Consti Chopsuey Midterms Reviewer

CONSTI MIDTERMS REVIEWER
Module 1
Topics Cases
 The Constitution
 Basic Concepts & Principles

 People v Perfecto
 Political Law- concept; scope
Doctrine: Where there is a change of sovereignty, the political laws of
Political Law is that branch of public law which deals with the organization
the former sovereign are not merely suspended but abrogated.
and operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the
Facts: Gregorio Perfecto wrote an article accusing Senators of fraud and
relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory. (People vs.
robbery. After the publication of said article, an information was filed
Perfecto)
alleging that Perfecto violated Art. 256 of the Spanish Penal Code. He
was found guilty in the municipal trial court and CFI of Manila.
Public Law is understood as dealing with matters affecting the state, the
Issue: WON Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is still in force and can
act of state agencies, and the protection of state interests. (e.g. Political
be applied in the case.
Law, Criminal Law, Public International Law)
Ruling: No. The SC held that provisions of the Spanish Penal Code are no
longer in force because they were abrogated by the change from
Private Law deals with regulation of the conduct of private individuals in
Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and because it was
relation with one another. (e.g. Civil Law, Commercial Law)
inconsistent with the democratic principles of the government.
Sources:
 Macariola v Asuncion
The main source is the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It also includes
Doctrine: When there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the
pertinent statutes, executive orders and decrees, judicial decisions, and
former sovereign (whether compatible or not) are automatically
current political events in which the purposes of the law are applied (or
abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the
misapplied). It also includes the previous constitutions of the Philippines
new sovereign.
(1935 and 1973).
Facts: A complaint for partition was filed by the Reyes siblings against
the defendant (Macariola) concerning the properties left by their
It also includes the different organic (from the word “organ”, which refers deceased common father Francisco Reyes. Judge Asuncion (respondent)
to the bodies or parts of the government) laws of the Philippines that were was the judge who rendered the decision on the partition, which
in effect during the American occupation. It also includes the United States became final for lack of an appeal. One of the properties in the partition
(US) Constitution and the decisions of the US Supreme Court because they was subdivided into 5 lots and was sold to spouses Asuncion and
are considered as extrinsic aids. These two (organic laws and US Supreme Galapon. The spouses then sold their respective shares over the lot to
Court decisions) can be used in determining the meaning of some of the Traders Manufacturing & Fishing Industries, both were stockholders at
provisions of our Constitution that originated from the US Constitution. the company. A year after the company's registration at SEC, petitioner
filed a complaint on Judge Asuncion.
POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Scope: Issue: WON Judge Asuncion violated Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce,
Constitutional Law I and II, Administrative Law, the Law of Public Officers, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Civil Service Rules, and the
Election Law, and the Law on Municipal Corporations Canons of Judicial Ethics, when he associated himself with the said
Political Law vs Constitutional Law company, as stockholder and ranking officer.
Political Law deals with the organization and operations of the Ruling: No. Judge Asuncion did not violate Art. 14 of the Code of
governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State Commerce since this provision partakes of the nature of a political law as
with the inhabitants of its territory. On the other hand, Constitutional Law it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public
deals with the maintenance of the proper balance between authority as officers and employees, like justices and judges. It is important to note
represented by the three (3) inherent powers of the State and liberty as that the present Code of Commerce is the Spanish Code of Commerce of
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. 1885, and as such must be deemed to have been abrogated because
where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former
 Constitutional Law and Constitution sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign,
Constitution is the fundamental organic law of a State which contains the are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by
principles on which government is founded, and regulates the division and affirmative act of the new sovereign. Judge Asuncion did not also violate
exercise of sovereign powers. (Justice Cooley) the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Civil Service Rules (since he
is not subject to the disciplinary action of CSC), nor the Canons of Judicial
 Kinds and Essential Parts Ethics.
Parts
 Constitution of liberty – provides for the civil and political rights of
citizens and the limitations on the powers of government to secure those
rights.
 Constitution of government – provides for the organization of
government, and enumerates the powers of the same.
 Constitution of sovereignty – provides the manner for changing the
fundamental law and making amendments thereto.
 De Leon v Esguerra
 Effectivity of the Constitution Doctrine: The Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, the date of
February 2, 1987 as pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of De its ratification in the plebiscite.
Leon vs. Esguerra. Facts: De Leon was elected as Barangay Captain of Brgy. Dolores, Taytay,
Rizal along with other council members. He received a Memo from the
 Nature and Characteristics OIC Governor designating respondent Magno as Barangay Captain.
Petitioners pray that the Memo be declared null and void; that their
Q: What is the nature of our Constitution? term shall be 6 years under the Barangay Election Act. Respondents
A: It is rigid because it can only be amended by strictly following the provisions of relied on the Provisional Constitution of 1986 which granted the
Article XVII. It is written because it is embodied in a single document. It is governor to appoint or designate new successors within one year period.

conventional because it is formally “struck off” at a definite time and place Issue: WON the designation was valid.
following a conscious effort taken by a constituent body. Ruling: No. Though the designation was within the one year period
which ended on Feb. 25, 1987, however, it was cut short when the 1987
Q: What are the classes of Constitution? Constitution took effect on Feb. 2, 1987. When the 1987 Constitution
A: Cumulative and conventional; written and unwritten; rigid and flexible was in effect, the governor no longer had the authority to designate
successors under the Provisional Constitution which was deemed to
Q: Who changes a cumulative constitution? have been superseded. There has been no proclamation or executive
A: Legitimate authority/body order terminating the term of elective Barangay officials; and the
Barangay Election Act is not inconsistent with the Constitution. The writ
Q: Where can you find the constitution if it is unwritten? of prohibition was granted and the petitioners have acquired the
A: Statutes, judicial decisions, commentaries, customs and traditions, common law security of tenure.
principles
 Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS
 Rules on Interpreting Doubtful Provision of the Constitution Doctrine: Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy. The Constitution is a
(Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS) supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance
with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority
1. First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the administered. If a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution
Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the
technical terms are employed. executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes
2. Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The is null and void and without any force and effect. Since the Constitution
words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
with the intent of its framers. deemed written in every statute and contract.
3. Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be Facts: 2 bidders: Manila Prince Hotel (Filipino) and Renong Berhad
interpreted as a whole. (Malaysian firm) Petitioner: (1) invokes Filipino First Policy (2) argues
that Manila Hotel has become a part of the national patrimony. (3)
 Amendments & Revision (Gonzales v COMELEC) asserts that since Manila Hotel is part of the national patrimony and its
business part of national economy, they should be preferred after they
 Source of Power to Propose Changes to the Constitution : Congress had matched the bid offer of the Malaysian firm GSIS did not accept the
check offered by Manila Prince Hotel.
Issue: WON the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII
 Amendment v. Revision
Section 10, are self-executing.
Amendment refers to isolated or piecemeal change in the Constitution.
Ruling: YES. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing
Revision is a revamp or rewriting of the whole Constitution.
provision. A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those
found in Article II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing.
 Proposal But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative
without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which
 Modes of Proposing Amendments or Revision supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be

Through proposal and ratification enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. In fine, Section 10(2) Art. XII of
the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is
 Requirements for Proposals complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or
How do you propose amendments? implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the
1. By the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation.
members/through the Congress acting as a constituent assembly;
2. By a constitutional convention; or
3. Direct proposal by the people through initiative/people’s initiative
 Gonzales v COMELEC
How do you propose revisions? Doctrines: a. The power to propose amendments or revisions to the
1. By the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its Constitution is not included in the General Legislative Power; b. The
members/through the Congress acting as a constituent assembly; Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, may directly propose
or amendments to the Constitution, and simultaneously call a
2. By a constitutional convention which is called by two-thirds (2/3) constitutional convention to propose the needed amendments; c.
vote of all the members of the Congress, or by a majority vote of Ratification of the Constitution may be held simultaneously in a general
all the members of the Congress in case the question of calling election.
such a convention is submitted to the electorate Facts: The Congress simultaneously passed 3 resolutions proposing
amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently, Congress passed
Q: What differentiates the present Constitution from the previous Constitutions? Republic Act No. 4913 providing that the amendments to the
A: The present Constitution (The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned resolutions be submitted
Philippines) includes a provision on people’s initiative in Article XVII (Amendments for approval by the people at the general elections. The petitioner
or Revisions) thereof as an attribute of constitution of sovereignty. Constitution of assailed the constitutionality of the said law contending that the
sovereignty is found in Art XVII of the Constitution. Congress cannot simultaneously propose amendments to the
Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional convention.
Q: If there is a two-word change in the Constitution, is it an amendment or a Issue: WON the Congress can simultaneously propose amendments to
revision? the Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional convention
A: It depends if the entirety of the Constitution will be changed. (e.g. The entirety Ruling: YES. The constituent power or the power to amend or revise the
of the Constitution will be changed even if there is only a two-word change in Constitution, is different from the law-making power of Congress.
cases of amendment of provisions about system of government/structure of Congress can directly propose amendments to the Constitution and at
government) the same time call for a Constitutional Convention to propose
amendments.
Q: Why is constituent assembly called as such?
A: The word “constituent” means citizens. The power to amend the Constitution is
not inherent in the Congress. It is inherent in the people. However, by express
provision of the Constitution, the people (who, in the first place, made the
Constitution) gave the Congress the power to amend. Hence, the Congress is not
acting in its ordinary capacity to legislate, but as people themselves.

Q: Differentiate constituent assembly from constitutional convention.
A: As to its members, constituent assembly is composed of the Congress while
constitutional convention is composed of delegates voted by the people from each
legislative district through an election called for that purpose.
Q: Where would the delegates of a constitutional convention

come from?
A: The delegates would come from each legislative district.
 Lambino v COMELEC
Requirements in People’s Initiative Doctrine: Essential Requirements for a Valid Initiative to Propose
1. Petition Amendments to the Constitution
2. Full text of the proposed amendments which must be embodied in Facts: Lambino et al. sought to propose amendments to the Constitution
number 1 or at least attached thereto and such fact of attachment by People’s initiative through RA 6735. The sheet used to gather
is stated in the petition signatures from the people contained only the questions “Do you approve
3. Twelve percent (12%) of total registered voters; three percent of the Amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution,
(3%) of registered voters in each representative district/legislative changing the form of the government from the present bicameral-
district presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government in order
* Authentication of the signatures by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to achieve
4. Amendment, not revision greater efficiency xxx; and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory
5. Once every five (5) years Provisions?”
6. Enabling law from the Congress
7. Must contain only one topic (Hodgepodge or log-rolling is not The signature sheet further provides a table wherein the personal data of
the person signing shall be indicated.
allowed. The proposed amendment must embrace only one topic because
Subsequently, Lambino et al. filed with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite to
if it contains two topics, the people will be forced to accept two changes
ratify their proposal. They have in fact gathered signatures of 12% of all
even if they do not want the other.) registered voters with each district represented by 3% at least (6,327,952
voters).
 Ratification – is the act of the people, the sovereign, in casting their COMELEC invoked Santiago v. COMELEC and denied the petition.
vote on amendments and revisions in a plebiscite Issue: WON Lambino’s petition complied with Art XVII, Sec 2 of the
Constitution
Requirements: Ruling: No. The court declared that Lambino Group's initiative is void
1. should be done by a majority vote cast in a plebiscite and unconstitutional because it dismally fails to comply with the
2. should be done not earlier than 60 days and not later than 90 requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution that the
days to provide ample time for people to carefully read and initiative must be "directly proposed by the people through initiative

understand the proposed changes, and allow them to upon a petition."
campaign whether they are for or against said proposed
changes
 Tolentino v COMELEC
Doctrine: Proposed amendments to the Constitution must be submitted
to the people for ratification in one election; piece-meal ratification is
 Doctrine of Proper Submission – amendments must be fairly laid not allowed.
before the people for their intelligent consent or rejection (Tolentino Facts: The Constitutional Convention of 1971 approved Organic
v COMELEC) The Constitution directs the government in Resolution No. 1 which is entitled, “A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION
submitting an amerndment for ratification, that it put every 1 OF ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO LOWER THE VOTING
instrumentality or agency within its structural framework to AGE TO 18,” proposing to conduct an advanced plebiscite to lower the
enlighten the people and educate them with respect to their act of age requirement for voting from 21 to 18 years of age. Such proposal to
ratification or rejection. amend the Constitution is the only part published before the rest of the
Constitution. Arturo Tolentino, filed a motion for prohibition to conduct
such plebiscite.
Issue: WON the Resolution approved by the 1971 Constitutional
CONSTITUENT CONSTITUTIONAL PEOPLE’S Convention is constitutional.
ASSEMBLY CONVENTION INITIATIVE Ruling: No. We are not denying any right of the people to vote on the
PROPOSAL proposed amendment; We are only holding that under Section 1, Article
Changes Revisions and Amendments Amendments XV of the Constitution, the same should be submitted to them not
Agent Congress Group of elected delegates The People separately from but together with all the other amendments to be
Majority of National: 12% of proposed by this present Convention. It is evident that no fixed frame of
¾ of all 2/3 of all
# of all congress registered voters reference is provided the voter, as to what finally will be concomitant
Congress Congress
votes members— qualifications that will be required by the final draft of the constitution
members—to members— to put into a District: 3% of to be formulated by the Convention of a voter to be able to enjoy the
required
pass A or R to call registered voters right of suffrage, there are other considerations which make it
plebiscite
impossible to vote intelligently on the proposed amendment. No one
knows what changes in the fundamental principles of the constitution
the Convention will be minded to approve.
RATIFICATION
# of votes
Majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
required
After the certification of
Starting point After the approval of such
the COMELEC of the
of waiting time amendment or revision
sufficiency of the petition
Waiting period 60 days ≤ x ≥ 90 days
Effectivity General: the day the votes are cast

