CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

MIDTERM REVIEWER

BONUS QUESTIONS

National Territory
Under Article I of the 1987 Constitution, the National Territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

Exceptions of Non-Delegation of Legislative Powers

1. Delegation to the People at Large
Under the law, legislative power can be delegated to the people at large in terms of amending, repealing and enacting of laws. This is
provided for in the Initiative and Referendum Act.

2. Emergency Powers Delegated to the President

The Constitution provides for the Emergency Legislative powers of the President. However, the exercise of such power is subject to certain
considerations. First, there must be an actual national emergency or a declaration of the existence of war. Second, the powers is only temporary or
for a limited period of time. Third, it must be subject to limitations as prescribed by Congress. Last, the purpose is to carry out a national policy
declared by the Congress.

3. Tariff Powers Delegated to the President

Under the Constitution, the President has the power to fix, within specified limits, the tariff rates in order to immediately address to
economic issues. This power is further for provided in the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines.

4. Delegation to the Administrative Bodies

Considering that laws passed by the Congress are generally broad, the Administrative bodies are vested by law to exercise legislative
power in matters pertaining to filling in the statutes. This is manifested in the formulation of the Implementing Rules and Regulations in order to
fully implement the Statute and attain its purpose.

5. Delegation to the Local Government Units

Under the law, local government units are granted with subordinate legislation. This gives the local government units through the
barangay council, municipal or city council (Sangguniang Bayan or Sangguniang Lungsod), provincial council (Sangguniang Panlalawigan) and
Autonomous Regional Assembly, to enact ordinances pertaining to local administration.

Legislative Oversight Functions

1. Legislative Investigation
Under this oversight function, the Congress is vested by the Constitution to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation. It is presumed that the
Congress needs all the necessary information in order to effectively enact laws that will address the pressing need of the people and the
government. The Congress has the power to issue subpoena and to hold in contempt in relation to the exercise of this power.

2. Legislative Scrutiny
Under this oversight function, the Congress is vested by the Constitution to scrutinize the acts of other government instrumentalities. This
includes the confirmation of Presidential Appointees, the Budget Hearing or Deliberations, and the question hour as provided in Art VI, Section 22
of the Constitution.
Question Hour is the power of the Congress to invite the members of the Cabinet to answer for particular questions. This is however
subject to the approval or consent of the President.

3. Legislative Supervision
Under this oversight function, the Congress exercises post-enactment participation. Example is the legislative veto in which the Congress
gains the power to approve or disapprove the Implementing Rules and Regulations formulated by different administrative bodies. This function is
however ruled to be unconstitutional. Since, it is a clear violation of the constitutional provision for separation of powers, having an impermissible
encroachment on the executive branch as ruled in the case of Abakada Guro vs Purisima.

Executive Privilege Communication

Under the law, this refers to the privilege of the President to withhold information from the people, and the other two branches of the
government. This is rooted in the principle of the separation of powers.

1. State Secret’s Privilege

This privilege of the President refers to the communication pertaining to military, diplomatic and matters pertaining to national security.
This gives the President the privilege to withhold information on matters which may impair or endanger the existence of the State as well as on the
international dealings of the country.

2. Informer’s Privilege
This privilege grants the government to withhold the information or identities pf persons who are acting as informers in order to
implement polices pertaining to criminal justice. This enables the police to do their job on defeating crime and maintaining peace and order.

3. General Privilege on Internal Deliberation

This privilege refers to the communication within a particular government agency or instrumentality. Under this, all information
pertaining to internal process in order to formulate or implement a government projects or policy could be withheld until the finality of the
proceedings or policy making.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Political Law-—is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the State and
defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory.

2. Subjects Under Political Law

A. Constitutional Law- is the study of the maintenance of the proper balance between the authority as represented by the three inherent
powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
B. Public International Law
C. Administrative Law
D. Law of Public Officers
E. Election Law
F. Law on Municipal Corporations

II. THE CONSTITUTION

According to Cooley, Constitution is “that body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of the sovereignty are habitually
exercised”.
Justice Malcolm defined constitution as “the written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of
the government are established, limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and
useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic.”
The purpose of the constitution is to prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign to the several departments
their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain first fixed principles on which the government is founded.
It should be stressed that when it comes to certain basic individual rights, such as religious freedom, it is not the Constitution that creates or
confer them. The correct view is that the Constitution merely recognizes and protects these rights and does not bring them into existence.
The Constitution is not “the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause but
the consequence of personal and political freedom.”

CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

A. Written or unwritten - A written constitution is one whose precepts are embodied in one document or set of documents. An unwritten
constitution consists of rules which have not been integrated into a single, concrete form but are scattered into various sources.

B. Evolved or enacted - A conventional constitution is an enacted constitution, formally “struck off” at a definite time and place following a
conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler. A cumulative constitution is the result of a political evolution “not inaugurated at
any specific time but changing by accretion rather than by any systematic method.”

C. Rigid or flexible - A rigid constitution is one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process. A flexible constitution is one that
can be changed by ordinary legislation.

QUALITIES OF A GOOD WRITTEN CONSTITUTION

A. Broad. It must be broad not only because it provides for the organization of the entire government and covers all persons and things within the
territory of the State but more so because it is supposed to embody the past, to reflect the present, and to anticipate the future. The constitution
must be comprehensive enough to provide for any contingency.

B. Brief. It must be brief and confine itself to basic principles to be implemented with legislative details more adjustable to change and easier to
amend.

C. Definite. It must be clear and definite lest ambiguity in its provisions result in confusion and divisiveness among the people, and perhaps even
physical conflict.

ESSENTIAL PARTS OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION

A. Constitution of Liberty- a series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on
the powers of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights. (Articles II, III, IV, V, and XII)

B. Constitution of Government- a series of provisions outlining the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain
rules relative to its administration, and defining the electorate. (Articles VI to XI)

C. Constitution of Sovereignty- provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law
may be brought about. (Article XVII)

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Case of Nitafan vs CIR, the fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that the
intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it should be given effect. The primary task in constitutional construction is to
ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. It may also be
safely assumed that the people in ratifying the Constitution were guided mainly by the explanation offered by the framers.

SELF-EXECUTING AND NON-SELF-EXECUTING PROVISIONS

Self-executing provision is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation.
Not selfexecuting if merely sets forth a line of policy or principles without supplying the means to be effectuated, or if the language of the
constitution is directed to the legislature. It remains dormant unless activated by legislative implementation.
Based on the ruling on Manila Prince Hotel, in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-
executing. Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing.

EFFECTIVITY OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION (Sec 27, Art XVIII)

SEC 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the
purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.

