Constitutional Law 1 File No 4

5/22/2018 Constitutional Law 1 File No 4

1/24

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

FILE No. 4

II. CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

1. CONCEPTS, PURPOSE OF

a. Definition, purpose of

Constitution the document which serves as the fundamental law ofthe state; that written instrument enacted by direct action of thepeople by which the fundamental powers of the government areestablished, limited and defined, and by which those powers aredistributed among the several departments for their safe and usefulexercise for the benefit of the body politic.

Constitutiona La!-designates the law embodied in the Constitutionand the legal principles growing out of the interpretation andapplication of its provisions by the courts in specific cases.

". Distin#uis$e% fro&' or#ani( a!, statute,%e(ree, or%inan(e

Or#ani( a! a fundamental law. Organic statute.

Statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority thatgoverns a country, state, city or country.

De(ree is an order made by a head of the State or government andhaving the force of law.

Or%inan(e a law made by a colony, or a municipality or other localauthority. ocal Ordinance is a law usually found in a municipal codeor an act passed by the local legislative body in the exercise of its lawma!ing authority.

(. Cassifie%'

i" !ritten an% un!ritten


2/24

written conventional or enactedunwritten cumulative or evolved

ii" ri#i% an% fe)i"e

iii" %e&o(rati( an% &onar($i(a

#he $hilippine Constitution is written and rigid%&rt. '())".

%. *uaities of a #oo% !rittenConstitution' "re+it, (arit, (o&pre$ensi+e

e. Essentia parts'

*. bills of rights+. organiation and functions of government. provision for amendment

i- "is of ri#$ts

Se(tion 1. No person s$a "e %epri+e% of ife, i"ert, orpropert !it$out %ue pro(ess of a!, nor s$a an person "e

%enie% t$e eua prote(tion of t$e a!s.

Significance of the Bill of Rights

overnment is powerful. /hen unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. #he0ill of 1ights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person2slife, liberty, and property which governmental power may not touch.

Powers of Government

&ll the powers of government are limited by the 0ill of 1ights.

#he totality of governmental power is contained in three greatpowers3 poi(e po!er, po!er of e&inent %o&ain, and po!er ofta)ation.


3/24

#hese powers are considered inherent powers because they belongto the very essence of government and without them nogovernment can exist.

4istinction between the guarantees of the 0ill of 1ights %&rt. )))" and

the guarantees on Social 5ustice %&rt. ')))"

/i of Ri#$ts 0Art. III- So(ia usti(e 0Art. 2III-

6ocuses on civil and political rights.

#he guarantees in the 0ills of1ights are generally self-implementing, i.e., they cab beappealed to even in the absence ofimplementing legislation.

6ocuses on social and economicrights.

#he social and economic rightsguaranteed generally re7uireimplementing legislation.

ii- or#ani3ation an% fun(tions of#o+ern&ent

Fun(tions

1. (onstituent compulsory becauseconstitutive of the society;

2. &inistrant underta!en to advance the general interest of the

society %0acani v. 8&COCO, *99 $hil, :


4/24

i- i%entifies t$e aut$orit !$o &a6es itan% t$e e)pression of its !i

ii- enun(iates t$e #reat prin(ipes an%uti&ate o"5e(ti+es

iii- i%entifies on !$o& it is "in%in#

Deliberations on the Committee Report

#he change from =general welfare> to =common good> was intended topro?ect the idea of a social order that enables every citien to attainhis or her fullest development economically, politically, culturally andspiritually.

#he phrase =&lmighty od> was chosen as being more personal than=4ivine $rovidence> and therefore more consonant with 6ilipinoreligiosity.

#he phrase = a ?ust and humane society,> #he phrase added the notionthat a constitution not merely sets up a government but is also aninstrument for building the larger society of which government ismerely a part.

Fun(tion of t$e Prea&"e

$reamble is not a source of rights or of obligations, it is useful as an aidin ascertaining the meaning of ambiguous provisions in the body of theConstitutions.

Ori#in of t$e Prea&"e

)ts origin, or authorship, is the will of the =sovereign 6ilipino people.

