SOVEREIGNTY

Permanence
Exclusivity
Comprehensiveness
Absoluteness
Indivisibility
Imprescriptibility
Inalienability

ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY
Discovery w/ occupation, management,
administration
Prescription continued, uninterrupted occupation
Accretion growth by natural forces
Cession thru bilateral agreement or transfer
Conquest by force/war

CONSTITUTION
Malolos, 1935, 1973, Freedom, 1987

Characteristics:
Bill of Rights
Rule of Majority
Govt of laws, not of men
Govt cant be sued w/out consent
Congress cant pass irrepealable laws
Separation of powers, Checks and balances
Elections, Right of Suffrage
Law on public officers

RULE OF MAJORITY

Art. 6, 16.1 Senate President and Speaker of the
House elected by members of Congress
Art. 6, 16.2 Each has majority of quorum to
conduct business
Art. 6, 18 Commission of Appointments (1 Chair,
12 Senators, 12 Reps) voted by majority
Art. 7, 9 If no VP, P nominates VP, elected by
majority of Congress
Art. 7. 11.2 Cabinet Members declares P unfit for
office
Art. 7, 18 P is CC, may declare Martial Law,
suspend HC, Congress may vote to revoke or prolong
ML.


OURS IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, NOT OF MEN.

Villavicencio vs. Lukban
MALCOLM, J.:
Law defines power. Centuries ago Magna Charta
decreed that "No freeman shall be taken, or
imprisoned, or be disseized of his freehold, or liberties,
or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any
other wise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him nor
condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or
by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will
not deny or defer to any man either justice or right."
(Magna Charta, 9 Hen., 111, 1225, Cap. 29; 1 eng.
stat. at Large, 7.) No official, no matter how high, is
above the law. The courts are the forum which
functionate to safeguard individual liberty and to
punish official transgressors. "The law," said Justice
Miller, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of
the United States, "is the only supreme power in our
system of government, and every man who by
accepting office participates in its functions is only the
more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and
to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the
exercise of the authority which it gives." (U.S. vs. Lee
[1882], 106 U.S., 196, 220.) "The very idea," said
Justice Matthews of the same high tribunal in another
case, "that one man may be compelled to hold his life,
or the means of living, or any material right essential
to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another,
seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom
prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." (Yick
Wo vs. Hopkins [1886], 118 U.S., 356, 370.) All this
explains the motive in issuing the writ of habeas
corpus, and makes clear why we said in the very
beginning that the primary question was whether the
courts should permit a government of men or a
government of laws to be established in the Philippine
Islands.

Que vs. Iac
CRUZ, J.:
In a free society, controversies are heard and settled
under the rule of law in the forum of the courts of
justice. It is one of the virtues of our system of
government that if a person feels he has been
aggrieved, he does not have to take the law into his
hands or resort to the use of force for the vindication
of his injury. The courts are there to hear and act on
his complaint. The right to litigate is an escape valve to
relieve the pressures of personal disagreements that
might otherwise explode in physical confrontation, It is
necessary not only for upholding one's claims when
they are unjustly denied but also for the maintenance
of peace if not goodwill among incipient antagonists.
Without the right to litigate, conflicting claims cannot
be examined and resolved in accordance with one of
the primary purposes of government, which is to
provide for a just and orderly society.

Arula vs. Espino
CASTRO, J.:
Moreover, it is well-settled that mere apprehension or
fear entertained by an individual cannot serve as the
basis of injunctive relief.
22
The presumption that
official duty will be regularly performed by officers
sworn to uphold the Constitution and the law cannot
be overthrown by the mere articulation of misgivings
to the contrary.

FERNANDO, J., concurring:
The rule of law would be a meaningless term if
governmental agencies are permitted to transcend the
boundaries of the powers conferred on them. To
paraphrase Justice Miller, in United States v. Lee,

the
supremacy of the law requires of every public official
that he observe the limitation which it imposes upon
the exercise of the authority which it gives. The
military, no less than the civilian authorities, as a
matter of fact perhaps much more so because of the
force of its command, cannot be allowed to act beyond
its pale. Any challenge hurled against any assumption
of competence on their part must be inquired into
provided of course it comes from a party qualified to
do so. In order that he may be heard, he must have
standing.

CONFLICT BETWEEN MUNICIPAL AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW

Lex Fori Observe Intl law in Intl tribunal, Mun Law
in Mun tribunal

Art. 8, 5.2a Review, revise, reverse, modify of
affirm review treaties

Gonzales vs. Hechanova
CONCEPCION, J.:
As regards the question whether an international
agreement may be invalidated by our courts, suffice it
to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has
clearly settled it in the affirmative, by providing, in
Section 2 of Article VIII thereof, that the Supreme
Court may not be deprived "of its jurisdiction to
review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal, certiorari, or writ of error as the law or the
rules of court may provide, final judgments and
decrees of inferior courts in (1) All cases in which
the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law,
ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in
question". In other words, our Constitution authorizes
the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts
with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs
counter to an act of Congress.