Exception: when the amendment
states otherwise
Module 2
Topics Cases
III. Concept of the State
 State v. Country  Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda

Doctrine: Baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms.
State – is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying UNCLOS III, a treaty entered into international sovereigns including the
a definite portion of territory , independent of external control, and possessing a Republic of the Philippines, delimits with precision the extent of their
government to which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. maritime zones and continental shelves.
(Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda) Facts: Maria Cerdeira, a Spanish national and resident of Tangier,
Morrocco died in 1955, leaving intangible properties in the Philippines.
STATE is independent of outside control, while COUNTRY does not Petitioner CIR assessed deficiency estate and inheritance taxes due on
require independence. the transfer of said intangible personal properties, which her
administrator (respondent Campos Rueda) refused to pay, claiming
GOVERNMENT is merely an instrumentality of the State through which exemption from payment under the reciprocal provision of Sec. 122 of
the will of the State is implemented and realized. the Tax Code: “x x x That no tax shall be collected x x x in respect of
intangible personal property x x x if the laws of the foreign country of
Q: Is state the same as nation? which the decedent was a resident at the time of his death allow a
A: No. similar exemption from transfer taxes or death taxes of every character
in respect of intangible personal property owned by citizens of the

State Nation Philippines not residing in that foreign country x x x.” The laws of
The state is a political/legal The nation is an ethnic/racial Tangier in fact provides substantially that “transfers by reason of death
concept concept. of movable properties, corporeal or incorporeal… were not subject… to
The state as a political/legal concept The nation as an ethnic/racial the payment of any death tax, whatever might have been the nationality
means that the state is an abstract, concept means that the people are of the deceased or his heirs and legatees.”
ideal person, existing only in bound by common social origin, Issue: WON Tangier is a foreign country
contemplation of law. It is composed language, customs and traditions Ruling: Yes. It does not admit of doubt that if a foreign country is to be
of its elements, to wit, people, (e.g. Filipinos as coming from the identified with a state, it is required in line with Pound's formulation that
territory, government, and Malay race). it be a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside
sovereignty. control bound by ties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory,
acting through a government functioning under a regime of law. It is
thus a sovereign person with the people composing it viewed as an
organized corporate society under a government with the legal
competence to exact obedience its commands. It has been referred to as
a bodypolitic organized by common consent for mutual defense and
mutual safety and to promote the general welfare. Correctly has it been
described by Esmein as "the juridical personification of the nation." This
is to view it in the light its historical development. The stress is on its
being a nation, its people occupying a definite territory, politically
organized, exercising by means of its government its sovereign will over
the individuals within it and maintaining its separate international
personality.
 Elements of State
 Territory
Q: What do you mean by territory?  Magallona v Ermita

A: It is the fixed portion of the earth inhabited by the people of the State. Doctrine: Baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms.
UNCLOS III, a treaty entered into international sovereigns including the
Q: Would a classroom be sufficient to be considered as territory? Republic of the Philippines, delimits with precision the extent of their
A: No. The territory should be able to provide the needs of the population. There maritime zones and continental shelves.
are no natural resources in the classroom. There is no source of food in the Facts: R.A. 9522 (The Baselines Law) took effect on March 2009
classroom. Thus, the classroom cannot be considered as territory. amending R.A. 5446. The amendments, which are in compliance with
UNCLOS III in which the Philippines is one of the signatory, shortening
*The territory should be neither too big as to be difficult to administer and defend one baseline while optimizing the other and classifying Kalayaan Group
nor too small as to be unable to provide for the needs of the population such as of Island and Scarborough Shoal as Regimes of Island. Petitioners in their

food and natural resources. capacity as taxpayer, citizen and legislator assailed the constitutionality
of R.A. 9522 for it reduces the territory of the Philippines and it opens
Q: Can a ship sailing on the sea qualify as a territory? the country to maritime passage of vessels and aircrafts of other states
A: No. It is not a fixed portion of the earth. to the detriment of the economy, sovereignty, national security and of
the Constitution as well. They added that the classification of Regime of
Q: Without Article I, can we claim that we have a territory? What is the purpose Islands would be prejudicial to the lives of the fishermen.
of Article I? Issue: WON R.A. 9522 is unconstitutional.
A: Yes. It is not the legal basis of our territory because if it is, then without Article I, Ruling: No. R.A. 9522 is not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court
we will not have a territory, therefore, we will not be a State. Our territory existed emphasized that R.A. 9522, or UNCLOS, itself is not a means to acquire,
since time immemorial. or lose, territory. The treaty and the baseline law has nothing to do with
Q: Can we invoke Article I against other States? the acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine territory.
A: No because the constitution is a municipal law (enforceable or binding only
within the territorial limits of the sovereignty promulgating the constitution). It
does not bind other states. But if it is further supported by an international treaty
or a principle of international law, then it can bind other States.
Q: What are the components of territory?

1. Terrestrial Domain – composed of the land
2. Maritime Domain – maritime belt/sea belt/marginal belt
Fluvial Domain – inland waters such as rivers, lakes, lagoons, canals
3. Aerial Domain – the air space above the land and waters, excluding outerspace
* Sovereignty over airspace extends only until where outerspace begins. (50-100
miles from the earth)
Q: What do you mean by archipelago?

A: It is a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and
other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters
and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political
entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.
Simply stated, it is a body of water studded or surrounded by islands. (Bernas)
Q: Why is the Philippines an archipelago?

A: It is an archipelago because it is located on a body of water surrounded by
seven thousand one hundred seven (7,107) islands.

Q: What is the Archipelagic Doctrine?
A: It is a principle which considers the group of islands as one integrated unit. For
this purpose, it requires that straight baselines be drawn by connecting the
appropriate points of the outermost islands to encircle the islands within the
archipelago. We consider all the waters enclosed by the straight baselines as
internal waters.
Q: Is there a part of Article I which confirms that the Philippines adopts the
archipelagic doctrine?
A: Yes. It is found in the last sentence of Article I which states that “The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of
their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.”
Q: How do you describe the maritime domain of the Philippines?

A: It consists of its territorial sea, the sea bed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and
other submarine areas.
Q: Where do you reckon the twelve (12) nautical miles?

A: It is reckoned from the baseline, the lowest water mark which will then become
our maritime domain.
Q: How do you make the 7,107 islands into one integrated unit?
A: Use the straight baseline method.
Q: What are the two (2) kinds of baseline method?

A: 1. Normal baseline method
2. Straight baseline method
Q: What is the difference between normal baseline method and straight baseline
method?
A: Normal baseline method follows the sinuses and curvatures of the islands while
straight baseline method determines the outermost points of the outermost
islands then connects them.
Q: Why does the Philippines adopt the straight baseline method?

A: If the Philippines does not adopt the straight baseline method, then the internal
waters will not be covered as part of our territory.

Q: What is the purpose of the straight baseline method?
A: Primarily, to protect our territorial security and integrity; incidentally, to enlarge
or expand our territorial sea.
The main purpose is to protect our territorial security and integrity because if we
use the normal baseline method, there would be pocket seas (areas or high seas
that would not be part of our territory because of the twelve nautical miles rule).
Q: Why do you call the three (3) nautical miles the canon-shot rule?
A: That time, the rule was you can only own what you can defend. In the
eighteenth (18th) century, the strongest weapon was the canon, the effective
range of which was only three (3) nautical miles.
 People
Q: What do you mean by people?

A: It refers to the inhabitants of the State or the mass of population living within
the State. Without people, there can be no functionaries to govern and no subjects
to be governed. (Albano, Philippine Government and Constitution)
Q: How many people are needed to form a State?

A: There is no requirement as to the number of people that should compose a
State. They must be numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend
themselves and small enough to be easily administered and sustained.
*Reputedly, the smallest State in point of population is the Vatican. Its estimated
five hundred (500) citizens, mainly clerics and some Swiss guards, are ruled by the
Pope. The island Republic of Nauru has a total population of only nine thousand
(9,000). China is the largest state in point placed at more than one billion
(1,000,000,000).
Q: Can you have a State where the people are all men or all women?
A: No. There would be no procreation, thus, the State would not be able to sustain
or survive. The State should be able to maintain its existence, thus, continuity of
the race is a must.
 Government

Q: What you mean by the government is the agency of the State?
A: Since the State is a legal concept, (it is an abstract or ideal person existing only
in contemplation of law), it can only act through the government which is its agent
or representative.
Q: What is the difference between State and government?

A: Both are legal concepts. But the State can only act through the government.
Q: What is the difference between government and administration?

A: Government is a legal concept. It can only act through the administration that
runs the government for the time being.
Q: What do you mean by the State as a legal concept?

A: You cannot see the State. It is an ideal, invisible, intangible, immutable, abstract
person, existing only in contemplation of law. You can only see it through its four
(4) elements.
 Functions of the Government: Constituent v. Ministrant
Q: What is the difference between constituent functions and ministrant

functions?  PVTA v CIR
1. Constituent of governmental functions are the basic functions of the Doctrine: The distinction between the two functions of the government
government that constitute the very bonds of the society and are thus had become blurred.
compulsory. Facts: Private respondent filed a petition regarding their unpaid
overtime hours. Petitioner argues that since paying overtime dues are
Include: mere proprietary functions, they are not required to do so.
a. The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and Issue: WON petitioner performs governmental and not proprietary
property from violence and robbery functions
b. Fixing of legal relations between man and wife and between parents and Ruling: Yes. However, the areas which used to be left to private
children enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to
c. Regulation of the holding, transmission and interchange of property, and enter optionally, continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to
the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its
d. Determination of contract rights between individuals sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the
e. Definition and punishment of crime times.
f. Administration of justice in civil cases
g. Determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens

h. Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation of the state
from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its
international interest.
2. Ministrant or proprietary functions are those undertaken to advance the

general interests of society and are thus optional.
Include:
a. Public works
b. Public charity
c. Public education
d. Health and safety regulations
e. Regulation of trade and industry (Bacani v NACOCO)
Q: Is the difference between governmental and proprietary functions still

relevant?
A: No. In PVTA vs.CIR, the Supreme Court held that such distinction has been
blurred because of the repudiation of the laissez faire policy in the Constitution.
The government, under the Constitution, is under an obligation to promote social
justice (Sec 10, Art II)
 Edu v Ericta
Q: What is the laissez faire policy? Doctrine: The concept of laissez –faire was rejected as early as 1935
A: “Let alone”, free trade/free enterprise/free market society Constitution. It entrusted to our government the responsibility of coping
with social and economic problems with the commensurate power of
Q: Does it mean that there would be no instance where governmental functions control over economic affairs. Thereby it could live up to its commitment
need to be distinguished? to promote general welfare through state action.
A: No. There is - Doctrine of State Immunity. Facts: Petitioners Romeo F. Edu, the Land Transportation Commisioner,
would have us rule squarely on the Constitutionality of the Reflector law
and Admin Order No. 2 which implements it. Under the law, a vehicle
has to comply with the requirement of having a reflective devise prior to
being registered at the LTO. Respondent Galo assails the validity of the
act as an invalid exercise of police power for being violative of the due
 Doctrine of Parens Patriae
process clause.
Parens Patriae means parent of the country. The State acts as the guardian of
Issue: WON the Reflector Law is unconstitutional
persons under disabilities. (Gov’t. of the Phils. vs. Monte de Piedad &
Ruling: No. The Reflector law is constitutional. The challenged statute is
Cabanas vs. Pilapil) a legislature enacted under the police power to promote public safety.
 Gov’t. of the Phils. vs. Monte de Piedad

