Definitions and Doctrines in Political Law

POLITICAL LAW
It is that branch of Public Law which deals with the organization and
operations of the governmental organs of the state and defines its relations
with the inhabitants of its territory. (People v. Perfecto GR L18463 October 4,
1922)
POLITICAL LAW IS A PUBLIC LAW
Hence, it is abrogated (abolished) by the change of sovereignty UNLESS it is
expressly redeemed or subsequently reenacted. People v. Perfecto 43 Phil.
887
It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the
previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated.
"Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating the relations
sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. xxx Every nation acquiring
territory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the Constitution and
laws of its own government, and not according to those of the government
ceding it. Macariola v. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77
Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and later to RP, the
provisions of the Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been
abrogated because where there is a change of sovereignty, the political laws
of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new
sovereign, are automatically abrogated, UNLESS they are expressly reenacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

MUNICIPAL LAW
That which pertains solely to the citizens and inhabitants of a State. Deals
with the CONDUCT or STATUS of Individuals, Corporations, and other
PRIVATE entities within a particular State.

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION
Implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or
omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by
law for said breach of right. (Casibang vs. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642)

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

A political question is one the resolution of which has been vested by the
Constitution exclusively in either the people, in the exercise of their
sovereign capacity, or in which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to a co-equal branch of the Government. Thus, while courts can
determine questions of legality with respect to governmental action, they
cannot review government policy and the wisdom thereof, for these
questions have been vested by the Constitution in the Executive and
Legislative Departments.

CONSTITUTION
The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must
conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials, must defer.
Three (3) parts of a written Constitution
1. Constitution of Sovereignty (Article XVII Amendments and Revisions)
2. Constitution of Liberty (Article III Bill of Rights)
3. Constitution of Government (Article VI, VII, VIII, IX)
It should be interpreted:
1. Verba Legis ordinary meaning of the words used
2. Ratio legis et anima intent of the framers
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat as a whole (Francisco vs HR GR160261
11.10.03)

THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

It is classified as written, enacted and rigid.
Effectivity - The ConCom completed their task on 12 October 1986 and
presented the draft constitution to President Aquino on October 15, 1986.
After a period of nationwide information campaign, a plebiscite for its
ratification was held on FEBRUARY 2, 1987. More than three-fourths of all
votes cast, 76.37% (or 17,059,495 voters) favored ratification as against
22.65% (or 5,058,714 voters) who voted against ratification. On February
11, 1987, the new constitution was proclaimed ratified and took effect. De
Leon v. Esguerra - The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on

February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must

be deemed to have been superseded.
POLITICAL QUESTION of Constitutionality: In Re: Puno June 29, 1992 - It
was through the February 1986 revolution, a relatively peaceful one, and
more popularly known as the people power revolution that the Filipino
people tore themselves away from an existing regime. This revolution also
saw the unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino government. It has been
said that the locus of positive law-making power lies with the people of the
state and from there is derived the right of the people to abolish, to reform
and to alter any existing form of government without regard to the existing
constitution.
JUSTICIABLE QUESTION on EDSA I vs. EDSA II: Estrada v. Arroyo GR
146738 - The Court also distinguished between EDSA People Power I and
EDSA People Power II. EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of
revolution which overthrew the whole government. EDSA II is an exercise of
people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the
government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the
President. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new
government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review,
but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President
that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as President are
subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented political question; EDSA II
involves legal questions.

PEOPLE POWER IS RECOGNIZED IN THE CONSTITUTION

1. Article III Section 4 guarantees the right of the people to peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances;
2. Article VI Section 32 requires congress to pass a law allowing the people
to directly propose of reject any act or law or part of it passed by congress
of a local legislative body
3. Article XIII Section 16 provides that the right of the people and their
organizations to participate in all levels of social, political, and economic
decisions making shall not be abridged and that the Senate shall, by law,
facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms;
4. Article XVII, Section 2 provides that subject to the enactment of an
implementing law, the people my directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through initiative.

CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY DOCTRINE

Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates ANY norm of the
Constitution, that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or
by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private
purposes, is null and void and without any force or effect. Thus, since the
Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation,
it is DEEMED written in every statute and contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v.
GSIS GR 122156 02.03.97)
LEX POSTERIOR DEROGATE PRIORI
In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes
and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution.
(Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000)
THE PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order
to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall
embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve
and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the
blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a
regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.
Origin or authorship is the Will of the Sovereign Filipino People
Scope and Purpose To build a just and human society and to establish a
government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the
common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves
and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the
rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace.
(Bernas)

TERRITORY
Is a fixed portion of the surface of the Earth inhabited by the people of the
State. As an element of the state, it is an area over which a state has
Effective Control.

The PHILIPPINE TERRITORY

The Philippine Archipelago consists of Terrestrial domain, Fluvial domain,
Aerial domain (Sovereignty over airspace extends only until where outer
space begins. 50-100 miles from earth) including its Territorial Sea, Seabed,
Subsoil, Insular Shelves, other Submarine areas All other territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
The waters, around between and connecting different islands of the
Archipelago, regardless of their breadth or dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines. (Article I 2nd Sentence.) Integration of a
group of islands to the sea and their oneness so that together they can
constitute one unit, one country, and one state. An imaginary single baseline
is drawn around the islands by joining appropriate points of the outermost
islands of the archipelago with straight lines and all islands and waters
enclosed within the baseline form part of the territory. Purpose: [1]
Territorial Integrity, [2] National Security, [3] Economic Reasons.

DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION

Discovery alone is not enough. Mere discovery gives only an inchoate right
to the discoverer. For title to finally vest, discovery must be followed by
effective occupation in a reasonable time and attestation of the same.

GROTIUS DOCTRINE OF IMMEMORIAL PRESCRIPTION

Speaks of uninterrupted possession going beyond memory.

THALWEG DOCTRINE
For boundary rivers, in the absence of an agreement between the riparian
states, the boundary line is laid on the middle of the main navigable
channel.

MIDDLE OF THE BRIDGE DOCTRINE

Where there is a bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the
middle or center of the bridge.

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Function:
It is a statement of the basic ideological principles and policies that underlie
the Constitution. As such, the provisions shed light on the meaning of the
provisions of the Constitution and they are the guide for all departments of
the government in the implementation of the Constitution. (Bernas
Comprehensive Reviewer 2011)
Note: As a general rule, these provisions are non-self-executing. But a
provision that is complete in itself, and provides sufficient rules for the
exercise of rights is self-executing.
STATE
It is a community of persons more or less numerous (PEOPLE), permanently
occupying a definite portion of TERRITORY, independent of external control
(SOVEREIGNTY), and possessing an organized GOVERNMENT to which the
great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.
State v. Nation : State is a legal concept ; Nation is a ethnic concept.

PEOPLE
as an element of a state, simply means a community of persons sufficient in
number and capable of maintaining the continued existence of the
community and held together by a common bond of law. It is of no legal
consequence if they possess diverse racial, cultural, or economic interest.
(Bernas Comprehensive Reviewer 2011). People as used in the Constitution:
[1] as Inhabitants - Article II, Section 15, 16; Article III, Section 2; Article
XIII, Section 1; [2] as Electors - Article VII, Section 4; Article XVI, Section
2; Article XVIII, Section 25); [3] as Citizens - Article II, Section 4; Article
III, Section 7.

SOVEREIGNTY supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a Sate by

which the state is governed.
Legal is the supreme power to affect legal interests either by legislative,
executive or judicial action. Lodged in the people but normally exercised by
state agencies.

