CONSTI DAVID MIDTERM REVIEWER

1-ACADS (2018)

INTRODUCTION

I. Constitution, Definition, Characteristics Dibs - Seia and Nichole

Constitution - a system of fundamental laws of the governance and administration of a nation - it ● Manila Prince Hotel
is supreme, imperious, absolute, unalterable, except by the authority from which it emanates. vs. GSIS
- the fundamental and paramount law of the nation; it prescribes the permanent framework of
a system of government, assigns to the different departments their respective powers and
duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is founded.
- It is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all
private rights must be determined and all public authority administered
- Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate, the presumption is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing
Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution ● De Leon vs.
- Sec. 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution: “This Constitution shall take effect Esguerra
immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the
purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitution.”
- Date of effectivity: February 2, 1987, date of the plebiscite when the people ratified the
Constitution (Proclamation No. 58)

II. General Principles of Constitutional Construction - Nichole

- the fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the ● Gold Creek Mining
framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it Corp. vs Rodriguez
- A constitutional provision must be presumed to have been framed and adopted in the
light and understanding of prior and existing laws and with reference to them

Principles of constitutional construction: ● Francisco vs.

 1st Verba Legis - plain meaning rule/ wherever possible, the words used in the House of
constitution must be given their ordinary meaning Representatives
2nd Ratio Legis Est Anima - the words of the constitution must be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of its framers
3rd Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat - the constitution must be interpreted as a
whole

● Sarmiento vs Mison
- give effect to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it
- The intention to w/c force is to be given is that w/c is embodied and expressed in the
constitutional provisions themselves
- Constitution must be presumed to have been framed and adopted in the light and
understanding of prior and existing laws and with reference to them

III. Aids to Construction - Nichole

- the Court in construing the Constitution, should bear in mind the object sought to be ● Civil Liberties
accomplished by its adoption, and if the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. Union vs. Executive
- A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times and the Secretary
condition and circumstances under which the constitution was framed ● Luz Farms vs.
- Debates in the constitutional convention Secretary of DAR
- spirit of the law prevails over its letter ● Tanada vs. Cuenco
- legislative proceedings ● Vera vs. Avelino
- deletions in the preliminary draft of the convention are negative guides w/c cannot prevail ● Chiongbian vs. De
over the positive provisions of the finally adopted Constitution Leon

IV. Ordinary Sense v. Technical Sense - Nichole

- The words used in the constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except where ● JM Tuason vs. Land
technical terms are employed Tenure Admin
 - The language of the constitution, as much as possible should be understood in the sense it ● Ordillo vs. Comelec
has in common use and that the words used in constitutional convention are to be
given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed
- Where words are used which have both restricted and general meaning, the general must ● Marcos vs. Chief of
prevail over the restricted unless the nature of the subject matter of the context Staff
clearly indicates that the limited sense is intended
- Terms employed therein shall be given the meaning which had been put upon them, and ● Krivenko vs.
which they possessed at the time of the framing and adoption of the instrument Registry of Deeds

V. Self-Executing vs. Non-Self-Executing - Grace

To determine whether a provision is self-executory, the test is to see whether the provision is Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI
"complete in itself as a definitive law, or if it needs future legislation for completion and
enforcement." In other words, the provision must set forth "a specific, operable legal right, rather
than a constitutional or statutory policy

The provision textually and standing alone, do not create any judicially enforceable right.

Self- Executing Non-Self-Executing

● Complete in itself as as definitive law ● It needs future legislation for completion

● It must confer rights: a specific, and enforcement
operable legal right ● Constitutional or statutory policy
● Embody a judicially enforceable right ● Does not confer rights

These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for Tanada vs. Cuenco
enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the
exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.
The principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of Article XII are not
"self-executing provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts.
They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation.

by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional Oposa vs. Factoran
statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II
of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present form.

Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is couched in such a way as not to make it appear that it is non- Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS
self-executing but simply for purposes of style. But, certainly, the legislature is not precluded from
enacting further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so long as the contemplated statute
squares with the Constitution. Minor details may be left to the legislature without the self-executing
nature of constitutional provisions. The omission from a constitution of any express provision
for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not
intended to be self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution
does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any legislation must be in
harmony with the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right and make it more
available. Subsequent legislation however does not necessarily mean that the subject
constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable

What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to the limitations imposed by law. Sec. 26, Article II Pamatong vs COMELEC
of the Constitution neither bestows such right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an
enforceable right. The provisions under Article II are generally considered not self-executing. The
provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specific
guideline for legislative or executive action.

International conventions and treaties are not self-executory and that local legislations are Poe-Llamanzares vs
necessary in order to give effect to treaty obligations assumed by the Philippines COMELEC

VI. Mandatory vs. Directory

VII. Prospective vs. Retroactive

 CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION TO JUDICIAL REVIEW:

I. Basis, Extent, Limitations - Dibs - Mico

ARTICLE VIII Section 1 ● Article VIII Section 1

● Judicial Power is vested in and Section 4
○ Supreme Court ● Rules of Court, Rules
○ Lower Courts 63 and 65
● Judicial Power: “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies ● Record of the
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or Constitutional
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction on Commission, 434-436
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government” (CONST. Art VIII, Sec.1, Par 2) (1986)
● Endencia v. David
ARTICLE VIII Section 4 ● Angara v. Electoral
● Supreme Court Composition: Commission
○ Chief Justice ● Marcos v. Manglapus
○ 14 Associate Justices ● Integrated Bar of the
○ Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days Philippines v. Zamora
● Cases involving Constitutionality of a Treaty, International or Executing Agreement, or law ● Jardeleza v. Sereno,
○ Shall be heard en banc
● Constitutionality, application, operation of Presidential Decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations
○ Shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members
● A decision en banc can only be modified by another en banc decision

RULES OF COURT
● Petition for Certiorari
○ When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty
and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of
such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice
 may require.||| (Rules of Court, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure As Amended, [April 8,
1997])
● Petition for Prohibition
○ When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of
its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition
in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action
or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require||| (Rules of Court, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure As Amended,
[April 8, 1997])
● Petition for Mandamus
○ When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of
a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at
some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to
protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the
petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.||| (Rules of Court, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure As Amended, [April 8, 1997])
● Petition for Quo Warranto
○ Action by Government Against Individuals. — An action for the usurpation of a
public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought
in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against:
■ A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public
office, position or franchise;
■ A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of
law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or
■ An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines
without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.
 LIMITATIONS OF JUDICIAL POWER
● Political Questions (Tanada v Cuenco)
○ Those questions which are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity
○ Questions in regard of which, full discretion in authority has been delegated to
the legislative or executive branch of the government
○ Two species of Political Questions
■ Truly political questions: beyond judicial review the reason being is the
respect of the doctrine of separation of powers. Determination is
“whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or
functions conferred upon political bodies” (Francisco Jr. V. HOR)
● Separation of Powers
○ Supreme Court and its members cannot be required to exercise any power
not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions
● Advisory Opinions
○ The function of the court is to determine controversies and not give advisory
opinions
○
DECLARATORY RELIEF ADVISORY OPINION

Definition

Involves real parties with real conflicting A response to a legal issue posed in the
legal interest abstract advance of any actual case in
which it may be presented

Effectivity

Binding Not Binding

Nature
 Judicial Act Not a judicial act

Application of Cases
● (Endencia v. David)
○ Collection of income tax from judges is a diminution in his salary and is a
violation of the Constitution
● (Angara v. Electoral Commission)
○ Electoral Commission has jurisdiction over election protest and may file for its
deadline regardless of declaration of winners of National Assembly
● (Marcos v. Manglapus)
○ The right of the Marcos to return in the Philippines is under the Doctrine of
Residual Powers of the president.
○ The basis of the President to ban the return of Marcos is a political question
● (IBP v. Zamora)
○ The Factual basis of the calling of the President for the aid of the AFP in
Metro Manila is not subject to judicial review
● Jadaleza v. Sereno)
○ Supreme Court has supervisory authority over JBC which makes decisions of
JBC subject to judicial review

II. Requisites for Judicial Review - Mico

Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry regarding a Constitutional Question ● Knights of Rizal v.

1. ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY DMCI Homes, Inc.,
● Involves a conflict of legal rights (justiciable controversy) ● Southern Hemisphere
○ “Request for Advisory Opinion: not an actual case or controversy” Engagement Network,
○ “When an act of the legislative department is seriously alleged to have infringed the Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism
Constitution, settling the controversy becomes the duty of this Court.” Council
○ “There can be no justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed ● Penafrancia Sugar
bill. The Court can exercise its power for judicial review only after a law is enacted, Mills v. Sugar
not before” Regulatory
● Must not be Moot/Academic Administration
○ Moot: Hypothetical or speculative ● Mendoza v. Familara
 ○ Moot: Subsequent events have overtaken the petition and Court and there is nothing ● Kilosbayan v. Morato
left to resolve ● David v. Arroyo
● Court will decide cases otherwise moot and academic if: ● BPI v. Shemberg
○ There is a grave violation of the Constitution Biotech Corp.
○ The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest involved ● Carbonilla v. Board of
○ Constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the Airline Representatives
bench, the bar, and the public ● General v. Urro
○ Case is capable of repetition yet evading review

2. LEGAL STANDING / “LOCUS STANDI”

● Personal or substantial interest in a case such that the party has or will sustain direct injury
as a result of the act challenged
○ Injury which can be legal, economic or environmental
○ Injury is traceable to challenged action
○ Injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action
● Facial Challenge
○ General Rule: A party can question the validity of statute only if, as applied to him, it
is unconstitutional
○ Exception: Legal Standing operates in the area of freedom of expression
■ Overbreadth Doctrine: permits party to challenge the validity of a statute even
though, as applied to him, it is not unconstitutional, but it might be applied to
others
Note: SC has been following a liberal approach on standing in high profile issues
● Taxpayer
○ Public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or
instrumentality and by doing so
○ a law is violated or some irregularity is committed
○ The petitioner is directly affected by alleged act
● Concerned Citizen
○ There must be showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance
○ Proper party in suit questioning eligibility of an appointee to the Supreme Court on
the ground of alleged lack of a constitutional qualification, natural born citizenship.
The court allowed petition considering that in involved “an issue of utmost and far-
reaching constitutional importance, namely, the qualification of a person to be
appointed a member of the Supreme Court” (Kilosbayan vs Morato)
○ DOCTRINE OF INTERGENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
 ■ Right to represent future generations in cases regarding right to a balanced
and healthful ecology (Oposa v. Factoran)
● Voters
○ There must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in
question
● Legislator
○ There must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their
prerogatives as legislators
● Government of the Philippines
○ Proper party to question validity of its own laws

3. RAISED AT EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY

● General Rule: The earliest possible opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in
the pleadings
● Exceptions
○ Criminal Cases - at any time at the discretion of the court
○ Civil Cases - at any stage of the proceeding if necessary for the determination of the
case
○ In every case - at any stage if it involves jurisdiction of the court
■ Except when there is estoppel

4. LIS MOTA
● The cause of the suit or action

CASES APPLIED
● (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council)
○ Petitioners failed to show that there was no actual charge or threat in the legislation
of Human Securities Act
● (Penafrancia Sugar Mills v. Sugar Regulatory Administration)
○ The supervening issuance of a new Sugar Order revoked the assailed Sugar Order.
This supervening event lead means that there is no more declaratory relief on the
case which makes it moot and academic
● (Mendoza v. Familara)
○ The supervening event of a new election made the case moot and academic
because the petitioner is no longer entitled to the position.
● (BPI v. Shemberg Biotech Corp.)
 ○ BPI failed to raise the constitutional question at the earliest opportunity.

