SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
De Leon v. ESGUERRA
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that
date, therefore, the Proisional Constitution !ust be dee!ed to hae been
superseded. "#ffectiity is i!!ediately upon ratification$
Gonzales v. COMELEC
%ature of power to a!end the Constitution or to propose a!end!ents thereto&
not inherent power of Con'ress but of the people( constituent power of Con'ress
Tolentno v. COMELEC
The condition and li!itation that all the a!end!ents to be proposed by the sa!e
conention !ust be sub!itted in a )sin'le election* or plebiscite.
I!"on# v. COMELEC
Co!petence of Con'ress actin' as Constituent +sse!bly& +uthority to call
constitutional conention as Constituent +sse!bly in enactin' i!ple!entin'
details.
San$a$ v. COMELEC
,Presidential e-ercise of le'islatie powers "and proposin' a!end!ents$ is alid
in !artial law.
,+!endin' process is a soerei'n act, althou'h the authority to institute the
sa!e and the procedure to be followed reside so!ehow in a particular body
"Pres. .arcos$.
Santa#o v. COMELEC
The ri'ht of the people to directly propose a!end!ents to the Constitution
throu'h the syste! of initiatie would re!ain ento!bed in a cold niche until
Con'ress proides for its i!ple!entation. /ection 2 of +rticle 0122 is not self,
e-ecutin'.
La!"no v. COMELEC
#ssence of people3s initiatie& "1$ people !ust author( "2$ they !ust si'n the
proposal( "4$ proposal is e!bodied in petition
CONCEPT OF STATE
%a&an vs NACOCO
The !ere fact that the 5oern!ent happens to be a !a6or stoc7holder of a
corporation does not !a7e it a public corporation.
8istinction between constituent and !inistrant functions.
P'TA vs CIR
8istinction between constituent and !inistrant functions 9 obsolete.
5oern!ent has to proide for 'eneral welfare.
Gov. o( t)e P)l. Islan$s vs. Monte $e Pe$a$
8octrine of Parens Patriae "state as 'uardian of the people$
Transfer of soerei'nty( effect on laws&
, abro'ation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted
soerei'n "political law$.
, 'reat body of !unicipal law re'ardin' priate and do!estic ri'hts continue in
force until abro'ated or chan'ed by new ruler.
Co *! C)an vs. 'al$ez Tan *e)
Continuity of :aw& :aw, once established, continues until chan'ed by so!e
co!petent le'islatie power "not chan'ed by !ere chan'e of soerei'nty$
+ll acts and proceedin's of the 4 'o. depts. of a de facto 'oern!ent are 'ood
and alid.
;inds of 8e facto 'oern!ent&
"1$ de facto proper 9 'oern!ent obtained by force or oice of the !a6ority
"2$ para!ount force 9 by !ilitary forces who inade the territory
"4$ independent 'oern!ent 9 established by inhabitants throu'h insurrection
<epublic of the Philippines "durin' =apanese occupation$ was a de facto
'oern!ent.
Peo+le vs Gozo
Principle of +uto,li!itation& Extent of Philippine sovereignty over American bases
Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as
part of the Philippine territory.
La,-el vs Msa
%ature of +lle'iance to soerei'n& +bsolute and per!anent
#ffect of ene!y occupation& soerei'nty of the 'oern!ent 9 not transferred to
occupier
R,((. v C)e( o( Sta((
The rule that laws of political nature or affectin' political relations are considered
superseded or held in abeyance durin' the !ilitary occupation, is intended for
the 'oernin' of the ciil inhabitants of the occupied territory and not for the
ene!ies in ar!s.
STATE IMMUNITY
San$e-s v 'e-$ano
.ere alle'ation that a 'oern!ent functionary is bein' sued in his personal
capacity will not auto!atically re!oe hi! fro! the protection of the laws of
public officers and doctrine of state i!!unity
8octrine of state i!!unity applicable also to other states.
Re+,"l& v San$oval
/tate cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident( liability
should fall on the public officers who co!!itted acts beyond their authority
4 instances when suit is proper&
1. when sued by its na!e
2. when unincorporated 'oern!ent a'ency is sued
4. when the suit is a'ainst a 'oern!ent e!ployee but liability belon's to the
'oern!ent
Feste/o v Fe-nan$o
>fficer or e!ployee co!!ittin' the tort is personally liable and !aybe sued as
any other citi?en and held answerable for whateer in6ury
USA vs G,nto
- + state !ay be said to hae descended to the leel of an indiidual and can thus
be dee!ed to hae tacitly 'ien its consent to be sued only when it enters into
business contracts.
'ete-ans Man+o0e- vs CA
- The state is dee!ed to hae 'ien tacitly its consent to be sued when it enters
into a contract. @oweer, it does not apply where the contract relates to the
e-ercise of its soerei'n functions.