Political is the sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and non-legal,
which determine the course of law.
Internal Sovereignty refers to the power of the State to control its
domestic affairs. It is the supreme power over everything within its territory.
External Sovereignty Also known as INDEPENDECE, which is freedom from
external control. It is the power of the State to direct its relations with other
States.
Characteristics It is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute,
indivisible, inalienable, and imprescriptible. BUT, in the case of Tanada v.
Angara, it was held that sovereignty of a state cannot be absolute. It is
subject to limitations imposed by membership in the family of nations and
limitations imposed by treaties. The Constitution did not envision a hermittype isolation of the country from the rest of the world. (2000 Bar Question)

GOVERNMENT is that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an

independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are
necessary to enable men to live in a social state or which are imposed upon
the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority
of prescribing them. (US v. Dorr 2 Phil 332)
Functions: [1] Constituent compulsory because it constitute the very
bonds of society. [2] Ministrant undertaken to advance general interest of
society
Classification: de jure has rightful title but no power or control, either: a]
because same has been withdrawn from it; OR b] because same has not yet
actually entered into the exercise thereof. de facto actually exercises
power or control but without legal title.

It was held in Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino that
the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government
of President Corazon Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country
so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure
government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the
legitimacy of the present government.

PARENS PATRIAE DOCTRINE

the government as guardian of the rights of the people may initiate legal
actions for and in behalf of particular individual. (Government of the
Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 SCRA 738)

DEMOCRATIC and REPUBLICAN STATE

Republican State is wherein all government authority emanates from the
people and is exercised by representatives chosen by the people. (Bernas
Comprehensive Reviewer 2011). Democratic State - In view of the new
Constitution the Philippines is not only a representative or republican sate
but also shares some aspect of direct democracy such as INITIATIVE and
REFERENDUM in Article VI Section 32 and Article XVIII Section 2. (Bernas
Comprehensive Reviewer 2011)

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
The rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no
legislative action is required to make them applicable to a country. The
Philippines follows this doctrine, because Section 2. Article II of the
constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land. However, the
doctrine dictates that rules of international law are given equal standing
with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments.

DOCTRINE OF AUTOLIMITATION
The doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international law
as a limitation to the exercise of its sovereignty.

DOCTRINE OF SUABILITY / STATE IMMUNITY

Under this doctrine, the State cannot be sued without its consent.
The State may not be sued without its consent. (Sec 3, Art XVI) There can
be no legal right as against the authority that makes the laws on which the
right depends. [Kawananakoa v. Polyblank 205 US 349] also called the
doctrine of Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty. If the State is amenable to suits,
all its time would be spent defending itself from suits and this would prevent
it from performing it other functions. [Republic v. Villasor]

JUDICIAL POWER
Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes
involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of
justice or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. Vested in the
Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. Since
the courts are given judicial power and nothing more, courts may neither
attempt to assume or be compelled to perform non-judicial functions. They
may not be charged with administrative functions except when reasonably
incidental to the fulfillment of their duties.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
The power of the SC to declare a law, treaty, ordinance and other
governmental act unconstitutional.
Requisites: [1] Actual Case or Controversy; [2] Proper Party (Locus Standi);
[3] Earliest Opportunity; [4] Necessity of deciding constitutional questions

DOCTRINE OF PURPOSEFUL HESITATION

This is about the Symbolic function of the court. It means that the court
would not decide on matters which are considered political questions. This
focus on the necessity of resolving Judicial Review. Furthermore, in
questions of constitutionality, Supreme Court will not rule right away
because the Supreme Court assumes that the Law passed the two
departments already, thus, it went through process of determining its
constitutionality

INTER-GENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY DOCTRINE

The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the
legal standing to file the case based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility. Their right to a healthy environment carried with it an
obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In
this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future
generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of contracts
must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest
of public welfare.

NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS Clause

When does a law impair the obligation of contracts:
1) If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract either as to the
time or mode of performance
2) If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed
3) If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided
in its terms.
A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the
substance of the contract, and which still leaves an efficacious remedy for
enforcement does NOT impair the obligation of contracts.
A valid exercise of police power is superior to obligation of contracts.

SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE

This principle operated as an implicit limitation on legislative powers as on
the two other powers. In essence, separation of powers means the
legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive, settlement of
legal controversies to the judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the
domain of the others. But the separation is not total. The system allows for
checks and balances the net effect of which being that, in general, no one
department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other
departments.
Purpose: To prevent concentration of powers in one department and thereby
to avoid tyranny. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the
inevitable friction incident to the distribution of governmental powers among
the three departments, to save the people from autocracy. [1] To secure
action; [2] To forestall overaction; [3] To prevent despotism; and [4] To
obtain efficiency

PRINCIPLE OF BLENDING OF POWERS

Instances when powers are not confined exclusively within one department
but are assigned to or shared by several departments.

CHECKS AND BALANCES PRINCIPLE

This allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogative or
to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments. The
first and safest criterion to determine whether a given power has been
validly exercised by a particular department is whether or not the power has
been constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming its exercise
since the conferment is usually done expressly. However, even in the
absence of express conferment, the exercise of the power may be justified
under the doctrine of necessary implication. The grant of express power
carried with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

ORIGIN OF THE REVENUE BILL

ART. VI Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
increase of public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall
originate EXCLUSIVELY in the the HOR, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
It is the power of the President to withhold certain
information from the public, the courts, and the Congress.

types

of

ART. VI Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative,
with the consent
of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each
House shall
provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter
pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the
President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at
least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not
be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto.
When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the
President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in
executive session.
DOCTRINE IN MARBURY V. MADISON
The case of Marbury v. Madison established the doctrine of judicial review as
a core legal principle in American constitutional system: So if a law be in
opposition to the constitution; of both the law and the constitution apply to a

particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably
to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution,
disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting
rules governs the case. This is the very essence of judicial duty.

MONSANTO DOCTRINE
One who is given pardon has no demandable right to reinstatement. He may
however be reappointed.

DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT

In Yap v. Thenamaris Ships Management, the Operative Fact Doctrine was
discussed in that:
As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is
inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. The general rule is supported
by Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or
non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the
contrary.
The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned
general rule. In Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, we held:
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only
applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an
unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a
determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be
erased by a new judicial declaration.
The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will
impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. Thus,
it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality
would put the accused in double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts
done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating it.
In that case, this Court further held that the Operative Fact Doctrine will not
be applied as an exception when to rule otherwise would be iniquitous and
would send a wrong signal that an act may be justified when based on an
unconstitutional provision of law.

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY / ALTER EGO DOCTRINE

Acts of the Secretaries of Executive departments when performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business or unless disapproved or
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v. Secretary of the
Interior). The President can assume a Cabinet post, (because the
departments are mere extensions of his personality, according to the
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency, so no objection can be validly raised
based on Sec. 13, Art VII.)

QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY DOCTRINE (ALSO ALTER EGO PRINCIPLE)

all the different executive and administrative organizations are mere
adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive
departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in
cases wherein the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or by the
law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act
personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the
Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments.,
performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless
disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively acts of the
Chief Executive. (Free Telephone Workers Union vs. Minister of Labor and
Employment)

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no
judicial recourse can be made until all such remedies have been availed of
and exhausted.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a claim
is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone. Judicial
interference is withheld until the administrative process has been completed.
As stated in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 426.

PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE DOCTRINE / DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESORT

Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon administrative body
to act upon a matter, no resort to courts may be made before such
administrative body shall have acted upon the matter

DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

No resort to courts will be allowed unless administrative action has been
completed and there is nothing left to be done in the administrative
structure.

BRANDEIS DOCTRINE OF ASSIMILATION OF FACTS

Where what purports to be a finding upon a question of fact is so involved
with and dependent upon a question of law as to be in substance and effect
a decision on the latter, the court will, in order to decide the legal question,
examine the entire record including the evidence if necessary.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a case is within the
concurrent jurisdiction of the court and an administrative agency but the
determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the
administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the
jurisdiction of the court, it must yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative
case.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE
Regarded as an elementary principle of higher importance in the
administration of justice that the judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction may not be opened, modified, or vacated by any court of
concurrent jurisdiction (30-A Am Jur 605).

DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

A municipality may become obligated upon an implied contract to pay
the reasonable value of the benefits accepted or appropriated by it as to
which it has the general power to contract (Province of Cebu vs. IAC, 147
SCRA 447).
The doctrine applies to all cases where money or property of a party is
received under such circumstances that the general law, independent of an

express contract, implies an obligation to do justice with respect to the

same.
Thus, in this case, the Province of Cebu cannot set up the plea that the
contract was ultra vires and still retain benefits thereunder. Having regarded
the contract as valid for purposes of reaping benefits, the Province of Cebu is
estopped to question its validity for the purpose of denying answerability.

DOCTRINE OF RATIFICATION
Although the act of a public officer may not be binding on the State because
he has exercised his powersdefectively, his acts may be ratified.
Exceptions:
[1] Where there is a want of power in the public officer to perform the
original act
[2] The actwas absolutely void at the time. However if the act is merely
voidable, it can be rendered valid
[3] If the principal himself could not lawfully have done the act, or if it could
not have been lawfully done by anyone.

DOCTRINE OF OFFICIAL IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITIES

In re: Gonzales A public officer who under the Constitution is required to
be a member of the Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by
him cannot be charged with disbarment during his incumbency. He cannot
be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan, or are other court, with
any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office.
Members of the Supreme Court are removed only by impeachment. They are
not entitled to immunity from liability. They must first be removed, via the
constitutional route of impeachment, and then only may he be held liable
either criminally or administratively (including disbarment), for any wrong.

DOCTRINE OF REJECTION OF 2ND PLACER

Geronimo v Ramos - Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are
filled by those who havereceived the highest number of votes cast in the
election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in allrepublican forms of
government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be
declaredcarried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal

votes cast in the election. COMELECcannot name the 2nd placer as the
winner. Follow the hierarchy of positions instead.

DOCTRINE OF PROPER SUBMISSION

Plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election (Gonzales v.
COMELEC GR L28196 Nov. 1967), provided the people are sufficiently
informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate
thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-meal
amendments is unconstitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for
ratification at one plebiscite only. The people have to be given a proper
frame of reference in arriving at their decision. They have no idea yet of
what the rest of the amended constitution would be. (Tolentino v. Comelec
GR L34150 Oct. 16 1971)

DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION

Grant of an express power carries with it all other powers that may be
reasonably inferred from it.

DOCTRINE OF SHIFTING MAJORITY

For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of
those present in the session, there being a quorum, is required.

DOCTRINE OF INAPPRORIATE PROVISION

A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may
be singled out for veto even if it is not an appropriation or revenue item.
(Gonzales v. Macaraig)
Reason for the Doctrine : The intent behind the doctrine is to prevent the
legislature from forcing the government to veto an entire appropriation law
thereby paralyzing government.
Inappropriate Provisions - Repeal of laws. Repeal of laws should not be done
in appropriation act but in a separate law (PHILCONSA v. Enriquez) (use this
doctrine carefully)

DOCTRINE OF AUGMENTATION

Prohibition against transfer of appropriations, however the following may,

by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations
law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations:
1. President
2. Senate President
3. Speaker of the HoR
4. Chief Justice
5. Heads of Constitutional Commissions.

THEORY OF RELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALITY

The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by
a mere comparison of its provisions with applicable provisions of the
Constitution, since the statute may be constitutionally valid as applied to one
set of facts and invalid in its application to another. A statute valid at one
time may become void at another time because of altered circumstances.
Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory,
its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to inquiry
and investigation in the light of changed conditions (Central Bank Employee
Assn, Inc. vs. BSP, GR 148208, Dec. 15, 2004).

OVER-BREADTH DOCTRINE
Decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which
sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms.

VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE

A criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair
notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute, or is so
indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions is
void for vagueness. The constitutional vice in a vague or indefinite statute is
the injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature
of which he is given no fair warning.

