CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – I (LAW 102)

COURSE SYLLABUS
of
Atty. Ralph A. Sarmiento
answered by
Benedict Eric G. Estrella
as taken from the decisions of said enumerated cases

COURSE OUTLINE:

POLITICAL LAW
 Political law is the law regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the
sovereign.
 Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
* People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887
 The court stated that the Libel Law is a complete and comprehensive law on the subject
of libel. The well-known rule of statutory construction is, that where the later statute
clearly covers the old subject-matter of antecedent acts, and it plainly appears to have
been the purpose of the legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the
subject, previous laws are held to be repealed by necessary implication. And It is a
general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political
relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. "Political" is here used to denominate
the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign.
* Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77
 SC stated that upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and later on from
the US to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of Code of Commerce must be
deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the
political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new
sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by
affirmative act of the new sovereign.

Ratification
* Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 33


Constitutional Construction
* Perfecto v. Meer, 85 Phil. 552
* Endencia v. David, 93 Phil. 696
* Nitafan v. Commisioner of Internal Revenue, 152 SCRA 284
 The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that the intent of the framers
of the organic law and of the people adopting it should be given effect. The primary
task in constitutional construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization
of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution

Self-executing provisions
* Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR 122156, Feb. 3, 1997
 A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the
1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provision which is complete in
 itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation,
or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be
enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing
if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction
of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the
legislature for action.

Constitutional History
* Lawyers League v. Aquino, GR 73748, May 22, 1986
 De Jure and De Facto Governments
1. A de jure government has rightful title but no power or control, either because this
has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually entered into
existence thereof.
2. A de facto government is a government of fact, that it actually exercises power or
control but without legal title
The 1987 Constitution of President Aquino it was held that the people have made
judgement and have accepted the government of President Aquino which is in
effective control of the entire country and that it is not merely a de facto government
but in fact and law a de jure government whose legitimacy is recognized by the
community of nations.

- In re: Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160

1987 Constitution
* In re: Letter of Reynato Puno, June 29, 1992, 210 SCRA


Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution

* De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602
 This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous
Constitutions. The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987.

Amendment
Amendment vs. Revision
RA 6735
 1) Amendment: an alteration of one or a few specific provisions of the Constitution.
Its main purpose is to improve specific provisions of the Constitution. The changes
brought about by amendments will not affect the other provisions of the Constitution.
 2) Revision: An examination of the entire Constitution to determine how and to what
extent it should be altered. A revision implies substantive change, affecting the
Constitution as a whole.
* Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec, GR 127325, March 19, 1997
Doctrine of Proper Submission
* Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702
POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
 The power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in
light of their conformity with the Constitution. This is not an assertion of
superiority of the courts over other departments but merely and expression of
the supremacy of the Constitution. It assures the supremacy of the
Constitution is upheld. It is an inherent power of the Judicial Department by
virtue of the separation of powers doctrine. Political questions are generally
beyond the scope of judicial review but fall within the purview of the judiciary’s
power to review when it is to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
*** Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 2 L.Ed. 60
- Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, GR 134577, Nov. 18, 1998
- Francisco v. House of Representatives, GR 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
 See case again please
 In our jurisdiction, the determination of a truly political question from a non-
justiciable political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there
are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon
political bodies. If there are, then our courts are duty-bound to examine
whether the branch or instrumentality of the government properly acted within
such limits.
Judicial Supremacy vs. Constitutional Supremacy
 Judicial Supremacy is an elitist view believing that the Judiciary holds supremacy over
the other departments and the constitution.

Political vs. Justiciable Question

 Political questions are concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of
a particular measure.
* Baker v. Carr, 396 US 186
- Nixon v. US, 506 US 224
 A controversy is not justiciable if there is a textually demonstrable commitment of an
issue to a coordinate branch of government or a lack of judicially manageable
standards for resolving the controversy
- Goldwater v. Carter, 444 US 996, 62 L.Ed.2d 428
 Questions of a purely political nature are not justiciable.
- Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333
*** Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001
 Political questions refer to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
particular measure. The Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question
doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but
also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of government.
- Brillantes v. Concepcion, GR 163193, June 15, 2004
  Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Presumption of Constitutionality
* Lim v. Pacquing, GR 115044, Jan. 27, 1995
 The time-honored doctrine is that all laws are presumed valid and constitutional until
or unless otherwise ruled by this Court. The Constitution provides that all existing laws,
decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended,
repealed or revoked.

