b.

Archipelagic watersare the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the
coast.
Archipelagic Statea state made up wholly of one or two archipelagos. It may include other islands.
Straight Archipelagic Baselineto determine the archipelagic waters, the state shall draw straight baselines connecting the
outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs, provided that the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the
land, including atolls, is between 1:1 and 9:1. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except up to 3%
of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum 125 miles. The baselines
drawn should not depart, to any appreciable extent, from the general configuration of the archipelago. All the waters within the
baselines shall then be considered internal waters. The breadth of the 12-mile territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive
economic zone and the continental shelf shall then be measured from the archipelagic baselines.
Vessels may be allowed innocent passage within the archipelagic waters, but this right may be suspended, after publication,
in the interest of international security. The coastal state may also designate archipelagic sea lanes for continuous,
unobstructed transit of vessels.
c. Territorial Seathe belt of the sea located between the coast and the internal waters of the coastal state on the other hand,
and the high seas on the other, extending up to 12 nautical miles from the low-water mark, or in the case of archipelagic states,
from the baselines.

Baselineis a line from which the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone is
measured in order to determine the maritime boundary of the coastal state.
Types of baseline: i. Normal Baseline Method
ii. Straight Baseline method
d. Contiguous Zoneextends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea; this shall not exceed 24 nautical miles from the
archipelagic baselines.
The coastal state may exercise limited jurisdiction over the contiguous zone:
1. To prevent infringement of customs, fiscal immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; and
2. To punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory.
e. Exclusive Economic Zoneshall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the archipelagic baselines.
f. Continental shelfit is the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas extending beyond the Philippine territorial sea
throughout the natural prolongation of the land territory. It extends up to:
i. The outer edge of the continental margin; or ii. A distance of 200 nautical miles from the archipelagic baselines,
whichever is the farthest.
The continental shelf does not form part of the Philippine territory. The Philippines has the sovereign rights over the continental
shelf for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.
g. High Seastreated as res communes, thus, not territory of any particular State. These are the waters which do not
constitute the internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zones of a state. They are beyond the
jurisdiction and sovereign rights of States.
Freedom of navigationrefers to the right to sail ship on the high sea, subject to international law and the laws of the flag of
the state.

III.Aerialthis refers to the air space above the land and waters of the State.

Republicanism
What is a republican form of government? It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, a
representative government wherein the powers and duties of government are exercised and discharged for the common good
and welfare.
Characteristics of a republican form of government: 1. The people do not govern themselves directly but through their
representatives; 2. It is founded upon popular suffrage; 3. There is the tripartite system of the government, the mutual
interdependence of the three departments of the government.

STATEa community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of
external control, and possessing a government to which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. (CIR vs.
Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23)

Republican stateone constructed on the principle that the supreme power resides in the body of the people. Its purpose
therefore is to guarantee against two (2) extremes:
1.On the one hand, monarchy and oligarchy; 2.On the other, pure democracy.

De Jure
Has a rightful title but no power or control, either because the same has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet
actually entered into the exercise thereof.


De Facto Actually exercises the power or control but without legal title.
a.De facto propergovernment that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the
rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter;
b. Government of Paramount
Forcesestablished and maintained by the military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war;
c. Independent Government established by the inhabitants of the country who rise in insurrection against the parent State.

Presidential
-There is separation of legislative and executive powers. The first is lodged in the President and the second is vested in
Congress.
-It embodies interdependence by separation and coordination.
Parliamentary
-There is fusion of both executive and legislative powers in Parliament, although the actual exercise of the executive powers is
vested in a Prime Minister who is chosen by, and accountable to, Parliament.
-It embodies interdependence by integration.

Functions of Government
a. Constituentcompulsory because constitutive of the society; b. Ministrantundertaken to advance the general
interest of the society; merely optional.
Doctrine of Parens Patriaethe government as guardian of the rights of the people may initiate legal actions for and in behalf
of particular individual. (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 SCRA 738; Cabaas vs. Pilapil, 58
SCRA 94)

Sovereigntythe supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is governed
It is the right to exercise the functions of a State to the exclusion of any other State.

While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however
subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family
of nations. In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and
amity, with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of internati onal
law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws.