A law is vague as not to satisfy the due process need for notice when it
lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application or is so
indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions.

It is injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature
of which he is given no fair warning.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

The objects within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position
to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence
(open to the eye and hand). Finds application only when the incriminating
nature of the object
is in the plain view of the police officer.
~ It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly
exposed to sight. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed
container. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object
itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant.
However, if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive
configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer,
then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. In other words, if the
package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its
appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed
in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items
that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure. (People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668)
Requisites:
1. Valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the
right to be where they are;
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent; and
4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT / BORJAL DOCTRINE

Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute

a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. It means that while in
general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false,
because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved,
and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the
discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public
capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable
imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false
allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment
is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, it is immaterial that
the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably inferred
from the facts. (Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1)
BALANCING OF INTEREST DOCTRINE
Privilege Not Absolute
: Claim of executive privilege is subject to balancing against other interest.
In other words, confidentiality in executive privilege is not absolutely
protected by the Constitution. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers,
nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more,
can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from
judicial process under all circumstances. A claim of executive privilege does
not guard against a possible disclosure of a crime or wrongdoing (Neri v.
Senate).

MIRANDA DOCTRINE
The Miranda Doctrine or the Miranda Warning provides that:
1. A person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear and
unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent and that anything
he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
2. He or she has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with
him during the interrogation;
3. If he cannot afford a lawyer, like if he is an indigent, a lawyer shall be
appointed by the State to represent him;
4. His right to counsel is available at any stage of the interrogation, hence,
even if he consents to answer questions without the assistance of counsel,
the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point of the investigation, the
interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. If the above are not
observed, the evidence obtained therefrom shall not be admissible in court.

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES DOCTRINE

[This doctrine though is commonly used
warrantless search and seizure cases]

in warrantless

arrest

and

The ECD basically provides that the normal procedures and rules of court in
the admissibility of evidence may be disregarded in exigent circumstances
like when there is a coup detat. The rationale is the same as with PSC, that
is to protect public safety or national security. This doctrine was used in the
1994 case of People vs Rolando De Gracia (GR Nos. 102009-10). The
accused therein was subjected to a warrantless search and seizure sometime
in 1989 during the height of the coup attempts against then President Cory
Aquino. Confiscated from him were various explosives and ammunition. De
Gracia contested the warrantless search and seizure but the Supreme Court
ruled that the search warrant can be dispensed with due to the exigent
circumstances attendant to the case.

POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE

Exclusionary Rule
- Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him (the accused). Therefore, any evidence
obtained by virtue of an illegally obtained confession is also inadmissible,
being the fruit of a poisonous tree.

DOCTRINE OF SUPEREVENING EVENT

Prosecution for another offense if subsequent development changes the
character of the first indictment under which he may have already been
charged or convicted. Conviction of accused shall not bar another
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense originally
charged when:
1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same
act or omission;
2. Facts constituting graver offense arose or discovered only after filing of
former complaint or information; and
3. Plea of guilty to lesser offense was made without the consent of
prosecutor or offended party.

Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006, for double
jeopardy to attach, the case against the accused must have been dismissed
or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon a valid information sufficient in form and substance and
the accused pleaded to the said charge.
MELO DOCTRINE The rule of identity does not apply when the second
offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the
simple reason that in such case, there is no possibility for the accused,
during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then
inexistent. Thus, where the accused was charged with physical injuries and
after conviction, the injured person dies, the charged for homicide against
the same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy.

DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

Superior officer is liable for acts of subordinate when:
1. he negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or incompetent
subordinates
2. he negligently or willfully fails to require subordinate to conform to
prescribed regulations
3. he negligently or carelessly oversees business of office as to furnish
subordinate an opportunity for default
4. he directed or authorized or cooperated in the wrong
5. law makes himself expressly liable

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION DOCTRINE

Power of administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations on
matters of their own specialization.