In the ruling on the case of De Leon vs Esguerra, 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.
LAWS AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS PRIOR THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTION (Sec 3 and 4, Art XVIII)
Section 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this
Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.

Section 4. All existing treaties or international agreements which have not been ratified shall not be renewed or extended without the concurrence
of at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

AMMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS (Sec 1 to 4, Art XVII)

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members;
or (2) A constitutional convention.

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per
centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered
voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than
once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members,
submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.

Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

AMENDMENT VS REVISION
Two-Part test:
The quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the
constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions." The court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not
consider the degree of the change.

The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will
"accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision." Whether there is an alteration in
the structure of government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus, "a change in the nature of [the] basic governmental plan" includes "change in its
fundamental framework or the fundamental powers of its Branches." A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also includes changes
that "jeopardize the traditional form of government and the system of check and balances."

“Revision” is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document [Constitution]. It may result in the rewriting whether the
whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps some of its important provisions. But whatever results the revision may produce, the
factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention and plan must
contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution to determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole
document should be replaced with an entirely new one.
“Amendment” of the Constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change or only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to
amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to improve
specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it
that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect. (SINCO, Vicente, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW)

PROCEDURE IN THE AMENDMENT AND REVISION

1. Proposal
 Amendment
 By Congress seating as a Constituent Assembly (vote of ¾ of all members of Congress may propose to the people for ratification)
 By a Constitutional Convention (called by 2/3 vote of Congress, or thrown to people by majority vote of Congress) may propose an
amendment to the people for ratification. The Congress may also enact a law fixing the requirement or procedure to be followed by the
ConCon.
 By People's Initiative (12% of all registered voters with 3% of registered voters in each legislative district). In accordance with the
Constitution and RA 6735 or Initiative and Referendum Act (Based on the SC Decision on the MR on Lambino vs Comelec, RA 6735 is
sufficient to facilitate the amendment on the Constitution by people’s initiative. However, on Santiago vs Comelec, an earlier case, SC
ruled that 6735 is not sufficient and incomplete.)
 Revision
 By Congress
 By a Constitutional Convention

2. Ratification (majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite; 60-90 days)

 Ratified by a vote of majority in a plebiscite, within 60-90 days from approval of Con Ass or Con Con or certification from comelec of the
sufficiency of the petition
 Ratification must conform with the doctrine of proper submission. As in the case of Tolentino vs Comelec, proposal to amend must be
complete and not in a piecemeal.

DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY

Under this doctrine, the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute
and contract.

REQUISITES FOR AN AMENDMENT BY “PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE” IS SUFFICIENT IN FORM AND IN SUBSTANCE

In the case of LAMBINO vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
1. The people must author and must sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign for and on their behalf;
2. As an initiative upon a petition, THE PROPOSAL MUST BE EMBODIED IN A PETITION.
 These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who will express their
assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition
“only if the people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS

The SC has the power to review the proposal based on the procedure that was carried out. The limitation is to whether or not the provisions
provided for in the Constitution (Article XVII) are carried out.

III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

National Territory (Art I)

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
Under this doctrine, the Philippines is regarded as one integrated unit instead of being divided into more than 7 000 islands. This
assertion, together with the application of the straight baseline method forms the Philippine Archipelago.

STRAIGHT LINE BASELINE METHOD

Under this method, in order to determine the extent of an archipelagic country, straight line shall be drawn connecting all the outermost
points of the outermost islands. Every straight line (baseline) must be at most 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3% of the total number of
baselines may exceed 125 miles.
Under the UNCLOS, within 12 nautical miles from the baseline constitutes the territorial sea, 24 NM the contiguous zones for enforcement
of fiscal, immigration, sanitary, and customs laws, and 200 NM the EEZ or Exclusive Economic Zone in which the Philippines has the right to exploit
all the living and no-living resources. Within the territorial sea, foreign countries have the right of innocent passage.

ROCK vs ISLAND
Under the UNCLOS, an island has territorial sea, contiguous zone and EEZ while a rock only has territorial sea.

Doctrine of State Immunity (Art XVI, Sec 3)

The State may not be sued without its consent.
Under our Constitution the principle of immunity of the government from suit is expressly provided in Article XVI, Section 3. The principle
is based on the very essence of sovereignty and on the practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law
on which the right depends. It also rests on reasons of public policy — that public service would be hindered, and the public endangered, if the
sovereign authority could be subjected to law suits at the instance of every citizen and consequently controlled in the uses and dispositions of the
means required for the proper administration of the government.

ENTITLEMENT OF IMMUNITY: JUSTICIABLE OR POLITICAL QUESTION?

Generally, entitlement to immunity is a political question. This is applicable when the executive branch of the government grants
immunity to particular person, both natural and juridical. Once the executive grants immunity, the judiciary respects it so as not to embarrass the
co-equal branch of government.
However, immunity is no longer absolute, but rather restrictive. If the acts are jure imperii or official acts, immunity is valid. But if jure
gestionis, immunity becomes justiciable. This is in application to the case of Holy See vs Rosario. It was ruled that the Holy See is immune from suit
being recognized by the republic for so many years as an equal state. And in the case of Liang vs People, although immune being an employee or
agent of the ADB, an international company granted with immunity, the entitlement was still subject to judicial determination as to whether act was
jure imperii or jure gestionis.

IMMUNITY OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

The reason behind the granting of immunity to international organization is an assurance of the unimpeded performance of the
concerned agency/organization by protecting it from possible harassment or unwarranted influence of the host nation. The immunity is granted by
the government in accordance with Art II, Sec 2 of the Constitution and that of the Public International Law such as the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations. Examples of International organizations are ADB, IRRI, UN Specialized Agencies such as WHO and UNRFNRE (UN Revolving
Fund for Natural Resources and Exploration), SEAFDEC (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center) and ICMC (International Catholic Migration
Commission). As with the IRRI, Immunity could be waived expressly by the Director-General or his authorized representative as in the case of
Callado vs IRRI.

IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Pertaining to INCORPORATED GOVT AGENCIES, they shall only be suable if their charter says so. However, as in the case of Fontanilla vs
Maliaman, an incorporated govt agency performing proprietary function shall be suable when the charter does not provide for its waiver of
immunity.
Pertaining to UNINCORPORATED GOVT AGENCIES, they shall not be suable if performing governmental functions unless the waived. But if
for proprietary functions, they shall be suable regardless of waiver or non-waiver as in the case of Civil Aeronautics Administration vs CA.