 Kinds of Government: De Jure and De Facto Doctrine: Doctrine of Parens Patriae - Literally, parent of the people. As
such, the Government may act as guardian of the rights of people who
Q: What is a de jure government? may be disadvantaged or suffering from some disability or misfortune.
A: It is a government of right. It has rightful title but no power or control, either Facts: From the $400,000 aid for the victims of the earthquake, $80,000
because this has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually entered left untouched. The $80,000 was invested in the Monte de Piedad Bank
into the exercise thereof. It is a government established according to the which in turn invested in jewelries. When the Philippines government
Constitution of the State, and lawfully entitled to recognition and supremacy but is had to withdraw the amounts, Monte de Piedad said that they cannot
actually ousted from power or control. It is the true and lawful government. (e.g. provide for the amount. Monte de Piedad argued that the Philippines is
Government of the Philippines) not an affected party, so, they have no right to institute a complaint.
They argue that Philippine government was not the intended beneficiary
Q: What is a de facto government? of the said amount. Furthermore, the Monte de Piedad contended that
A: It is a government of fact. It actually exercises power or control but without the current Philippine Government cannot file suit because the
legal title. It is that government which unlawfully gets the possession and control obligation of the former was wiped out when there was a change in
of the rightful legal government and maintains itself there by force and arms sovereignty.
against the will of the rightful legal government, and claims to exercise the powers Issue: WON the Philippine Government is deemed competent to file a
thereof. complaint against the Monte de Piedad
Ruling: Yes. The Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The Philippine Government
Q: What are the three (3) kinds of de facto government? is deemed competent in instituting the action against the bank, Monte
de Piedad. This is because of the presence of the Doctrine of Parens
1. By violence/force/the voice of the majority (e.g. Government of England under Patriae. As a State, its government must protect the rights of its people.
the Commonwealth, first by Parliament and later by Cromwell as Protector) Moreover, the government is also cloaked with the power to enforce
2. By insurrection (*insurrection – rebellion on a smaller scale) (e.g. Government laws that will promote the public interest —which in this case was the
of the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Union during the war of Act No. 2109. It is further implied that no other party, has been
secession in the United States) entrusted with the right, so as the parents of the people, the
3. By military forces/war/government of paramount force (e.g. Castine in Maine, government has the right to take back the money intended for the
which was reduced to a British possession in the war of 1812; Tampico, Mexico, people.
occupied during the war with Mexico by the troops of the United States; Second
Republic of the Philippines established by the Japanese belligerent during the  Cabanas v Pilapil
occupation of the Philippines in World War II) Doctrine: “The prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the Supreme
power of every State, whether that power is lodged in a royal person or
Q: What kind of government is the Cory Aquino government? in the legislature, and has no affinity to those arbitrary powers...”
A: It is neither a de jure nor a de facto government. It is not a de jure government Facts: A mother and an uncle are in a dispute as to who should be the
because it exercises power or control just like a de facto government. However, it trustee of the child, who received insurance benefits from the deceased
is not a de facto government because it has legal title just like a de jure father. Father designated uncle to be the trustee.
government. (Bugayong) Issue: WON the judiciary may decide who shall be the trustee of the
child despite terms of insurance policy
Q: Was there a time that we had a de jure government and a de facto Ruling: Yes. The judiciary, acting as parens patriae is called upon

government? whenever a pending suit of litigation affects one who is a minor to
A: Yes, during the time of Japanese Occupation. The Japanese belligerent accord priority to his best interest.
occupants established a de facto government (of the third kind). The
Commonwealth of the Philippines, under the presidency of Roxas, is the de jure
government.
 Sovereignty
Q: What is sovereignty?
A: It is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that
State is governed. (Garner, Political Science and Government)
Juristically speaking, it is the supreme, uncontrollable power, the jures summi

imperri, the absolute right to govern. It is the supreme will of the State, the power
to make laws and enforce them by all means of coercion it cares to employ.
(Gonzales, Philippine Political Law)
Q: What are the four (4) kinds of sovereignty?
1. Legal sovereignty – is the authority by which a state has the power to issue final
commands. (Gilebrist, Principles of Political Science)
2. Political sovereignty – the sum total of all the influences in a State which lie
behind the law; roughly defined as the power of the people; the sovereignty of the
electorate, or in its general sense, the sovereignty of the whole body politic.
(Gonzales, Philippine Political Law)
3. Internal sovereignty – management of our domestic affairs; the supremacy of a
person or body of persons in the State over the individuals or association of
individuals within the area of its jurisdiction. (Gonzales, Philippine Political Law)
4. External sovereignty – freedom from external control. It is the supremacy of the
State as against all foreign wills. (Gonzales, Philippine Political Law)
Q: Who is the legal sovereign?

A: Government and not merely the Congress. After the Congress enacts the law, it
will be enforced by the Executive branch. The law will then be applied by the
Judiciary to settle actual controversies. Without the Executive and Judiciary, laws
promulgated by the Congress are useless.

Q: Who is the political sovereign?
A: People
Q: Is there really a difference between the two?

A: None, it is like a fine diamond with different sides. One side is the legal
sovereign and the other side is the people representing the political sovereign.
(Bugayong)
Q: What is the effect of belligerent occupation on: (1) Sovereignty; (2) Laws; and
(3) Judicial Decisions, of the occupied territory?
Sovereignty – Sovereignty itself is not suspended, only the exercise of sovereignty.

Sovereignty cannot be suspended because it is permanent, exclusive,
comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and imprescriptible. (Laurel vs.
Misa)
Laws – Political laws are merely suspended, subject to revival under the
doctrine of jus postliminium (revival of political laws after the belligerent  Laurel v Misa
occupation) upon the end of the occupation. Non-political laws are deemed Doctrine: Law on treason, though political in nature, is not suspended
continued unless changed by the belligerent occupant since they are intended to during belligerent occupation.
govern the relations of individuals as among themselves and are not generally Facts: Petitioner Anastacio Laurel was being prosecuted for the crime of
affected by changes in regimes or rulers. treason. Laurel, a Filipino Citizen, was arrested in Camarines Sur in May,
1945, by the United States Army, and was imprisoned for his active
However, the rule suspending political laws affects only the civilian inhabitants of collaboration with the Japanese during the Japanese occupation, giving
the occupied territory and is not intended to bind the enemies in arms. It also does the enemy aid and comfort. Laurel filed a petition contending that the
not apply to the law on treason although decidedly political in character. This rule sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and the
only covers the civilian inhabitants of the occupied territory. It does not bind correlative allegiance of Filipino Citizens was SUSPENDED.
enemies at war. (Ruffy vs Chief of Staff) Issue: WON the absolute allegiance of Filipino citizens to the
Government is suspended during enemy occupation
Judicial Decisions –They are valid during the occupation and even beyond except Ruling: NO, absolute allegiance is not suspended during enemy
those of a political complexion, which are automatically annulled upon the occupation. Citizens of the Philippines owe ABSOLUTE and
restoration of the legitimate authority (Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh). PERMANENT allegiance to their legitimate government. This allegiance
to the legitimate government is not abrogated or severed by the enemy
Thus, a person convicted of treason against the Japanese Imperial Forces was, occupation, because the sovereignty of the legitimate government is not
after the occupation, entitled to be released on the ground that the sentence transferred to the belligerent occupier. In other words, there is no such
imposed on him for his political offense had ceased to be valid (Peralta vs. Director thing as suspended allegiance.

of Prisons). But if the conviction was for a non-political offense like, say,
defamation, the sentence would not be affected by the termination of the
occupation.  Ruffy v Chief of Staff
Doctrine: Law on treason, though political in nature, is not suspended
during belligerent occupation.
Q: Why are we a republic? Facts: During the Japanese occupation, herein petitioner, Ramon Ruffy,
A: It is because of the political sovereignty of the people as provided in Article II, a Provincial Commander of the Philippine Constabulary, retreated in the
Section 1 of the Constitution. mountains instead of surrendering to the enemy. He organized and led a
guerrilla outfit known as Bolo Combat Team or Bolo Area. The said Bolo
Article II, Section 1 provides: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican Area was a contingent of the 6th Military District, which has been
State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates recognized and placed under the operational control of the US Army in
from them.” the South Pacific. Sometime later, Col. Jurado effected a change of
command in the Bolo Area. Major Ruffy who was then acting as
Commanding Officer for the Bolo Area was relieved of his position. Later
 Concept of Auto-Limitation
on or on October 19, 1944, Lieut. Col Jurado was slain allegedly by the
It is a principle wherein any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to
petitioners. It was this murder which gave rise to petitioner‘s trial.
a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what
The trial court convicted petitioner and he now filed this instant petition
otherwise is a power plenary in character. (People v Gozo)
with the contention that he was not subject to military law at the time
the offense for which he had been placed on trial was committed.
Petitioners contended that by the enemy occupation of the Philippines,
the National Defense Act and all laws and regulations creating and
governing the existence of the Philippine Army including the Articles of
War, were suspended and in abeyance during such belligerent
occupation.
Issue: WON the petitioner was subject to military law at the time the
alleged offense was committed
Ruling: YES, petitioner was subject to military law at the time the alleged
offense was committed. The rule that laws of political nature or affecting
political relations are considered superseded or in abeyance during the
military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil
inhabitants of the occupied territory. It is not intended for and does not
bind the enemies in arms. Moreover, petitioners, by their acceptance of
appointments as officers in the Bolo Area from the General
Headquarters of the 6th Military District, they became members of the
Philippine Army amenable to the Articles of War.
 Co Kim Chan v Valdez Tan Keh
Doctrine: Legal truism in political and international law: all acts and

proceedings of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of a
de- facto government are good and valid.
Facts: Co Kim Chan prayed that Judge Dizon be ordered to continue the
proceedings in civil case which were initiated under the regime of
Republic of the PH established during the Japanese military occupation
of the islands.
Issue: WON the present courts of the Commonwealth may continue
those proceedings pending in courts at the time PH were reoccupied and
liberated by the US.
Ruling: YES. The courts may continue the proceedings pending in the
said courts. Japanese government established a de facto government.
Being a de facto government, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts
and proceedings of the courts of Justice of those governments, which
are not of a political complexion, were good and valid, and by virtue of
the principle of postliminy in international law, remained good and valid
after the liberation or reoccupation of the PH by the American and
FIlipino forces under the leadership of General MacArthur.
 People v Gozo
Doctrine: Concept of Auto-Limitation
Facts: Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the US Naval
Reservation within the territorial jurisdiction of Olangapo City. She
demolished the house and built another one in its place without securing
a building permit from the City Mayor of Olangapo City. The City Court of
Olangapo found her guilty of violating a municipal ordinance that
requires permit from the municipal mayor for construction of building as
well as any modification, repairs or demolition thereof. On appeal, Gozo
put in issue the validity of such ordinance by invoking due process. She
likewise questioned the applicability of the ordinance to her in view of
the location of her dwelling within the naval base leased to the American
Armed Forces; she contended that the municipal government cannot
exercise therein administrative jurisdiction.
Issue: WON Whether the municipal corporation retains its
administrative jurisdiction over the area where Gozo‘s house was
located?

Ruling: YES, the municipal corporation retains its administrative
jurisdiction over the said area. By the agreement, the Philippine
Government merely consents that the United States exercise jurisdiction
in certain cases. This consent was given purely as a matter of comity,
courtesy or expediency. The Philippine Government has not abdicated
its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or
divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed
therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government
has prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such offenses.
The Philippine jurisdiction retains not only jurisdictional rights not
granted, but also such ceded rights as the United States Military
authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of.
Moreover, the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, is the property
of a stateforce due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-
determination and self-restriction. x x x A state is not precluded from
allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional
right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means
follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They
retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its
jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with
the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the
military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign
territory.
Module 3
Topics Cases

IV. State Immunity
 Concept of State Immunity
Under our Constitution, the principle of immunity of the government from suit is
expressly provided in Article XVI, Section 3.
INSTANCES OF SUITS PROPER AGAINST THE STATE:
(1) When the Republic is sued by name;

(2) When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency;
(3) When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is
such that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the
government.
Q: What is the Doctrine of State Immunity?  Republic v Sandoval

A: It means that “the State may not be sued without its consent.” This provision Doctrine: The principle of state immunity from suit does not apply when
reflects nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and the relief demanded by the suit requires no affirmative official action on
an express affirmation of the unwritten rule insulating it from the jurisdiction of the part of the State nor the affirmative discharge of any obligation
the courts of justice. It is based on the very essence of sovereignty. which belongs to the State in its political capacity, even though the
officers or agents who are made defendants claim to hold or act only by
Q: What is the logical reason for the State immunity? virtue of a title of the state and as its agents and servants.
A: There can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which Facts: Mendiola massacre: 12 rallyists died in their quest for genuine
the right depends. (Justice Holmes) agrarian reform. Petitioners filed a letter of demand for compensation
from the government to which the latter did not take heed. The group
Q: What is the practical reason for the State immunity? then instituted an action for damages against the Republic of the
Philippines together with military officers and personnel involved in
A: The demands and inconveniences of litigation will divert the time and resources
Mendiola incident. Judge Sandoval dismissed the complaint as against
of the State from the more pressing matters demanding its attention, to the
the RP on the basis that there was no waiver by the state.
prejudice of the public welfare. Otherwise stated, funds for projects or other
Issue: WON the suit is against the state
legitimate purposes will be used for cases filed against the State. The practical
Ruling: No. The ultimate liability does not pertain to the government.
reason is the service that will be lost if the money will be diverted.
Although the military officers and personnel, then party defendants,
were discharging their official functions when the incident occurred,
Q: Is the Doctrine of State Immunity applicable to other States in local
jurisdiction? Why or why not? their functions ceased to be official the moment they exceeded their
authority. There was lack of justification by the government forces in the
A: Yes. Par in parem non habet imperium. An equal has no power over an equal.
use of firearms. There was unnecessary firing by them in dispersing the
All States as sovereign equals cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. The
marchers.

