1

Calalang vs Williams
Facts: The National Traffic Commission recommended the
Director of Public Works and to the Secretary of Public Works
and Communication that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited
from passing along Rosario St. extending from Plaza Calderon
de la Barca to Dasmarinas St. from 7:30 am to 12 pm and
1:30 pm to 5:30 pm and also along Rizal Avenue from 7 am
to 11 pm from a period of one year from the date of the
opening of Colgante Bridge to traffic. It was subsequently
passed and thereafter enforce by Manila Mayor and the
acting chief of police. Maximo Calalang then, as a citizen and
a taxpayer challenges its constitutionality.
Issue: Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the
Director of Public Works infringes upon the constitutional
precept regarding the promotion of social justice
Held: The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not
through a mistaken sympathy towards any given group. It is
the promotion of the welfare of all people. It is neither
communism, despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and
economic forces by the state so that justice in its rational and
objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
Facts: In July 17, 1940 the National Traffic Commission
recommended to the Director of Public Works and to the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications that animaldrawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario
Street extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to
Dasmarinas Street from 7:30 AM to 12:30 PM and from 1:30
PM to 5:30 PM; and along Rizal Avenue extending from the
railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street from 7

AM to 11 PM; one year from the date of opening of the

Colgante Bridge to traffic.
The Director of Public Works recommended to the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications that the
closing of Rizal Avenue to traffic of animal-drawn vehicles be
limited to the portion extending from the railroad crossing at
Antipolo Street to Azcarraga Street during the same hours as
indicated for a period of one year from the date of opening of
the Colgante Bridge to traffic.
Issue: Whether CA 548 is unconstitutional because it
constitutes undue delegation of legislative power and
infringes upon constitutional precept regarding the promotion
of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic
security of all people;
Whether there is unlawful interference with legitimate
business or trade and abridging of the right to personal
liberty and freedom of locomotion.
Held: The writ of prohibition prayed for is hereby DENIED.
Ratio: According to Judge Ranney: "The true distinction
therefore is between the delegation of power to make the
law, which necessarily involves discretion as to its execution
to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first
cannot be done to the latter no valid objection can be made.
The Legislature cannot delegate a power to make law, but it
can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact
or state of things upon which the law makes or intends to
make, its action depend. To deny this would stop the wheels
of the government.
By consideration of public convenience and welfare the
National Assembly enacted CA 548. Persons may be

2
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to
secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the
State. The citizen should achieve the required balance of
liberty and authority in his mind through education and
personal discipline so that there may be established the
resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and
happiness for all.
The State has exercised its Police Power in this case.
Lambino Vs. Comelec G.R. No. 174153Oct. 25 2006
Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering
signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA
6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the
support of 6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art
17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the 1987
constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections
1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed changes will
shift the present bicameral- presidential form of government
to unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition
due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and
invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is
inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.
Issue:
Whether or Not the Lambino Groups initiative petition
complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on
amendments to the Constitution through a peoples initiative.

Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago

declaring RA 6735 incomplete, inadequate or wanting in
essential terms and conditions to implement the initiative
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Groups
petition.
Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply
with the basic requirements for conducting a peoples
initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave
abuse of discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the
People
The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative
signer must be informed at the time of the signing of the
nature and effect, failure to do so is deceptive and
misleading which renders the initiative void.
2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives
The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction
between amendment and revision, it is intended that the
third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may
propose only amendments to the constitution. Merging of the
legislative and the executive is a radical change, therefore a
constitutes a revision.
3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

3
Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the
result because the present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to
be a valid initiative, must first comply with the constitution
before complying with RA 6735
EBRALINAG v. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS OF CEBUG.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993
AMOLO et al vs. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS OF CEBU and ANTONIO A.SANGUTANG.R. No.
95887 March 1, 1993 ; GRIO-AQUINO,J.:
Facts:The petitioners in both (consolidated) cases were
expelled from their classes by thepublic school authorities in
Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem
andrecite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No.
1265(An Act making flagceremony compulsory in all
educational institutions)of July 11, 1955 , and by
DepartmentOrder No. 8(Rules and Regulations for Conducting
the Flag Ceremony in All EducationalInstitutions)
dated July 21, 1955 of the Department of Education, Culture
and Sports (DECS)making the flag ceremony compulsory in
all educational institutions. Jehovah's Witnesses admitted
that they taught their children not to salute the flag,sing the
national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they
believe that those are"acts of worship" or "religious devotion"
which they "cannot conscientiously give to anyoneor
anything except God". They consider the flag as an image or
idol representing the State. They think the action of the local

authorities in compelling the flag salute and

pledgetranscends constitutional limitations on the State's
power and invades the sphere of theintellect and spirit which
the Constitution protect against official control..
Issue:Whether or not school children who are members or a
religious sect may be expelledfrom school for disobedience of
R.A. No. 1265 and Department Order No. 8
Held:No. Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is
entitled to the highestpriority and the amplest protection
among human rights, for it involves therelationship of man to
his Creator
The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the
exercise of religiousfreedom is the existence of a grave and
present danger of a character both grave andimminent, of a
serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or
any otherlegitimate public interest, that the State has a right
(and duty) to prevent." Absent such athreat to public safety,
the expulsion of the petitioners from the schools is not
justified.(Teehankee) The petitioners further contend that
while they do not take part in the compulsoryflag ceremony,
they do not engage in "external acts" or behavior that would
offend theircountrymen who believe in expressing their love
of country through the observance of theflag ceremony. They
quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show
theirrespect for the right of those who choose to participate
in the solemn proceedings. Sincethey do not engage in
disruptive behavior, there is no warrant for their expulsion.