SUABILITY NOT AN OUTRIGHT LIABILITY

State suability can be granted by the act of congress. As in the case of Meritt vs Govt of Phl Is, a special law was enacted authorizing a
citizen to sue the government in relation to damages caused by a special agent. However, suability is not outright liability. Liability is still subject to
judicial determination and the payment of damages is not outright since public funds cannot be used to pay instant damages unless authorized by
law.

WAIVER OF STATE IMMUNITY

Waiver of state immunity could not be lightly inferred and must be stated in strictissimi juris considering that it is a surrender of a
supreme power.

EXPRESS CONSENT (In cases given by the Phil Gov)

1. General Law
Express consent is given in accordance with the conditions set forth in Act No. 3083 such as liability from contracts. As in the case of UP vs
Dizon, specific procedures are laid down for “all money claims only” against the government arising from liabilities incurred in contracts. Procedure
in accordance with Act No 3083 in relation with CA 327 as amended by Sec 49-50 of PD 1445:
a. File a complaint before the COA
b. COA shall decide within 60 days from the date of filing or the last filing of necessary comments from other concerned
persons/parties
 c. Appeal on COA’s decision shall be filed on the SC within 30 days from receipt
d. Implementation of claim shall be brought to the DBM for the inclusion in the next appropriation to be passed by Congress
e. In the event the DBM or Congress refuses to include the claim in the appropriation, a petition before the SC could be prayed for.

2. Special Law
The NCC provides for the liability of the State in cases of quasi-delicts and in the event the injury in caused by a special agent. As for death
or injury arising from defects on roads, streets and other public works, LGU with jurisdiction shall be liable such as barangay, municipal or province
for defects in barangay, municipal or provincial road respectively. The claim shall not be instituted before the COA but be brought directly to court
for litigation.

 Act No. 3083 and CA 327 as amended by Secs. 49-50, PD 1445: money claims arising from contracts first filed with COA before suit may be
filed in court;
 Art. 2180, NCC: Tort committed by special agent;
 Art. 2189, NCC: LGU's liable for injuries or death caused by defective condition of roads or public works under their control;
 Sec. 22 (2) of RA 7160 (LGC of 1991): LGU's have the power to sue and be sued;
 Sec. 24 of LGC: LGU's and their officers are not exempt from liability for death or injury or damage to property;
 Special Laws: See Meritt vs Govt. of the Philippine Islands, 34 Phil 311.

IMPLIED CONSENT
1. By entering into a business contract (suit against foreign government)
Under the Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity, the contract must be acts jure imperii in order to invoke immunity; otherwise, State
shall be subject to suit. That is if a contract between a foreign government is in its official functions such as to protect its citizen, as in the case of
USA vs Ruiz, implied consent is not appreciated. Entering into a contract can only constitute an implied consent if the contract is proprietary in
nature.

2. By commencing a suit (Govt files a suit against a private person)

As in the case of Froilan vs Pan Oriental, the government instituted a suit against Pan Oriental, thereby impliedly granting consent for Pan
Oriental to institute a counterclaim, which is a civil suit in itself.

CONSENT TO BE SUED DOES NOT MEAN CONSENT TO EXECUTION

In the case of Municipality of Makati vs CA, although consent was granted by entering into a contract and later on held by the Court to be
liable, execution would be in violation of the Constitution since public funds cannot be paid without appropriation, thus only the funds contained in
a particular account which was specifically created for the purpose of the contract was subjected to garnishment in order to pay for the damages.
Unpaid damages shall only be paid upon appropriation made for that purpose.

SUIT AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICER

Test to determine if suit is against the State:
 If the enforcement of the decision rendered against the public officer or agency impleaded will require an affirmative act from the State; or
 If it produces, regardless of who is named as defendant, adverse consequences on the public treasury, whether in the disbursement of fund or
loss of property, the public official proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity.
As in the case of Arigo vs Swift, during the Tubbataha Reef Incident, although Admiral Swift was the named respondent, after charging him
and if ever found to be liable, it is the United States who will bear the burden and thus, a suit is deemed not just against the public officer but of the
State itself.

IMMUNITY CANNOT BE USED TO PERPETRATE INJUSTICE ON A CITIZEN

In the case of Wylie vs Rarang, although Wylie was a public officer and committed the injury during the performance of his official
function, jure imperii, causing injustice to a citizen due to mere incompetence or negligence cannot be subjected to state immunity. Defamation
caused as an incident to jure imperii is not part of his official function, thus subject public officer cannot invoke immunity.

THE STATE IMMUNITY MAY BE INVOKED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

The failure of the petitioner to assert the defense of immunity from suit when the case was tried before the court a quo, as alleged by
private respondent, is not fatal. It is now settled that such defense "may be invoked by the courts sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings."

PROCEDURE IN INVOKING STATE IMMUNITY BY FOREIGN STATES

In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it
requests the Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant is entitled to immunity.
In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the international organization to first secure an executive endorsement of
its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. But how the Philippine Foreign Office conveys its endorsement to the courts varies. In International
Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 (1990), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs just sent a letter directly to the Secretary of Labor
and Employment, informing the latter that the respondent-employer could not be sued because it enjoyed diplomatic immunity. In World Health
Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 (1972), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs sent the trial court a telegram to that effect. In Baer v. Tizon, 57 SCRA 1
(1974), the U.S. Embassy asked the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to request the Solicitor General to make, in behalf of the Commander of the United
States Naval Base at Olongapo City, Zambales, a "suggestion" to respondent Judge. The Solicitor General embodied the "suggestion" in a
Manifestation and Memorandum as amicus curiae.

REMEDY OF THE COMPLAINANTS WHEN THE STATE IMMUNITY IS INVOKED

Private respondent is not left without any legal remedy for the redress of its grievances. Under both Public International Law and
Transnational Law, a person who feels aggrieved by the acts of a foreign sovereign can ask his own government to espouse his cause through
diplomatic channels.

GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, THOUGH INCEDENTALLY PERFORMING PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS, ARE ENTITLED TO STATE IMMUNITY
The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the Administrative Code of 1916 (Act No. 2657). As such instrumentality
of the Government, it operates under the direct supervision of the Executive Secretary, Office of the President, and is "charged with the execution
of all printing and binding, including work incidental to those processes, required by the National Government and such other work of the same
character as said Bureau may, by law or by order of the (Secretary of Finance) Executive Secretary, be authorized to undertake . . .." (Sec. 1644, Rev.
Adm. Code.) It has no corporate existence, and its appropriations are provided for in the General Appropriations Act. Designed to meet the printing
needs of the Government, it is primarily a service bureau and is obviously, not engaged in business or occupation for pecuniary profit.
 Indeed, as an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. (Sec. 1, Rule
3, Rules of Court.) Any suit, action or proceeding against it, if it were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit, action or proceeding against
the Government itself, and the rule is settled that the Government cannot be sued without its consent, much less over its objection. (See Metran vs.
Paredes, 45 Off. Gaz., 2835; Angat River Irrigation System, et al. vs. Angat River Workers' Union, et al., G.R. Nos. L-10943-44, December 28, 1957).