United States of America cannot be sued here in the Philippines without its
consent. (USA vs. Guinto)
 USA vs. Guinto
 Tests if Suit is Against the State Doctrine: When the government enters into a contract, it is deemed to
have descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested
1) X vs. Republic of the Philippines (RP) – suit against the State of its sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent. Not all
contracts entered by the government will operate as a waiver of its non-
*What will the judge do if this is the case? – The judge will find out if the State suability; distinction must be made between its sovereign and
gave its consent. If not, the case will be dismissed. proprietary acts. It bears stressing at this point that the above
* But often, what lawyers do is that they file the case against the government observations do not confer on the USA a blanket immunity of all acts
officers so that it will not be dismissed outright. done by it or its agents in the Philippines.
2) X vs. Public Officer (e.g. Secretary of Department of Justice) or Facts: These (4) cases have been consolidated because they all involve
X vs. Government Agency (e.g. Department of Justice) the doctrine of state immunity. The United States of America was not
impleaded in the complaints below but has moved to dismiss on the
*If you do this, it is not obvious that the suit is against the State. Then how do you ground that they are in effect suits against it to which it has not
know that the suit is against the State? consented. It is now contesting the denial of its motions by the
respondent judges.
Test: If X wins, will it require the government to do an affirmative act? Issue: WON the Doctrine of State Immunity is not applicable thereby
making the State liable
Affirmative act may be in the form of: money, payment of damages, fund, Ruling: NO. While suable, the petitioners are nevertheless not liable. It
appropriation is obvious that the claim for damages cannot be allowed on the strength
of the evidence, which have been carefully examined. The traditional
 Suit Against Public Officers rule of immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of
another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary
Q: What are the qualifications for a suit against public officers? consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States.
However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are
A: As enumerated in Sanders vs. Veridiano, there are exceptions in which a public
constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states
officer may be sued without prior consent of the State, to wit:
have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them - between
sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private,
(1) to compel him to do an act required by law;
commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that
(2) to restrain him from enforcing an act claimed to be unconstitutional; State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii. The restrictive
(3) to compel the payment of damages  refund; application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the
(4) to secure a judgment that the officer impleaded may satisfy by himself without United Kingdom and other states in Western Europe.
the State having to do a positive act to assist him; and
(5) where the government itself has violated its own laws (e.g. recovery of  Sanders vs. Veridiano
property unjustly taken) Doctrine: In no case may a public officer be sued as such without the
previous consent of the state, especially if he is in performance of his

General Rule/Test whether a suit against a public officer is a suit against the duties.
state? If it requires an affirmative act (Appropriations) of the State, it is a suit  Facts: Petitioner Dalle Sanders (Sanders) was the special services
against the State, thus, the case will be dismissed especially if it does not give its S director of the US Naval Station (NAVSTA) in Olangpabo City. The private
consent. respondents (Veridiano et al) were advised that their employment had
Exception: If there would be an injustice as enumerated above, the case will not been converted from permanent full-time to permanent part-time. The
be dismissed. private respondents protested to this conversion and claimed to to
institute grievance proceedings conformably to the pertinent rules and
Rationale: The Doctrine of State Immunity cannot be used to perpetrate an regulations of the U.S. Department of Defense. The result was a
injustice. recommendation from the hearing officer who conducted the
proceedings for the reinstatement of the private respondents to
uit Against Government Agencies permanent full-time status plus backwages.
 Incorporated v. Unincorporated Issue: WON the petitioners were performing their official duties when
 Local Government Units they did the acts for which they have been sued for damages by the
private respondents
Q: What is a charter? Ruling: Yes. All this is not to say that in no case may a public officer be
A: In a corporation, it is the Articles of Incorporation. sued as such without the previous consent of the state. It is abundantly
In an incorporated government agency, it is a special law creating a clear that Sanders and Moreau performed their acts in the discharge of
government-owned or controlled corporation. their official duties.
Incorporated Agency
- Has a charter, therefore, has a juridical or separate personality
- Examples: National Power Corporation (NPC); University of the
Philippines (UP)
- NOT A SUIT AGAINST A STATE
Unincorporated Agency
- Part of the entire government machinery
- Lined agency
- Example: DOJ and all other departments under the Executive branch
- Not chartered, but it does not mean that it is not created by law. It
could only mean that it is not stated whether or not it can sue and be
sued.
- Has no separate/juridical personality
- SUIT AGAINST A STATE
Rule: For unincorporated agency, distinguish whether function is

governmental or proprietary
Governmental – suit against the State

Proprietary – not a suit against the State
 Holy See v Rosario

Suit against the State: (Laterant Treaty created The Vatican as a sovereign, non-political
- Determine whether the agency is incorporated or unincorporated. State; Holy See = Head of the Catholic Church = The Pope)
- If incorporated, determine whether primary function is governmental Doctrine: The mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a
or proprietary. private party cannot be the ultimate test of suability. Such an act can
- If governmental, it is a suit against the State. Consent must be only be the start of the inquiry. The logical question is whether the
determined. foreign state is engaged in the activity in the regular course of business.
- If proprietary, it is not a suit against the State. Case should not be If the foreign state is not engaged regularly in a business or trade, the
dismissed. particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature. If the act
- If both governmental and proprietary, determine the MAIN is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an
FUNCTION. If principal function is governmental, IT IS SUABLE, even if act jure imperii, especially when it is not undertaken for gain or profit.
proprietary is incidental. Facts: Lot 5-A is registered under the name of the petitioner, The Holy
See. This lot is contiguous to lots 5-B and 5-D registered in the name of
Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). These three lots were sold through
X vs. NPC Is this a suit against the State? an agent Msgr. Domingo Cirilos Jr. to Ramon Licup. Licup assigned his
rights to private respondent Starbright Sales Ent. Inc. (SSEI). Due to
Look at the charter  law creating/establishing the agency refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots, a dispute arose as to who of
If the charter provides that it can sue and be sued, then it is not a suit the parties has the responsibility of eviction and clearing the land. SSEI
against the State. insists that petitioner should clear the property of the squatters.
The Articles of Incorporation is what gives the corporation or agency a Petitioner refused and proposed that either SSEI undertake the eviction
juridical personality. This is what makes it a legal concept. or that the earnest money be returned. Msgr. Cirilos returned the
P100,000.00 earnest money, and the property was sold to Tropicana
*Not all agencies created by law are chartered. Properties and Development Corporation (Tropicana). SSEI filed suit for
*Generally, a charter provides that the agency can sue and be sued. annulment of sale, specific performance and damages against Msgr.
Cirilos, PRC, and Tropicana. The petitioner and Msgr. Cirilos moved to
Why is it that generally, if it is a chartered agency, it is not a suit against dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit. It
the State? was denied on the ground that petitioner ―shed off its sovereign
immunity by entering into the business contract‖ in question.
- Not performing governmental functions Issue: WON the Holy See properly invoked sovereign immunity for its
- Has juridical or separate personality non-suability
Ruling: YES. In the case at bar, lot 5-A was acquired as a donation from
the archdiocese of Manila for the site of its mission or the Apostolic

The charter explicitly provides whether the agency can be sued or not. Nuniciature in the Philippines. The subsequent disposal was made
If the charter does not provide for the agency’s suability, then it cannot be because the squatters living thereon made it impossible for petitioner to
qualified as incorporated. use it for the purpose of the donation. Petitioner did not sell lot 5-A for
If it is chartered or incorporated, then it is not a suit against the State. profit or gain.
There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each
Q: When the State files a suit, it waives it right against immunity from suit. Is the widely held and firmly established. According to the classical or absolute
rule absolute? Why? theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent
A: As a rule, when the state files a suit, it becomes vulnerable to suits or in the courts of another sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive
counterclaims. But not if the State intervenes in a suit not for the purpose of theory, the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to
resisting the claim precisely because of State immunity. public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard to private
acts or acts jure gestionis (United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA
 Consent to be Sued 487 [1987]; Coquia and Defensor-Santiago, Public International Law 194
 Express v. Implied [1984]).
In the case at bench, if petitioner has bought and sold lands in
Q: What do you mean by consent? the ordinary course of a real estate business, surely the said transaction
A: It means approval. Consent to be sued is not contractual stipulation. It can only can be categorized as an act jure gestionis. However, petitioner has
be done through legislation. denied that the acquisition and subsequent disposal of Lot 5-A were
made for profit but claimed that it acquired said property for the site of
Q: Why do you call the consent a waiver? its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines. Private
A: It is because the State abandons or relinquishes its right to be immune from respondent failed to dispute said claim.
suit. It waives its immunity. Moreover the Department of the Foreign Affairs has formally
intervened and officially certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a
Q: Supposing the chief of staff of the AFP entered into a contract with the duly accredited diplomatic missionary to the Republic of the Philippines
supplier of firearms and in the contract, there is an express provision that says and as such is exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the
“THE PH GOVERNMENT HEREBY CONSENTS TO BE SUED FOR ANY CAUSE OF rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission or embassy in
ACTION BASED ON THE CONTRACT”. Is this a valid waiver? this court.
A: NO. Nobody can give consent to be sued expressly except the Congress.
Consent to be sued cannot be contractual stipulation. It can only be done through
legislation. (Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals)
 Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs.

Q: How does the State give its consent? Court of Appeals
Doctrine: The State may not be sued without its consent. In order that
suit may lie against the State, there must be consent, either express or
1. Express – general law one which applies to the whole State and

operates throughout the State alike upon all the people or all of a class; implied. When there is no consent shown, state immunity from suit may
applies to all; no particular person is mentioned as to who can avail of be invoked as a defense by the courts sua sponte at any stage of the
the law. proceedings, because waiver of immunity, being in derogation of
– special law  one which applies to a particular community, sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly and must be construed in
individual or thing; applies to a specific person. strictissimi juris.
(e.g. charter – created for the particular government agency, Facts: VMPSI alleged that Section 4 and Section 17 of Private Security
special to such government agency) Agency Law are unconstitutional for being violative of provisions against
monopolies, unfair competition and combinations in restraint of trade,
Jure gestionii, yes, suable and tend to favor and institutionalize PADPAO which is monopolistic
Jure impreii no, immunity applies because it has an interest in more than one security agency. VMPSI filed
a Civil Case against the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA. The PC Chief and PC-
2. Implied – State itself commences litigation or files a suit. SUSIA filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the case is against
(a) State enters into a contract in its proprietary capacity. the State which had not given consent thereto.
(b) State is an interpleader/intervenor in a case – in which case it applies only if Issue: a. WON VMPSI’s complaint against the PC Chief and PCSUSIA is a
the State intervenes not for the purpose of invoking its immunity suit against the State without its consent. b. WON the PC Chief may be
(e.g. Merritt v GPI) held liable in his personal capacity. c. WON the MOA constitutes consent
on the part of the State.
Q: Do we have a general law where the State expressly waives its immunity? Ruling: Yes. a. They are performing governmental functions and may not
A: Yes. Local Government Code where it is expressly provided that political be sued without the Government’s consent, especially in this case
subdivisions created under the Code have the capacity to sue and be sued. because VMPSI’s complaint seeks not only to compel the public
respondents to act in a certain way, but worse, because VMPSI seeks
actual and compensatory damages. State did not consent to appropriate
ATTY GAB: In Merritt v. GPI and Republic v. Villasor, the SC always consider the necessary funds for that purpose. b. No. Acts of PC Chief and PC-
Act No. 3038 as a general law where the state gives its consent to be sued. That SUSIA were performed by them as part of their official duties, without
law only allows the filing of an action against the state in contractual obligations malice, gross negligence, or bad faith, no recovery may be had against
but it only applies to commercial transactions. That law says “the Government them in their private capacities. c. No. The MoA did not constitute an
of the Philippine Islands hereby submits and consents to be sued upon money implied consent by the State to be sued because it was intended to
claims arising from contracts, express or implied” which could be the basis of a professionalize the industry and to standardize the salaries of the
cause of action as between private parties. That phrase can only be applied to security guards.
commercial transactions but not to governmental transactions. That law only
makes express what used to be implied. It does not give an additional cause of
action because even without that law, when the government enters into a
commercial contract, it is deemed to have impliedly waived its immunity.
 Merritt v Gov’t. of the Phil. Islands
Doctrine: By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity
Q: Is suability the same as liability? Why or why not? from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability. It merely gives a
A: No. remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submit itself to the