T)e Me--tt vs Gov1t o( t)e P)l
- By consentin' to be sued, a state si!ply waies its i!!unity fro! suit. 2t does
not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his
faor, or e-tend its liability to any cause not preiously reco'ni?ed. 2t !erely
'ies re!edy to enforce a pre,e-istin' liability and sub!it itself to the 6urisdiction
of the court, sub6ect to its ri'ht to interpose any lawful defense.
A!#a"le vs. C,en&a
The 'oern!ent, when it ta7es away a property fro! a priate land owner for
public use without 'oin' throu'h the le'al process of e-propriation or ne'otiated
sale, the a''rieed party !ay properly !aintain a suit a'ainst the 'oern!ent
without thereby iolatin' the doctrine of 'oern!ental i!!unity fro! suit. This
doctrine cannot be used in perpetratin' in6ustice to a citi?en.
Re+,"l& vs. San$#an"a.an
- Ahen the state files an action, it diests itself of the soerei'n character and
shed its i!!unity for! suit, descendin' to the leel of an ordinary liti'ant.
Re+,"l& vs. Fel&ano
, failure to alle'e in the co!plaint the e-istence of consent by the /tate is a fatal
defect "construction !ust be strict a'ainst confer!ent of waier
, 2!!unity !ay be ino7ed by the courts at any pointBsta'e of the proceedin's.
USA vs. R,z
Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states& /tates !ay be sued
when the proceedin's arise out of co!!ercial transactions of the forei'n soerei'n.
T)e Hol. See v Rosa-o2 3-.
Pursuant to the 19C1 1ienna Conention on 8iplo!atic <elations, a diplo!atic
enoy is 'ranted i!!unity fro! the ciil and ad!inistratie 6urisdiction of the
receiin' state oer any real action relatin' to priate i!!oable property
situated in the territory of the receiin' state which the enoy holds on behalf of
the sendin' state for the purposes of the !ission
Re+,"l& vs. 'llaso-
, =ud'!ent a'ainst the /tate cannot be enforced by e-ecution. 2t !ay li!it
clai!antDs action only up to the co!pletion of proceedin's anterior to the state of
e-ecution. Power of courts end when 6ud'!ent is rendered. Esuability s. liabilityF
, Functions and public serices cannot be allowed to be paraly?ed or disrupted
by the disruption of public funds.
De+a-t!ent o( A#-&,lt,-e vs. NLRC
- %ot all contracts entered into by the 'oern!ent operate as a waier of its non,
suability. 8istinction !ust still be !ade between one which is e-ecuted in the
e-ercise of its soerei'n function and another which is done in the proprietary
capacity.
- /tate 'ies consent upon !oneyed clai! arisin' fro! contract.
PN% vs. Pa"alan
- /tate i!!unity fro! suit cannot be alidly ino7ed with re'ard to funds of public
corporations.
- Esuable corporationsF Public funds of corporations which can sue and be sued
are not e-e!pt fro! 'aarnish!ent.
Ra.o vs. CFI o( %,la&an
- The character of an incorporated a'ency allows it to sue and be sued without
Gualification
%,-ea, o( P-ntn# vs. %,-ea, o( P-ntn# E!+lo.ees Asso&.
- +cceptance of outside wor7 and pay!ent of oerti!e co!pensation does not
!a7e wor7 of Bureau of Printin' proprietary.
- %on,suability of the /tate is aailable to the a'ency een if it is shown that it is
en'a'ed not only in 'oern!ental functions but also, incidentally, in proprietary
enterprises "unincorporated a'ency$.
Mo"l P)ls. E4+lo-aton2 In&. vs. CA
2f an a'encyHs function is dee!ed proprietary, if such is a necessary incident of the
pri!ary and 'o. function of such a'ency, such a'ency is not suable "for an
unincorporated a'ency only$.
Cvl Ae-ona,t&s A$!nst-aton v. Co,-t o( A++eals
, %ot all 'oern!ent entities whether corporate or not are i!!une fro! suits.
2!!unity fro! suits is deter!ined by the character of the ob6ects for which the
entity was or'ani?ed.
, /uits a'ainst /tate a'encies with relation to !atters in which they hae
assu!ed to act in priate or non,'oern!ental capacity, and arious suits
a'ainst certain corporations created by the /tate to en'a'e 2n !atters parta7in'
!ore of the nature of ordinary business are not re'arded as suits a'ainst the
/tate.
M,n&+alt. o( San Fe-nan$o2 La Unon v. 3,$#e F-!e
The test of liability of the !unicipality depends on whether or not the drier actin'
in behalf of the !unicipality is perfor!in' 'oern!ental or proprietary functions.