Government of Laws and Not of Men.sovereignty of the people also includes the concept that government officials have
only the authority given them by law and defined by law, and such authority continues only with the consent of the people.

Kinds of Sovereignty:
a. Legalthe power to issue final commands;
b. Politicalthe sum total of all the influences which lie behind the law;
c. Internalthe supreme power over everything within its territory;
d. Externalalso known as independencefreedom from external control.

Characteristics: a. Permanence b. Exclusiveness c. Comprehensiveness d. Absoluteness e. Indivisibility f. Inalienability
g. Imprescriptibility

Sovereignty, often referred to as Imperiumis the States authority to govern; it includes passing laws governing a territory,
maintaining peace and order over it, and defending it against foreign invasion.
It is the government authority possessed by the State expressed in the concept of sovereignty.

Dominiumis the capacity of the State to own or acquire property such as lands and natural resources. (Lee Hong Hok vs.
David, No. L-30389, December 27, 1972; Separate Opinion of J ustice Kapunan in Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR, G.R. No.
135385, December 2000)
It necessarily includes the power to alienate what is owned. It was the foundation for the early Spanish decrees
embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia that all lands were held from the Crown.

Effect of Belligerent Occupationthere is no change in sovereignty. However, political laws, except those of treason, are
suspended; municipal laws remain in force unless changed by the belligerent occupant.

Principle of J us Postliminiumat the end of the occupation, when the occupant is ousted from the territory, the political laws
which have been suspended shall automatically become effective again. (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, No. L049,
November 12, 1945)

Effect of Change of Sovereigntypolitical laws of the former sovereign are abrogated unless they are expressly reenacted by
the affirmative act of the new sovereign. Municipal laws remain in force. (Macariola vs. Asuncion, Adm. Case No. 133-J , May
31, 1982)

Effect of Revolutionary Governmentit is bound by no constitution. However, it did not repudiate the Covenant or
Declaration in the same way it repudiated the Constitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not
escape responsibility for the States good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law. During the
interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and orders issued by government officers did not exceed
the authority granted them by the revolutionary government. The directives or orders should not have also violated the
Covenant or the Declaration. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, J uly 21, 2003)

Jurisdictionis the manifestation of sovereignty.
a. Territorialpower of the State over persons and things within its territory
subject to its control and protection.
b. Personalpower of the State over its nationals, which may be exercised by the state even if the individual is outside the
territory of the State.
c. Extraterritorialpower of the State over persons, things or acts beyond its territorial limits by reason of their effects to its
territory.

Sec. 2, Article II (Incorporation Clause) The Philippine renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Three (3) parts:
1.Renunciation of warthe power to wage a defensive war is of the very essence of sovereignty;
2.Adoption of the principles of international law;
3.Adherence to a policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation & amity.
The second part is nothing more than a formal acceptance of a principle to which all civilized nations must conform.

The third part is called the selfish policythe guiding principle of Philippine foreign policy is the national interest.
However, this is tempered with concern for equality, peace, freedom and justice.

Section 23 (1), Article VI: The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in join session assembled, voting separately,
shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.

Doctrine of Incorporationthe doctrine where the generally accepted principles of international law are made part of the law
of the land either by express provision of the Constitution or by means of judicial declaration or fiat. The doctrine is applied
whenever municipal tribunals or local courts are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule
of international law and the provisions of the Constitution or statute of a State.

Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them so as to give effect to both. In case of conflict between international
law and municipal law, the latter shall prevail.
However, the doctrine dictates that rules of international law are given equal standing with, and are not superior to,
national legislative enactments.

Lex posterior derogate prioriin States where the constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and treaties may
be invalidated if they are in conflict with the Constitution. (Secretary of J ustice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, J anuary 18,
2000)
Philip Morris, Inc. vs. CA, the fact that the international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means
imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere.
Doctrine of AutolimitationIt is the doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international law as a limitation to
the exercise of its sovereignty.

What war does the Philippines renounce? The Philippines renounces an aggressive war because of its membership in the
United Nations whose charter renounces war as an instrument of national policies of its member States.

Sec. 3, Article II (Civilian Supremacy Clause) Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed
Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State
and the integrity of the national territory.