#he identification of the 6ilipino people as the author of theconstitution calls attention to an important principle3 that thedocument is not ?ust the wor! of representatives of the people but ofthe people themselves who put their mar! of approval by ratifying it ina plebiscite.

S(ope an% Purpose=to build a ?ust and humane society, and establish a overnment thatshall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good,conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and ourposterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the ruleof law and a regime of truth, ?ustice, freedom, love, e7uality, andpeace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.


5/24

the rule of law> this expresses the concept that governmentofficials have only the authority given them by law and defined bylaw @ #he statement is3 =Ours is a rule of law and not of men.>

7. RATIFICATION 8 POLITICAL 9S. USTICIA/LE *UESTION

Poiti(a *uestion : has two %+" aspects3

*. #hose 7uestions which, under the Constitution are to be decidedby the people in their sovereign capacity or

2. )n regard to which full discretionary authority has beendelegated to the legislature or executive branches of government%#anada v. Cuenco, *99 $hil **9*".

usti(ia"e *uestion ; a definite and concrete dispute touching onthe legal interest which may be resolved by a court of law through theapplication of a law %Cataran v. 4A81, 1 8o. *:B


6/24

been reached by the Court. 6our %:" of its members hold that Ethepeople have already accepted the *BD Constitution.E #wo %+"members of the Court hold that there can be no free expression,and there has even been no expression, by the people 7ualified tovote all over the $hilippines, of their acceptance or repudiation of

the proposed Constitution under Gartial aw. #hree %" members ofthe Court express their lac! of !nowledge andHor competence torule on the 7uestion. EFnder a regime of martial law, with the freeexpression of opinions through the usual media vehicles restricted,%they" have no means of !nowing, to the point of ?udicial certainty,whether the people have accepted the Constitution.E

:. On the fourth 7uestion of relief, six %" members of the Courtvoted to 4)SG)SS the petition.

. On the fifth 7uestion of whether the new Constitution of *BD is

in force3 6our %:" members of the Court hold that it is in force byvirtue of the peopleIs acceptance thereof; 6our %:" members of theCourt cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes onthe third 7uestion that they could not state with ?udicial certaintywhether the people have accepted or not accepted theConstitution; and #wo %+" members of the Court, voted that theConstitution proposed by the *BD* Constitutional Convention is notin force; with the result that there are not enough votes to declarethat the new Constitution is not in force.

/hile ma?ority of the Supreme Court held that whether or not the

*BD Constitution had been ratified in accordance with the *BConstitution was a ?usticeable 7uestion, a ma?ority also held thatwhether or not the *BD Constitution was already in effect, with orwithout constitutional ratification, was a political 7uestion. #heCourt accepted the glaring fact simply that =there is no further?udicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in forceand in effect %5avellana vs. Axecutive Secretary, 9 SC1& ".


7/24

promulgated by the legislative, or by the executive branch or enteredinto by private persons for private purpose is null and void and withoutany force or effect.

& doubtful provision shall be examined in the light of the history of the

times and the conditions and circumstances under which theConstitution was framed %Civil iberties Fnion v. Axecutive Secretary, *B: SC1&*D".

CASES

)ssue3 /hether the imposition of an income tax upon the salaryof a member of the ?udiciary amount to a dimunition thereof, andthus violate &rt. ())), Sec. B of the *B Constitution. #he Courtheld that nets to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more

to the independence of ?udges than a fixed provision for theirsupport. #he independence of the ?udges as of far greaterimportance than any revenue that could come from taxing theirsalaries. #he underta!ing has its own particular value to thecitiens in securing the independence of the ?udiciary in crises; andin the establishment of the compensation upon a permanentfoundation whereby ?udicial preferment may be prudently acceptedby those who are 7ualified by talent, !nowledge, integrity andcapacity, and are not possessed of such a private fortune as toma!e an assured salary an ob?ect of personal concern %$erfecto vs.Geer,


8/24

basic law, the Constitution, which is not within the sphere of theegislative department. &llowing the legislature to interpret the lawwould bring confusion and instability in ?udicial processes and courtdecisions %Andencia vs. 4avid, B $hil B".

