the SC is not listed in Art.
XVII as one of those which can make amendments or revisions to the Constitution.

Cabinet Members are not covered by the Constitutional prohibition against electioneering or partisan political
activity because they hold political offices. Cabinet Members serve at the behest and pleasure of the President. As
such, their positions are essentially political. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, 1996 edition, p. 919, citing Santos v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-16133, November 6, 1959)

or practical reasons and in view of the nature of their positions and responsibility, the aforementioned inhibitions
shall not be made to apply to government officials holding political offices, such as:

1. The President of the Philippines;
2. The Vice President of the Philippines;
3. The Executive Secretary/Department Secretaries and other Members of the Cabinet;
4. All other elective officials at all levels; and
5. Those in the personal and confidential staff of the above officials."


What of the issue that Congress can repeal the legislation passed through peoples initiative? The proponents
assert: No, Congress cannot repeal it. And Section 10 of the bill is constitutional.

The legal grounds for such assertions are two provisions of the 1987 Constitution pertaining to peoples initiative.
These are:


1. Article VI, Section. 1, which says, The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines
except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum; and Article VI, Section
32, which provides for the system of initiative and referendum, whereby the people can directly propose and
enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress after the requirements cited
earlier are fulfilled.

Note that while the legislative power of Congress includes the power to pass, amend or repeal laws, Section 1
separates from such power the peoples reserved power to legislate via initiative and referendum.

More important, note that Section 32 upholds the peoples power not only to directly enact laws but also to
approve or reject repeal, in effect any law passed by Congress. Not the other way around.

As sovereign, the people hold the inherent power to legislate. Congress, constituting the peoples elected
representatives, only exercises legislative power delegated by the people. Thus, Congress cannot override what
the peoples initiative will enact.
2. But to my mind, it's not an issue that should involve the two cases being cited. The PI is to define what political
dynasties are. It merely seeks a supplementary or enabling legislation as Sec. 26, Art. II of the Constitution is a not
self-executing provision. I would then advise those behind the PI to enact a law to define political dynasties rather
than an amendment or revision to the Constitution.
What of the issue that Congress can repeal the legislation passed through peoples initiative? The proponents
assert: No, Congress cannot repeal it. And Section 10 of the bill is constitutional.

The legal grounds for such assertions are two provisions of the 1987 Constitution pertaining to peoples initiative.
These are:

Article VI, Section. 1, which says, The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines except to
the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum; and Article VI, Section 32, which
provides for the system of initiative and referendum, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or
approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress after the requirements cited earlier are
fulfilled.

Note that while the legislative power of Congress includes the power to pass, amend or repeal laws, Section 1
separates from such power the peoples reserved power to legislate via initiative and referendum.

More important, note that Section 32 upholds the peoples power not only to directly enact laws but also to
approve or reject repeal, in effect any law passed by Congress. Not the other way around.

As sovereign, the people hold the inherent power to legislate. Congress, constituting the peoples elected
representatives, only exercises legislative power delegated by the people. Thus, Congress cannot override what the
peoples initiative will enact.


27. According to the SC in In Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government Service Insurance
System from Payment of Legal Fees:

Clearly, therefore, the payment of legal fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court is an integral part of the rules
promulgated by this Court pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution. In
particular, it is part of the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in courts. Indeed, payment of legal (or
docket) fees is a jurisdictional requirement.[19]

Since the payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules promulgated by this Court concerning pleading,
practice and procedure, it cannot be validly annulled, changed or modified by Congress. As one of the safeguards
of this Courts institutional independence, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is
now the Courts exclusive domain. That power is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, much less with the
Executive.[28]

26. B impeachment complaint is referred to the Committee on Justice
21.C to propose consti amendments or revision
13. D. Art. VI, Sec. 30 No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
7. Yes, the President can still make appointments to the judiciary during the midnight appointment ban. In De
Castro vs. JBC, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2-month appointment ban stated in the Constitution does not
cover appointments in the judiciary. Margie could still be appointed as she has passed the JBC requirements, proof
of which is her inclusion in the short-list submitted to the President. Furthermore, there is no Constitutional
prohibition on the appointments of relatives of the President to the judiciary. Prohibition under Section 15, Article
VII does not apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other appointments to the Judiciary.

6. According to the Supreme Court in Arnault vs. Nazareno:

That investigation has not been completed because of the refusal of the petitioner as a witness to answer certain
questions pertinent to the subject of the inquiry. The Senate has empowered the committee to continue the
investigation during the recess. By refusing to answer the questions, the witness has obstructed the performance
by the Senate of its legislative function, and the Senate has the power to remove the obstruction by compelling the
witness to answer the questions thru restraint of his liberty until he shall have answered them. That power subsists
as long as the Senate, which is a continuing body, persists in performing the particular legislative function involved.
To hold that it may punish the witness for contempt only during the session in which investigation was begun,
would be to recognize the right of the Senate to perform its function but at the same time to deny to it an essential
and appropriate means for its performance. Aside from this, if we should hold that the power to punish for
contempt terminates upon the adjournment of the session, the Senate would have to resume the investigation at
the next and succeeding sessions and repeat the contempt proceedings against the witness until the investigation
is completed-an absurd, unnecessary, and vexatious procedure, which should be avoided. As against the foregoing
conclusion it is argued for the petitioner that the power may be abusively and oppressively exerted by the Senate
which might keep the witness in prison for life. But we must assume that the Senate will not be disposed to exert
the power beyond its proper bounds. And if, contrary to this assumption, proper limitations are disregarded, the
portals of this Court are always open to those whose rights might thus be transgressed.
17. Yes, because COA is a Constitutional Commission granted with fiscal autonomy by the Constitution. The
budget should be released.
30. Automatic and regular release of such funds, to protect independence of Judiciary

You might also like