Suability depends on the consent of the State to be sued; liability on the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful
applicable law and the established facts. The circumstance that a State is suable defense.
does not necessarily mean that it is liable. On the other hand, it can never be held Facts: Merritt, while riding his motorcycle was hit by an ambulance
liable if it does not first consent to be sued. owned by the Philippine General Hospital. A driver employed by the
hospital drove it. In order for Merritt to sue the Philippine government,
Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the State has allowed itself to be Act No. 2457 was enacted by the Philippine Legislature authorizing
sued. When the State waives its sovereign immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff Merritt to bring suit against the Government of the Philippine Islands
the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable. The State, in many and authorizing the Attorney-General of said Islands to appear in said
cases, may be suable but not liable. suit. A suit was then filed before the CFI of Manila, which fixed the
responsibility for the collision solely on the ambulance driver and
Q: If the State is liable, does it mean that you can already execute the judgment? determined the amount of damages to be awarded to Merritt. Both
A: No. As held in Republic vs. Villasor, every disbursement of public funds shall be parties appealed from the decision, plaintiff Merritt as to the amount of
covered by a corresponding appropriation passed by the Legislature. A judgment damages and defendant in rendering the amount against the
against the State, in a case where it consents to be sued, simply implies that the government.
Legislature will recognize the judgment as final and make provisions for its Issue: WON the Government of the Philippines, waived its immunity
satisfaction. from suit as well as conceded its liability to the plaintiff when it enacted
Act No. 2457
Garnishment Ruling: NO. By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its
immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to the
General Rule: Whether the money is deposited by way of general or special plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability
deposit, it remains as government funds and may not be subject to garnishment. to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy to
enforce a pre-existing liability and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the
Exception: When a law or an ordinance has been enacted appropriating a specific court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense.
amount to pay a valid government obligation, then the money can be garnished. The Government of the Philippines Islands is only liable for the
acts of its agents, officers, and employees when they act as special
agents. A special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or
commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a
special official. The special agent acts in representation of the state and
being bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes the trust confided
to him. This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an
employee of the acting administration and who on his own responsibility
performs the functions which are inherent in and naturally pertain to his
office and which are regulated by law and the regulations. The
responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts through a
special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or commission to
perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives
rise to the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions

imputable to a public official charged with some administrative or
technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the
manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. The chauffeur of the
ambulance of the General Hospital was not such an agent.
 Republic v Villasor
Doctrine: Public funds cannot be the object of garnishment proceedings
even if the consent to be sued has been previously granted and the
state‘s liability has been adjudged.
Facts: A decision was rendered in a Special Proceeding against the
Republic of the Philippines thereby confirming the arbitration award of
P1,712,396.40 in favor of respondent corporation. After the decision
became final and executory, respondent judge issued an order directing
the sheriff to execute the said decision, and the corresponding alias writ
of execution was thus issued.
Hence the sheriff served notices of garnishment with several banks
especially the monies due to the AFP in the form of deposits sufficient to
cover the amount mentioned in the writ. PNB and Philippine Veterans
Bank received such notice. As certified by the AFP Comptroller, these
funds of the AFP with the said banks are public funds for the pensions,
pay, and allowances of its military and civilian personnel.
The petitioner, in this certiorari and prohibition proceedings, challenges
the validity of the Order issued by Judge Villasor declaring the decision
final and executory and subsequently issuing an alias writ of execution
directed against the funds of the AFP in pursuance thereof.
Issue: May the writs of execution and notices of garnishment be sued
against public funds?
Ruling: NO. Although the State may give its consent to be sued by
private parties, there is corollary that public funds cannot be the object
of garnishment proceedings even if the consent to be sued has been
previously granted and the state‘s liability has been adjudged.
Thus in the case of Commission of Public Highways vs. San Diego, such a
well settled doctrine was restated in the opinion of Justice Teehankee.
The universal rule that where the state gives its consent to be sued by
private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant‘s
action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage

of execution and that the power of the courts ends when the judgment
is rendered, since the government funds and properties may not be
seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such
judgment, is based on obvious considerations of public policy.
Disbursement of public funds must be covered by the corresponding
appropriations as required by law. The functions and public services
rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by
diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific object is
appropriated by law.
Module 4
Topics Cases
 Declaration of Principles & State Policies

 Democracy and Republicanism
Intended to lay down rules underlying our system of government and must
therefore be adhered to in the conduct of public affairs and the resolution of
public issues
Purpose is to emphasize and articulate more unequivocally the objectives and

limitations of governmental action in pursuit of the general goals announced in
the
Preamble
Principles : binding rules which must be observed in the conduct of

government
Policies : guidelines for the orientation of the state
* Difference between the two is irrelevant in our Constitution
REPUBLICANISM
1987 A2 S1
 The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from them.
− Establishes the democratic and representative nature of our government
and proclaims hostility to autocratic or totalitarian regimes
− Affirms that every citizen is an individual repository of sovereignty, and
as the origin and the restriction of all government authority
Democratic pertains to representative democracy with some

: aspect of direct democracy through the people’s
initiative clause
kind of government where the people participate
: in the functioning of the same

Republic a representative government run by and for the
: people
where sovereignty resides in the people and
: where all government authority emanates from
the people
a responsible government
:
essence is representation and renovation
:
Representation : public functionaries derive their mandate from the people who
selected them and as such act in their behalf
Renovation : public functionaries serve for a limited period only and they are
replaced or retained at the option of their principal, the people
Manifestations of Republicanism (GRABE SBC/D):
G – overnment of law and not of men

R – ule of majority
A – ccountability of public officers
B – ill of rights
E – lections (Right of Suffrage)
S – eparation of powers
B – lending of powers
C – hecks and balances
/
D – elegation of powers
 Villavicencio v Lukban
Doctrine: We are a government of law, not of men.
Government of law and not of men Facts: Mayor of Manila deported prostitutes to work in a Hacienda in
Davao without their consent with the help of the head of police and
 The ascendancy of the law is axiomatic in a republic and must be constabulary. The attorney for the relatives and friends of a considerable

recognized by every public official NO MATTER HOW EXALTED. number of the deportees presented an application for habeas corpus to
 No one is above law; and ALL MUST BOW TO ITS MAJESTY. a member of the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the application, through
 All official act must be based upon and conform to the authority stipulation of the parties, was made to include all of the women who
of a valid law. Lacking which, the act must be rejected. were sent away from Manila to Davao.
 Nobility of intention is not sufficient to validate an authorized Issue: WON we are a government of laws and not of men
act. Ruling: YES. We are a Government of laws. The supreme court said
that the mayor's acts were not legal. There was no law saying that he
could force Filipino women to change their domicile from manila to
 Generally Accepted Principles of International Law another place. The women, said the court, although in a sense "lepers of
 Municipal Law v. Treaty society" were still Filipino citizens and such they were entitled to the
Try to reconcile constitutional enjoyed by all other Filipino citizens. The right to freedom
If irreconcilable, municipal law prevails because of of domicile was such a fundamental right that its suppression could
a. Police power considered tantamount to slavery. The supreme court upheld the right
b. Separation of powers of Filipino citizens to freedom of domicile or the Liberty of abode. "Ours
c. Rule-making powers is a government of laws and not of men."
 in Villavicencio VS Lukban, where Mayor Lukban, who was then
Adherence clause : National interest first (S7 & 8), then equality, peace, the Mayor of Manila, motivated by his desire to protect the
freedom and justice (S2) health and the morals of his constituents deported the 170
prostitutes to Davao without the consent of the deported
 Doctrine of Incorporation women and without the knowledge of their relatives/friends.
The Supreme Court condemned the action of Mayor Lukban,
Q: What is the incorporation clause? there being no showing that any law or even an ordinance had
A: It can be found in Section 2 of Art II which states that “The authorized it.
Philippines...adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part
of the law of the land...” This provision makes the Philippines one of the States
which makes a specific declaration that international law has the force also of  Ichong v Hernandez
domestic law. International law therefore can be used by Philippine courts to Doctrine: Laws passed in the exercise of police power cannot be
settle domestic disputes in much the same way that they would use the Civil bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract.
Code or the Penal Code and other laws passed by the Congress. Facts: Petitioners filed an action to declare the Retail Trade
Nationalization Act unconstitutional. It nationalizes retail trade business
NOTE: If conflict can’t be reconciled between international law/treaty with a by prohibiting against persons not citizens of the PH.
domestic law, the domestic law shall prevail because of our sovereignty Issue: WON the Retail Trade Nationalization Act violates treaty or
(internal/external). international obligations.
Ruling: No. The Act does not violate any treaty or international
Q: Under the incorporation clause, without a law stating that the international obligation. The enactment falls within the scope of the police power of
law is incorporated, the law is not incorporated in the land. Is this right? the State through which it protects its own personality and insures its
A: No. Under the incorporation clause, incorporation is automatic. security and future. The police power many not be curtailed or

surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional agreement. The
 Doctrine of Transformation law in question was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger
− International law can become part of municipal law only if it is to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail
transformed into domestic law through the appropriate business and free citizens and country from such dominance and control;
constitutional that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of
machinery the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and
insures its security and future.
 Service in defense of the State  In Ichong VS Hernandez, the court held the treaty between the
Philippines and Burma regarding the Philippines importation of
rice in the said country is invalid because the retail trade
national law (law in conflict with the foregoing treaty), was
1987 A2 S4 The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the
passed in the exercise of the police power, which cannot be
people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the
bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract.
State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required,
under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or
 In Re: Garcia
civil service.
Doctrine: The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal
tribunals or local courts are confronted with situations in which there
S5 The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,
appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the
liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are
provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both. In a
democracy.
situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has
to be made between a rule of international law and municipal law,
Duty to serve and protect : implicit in a welfare state which the Constitution is
jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the
establishing
municipal courts.
: supported by A2 S5
Facts: Arturo E. Garcia has applied for admission to the practice of law in
the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. He
May call upon the people : the state’s primary duty to serve and protect the
was allowed to practice in Spain and that the provision of the Treaty of
people is not handed back to the people in this
Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the
provision; what it is merely establishing is that the state
Philippines and Spanish State, he is entitled to practice law profession in
may ask for the help of the people in return for the
the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations.
service and protection it has rendered before
Issue: WON the Treaty can modify regulations governing admission to
: based on the inherent right of every State to existence
the Philippine Bar.
and self-preservation
Ruling: No. The privileges provided in the Treaty invoked by the
: based on the duty to defend the state and the life,
applicant are made expressly subject to the laws and regulations of the
liberty and property of its citizens
contracting State in whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal
: supported by A16 S4 and CA No. 1 (the National
profession; and Section 1 of Rule 127, in connection with Sections 2, 9,
Defense Act)
and 16 thereof, which have the force of law, require that before anyone