● (General v. Urro)
○ Quo warranto proceedings are commenced by the government as the proper party
plaintiff. The person instituting quo warranto proceedings in his own behalf must how
he is entitled to the office in dispute; otherwise, the action may be dismissed at any
stage. Since petitioner merely hold acting appointment (and an expired one at that)
he clearly does not have a cause of action to maintain the present petition.

STATEHOOD - PART 1

A. Territory - Dibs - Mico

NATIONAL TERRITORY A. Territory

● The national territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago, with all the islands and waters 1. Magallona vs.
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or Ermita, G.R. No. 187167,
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domain, including its territorial sea, the July 16, 2011
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, 2. In the Matter of the
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and South China Sea Arbitration
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines (CONST, Art 1) (Philippines v. China) PCA
Case No. 2013-19, Award
Magallona v. Ermita on 12 July 2016, available
● Various Zones at
○ “It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime https://www.pcacases.com/
zones (i.e, the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone web/sendAttach/2086
[24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zones [200 nautical miles a. Relief Requested
from the baselines]), and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.” and Submissions (pp. 41
○ “UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime space-the exclusive economic zone- onwards)
in waters previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to b. Summary of
coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources found within this zone up to Tribunal’s Award on
200 nautical miles. UNCLOS III however preserves the traditional freedom of Jurisdiction (pp. 56
 navigation of other States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before onwards)
UNCLOS III.” c. Nine-Dash Line (pp.
● Baseline Laws 67 onwards)
○ “…baseline laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark- d. Alleged Interference
out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either with Philippines’ Sovereign
straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of Rights in its EEZ and
the maritime zones and continental shelf.” Continental Shelf (pp. 261
○ “Thus baseline laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States onwards)
parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental
shelves.”
● Various Rights in different Zones
○ “In turn, this gives notice to the rest of the entire international community of the
scope of the maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties
exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over territorial
waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and
sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the living
and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and
continental shelf (Article 77). “
○ “Whether referred to as Philippine “internal waters” under Article I of the
Constitution or as “archipelagic waters” under UNCLOS III (Article 49[1]), the
Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the base-
lines, including the airspace over it and the submarine areas underneath.”
● Modes of acquisition and loss of territory
○ “Under international law typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory through
occupation, accretion, cession and prescription, not by executing multilateral treaties on
the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s
terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.”
● Right to innocent passage
○ “Thus, domestically, the political branches of the Philippine government, in the
competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may pass legislation
designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes
passage.”
○ “Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus
automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law. No modern State can validly
invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in
accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory measures from
 the international community.”
○ “The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic waters under
UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagic States, in exchange for their right
to claim all the waters landward of their baselines, regardless of their depth and
distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial sovereignty. “
● Archipelagic Doctrine
○ “More importantly, the recognition of archipelagic States’ archipelago and the waters
enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the treatment of their
islands a separate islands under UNCLOS III.”

SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION

● The so called historic claim, and the nine-dash rule were principles made before the
establishment of UNCLOS. When the UNCLOS was established by the different Nations, one
of the goals was to establish boundaries in its maritime zones. The adoption and ratification of
UNCLOS also meant the extinguishment of the historical claims of China and the effect of the
Nine-Dash rule.

B. Sovereignty

● Rene Saguisag vs. Executive Secretary ● Rene Saguisag vs.

- The duty to protect the State and its people must be carried out earnestly and effectively Executive Secretary
throughout the whole territory of the Philippines in accordance with the constitutional ● People vs. Gozo
provision on national territory. Hence, the President of the Philippines, as the sole ● Laurel vs. Misa
repository of executive power, is the guardian of the Philippine archipelago, including all ● Ruffy vs. Chief of
the islands and waters embraced therein and all other territories over which it has Staff
sovereignty or jurisdiction. These territories consist of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial
domains; including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and
other submarine areas; and the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of
the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions.
- the President is equipped with authority over the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
which is the protector of the people and the state. The AFP's role is to secure the
sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory. In addition, the
Executive is constitutionally empowered to maintain peace and order; protect life,
liberty, and property; and promote the general welfare.
- In recognition of these powers, Congress has specified that the President must oversee,
ensure, and reinforce our defensive capabilities against external and internal threats
and, in the same vein, ensure that the country is adequately prepared for all national
and local emergencies arising from natural and man-made disasters.
- To be sure, this power is limited by the Constitution itself. To illustrate, the President
may call out the AFP to prevent or suppress instances of lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion, but not suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for a period
exceeding 60 days, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law
exceeding that same span. In the exercise of these powers, the President is also duty-
bound to submit a report to Congress, in person or in writing, within 48 hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus; and Congress may in turn revoke the proclamation or suspension. The same
provision provides for the Supreme Court's review of the factual basis for the
proclamation or suspension, as well as the promulgation of the decision within 30 days
from filing.
- The President also carries the mandate of being the sole organ in the conduct of foreign
relations. Since every state has the capacity to interact with and engage in relations with
other sovereign states, it is but logical that every state must vest in an agent the
authority to represent its interests to those other sovereign states.
- The role of the President in foreign affairs is qualified by the Constitution in that the
Chief Executive must give paramount importance to the sovereignty of the nation, the
integrity of its territory, its interest, and the right of the sovereign Filipino people to self-
determination.
- the President's power is also limited, or at least shared:
1. Section 2 of Article II on the conduct of war;
2. Sections 20 and 21 of Article VII on foreign loans, treaties, and international
agreements;
3. Sections 4(2) and 5(2)(a) of Article VIII on the judicial review of executive acts;
4. Sections 4 and 25 of Article XVIII on treaties and international agreements
entered into prior to the Constitution and on the presence of foreign military
troops, bases, or facilities.
- No less than the 1987 Constitution demands that 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.” No less than the
1987 Constitution states that the principal role of the military under the President as
commander-in-chief shall be as protector of the people and the State to secure the
 sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.
- We can thereby determine whether a military base or facility in the Philippines, which
houses or is accessed by foreign military troops, is foreign or remains a Philippine
military base or facility. The legal standards we find applicable are:
a. independence from foreign control -
Once ownership is established, then the rights of ownership flow freely.
Article 428 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]he owner has the right to
enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those
established by law." Moreover, the owner "has also a right of action
against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it."
Philippine civil law therefore accords very strong rights to the owner of
property, even against those who hold the property. Possession, after
all, merely raises a disputable presumption of ownership, which can be
contested through normal judicial processes.
In this case, EDCA explicitly provides that ownership of the Agreed
Locations remains with the Philippine government. What U.S.
personnel have a right to, pending mutual agreement, is access to and
use of these locations.
The right of the owner of the property to allow access and use is
consistent with the Civil Code, since the owner may dispose of the
property in whatever way deemed fit, subject to the limits of the law. So
long as the right of ownership itself is not transferred, then
whatever rights are transmitted by agreement does not
completely divest the owner of the rights over the property, but
may only limit them in accordance with law.
Hence, even control over the property is something that an owner may
transmit freely. This act does not translate into the full transfer of
ownership, but only of certain rights. In Roman Catholic Apostolic
Administrator of Davao, Inc. v. Land Registration Commission, we
stated that the constitutional proscription on property ownership
is not violated despite the foreign national's control over the
property.
Economic self reliance is a primary objective of a developing
country that is keenly aware of overdependence on external
assistance for even its most basic needs. It does not mean
autarky or economic seclusion; rather, it means avoiding
 mendicancy in the international community. Independence refers
to the freedom from undue foreign control of the national
economy, especially in such strategic industries as in the
development of natural resources and public utilities.
Operational control, as cited by both petitioner and respondents, is a
military term referring to [t]he authority to perform those functions of
command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing
commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objective, and
giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission.
Limited control does not violate the Constitution. The fear of the
commissioners was total control, to the point that the foreign military
forces might dictate the terms of their acts within the Philippines. More
important, limited control does not mean an abdication or derogation of
Philippine sovereignty and legal jurisdiction over the Agreed Locations.
It is more akin to the extension of diplomatic courtesies and rights to
diplomatic agents, which is a waiver of control on a limited scale and
subject to the terms of the treaty.
b. sovereignty and applicable law -
Sovereignty is the possession of sovereign power, while jurisdiction is
the conferment by law of power and authority to apply the law. Article I
of the 1987 Constitution states:

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.

From the text of EDCA itself, Agreed Locations are territories of the
Philippines that the U.S. forces are allowed to access and use. By
withholding ownership of these areas and retaining unrestricted access
to them, the government asserts sovereignty over its territory. That
 sovereignty exists so long as the Filipino people exist.

Significantly, the Philippines retains primary responsibility for security

with respect to the Agreed Locations. Hence, Philippine law remains in
force therein, and it cannot be said that jurisdiction has been
transferred to the U.S. Even the previously discussed necessary
measures for operational control and defense over U.S. forces must be
coordinated with Philippine authorities.

c. national security and territorial integrity -

The last standard this Court must set is that the EDCA provisions on
the Agreed Locations must not impair or threaten the national security
and territorial integrity of the Philippines.
This Court acknowledged in Bayan v. Zamora that the evolution of
technology has essentially rendered the prior notion of permanent
military bases obsolete.
Moreover, military bases established within the territory of another
state is no longer viable because of the alternatives offered by new
means and weapons of warfare such as nuclear weapons, guided
missiles as well as huge sea vessels that can stay afloat in the sea
even for months and years without returning to their home country.
These military warships are actually used as substitutes for a land-
home base not only of military aircraft but also of military personnel and
facilities. Besides, vessels are mobile as compared to a land-based
military headquarters.
The VFA serves as the basis for the entry of U.S. troops in a limited
scope. It does not allow, for instance, the re-establishment of the Subic
military base or the Clark Air Field as U.S. military reservations. In this
context, therefore, this Court has interpreted the restrictions on foreign
bases, troops, or facilities as three independent restrictions. In accord
with this interpretation, each restriction must have its own qualification.

● People vs. Gozo

- By the Agreement, it should be noted, the Philippine Government merely consents that
the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. The consent was given purely
 as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency. The Philippine Government has not
abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested
itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under the terms of the
treaty, the United States Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive
jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine Government retains not only jurisdictional
rights not granted, but also all such ceded rights as the United States Military authorities
for reasons of their own decline to make use of. The first proposition is implied from the
fact of Philippine sovereignty over the bases; the second from the express provisions of
the treaty."
- Principle of auto-limitation: "It is to be admitted that any state may, by its consent,
express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a
curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of
sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, 'is the
property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-
determination and self-restriction.' A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the
exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence."
- Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control. Nor does
the matter end there. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in
the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by
no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They
retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may
be diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the
American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. They are not
and cannot be foreign territory.

● Laurel vs. Misa

- Considering that the absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory
occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or
severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or
sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier.
- if it is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate
government; that the sovereignty vested in the titular government (which is the supreme
power which governs a body politic or society which constitute the state) must be
distinguished from the exercise of the rights inherent thereto, and may be destroyed, or
severed and transferred to another, but it cannot be suspended because the existence
of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting the
 possessor thereof at least during the so-called period of suspension; that what may be
suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and government
of the territory occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the occupant; that the
subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate government in a territory occupied by
the military forces of the enemy during the war, 'although the former is in fact prevented
from exercising the supremacy over them' is one of the 'rules of international law of our
times'
- sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during the enemy occupation, the
allegiance of the inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign subsists, and
therefore there is no such thing as suspended allegiance, the basic theory on which the
whole fabric of the petitioner's contention rests;
- if an inhabitant of the occupied territory were compelled illegally by the military
occupant, through force, threat or intimidation, to give him aid and comfort, the former
may lawfully resist and die if necessary as a hero, or submit thereto without becoming a
traitor;
-
● Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff
- by the occupation of the Philippines by Japanese forces, the officers and men of the
Philippine Army did not cease to be fully in the service, though, in a measure,' only in a
measure, they were not subject to the military jurisdiction, if they were not in active duty.
In the latter case, like officers and soldiers on leave of absence or held as prisoners of
war, they could not be held guilty of a breach of the discipline of the command or of a
neglect of duty, or disobedience of orders, or mutiny, or subject to a military trial
therefor; but for an act unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, or an act which
constitutes an offense of the class specified in the 95th Article of War, they may in
general be legally held subject to military jurisdiction and trial.