It is true, as stated in the order complained of, that the Bureau of Printing receives outside jobs and that many of its employees are paid
for overtime work on regular working days and on holidays, but these facts do not justify the conclusion that its functions are "exclusively
proprietary in nature." Overtime work in the Bureau of Printing is done only when the interest of the service so requires (sec. 566, Rev. Adm. Code).
As a matter of administrative policy, the overtime compensation may be paid, but such payment is discretionary with the head of the Bureau
depending upon its current appropriations, so that it cannot be the basis for holding that the functions of said Bureau are wholly proprietary in
character. Anent the additional work it executes for private persons, we find that such work is done upon request, as distinguished from those
solicited, and only "as the requirements of Government work will permit" (sec. 1654, Rev. Adm. Code), and "upon terms fixed by the Director of
Printing, with the approval of the Department Head" (sec. 1665, id.). As shown by the uncontradicted evidence of the petitioners, most of these
works consist of orders for greeting cards during Christmas from government officials, and for printing of checks of private banking institutions. On
those greeting cards, the Government seal, of which only the Bureau of Printing is authorized to use, is embossed, and on the bank checks, only the
Bureau of Printing can print the reproduction of the official documentary stamps appearing thereon. The volume of private jobs done, in
comparison with government jobs, is only one-half of 1 percent, and in computing the costs for work done for private parties, the Bureau does not
include profit, because it is not allowed to make any. Clearly, while the Bureau of Printing is allowed to undertake private printing jobs, it cannot be
pretended that it is thereby an industrial or business concern. The additional work it executes for private parties is merely incidental to its function,
and although such work may be deemed proprietary in character, there is no showing that the employees performing said proprietary function are
separate and distinct from those employed in its general governmental functions.

PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS NECESSARY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES OF THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY ARE COVERED BY THE DOCTRINE OF STATE
IMMUNITY
The situation here is not materially different. The Bureau of Customs, to repeat, is part of the Department of Finance (Sec. 81, Rev. Adm.
Code), with no personality of its own apart from that of the national government. Its primary function is governmental, that of assessing and
collecting lawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges, fines and penalties (Sec. 602, R. A. 1937). To
this function, arrastre service is a necessary incident. For practical reasons said revenues and customs duties cannot be assessed and collected by
simply receiving the importer's or ship agent's or consignee's declaration of merchandise being imported and imposing the duty provided in the
Tariff law. Customs authorities and officers must see to it that the declaration tallies with the merchandise actually landed. And this checking up
requires that the landed merchandise be hauled from the ship's side to a suitable place in the customs premises to enable said customs officers to
make it, that is, it requires arrastre operation.

Clearly, therefore, although said arrastre function may be deemed proprietary, it is a necessary incident of the primary and governmental
function of the Bureau of Customs, so that engaging in the same does not necessarily render said Bureau liable to suit. For otherwise, it could not
perform its governmental function without necessarily exposing itself to suit. Sovereign immunity, granted as to the end, should not be denied as to
the necessary means to that end.

THE SUABILITY OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS IS DETERMINED THROUGH THEIR CHARTER

Municipal corporations, for example, like provinces and cities, are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental functions
and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the performance of such functions
because their charter provided that they can sue and be sued. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1987 Edition, p. 39)

FUNDS OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ARE EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION

In Tantoco vs. Municipal Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52, it was held that "it is the settled doctrine of the law that not only the public property
but also the taxes and public revenues of such corporations cannot be seized under execution against them, either in the treasury or when in transit
to it. Judgments rendered for taxes, and the proceeds of such judgments in the hands of officers of the law, are not subject to execution unless so
declared by statute.
Thus, it is clear that all the funds of petitioner municipality in the possession of the Municipal Treasurer of San Miguel, as well as those in
the possession of the Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan, are also public funds and as such they are exempt from execution. Besides, there must be,
pursuant to Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree No. 477, known as "The Decree on Local Fiscal Administration," a corresponding appropriation in the
form of an ordinance duly passed by the Sangguniang Bayan before any money of the municipality may be paid out. In the case at bar, it has not
been shown that the Sangguniang Bayan has passed an ordinance to this effect. Furthermore, the procedure outlined by Section 15, Rule 39 of the
New Rules of Court has not been followed.

Republicanism (Article II. Section 1)

The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. The sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
them.

Doctrine of SEPARATION OF POWERS

Distribution of State powers to the Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
 Legislative Department is generally limited to the enactment of the law and not to implementation or interpretation of the
same;
 Executive Department is generally limited to the implementation of the law and not to the enactment or interpretation of the
same;
 Judicial Department is generally limited to the interpretation and application of laws in specific cases and not to the making or
implementation of the same.

Purpose of the Doctrine

 Prevention of Monopoly of Power or concentration of power to one person or group of persons, and thereby forestalls
dictatorship or despotism. While representational exercise of power brings out the essence of republicanism, too much
concentration of power rips it apart.

Principle of CHECKS AND BALANCES

Under the system of checks and balances, one department is given certain powers by which it may definitely restrain the others
from exceeding constitutional authority. It may object or resist any encroachment upon its authority, or it may question, if necessary any
act or acts which unlawfully interferes with its sphere of jurisdiction and authority.
Illustrations:
  the Congress may refuse to give its concurrence to an amnesty proclaimed by the President and the Senate to a treaty he has
concluded
 the lawmaking power of the Congress is checked by the President through its veto power, which in turn maybe overturn by the
legislature the Congress may limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that of inferior courts and even abolish the latter
tribunals
 the President may nullify a conviction in a criminal case by pardoning the offender
 the Judiciary in general has the power to declare invalid an act done by the Congress, the President and his subordinates, or the
Constitutional Commissions.
 the Congress may limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that of inferior courts and even abolish the latter tribunals

Principle of BLENDING OF POWERS

Certain powers are to be reposed in more than one department so they may better collaborate with, and in the process check each other
for the sake of a good and efficient government. Blending of powers is actually sharing of powers of the different departments of government
whereby one department helps and coordinates with the other in the exercise of a particular power, function or responsibility.

The following are examples under the 1987 Philippine Constitution where powers are not confined exclusively within one department but
are in fact shared:

 The President and Congress help one another in the making of laws. Congress enacts the bill and the President approves it.
 The President prepares a budget and Congress enacts an appropriation bill pursuant to that budget.
 The President enters into a treaty with foreign countries and the Senate ratifies the same.
 The Supreme Court may declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, as unconstitutional, and it has also the power to
declare invalid any act done by the other departments of government.
 The grant of amnesty by the President is subject to the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Congress.