Requisites of Judicial Review:

 The requirements before a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of a law are well
delineated: there must be an actual case or controversy; the question of
constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; the constitutional question must be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity; the decision on the constitutional question
must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.

1. Actual Case or Controversy

* Board of Optometry v. Colet, GR 122241, July 30, 1996
 An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is
appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory.
* Mariano v. Comelec, 242 SCRA 211
* Fernandez v. Torres, 215 SCRA 489
- La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assn. v. DENR Secretary, GR 127882, Jan. 27, 2004

Ripeness
* City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 US 95, 75 L.Ed.2d 675
 When an individual wants to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court he must
allege an “actual case or controversy.” Further, the injury complained of by the
individual must be immediate. Past exposure to illegal conduct does not, by itself,
show a present case or controversy.

Mootness
* David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (PP1017), GR 171396, May 3, 2006
- La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assn. v. DENR Secretary, GR 127882, Dec. 1, 2004
* DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 US 312, 40 L.Ed.2d 164

2. Proper Party
 A real party in interest is a party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment
in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Conventional Standing
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490, 45 L.Ed.2d. 343
 As an aspect of justiciability, the standing question is whether the plaintiff has alleged
such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of
federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on
 Representative Standing

Jus Tertii standing

 Standing to assert the constitutional rights of third parties
 In property actions the claims of a third party on the property cannot usually be
asserted as a defense by a litigant. A litigant may, however, have third-party standing
to assert another's constitutional rights (as when an organization asserts the rights of
its members) if there is a substantial relationship between the litigant and the third
party, if it is impossible for the third party to assert its own rights, and if there is the risk
that the third party's rights will be diluted without the litigant's assertion.
- Craig v. Boren, 429 US 190, 50 L.Ed.2d. 397

Transcendental importance to the public

 The general rule on standing that this Court has adopted is the direct injury test. It holds
that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as
a result.
 Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the doctrine that the rule on standing is a matter of
procedure, hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens,
taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter
is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount
public interest
- Tatad v. Garcia, 243 SCRA 436
 The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow taxpayers to question contracts
entered into by the national government or government-owned or controlled
corporations allegedly in contravention of the law and to disallow the same when only
municipal contracts are involved
*** Kilosbayan v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110
 The Court resolved to set aside the procedural technicality in view of the
transcendental importance to the public of the issues raised. The Court adopted the
liberal policy on locus standi to allow the ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress,
and even association of planters, and non-profit civic organizations to initiate and
prosecute actions to question the validity or constitutionality of laws, acts, decisions, or
rulings of various government agencies or instrumentalities as following past
Jurisprudence on similar cases
*** Kilosbayan v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540
*** Kilosbayan v. Morato (Recon.), GR 118910, Nov. 16, 1995
 Whether a party has a cause of action and, therefore, is a real party in interest or one
with standing to raise a constitutional question must turn on whether he has a right
which has been violated.
 Note here is that the decision changed with the 3rd case in that the court did not set
aside the procedural technicality of the requisites of locus standi and made clear that
for one to raise a constitutional question, one must have a right that has been violated

Standing of members of Congress

- Philconsa v. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506
  The Court held that the members of Congress have the legal standing to question the
validity of acts of the Executive which injures them in their person or the institution of
Congress to which they belong. In the latter case, the acts cause derivative but
nonetheless substantial injury which can be questioned by members of Congress. In
the absence of a claim that the contract in question violated the rights of petitioners or
impermissibly intruded into the domain of the Legislature, petitioners have no legal
standing to institute the instant action in their capacity as members of Congress.
 But in the absence of a claim that the contract in question violated the rights of
petitioners or impermissibly intruded into the domain of the Legislature, petitioners
have no legal standing to institute the instant action in their capacity as members of
Congress.
- Bagatsing v. Committee on Privatization, GR 112399, July 14, 1995