2t has already been re!ar7ed that !unicipal corporations are suable because
their charters 'rant the! the co!petence to sue and be sued. %eertheless, they
are 'enerally not liable for torts co!!itted by the! in the dischar'e of
'oern!ental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that
they were actin' in a proprietary capacity. 2n per!ittin' such entities to be sued,
the state !erely 'ies the clai!ants the ri'ht to show the defendant was not
actin' in its 'oern!ental capacity when the in6ury was inflicted or that the case
co!es under the e-ceptions reco'ni?ed by law. Failin' this, the clai!ants cannot
recoer.
M,n&+alt. o( San M#,el2 %,la&an v. Fe-nan$ez
.unicipal funds in possession of !unicipal and proincial treasurers are public
funds e-e!pt fro! e-ecution. .unicipal funds are held in trust for the people
intended and used for the acco!plish!ents of the purposes for which !unicipal
corporations are created and that to sub6ect said properties and public funds to
e-ecution would !aterially i!pede, een defeat and in so!e instance destroy
said purposes.
M,n&+alt. o( Ma5at v. Co,-t o( A++eals
Ahen a !unicipality fails or refuses without 6ustifiable reason to effect pay!ent of
a final !oney 6ud'!ent rendered a'ainst it, the clai!ant !ay aail of the re!edy
of !anda!us in order to co!pel the enact!ent and approal of the necessary
appropriation ordinance and the correspondin' disburse!ent of !unicipal funds.
F,n$a!ental P-n&+les an$ State Pol&es
Se&ton 1
'llav&en&o v. L,5"an6
.ayorDs act is unconstitutional. 2t was not authori?ed by any law or ordinance.
)>ur 'oern!ent is a 'oern!ent of laws and not of !en.*
Se&ton 7
*,-o$a v. 3alan$on6
thin7 =apanese :ieutenant,5eneral char'ed before the !ilitary co!!ission.
Hel$6 The Philippines can adopt the rules and re'ulations laid down on the
@a'ue and 5enea Conentions notwithstandin' that it is not a si'natory thereto.
2t e!bodied 'enerally accepted principles of international law bindin' upon all
states.
A#,stn v. E$,6
thin7 trian'ular reflectori?ed early warnin' deices.
Hel$6 :e'islatie enact!ent is not necessary in order to authori?e the issuance
of :>2 prescribin' the use of trian'ular reflectori?ed early warnin' deices. This
is also an illustration of 'enerally accepted principles of international law "Pacta
sunt seranda$.
I&)on# v. He-nan$ez6
thin7 <etail Trade %ationali?ation :aw which is a'ainst the principle of Pacta sunt
seranda.Hel$6 the <etail Trade %ationali?ation :aw is not unconstitutional
because it was passed in the e-ercise of the police power which cannot be
bar'ained away throu'h the !ediu! of a treaty.
Gonzales v. He&)anova6
Prealence of %ational or .unicipal law oer 2nternational law& Constitution
authori?es the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the
funda!ental law, but also when it runs counter to an act of Con'ress.
In -e Ga-&a
+ treaty cannot !odify re'ulations 'oernin' ad!ission to Philippine bar "that
would be an encroach!ent upon /upre!e Court by the #-ecutie$

Se&ton 8
I%P vs. 9a!o-a
the deploy!ent of the .arines does not constitute a breach of the ciilian
supre!acy clause. The callin' of the !arines in this case constitutes per!issible
use of !ilitary asset for ciilian law enforce!ent. - x x The li!ited participation of
the .arines is eident in the proisions of the :etter of 2nstruction ":>2$ itself,
which sufficiently proides the !etes and bounds of the .arinesD authority. 2t is
noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones char'e of the isibility patrols
at all ti!es, the real authority belon'in' to the P%P. 2n fact, the .etro .anila
Police Chief is the oerall leader of the P%P,.arines 6oint isibility patrols.
Inder the :>2, the police forces are tas7ed to brief or orient the soldiers on
police patrol
procedures. 2t is their responsibility to direct and !ana'e the deploy!ent of the
!arines. 2t is, li7ewise, their duty to proide the necessary eGuip!ent to the
.arines
and render lo'istic support to these soldiers. 2n iew of the fore'oin', it cannot be
properly ar'ued that !ilitary authority is supre!e oer ciilian authority.