C. State Immunity Dibs - Lance

1.Basis Republic v. Sandoval

-Article XVI, Section 3|||- “The State cannot be sued without its consent”

-Doctrine is also known as the “Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty”

-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.|||

-However, it may be sued if it gives its consent, whether express or implied

-NOTE: Immunity from suit cannot perpetrate injustice

2. Express or Implied Consent (Waiver of Immunity from Suit) Republic vs. Feliciano

-The general law waiving the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act No. 3083, under U.S. vs. Guinto
which the Philippine government "consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim
involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil Veterans Manpower &
action between private parties." ||| Protective Services Inc.

-Waiver of the State's immunity from suit, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be lightly U.S. vs. Ruiz
inferred, but must be construed strictissimi juris (strict letter of the law).
The Holy See v. Rosario Jr.
-The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority, hence, from a
legislative act, not from a mere memorandum.

Express Consent: Through an Act of the legislative body, in a general or special law

Implied Consent:
1. When the government commences/initiates litigation such as when it files a
complaint, thus opening itself to a counterclaim
2. When the State enters into a (business) contract in its proprietary or personal
capacity. (distinction must be made between those contracts entered in its
sovereign/governmental capacity such as the reparation of the wharves of the U.S.
base which do NOT waive immunity)
a. 2 Types of Governmental Contracts
- Jure Imperii: sovereign or governmental acts (Remains immune from suit)
● Examples: (1) the lease by a foreign government of apartment buildings for use
of its military officers (2) the conduct of public bidding for the repair of a wharf at
a United States Naval Station and (3) the change of employment status of base
employees.
- Jure Gestionis: proprietary or private acts (Waives Immunity)
● Examples: (1) the hiring of a cook in the recreation center, consisting of three
restaurants, a cafeteria, a bakery, a store, and a coffee and pastry shop at the
John Hay Air Station in Baguio City, to cater to American servicemen and the
general public and (2) the bidding for the operation of barber shops in Clark Air
Base in Angeles City

*Restrictive Application of State Immunity: "'The restrictive application of State immunity is

proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign
sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said
to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its
consent to be sued only when it enters into a business contract. It does not apply where the
contract relates to the exercise of its functions.”

There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and firmly
established.
1. Classical or absolute theory: A sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a
respondent in the courts of another sovereign.
2. Restrictive Theory: The immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to
public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure
gestionis |||

3. 2.

3. Immunity is enjoyed by other States Minucher vs. Court of

Appeals
-Public International Law Principle: Par in parem non habet imperium
Nachura: The Head of the State, who is deemed, the personification of the State he U.S. vs. Guinto
heads, is inviolable, and thus, enjoys immunity from suit.
Oxford Dictionary: In public international law, the principle that one sovereign power
 cannot exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign power. It is the basis of the act of state
doctrine and sovereign immunity.
U.S. vs Guinto: All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one
another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly vex the
peace of nations.

a.) The State’s Diplomatic Agents including consuls to a certain extent are also exempt from
the jurisdiction of local courts and administrative tribunals.

- A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit but
only as long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending
State. The cloak of protection is removed the moment the foreign agent is sued in his individual
capacity, as when he is sought to be made liable for whatever damage he may have caused by
his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his jurisdiction.

- Warships and other government ships (of other States) operated for non-commercial
purposes, enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of local courts and administrative tribunals,
subject to the provisions of Arts. 30 and 31 of UNCLOS

b.) The United Nations, as well as its organized and specialized agencies

4. Test to determine if Suit is against the State

-If it will require the government to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the judgment, viz., Sanders v. Veridiano
the appropriation of the necessary amount to cover the damages awarded, thus making
the action a suit against that government without its consent. |||

-The principle of state immunity from suit does not apply, as in this case, when the relief Republic v. Sandoval
demanded by the suit requires no affirmative official action on the part of the State nor
the affirmative discharge of any obligation which belongs to the State in its political
capacity, even though the officers or agents who are made defendants claim to hold or
act only by virtue of a title of the state and as its agents and servants. This Court has
made it quite clear that even a "high position in the government does not confer a license to
 persecute or recklessly injure another."|||

5. Suits Against Government Agencies (p.50) Municipality of San

Fernando, La Union v.
Municipal Corporations can be sued but generally not liable for torts Firme
-It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable because their
charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally Municipality of San Miguel,
not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions and Bulacan v. Fernandez
can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in a proprietary
capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the State merely gives the claimant the right to Civil Aeronautics
show that the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was Administration v. CA
committed or that the case comes under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the
claimant cannot recover. Mobil Philippines
Exploration, Inc. v. Customs
-No garnishment unless there is a corresponding appropriation ordinance Arrastre Service

-The municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee, who PNB v. Pabalan
was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions.||

Character of the objects for which entity is organized determines immunity from suit (sovereign
or proprietary)

Not all government entities, whether corporate or non-corporate, are immune from suits. Immunity
from suits is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized. |||
(e.g. PNR is government-owned but not immune from suit)

EXCEPTION to performing proprietary function: The fact that a non-corporate government entity
performs a function proprietary in nature does not necessarily result in its being suable. If said non-
governmental function is undertaken as an incident to its governmental function, there is no waiver
thereby of the sovereign immunity from suit extended to such government entity (e.g. arrastre service
by B.O.C., Bureau of Printing case)|||

Municipal corporations, Public Funds are not subject to levy and 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."|||

Rationale for the rule: Well settled is the rule that public funds are not subject to levy and execution.
The reason for this was explained in the case of Municipality of Paoay vs. Manaois, 86 Phil. 629 "that
they are held in trust for the people, intended and used for the accomplishment of the purposes
for which municipal corporations are created, and that to subject said properties and public funds
to execution would materially impede, even defeat and in some instances destroy said purpose."|

EXCEPTION: Funds belonging to governmental corporations (whose charters provide that they can
sue and be sued) that are deposited with a bank are not exempt from garnishment.||

6. Suits Against Public Officers:

Exceptions when a public officer may be sued without the prior consent of the State: Sanders v. Veridiano

1.) to compel him to do an act required by law Festejo v. Fernando

2.) to restrain him from enforcing an act claimed to be unconstitutional
3.) to compel the payment of damages from an already appropriated assurance fund or to
refund tax overpayments from a fund already available for the purpose
4.) to secure a judgment that the officer impleaded may satisfy by himself without the
government itself having to do a positive act to assist him.
5.) where the government itself has violated its own laws, because the doctrine of state
immunity "cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice."

-It is a general rule that an officer-executive, administrative quasi-judicial, ministerial, or

otherwise who acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction and without authorization of law
may thereby render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil suit. If he exceeds the power
conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself by the plea that he is a public agent
acting under color of his office, and not personally. In the eye of the law, his acts then are
wholly without authority.
 D. Amendments and Revisions Dibs-JD

Test to determine whether or not the proposal embodied in the petition constitutes an
amendment or revision

1) Quantitative Test – 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 provisions.

2) Qualitative Test – whether the change will accomplish such far-reaching changes in the nature of
our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision for instance a switch from the presidential
system to a parliamentary system would be a revision because of its over-all impact on the entire
constitutional structure. So would a switch from a bicameral system to a unicameral system be LAMBINO V. COMELEC
because of its effect on other important provisions of the Constitution.

What must be embodied in the petition?

There must be two elements present:
1) People must author and personally sign the entire proposal; and
2) Proposal must be embodied in a petition

Constituent power vs Legislative Power

Constituent power is the power to formulate a Constitution or to propose amendments to or revision of
the Constitution and to ratify such proposal.
GONZALES V. COMELEC
Whereas legislative power is the power to pass, repeal or amend ordinary law or statutes.
The Congress possess constituent power only because it has been specifically given that power by
and under the conditions of Article XVII(Amendments or Revisions)

Is the constitutional provision on initiative and referendum self-executory?

No. It requires an implementing legislation. Congress has approved RA 6735, the Initiative and SANTIAGO V. COMELEC
Referendum Law, but the SC held that the law, as worded, does not apply to constitutional amendment +
because it fails to provide a subsection for the manner and procedure of the Initiative. LAMBINO V. COMELEC
(Santiago v. Comelec)
 However in the case of Lambino v. Comelec
Ten (10) Members of the Court reiterate their position, as shown by their various opinions already
given when the Decision herein was promulgated, that Republic Act No. 6735 is sufficient and
adequate to amend the Constitution thru a people’s initiative. ( such minute resolution did not
become stare decisis)

Justice Puno in Lambino v. Comelec : The six (6) justices who ruled that R.A. 6735 is insufficient
to implement the direct right of the people to amend the Constitution through an initiative
cannot waylay the will of 6.3 million people who are the bearers of our sovereignty and from
whom all government authority emanates.

WON amendments to the Constitution must be submitted for approval in a special election or
may they be included among the general election?
Ideally, amendments should be presented in a special election in order that it can command the GONZALES V. COMELEC
undivided attention of the electorate. However, this is not required by the Constitutional

Doctrine of Proper Submission

Amendments cannot be submitted to the people in a piecemeal fashion wherein the other
amendments are to follow. The people should have a frame of reference from which to read the TOLENTINO V. COMELEC
amendments being proposed. . All the amendments must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite
only.

E. Separation of Powers - Joyce

Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall In re: Manzano
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions (Section 12, Art.
VIII, Constitution).

"While the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor,
the practical demands of government precluding its doctrinaire application, it cannot justify a member
of the judiciary being required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character. That is
implicit in the principle. Otherwise there is a plain departure from its command. The essence of the
trust reposed in him is to decide. Only a higher court, as was emphasized by Justice Barredo, can
pass on his actuation. He is not a subordinate of an executive or legislative official, however eminent.
It is indispensable that there be no exception to the rigidity of such a norm if he is, as expected, to be
confined to the task of adjudication. Fidelity to his sworn responsibility no leas than the maintenance
of respect for the judiciary can be satisfied with nothing less."

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not Angara vs. Electoral
through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the Commission
government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
sphere.

SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES — But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers
are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained
and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and
balances to secure coordination in the workings of various departments of government.

For example, the Chief Executive under our Constitution is 80 far made a check on the legislative
power that his assent is required in the enactment of laws. This, however, is subject to the further
check that a bill may become a law notwithstanding the refusal of the President to approve it, by a vote
of two-thirds or three-fourths, as the case may be, of the National Assembly. The President has also
the right to convene the Assembly in special session whenever he chooses. On the other hand, the
National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the sense that its consent through its
Commission on Appointments is necessary in the appointment of certain officers; and the concurrence
of a majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of treaties. Furthermore, in its power to
determine what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established, to define their jurisdiction
and to appropriate funds for their support, the National Assembly exercises to a certain extent control
over the judicial department. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments.
And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other
departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and
legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.