Compulsory military service : does not violate the Constitution but is actually a can practice the legal profession in the Philippine he must first
compliance therewith successfully pass the required bar examinations
: imposed upon all citizens  In the case of In Re: Garcia, the court held that treaties could
: must be personal not be intended to modify the laws in force in the country. In
: may either be military or civil service this case, Garcia applied for admission to the practice of law in
the Philippines, and further petition that he be admitted without
Q: What is the prime duty of the government? the required bar examination. He contended that under the
A: To serve and protect the people. Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions
between the Philippines and Spain, he is entitled to do so. The
court however denied his petition because: 1. The treaty is not
Q: What is the policy of the State with respect to war? Is it contradictory to
applicable to Filipino citizens desiring to practice law in the
Section 4 of Article II which states that “The prime duty of the Government is
Philippines. 2. The treaty could not have intended to modify the
to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to
laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of laws
defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, in the Philippines. 3. The executive department may not
under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme
service.”? Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law.
A: Section 2 of Article II states that “The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy xxx.”
 People v Lagman AND Zosa
No. What is renounced by the Philippines through the Constitution is aggressive Doctrine: The defense of the State is a prime duty of Government, and
war, not defensive war, because of its membership in the United Nations (UN) in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to
whose charter renounces war as an instrument of national policy of its member- render personal military or civil service.
States. As a signatory to the UN Charter, the Philippines adheres to Article 2 (4) Facts: Appellants Tranquilino Lagman and Primitivo de Sosa are charged
of the UN Charter which states: “All Members shall refrain in their international with a violation of section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 1, Known as the
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or National Defense Law. It is alleged that these two appellants, being
political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Filipinos and having reached the age of twenty years in 1936, willfully
Purposes of the United Nations.” and unlawfuly refused to register in the military service. Appellants
It does not renounce defensive war because the Government is duty-bound to argue that they did not register because Sosa is fatherless and has a
protect the people, as provided in Section 4 of Article II. The power to wage a mother and a brother of 8 years old to support, and Lagman also has a
defensive war is the very essence of sovereignty. father to support , has no military learnings, and does not wish to kill or
be killed.
The Philippines is also a signatory to the Kellog-Briand Pact, a treaty renouncing Issue: WON the National Defense Law is Unconstitutional
war as an instrument of national policy of the signatory States. Ruling: No. It is constitutional. The National defense law, insofar as it
establishes compulsory military service does not go against the
Q: Can President Aquino write you a letter ordering you to report to the Constitution, but in the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. The
military headquarters to render military service? Can you refuse? duty of the government to defend the State cannot be performed except
A: Yes, and I cannot refuse. As held in the case of People vs. Lagman and Zosa, through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the
the duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed except citizens would be to make this duty of the government excusable should

through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist.
would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no
sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.  In the case of People v Lagman and Zosa, the accused were
charged with and convicted of refusal to register for military
Q: What is the difference between aggressive war and defensive war? training as required by C.A. No. 1. De Sosa contends that he did
A: In aggressive war, it is the State which initiates the war (the Philippines as an not register in the military service because he is fatherless and
active subject) as opposed to defensive war in which it is another foreign country has a mother, and an 8 y/o brother to support. Lagman on the
which initiates the war and the State only acts to defend itself (the Philippines as other hand, has a father to support, has no military leanings, and
does not wish to kill or be killed. On the contention of these
a passive subject).
both Lagman and de Sosa made in their respective cases that
C.A. No. 1 in so far as it establishes compulsory military service is
unconstitutional; the Supreme Court held that it was not, and
Q: Without Section 2, do we still renounce war? indeed, it was in faithful compliance with its provisions. The duty
A: Yes. Even without Section 2, our policy on renunciation of war can still be of the government to defend the State cannot be performed
traced from our membership in the United Nations whose charter also except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to
renounces war as an instrument of national policy of its member-States. the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the
government excusable should there be no sufficient men who
Q: Can Section 4 apply even without war? volunteer to enlist therein.
A: Yes. The citizens can be compelled to render personal, military, or civil service  It was also held in case of People v Lagman and Zosa supra, that
in times of peace in preparation for a war which may ensue in the future. the duty to defend the state is imposed upon all citizens,
including women. And that the military or civil services that may
Q: When is civilian authority supreme over the military? be required by them must be personal. Q: What if a person has
A: Section 3 explicitly provides that “Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme sincere conscientious or religious scruples about the taking of
over the military. human life, or have no military inclinations or aptitudes? A:
Accommodations can be made by assigning them to non-combat
Q: What is the manifestation of civilian supremacy? or civil duties.
A: The external manifestation that civilian authority is supreme over the military
 Provision is based upon the inherent right of every state to
is the fact that the President, a civilian, is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
existence and self-preservation.
Forces of the Philippines. (Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
 Aglipay v Ruiz
Doctrine: Religious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition
of profound reverence for religion and is not denial of its influence in
human affairs.
 Separation of Church and State (Concept and Rationale) Facts: Director of Post ordered the issues of postage stamps
commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila organized by the
Ratio: “Strong fences make good neighbor”. The idea is to delineate the Roman Catholic Church. Petitioner Aglipay, protested against it to the
boundaries between the church and the state and thus avoid encroachments by

one against the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their President of Philippines stating that the issuing and selling of the postage
respective exclusive jurisdictions. stamp is against constitutional provision of spending public money in
favor of a sect or church, denomination, secretarian, institution, or
State is prohibited from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs. Church is system of religion.
likewise barred from meddling in purely secular matters. Issue: WON the issuing and selling of the postage stamp as a
commemorative token of the Thirty-third International Eucharistic
Reason: A union of church and the state tends to destroy government and to Congress violative of provisions of Section 23, (3), Article VI of the
degrade religion. Constitution (public money used in favor of religion, church, etc.)
Ruling: No. Religious freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is
BUT the wall that separates the church and the state is not a wall of hostility. not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of
Indeed, the state recognizes the beneficent influence of religion in the its influence in human affairs. The stamps were not issued and sold for
enrichment of the nation’s life. As it instills into the mind the purest principles of the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. Nor were money derived from
morality. the sale of the stamps given to that church. On the contrary, it appears
that the only purpose in issuing and selling the stamps was "to advertise
Exceptions to the rule on the separation of the Church and the State: the Philippines and attract more tourist to this country." The officials
concerned merely, took advantage of an event considered of
a. Churches, parsonages, etc., actually, directly, and exclusively used for international importance "to give publicity to the Philippines and its
religious purposes shall be exempt from tax. people."
b. Prohibition against appropriation for sectarian benefit, except when priest
is assigned to the AFP, any penal institutions or leprosarium.
c. Optional religious instruction for public elementary and high school
students.
d. Filipino ownership requirement for educational institutions, except those
established by religious groups and mission abroad.
Q: What is the principle of the separation of Church and State?

A: Section 6 provides that “The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable.” It means that on the one hand, the State is prohibited from
interfering with purely ecclesiastical affairs and on the other hand, the Church is
prohibited from meddling in purely secular affairs.
But it does not mean that there is total or absolute separation. The better rule is
symbiotic relations between the Church and State. (Albano, Philippine
Government and Constitution) (Aglipay vs. Ruiz)
Q: Does it mean that the Church is not allowed to express its opinion regarding
the affairs of the State and vice-versa?

A: No. If the Church issues a statement on public and important issues
concerning the State, it is not a violation of the separation of Church and State. It
is a part of the exercise of the freedom of expression because it is in the open
market of ideas that the aims of the State of promoting a peaceful, honest, safe,
educated, humane and just society may be attained. The Church and State are
partners in promoting the common good for the people. (Albano, Philippine
Government and Constitution)
 Different Kinds of Wall of Separation
Q: What are the two (2) important aspects of the principle of separation of
Church and State?
(1) Non-establishment clause – “No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
(Sec. 5, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
(2) Free exercise clause – “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed.”
 Calalang v Williams
 Social Justice
Doctrine: The state in order to promote the general welfare may
interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and
1987 A2 S9 The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that
occupations.
will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation Facts: A resolution was adopted prohibiting animal-drawn vehicles from
and free the people from poverty through policies that passing certain areas along Rosario Street and Rizal Ave. for a particular
provide adequate social services, promote full employment, period of the day, in order to regulate traffic. Petitioner argues that the
a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for resolution is unconstitutional because the rules and regulation infringe
all. upon the constitutional precept of social justice.
S10 The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national Issue: WON the adopted resolution is unconstitutional because the rules
development. and regulations promulgated infringe the constitutional precept of social
justice.
S11 The State values the dignity of every human person and Ruling: NO. Social Justice means the promotion of the welfare of all
guarantees full respect for human rights. the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to
S18 The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society,
shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium

S21 The State shall promote comprehensive rural development in the interrelations of the members of the community. By virtue of
and agrarian reform. which the rules and regulations complained of were promulgated, it
aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national
Q: What do you mean by social justice? roads, in the interest and convenience of the public. Public welfare,
A: As beautifully defined by Justice Laurel in Calalang vs. Williams, “Social justice therefore, lies at the bottom of the enactment of said law. Hence, the
is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the resolution complained of is constitutional.
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. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all
the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure
economic stability of all the component elements of society, through the
maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of
the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of
powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored
principle of salus populi est suprema lex.”
Q: What is the policy on social justice?

A: Section 10 provides that “The State shall promote social justice in all phases
of national development.” Social justice does not mean absolute equality
between the rich and the poor. It only means that the underprivileged must be
protected. This is in consonance with the words of former President Ramon
Magsaysay, “Those who have less in life should have more in law.”
Social justice cannot be invoked to perpetrate injustice. It cannot be invoked to

trample upon the rights of property owners, who, under the Constitution and
laws, are entitled to protection. It is not meant or intended to take away a right
from one and give it to another not entitled thereto simply because he is poor. It
cannot nullify the law on obligations and contracts.
 Policy on Human Rights
A2 S11 The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full
respect for human rights.
As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the

Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty, and security of a person is

rendered ineffective if the government does not afford protection to these rights
especially when they are under threat.
 Protection on Family, Life and Children
Q: What is the State’s policy on the family?

A: The first part of Article II, Section 12 states that “The State recognizes the
sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution.”
It means that the State is enjoined to strengthen the family or is prohibited from
adopting measures which can impair the solidarity of the Filipino family. Calling
the family a “basic” social institution is an assertion that the family is anterior to
the State and is not a creature of the State. The categorization of the family as
“autonomous” is meant to protect the family against instrumentalization by the
State.
Q: Considering the policy on the family, do you think the Congress can enact a
law on divorce?
A: Yes. The constitutional provisions on marriage do not imply that the
Legislature cannot enact a law allowing absolute divorce. While it is fundamental
that marriage must be protected, it is likewise to be acknowledged that there
may be certain cases where the parties might have undergone a marriage
ceremony to bind themselves together but, subsequently, no functional marital
life would exist. Hence, there is no marriage to preserve at all. The Legislature
has the plenary power to decide what sort of situations allowing absolute
divorce may be recognized within the limits allowed by the Constitution. (Sta.
Maria)
 Imbong v Ochoa
 Abortion Doctrine: The intent of the framers of the Constitution is to ensure the
safety and well-being of every citizen.
Q: Does the Constitution allow abortion? Facts: 14 petitions were filed assailing the constitutionality of the RH
A: No. The Constitution affords protection to the unborn from conception. The Law.
clear and unequivocal intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution in Issue: WON the RH law is unconstitutional for violating the right to
protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to prevent the Legislature health and the Natural Law.
from enacting a measure legalizing abortion. The intention… is to make sure that Ruling: NO. On the issue of unconstitutionality for the alleged violation

there should be no pro-abortion laws ever passed by Congress or any pro- of right to health, the Court agrees with the observation of respondent
abortion decision passed by the Supreme Court. Lagman that the effectivity of the RH Law will not lead to the
unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives since the sale, distribution
NOTE: A reading of the RH Law would show that it is in line with this intent and and dispensation of contraceptive drugs and devices will still require the
actually proscribes abortion. While the Court has opted no to make any prescription of a licensed physician. With R.A. No. 4729 in place, there
determination, at this stage, when life begins, it finds that the RH Law itself exists adequate safeguards to ensure the public that only contraceptives
clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization. that are safe are made available to the public. On the issue of
Moreover, the RH Law recognizes that abortion is a crime under Art 256 of the unconstitutionality for the alleged violation of the Natural Law, the Court
RPC, which penalizes the destruction or expulsion of the fertilized ovum. ruled that it does not duly recognize it as a legal basis for upholding or
(Imbong v Ochoa) invalidating a law.
Q: What is the policy of the State on women and children, especially with
regard to the unborn?
A: Section 12 provides that “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and
shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.
It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of
the youth for civic efficiency and the development of the moral character shall
receive the support of the Government.”
Q: What is more important for the State, the life of the mother or the life of
the unborn?
A: Both. Section 12, in clear and unequivocal terms, explicitly states that “It shall
equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception.”
 Gender Equality
Q: What is the principle of equality of women and men?
A: Section 14 provides that “The State recognizes the role of women in nation-
building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women
and men.”