PEOPLE ARE OBLIGED TO DEFEND THE STATE

Art. 2, 2 War not an instrument of national policy
Art. 2, 4 Prime duty of govt to serve and protect
people; military and civil service if needed
Art. 6, 23 Congress declares state of war (2/3
votes)
Art. 7, 18.1 P as CC, power to prevent/suppress
lawless violence, invasion, rebellion

People vs. Lagman
AVANCEA, J.:
The National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes
compulsory military service, does not go against this
constitutional provision but is, on the contrary, in
faithful compliance therewith. The duty of the
Government to defend the State cannot be performed
except through an army. To leave the organization of
an army to the will of the citizens would be to make
this duty of the Government excusable should there be
no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.

CIVILIAN AUTHORITY SUPREME OVER MILITARY

Art. 2, 3 Civilian supreme over military at all times
Art. 2, 4 Prime duty of govt to serve and protect
people. People are obliged to defend the state.
Art. 2, 8 Freedom from nuclear weapons






SOCIAL JUSTICE

Calalang vs. Williams
LAUREL, C.J.:
Social justice is neither communism, despotism, nor
atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws
and the equalization of social and economic forces by
the State so that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated.

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 in the time honored
principle of salus populi estsuprema lex.

Galay vs. COA
FRANCISCO,J.:
Never is it justified to prefer the poor simply because
they are poor, or to reject the rich simply because they
are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor
and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.

The policy of social justice is not intended to
countenance wrongdoing simply because it is
committed by the underprivileged. At best it may
mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone
the offense. Compassion for the poor is an imperative
of every humane society but only when the recipient is
not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege.

Social justice cannot condone the violation of law nor
does it consider that very wrong to be a justification
for priority in the enjoyment of a right. This is what the
petitioner wants us to grant him. But we cannot heed
his unjust plea because the rule of law rings louder in
our ears.

Ondoy vs. Ignacio
FERNANDO, C.J.:
As between a laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and
the employer, who has resources to secure able legal
advice, the law has reason to demand from the latter
stricter compliance. Social justice in these cases is not
equality but protection.

Guido vs. RPA
TUASON, J.:
The promotion of social justice to insure the well-being
and economic security of all the people should be the
concern of the state," is a declaration, with which the
former should be reconciled, that "the Philippines is a
Republican state" created to secure to the Filipino
people "the blessings of independence under a regime
of justice, liberty and democracy.

Social justice does not champion division of property or
equality of economic status; what it and the
Constitution do guaranty are equality of opportunity,
equality of political rights, equality before the law,
equality between values given and received on the
basis of efforts exerted in their production.

Sosito vs. ADC
CRUZ, J.:
While the Constitution is committed to the policy of
social justice and the protection of the working class, it
should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be
automatically decided in favor of labor. Management
also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to
respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair
play. Out of its concern for those with less privileges in
life, this Court has inclined more often than not toward
the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with
the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not
blinded us to the rule that justice is in every case for
the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the
established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.

PAL vs. Santos
REGALADO, J.:
Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over
backward to accommodate the interests of the working
class on the humane justification that those with less
privileges in life should have more privileges in law.

Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA
CRUZ, J.:
When the conflicting interests of labor and capital are
weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier
influence of the latter must be counter-balanced by the
sympathy and compassion the law must accord the
underprivileged worker. This is only fair if he is to be
given the opportunity and the right to assert and
defend his cause not as a subordinate but as a peer of
management, with which he can negotiate on even
plane. Labor is not a mere employee of capital but its
active and equal partner.

ACCFA vs. Confederation of Unions
MAKALINTAL, J.:
For this reason, I say it is necessary that we insert
'social justice' here and that social justice must be
established by law. Proper legal provisions, proper
legal facilities must be provided in order that there be
a regime not of justice alone, because we have that
now and we are seeing the oppression arising from
such a regime. Consequently, we must emphasize the
term 'social justice.

INTERGRENERATIONAL INTEREST

Oposa vs. Factoran
DAVIDE JR., J.:
This case, however, has a special and novel element.
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find
no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for
others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in
behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based
on the concept of intergenerational responsibility
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,
considers
the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means
the created world in its entirety.

Such rhythm and
harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land,
waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other
natural resources to the end that their exploration,
development and utilization be equitably accessible to
the present as well as future generations. Needless to
say, every generation has a responsibility to the next
to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced 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 the generations to come.

DEVOLVEMENT OF AUTHORITY

Limbona vs. Mangelin
SARMIENTO, J.:
Now, autonomy is either decentralization of
administration or 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 declare 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. According to a
constitutional author, decentralization of power
amounts to "self-immolation," since in that event, the
autonomous government becomes accountable not to
the central authorities but to its constituency.