Political Questions and justiciable questions

- A purely justiciable question or controversy as it implies a given right, legally demandable and
enforceable, an act or omission violative of said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for Casibang vs. Aquino
said breach of right

- The term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely,
a question of policy. It refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the Tanada vs. Cuenco
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated
to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon
the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

- Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not the legality of a particular act. Where
the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is Sanidad vs. COMELEC
definitely justiciable or non-political.

However, even if the question were political in nature,it would still come within our powers of
review (of the SC) under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Daza vs. Singson
Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

F. Delegation of Powers

Delegation of Power

Delegation of Power

A logical corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle

of non-delegation of powers, as expressed in the Latin maxim potestas
delegata non delegari potest (what has been delegated cannot be
delegated). This is based on the ethical principle that such delegated power
constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate
through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the
intervening mind of another.

The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three

major powers of the Government but is especially important in the case of
the legislative power because of the many instances when its delegation is
permitted. The occasions are rare when executive or judicial powers have
to be delegated by the authorities to which they legally pertain. In the case
of the legislative power, however, such occasions have become more and
more frequent, if not necessary. This had led to the observation that the
delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation
the exception.
The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the
growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad
problems demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its
activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the
legislature cannot be expected reasonably to comprehend. Specialization
even in legislation has become necessary. To many of the problems
attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may not have the
competence to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to say,
specific solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its
delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields assigned
to them.

Permissible Delegation
1. Delegation to tariff powers to the President
2. Delegation to emergency powers to the President
3. Delegation to the people at large
4. Delegation to local governments
5. Delegation to administrative bodies
Delegation to tariff powers to the President ● Garcia vs.
Executive Secretary
The exercise of the authority delegated by that provision to the President
must be consistent: that authority must be exercised in "the interest of
national economy, general welfare and/or national security."

Under Section 24, Article VI of the Constitution, the enactment of

appropriation, revenue and tariff bills, like all other bills is, of course,
within the province of the Legislative rather than the Executive
Department. However, Section 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution
provides permission to Congress to authorize the President "subject to such
limitations and restrictions as [Congress] may impose" to fix "within
specific limits" "tariff rates . . . and other duties or imposts . . . ."|||

Delegation to emergency powers to the President ● Araneta vs.

Dinglasan
Delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President "to exercise ● Rodriguez vs. Gella
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy" in
times of war and other national emergency under Section 23 (2) of Article
VI of the Constitution. The phrase "in times of war or other national
emergency" is solely indicative or descriptive of the occasions during
which the delegation may be extended and does not classify the act of
delegating legislative functions as a war power.

Condition:
1. There must be war or other national emergency
2. The delegation must be for a limited period only
3. The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may
prescribe
4. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy
by the Congress.

The Constitution requires also that the delegation be for a limited period or
the authority so delegated shall cease ipso facto at the expiration of the
period, because to require an express legislation to repeal or terminate the
delegated legislative authority of the President might be subversive to the
constitutional separation of powers in our democratic form of government,
for the President may prevent indefinitely the repeal of his delegated
authority by the exercise of his veto power, since the veto could be
overridden only by a two-thirds vote and it would be extremely difficult to
repeal it in a subservient Congress dominated by the Chief Executive.
Besides, to provide that the delegated legislative powers shall continue to
exist until repealed by the Congress, would be a delegation not for a
limited, but for an unlimited period or rather without any limitation at all,
because all acts enacted are always subject to repeal by the Congress,
without necessity to providing so.

Delegation to the people at large ● People vs. Vera

The rule, however which forbids the delegation of legislative power is not
absolute and inflexible. It admits of exceptions. An exception sanctioned
by immemorial practice permits the central legislative body to delegate
legislative powers to local authorities. On quite the same principle,
Congress is empowered to delegate legislative power to such agencies in
the territories of the United States as it may select. Courts have also
sustained the delegation of legislative power to the people at large, though
some authorities maintain that this may not be done. Doubt less, also,
legislative power may be delegated by the Constitution itself.

Delegation to local governments ● Pelaez vs. Auditor

General
Congress may delegate to another branch of the Government the power to
fill in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law,
it is essential that said law: (a) be complete in itself, setting forth therein
the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate; and
(b) fix a standard - the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or
determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions.
 Delegation to administrative bodies ● Lokin vs.
COMELEC
In the face of the increasing complexity of modern life, delegation of ● Gerochi vs. DOE
legislative power to various specialized administrative agencies is allowed ● ABAKADA
as an exception to this principle.1[48] Given the volume and variety of
interactions in today's society, it is doubtful if the legislature can GURO PARTY vs.
promulgate laws that will deal adequately with and respond promptly to the Purisima
minutiae of everyday life. Hence, the need to delegate to administrative ● Dagan vs. Phil.
bodies - the principal agencies tasked to execute laws in their specialized Racing Comm.
fields - the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a ● PHILCOMSAT vs.
given statute and effectuate its policies. All that is required for the valid Alcuaz
exercise of this power of subordinate legislation is that the regulation be
● C.T. Torres
germane to the objects and purposes of the law and that the regulation be
not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by Enterprise vs.
the law. These requirements are denominated as the completeness test and Hibionada
the sufficient standard test. ● SMART vs. NTC
● People vs. Vera
Justice Nachura defines the nature of the rule-making power of ● Eastern Shipping
administrative bodies in the executive branch as the exercise of delegated
Lines vs. POEA
legislative power, involving no discretion as to what the law shall be, but
merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a ● US vs Ang Tang
policy set out in the law itself. Ho
● Ynot vs. IAC
Under the provisions of the Civil Code is out of step with the fast-changing ● Tabalarin vs.
times where hundreds of administrative bodies now performing this Gutierrez
function by virtue of a valid authorization from the legislature. This quasi-
● Pelaez vs. Auditor
judicial function, as it is called, is exercised by them as an incident of the
principal power entrusted to them of regulating certain activities falling General
under their particular expertise.

1
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the
administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function.

Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers

and quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative
or rule-making power is the power to make rules and regulations which
results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting
statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers.

The quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an administrative agency is

its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power. This is the power to
hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to
apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law
itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative
body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial
manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature,
where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably
necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty
entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the
administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw
conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of
discretion in a judicial nature.
Test for Delegation ● Gerochi vs. DOE
● ABAKADA
The validity of an administrative issuance, such as the assailed guidelines, GURO PARTY vs.
hinges on compliance with the following requisites:
Purisima
1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature; ● Dagan vs. Phil.
2. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; Racing Comm.
3. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature; ● Eastern Shipping
4. It must be reasonable Lines vs. POEA
 ● Ynot vs. IAC
A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, ● Pelaez vs. Auditor
carried out or implemented by the delegate.2[26] It lays down a sufficient General
standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to
map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the
delegation from running riot.

Completeness test

The law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will
have to do is to enforce it.

Sufficient standard test.

Mandates adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the

boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot.

Sufficient standards the following:

1. Interest of law and order
2. Adequate and efficient instruction
3. Public interest
4. Justice and equity
5. Public convenience and welfare
6. Simplicity, economy and efficiency
7. Standardization and regulation of medical education
8. Fair and equitable employment practices

2
 Article II. Fundamental Principles and State Policies

Section Doctrine Cases

Section 1 Republic is a representative government run by and for the people.

Essential features:
1. Representation
2. Renovation
Republican government is a responsible government whose officials hold and
discharge their position as a public trust and shall, according to the Constitution,
“at all times be accountable to the people”they are sworn to serve.

- [Our State] is a government of laws and not of men. ● Villavicencio vs.

- No official, no matter how high, is above the law. Lukban
- “...fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, considered
as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional
law which are monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in
securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and
equal laws.” (Court cited Yick Wo vs. Hopkins)

Section 2, 7, 8 State practice - acts must be consistent and general international practice; material part North Sea Continental
of customary law. Widespread and representative participation. Kuroda v. Jalandoni
Poe v. COMELEC
Opinio juris sive necessitatis - belief that an action was carried out as a legal obligation.
A subjective element of custom as a source of law, both domestic and international, as it
refers to beliefs. Used to judge whether the practice of a state is due to a belief that it is
legally obliged to do a particular act. Opinio juris essentially means that states must act in
compliance with the norm not merely out of convenience, habit, coincidence, or political
expediency, but rather out of a sense of legal obligation. (Self - defense)
Psychological state of the state actor - why the state behaved as it did - it can be difficult
to identify and to prove. Evidence such as diplomatic correspondence, press releases and
other government statements of policy, opinions of legal advisers, official manual on
legal questions, legislation, national and international judicial decisions, legal briefs
endorsed by the state, a pattern of treaties ratified by the state that all include the same
obligations, resolutions and declarations by the UN, and other sources.
● Pharmaceutical and
When does an international law become part of the sphere of domestic law? Health Care
By Doctrine of Transformation - requires that an international law be transformed into a Association v.
domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. Duque
(i.e. Treaties - pursuant to Art. VII of Section 21 of the Constitution, which provides that
no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at
least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate. Hence, it must go through a process
prescribed by the Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal law that can be
applied to domestic conflicts.
By Doctrine of Incorporation - by mere constitutional declaration, international law is
deemed to have the force of domestic law.
The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as
binding result from the combination of two elements: the established, widespread, and
consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological element known as the
opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter
element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of
a rule of law requiring it. ● Agustin v. Edu

Art. 38, ICJ Statute - Sources of customary interntional law

- International Convention
- Customs
● Objective
● Subjective
- General Principles
● SOJ v. Lantion
 - Judicial Decisions and Works of Highly Qualified Publicists ● Saguisag v. Exec
Secretary
Hierarchy of Laws
- Constitution
- Treaties and Statutes are of equal standing
- Executive Agreements

Pacta Sunt Servanda - good faith obligations of the State

- As applied in Agustin v. Edu, The hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic
have been recognized by the international bodies concerned with traffic safety,
the 1968 Vienna Convention on the Road Signs and Signals and the UN, Whereas
the Vienna Convention, which was ratified by the PH Gov under PD No. 207,
recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of road
safety signs and devices; It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to
which it had pledged its word. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the
way of such an attitude, which is, moreover, at war with the principle of
● Bayan v. Zamora
international morality.

How can a State be bound by a treaty?

Ratification is generally held to be an executive act. (Pre ratification obligations)
Consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification:
(a) the treaty provides for such ratification
(b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States agreed that ratification should
be required
(c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification;
(d) intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full
powers of its representative, or was expressed during the negotiation

Section 3, 4, 5 Civilian Supremacy SEC. 3

- Nichole - The principle of civilian supremacy is institutionalized by the provision
which makes the President, a civilian and precisely AS CIVILIAN,
 commander-in-chief of the armed forces. ● People vs Lagman
- The duty of the government to defend the state cannot be performed
except through an army; to leave an organization of an army to the will of
the citizens would be to make this duty of the government excusable
should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein

Calling out Power SEC 4 ● Lagman vs

- The calling out power is an extraordinary power vested in the president Medialdea
and the most benign which involves police action (DISCRETIONARY ON
THE PRESIDENT)
- The president may only resort to this extraordinary power WHENEVER IT
BECOMES NECESSARY TO SUPPRESS LAWLESS VIOLENCE,
INVASION OR REBELLION
- The ACTUAL USE to which the president puts the armed forces is NOT
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

LIMITATION TO THE CALLING OUT POWERS:

a) A limit of 60 days
b) Review and possible revocation by the Congress
c) Review and possible revocation by the Supreme Court

WHAT HAPPENS DURING MARTIAL LAW?

a) DOES NOT SUSPEND the operation of the Constitution;
b) DOES NOT SUPPLANT the functioning of the Civil Courts and Legislative
Assemblies;
c) The president exercises POLICE POWER(w/ the assistance of Military
Forces) which is normally the function of the Legislature

Section 6 Religion
- Grace The state still recognizes the inherent right of the people to have some form of Lung Center of the
belief system, whether such may be belief in a Supreme Being, a certain way of Philippines vs Quezon City
life, or even outright rejection of religion.
“We the Sovereign Filipino People imploring the aid of Almighty God” manifested
the spirituality innate in our nature and consciousness as a people, shaped by
tradition and historical experience.