POLITICAL VS JUSTICIABLE QUESTION

A JUSTICIABLE QUESTION calls upon the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies wherein there are rights (property or personal
rights, Art VIII, Sec 1 (2)) involved which are legally demandable and enforceable
Requirements:
 There is an actual case/controversy (must be ripe)
 Petitioner has locus standi
 Raised at the earliest possible opportunity
 Constitution is the very lis mota of the case/controversy /question

A POLITICAL QUESTION is one which under the Constitution “is to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.” It is concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not the validity or legality, of a particular measure or a contested act.

Principle of NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

What has been delegated cannot further be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest)
Meaning and Explanation.
This is applicable to all the three branches of the government. The rule states that what has been delegated cannot further be delegated –
potestas delegata non delegari potest. The people, through the Constitution, delegated its powers to the government, and as such, it cannot as a
rule delegate further the same to another.

Exceptions
Legislative delegation is permitted in the following:
 People at large thru initiative and referendum;
 Emergency powers to the President (Section 23 (2), Article VI of the Constitution)
In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject
to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy.
Requirements:
 There must be a national emergency or declaration of an existence of war
 Delegated power is temporary, for a limited time only
 Delegated power has limitations set by congress
 In order to carry out a national policy declared by the Congress
 Tariff powers to the President.(Section 28 (2), Article VI of the Constitution)
The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as
it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of
the national development program of the Government. (Tariff and Customs Code)
 Subordinate Legislation of administrative bodies thru IRR’s to fill in the gaps in the statute due to the complexity of the modern times
 Legislative powers of the local governments.
LG is in better position than the national government to act on purely local concerns. Legislative power is therefore given to them for
effective local legislation.(RA 7160 Local Govt Code)

Tests on the Permissive Delegation of Legislative Powers

 Completeness Test – Law delegating the power must be complete so as not to leave the delegate to fill in the gaps; thus there would
be nothing left but to enforce the law/exercise the power.
 Sufficient Standard Test-Although law doesn’t spell out in detail the limits of the delegated power, being sufficient means mapping
out the boundaries of power by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances in which it shall be enforced.
ILLUSTRATION (PORK BARREL SYSTEM)
G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493 and 209251, 2013
Belgica v. Executive Secretary

FACTS:
Pork Barrel System started in the Philippines in 1922 under the Public Works Act of 1922; then by (SLDP) Support for Local Development
Projects during Martial Law; Mindanao and Visayas Development Funds later became (CDF) Countrywide Development Fund during the Cojuanco-
Aquino Admin; CDF plus (CI) Congressional Insertions during Pres Ramos; and PDAF during Pres Estrada until this case.
Another form of Pork Barrel is the Executive Lump-sum from the Malampaya Fund under PD 910 and Presidential Social Development
Fund under PD 1993 or PAGCOR Charter.

ISSUES:
(Congressional Pork Barrel) WoN 2013 PDAF Article of GAA is unconstitutional?
(Presidential Pork Barrel) WoN the phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” under Section 8 of
PD 910 (MF) and “to finance the priority infrastructure development projects” under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993 (PSF)?

RULING:

Congressional PB is unconstitutional having violated the doctrine of separation of powers, including the principles of non-delegation of
legislative powers and checks and balance.

Under the doctrine of separation of powers, three powers of the state shall be distributed to the three branches of the government in
which they shall have supremacy within their respective domain. It shall be unconstitutional if there is an impermissible interference or assumption
of power. Legislative shall enact laws while Executive shall implement the laws. On the case at hand, 2013 PDAF provided the legislators with post-
enactment involvement in budget appropriations. They were enjoined with the privilege to choose what projects to finance and what agency/NGO
to implement the project, an executive function. Funds are not released without the approval from the legislator, whose lump-sum allocation shall
be the source of the said funds. Thus, there were impermissible assumptions of executive power when legislators decide, post-enactment, where
the funds would go.

Under the principle of non-delegation of legislative powers, said powers shall not be delegated except for 5 instances. On the case at
hand, individual legislator was given or delegated with legislative power as a whole whenever he chooses where to allocate the funds (PDAF) under
his name. Such power is not one of the 5 exemptions. Thus, there was unlawful delegation of legislative powers in the case of 2013 PDAF and even
with its previous names such as CDF and others.

Under the principle of checks and balance, the President exercises this power thru his veto prerogative on all enactments made by the
Congress, which the latter could overturn via 2/3’s of votes of all its members, voting separately. On the case at hand, 2013 GAA is already in effect
as a law, after having been signed by the President. Within the GAA, PDAF Articles are provided for in which every legislator is given a particular
amount of money which would be used on development projects as would be identified by respective legislator. Considering this, the President was
not aware of the specific appropriations of the PDAF since they shall only be made final upon identification by the respective legislator. Since the
GAA was already approved as a whole, the President can no longer exercise his veto on appropriations that would be made under the PDAF. Thus,
this violates the constitution, foregoing the Presidential veto power over appropriations made by legislators after the GAA was signed into law.

Presidential PB is partly unconstitutional, the phrases “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” under
Section 8 of PD 910 (MF) and “to finance the priority infrastructure development projects” under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993
(PSF) are in violation of the principle of non-delegation of legislative powers. Under the principle, delegation granted by the congress thru a statue
must pass the completeness or sufficiency standard test. To be complete, delegate, under this case the President, must not fill in the gaps of the
statue but do nothing except to enforce it. To be sufficient standard, the broadness of the power being delegated must be defined by sating the
legislative policy and laying down the circumstances under which such power shall be exercised. On the case at hand, the two abovementioned
phrases provide the President a very wide range of discretion as to what “other purposes” and “priority infrastructure” mean. The two provisions
don’t define specific parameters in which the President should exercise its delegated powers, i.e. appropriation of funds from Malampaya and PSF.
The terms other purposes and priority are so broad that interpreting them is left solely on the full discretion of the delegate, making him fill the
gaps of the law. Thus, said provisions are unconstitutional.

Adherence to International Law (Article II, Section 2)

The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. It adopts the generally accepted principle of International Law as part
of the laws of the land. It adheres to a policy of peace, equality, freedom, justice, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
Under this doctrine, that rules of international law automatically form part of municipal law upon the membership of the State to the
Society of Nations. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, several international laws were codified which include the equality of all
states, thereby the Doctrine of State Immunity. It is opposed to the doctrine of transformation, which states that international law only forms a part
of municipal law if accepted as such by statute or judicial decisions.