2t is worth !entionin' that !ilitary assistance to ciilian authorities in arious
for!s persists in Philippine 6urisdiction. The Philippine e-perience reeals that it
is not
aerse to reGuestin' the assistance of the !ilitary in the i!ple!entation and
e-ecution
of certain traditionally )ciil* functions. - - - /o!e of the !ultifarious actiities
wherein
!ilitary aid has been rendered, e-e!plifyin' the actiities that brin' both the
ciilian and
the !ilitary to'ether in a relationship of cooperation are&
1. #lections(
2. +d!inistration of the Philippine %ational <ed Cross(
4. <elief and rescue operations durin' cala!ities and disasters(
J. +!ateur sports pro!otion and deelop!ent(
K. 8eelop!ent of the culture and the arts(
C. Conseration of the natural resources(
7. 2!ple!entation of the a'rarian refor! pro'ra!(
8. #nforce!ent of custo!s laws(
9. Co!posite ciilian,!ilitary law enforce!ent actiities(
1L. Conduct of licensure e-a!inations(
11. Conduct of nationwide test for ele!entary and hi'h school students(
12. +nti,dru' enforce!ent actiities(
14. /anitary inspections(
1J. Conduct of census wor7(
1K. +d!inistration of the Ciil +eronautic Board(
1C. +ssistance in installation of weather forecastin' deices(
17. Peace and order policy for!ulation in local 'oern!ent units.
This unGuestionably constitutes a 'loss on e-ecutie power resultin' fro! a
syste!atic, unbro7en, e-ecutie practice, lon' pursued to the 7nowled'e of
Con'ress
and, yet, neer before Guestioned. Ahat we hae here is a !utual support and
cooperation between the !ilitary and ciilian authorities, not dero'ation of ciilian
supre!acy.
Se&ton :
Peo+le vs. La#!an
, Case at bar& accused is prosecuted for failure to re'ister for !ilitary serice
under the %ational 8efense +ct
, /C upheld the %ational 8efense +ct. To leae an or'ani?ation of an ar!y to the
will of the citi?ens would be to !a7e this duty of the 5oern!ent e-cusable
should there be no sufficient !en who olunteer to enlist therein.
Se&ton ;
C)avez vs. Ro!,lo
<i'ht to bear ar!s& 2t is statutory and not a constitutional ri'ht. The license to
carry a firear! is neither a property nor a property ri'ht. %either does it create a
ested ri'ht. #en if it were a property ri'ht, it cannot be considered absolute as
to be placed beyond the reach of police power. The !aintenance of peace and
order, and the protection of the people a'ainst iolence are constitutional duties
of the /tate, and the ri'ht to bear firear! is to be construed in connection and in
har!ony with these constitutional duties.

Se&ton <
A#l+a. vs. R,z
,There is no iolation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The
issuance and sale of the sta!ps in Guestion !ay be said to be lin7ed with an
eent of a reli'ious character, but the resultin' propa'anda, if any, receied by
the Catholic Church, was not the ai! and purpose of the 'oern!ent. The idea
behind the issuance of the posta'e sta!ps was to attract tourists to our country
and not pri!arily the reli'ious eent.
, Ahat is 'uaranteed by our Constitution is reli'ious liberty , not !ere reli'ious
toleration. @oweer, reli'ious freedo! is not inhibition of profound reerence for
reli'ion and is not a denial of its influence in hu!an affairs.
A,st-a vs. NLRC
an ecclesiastical affair inoles the relationship between the church and its
!e!bers and relates to !atter of faith, reli'ious doctrines, worship and
'oernance of the con're'ation. #-a!ples of these affairs in which the /tate
cannot !eddle are proceedin's for e-co!!unication, ordination of reli'ious
!inisters, ad!inistration of sacra!ents, and other actiities to which is attached
reli'ious si'nificance. 2n this case, what is inoled is the relationship of the
church as an e!ployer and the !inister as an e!ployee. 2t is purely secular and
has no relation whatsoeer with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the
church.