What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious Aglipay vs Ruiz
toleration. Religious freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is not
inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in
human affairs

Cases involving questions relative to ecclesiastical rights have always received Taruc vs De la Cruz
the profoundest attention from the courts, not only because of their inherent
interest, but because of the far reaching effects of the decisions in human society.

In a form of government where the complete separation of civil and ecclesiastical

authority is insisted upon civil courts must not allow themselves to intrude
unduly in matters of an ecclesiastical nature.

There is one area which the court should not touch: doctrinal and disciplinary
differences.

Separation Estrada vs. Escritor

Strict Separation - State’s hostility towards religions allows no interaction

between the State and Religion. Absolute barrier to formal independence of
religious institutions could not resolve aid whether direct or indirect from the State.

Benevolent Neutrality (Governmental Neutrality) - State must be neutral in its

relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers. Religion may not be
used as a basis for classification for purpose of governmental action whether the
action confers rights or privileges, imposes duties or obligation. Only Secular
criteria may be the basis of governmental action.

Theory of Accommodation - is not a declaration of unconstitutionality of a Estrada vs. Escritor

facially neutral law, but an exemption from its application or its “burdensome
effect” whether by legislation or the courts.
Accomodations - is a recognition of the reality that some governmental Re: Letter of Tony
measures may not be imposed on certain portion of the population for the reason Valenciano
that these measures are contrary to their religious beliefs. These are government
policies that take religion specifically into account not to promote the
government’s favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to
exercise their religion without hindrance.

a. Mandatory - When all three requisites of the Compelling interest test are Estrada vs Escritor
present, accommodations are required. The injury to religious conscience
is so great and advancement of public purposes is incomparable that the
only indifference or hostility could explain a refusal to make exemptions.
Thus, if the state’s objective could be served as well or almost as well by
granting an exemption to those whose religious beliefs are burdened by
the regulation, the court must grant an exemption.

Example of Mandatory: Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu,

where the Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to salute the flag and sing the national
anthem. The Court accommodated them by granting an exemption them from
observing the flag ceremony out of respect to their religious belief.

b. Permissive - When the court finds that the State may but is not required
to accommodate religious interest.
Estrada vs. Escritor
Example of Permissive: Permissive accommodation based on religious freedom
has been granted with respect to one of the crimes penalized under the Revised
Penal Code - Bigamy: Muslims are allowed to marry more than one spouse.

c. Prohibitory - There is no basis for mandatory accommodation or when the

court determines that the legislative accommodations runs afoul of the
establishment or the free exercise clause.

Compelling Interest Test Applied in the case of

(1) Right to religious freedom has been burdened Estrada vs Escritor
(2) There is no doubt as to the sincerity of the religious belief
(3) State has failed to demonstrate a particular importance or compelling
governmental goal in preventing exemption
 (4) What is used is the least restrictive or least intrusive means of achieving
the objective.

The burden of proof shifts to the government to demonstrate that the law or
practice is necessary to the accomplishment of some important secular objective
to be achieved.

Presumption is in favor of the free exercise of religion.

Non-Establishment Clause In Re: Letter of Tony

Valenciano
1. The Government must not prefer one religion over another religion
because such preference would violate voluntarism and breed dissension.
2. Government funds should not be applied to religious purposes
3. Government Funds should not aid religion.
4. Government action must not result in excessive entanglement with
religion.

The State cannot set up a Church, nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religion, or prefer one religion over another nor force nor influence a person to go
to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess his belief or
disbelief in one religion; that the state cannot punish a person for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs.

Lemon Test Applied in the case of

The Diocese of Bacolod vs.
Requisites: COMELEC
(1) Has Secular Legislative Purpose
(2) Neither advances nor inhibits religion
(3) Does not foster an excessive entanglement with Religion

Two Fold Aspect of Right to Religious Worship

1. Freedom to Believe (Compelling State Interest Test) - absolute, as In Re: Letter of Tony
long as it is confined in the realm of thought. The State must cherish any Valenciano
religious conviction as he and he alone sees fit. Everyone has the right to
 his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he cannot prove
what he believes.

2. Freedom to Act on one’s Belief (Lemon Test) - Subject to regulation,

where the belief is translated into external acts that affects public welfare.
A person has the freedom to act on one’s belief is limited in such a way
that where the individual externalizes his freedom to do so it must be not
contrary to the law and is subject to the authority of the state

Non-establishment vs Accommodation In Re: Letter of Tony

Valenciano
Non-Establishment (Section 5, Accomodation (Section 6, Article II)
Article III)

1. Entails a positive action on 1. Passive action on the part of

the part of the state the state
2. State becomes involved 2. State without being entangled
through the use of merely gives consideration to
government resources with its citizens who wants to freely
primary intention of setting up a exercise their religion.
state religion

Exemption to Taxes: Applied in:

Lung Center of the
What is meant by actual, direct and exclusive use of the property for charitable Philippines vs Quezon City
purposes is the direct and immediate and actual application of the property itself
to the purposes for which the charitable institution is organized. It is not the use of Abra Volley College vs
the income from the real property that is determinative of whether the property is Aquino
used for tax-exempt purposes

Test is the use of the property: It must be proven, by clear and unequivocal
proof, that
(a) it is a charitable institution; and
(b) its real properties are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used
for charitable purposes.
 "Exclusive" is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others;
debarred from participation or enjoyment and "exclusively" is defined, "in a
manner to exclude; as enjoying a privilege exclusively."

If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively
used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation. The words "dominant
use" or "principal use" cannot be substituted for the words "used exclusively"
without doing violence to the Constitutions and the law.

Reasonable emphasis has always been made that exemption extends to

facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the main purpose.

The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that laws granting exemption from tax are
construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing
power. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The effect of an
exemption is equivalent to an appropriation. Hence, a claim for exemption from
tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain
to be mistaken

Section 9, 10 ● the promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken ● Calalang vs.
● Dibs sympathy towards any given group Williams
Nichole ● SOCIAL JUSTICE (J. Laurel) - “neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism, nor anarchy but the humanization of laws and the equalization of
social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and
objectively secular conception may at least be approximated

● Property use must not only be for the benefit of the owner but of the
society as well ● Almeda vs. CA
● The state, in the promotion of social justice, may regulate “the acquisition,
ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private property and
equitably diffuse property, ownership and profits”
 ● As between a laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer,
who has resources to secure able legal advice, the law has reason ● Ondoy vs. Ignacio
to demand from the latter stricter compliance. “Social justice in
these cases is not equality but protection.”

● Social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property

owners who under our constitutional laws are also under protection ● Salonga vs. Farrales
● It is not intended to take away rights from a person and give them to
another who is not entitled thereto
● Cannot nullify the law on Obligation and Contracts and is beyond the
power of the Court to grant

Section 11 - Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of asylum therein ● Mejoff vs. Director of
Dibs Seia even if they are “stateless” Prisons
- Protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and ● See Article VIII, Sec.
except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to 5 (5)
Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens,
regardless of nationality

- Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every ● Hong Kong vs.
person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental Olalia
right to liberty - right to be admitted to bail is included
- “temporary detention” may be a necessary step in the process of
extradition, but the length of time should be reasonable
____

- The rights involved in the Bill of Rights are liberty of abode and right to ● Marcos vs.
travel Manglapus
- Right to return to one’s country is not among the rights specifically
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It is distinct and separate from the right to
travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights
____
Amparo ● Secretary of National
- Se originó en México Defense vs. Manalo
 - “Protection” en Español
- Enables courts to enforce the constitution by protecting individual rights in
particular cases, but prevents them from using this power to make law for
the entire nation
Kinds of Amparo
1. Amparo Libertad - protection of personal freedom, equivalent to habeas
corpus writ
2. Amparo contra leyes - judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes
3. Amparo casacion - judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of a
judicial decision
4. Amparo administrativo - judicial review of administrative actions
5. Amparo agrario - protection of peasants’ rights derived from agrarian
reform process

- Writ of amparo serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the
problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances:
Preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these
offenses.
Curative in that is facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it will
inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action.
- The goal of both of these roles is to deter the further commission of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances
Extralegal killings - killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without
legal safeguards or judicial proceedings
Enforced disappearances
- attended by the following characteristics: arrest, detention or abduction of
a person by a government official or organized groups or private
individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the
government
- Refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person
concerned
- Refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such
persons outside the protection of law

The Amparo Rule was promulgated “in the light of the prevalence of extralegal
killing and enforced disappearances.” It was an exercise for the first time of the
Court’s expanded power to promulgate rules to protect our people’s constitutional
rights [Sec. 5 (5) Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution]

Grave Abuse Clause - Article VIII, Sec. 1 (2) of 1987 Constitution; accords
similar general protection to human rights extended by amparo contra leyes,
amparo casacion, and amparo administrativo.

____
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) ● See Article XIII, Sec.
- CHR has no such power to adjudication to try, decide, hear, or determine 17, 18, 19
certain type of cases like alleged human rights violations involving civil or ● Cariño vs. CHR
political rights
- The word “investigate” in Sec. 18(1) means fact-finding, and it is not
adjudication and cannot be likened to judicial function of a court of justice
or even quasi-judicial agency or official
The CHR:
- can exercise power to cite for contempt in accordance with the Rules of
Court
- may grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or
possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to
determine the truth
- can request assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in
performance of its functions in conduct of the investigation
_____

- Constitutional Provision directing CHR to “provide for preventive measures ● EPZA vs. CHR
and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have
been violated or need protection” may not be construed to confer
jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of
injunction
- CHR has no jurisdiction to issue writs because it may only be issued by
a judge of any court or by a Justice of Court of Appeals or Supreme Court,
or Judge of RTC
Note: The three constitutional commissions (Civil Service, Commission on
Elections, Commission on Audit) as mentioned in Article IX have jurisdiction as
quasi-judicial agencies.
Section 12 - The protection accorded to the unborn starts from the moment of ● Imbong vs Ochoa
Dibs Nichole CONCEPTION
- Contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an
abortive and thus prohibited, however, contraceptives that actually
PREVENT the union of the male sperm and the female ovum, and those
that similarly take action PRIOR TO FERTILIZATION SHOULD BE
DEEMED NON-ABORTIVE and thus CONSTITUTIONALLY
PERMISSIBLE
-

Section 14

Section 15, 16 ● Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals ● Laguna Lake
Dibs Dawn - If the authority to issue a "cease and desist order" were not expressly Development Authority
conferred by law, there is jurisprudence enough to the effect that the rule v. Court of Appeals
granting such authority need not necessarily be express. While it is a ● Oposa v. Factoran
fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers as ● Resident Mammals v.
are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an Reyes
administrative agency has also such powers as are necessarily
implied in the exercise of its express powers. In the exercise, therefore,
of its express powers under its charter as a regulatory and quasi-judicial
body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, the
authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order" is, perforce,
implied. Otherwise, it may well be reduced to a "toothless" paper agency.
- The immediate response to the demands of "the necessities of protecting
vital public interests" gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies or the 1987 Constitution.
Article II, Section 16 which provides:
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.
- As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the
correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but in consonance with the
declared policy of the state "to protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them. It is to be borne
in mind that the Philippines is party to the Universal Declaration of Human
 Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978 which recognize
health as a fundamental human right.