Q: What is the fundamental equality between women and men?
A: Since there can be no absolute equality between women and men because of
obvious biological differences, fundamental equality espouses that women and
women, as much as practicable, should be accorded the same rights and
treatment so that there would be “fundamental equality before the law”.
Filipino women have proven their worth and heroism in various aspects of the
country. They have led battles, led the country in the executive, legislative and
judiciary. They have not only become partners in nation-building; they have
become leaders as well. (Albano, Philippine Government and Constitution)
 Oposa v Factoran
Doctrine: Doctrine of Intergenerational Responsibility – every
 Health and Environment generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology
A2, S15 The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the (which is solemnly incorporated in the Constitution).
people and instill health consciousness among them. Facts: Petitioners, all minors (Juan Oposa, et al.) duly represented and
joined by their parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the
Q: Is there a constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology? Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, nonstock and non-
A: Yes. While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and
does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights natural resources. First complaint was filed as a taxpayer’s class suit at
enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights the RTC of Makati, against the defendant (respondent) DENR Secretary
altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self- Fulgencion Factoran. He then filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint.
perpetuation – aptly and fittingly stress by the petitioners – the advancement of The Respondent Judge then issued an order granting the
which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a aforementioned motion to dismiss. Plaintiff thus filed the instant special
matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and
they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. (Oposa v Factoran) asked the Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the
ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in
 Policy on Education dismissing the action.
Issue: WON the petitioner minors have a cause of action in filing a class
A2, S17 The State shall give priority to education, science and suit to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine
technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and rainforests”
nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total Ruling: YES. The petitioner minors have a cause of action to sue in
human liberation and development. behalf of the succeeding generations on the basis of the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,
 Autonomy of Private Enterprises considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature.” Nature means the

A2, S19 The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal and conservation of the country’s forest... and other natural
A2, S20 The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization
enterprise and provides incentives to needed investments. be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to
A2, S23 The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced
or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation. and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors’ assertion of
their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for
 Agrarian Reform the generations to come.
A2, S21 The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and  Basco v PAGCOR
agrarian reform Doctrine: The principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution
simply means "decentralization". It does not make local governments
sovereign within the state or an - imperiurn in imperio.
 Autonomy of Local Government
Facts: Petitioners seek to annul the Philippine Amusement and Gaming
LGUs are accorded with a certain degree of autonomy in carrying out their Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter - PD 1869, because it is allegedly contrary
respective functions assigned by law. to morals, public policy and order. Petitioners also claim that said PD has
a "gambling objective" and that Section 13 par 2 of the same PD which
exempts PAGCOR from paying any tax, any kind of term income or
A2, S25 The State shall ensure the local autonomy of local governments
otherwise as well as fees, charges as levies of whatever nature whether
A10, S3 The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local
national or local is violative of the principles of local autonomy for it is a
autonomy
waiver of the right of the City of Manila to impose taxes and legal fees.
Issue: WON the local autonomy clause is violated by PD 1869
The abovequoted provisions of the Constitution and the LGC reveal the policy of
Ruling: NO. The petitioner‘s contentions are without merit for the
the State to empower LGUs to develop and ultimately, become self-sustaining
following reasons:
and effective contributors to the national economy.
1. The City of Manila, being a mere Municipal corporation hits no
inherent right to impose taxes.
 Opportunity to Public Service
2. The Charter of the City of Manila is subject to control by Congress.
It should be stressed that "municipal corporations are mere
A2, S26 The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for creatures of Congress" which has the power to "create and
public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined abolish municipal corporations" due to its "general legislative
by law. powers". Congress, therefore, has the power of control over
Local governments. And if Congress can grant the City of Manila
NOTE: This provision does not contain a judicially enforceable the power to tax certain matters, it can also provide for
constitutional right merely specifies a guideline for legislative

action. It is not intended to compel the State to enact positive exemptions or even take back the power.
measures that would accommodate as many as possible into 3. The City of Manila's power to impose license fees on gambling, has
public office. The privilege may be subjected to limitations such long been revoked. Only the National Government has the power
as the provision of the Omnibus Election Code on nuisance to issue "licenses or permits" for the operation of gambling.
candidates. (Pamatong v COMELEC) Necessarily, the power to demand or collect license fees which is a
consequence of the issuance of "licenses or permits" is no longer
 Policy of Full Public Disclosure vested in the City of Manila.
4. Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the
A2, S28 Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State National Government. PAGCOR is a government owned or
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its controlled corporation with an original charter.
transactions involving public interest. 5. The power of local government to "impose taxes and fees" is
always subject to "limitations" which Congress may provide by
law. Since PD 1869 remains an "operative'' law, its "exemption
NOTE: Said provision recognizes the duty of the officialdom to give
clause" remains as an exception to the exercise of the power of
information even if nobody demands. This provision is essential local governments to impose taxes and fees. It cannot therefore
to hold public officials accountable to the people. The absence of be violative but rather is consistent with the principle of local
an implementing legislation is not an excuse in not effecting such autonomy. Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the
policy. (The Province of Cotabato v The Govt of the Rep. of the 1987 Constitution simply means "decentralization". It does not
Phils.) make local governments sovereign within the state or an -
imperiurn in imperio.
 Limitation of the Policy on Full Public Disclosure

- If it involves documents or communication that involves or  Limbona v Mangelin
jeopardizes national security and covert intel operations, it Doctrine: The principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution
won’t be disclosed in public. simply means "decentralization". It does not make local governments
sovereign within the state or an - imperiurn in imperio.
Facts: Congressman Matalam, Chairman of the Committee on Muslim
Affairs of the House of Representative invited the petitioner in his
capacity as speaker of the Assembly to participate in consultation and
dialogue regarding the charting of the autonomous government of
Muslim Mindanao to be held in Manila. Petitioner sent a telegram
through the Secretary of the Assembly to all the members thereof
informing that ―there will be no session this November‖ in view of the
invitation of Cong. Matalam. However, on November 2, 1987, the
Assembly held session and declared the seat of the Speaker vacant. This
was reiterated in another session on November 5 of same year.
Respondents allege that because the Sangguniang Pampook(s) are
"autonomous," the courts may not rightfully intervene in their affairs,

much less strike down their acts.
Issues: Are the so-called autonomous governments of Mindanao, as
they are now constituted, subject to the jurisdiction of the national
courts? In other words, what is the extent of self-government given to
the two autonomous governments of Region IX and XII?
Ruling: Yes, it may assume jurisdiction. In resolving this case the SC
made a differentiation between decentralization of administration and
decentralization of power.
There is decentralization of administration when the central
government delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions in
order to broaden the base of government power and in the process to
make local governments "more responsive and accountable," and
"ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make
them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and
social progress." At the same time, it relieves the central government of
the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on
national concerns. The President exercises "general supervision" over
them, but only to "ensure that local affairs are administered according to
law." He has no control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute
their judgments with his own.
Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of
political power in the favor of local governments units declared to be
autonomous. In that case, the autonomous government is free to chart
its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from
central authorities.
An examination of the very Presidential Decree creating the autonomous

governments of Mindanao persuades us that they were never meant to
exercise autonomy in the second sense, that is, in which the central
government commits an act of self-immolation. Presidential Decree No.
1618, in the first place, mandates that "the President shall have the
power of general supervision and control over Autonomous Regions."
In the second place, the Sangguniang Pampook, their legislative arm, is
made to discharge chiefly administrative services.

 Pamatong v COMELEC
Doctrine: Equal access of opportunities for public service is not an
enforceable right.
Facts: In line with the upcoming 2004 national elections, petitioner Rev.
Elly Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President on
December 2013. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), however,
refused to give due course to the petitioner’s COC as he was found to be
a “nuisance candidate” who could not wage a nationwide campaign and
was not nominated by a registered political party
Issue: WON the COMELEC’s resolution, prohibiting the petitioner from
running as President because the latter has been found as a “nuisance
candidate,” is violative of right to equal access to opportunities for public
service provided by Section 26, Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution
Ruling: NO. The provisions under the Article are generally considered
not self-executing, and there is no plausible reason for according a
different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the
policies enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain any
judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline
for legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision does
not give rise to any cause of action before the courts.
Module 5
Topics Cases
V. Separation of Powers
 Concept and Basis

 Angara v Electoral Commission
Q: What is separation?

A: Allocation, assignment, distribution of governmental powers to the 3 branches Doctrine: The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our
of government including the COMELEC, COA, and CSC. system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by
actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government
The PEOPLE is the source of all powers. It is in their exercise of their sovereignty has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is
that all governmental powers are delegated and given form and power. supreme within its own sphere. Judicial supremacy is but the power of
judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is
Q: What is the true test? the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the
A: TRUE TEST: Whether or not the power in question, regardless of its nature, has government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all
been constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming its exercise. authority.
Facts: Angara was proclaimed member elect of National Assembly (NA),
NOTE: The conferment is usually done expressly, as in the vesture of the legislative took oath, and confirmed by NA. Ynsua filed before the Electoral
power in the Congress, the executive power in the President, and the judicial Commission (EC) a Motion of Protest against the election of Angara and
power in the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. prayed that Ynsua be declared member elect of NA. Angara filed a
Even in the absence of an express conferment, the exercise of a given power may Motion to Dismiss the Protest which was denied by EC. Angara prays for
be justified under the DOCTRINE OF IMPLICATION, which is based on the theory the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain and prohibit the Electoral
that the grant of an express power carries with all other powers that may be Commission from taking cognizance of the protest filed by Ynsua.
reasonably inferred from it. Issue: WON the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral
Commission and the subject matter of the controversy upon the
REMEMBER: ALL POWERS MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY LAW. foregoing related facts, and in the affirmative.
Ruling: YES. The Supreme Court, being the only constitutional organ
Q: What are the legislative powers? which can be called upon to determine proper allocation of powers,
A: MAR has jurisdiction over matter of conflict between the several
Make, amend/alter, repeal laws departments. When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other
Q: What are the Executive powers? departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
A: Execute/implement laws legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to
it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under
Q: What are the Judiciary powers? the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy
A: Apply/interpret laws the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.
NOTE: Separation of powers is inherent in a republican system of government.

The major powers of government are actually distributed by the constitution
among the several departments and the constitutional commissions.
Constitutional Commissions:
1. Commission on Audit (COA)
2. Commission on Elections (COMELEC)

3. Civil Service Commission (CSC)
Q: Is the principle of separation of powers absolute?

A: No. It should be applied in accordance with the principle of checks and
balances.
Q: Is there a provision in the Constitution that states that the Philippines follows
separation of power?
A: None. We follow separation of powers because it is one of the manifestations
of a republican state.
NOTE: DO NOT JUST SAY THAT IT IS INHERENT IN A REPUBLICAN STATE.
Purposes of Separation of Powers

(1) intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person or group of
persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the
detriment of our republican institutions (2) designed to prevent the accumulation
of powers in the same hands, which result of tyranny.
(3) to secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and to obtain
efficiency (Justice Laurel)
Q: Explain the penumbra.

A: The three departments of government are coordinate, co-equal and co-
important. While interdependent, in the sense that each is unable to perform its
functions fully and adequately without the other, they are nonetheless in many
instances independent of each other. That is to say, one department may not
control or even interfere with another in the exercise of its particular functions.
PENUMBRA

Q: Describe the relationship of the three departments.
A:
1. The three departments are interdependent of one another.
2. They are co-equal and coordinate.
3. They allow for checks and balances.
Q: What is the principle of blending of powers?

A: It is a situation where there is a sharing of two or more departments in the
performance of a given constitutional task. One department acts in a manner
complementary or supplementary to another.
Examples:
1. Enactment of general appropriations
2. Grant of amnesty by the president
3. Deputization by Commission on Elections (COMELEC) of law enforcement
agencies and instrumentalities.
NOTE: Blending of powers = sharing of powers (of 2 or more

departments/branches of government) in performing assigned constitutional task
Q: What is check and balances?

A: It means that one department is allowed to resist encroachments upon its
prerogatives or rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other department.
Q: What are the powers of the three departments?

A: Each department is given certain powers with which to check the other, thus:

1. Checks by the President
President may veto or disapprove bills enacted by Congress [Art. 6, Sec. 27 (1)].
Through the pardoning power, he/she may modify or set aside the judgments of
courts (Article 7 Sec.19).
2. Checks by Congress
 Congress may override the veto of the President [Art. 6, Sec. 27 (1)]; revoke the
proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus by the President; and amend or revoke decisions of the courts (by the
enactment of a new law or by an amendment of the old, giving it such meaning
and interpretation as to wipe out the effect of such decisions).
It has the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various acts (Art. 8, Sec. 2);
prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts; determine the salaries of
the President and Vice President (Art. 7, Sec. 6), the members of the Supreme
Court (SC) and judges of lower courts (Art. 8, Sec. 10);
and impeach the President and members of SC (Art. 11, Sec. 2).
3. Checks by the Judiciary

The judiciary, with the SC as the final arbiter, may declare legislative measures
or executive acts unconstitutional [Art. 8, Sec. 4(2)] and determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the Congress or the President.
Judicial Review – ultimate “check” on the two departments
Q: By judicial review, does it mean that the Judiciary is supreme over the two
other departments?  Casibang v Aquino
A: No, what it is upholding is not its own supremacy but the supremacy of the Doctrine: The term "political question" connotes what it means in
Constitution. ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It is concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
Q: What is a justiciable question? measure"
A: It implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission, Facts: Respondent Remigo P. Yu was proclaimed Mayor of Rosales,
violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said breach Pangasinan in Nov. 9, 1971. Petitioner, only rival in mayor race, filed on
of right. (e.g. compliance with a voting requirement; qualifications of an appointee Nov. 24, 1971 a protest against the election of the former. Respondent
of the President) Judge took cognizance of the same as it is unquestionably a justiciable
controversy. Marcos, in Septempter 21, 1972 under Proclamation No.