Se&ton 1=
Calalan# vs. Wlla!s
,/ocial 6ustice is neither co!!unis!, nor despotis!, nor ato!is!, nor anarchy,
but the hu!ani?ation of laws and the eGuali?ation of social and econo!ic forces
by the /tate so that 6ustice in its rational and ob6ectiely secular conception !ay
at least be appro-i!ated. /ocial 6ustice !eans the pro!otion of the welfare of all
the people, the adoption by the 5oern!ent of !easures calculated to insure
econo!ic stability of all the co!petent ele!ents of society, throu'h the
!aintenance of a proper econo!ic and social eGuilibriu! in the interrelations of
the !e!bers of the co!!unity, constitutionally, throu'h the adoption of
!easures le'ally 6ustifiable, or e-tra,constitutionally, throu'h the e-ercise of
powers underlyin' the e-istence of all 'oern!ents on the ti!e,honored principle
of salus populi est supre!a le-. /ocial 6ustice, therefore, !ust be founded on the
reco'nition of the necessity of interdependence a!on' diers and dierse units
of a society and of the protection that should be eGually and eenly e-tended to
all 'roups as a co!bined force in our social and econo!ic life, consistent with
the funda!ental and para!ount ob6ectie of the state of pro!otin' the health,
co!fort, and Guiet of all persons, and of brin'in' about Mthe 'reatest 'ood to the
'reatest nu!ber.*
Al!e$a vs. CA
,There e-ists a tenantDs ri'ht of rede!ption in su'ar and coconut lands. Pursuant
to +'ricultural :and <efor! Code of 19C4, it reco'ni?es share tenancy in su'ar
lands which is in consonance with the /tateDs pro!otion of social 6ustice wherein
it !ay )re'ulate the acGuisition, ownership, use, en6oy!ent and disposition of
priate property, and eGuitably diffuse propertyNownership and profits.*
On$o. .vs. I#na&o
,The principle of social 6ustice applied in this case is a !atter of protection, not
eGuality. The Court reco'ni?ed the ri'ht of the petitioner to the clai! of
co!pensation because her son was shown to hae died while )in the actual
perfor!ance of his wor7.* To stren'then the constitutional sche!e of social
6ustice and protection to labor, The Court !ade !ention that )as between a
laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the e!ployer, who has resources to
secure able le'al adice, the law has reason to de!and fro! the latter the
stricter co!pliance.*
Salon#a vs. Fa--ales
,The plea of social 6ustice of the plaintiff cannot be considered because it was
shown that no contract, either to sell or of sale, was eer perfected between hi!
and the defendant. 2t !ust be re!e!bered that social 6ustice cannot be ino7ed
to tra!ple on the ri'hts of property owners who under our Constitution and laws
are also entitled to protection. The social 6ustice consecrated in our Constitution
was not intended to ta7e away ri'hts fro! a person and 'ie the! to another
who is not entitled thereto.
Se&ton 17
Me.e- vs. Ne"-as5a
2t is inco!petent for the 'oern!ent to prohibit the teachin' of a forei'n
lan'ua'e to students. There is nothin' har!ful in the lan'ua'e that will i!pair the
upbrin'in' of the child.
Pe-&e vs. So&et. o( Sste-s
/tate !ay not reGuire children to attend only public schools. The child is not a
creature of the /tate.
'-t,o,so vs. M,n&+al 3,$#e
Oouthful >ffender& + person char'ed with an offense but found to be a youthful
offender could be proisionally released on reco'ni?ance at courtDs decision.
Se&ton 1:
PT>T Co. vs. NLRC
the /C held that the petitionerDs policy of not acceptin' or considerin' as
disGualified fro! wor7 any wo!an wor7er who contracts !arria'e, runs afoul of
the test of, and the ri'ht a'ainst, discri!ination, which is 'uaranteed all wo!en
wor7ers under the Constitution. Ahile a reGuire!ent that a wo!an e!ployee
!ust re!ain un!arried !ay be 6ustified as a )bona fide occupational
Gualification* where the particular reGuire!ents of the 6ob would de!and the
sa!e, discri!ination a'ainst !arried wo!en cannot be adopted by the e!ployer
as a 'eneral principle.
Se&ton 1<
O+osa vs. Fa&to-an
E2nter'enerational <esponsibility B 2nter'enerational =usticeF the 4J !inors duly
6oined by their respectie parents pleadin' the cause of )inter,'enerational
responsibility* and )inter,'enerational 6ustice*, had a alid cause of action in
Guestionin' the 'rant of Ti!ber :icensin' +'ree!ents "T:+s$ for co!!ercial
lo''in' purposes. The !inors filed the action for the!seles as representin'
)their 'eneration as well as 'enerations yet unborn*. The /C, on the basis of
/ection 1C, +rticle 22 lin7ed with the ri'ht to health, reco'ni?ed a )ri'ht to a
balanced and healthful ecolo'y* and )the correlatie duty to refrain fro! i!pairin'
the eniron!ent*.
LLDA v. CA
The i!!ediate response to the de!ands of necessities of protectin' ital public
interests 'ies itality to the state!ent on ecolo'y e!bodied in the 8eclaration of
Principles and /tate Policies of the 1987 Constitution. +rticle 22, /ection 1C. +s a
constitutionally 'uaranteed ri'ht of eery person, it carries the correlatie duty of
non,i!pair!ent. This is but the consonance with the declared policy of the state
to protect and pro!ote the ri'ht to health of the people and instill health
consciousness a!on' the!.
C>M T!"e- Co-+o-aton vs. Al&ala
>n the issue that the )total lo' ban* is a new policy which should be applied
prospectiely and not affect the ri'hts of petitioner ested under the Ti!ber
:icensin' +'ree!ent "T:+$, the /c held that this is not a new policy but a !ere
reiteration of the policy of conseration and protection the ri'ht to a balanced and
healthful ecolo'y.