Standing of Integrated Bar of the Philippines

* IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000
 Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest
in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of
the governmental act that is being challenged. The term interest means a material
interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest
in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. The gist of the question of
standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.
In the case at bar, the IBP primarily anchors its standing on its alleged responsibility to
uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Apart from this declaration, however, the
IBP asserts no other basis in support of its locus standi. The mere invocation by the
IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while undoubtedly true, is
not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case. This is too general an interest which
is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry.
Standing of the Government to question its own laws
 The government has the standing to question its own laws because more than any
other, it is the government itself that should ne concerned over the validity of its own
laws.
- People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56

Taxpayer’s Suits
- Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000
- Gonzales v. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835, August 14, 2000
 A citizen acquires standing only if he can establish that he has suffered some actual or
threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the
injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed
by a favorable action.
3. Question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
 As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity, so that if not raised by the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised at the
trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.
 Exception:
1. It may be brought at any stage of the proceedings according to the
discretion of the judge in a criminal case.
2. It may be brought anytime if the resolution of the constitutional issue is
inevitable of resolving the main issue in a civil case.
4. Constitutional question must the very "lis mota" of the case
 This requirement is based on the rule that every law has in its favor the presumption of
constitutionality; to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach
of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative

Doctrine of Purposeful Hesitation

* Drilon v. Lim, GR 112497, Aug. 4, 1994
 It is also emphasized that every court, including this Court, is charged with the duty of a
purposeful hesitation before declaring a law unconstitutional, on the theory that the
measure was first carefully studied by the executive and the legislative departments and
determined by them to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was finally
approved. To doubt is to sustain. The presumption of constitutionality can be overcome
only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and
only when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court
pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must
be struck down.

Functions of Judicial Review

Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality

 An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; it affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not
been passed. It is therefore stricken from the statute books and considered never to
have existed at all. Not only the parties but all persons are bound by the declaration of
unconstitutionality, which means that no one may thereafter invoke it nor may the courts
be permitted to apply it in subsequent cases. It is, in other words, a total nullity.
Doctrine of Operative Fact
- Republic v. CA, GR 79732, Nov. 8, 1993
 The doctrine that nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the
existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact
and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always
be erased by a new judicial declaration. It is applicable when a declaration of
unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid
law.

CONCEPT OF STATE
1. People
Citizenship
Distinguished from nationality
Modes of Acquiring citizenship
Citizens of the Philippines
* Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292
 An alien ,who is married to a citizen of the Philippines, acquires the citizenship of her
husband only if she has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided
by law. Which should be accompanied by the joint affidavit of the alien and her Filipino
spouse to the effect that the alien does not belong to any groups disqualified to be a
Filipino citizen
Djumantan v. Domingo, Jan. 30, 1995
 The law changed: Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino husband does not ipso facto
make her a Filipino citizen and does not excuse her from her failure to depart from the
country upon the expiration of her extended stay here as an alien
Election of Philippine citizenship
* In re: Vicente Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999
 The governing charter with regard to citizenship issue is the 1935 Constitution, and
under said constitution the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and
alien father follows the citizenship of the father unless upon reaching the age of majority
which is 21 years of age, the said child elected for Philippine citizenship.
In the case at bar with the petitioner having elected for citizenship 14 years after
reaching the age of majority, the court considered it not to be within the reasonable
period of time. Court holds that Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a
commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed when convenient. One
who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only an inchoate right to such
citizenship. As such, he should avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and
promptitude. Sadly, in this case, Ching slept on his opportunity to elect Philippine
citizenship and, as a result. this golden privilege slipped away from his grasp.
Doctrine of implied election
Natural-born citizens
* Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004
 A natural-born Filipino is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform
any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
Dual citizenship & dual allegiance
* Mercado v. Manzano, GR 135083, May 26, 1999
 Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of
the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is
simultaneously considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation
may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the
principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Dual
allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously
owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is
involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition. Dual allegiance is
inimical to national interest.
Res judicata in citizenship cases
Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance
 The doctrine that an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality
notwithstanding that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the 2nd
state whose nationality he has acquired.
Naturalization
* Republic v. De la Rosa, 232 SCRA 785
 A former Filipino alien who has opted to reacquire Philippine citizenship thru
naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law, is duty bound to follow the
procedure prescribed by the said law. It is not for an applicant to decide for himself and
to select the requirements which he believes, even sincerely, are applicable to his case
and discard those which be believes are inconvenient or merely of nuisance value. The
law does not distinguish between an applicant who was formerly a Filipino citizen and
one who was never such a citizen. It does not provide a special procedure for the
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by former Filipino citizens akin to the repatriation of
a woman who had lost her Philippine citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien.