Q: What is a political question? 1081, placed the country under Martial Law. Two months after the
A: It is a question of policy, that question which under the constitution is to be Constitutional Convention passed and approved and ratified by the
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which, full people a Constitution to supplant the 1935 Constitution. Respondent Yu
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch moved to dismiss the election protest of petitioner on the ground that
of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the same in view of the
legality, of a particular measure. (e.g. interpretation of phrases such as “other high effectivity of the 1973 Constitution by reason of which —(principally)
crimes”, “disorderly behaviour”, etc.) Section 9 of Article XVII [Transitory Provisions] and Section 2 of Article XI
—a political question has intervened in the case.
Issue: WON the electoral protest filed by the petitioner remained a
justiciable question even after the 1973 Constitution was adopted, thus
remains to be under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
Ruling: No. Although Section 9, Article XVII of the New Constitution
made the term of the petitioners indefinite, it did not foreclose any
challenge by the herein petitioners, in an election protest, of the ‘right’
of the private respondents to continue holding their respective office.
What has been directly affected by said constitutional provision is the
‘term’ to the office. The New Constitution recognized the continuing
jurisdiction of courts of First Instance to hear, try and decide election
protests and all the pending cases shall be heard and tried. The electoral
protest case herein involved has remained a justiciable controversy. No
political question has ever been interwoven into this case. Nor is there
any act of the incumbent President or the Legislative Department to be
indirectly reviewed or interfered with if the respondent Judge decides
the election protest.
Module 6
Topics Cases
VI. Delegation of Powers
 Concept
Illustration:

X – power Y; Y cannot delegate such power to Z
Legend:
X= people; Y= government agency (LEJ); Z= anyone
Q: What is the basis of the principle of delegation?

A: The basis is the principle of potestas delegata non potest delegare.
Q: What is the meaning of potestas delegata non potest delegare?

A: Delegated power cannot be further delegated or what has been delegated
cannot be delegated. It means that a delegated power constitutes not only a right
but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own
judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.
Q: Why is it that a power delegated cannot be further delegated?

A: It is because of the trust reposed by the people to the three departments.
Q: Is the principle of non-delegation of powers absolute?

A: No. There are permissible delegations.
Permissible Delegations
(1) Tariff powers to the President Article 6 Section 28(2)

(2) Emergency powers to the President Article 6 Section 23(2)
(3) People at large Article 17 Section 2
(4) Local Governments Art. 10, Sec.3
(5) Administrative Bodies *Through their respective charters
Q: What is the reason for delegation of powers?

A:
(1) Increasing complexity of the tasks of government
(2) Growing inability of the Legislative to cope with the many problems
demanding its attention
1. Delegation of tariff powers to the President Article 6 Section 28(2)

 The President is granted stand-by or flexible tariff powers in the *Tariff
and Customs Code. The reason for this delegation is NECESSITY, not to say
expediency. It is recognized that the legislative process is much too
cumbersome for the speedy solution of some economic problems,
especially those relating to foreign trade. The President must exercise the
authority given within the framework of the national development
program of the government.
TARIFF= TIE-TWO(ID)
Tariff, Import/Export Quotas, Tonnage, Wharfage Dues, Other Imposts and Duties
2. Delegation of Emergency Powers Article 6 Section 23(2)
 During grave emergencies, it may not be practicable for Congress to meet

and exercise power. In such occasions, the Constitution expressly permits
Congress to grant legislative powers to the President subject to certain
limitations:
a. The emergency powers may be granted by law to the President
only in times of war or national emergency (rebellion, grave
economic depression).
b. It is the Congress that determines whether there is war or
national emergency.
c. The said powers must be exercised only during a limited period,
that is, for the duration of the war or other national emergency.
Q: When is there a national emergency?

A: Majority is affected. The emergency must be of nationwide proportions and
effect. For typhoons and other natural calamities, it will depend on the gravity and
impact of the damage to the national economy.
Q: If Congress said that the President can exercise the emergency power for one
(1) year, but after 1 year the emergency still exists. Does the power of the
President continue?
A: No. According to Justice Paras, “emergency itself cannot and should not create
power.” IT IS THE LAW THAT CREATES THE POWER. The mere continuance of the
emergency does not necessarily continue the President’s emergency power if they
have been granted to him for a shorter period.

Q: If Congress allowed one (1) year for the emergency power of the President
but after 1 month the emergency ceased. Will the emergency power of the
President continue?
A: No. The emergency powers are self-liquidating unless sooner withdrawn, in the
sense that they will automatically cease upon the end of the emergency that
justified their delegation.
a.) They must be exercised subject to such restrictions (limitations/

conditions) (e.g. requiring the President to make a report to the
Congress when it meets in session).
b.) They must be exercised to carry out a national policy as declared in the
law delegating the authority.
Q: When will the emergency power end?

A: Adjournment Withdrawal  Cessation of Emergency  Period (Whichever
comes first)
NOTE: They shall automatically cease upon the next adjournment of Congress
unless sooner withdrawn by resolution in view of its opinion that emergency has
ceased. It is not necessary that the withdrawal be done through a statute. A
resolution does not need the approval of the President whereas a statute, to be
effective, needs the President’s approval.
3. Delegation to the People at large Article 17 Section 2
*According to Atty. Bugayong, for him, this is not a permissible delegation
X –power LEJ  X?? The Sovereignty of the people = Reserved power (Sec. 1
Art. 6)
 It is a method whereby the people themselves can directly propose

amendments to the Constitution. It is an application of the democratic
concept embodied in Article 2, Section 1.

 The government of the state is democratic, but it is a representative
democracy, and in passing general laws the people act only through their
representatives in the legislature. Such reference of the law to the people
at large for acceptance or rejection is plain surrender of the law making
power.
Referendum: method of submitting an important legislative measure to a direct

vote of the whole people.
Plebiscite: questions submitted in the plebiscite are intended to work more

permanent changes in the political structure, like a proposal to amend the
constitution; device to obtain a direct popular vote on a matter of political
importance, but chiefly in order to create some more or less permanent political
condition.
4. Delegation to the Local Government Units (LGUs) Art. 10, Sec.3

Local Government Code
 This traditional exception is based on the recognition that local legislatures
are more knowledgeable than the national law making body on matters of
purely local concerns and are therefore in a better position to enact the
necessary and appropriate legislation thereon.
5. Delegation to Administrative Bodies *Through their respective charter
 Administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a

statute by filling in the details which the Congress may not have the
opportunity or competence to provide. This is effected by their
promulgation of what are known as Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR), such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of Labor
on Labor Code. These regulations have the force and effect of law.
Contingent Regulations: They are allowed to ascertain the existence of particular

contingencies and on the basis thereof enforce or suspend the operation of a law.
Such also have the force and effect of law.
Quasi-Legislative Power: It is the authority delegated by the law making body to

the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the

provisions of a law and implement the legislative policy.
Q: How can the test of delegation be valid?

A: To be valid, the delegation itself must be circumscribed by legislative
restrictions which will not give the delegate unlimited legislative authority.
Q: What are the tests?
1. COMPLETENESS TEST
 US v Ang Tang Ho
 the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it
Doctrine: The law must be complete in all its terms and provisions when
leaves legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when
it leaves the legislative branch of the government and nothing must be
it reaches him except to enforce it. (US vs. Ang Tang Ho)
left to the judgment of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the
legislature, so that, in form and substance, it is a law in all its details in
2. SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST
present, but which may be left to take effect in future, if necessary, upon
intended to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority by:
the ascertainment of any prescribed fact or event.
Facts: Philippine Legislature passed and approved Act No. 2868 entitled
a) defining the legislative policy; and
An Act Penalizing the Monopoly and Hoarding of Rice, Palay and Corn.
b) indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected.
The said act under extraordinary circumstances authorizes the Governor
General to issue the necessary Rules and Regulations in regulating the
The standard is usually indicated in the law delegating legislative power (Ynot
distribution of such products. Pursuant to this Act, the Governor General
vs. IAC). But even if the law does not expressly pinpoint the standard, the
issued Executive Order 53 fixing the price at which rice should be sold
courts will bend over backward to locate the same elsewhere in order to spare
which was published on August 20, 1919. Ang Tang Ho was found guilty
the statute, if it can, from constitutional infirmity.
for selling ganta of rice that was said to have sold at a higher price
prescribed by EO. Respondent argues that there is undue delegation of
*Standards, parameter, guidelines
legislative power in executing the EO.
*Are the two standards required alternately or should both tests be present for it
Issue: WON there is undue delegation to the Governor General
to be considered validly delegated? Generally, one is enough. It depends on the
Ruling: Yes. Act No. 2868, as analysed by the Court, wholly fails to
situation.
provide definitely and clearly what the standard policy should contain,
so that it could be put in use as a uniform policy required to take the
Even if the law does not spell out in details the limit of the delegate’s authority, it place of all others without the determination of the insurance
may still be sustained if the delegation of legislative power is made subject to a commissioner in respect to matters involving the exercise of a legislative
sufficient standard. HOWEVER, according to the Pelaez Case, the two tests must discretion that could not be delegated, and without which the act could
be applied concurrently and not alternatively. not possibly be put in use. When Act No. 2868 was analyzed, it is the
violation of the proclamation of the Governor-General which constitutes
Completeness Test and Sufficient Standard Test must be applied together or the crime. Without that proclamation, it was no crime to sell rice at any
concurrently. price. In other words, the Legislature left it to the sole discretion of the

According to Justice Concepcion, “Although Congress may delegate, it is essential, Governor-General to say what was and what was not “any cause” for
to forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers, said law should: enforcing the act, and what was and what was not “an extraordinary rise
in the price of palay, rice or corn,” and under certain undefined
a. Be complete in itself – it must set therein the policy to be executed, carried conditions to fix the price at which rice should be sold, without regard to
out or implemented by the delegate. grade or quality.
b. Fix a standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or
determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions  Ynot v IAC
Doctrine: A sufficient standard is intended to map out the boundaries of
the delegate’s authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating
the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected. This is
intended to prevent a total transference of legislative power from the
legislature to the delegate. The standard is usually indicated in the law
delegating legislative power.
Facts: Marcos issed EO 626-A which prohibits the transportation of
carabaos. Petitioner had transported six carabaos and was caught.
Consequently, carabaos were confiscated. RTC of Iloilo City declined to
rule on the constitutionality for lack of authority and for EO's presumed
validity.
Issue: WON EO 626-A is constitutional
Ruling: No. The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and
dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden with perilous
opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption. One
searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines, or
better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when they
make their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently
boundless.

Consti Chopsuey Midterms Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti Chopsuey Midterms Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti Chopsuey Midterms Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTI MIDTERMS REVIEWER

 Basic Concepts & Principles

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Q: Where would the delegates of a constitutional convention

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

 State v. Country  Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Q: What do you mean by territory?  Magallona v Ermita

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Q: What are the components of territory?

Q: What do you mean by archipelago?

Simply stated, it is a body of water studded or surrounded by islands. (Bernas)

Q: Why is the Philippines an archipelago?

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Q: How do you describe the maritime domain of the Philippines?

Q: Where do you reckon the twelve (12) nautical miles?

Q: What are the two (2) kinds of baseline method?

Q: Why does the Philippines adopt the straight baseline method?

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Q: What do you mean by people?

Q: How many people are needed to form a State?

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Q: What is the difference between State and government?

Q: What is the difference between government and administration?

Q: What do you mean by the State as a legal concept?

 Functions of the Government: Constituent v. Ministrant

Q: What is the difference between constituent functions and ministrant

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

2. Ministrant or proprietary functions are those undertaken to advance the

Q: Is the difference between governmental and proprietary functions still

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Juristically speaking, it is the supreme, uncontrollable power, the jures summi

Q: What are the four (4) kinds of sovereignty?

Q: Who is the legal sovereign?

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Q: Is there really a difference between the two?

Sovereignty – Sovereignty itself is not suspended, only the exercise of sovereignty.

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

 Concept of State Immunity

INSTANCES OF SUITS PROPER AGAINST THE STATE:

(1) When the Republic is sued by name;

Q: What is the Doctrine of State Immunity?  Republic v Sandoval

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Rule: For unincorporated agency, distinguish whether function is

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

Governmental – suit against the State

 Holy See v Rosario

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

 Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs.

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER

POLITICAL LAW 1 CHOPSUEY MIDTERMS REVIEWER