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings and not to the exercise of purely administrative functions.
Administrative proceedings are non-litigious and summary in nature; hence,

res judicata does not apply. [Nasipit Lumber Co. v NLRC (1989)]. The
essential requisites of res judicata are:
1. The former judgment must be final;
2. It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties;
3. It must be a judgment on the merits; and
4. There must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action.
[Ipekdijan Merchandising v CTA (1963)]

VARIANCE DOCTRINE
Is that a crime charged includes crime proved, convict of crime proved. Also
applies when crime proved includes crime charged, convict of crime charged.

RIPENESS FOR REVIEW DOCTRINE

1. This determines the point at which courts may review administrative
action.
2. Application:
[a] when the interest of the plaintiff is subjected to or imminently threatened
with substantial injury
[b] if the statute is self-executory
[c] when a party is immediately confronted with the problem of complying or
violating a statute and there is a risk of criminal penalties
[d] when plaintiff is harmed by the vagueness of the statute.

REGALIAN DOCTRINE
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other
minerals oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber,
wildlife, flora, and fauna and natural resources belong to the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. (Sec. 2 Art XII)

STEWARDSHIP DOCTRINE
Private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for
the people in general, who are its real owners.

DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION
The generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon
the State but must first be embodied in legislation enacted by the lawmaking
body and so transformed into municipal law. Only when so transformed will
they become binding upon the State as part of its municipal law.

PACTA SUN SERVANDA

Treaties must be observed in good faith. If necessary, the State concerned
must even modify its national legislation and constitution to make them
conform to the treaty to avoid international embarrassment.

REBUS SIC STANTIBUS

A contracting states obligations under a treaty terminates when a vital or
fundamental change or circumstance occurs, thus allowing a state to
unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, because of the disappearance of the
foundation upon which it rests

WILSON DOCTRINE
recognition shall not be extended to any government established by
revolution or internal violence until the freely elected representatives of the
people have organized a constitutional government.

ESTRADA DOCTRINE
the Mexican government declared that it would, as it saw fit, continue or
terminate its diplomatic relations with any country in which a political
upheaval had taken place and in so doing it would not pronounce judgment
on the right of the foreign state to accept, maintain or replace its
government. (Cruz, International Law, 2003 ed.) (In view of recent
developments, the Wilson doctrine and the Estrada doctrine are no longer in
the mainstream of public international law.)

INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE DOCTRINE

an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality
notwithstanding that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws
of the second state whose nationality he has acquired.

HOT PURSUIT DOCTRINE

Requisites:
a. Pursuit commences from internal waters,territorial sea or contiguous zone
ofpursuing state
b. Continuous and unabated
c. Conducted by warship, military aircraft orgovernment ships, authorized for
the purpose
d. Ceases as soon as the ship being pursued enters the territorial sea of its
own, or of a third state

DOCTRINE OF FREE ENTERPRISE

Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide
Authority, G.R. No. 156041, February 21, 2007 and Pharmaceutical and
Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III, G.R. No.
173034, October 9, 2007, it was held that despite the fact that our present
Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves
to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote
the general welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of protective
regulations. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence
just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of
trade.

WILSON/TOBAR DOCTRINE
Precludes recognition of government established by revolution, civil war,
coup detat or other forms of internal violence until freely elected
representatives of the people have organized a constitutional government
(US President Woodrow Wilson and Ecuadorian FM) [2004 Bar]

STIMSON DOCTRINE

Precludes recognition of any government established as a result of external

aggression (US Sec. Of State Henry Stimson)

ESTRADA DOCTRINE
Dealing or not dealing with the government established through a political
upheaval is not a judgment on the legitimacy of the said government
(Mexican Minister Genaro Estrada) [2004 Bar]

DOCTRINE OF INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE

an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality although he
has already renounced it under the laws of another state whose nationality
he has acquired

DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY

(Art. 5, Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws) a
person having more than one nationality shall be treated as if he had only
oneeither the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and
principally resident or the nationality of the country with which, in the
circumstances, he appears to be most closely connected (Frivaldo vs. Comel