Some “generally accepted principles of international law” recognized by the Court:

1. Right of an alien to be released on bail while awaiting deportation when his failure to leave the country is due to the fact that no country will
accept him (Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70)
2. The right of a country to establish military commissions to try war criminals (Kuroda v. Jalondoni, 83 Phil. 171)
The Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals (Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195)

Renunciation Of War As A National Policy (Ibid)

The Philippines only renounces AGGRESSIVE war as an instrument of national policy. It does not renounce defensive war.

Declaration of the Existence of War (Article VI. Section 23(1))

The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds, of both houses, in a joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare
the existence of the state of war.

Nuclear Policy (Article II. Section 8)

 The Philippines consistent with the national interest, adopts and adheres to a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.

Policy of freedom from nuclear weapons

The policy PROHIBITS:
The possession, control and manufacture of nuclear weapons
Nuclear arms tests.
In its territory.
The policy does NOT prohibit the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Civilian Supremacy (Article II. Section 3)

Civilian authority is at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the
State. Its task is to secure the sovereignty of the State, and the integrity of the national territory.

Civilian authority/supremacy clause (1st sentence)

Civilian authority simply means the supremacy of the law because authority, under our constitutional system, can only come from law.
Under this clause, the soldier renounces political ambition.

Mark of sovereignty (2nd and 3rd sentences)

Positively, this clause singles out the military as the guardian of the people and of the integrity of the national territory and therefore ultimately of
the majesty of the law.
Negatively, it is an expression of disapproval of military abuses.

As in the Case of IBP vs Zamora, civilian supremacy was manifested. The marines were under the Metro Manila Police Force, headed by a
police officer who is a civilian, in order to address the rash of bombing and violence.
As in the Case of Garcia vs ES, the power of the President to confirm, mitigate, and remit a sentence of erring military personnel is a clear
recognition of the superiority of civilian authority over the military. On the case at hand,

Doctrine Of Separation Of Church And State (Article II. Section 6)

The separation of the Church and the State shall be inviolable.

Social Justice (Article II. Section 10)

The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.

(Article XIII. Section 1)

The Congress shall give the highest priority to the enactment of measures to protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity,
reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common
good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of its properties and its increments.

Prohibition Against Political Dynasty (Article II. Section 26)

The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

Education (Article XIV. Section 1)

The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such
education accessible to all.

COMPULSORY ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (Article XIV. Section 2(2))

The State shall] Establish and maintain a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels. Without limiting the
natural right of the parents to rear children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age.

CONSTITUTION AS CURRICULA (Article XIV. Section 3(1))

All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula.

OPTIONAL STUDY OF RELIGION (Article XIV. Section 3(3))

At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public
elementary and high school within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approves by the religious authorities of the religion to which
the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the government.
5 Requirements
 Expressed in writing by the parents/guardians
 Taught to children in public elementary and high school
 Within the regular class hours
 Taught by instructors designated by religious authorities of particular religion consistent with that of the children’s
 Without additional cost to the government

ACADEMIC FREEDON (Article XIV. Section 5(2))

Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
As in the case of UP BOARD OF REGENTS VS CA, in accordance with the Constitution, UP has the right to choose its students and as well as
those to whom it will confer the degree. The fact that UP questioned the use of fraud in complying with the requirements to acquire the degree
gives the university the right to revoke the degree since it is protecting its academic integrity in the exercise of its academic freedom granted by the
constitution.
As with the case of Cudia vs PMA, although a military unit, PMA enjoys the academic freedom granted by the constitution. This gives the
respondent the freedom to admit and conversely to expel given the high degree of discipline and honor expected from its students who are to form
part of the AFP.

HIGHEST BUDGETARY REQUIREMENT TO EDUCATION (Article XIV. Section 5(5))

The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the
best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.
 In the case of Guingona, Jr. vs. Carague, highest budgetary requirement for education does not thereby follow that the hands of Congress
are so hamstrung as to deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or
objectives.

Congress is certainly not without any power, guided only by its good judgment, to provide an appropriation, that can reasonably service
our enormous debt…It is not only a matter of honor and to protect the credit standing of the country. More especially, the very survival of our
economy is at stake.

SPORTS (Article XIV. Section 19(2))

All educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in cooperation with athletic clubs and other
sector.

Right To Recover Ill-Gotten Wealth (Article XI. Section15)

The right of the government to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees
or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.(Applicable to civil suit)

Prescription refers of the period provided by law to prosecute. It starts from the time of the commission of the act. However, if the act
was unknown or there was no opportunity for it to be known, counting shall commence upon discovery.

Laches refer to negligence in law while estoppel is a legal bar. Under estoppel, once an assertion is made but later on found out that the
assertion was not right, the party is no longer authorized to assert the same, as in the case of international law. Since our law requires that
international law must be alleged as a fact and prove its existence before it can be considered, as in cases involving civil litigation. Once the
assertion of the subject foreign law is found to be false, it can no longer be assert again under estoppel.

Regalian Doctrine (Article XII. Section 2)

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of
the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by
law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may
be the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its
use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to
subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by
law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its
execution.

Article XII. Section 5

The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of
indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and
extent of ancestral domain.

Article II. Section 22

The State recognizes and promotes the rights of the indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and
development.

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

> Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the
American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic

> The Maura Law: was partly an amendment and was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines, which required the adjustment or
registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the State

In the case of Cruz vs Sec of Energy and Natural Resources, the SC ruled that IPRA law was constitutional. Since Regalian Doctrine was only
rooted in the time of the Spanish, the possession of the Indigenous Cultural Community of their ancestral land pre-dates such period and thus,
regalian doctrine is deemed to be inapplicable.

Philippine Flag (Article XVI. Section 1)

The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and three stars, as consecrated and honored by the people and
recognized by law.
The Philippine national flag has a rectangular design that consists of a white equilateral triangle, symbolizing liberty, equality, and
fraternity; a horizontal blue stripe for peace, truth, and justice; and a horizontal red stripe for patriotism and valor.

Flag can only be changed by an amendment or revision to the constitution.

Country’s Name, National Anthem And Seal (Article XVI. Section 2)

 The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and
symbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national
referendum.

A new name, national anthem and seal may be adopted by the Congress via a legislative act but shall only take effect upon ratification by
the people in a national referendum.

Military (Article XVI. Section 4)

The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo military training and serve as may be
provided by law. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the security of the State.

Article XVI. Section 5.

All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.
The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military, and respect for people's rights in the performance of their
duty.
Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a prime concern of the State. The
armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. No member of the military shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any partisan political activity,
except to vote.
No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in
the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries.
Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their service.
The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be recruited proportionately from all provinces and cities as far as
practicable.
The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years. However, in times of war or other national
emergency declared by the Congress, the President may extend such tour of duty.