Loss of citizenship
- By naturalization in a foreign country
* Frivaldo v. Comelec, 174 SCRA 245
 The status of the natural-born citizen is favored by the Constitution and our laws, which
is all the more reason why it should be treasured like a pearl of great price. But once it is
surrendered and renounced, the gift is gone and cannot be lightly restored. This country
of ours, for all its difficulties and limitations, is like a jealous and possessive mother.
Once rejected, it is not quick to welcome back with eager arms its prodigal if repentant
children. The returning renegade must show, by an express and unequivocal act, the
renewal of his loyalty and love.
* Labo v. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1
- By express renunciation or expatriation
 The modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Among these are: (1)
naturalization in a foreign country; (2) express renunciation of citizenship; and (3)
subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country
 Annulment of naturalization to a foreign allegiance does not automatically restore
philippine citizenship for he freely and voluntarily rejected Philippine citizenship with the
willingness and knowledge of its ramifications.
 Philippine Citizenship may be reacquired by a direct act of Congress by naturalization or
repatriation.

Reacquisition of citizenship, RA 8171

Retroactivity of Repatriation
* Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, June 28, 1996
 In sum, we rule that the citizenship requirement in the Local Government Code is to be
possessed by an elective official at the latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at the
start of the term of office to which he has been elected. We further hold P.D. No. 725 to
be in full force and effect up to the present, not having been suspended or repealed
expressly nor impliedly at any time, and Frivaldo's repatriation by virtue thereof to have
been properly granted and thus valid and effective. Moreover, by reason of the remedial
or curative nature of the law granting him a new right to resume his political status and
the legislative intent behind it, as well as his unique situation of having been forced to
 give up his citizenship and political aspiration as his means of escaping a regime he
abhorred, his repatriation is to be given retroactive effect as of the date of his application
therefor, during the pendency of which he was stateless, he having given up his U. S.
nationality

Suffrage

2. Territory
Philippine Archipelago; Archipelago Doctrine; UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

3. Government
Functions
Constituent vs. Ministrant
Laissez-faire vs. Welfare State
Doctrine of Parens Patriae
* Gov't. of Phil. Islands v. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil. 728
- Cabanas v. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94
 The doctrine of Parens Patriae refers to the inherent power and authority of the state to
provide protection of the person and property of a person non sui juries(who lacks the
legal capacity to act for his/herself). Under that doctrine, the state has the sovereign
power of guardianship over persons under disability. Thus, the state is considered the
parens patriae of minors, the eldery, sickly and handicapped.
Classification
- De Jure
- De Facto
 De Jure and De Facto Governments
1. A de jure government has rightful title but no power or control, either because
this has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually entered into
existence thereof.
2. A de facto government is a government of fact, that it actually exercises power
or control but without legal title
The 1987 Constitution of President Aquino it was held that the people have made
judgement and have accepted the government of President Aquino which is in
effective control of the entire country and that it is not merely a de facto government
but in fact and law a de jure government whose legitimacy is recognized by the
community of nations.