#he *B


9/24

)n case of doubt, the provisions should be consideredself-executing; mandatory rather than directory; andprospective rather than retroactive %8achura, 1eviewerin $olitical aw, +99 ed., p. ".

CASES

)ssue3 /hether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly&rticle ')) Section *9, are self-executing. #he Court held that aprovision which lays down a general principle, such as those foundin &rticle )) of the *B


10/24

conventions has evolved into one more li!e that of a legislativebody. Jence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act isnecessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumptionnow is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. )fthe constitutional provisions are treated as re7uiring legislation

instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power toignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law.)n fine, Section *9, second paragraph, &rt. ')) of the *B


11/24

CASES

#he provision of the *B Constitution referred to in theproclamation reads3 Ethe $resident shall be commander-in-chief of

all armed forces of the $hilippines and, whenever it becomesnecessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent orsuppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion. )ncase of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent dangerthereof, when the public safety re7uires it, he may suspend theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the $hilippines orany part thereof under martial law.E

*. #he first ma?or issue raised by the parties is whether this Court mayin7uire into the validity of $roclamation 8o. *9


12/24

this particular point, that is, that the proclamation of martial lawautomatically suspends the privilege of the writ as to the personsreferred to, the Court is practically unanimous %&7uino v. Anrile, BSC1& *


13/24

plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by7ualified and duly registered voters.E

Fnder the *B Constitution, the three elements of valid ratificationof amendments are3 %*" it must be held in an election conducted

under the election law; %+" supervised by the independentCommission on Alection; and %" where only franchised voters ta!epart.

. On the third 7uestion of ac7uiescence by the 6ilipino people inthe aforementioned proposed Constitution, no ma?ority vote hasbeen reached by the Court. 6our %:" of its members hold that Ethepeople have already accepted the *BD Constitution.E #wo %+"members of the Court hold that there can be no free expression,and there has even been no expression, by the people 7ualified tovote all over the $hilippines, of their acceptance or repudiation of

the proposed Constitution under Gartial aw. #hree %" members ofthe Court express their lac! of !nowledge andHor competence torule on the 7uestion. EFnder a regime of martial law, with the freeexpression of opinions through the usual media vehicles restricted,%they" have no means of !nowing, to the point of ?udicial certainty,whether the people have accepted the Constitution.E


. On the fifth 7uestion of whether the new Constitution of *BD is

in force3 6our %:" members of the Court hold that it is in force byvirtue of the peopleIs acceptance thereof; 6our %:" members of theCourt cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes onthe third 7uestion that they could not state with ?udicial certaintywhether the people have accepted or not accepted theConstitution; and #wo %+" members of the Court, voted that theConstitution proposed by the *BD* Constitutional Convention is notin force; with the result that there are not enough votes to declarethat the new Constitution is not in force.

/hile ma?ority of the Supreme Court held that whether or not the

*BD Constitution had been ratified in accordance with the *BConstitution was a ?usticeable 7uestion, a ma?ority also held thatwhether or not the *BD Constitution was already in effect, with orwithout constitutional ratification, was a political 7uestion. #heCourt accepted the glaring fact simply that =there is no further?udicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in forceand in effect %5avellana vs. Axecutive Secretary, 9 SC1& ".


14/24

e. 1@ Snap Presi%entia Ee(tion

CASES

$res. Garcos2 term was supposed to end on 5une 9, *B


15/24

the in?unction. Since there are less than the re7uired *9 votes todeclare 0$


16/24

Section. #he Court held that mutatis mutandis, there can be no7uestion that $resident Coraon C. &7uino and (ice-$residentSalvador J. aurel are the incumbent and legitimate $resident and(ice $resident of the 1epublic of the $hilippines %)n re3 0ermude, *:SC1& *9".