PRIVATE ARMIES (Article XVIII. Section 24)

Private armies and other armed groups not recognized by duly constituted authority shall be dismantled. All paramilitary forces including
Civilian Home Defense Forces not consistent with the citizen armed force established in this Constitution, shall be dissolved or, where appropriate,
converted into the regular force.

No other armed force is authorized. However, in the case of Civilian Armed Auxiliary, being recognized by duly constituted authorities, is
not being dismantled.

Police Force (Article XVI. Section 6)

The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character, to be administered and
controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.

IV. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT (Article VI. Section 1)

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,
except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

WHO MAY EXERCISE LEGISLATIVE POWER (Art VI, Sec 1 and 32)
The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the
people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any actor law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after
the registration of a petition therefore signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district
must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.

Under the Initiative and Referendum Act, the people can directly propose a law if there is: 10% of total number of registered voters; at
least 3% every legislative district.

Houses Of Congress

SENATE COMPOSITION (Article VI. Section 2)

The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be
provided by law.

In the case of TRILLANES vs PIMENTEL, Senate composed of 24 Senators elected at large by qualified voters with hundreds members of
HR, are charged to carry out the duties of the legislation. The Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or few of its
members. A call of a particular duty, on this case as part of the legislative duty, has never lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those
others who are validly restrained by law.

SENATE QUALIFICATION (Article VI. Section 3)

No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least
thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately
preceding the day of the election.

In the case of SOCIETY FOR JUSTICE VS DANGEROUS DRUG BOARD, a particular provision of a statue provides for the mandatory drug
testing as one of the qualification to be a senator. It is a well settled rule that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution,
that issuance is null and void and has no effect.

SENATE AS CONTINUING INSTITUTION

Senate is a continuing institution; it is not dissolved after every national election. However, pending proceedings are terminated upon
expiration of one Congress but may be taken anew in the next as if for the first time. (Romero II vs Estrada)

HR COMPOSITION (Article VI. Section 5)

 The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who
shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number
of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party
list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled,
as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at
least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.
Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the
standards provided in this section.

PARTY-LIST SYSTEM (Ibid para 2 and RA 7941) 4 PARAMETERS

 20% allocation (of the total number of both legislative and party-list representatives)
 2% threshold
 3-seat limit
 Additional seat based on proportional representation

6 CRITERIA to participate in Party-list election (Atong PAglaum vs Comelec)

 3 groups could participate: national parties or organization; regional parties or organizations; and sectoral parties or
organizations
 National and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sector lines nor represent the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors
 Political Parties can participate in party-list elections provided that they register under the party-list system and do not field
candidates in the legislative district elections. Political party, major or not, that fields candidates in the legislative district can
only participate in party-list election through its sectoral wing that is separately registered under the party-list system. The
sectoral wing is independent and linked to the political party only by coalition;
 Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in well-defined political
constituencies; their principal advocacy must be to special interest and concern of their sector; Marginalized and
underrepresented sectors include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped,
veterans, and overseas workers; Sectors lacking in well-defined political constituencies include professionals, the elderly, women
and the youth;
 Majority of the members must belong to its marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in well-defined political
constituencies sectors that they represent; The nominees must belong as well or must have a track record of advocacy for their
sectors; Nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be a bona fide member of such party or organization;
Parties or organizations shall not be disqualified even if their nominees are, provided that they have at least 1 qualified
nominee.

COMPUTATION (VETERANS RULING/Panganiban Formula-Abandoned)

1. Arrange all the parties with at least 2% vote, highest to lowest
2. Determine additional seat for the first party (party with most number of votes)
 If 2% ≤ FP<4% then no additional seat
 If 4% ≤FP < 6% then 1 additional seat
 If 6% ≤FP then 2 additional seats
3. Determine additional seat for other qualified parties
 Number of votes of concerned party divided by total number of votes of party list election
 Multiply the quotient to number of additional seat of first party (either 0-2)
 The integer of the product is the additional seat of the concerned party

COMPUTATION (BANAT RULING)

1. Arrange all the parties, from highest to lowest number of votes acquired
2. Divide number of votes of concerned party over total number of votes in party-list election
3. Multiply the quotient with the remaining seats available
4. The whole integer of the product is the number of additional seat for the particular party(max of 2)
5. Assign 1 on succeeding party (until all allotted seats are occupied)

QUALIFICATIONS PARTY-LIST NOMINEES

 Natural Born Citizen
 Registered voter in his/her legislative district
 Philippines Resident in at least 1 year on the day immediately preceding the election day
 Able to read and write
 At least 25 years old on the day immediately preceding the election day (If youth, 25-30, maybe allowed to finish the unexpired
term in case max age is reached)
 Bona fide member of party at least 90 days preceding the election day

QUALIFICATIONS LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES

 Natural Born Citizen
 At least 25 years old on the day immediately preceding the election day
 Able to read and write
 Registered voter in his/her legislative district
 Philippine Resident in at least 1 year on the day immediately preceding the election day

APPORTIONMENT OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS

 This refers to the creation of new legislative district in order to improve the representation in the Congress

GERRYMANDERING- the act of dividing a certain legislative district or creating a new legislative district in order to favor a particular party or person.

Art VI, Section 5 (3) 1st sentence provides restraint against gerrymandering. Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
compact, contiguous and adjacent territory.

REPRESENTATION OF CITIES AND PROVINCES (Art VI, Section 5 (3) 2nd sentence)
Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.

TERMS OF OFFICE
Senator : max of 2 terms; 6 years per term
Member of HR: max of 3 terms; 3 years per term
Voluntary renunciation shall not constitute a break in the continuity.

Parliamentary Immunities And Privileges (Art VI, Sec 11)

1. Freedom from Arrest – exempted from arrest on all cases punishable by imprisonment of not more than 6 years while the Congress is in
session. (Note: New Congress every 3 years; 1 regular session every year; opening of session is on SONA; opening of Congress is noon of
30 June after every election)

2. Freedom of Speech – cannot be held liable, except in Congress, for speech/debate in congress/committee/other places, while in session.
Subject to disciplinary measures by fellow members of Congress as in the case of Osmena vs Pendatum.

Disqualifications of Members of Congress

1. Incompatible Offices (Art VI, Sec 13, 1st sentence) – no member of congress can be appointed to any government post/position. It will
cause his/her disqualification as a member of congress.

2. Forbidden Offices (Art VI, Sec 13, 2nd sentence) – no member of congress can be appointed to any government post/position/office which
was benefited in terms of increase in term of office or budget, during his/her tenure in congress. This will cause disqualification to
congress and bar from appointment. In short, both are lost.