4. Sovereignty
Effects of Change in sovereignty
 It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous
political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. "Political" is here used to
denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the
sovereign.
Effects of Belligerent Occupation
 The 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 allegiance does not suspend, the military occupation of an enemy territory
 does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant; that, in the first case, the word
"sovereignty" used therein should be construed to mean the exercise of the rights of
sovereignty, because as this remains vested in the legitimate government and is not
transferred to the occupier, it cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or
divesting said government thereof.
Doctrine of Jus Postliminium
 The principle of postliminium, as a part of public international law, is a specific version of
the maxim ex injuria jus non oritur, providing for the invalidity of all illegitimate acts that
an occupant may have performed on a given territory after its recapture by the legitimate
sovereign.
Dominium vs. Imperium
1. Imperium - Government authority possessed by the State which is appropriately embraced in
sovereignty.

2. Dominium- The capacity of the State to own and acquire property.

It refers to lands held by the government in a proprietary character: can provide for the
exploitation and use of lands and other natural resources.

Derogation of Philippine Sovereignty; The Visiting Forces Agreement

 The VFA and some of its provisions which appears to be one-sided in favor of the US
particularly regarding US retention of custody over US servicemen committing crimes
here. This provision is in derogation of our sovereignty as a nation particularly regarding
our court’s exclusive jurisdiction within our territory. This jurisdiction refers not only to the
subject or the crime committed but to the person allegedly committing the crime. And the
only way our courts can acquire jurisdiction of the person is to have custody of the
accused. This VFA provision is a waiver of our jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

Basis
* U.S.A. vs. Reyes, March 1, 1993
 While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is
also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly
performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment
against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy
the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded
against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not
been formally impleaded. 42 It must be noted, however, that the rule is not so all-
encompassing as to be applicable under all circumstances.
 It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such
for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff.
 The doctrinaire of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an
injustice.

Immunity of Foreign States & Diplomats

Principle of par in parem non habet imperium
  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.
Process of Suggestion
* The Holy See v. RTC, GR 101949, Dec. 1, 1994
 In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the international
organization to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or
diplomatic immunity.
Determination of Immunity by the Department of Foreign Affairs
* Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000
 The DFAs determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary
which has no binding effect in courts.

Immunity of International Organizations and Agencies

- SEAFDEC v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 580
 One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity from local
jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs and processes issued by the
tribunals of the country where it is found.
Immunity of Government Agencies
Incorporated
Municipal Corporations
 Municipal corporations are suable because
their charters grant them the competence to
sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are
generally not liable for torts committed by
them in the discharge of governmental
functions and 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 show that the
defendant was not acting in its governmental
capacity when the injury was committed or
that the case comes under the exceptions
recognized by law. Failing this, the claimant
cannot recover.
Unincorporated
If principal function is governmental
 An unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its
own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with an inherent power of
sovereignty.
If proprietary suable

Suits against Public Officers

* Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357
 The general rule is that public officials can be held personally accountable for acts
claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties where they have acted
ultra vires or where there is showing of bad faith.
 Consent to be sued
Express Consent
General Law
- CA 327; PD 1445; Art. 2180; Act No. 3038
Special Law
* Meritt v. Gov't. of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil. 311
Implied Consent
When State commences litigation
When State enters into a business contract
* USA v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487

Suability not outright liability

* Meritt v. Gov't. of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil. 311

Consent to be sued does not include consent to execution

* Municipality of Makati v. CA, 190 SCRA 206

Immunity cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice on a citizen

* Ministerio v. CFI of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464

PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Preamble
Republicanism
Manifestations
1. Nemo est supra leges
*** Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778
2. Rule of majority

3. Accountability of Public Officials

4. Bill of Rights
5. Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws

6. Separation of Powers

Principle of Blending of Powers

Principle of Checks and Balances
* The Steel Seizure case, 343 US 579, 96 L.Ed. 1153

7. Non-delegation of powers
Potestas delegata non delegare potest

Permissible Delegation
a. Tariff Powers to the President
b. Emergency Powers to the President
* First Emergency Powers cases, 84 Phil. 368
* Second Emergency Powers cases, 92 Phil. 603
 c. Delegation to the People
d. Delegation to Local Government Units
e. Delegation to the Administrative Bodies
Power of Subordinate Legislation
Principle of Subdelegation of Powers
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