Se&ton 1?
PRC vs. De G,z!an
while it is true that the /C has upheld the constitutional ri'ht of eery citi?en to
select a profession or course of study sub6ect to fair, reasonable, and eGuitable
ad!ission and acade!ic reGuire!ents, the e-ercise of this ri'ht !ay be
re'ulated pursuant to the police power of the /tate to safe'uard health, !orals,
peace, education, order, safety and 'eneral welfare. Thus, persons who desire to
en'a'e in the learned professions reGuirin' scientific or technical 7nowled'e !ay
be reGuired to ta7e an e-a!ination as a prereGuisite to en'a'in' in their chosen
careers. This re'ulation assu!es particular pertinence in the field of !edicine, in
order to protect the public fro! the potentially deadly effects of inco!petence
and i'norance.
PMMS2 In&. vs. CA
the Court said that the reGuire!ent that a school !ust first obtain 'oern!ent
authori?ation before operatin' is based on the /tate policy that educational
pro'ra!s andBor operations shall be of 'ood Guality and, therefore, shall at least
satisfy !ini!u! standards with respect to curricula, teachin' staff, physical plant
and facilities and ad!inistratie and !ana'e!ent iability.
Se&ton 1@
%e-na-$o vs. NLRC
The /C held that the .a'na Carta for 8isabled Persons !andates that Gualified
disabled persons be 'ranted the sa!e ter!s and conditions of e!ploy!ent as
Gualified able bodied e!ployees( thus, once hey hae attained the status of
re'ular wor7ers, they should be accorded all the benefits 'ranted by law,
notwithstandin' written or erbal contracts to the contrary. This treat!ent is
rooted not !erely in charity or acco!!odation, but in 6ustice for all.
Se&ton 1A
Ga-&a vs. %OI
B>2 co!!itted 'rae abuse of discretion because it repudiates the independent
policy of 'oern!ent to run its affairs the way it dee!s best for the national
interest.
#ery proision of the Constitution on the national econo!y and patri!ony is
infused with the spirit of national interest. The non,alienation of national
resources, the /tate full control oer the deelop!ent and utili?ation of
contributions to the econo!ic 'rowth and 'eneral welfare of the country and the
re'ulation of forei'n inest!ent in accordance to national 'oals and priorities are
too e-plicit not to be noticed and understood.
Se&ton 7=
Asso&aton o( P)l++ne Co&on,t Des&&ato-s vs. PCA,
the /C said that althou'h the Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it
neertheless reseres to the 5oern!ent the power to interene wheneer
necessary for the pro!otion of the 'eneral welfare as reflected in /ections C P
19 of +rticle 022.
Pest Mana#e!ent Asso&aton o( t)e P)l++nes vs. Fe-tlze- an$ Pest&$e
A,t)o-t., and P)a-!a&e,t&al an$ Healt)
Ca-e Asso&aton o( t)e P)l++nes vs. Se&. D,B,e III
8espite the fact that )our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a
policy*, it neertheless reseres to the 5oern!ent the power to interene
wheneer necessary to pro!ote the 'eneral welfare. Free enterprise does not
call for re!oal of Hprotectie re'ulationsD. 2t !ust be clearly e-plained and
proen by co!petent eidence 6ust e-actly how such protectie re'ulation would
result in the restraint of trade.
Se&ton 71
ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN
REFORM
#!inent do!ain is an inherent power of the /tate that enables it to forcibly
acGuire priate lands intended for public use upon pay!ent of 6ust co!pensation
to the owner. Priate ri'hts !ust yield to the irresistible de!ands of the public
interest on the ti!e,honored 6ustification, as in the case of the policed power, that
the welfare of the people is the supre!e law.
Se&ton 7;
%ASCO 'S PAGCOR
:ocal +utono!y under 1987 Constitution si!ply !eans the decentrali?ation and
does not !a7e the local 'oern!ents soerei'n within the /tate or an i!periu!
i!perio.
LIM%ONA 'S MANGELIN
8ecentrali?ation of ad!inistration is !erely dele'ation of ad!inistratie powers
to the :5Is in order to broaden the base of 'oern!ental power.
8ecentrali?ation of power is the abdication by the national 'oern!ent powers.