● Oposa v. Factoran
- Right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners
dramatically associate with the twin concepts of “inter-generational
responsibility” and “inter-generational justice.”
- While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and
political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation.
- As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental
charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the
rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as
state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their
continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn
obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second,
the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for
the present generation, but also for those to come — generations
which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining
life.
- A cause of action is defined as an act or omission of one party in violation
of the legal right or rights of the other.
Essential elements:
1. legal right of the plaintiff,
2. correlative obligation of the defendant,
3. and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
- Class suit complain is of common and general interest.

● Resident Mammals v. Reyes

- A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
 Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (2a)
- A litigant who stands to benefit or sustain an injury from the judgment of a
case is a real party in interest. When a case is brought to the courts, the
real party in interest must show that another party's act or omission has
caused a direct injury, making his or her interest both material and based
on an enforceable legal right.
- SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation of others,
including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to
enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the
filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall
contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs
prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to
intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The
plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of a general
circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies
of said order.
- Explaining the rationale for this rule, the Court, in the Annotations to the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, commented:
- Citizen suit. To further encourage the protection of the environment, the
Rules enable litigants enforcing environmental rights to file their cases as
citizen suits. This provision liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing
environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on personal and
direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.
The terminology of the text reflects the doctrine first enunciated in Oposa
v. Factoran, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn.
- A citizen's suit under this rule allows any Filipino citizen to file an action for
the enforcement of environmental law on behalf of minors or generations
yet unborn. It is essentially a representative suit that allows persons who
are not real parties in interest to institute actions on behalf of the real party
in interest.
- Court had already taken a permissive position on the issue of locus standi
in environmental cases. In Oposa, we allowed the suit to be brought in the
name of generations yet unborn "based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned." Furthermore, we said that the right to a balanced and
 healthful ecology, a right that does not even need to be stated in our
Constitution as it is assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind, carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.

Section 15-22 Article X. Kida v. Senate

- President’s certification is two-fold purpose.
- 3 readings must be observed to enable our legislator and other parties to
intelligently respond for congress.
1. Inform the legislators they shall vote on
2. Give notice a measure is in progress through enactment
- State legislation has a plenary law making power over all subjects within
pertaining to persons things within territorial jurisdiction either intro new
laws or repeal the old.
- the Court identified the three options open to Congress in order to resolve
the problem on who should sit as ARMM officials in the interim [in order to
achieve synchronization in the 2013 elections]: (1) allow the [incumbent]
elective officials in the ARMM to remain in office in a hold over capacity
until those elected in the synchronized elections assume office; (2) hold
special elections in the ARMM, with the terms of those elected to expire
when those elected in the [2013] synchronized elections assume office; or
(3) authorize the President to appoint OICs, [their respective terms to last
also until those elected in the 2013 synchronized elections assume office.]
The first is the extent of the powers of Congress to legislate; the second is
the constitutional mandate for the synchronization of elections; and the
third is on the concept of autonomy as recognized and established under
the 1987 Constitution.
- 3rd option: The above considerations leave only Congress’ chosen interim
measure – RA No. 10153 and the appointment by the President of OICs to
govern the ARMM during the pre-synchronization period pursuant to
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this law – as the only measure that Congress can
make. This choice itself, however, should be examined for any attendant
constitutional infirmity.
- At the outset, the power to appoint is essentially executive in nature, and
the limitations on or qualifications to the exercise of this power should be
strictly construed; these limitations or qualifications must be clearly stated
in order to be recognized. The appointing power is embodied in Section
16, Article VII of the Constitution, which states:

Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls or officers
of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He
shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments
are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the
appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the
courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
[emphasis ours]

This provision classifies into four groups the officers that the President can
appoint. These are:

First, the heads of the executive departments; ambassadors; other public

ministers and consuls; officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, from
the rank of colonel or naval captain; and other officers whose
appointments are vested in the President in this Constitution;
Second, all other officers of the government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law;
Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint; and
Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by
law vest in the President alone.
Since the President’s authority to appoint OICs emanates from RA
No. 10153, it falls under the third group of officials that the President
can appoint pursuant to Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution.
Thus, the assailed law facially rests on clear constitutional basis.
Section 18 in Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall ISAE v. Quisumbing
relation with protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
to Article XII,
Section 3 CASE – ISAE v. Quisumbing
“EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK” — Persons who work with substantially equal
qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be
paid similar salaries

The School employs four tests to determine whether a faculty member should be
classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire:
a. What is one's domicile?
DIBS - RANIA b. Where is one's home economy?
c. To which country does one owe economic allegiance?
d. Was the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School and
was the School responsible for bringing that individual to the
Philippines?
Should the answer to any of these queries point to the Philippines, the faculty
member is classified as a local hire; otherwise, he or she is deemed a foreign-hire.
The school justifies the difference on wages and benefits on two “significant
economic disadvantages” foreign hires have to endure, namely:
a. the “dislocation factor”; and
b. limited tenure.

A bargaining unit is “a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of

all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the
employer indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of
the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.”
The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are:
1. the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine);
2. affinity and unity of the employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity
of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions
(Substantial Mutual Interests Rule);
3. prior collective bargaining history; and
4. similarity of employment status.
 The basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether or not
it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees
the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.

Section 19 in Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony), Section 11: “No franchise, Gamboa v. Reyes
relation with certificate, or any form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be
Article XII, granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations
Section 11 organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least 60% of whose capital is
Alecs owned by such citizens…”

The purpose of this citizenship requirement is to prevent non-Filipinos from

assuming control over the country’s public utilities, which may be detrimental to
national interest. For any citizen, company, or other judicial entity to be granted
authority to operate a public utility, at least 60% of its “capital” must be Filipino-
owned.

The case of Gamboa v. Reyes seeks to define which types of stocks constitute
the “capital” of a company or corporation. The Court is of the opinion that the term
“capital” in Art. XII, Sec. 11, as intended by the framers, refers only to common
shares, because such stocks come with voting rights for the shareholders. These
voting rights come with the right of the stockholder to participate in the control or
management of the corporation, based on the definition provided by the
Corporation Code of the Philippines.

In Garcia v. BOI, the petitioners question the decision of BOI in giving Garcia v. Board of
unprecedented favors to the Bataan Petrochemical Corp. (BPC) which was Investments
formed by Taiwanese investors. Article XII, Section 1 provides that “the State shall
promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient
use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic
and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against
unfair foreign competition and trade practices.” Art. XII, Sec. 11 is similarly
applicable in this case. This is because a petrochemical industry is not an ordinary
 investment; its establishment is of national interest, therefore the BOI should have
acted in a way that it prioritized the best interest of the Filipino people.

Section 21 The 1935 Constitution mandated the policy of social justice to “insure the well- Association of Small Land
Alecs being and economic security of all the people, especially the less privileged.” The Owners in the Philippines v.
1973 Constitution similarly affirms this by adding that “the State shall regulate the Secretary of DAR
acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and disposition of private property and
equitably diffuse property ownership and profits.” These were echoed in Article
XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights), Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution,
through the adoption of an agrarian reform program.

The Agrarian Reform Program is not simply an exercise of police power. It is an

exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Police Power is characterized by the prevention of harmful externalities. This is

merely to provide measures for the retention limits of landowners.

Power of Eminent Domain is the public acquisition of private property for

improvements that would be made available for public use. This is exercised when
it becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever lands they own in excess of
the maximum area allowed. This power is inherent to the State.

(When the owner is unwilling to sell, or when the owner cannot accept the price or
other conditions offered by the vendee, the Power of Eminent Domain must come
into play, to assert the paramount authority of the State over the interests of the
property owner.)

There is compensable taking of property when the ff. conditions concur:

(1) The expropriator must enter a private property
(2) The entry must be for more than a momentary period
(3) The entry must be under warrant of legal authority
(4) The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected
(5) The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust
the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property
 Are all types of lands affected by the Agrarian Reform Program?

Classification is the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain

particulars and different from each other in these same particulars.

For a classification to be valid, the ff. requirements must be conformed with:

(1) It must be based on substantial distinctions
(2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law
(3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only
(4) It must apply equally to all members of the class

Section 25 The power of local government to "impose taxes and fees" is always subject to Basco vs. PAGCOR
-Joyce "limitations" which Congress may provide by law. Since PD 1869 (PAGCOR
charter) remains an "operative" law until "amended, repealed or revoked" (Sec. 3,
Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution), its "exemption clause" remains as an exception to
the exercise of the power of local governments to impose taxes and fees. It
cannot therefore be violative but rather is consistent with the principle of local
autonomy.

Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply
means "decentralization". It does not make local governments sovereign within the
state or an "imperium in imperio." "Local Government has been described as a
political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has
substantial control of local affairs. In a unitary system of government, such as the
government under the Philippine Constitution, local governments can only be an
intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation, it cannot be an imperium in
imperio. Local government in such a system can only mean a measure of
decentralization of the function of government. As to what state powers should be
"decentralized" and what may be delegated to local government units remains a
matter of policy, which concerns wisdom. It is therefore a political question. What
is settled is that the matter of regulating, taxing or otherwise dealing with gambling
is a State concern and hence, it is the sole prerogative of the State to retain it or
delegate it to local governments.

Autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of Limbona vs. Mangelin

power.
 There is decentralization of administration:
- when the central government delegates administrative powers to political
subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the
process to make local governments "more responsive and accountable,"
and "ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and
make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development
and social progress."

- At the same time, it relieves the central government of the burden of

managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national concerns.

- The President exercises "general supervision" over them, but only to

"ensure that local affairs are administered according to law." He has no
control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute their judgments
with his own.

Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves:

- an abdication of political power in the favor of local governments units
declared to be autonomous. In that case, the autonomous government is
free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum
intervention from central authorities.

- According to a constitutional author, decentralization of power amounts

to "self-immolation," since in that event, the autonomous government
becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency.

Section 26 What is recognized in this provision is merely a privilege subject to the limitations Pamatong vs. COMELEC
“Equal imposed by law. It neither bestows such righ nor elevates the privilege to the level
Access..” of an enforceable right. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, this
Dibs - Grace provision does not contain any judicially enforceable right but merely specifies a
guideline for legislative or executive.

The provisions is not intended to compel the State to enact positive measures that
 would accommodate as many people. The privilege of equal access to
opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations. As long as the
limitations apply to everybody equally without discriminations, the equal
access clause is not violated.

Equality is not sacrificed as long as the burdens endangered by the limitations are
meant to be borne by anyone who is minded to file ca certificate of candidacy.