Tests for valid delegation

a. Completeness Test
b. Sufficient Standard Test
* Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
Legislative standard need not be expressed
8. State Immunity (supra)
9. Election through popular will

Act of State
Incorporation Clause
Conflict between municipal law and international law
* Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 115
Civilian Supremacy
Government to serve and protect the people
People to defend the State
Separation of Church and State
Independent Foreign Policy
Nuclear Free Philippines
Just and dynamic social order

Social Justice
*** Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726
 Social justice is "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.
Social justice means the promotion of the
welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to insure
economic stability of all the competent elements
of society, through the maintenance of a proper
economic and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-
constitutionally, through the exercise of powers
underlying the existence of all governments on
the time-honored principle of salus populi est
suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be
founded on the recognition of the necessity of
 interdependence among divers and diverse
units of a society and of the protection that
should be equally and evenly extended to all
groups as a combined force in our social and
economic life, consistent with the fundamental
and paramount objective of the state of
promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all
persons, and of bringing about "the greatest
good to the greatest number."
Respect for human dignity and human rights
Fundamental Equality of men and women

Promotion of health and ecology

* Oposa v. Factoran, GR 1010183, July 30, 1993
 The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation,
and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of
succeeding generations is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right
considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which indispensably include, inter alia, the
judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s
forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural
resources to the end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably
accessible to the present as well as the future generations.
 Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a
little differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes at
the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right
for the generations to come.
Priority to education, science and technology
Protection to labor
Land Reform
* Ass'n. of Small Land Owners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343

Regalian Doctrine

Inalienable Lands of the Public Domain

Independent People's organizations

Family and Youth

* Meyer v. Nebraska, 263 US 393
* Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510 * Wisconsin v. Yoder,
40 LW 4476

Self-reliant and independent national economy

Communication and information in nation-building

 Autonomy of Local Governments
Decentralization of Administration vs. decentralization of Power
- Limbonas v. Mangelin, 170 SCRA 786

Autonomous Region

Indigenous Cultural Communities

Honest public service and full public disclosure

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Legislative power
Initiative, referendum and Recall
Indirect Initiative
Recall
Loss of confidence, a political question

Bicameralism vs. Unicameralism

Senate (Composition; Qualifications; Term of office)

House of Representatives
Composition (District Representatives; Party-list Representatives)

Party-list Representatives

Apportionment of Legislative Districts

Gerrymandering
Doctrine of Equal Representation

Qualifications
* Marcos v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300
* Aquino v. Comelec, Sept. 18, 1995
Theory of legal impossibility

Natural-born

Term of office

Privileges
Freedom from Arrest
Parliamentary Immunity

Disqualifications and Inhibitions

Effect of Imprisonment
 Sessions; Adjournment; Officers

Quorum
* Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17

Rules of Proceedings

Discipline of members
Suspension vs. Preventive Suspension

Enrolled Bill Theory

* Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1
* Casco Chemical v. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347
Legislative Journal vs. Enrolled Bill

Electoral Tribunals
Composition
* Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792
Powers
Jurisdiction over Proclamation Controversy

Commission on Appointments
Composition
* Guingona v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789
Powers
* Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549
Powers of Congress
General Legislative Power
Limitations
Substantive Limitations
Procedural Limitations
One Bill, one subject
Sufficiency of Title
Bills that must originate exclusively from the House
* Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, GR 115455, Aug. 25, 1994
* Decision on Motion for Reconsideration, Oct. 30, 1995 Three readings
on separate days
Bicameral Conference Committee

Legislative Process
Approval of Bills
Presidential veto
Pocket veto
Item veto

Legislative veto; One-House Veto

 Power of the Purse
Implied limitations on appropriation measure
Constitutional limitations and rules
Riders
Sub rosa appropriation
Prohibition against transfer of appropriation

Power of Taxation
*** McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US (4 Wheat, 316)
 The power to tax involves the power to destroy, you cannot tax what you
cannot destroy
Power of Legislative Investigation
- Senate v. Ermita (E.O.464), G.R. No. 169777