#. 1@ Constitution

&rticle () of $roclamation 8o. said3

Adopting a New ConstitutionSection *. /ithin sixty %9" days from the date of this $roclamation, aCommission shall be appointed by the $resident to draft a 8ewConstitution. #he Commission shall be composed of not less thanthirty %9" nor more than fifty %9" natural-born citiens of the

$hilippines.

#he *B


17/24

. AENDENT ; Art. 29II

Se(tion 1. An a&en%&ent to, or re+ision of, t$is Constitution&a "e propose% "'

01- T$e Con#ress, upon a +ote of t$ree:fourt$s of a its

e&"ers or07- A (onstitutiona (on+ention.

Se(tion 7. A&en%&ents to t$is Constitution &a i6e!ise "e%ire(t propose% " t$e peope t$rou#$ initiati+e upon apetition of at east t!e+e per centumof t$e tota nu&"er ofre#istere% +oters, of !$i($ e+er e#isati+e %istri(t &ust "erepresente% " at east t$ree per centum of t$e re#istere%+oters t$erein. No a&en%&ent un%er t$is se(tion s$a "eaut$ori3e% !it$in fi+e ears foo!in# t$e ratifi(ation of t$isConstitution nor oftener t$an on(e e+er fi+e ears t$ereafter.

T$e Con#ress s$a pro+i%e for t$e i&pe&entation of t$ee)er(ise of t$is ri#$t.

Se(tion


18/24

Re+ision- 1eexamination of the entire Constitution or an importantcluster of provisions in the Constitution.

"- Pro(e%ure

1. Proposa

a. /Con#ress

&cting as Constituent &ssembly by a vote of M of all its members.

". / a Constitutiona Con+ention

T$eories on Position of Constitutiona Con+ention (ae% eit$er"'

*. +H vote of all the members of the Congress, or

+. & ma?ority vote of all the members of Congress with the 7uestion ofwhether or not to call a constitutional convention to be resolved bythe people in a plebiscite %Sec. , &rt '())"

)f Congress acting as a Constituent &ssembly omits to provide forthe implementing details, Congress acting as a egislative &ssembly

this time can enact the necessary legislation to fill in the gaps%)mbong v. 6errrer, 1 8o. -+:+, Sept. **, *BD9".

(. / t$e Peope t$ru Initiati+e

$etition of at least *+N of the total number of registered voters ofwhich every legislative district must be represented by at least N ofthe registered voters therein.

Note3 8o amendment in this manner shallbe authoried within years following the ratification of

this Constitution %6eb. +, *B


19/24

Sec. + on the Statement of $olicies of the &ct does not suggest aninitiative on the amendments to the Constitution.

Sec. of the &ct does not provide for the contents of the provision

for initiative on the Constitutions.

#hat the &ct does not provide a sub-title for initiative on theConstitution simply means that the main thrust of the &ct is initiativeand referendum on 8ational and ocal aws %4efensor-Santiago v. Comelec,1 *+D+, Garch *B, *BBD".

Proposa "Con#ress

Con:Con Proposa " Peope

6or bothamendments andrevisions.

6or both amendmentsand revisions.

6or amendmentsonly

CASES

)ssue3 )s 1.&. 8o. D sufficient to enable amendment of theConstitution by people2s initiativeK #he Court held that 1.&. D isinade7uate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to theConstitution. Fnder the said law, initiative on the Constitution isconfined only to proposals to &GA84. #he people are not accordedthe power to Edirectly propose, enact, approve, or re?ect, in wholeor in part, the ConstitutionE through the system of initiative. #heycan only do so with respect to Elaws, ordinances, or resolutions.E#he use of the clause Eproposed laws sought to be enacted,approved or re?ected, amended or repealedE denotes that 1.&. 8o.D excludes initiative on amendments to the Constitution.

&lso, while the law provides subtitles for 8ational )nitiative and1eferendum and for ocal )nitiative and 1eferendum, no subtitle isprovided for initiative on the Constitution. #his means that the mainthrust of the law is initiative and referendum on national and locallaws. )f 1.&. 8o. D were intended to fully provide for theimplementation of the initiative on amendments to theConstitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor,considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, orhierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose


20/24

amendments to the Constitution is far more important than theinitiative on national and local laws.