Electoral Tribunals (Art VI, Sec 17)

1. Senate Electoral Tribunal and HR Electoral Tribunal– composed of 3 justices from SC (senior justice as chairman) and 6 members of
HR/Senate elected by respective houses based on proportional representation of political parties. Electoral Tribunals shall be non-partisan
and impartial. Members enjoy security of tenure until the resolution of cases. It shall be the sole judge on all matters pertaining to the
contests on election, returns and qualification of all its members.
2. Presidential Electoral Tribunal (nice to know) - composed of all the justices of the SC, seating as a PET

Jurisdiction shall be acquired after a valid proclamation, oath of office and assumption (noon 30 June after the election). Assumption is
based on the actual presence during the opening of the congress. As in the case of Abayon vs Comelec, HRET has jurisdiction on the nominees of
Party-list since they are members of HR, although they were not chosen by the people but by the party which satisfied the requirement prescribed
by law.

Commission On Appointment (Art VI, Sec 18-19)

It shall be composed of 12 members of HR and 12 Senators with Senate President acting as ex-officio chairman, who shall not vote except
in case of tie. They shall decide on all matters brought before them within 30 days, majority is needed to confirm an appointment.

Powers of Congress

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS

THREE KINDS – refer to bonus questions

POWER OF INQUIRY IN AID OF LEGISLATION VS QUESTION HOUR - refer to bonus questions

REQUISITES FOR POWER OF INQUIRY IN AID OF LEGISLATION

1. Purpose must be inn aid of legislation
2. Must be based or in accordance with a duly published rules of procedures
3. Must not be prejudicial to the person appearing before the Congress

EXEMPTED FROM POWER OF INQUIRY

1. President
2. SC Justices
3. Executive Privilege formally asserted and expressed, not implied
4. Military Personnel – exempted but there is remedy

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION – refer to bonus questions

Presumptive Presidential Communication Privilege is present when the information being asked is given directly by the president or in
accordance with the Doctrine of Operational Proximity. Under this Doctrine, persons within the close proximity of the President, who gain access to
information that ideally could only be acquired by the President, yet due to his physical location as in close proximity to the President, shall enjoy
the Presumptive Presidential Communication Privilege.

OFFERS IN TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

As in the case of Akbayan vs Aquino, information pertaining to negotiations between two countries in treaty shall be covered by Executive
Privilege. Such information is covered as a State Secret being involved in Diplomatic Dealings of the Government.
 COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF CLAUSE
Generally, military personnel are exempted to Legislative Inquiry as they need to seek permission from their Commander-in-Chief.
However, remedy is available by asking the President or praying for a relief before SC to summon the military before the Congress, as ruled in the
case of Gudani vs Senga.

LEGISLATIVE CONTEMPT
It is sue de generis or a class of its own. Although this is not provided for in the Constitution, it is inherent to the fulfillment of the
Legislative Power of Inquiry. Thus, even if legislative power is delegated, power to issue subpoena and hold in contempt is not included. It is a power
which is judicial in nature yet inherent in the legislative power which is vetoed to the Congress. As in the case of Arnault vs Nazarenp, Legislative
Contempt does not end on the conclusion of the Session. As in the senate, as a continuing institution, contempt could last as long as the senate
deals with the matters in which a person held for contempt is vital.

POWER OF IMPEACHMENT(Art XI, Sec 2)

SUBJECT OFFICIALS
The President, Vice-President, SC Justices, members of Constitutional Commissions and Ombudsman shall only be removed by
impeachment, and conviction for, culpable violation of the constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of
public trust.
1. President – cannot be impleaded on any petition or held liable for any offense or charge during his tenure. This is in accordance with the
Doctrine of Presidential Immunity.
2. Other Impeachable Officials – can be charged with any other crimes provided that such crimes do not carry a subsidiary penalty of
perpetual/temporary absolute/permanent disqualification to hold public office. This is because it would be a violation of the Constitution
since they can only be removed from office by conviction on impeachment. However, they could be charged in a civil litigation since said
constitutional provision shall not be violated.

LIMITATIONS
No impeachment proceeding shall be instituted for one person more than once in a year, as in the case of Francisco vs Nagmamalasakit na
Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino

FORUM (art XI, Sec 3)

The HR shall have the sole power to initiate impeachment. Senate shall act as judge; conviction requires at least 2/3 of all senators. SC CJ
shall preside but not vote when the president is on trial.

PROCEDURE (Art Xi, Section 3)

1. Initiation Stage
a. A verified complaint filed by a citizen, as endorsed by a member of HR – It shall be included in the order of business within 10
session days and referred to the proper committee within 3 session days afterwards. The committee, after hearing and majority of
vote of all its members, shall submit to the House within 60 session days from referral. Within 10 session days from receipt of the
resolution from the committee, it shall be calendared for the consideration of the House. 1/3 of Vote is necessary to affirm or
override the resolution submitted by the committee.
b. Deemed initiated when the verified complaint or resolution is filed by at least 1/3 of all the members of the House. Trial in Senate
shall forthwith proceed

2. Trial Stage – Impeachment Proceeding shall be tried by the Senate Seating as impeachment Court. They shall be on oath or
affirmation and render decision with the vote of 2/3 of all is members.

CONSEQUENCES OF CONVICTION
Official convicted on impeachment shall be removed from office, disqualified to hold any public office and shall be subject to criminal
prosecution in accordance with the law, as in the case of Estrada vs Desierto.

LIMITATIONS ON LEGISLATIVE POWER

ORIGIN (Art VI, Sec 24)

Appropriation bills, revenue or tariff bills, bills increasing public debts, bills with local application and private bills shall originate from HR.
Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as in the case of Tolentino vs Sec of Finance.

PRESIDENTIAL VETO and CONGRESSIONAL OVERRIDE (St VI, Sec 27)

1. Message Veto vs Pocket Veto – Message veto refers to the act of President disapproving a proposed law from Congress. Under this,
the President directly disapproves the bill, return to the House of Origin with explanation. Pocket veto is on the other hand the
neglect of a proposal. In order to avoid this, the Constitution provides for the Presidential Inaction on Proposed Bills within 30 days
as approval in itself.

2. General Veto Power vs Item or line Veto – General Veto is simply the outright veto of an entire bill presented to the President. Item
or line veto on the other hand refers to the power of the President pertaining to bills on Appropriations, Revenue or Tariff Bills, in
which he may disapprove a certain item or line.

DOCTRINE OF INAPPROPRIATE PROVISION – under this doctrine, the President may veto an entire provision only if the provision is not
appropriate with the entire proposal. It refers to provisions in the appropriation bill in which no appropriation is defined.

FROM ZAR BINS. GOD BE WITH US ALL….