Se&ton 7<
Pa!aton# vs. COMELEC
, There is no constitutional ri'ht to run for or hold public office and, particularly, to
see7 the presidency. Ahat is reco'ni?ed is !erely a priile'e sub6ect to
li!itations i!posed by law. /ection 2C, +rticle 22 of the Constitution neither
bestows such a ri'ht nor eleates the priile'e to the leel of an enforceable
ri'ht. There is nothin' in the plain lan'ua'e of the proision which su''ests such
a thrust or 6ustifies an interpretation of the sort. The MeGual accessM proision is a
subsu!ed part of +rticle 22 of the Constitution, entitled M8eclaration of Principles
and /tate Policies.M The proisions under the +rticle are 'enerally considered not
self,e-ecutin', and there is no plausible reason for accordin' a different
treat!ent to the MeGual accessM proision. :i7e the rest of the policies
enu!erated in +rticle 22, the proision does not contain any 6udicially enforceable
constitutional ri'ht but !erely specifies a 'uideline for le'islatie or e-ecutie
action. The disre'ard of the proision does not 'ie rise to any cause of action
before the courts.
Se&ton 8=
Le#s+ vs CSC
The constitutional ri'ht to infor!ation on !atters of public concern is self,
e-ecutin' without the need for any ancillary act of le'islation.
'al!onte vs $e 'lla
The constitutional ri'ht to infor!ation is li!ited on !atters of public concern and
is further sub6ect to such li!itations as !ay be proided by law. @oweer,
althou'h citi?ens are afforded the ri'ht to infor!ation, the Constitution does not
accord the! the ri'ht to co!pel the custodians of official records to prepare lists,
abstracts, su!!aries and the li7e in their desire to acGuire infor!ation of public
concern.
AB,noCSa-!ento vs Mo-ato
, Ahen a co!!ittee or board is created as public in its ery e-istence and
character such as the .T<CB, there can be no alid clai! to priacy. @ere,
decisions of Board and indiidual otin' slips are public in character.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
In -e Manzano
, .e!bers of the /C and other courts shall not be desi'nated to any a'ency
perfor!in' Guasi,6udicial or ad!inistratie functions.
, The co!!ittee perfor!s ad!inistratie functionQ which under /ection 12, +rticle
1222 of the Constitution prohibits !e!bers of the /C and other courts established
by law to be desi'nated to any a'ency perfor!in' Guasi,6udicial or ad!inistratie
functions. To Guote C= Fernando in 5arcia s. .acarai', he said that !hile the
doctrine of separation of po!ers is a relative theory not to be enforced !ith
pedantic rigor" the practical demands of government precluding its doctrine
application" it cannot #ustify a member of the #udiciary being re$uired to assume a
position or perform a duty non%#udicial in character.&
Administrative functions are those !hich involves the regulation and control
the conduct and affairs of individuals for their o!n !elfare and the
promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the
legislative or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the
organic la! of its existence.
An#a-a vs. Ele&to-al Co!!sson
, /eparation of powers as actual diision than obtained throu'h e-press
proision
, =udiciary is the only Constitutional +rbiter to allocate Constitutional Boundaries
, =udicial /upre!acy R supre!acy of the Constitution asserted by the 6udiciary
"not supre!acy of the 6udiciary itself$
, =udicial <eiew is li!ited to +ctual :iti'ation. =udiciary does not pass upon
Guestions of wisdo!, 6ustice or e-pediency of liti'ation.
, The #lectoral Co!!ission is an independent, i!partial, and non,partisan
tribunal. The sole power to deter!ine contests re'ardin' the elections, returns,
and Gualifications of the !e!bers of the %ational +sse!bly has been transferred
in totality to the #lectoral Co!!ission. 2ts power is clear, co!plete, and
e-clusie.
Easte-n S)++n# Lnes2 In&. vs. POEA
, :e'islatie discretion as to the substantie contents of the law cannot be
dele'ated. Ahat can be dele'ated is the discretion to deter!ine how the law
!ay be enforced.
, Co!pleteness test and /ufficient /tandard Test&
Co!pleteness Test R co!plete in all its ter!s and conditions when it leaes the
le'islature such that what is left is !erely its enforce!ent.
/ufficient /tandard Test R adeGuate 'uidelines or li!itations in the law to !ap
out the boundaries of the dele'ateDs authority and preent the dele'ation fro!
runnin' riot.
, /ubordinate :e'islation R dele'ated power to issue rules to carry out the
'eneral proision of the statute. "+d!inistratie bodies i!ple!ent the broad
policies by pro!ul'atin' their supple!entary re'ulations.$
Cas"an# vs. AB,no
, Political Suestion R Guestion of policy( Guestion to be decided by the people in
their soerei'n capacity or full discretionary authority
, =usticiable Suestion R i!plies a 'ien ri'ht, le'ally de!andable and
enforceable( an act or o!ission iolatie of such ri'ht, and a re!edy, 'ranted or
sanctioned by law for said breach of ri'ht.