/hile 1.&. 8o. D specially detailed the process in implementinginitiative and referendum on national and local laws, it intentionally

did not do so on the system of initiative on amendments to theConstitution %4efensor-Santiago vs. COGAAC, 1. *+D+, Garch *B, *BBD".

(- Ratifi(ation

$roposed amendments %s" shall be submitted to the people and shallbe deemed ratified by the ma?ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite,held not earlier than 9 days nor later than B9 days.

a. after approval of the proposal by Congress or Concon, or

b. after certification by the COGAAC of sufficiency ofpetition of the people.

Do(trine of Proper Su"&ission

$lebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election %onales v.Comelec, +* SC1& DD:"provided the people are sufficiently informed ofthe amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberatethereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission ofpiece-meal amendments is unconstitutional. &ll the amendments mustbe submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only. #he people have to

be given a proper frame or reference in arriving at their decision.#hey have no idea yet of what the rest of the amended constitutionwould be %#olentino v. Comelec, .1. 8o. -:**9, October *, *BD*".

CASES

)s there any limitation or condition in Section * of &rticle '( of theConstitution which is violated by the act of the ConsConvention ofcalling for a plebiscite on the sole amendment contained in Organic1esolution 8o. *K #he Court holds that there is, and it is the

condition and limitation that all the amendments to be proposed bythe same Convention must be submitted to the people in a singleEelectionE or plebiscite. )t being indisputable that the amendmentnow proposed to be submitted to a plebiscite is only the firstamendment the Convention will propose /e hold that theplebiscite being called for the purpose of submitting the same forratification of the people on 8ovember


21/24

Convention and the respondent Comelec in that direction are nulland void %#olentino vs. Comelec, D SC1& ".

%- u%i(ia Re+ie! of A&en%&ents

CASES

*. On the first issue involving the political-7uestion doctrine, six%" members of the Court, hold that the issue of the validity of$roclamation 8o. **9+ presents a ?usticiable and non-political7uestion.

+. On the second 7uestion of validity of the ratification, six %"members of the Court also hold that the Constitution proposed by

the *BD* Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified inaccordance with &rticle '(, section * of the *B Constitution,which provides only one way for ratification, i.e., Ein an election orplebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by7ualified and duly registered voters.E

Fnder the *B Constitution, the three elements of valid ratificationof amendments are3 %*" it must be held in an election conductedunder the election law; %+" supervised by the independentCommission on Alection; and %" where only franchised voters ta!epart.

. On the third 7uestion of ac7uiescence by the 6ilipino people inthe aforementioned proposed Constitution, no ma?ority vote hasbeen reached by the Court. 6our %:" of its members hold that Ethepeople have already accepted the *BD Constitution.E #wo %+"members of the Court hold that there can be no free expression,and there has even been no expression, by the people 7ualified tovote all over the $hilippines, of their acceptance or repudiation ofthe proposed Constitution under Gartial aw. #hree %" members ofthe Court express their lac! of !nowledge andHor competence torule on the 7uestion. EFnder a regime of martial law, with the free

expression of opinions through the usual media vehicles restricted,%they" have no means of !nowing, to the point of ?udicial certainty,whether the people have accepted the Constitution.E



22/24

. On the fifth 7uestion of whether the new Constitution of *BD isin force3 6our %:" members of the Court hold that it is in force byvirtue of the peopleIs acceptance thereof; 6our %:" members of theCourt cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes onthe third 7uestion that they could not state with ?udicial certainty

whether the people have accepted or not accepted theConstitution; and #wo %+" members of the Court, voted that theConstitution proposed by the *BD* Constitutional Convention is notin force; with the result that there are not enough votes to declarethat the new Constitution is not in force.

/hile ma?ority of the Supreme Court held that whether or not the*BD Constitution had been ratified in accordance with the *BConstitution was a ?usticeable 7uestion, a ma?ority also held thatwhether or not the *BD Constitution was already in effect, with orwithout constitutional ratification, was a political 7uestion. #he

Court accepted the glaring fact simply that =there is no further?udicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in forceand in effect %5avellana vs. Axecutive Secretary, 9 SC1& ".