Section 28 Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and ● Legaspi vs. Civil Service
Dibs Dawn and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving Commission
Reina public interest. ● Valmonte vs. Belmonte
● Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission ● Aquino-Sarmiento vs.
Petition for Mandamus Morato
- Instituted by a party aggrieved by alleged inaction of any tribunal, ● Province of Cotabato
corporation, board or person which excludes the said party from vs. The Gov’t. of the RP
enjoyment of a legal right. Peace Panel on
- Aggrieved meaning clear legal right to be enforced in the duty or act Ancestral Domain
to be performed ● In re Petition for
- Petition is that the petitioner has firmly anchored his case upon right of Records, February 14,
the people to information on matters of public concern <- a public 2012
right ● Echagaray vs. Secretary
- Proceeding involves the assertion of a public right the requirement of of Justice
personal interest is satisfied my the mere fact: a.) petitioner is a citizen ● Chavez vs. Presidential
and part of the general public which possesses the right. Commission on Good
- Public - no direct/tangible interest in any real estate Government
- Comprehensive all-inclusive term
- Embraces every person
- Imperative duty of government officials concerned to publish all
important legislative acts and resolution of public nature as well as all
executive and proclamation
- “No discretion whatsoever as to what must be included/excluded
from such publication.”
 - Absence of discretion on the part of the government agencies in
allowing the examination of public record office of Register of Deeds.
Except: clear that the purpose of examination is unlawful,
sheer, idle curiosity
- It is not the duty of the officers to concern themselves with motives of
the person seeking access to records
- It is not the prerogative to see that information is not flaunted for
public gaze.
- The legislature is called upon to devise a remedy
- Authority to regulate the manner of examining public records doesn’t
carry with it the power to prohibit
Distinction

Discretion to refuse outright disclosure Authority to regulate the manner in

of or access to particular info which the access is to be afforded

Only legislature may impose Government agency charged with

Article III Sec. 6 custody of public record exercise
solely to the end that damage or loss
of recorded may be avoided,
interfence prevented exercise shall be
assured while manner of examining
may be subject to reasonable
regulation by government agency.
Duty to disclose the information afford
access CANNOT be discretionary.
Question is: Whether information is
within the ambit of the constitutional
guarantee.
Guarantee of access of information:
a.) Recognition of essential free flow of ideas and information in
democracy
 b.) Aids people in democratic decision making by giving better
perspective
However, this is NOT ABSOLUTE.
Limitations are provided by Art. III Section 7(2):
Access to particular record
a. Being of public concern or involves public interest
b. Not being exempted by law from operation of consti guarantee
In case of denial of access, government agency has the burden of showing that
the information is not for public concern
- There is no test for the guarantee. It is for the courts to decide.
- Public office being a public trust legitimate concern of citizens to ensure
that government.

● Valmonte vs. Belmonte

- Right to information goes hand-in-hand with constitutional policy of
full public disclosure and honest public service.
- Right to privacy is accorded recognition independently of its
identification with liberty.
- When information requested from the government of a citizen.
- Right to privacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity. It
doesn’t apply to governmental agencies like GSIS. Right to privacy
cannot be invoked by juridical entities like GSIS.
- Corporation has no right of privacy because such right is an injury
to feelings and sensibilities.
- Right may only be invoked by person whose property is claimed to
be violated.

● Aquino-Sarmiento vs. Morato

- Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies - a party is
allowed to resort to courts, required to comply with all
administrative remedies
 Reason: Opportunity to act in administrative level
Exceptions:
1. No administrative review is provided by law
2. Only questions of law is involved
3. Party invoking is guilty of estoppel
4. Challenged administrative action is patently illegal, arbitrary
and oppressive.
5. Unreasonable delay of action which would prejudice
complainant.
6. Exhaustion is impractical.
7. Rule of qualified agency applies.
- Legislature may provide limitations and reasonable conditions.
- Private means belonging to an individual person, company or
interest.
- MTRCB’s existence is public. It is created through P.D. 1986
- Product of action undertaken in course of performing official
functions.

● Province of Cotabato vs. The Gov’t. of the RP Peace Panel on Ancestral

Domain
What is the extent of the President’s powers in pursuing the
peace process? The President may explore, in the course of
peace negotiations, solutions that may require changes to the
Constitution for their implementation. Being uniquely vested with
the power to conduct peace negotiations with rebel groups, the
President is in a singular position to know the precise nature of
their grievances which, if resolved, may bring an end to hostilities.
The President may not unilaterally implement the solutions that she
considers viable, but she may not be prevented from submitting
them as recommendations to Congress, which could then, if it is
minded, act upon them pursuant to the legal procedures for
constitutional amendment and revision.

The facts surrounding the controversy center on the armed conflict

in Mindanao between the government and the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front. On August 5, 2008, the Government of Philippines
and the MILF were scheduled to sign a MOA on the ancestral
domain aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of
2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

MILF is a rebel group which splintered from the MNLF then headed
by Nur Misuari on the ground, among others, of what Salamat
perceived to be the manipulation of the MNLF away from an Islamic
basic towards Marxist-Maoist orientations. Erap declared an all-out
war. GMA – suspended the military offensive against the MILF and
sought resumption of peace talks.

Petitioners seek to compel respondents to disclose and

furnish them the complete and official copies of the MOA-AD
including tis attachments, and to prohibit the slated signing of
the MOA-AD, oending the disclosure of the contents of the
MOA-AD and the holding public consultation thereon.

The MOA AD is a public concern involving the sovereignty and

territorial integrity of the State, which directly affects the lives of the
public at large.

Matters of public concern covered by the right of information

include steps and negotiations leading to the consummation of the
contract. In not distinguishing as to the executory nature or
commercial character of agreements, the Court has categorically
ruled: “The right to information contemplates inclusion of
 negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction.”
Certainly, a consummated contract is not a requirement for the
exercise of the right to information. Otherwise, the people can
never exercise the right if no contract is consummated, and if one is
consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its defect.
Such requirement will prevent the citizenry from participating in the
public discussion of any proposed contract, effectively truncating a
basic right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

The right to information guarantees the right of the people to

demand information while Section 28, Article II of the Constitution
recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information even if
nobody demands.

“Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts

and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest. “ The policy of full public disclosure enunciated
in above-quoted Sec. 28 complements the right of access to information
on matters of public concern found in the Bill of Rights. The right of
information guarantees the right of the people to demand information,
while Section 28 recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information
even if nobody demands. These provisions are vital to the exercise of
freedom of expression and essential to hold public officials at all times
accountable to the people.

● In re Petition for Records, February 14, 2012

- Principle of comity - courtesy in understanding assigned
constitutional duties.
- According to Internal Rules of Supreme Court, court records which
are confidential:
 1. Result of raffle of cases
Rule 7 Sec. 3 IRSC
- Only available to parties and their counsel.
UNLESS: it involves bar matters, criminal and
administrative cases involving life imprisonment.
2. Actions taken by the court
Rule 10 Sec. 2 IRSC
- Only released after official release of resolution
embodying court action. Actions taken by the court
is officially released if the envelope containing its
final copy addressed to parties, transmitted to
process server for personal service to mailing
section of Judicial Records Office.
3. Deliberations of Members in Court sessions on cases
and matters of pendency before it.
Deliberative process privilege - against disclosure of these
kinds of information communications.
- Freely discuss issues without fear of criticisms for
holding unpopular opinion.
- NOT EXCLUSIVE TO JUDICIARY
- Extends to documents and other communications
which are part of or are related to deliberative
process.
- To qualify for protection of document must be
1. Predecisional - A document is predecisional if it precedes
temporal sequence the decision to which it relates.
- If they were made in attempt to reach final
conclusion.
2. Deliberative - reflects give-and-take consultative process.
- Whether disclosure of info would discourage candid
discussion within agency
 - If it will expose government decision making process
which would discourage discussion among decision
makers.
- Court records which are predecisional and deliberative are
protected and CANNOT be subpoena.
- Grounds for denying access to courts records:
1. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication
2. Pendency of an action
- Person cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence. (Rule
130 Sec. 24)
- Members of Court cannot testify in impeachment proceedings using
information they acquired in the performance of their duties.
- Members of SC are exempt from power of inquiry.
- Can testify if it is external to their functions and the ground for such
impeachment is bribery.
- Ground of trustworthiness of public documents
1. Sense of official duty in preparation of statement to a
breach
2. Routine origin of most such statements
3. Publicity of record which makes more likely to expose to
errors.
- If it is only to identify and certify, NOT confidential.

● Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice

● Chavez vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government
 Article VI. Legislative Department

Section Doctrine Cases

Section 1 THE LEGISLATIVE POWER

DIBS - RANIA Definition — the power to propose, enact, amend, and repeal laws.
Where vested — in the Congress, except to the extent reserved to the people by
the provision on initiative and referendum.

*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 act or law or part thereof passed
by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor
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.

In compliance with the constitutional mandate, Congress passed RA 6735

[approved by Pres. Aquino on August 4, 1989], known as an Act Providing for a
System of Initiative and Referendum.

Sec. 2, R.A. 6735

Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or
to propose and enact legislation through an election called for the purpose.

Three systems of initiative:

❏ Initiative on the Constitution - a petition proposing amendments to the
Constitution
❏ Initiative on Statutes - a petition proposing to enact a national legislation
❏ Initiative on Local Legislation - a petition proposing to enact a regional,
provincial, city, municipal or barangay law, resolution or ordinance

Indirect Initiative is the exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition

sent to Congress or local legislative body for action.
 Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or reject legislation through
an election called for the purpose.

Two classes of referendum:

❏ Referendum on statutes - a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or
part thereof, passed by Congress
❏ Referendum on local laws - a petition to approve or reject a law,
resolution or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local
legislative bodies.

Sec. 10, R.A. 6735

*Prohibited measures — the following cannot be the subject of an initiative or
referendum petition:
❏ No petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to the
electorate
❏ Statutes involving emergency measures, the enactment of which is
specifically vested in Congress by the Constitution, cannot be subject to
referendum until ninety (90) days after their effectivity

Sec. 13, R.A. 6735

Local Initiative — Not less than 2,000 registered voters in case of autonomous
regions, 1,000 in case of provinces and cities, 100 in case of municipalities, and 50
in case of barangays, may file a petition with the Regional Assembly or local
legislative body, respectively, proposing the adoption, enactment, repeal, or
amendment, of any law, ordinance or resolution.

Limitations on Local Initiative:

A. The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year.
B. Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal
powers of the local legislative bodies to enact.
C. If at any time before the initiative is held, the local legislative body shall
adopt in toto the proposition presented, the initiative shall be cancelled.
However, those against such action may, if they so desire, apply for initiative.

Section 2-4 THE SENATE

DIBS - RANIA Section 2. Composition — Twenty-four Senators elected at large by the qualified
 voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.

Section 3. Qualifications of Senator — Natural-born citizen of the Philippines,

and on the day of the election, at least 35 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.

Section 4. Term of Office — Six years, commencing at noon on the 30th day of
June next following their election.
❏ Limitation — No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term
for which elected.

Section 5 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DIBS - RANIA COMPOSITION — Not more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by
law, consisting of:
❏ District representatives - elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area.
❏ Party-list representatives - shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
number of representatives, elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
❏ Sectoral representatives — For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of the 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.

APPORTIONMENT OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS

*Apportionment — shall be made in accordance with the number of respective
inhabitants [among provinces, cities, and Metro Manila area], on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio. BUT:
1. Each city with not less than 250,000 inhabitants shall be entitled to at least
one representative; and
2. Each province, irrespective of number of inhabitants, is entitled to at least
 one representative.

CASE – Aquino V. COMELEC

The constitutional provision draws a plain and clear distinction between the
entitlement of a city to a district on the one hand, and the entitlement of a province
to a district on the other. For while a province is entitled to at least a
representative, with nothing mentioned about population, a city must first meet a
population of 250,000 to be similarly entitled.

*Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact

and adjacent territory. This is intended to prevent gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a

particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries.

*Congress is to make reapportionment of legislative districts within three years

following the return of every census.

CASE – Mariano v. COMELEC

The Court held that the Constitution does not preclude Congress from increasing
its membership by passing a law other than a general apportionment law. In fact,
in Tobias v. Abalos, the Court ruled that reapportionment of legislative districts
may be made through a special law. To hold that reapportionment can be made
only through a general law would create an inequitable situation where a new city
or province created by Congress will be denied legislative representation for an
indeterminate period of time. That intolerable situation would deprive the people in
the new city or province a particle of their sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot admit of
subtraction; it is indivisible. It must be forever whole or it is not sovereignty.