Power to Punish contempt

Power to declare existence of state of war

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
President and Vice-President
Qualifications
Natural-born Citizen
* Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004

Election
Congress as canvassing board
Supreme Court as Electoral Tribunal
* Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos, PET Case no. 001, Feb. 13, 1996 Term of office

Privileges
Official residence
Salary

Presidential Immunity
- Beltran v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393
- US v. Nixon, 418 US 683, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039
* Clinton v. Jones, 520 US 681, May 27, 1997

Prohibitions and inhibitions

Rules on Succession
Vacancy at beginning of term
Vacancy during the term
Temporary Disability

Removal of the President

* Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001
* Decision on Motion for Reconsideration, April 3, 2001
 Powers
Executive Power
* Planas v. Gil, 67 Phil. 62
* Myers, Administratrix v. United States, 272 US 52

Legislative Powers

Residual Powers
* Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668

Power to Determine National Policy

* The Steel Seizure case, 343 US 579, 96 L.Ed. 1153

Prosecution of Crimes
* Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652

Creation of Preparatory Committee on Constitutional Reforms

Appointing Power
Discretionary power
Classes of Appointment
Appointments subject to confirmation of Commission on Appointments
Limitations on the Appointment Power
Power of Removal

Power of Control
Control vs. Supervision
Alter-ego Principle or Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
The Executive Secretary

Military Powers
Commander-in-chief clause
* David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (PP1017), GR 171396, May 3, 2006
* Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546
* Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144

Calling Out the Armed Forces

Declaration of State of Rebellion

Declaration of martial law

Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

* Barcelon v. Baker, 5 Phil. 87
* Montenegro v. Castañeda, 91 Phil. 882
* * Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448
* Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile, 121 SCRA 472
 Pardoning Power
* People v. Salle, 250 SCRA 581, Dec. 4, 1995
* Monsanto v. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190
Pardon vs. Amnesty
Diplomatic Power
* Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 US 654
Treaties vs. Executive Agreements

Power to Impound
- Philconsa v. Enriquez, Aug. 19, 1994

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Judicial Power
Expanded jurisdiction
Effect on the political question doctrine

Jurisdiction

Constitutional Safeguards to insure independence of the Judiciary

Justices/judges may not be designated to any agency performing non-judicial functions
Fiscal Autonomy

Power of Judicial Review

Appointment to the Judiciary

Procedure for Appointment
Judicial and Bar Council

Supreme Court
Composition
En Banc & Division cases

Powers
Supervision over the Judiciary
Rule-making powers
Mandatory Review of Death Penalty Cases
Writ of Amparo
Equipoise Doctrine
Decisions of the Court

Power to control execution of decision

* Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, GR 132601, Jan. 19, 1999

Tenure of Justices/Judges
Removal and Discipline
Salaries
INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION
Safeguards to insure the independence of the Commissions
Prohibition on appointment in an acting capacity
Disqualifications and Inhibitions
Decisions - Certiorari to the Supreme Court
SC Revised Admin. Cir. 1-95

1. Civil Service Commission

Scope of the Civil Service
Approval of appointments

2. Commission on Elections
En Banc and Division cases
Powers and Functions
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction
Special Registration of New Voters

3. Commission on Audit

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Impeachment
Impeachable Officers
Grounds for Impeachment
Procedure
Impeachment and Criminal Prosecution
* Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001
* Decision on Motion for Reconsideration, April 3, 2001

Sandiganbayan
Jurisdiction

Ombudsman
Supervision and control
Prosecutorial Powers
Power to issue subpoena; Form of complaint
Power to Investigate Administrative Charges
Concurrent with the Office of the President
Concurrent with the DOJ
Power to investigate cases of ill-gotten wealth after Feb. 25, 1996
Ombudsman for the Military

Special Prosecutor Commission on Human Rights

Powers and Functions of the Commission

Civil Rights vs. Political Rights
Fiscal Autonomy
Presidential Commission on Good Government
Sequestration

Order signed by only one commissioner

Imprescriptibility of Right of State to Recover Ill-gotten Wealth