San$a$ v. COMELEC
>n whether the case is 6usticiable
Political Guestions are associated with the wisdo! of the le'ality of a particular
act. Ahere the orte- of the controersy refers to the le'ality or alidity of the
contested act, that !atter is definitely 6usticiable or non,political. 2f the
Constitution proides how it !ay be a!ended, the 6udiciary as the interpreter of
that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority
assu!ed was alid or not.
>n whether the President !ay propose Constitutional a!end!ents
2f the President has been le'iti!ately dischar'in' the le'islatie functions of the
interi! +sse!bly, there is no reason why he cannot alidly dischar'e the function
of that +sse!bly to propose a!end!ents to the Constitution, which is but an
ad6unct, althou'h peculiar, to its 'ross le'islatie power.
"%ote that at the ti!e Pre?. .arcos had le'islatie powers and there was no
le'islatie depart!ent at the ti!e$
Daza v. Sn#son
Ahere the le'ality or alidity of the act is in Guestion and not the wisdo! of the
act, the Court !ay ta7e 6urisdiction and decide on the actsD alidity. #en in
political Guestions the Court !ay ta7e 6urisdiction under the e-panded 6udicial
power e-tended to it by +rt 8 /ec. 1 of the Constitution.
")=udicial power includes the duty to settle actual controersies inolin' ri'hts
which are le'ally de!andable and enforceable, and to determine !hether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac' or excess of
#urisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government.&(
Dele#aton o( Po0e-s
Ga-&a v. E4e&. Se&-eta-.
The Con'ress !ay authori?e the President to fi- tariff rates and duties sub6ect to
such li!itations and restrictions that they !ay i!pose. This is e-pressly proided
for in +rt C, /ec 28 par 2 of the Constitution.
A-aneta v. Dn#lasan
The dele'ation of e!er'ency powers by Con'ress to the President !ay be
li!ited by Con'ress sub6ect to restrictions it !ay proide. Con'ress !ay
withdraw the dele'ated power at any ti!e. 2n this case, the e!er'ency power
was withdrawn at the ti!e Con'ress beca!e able to e-ercise its le'islatie
duties a'ain.
Easte-n S)++n# Lnes vs. POEA
The principle of non,dele'ation of powers is applicable to all three branches of
'oern!ent specifically in the case of the le'islatie. Ahat can be dele'ated is
the discretion to deter!ine how the law !ay be enforced and not what the law
shall be since the ascertain!ent of the latter sub6ect is within the prero'atie and
deter!ination of the le'islature. 8ele'ation of le'islatie power is per!itted and
alid proided that is passes the two accepted tests, co!pleteness test and the
sufficient standard test. The reason for such dele'ation is the increasin'
co!ple-ity of the tas7 of the 'oern!ent and the 'rowin' inability of the
le'islature to cope directly with the !yriad proble!s de!andin' its attention.
Ro$-#,ez v. Gella
+ct %o. C71 was e-pressly in pursuance of the constitutional li!itation of the
dele'ation of e!er'ency powers. 2t is presu!ed that the %ational +sse!bly
intended it to be for a li!ited period. #-ecutie >rders %os. KJK and KJC, which
was anchored to the said +ct are declared null and oid and the respondents are
ordered to desist fro! appropriatin', releasin' and allottin' e-pendin' funds set
aside therein.
Peo+le v. 'e-a
+ct %o. J221 is tanta!ount to an undue dele'ation of le'islatie power. The
powers of the 'oern!ent are distributed a!on' three coordinate and
substantially independent or'ans& the le'islatie, the e-ecutie and the 6udicial.
#ach of the depart!ents of the 'oern!ent deries its authority fro! the
Constitution.
US vs. An# Tan# Ho
2f the act within itself does not define a cri!e and is not co!plete, le'islatie act
re!ains to be done to !a7e it a law or a cri!e, the doin' of which is ested in
the 5o, 'enerally, the act is a dele'ation of le'islatie power, and is thus
unconstitutional and oid.
Ynot vs. IAC
There is no standard that the officials !ust obsere in deter!inin' to who! to
distribute the confiscated carabaos and carabeef. There is thus an inalid
dele'ation of le'islatie power.
Ta"la-n vs. G,te-ez
Because the necessity standards are set forth in the statute "<+ %o. 2484$, proidin'
for standardi?ation and re'ulation of education, dele'ation is alid.
Pelaez vs. A,$to- Gene-al
The two tests "Co!pleteness test and /ufficient /tandard test$ !ust be applied
to'ether.
A"a5a$a G,-o Pa-t. Lst vs. E-!ta
Ahere the effectiity of the law is !ade dependent on the erification by the e-ecutie
of the e-istence of certain conditions, the erification is dele'ated to the e-ecutie.
"This is an e-a!ple of contingent legislation , a alid dele'ation of law e-ecution$.