)t is now an ancient rule that the valid source of a statute $residential 4ecrees are of such nature may be contested byone who will sustain a direct in?ury as a result of its enforcement. &tthe instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement ofpublic funds may be en?oined, upon the theory that the expenditureof public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose ofexecuting an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of

such funds. #he interest of the petitioners as taxpayers in thelawful expenditure of these amounts of public money sufficientlyclothes them with that personality to litigate the validity of the4ecrees appropriating said funds.

#he amending process both as to proposal and ratification, raises a?udicial 7uestion. #his is especially true in cases where the powerof the $residency to initiate the amending process by proposals ofamendments, a function normally exercised by the legislature, isseriously doubted. Fnder the terms of the *BD Constitution, thepower to propose amendments to the Constitution resides in the

interim 8ational &ssembly during the period of transition %Sec. *,#ransitory $rovisions". &fter that period, and the regular 8ational&ssembly in its active session, the power to propose amendmentsbecomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular 8ational&ssembly %Sec. *, pars. * and + of &rt. '(), *BD Constitution". #henormal course has not been followed. 1ather than calling theinterim 8ational &ssembly to constitute itself into a constituentassembly, the incumbent $resident undertoo! the proposal of


23/24

amendments and submitted the proposed amendments thru$residential 4ecree *9 to the people in a 1eferendum-$lebisciteon October *. Fnavoidably, the regularity of the procedure foramendments, written in lambent words in the very Constitutionsought to be amended, raises a contestable issue. #he

implementing $residential 4ecree 8os. BB*, *9*, and *9, whichcommonly purport to have the force and effect of legislation areassailed as invalid, thus the issue of the validity of said 4ecrees isplainly a ?usticiable one, within the competence of this Court topass upon. Section + %+" &rticle ' of the new Constitution provides3E&ll cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executiveagreement, or law shall be heard and decided by the SupremeCourt en banc and no treaty, executive agreement, or law may bedeclared unconstitutional without the concurrence of at least tenGembers. . . ..E #he Supreme Court has the last word in theconstruction not only of treaties and statutes, but also of the

Constitution itself. #he amending, li!e all other powers organiedin the Constitution, is in form a delegated and hence a limitedpower, so that the Supreme Court is vested with that authority todetermine whether that power has been discharged within itslimits.

$olitical 7uestions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not thelegality of a particular act. /here the vortex of the controversyrefers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter isdefinitely ?usticiable or non-political. /hat is in the heels of theCourt is not the wisdom of the act of the incumbent $resident in

proposing amendments to the Constitution, but his constitutionalauthority to perform such act or to assume the power of aconstituent assembly. /hether the amending process confers onthe $resident that power to propose amendments is therefore adownright ?usticiable 7uestion. Should the contrary be found, theactuation of the $resident would merely he a brutum fulmen. )f theConstitution provides how it may be amended, the ?udiciary as theinterpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedurefollowed or the authority assumed was valid or not.

/hether, therefore, that constitutional provision has been followed

or not is indisputably a proper sub?ect of in7uiry, not by the peoplethemselves of course who exercise no power of ?udicialreview, but by the Supreme Court in whom the people themselvesvested that power, a power which includes the competence todetermine whether the constitutional norms for amendments havebeen observed or not. &nd, this in7uiry must be done a priori not aposteriori, i.e., before the submission to and ratification by thepeople.


24/24

&s to the 7uestion on whether or not the $res. Garcos may proposeamendments to the Constitution in the absence of a grant of suchconstituent power to the $resident, the Court held that he could. )fthe $resident has been legitimately discharging the legislative

functions of the )nterim &ssembly, there is no reason why hecannot validly discharge the function of that &ssembly to proposeamendments to the Constitution, which is an ad?unct, althoughpeculiar, to its gross legislative power %Sanidad vs. COGAAC, D SC1&".

Constitutional Law 1 File No 4

Documents

Transcript of Constitutional Law 1 File No 4