CASE – Montejo v. COMELEC

The Court held that while concededly the conversion of Biliran into a regular
province brought about an imbalance in the distribution of voters and inhabitants in
the 5 districts of Leyte, the issue involves reapportionment of legislative districts,
and petitioner’s remedy lies with Congress. The Court cannot itself make the
reapportionment as petitioner would want.
QUALIFICATIONS
Natural-born Filipino citizen, and, on the day of the election, at least 25 years of
age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered
voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for not less
than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.

THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM (R.A. 7941)

The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election
of representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional, and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the
Commission on Elections.

*Definition of terms:
❏ Party - either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.
❏ Political party - an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and
which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly
nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates
for public office. It is a national party when its constituency is spread over
the geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is a
regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical
territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the
region.
❏ Sectoral party - an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the
following sectors: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers and professionals, whose principal advocacy pertains to the
special interest and concerns of their sector.
❏ Sectoral organization - a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of
citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics,
employment, interests or concerns.
❏ Coalition - aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral
parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes.

*Registration; Manifestation to Participate in the Party-list System

Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition
for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than 90
days before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its
desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party
or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations.

CASE – Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC

The Supreme Court formulated new parameters to guide the COMELEC in
determining who may participate in the May 2013 and subsequent elections:
❏ Three different groups may participate in the party-list system, namely: (1)
national parties or organizations; (2) regional parties or organizations;
and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.
❏ National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do
not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any
“marginalized or underrepresented” sector.
❏ Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register
under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district
elections. A political party, whether major or not, that field candidates in
legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only
through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list
system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is
linked to a political party through a coalition.
❏ Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and
underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political constituencies”. It is
enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are “marginalized and
underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
workers. The sectors that lack “well-defined constituencies” include
professionals, the elderly, women and the youth.
❏ A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a
majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack “well-
defined constituencies”, either must belong to their respective sectors, or
must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The
nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona
 fide members of such parties or organizations.
❏ National, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be
disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they
have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

Section 5 RELEVANT CASES Veterans Federation Party

DIBS - RANIA CASE – Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC v. COMELEC

FOUR INVIOLABLE PARAMETERS TO DETERMINE THE “WINNERS

IN A PHILIPPINE-STYLE PARTY-LIST ELECTION”
1. twenty percent allocation — the combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of
the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list.
2. two percent threshold — only those parties garnering a minimum of two
percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are “qualified”
to have a seat in the House of Representatives;
3. three-seat limit — each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes
it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one
“qualifying” and two additional seats.
4. proportional representation — the additional seats which a qualified
party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of
votes.”

Determination of the Total Number of Party-List Lawmakers

This formulation means that any increase in the number of district representatives,
as may be provided by law, will necessarily result in a corresponding increase in
the number of party-list seats. To illustrate – since there were 208 district
representatives to be elected during the 1998 national elections, the number of
party-list seats would be 52, computed as follows:
Question – Does the Constitution require all such allocated seats to be filled up all
the time and under all circumstances? The Court said NO.

TWENTY PERCENT ALLOCATION IS A MERE CEILING

Party-list lawmakers, who shall “constitute twenty per centum of the total number
of representatives including those under the party list.” [Art. VI, Sec. 5(2)] The
Court maintains that the Congress was vested with the broad power to define and
prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. Hence, the
Congress enacted RA 7941. The relevant portion of Section 11(b) of RA 7941
provides:

“(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%)
of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each;
Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes; Provided,
finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than
three (3) seats.”

Considering the foregoing statutory requirements, the Court held that Article VI,
Section 5 (2) of the Constitution is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling
for party-list seats in Congress.

TWO PERCENT THRESHOLD

In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that only those
parties, organizations and coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents
deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress.

The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of
the Constitution and the law, but with the very essence of “representation.” Under
a republican or representative state, all government authority emanates from the
people, but is exercised by representatives chosen by them. But to have
meaningful representation, the elected persons must have the mandate of a
sufficient number of people. Even legislative districts are apportioned according to
“the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio” to ensure meaningful local representation.

The Court held that “the statutory provision on this two percent requirement is
precise and crystalline. When the law is clear, the function of courts is simple
application, not interpretation or circumvention.”

THREE-SEAT-PER-PARTY LIMIT
An important consideration in adopting the party-list system is to promote and
encourage a multiparty system of representation. Thus, Congress set the seat-limit
to three (3) for each qualified party, organization or coalition.

“Qualified” means having hurdled the two percent vote threshold. Such three-seat
limit ensures the entry of various interest-representations into the legislature; thus,
no single group, no matter how large its membership, would dominate the party-list
seats, if not the entire House.

METHOD OF ALLOCATING ADDITIONAL SEATS

1. Rank all the participating parties, organizations and coalitions (collectively
referred to as “parties”) according to the votes they each obtained.
2. The percentage of their respective votes as against the total number of
votes cast for the party-list system is then determined. All those that
garnered at least two percent of the total votes cast have an assured or
guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives.
3. Thereafter, “those garnering more than two percent of the votes shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes.”

The problem is how to distribute additional seats “proportionally,” bearing in mind

the three-seat limit further imposed by the law. Thus, the proposed formulas.

PROPOSED FORMULAS
1. One Additional Seat Per Two Percent Increment
Allocate one additional seat for every additional proportion of the votes obtained
equivalent to the two percent vote requirement for the first seat. Translated in
figures, a party that wins at least six percent of the total votes cast still be entitled
to three seats; another party that gets four percent will be entitled to two seats; and
one that gets two percent will be entitled to one seat only.

This proposal has the advantage of simplicity and ease of comprehension.

Problems arise, however, when the parties get very lop-sided votes — for
example, when Party A receives 20 percent of the total votes cast; Party B, 10
percent; and Party C, 6 percent. Under the method just described, Party A would
be entitled to 10 seats; Party B. to 5 seats and Party C, to 3 seats. The
proportional representation will be contravened and the law rendered nugatory by
this suggested solution. Hence, the Court discarded it.

2. The Niemeyer Formula

Another suggestion that the Court considered was the Niemeyer formula, which
was developed by a German mathematician and adopted by Germany as its
method of distributing party-list seats in the Bundestag.

1. Multiply the remaining number of seats to be allocated by the total number

of votes obtained by that party.
2. Divide the product by the total number of votes garnered by all the qualified
parties. The integer portion of the resulting product will be the number of
additional seats that the party concerned is entitled to.
3. Distribute the extra seats left among the qualified parties in the descending
order of the decimal portions of the resulting products. Since Section 11 of
RA 7941 sets a limit of three (3) seats for each party, those obtaining more
than the limit will have to give up their excess seats.

Like the previous proposal, the Niemeyer formula would violate the principle of
“proportional representation,” a basic tenet of our party-list system.

The Niemeyer formula, while no doubt suitable for Germany, finds no application in
the Philippine setting, because of our three-seat limit and the non-mandatory
character of the twenty percent allocation. True, both our Congress and the
Bundestag have threshold requirements — two percent for us and five for them.
There are marked differences between the two models, however. One half of the
German Parliament is filled up by party-list members. More important, there are no
seat limitations, because German law discourages the proliferation of small
parties. In contrast, RA 7941, as already mentioned, imposes a three-seat limit to
encourage the promotion of the multiparty system. This major statutory
difference makes the Niemeyer formula completely inapplicable to the
Philippines.

The Legal and Logical Formula for the Philippines

Step One. Rank all the participating parties, organizations and coalitions from the
highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they each received. The ratio
for each party is computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the
parties participating in the system. All parties with at least two percent of the total
votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties shall be considered in the
computation of additional seats. The party receiving the highest number of votes
shall be referred to as the “first” party.

Step Two. Determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to, in order to
be able to compute that for the other parties. Since the distribution is based on
proportional representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties
cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is entitled by virtue of its
obtaining the most number of votes.

The other qualified parties will always be allotted less additional seats than the first
party for two reasons: (1) the ratio between said parties and the first party will
always be less than 1:1; and (2) the formula does not admit of mathematical
rounding off, because there is no such thing as a fraction of a seat.

Formula for Determining Additional Seats for the First Party

BENCHMARK:
❏ If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off is
equal to at least six percent of the total valid votes cast for all the party list
 groups, then the first party shall be entitled to two additional seats or a
total of three seats overall.
❏ If the proportion of votes without a rounding off is equal to or greater than
four percent, but less than six percent, then the first party shall have
one additional seat or a total of two seats.
❏ And if the proportion is less than four percent, then the first party shall not
be entitled to any additional seat.

*NOTE that the above formula will be applicable only in determining the number of
additional seats the first party is entitled to. It cannot be used to determine the
number of additional seats of the other qualified parties. The use of the same
formula for all would contravene the proportional representation parameter.

Formula for Additional Seats of Other Qualified Parties

Step Three. Solve for the number of additional seats that the other qualified
parties are entitled to, based on proportional representation. The formula is
encompassed by the following complex fraction:

The Court maintains that the above formula does not give an exact mathematical
representation of the number of additional seats to be awarded since, in order to
be entitled to one additional seat, an exact whole number is necessary. In fact,
most of the actual mathematical proportions are not whole numbers and are not
rounded off, as it may result in the awarding of a number of seats in excess of that
provided by the law. Furthermore, obtaining absolute proportional representation is
restricted by the three-seat-per-party limit to a maximum of two additional slots.

CASE – BANAT v. COMELEC BANAT V. COMELEC

The Court maintains that a Philippine-style party-list election has at least four
inviolable parameters as clearly stated in Veterans v. COMELEC. However,
because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical interpretation of the
term “proportional representation”, the Court is compelled to revisit the formula for
the allocation of additional seats to party-list organizations.

The Court ruled that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued
operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as
found in the second clause of Section 11 (b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional.
Also, the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the
maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party
list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the
distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive
ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of
party-list representatives.

The Court therefore strikes down the two percent threshold only in relation to the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11 (b)
of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to
the full implementation of Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents
the attainment of “the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group
interests in the House of Representatives.”

In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section

11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:

1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest
to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the
elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent
(2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one
guaranteed seat each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than
three (3) seats.

In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be

included because they have already been allocated, at one seat each, to every
two-percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as “additional
seats” are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List System less the
guaranteed seats.

The percentage of votes garnered by each party-list candidate is arrived at by

dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by the total number of votes
cast for party-list candidates.

There are two steps in the second round of seat allocation.

First, the percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats, which is the
difference between the maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and
the guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer of the product of
the percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a party’s
share in the remaining available seats.
Second, assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all
available seats are completely distributed. Distribute all of the remaining seats in
the second round of seat allocation.

And finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each
qualified party-list candidate is entitled.

CASE – Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
The Supreme Court said that even if major political parties are allowed by the Labor Party v. COMELEC
Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must show, however, that
they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented.

The following guidelines should be followed in order that a political party registered
under the party-list system may be entitled to a seat in the House of
Representatives:
1. Must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors
2. Major political parties must comply with the statutory policy of “Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors . . . to be
elected to the House of Representatives.” (In other words, must show that
they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented)
3. Religious sector may not be represented
 4. Must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941
5. Must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or
assisted by the government
6. The party and its nominees must comply with the requirements of the law
7. The nominee must also represent a marginalized or underrepresented
sector
8. The nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment
of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation

CASE – Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v.
The Court held that moral disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient COMELEC
governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the
party-list system. The LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered individuals)
is a sector that can be represented in the party-list system even if it is not
specifically enumerated in the law. The crucial element is not whether a sector is
specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with
the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.