Civilian Supremacy Clause
Sec. 18, Art. VIIinstallation of the President as the highest civilian authority, as the commander-in-chief of the AFPexternal
manifestation that civilian authority is supreme over the military.
Sec. 5(1), Art. XVImembers of the AFP swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the civil
government.
Civilian supremacy is not a guaranteed supremacy of civilian officers who are in power but of supremacy of the sovereign
people. The Armed Forces, in this sense, is the protector of the people and the State.
Sec. 6, Article XVIThe State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in
character, to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local executives over the police
units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.

IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, the deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian
supremacy clause. The calling of the marines in this case constitutes permissible use of military asset for civilian law
enforcement. x x x The limited participation of the Marines is evident in the provisions of the Letter of Instruction (LOI) itself,
which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of the Marines authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the
ones charge of the visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the Metro Manila Police Chief is
the overall leader of the PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols. Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the
soldiers on police patrol procedures. It is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the marines. It is, likewise,
their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the Marines and render logistic support to these soldiers. In view of the
foregoing, it cannot be properly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian authority.

It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities in various forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction.
The Philippine experience reveals that it is not averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and
execution of certain traditionally civil functions. x x x Some of the multifarious activities wherein military aid has been rendered,
exemplifying the activities that bring both the civilian and the military together in a relationship of cooperation are:
1. Elections; 2.Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross; 3.Relief and rescue operations during calamities and
disasters; 4.Amateur sports promotion and development; 5.Development of the culture and the arts; 6.Conservation of the
natural resources; 7.Implementation of the agrarian reform program; 8.Enforcement of customs laws; 9.Composite civilian-
military law enforcement activities; 10. Conduct of licensure examinations; 11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and
high school students; 12. Anti-drug enforcement activities; 13. Sanitary inspections; 14. Conduct of census work; 15.
Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board; 16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices; 17. Peace and order
policy formulation in local government units.

This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting from a systematic, unbroken, executive
practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress and, yet, never before questioned. What we have here is a mutual support
and cooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not derogation of civilian supremacy.

Sec. 4, Article II
The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. Theovernment may call upon the people to
defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to
render personal military or civil service.
Does the Philippines renounce defensive war? No, because it is duty bound to defend its citizens. Under the Constitution,
the prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the people.

Posse Commitatusit is the power of the state to require all able-bodied citizens to perform civic duty to maintain peace and
order.

In People vs. Lagman, 66 Phil. 13, the accused in this case, prosecuted for failure to register for military service under the
National Defense Act, assailed the validity of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld the law on the basis of the compulsory military
and civil service provision of then 1935 Constitution. It said that: x x x. The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot
be performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty
to the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein...x x x the right of the
Government to require compulsory military service is a consequence of its duty to defend the State and is reciprocal with its
duty to defend the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. x x x.

Sec. 5, Article II
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general
welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The license to carry a firearm is neither a property nor a property
right. Neither does it create a vested right. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered absolute as to be placed
beyond the reach of police power. The maintenance of peace and order, and the protection of the people against violence are
constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear firearm is to be construed in connection and in harmony with these
constitutional duties. (Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, J une 9, 2004)

Sec. 6, Article II
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
The State should not use its money and coercive power to establish religion. It should not support a particular religion. The
State is prohibited from interfering with purely ecclesiastical affairs. But it does not mean that there is total or absolute
separation. The better rule is symbiotic relations between the church and State.
Constitutional provisions evidencing the Separation of Church and State:
1.Sec. 6, Art. II
2. Sec. 5, Art. IIINo law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination
or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights.
3.Sec. 2 (5), Art. IX-Creligious sect cannot be registered as political party \
4.Sec. 5 (2), Art. VIno sectoral representative from the religious sector 5. Sec. 28 (3), Art. VICharitable institutions,
churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation.
6.Sec. 29 (2), Art. VINo public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for
the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
7.Sec. 3 (3), Art. XIVAt the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to
their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or
approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the
Government.
8. Sec. 4 (2), Art. XIVFilipino ownership requirement for educational institutions, except those established by religious groups
and mission boards.

Austria vs. NLRC and CPU Mission Corp. of the 7th Day Adventists, G.R. No. 124382, August 16, 1999, an ecclesiastical
affair involves the relationship between the church and its members and relates to matter of faith, religious doctrines, worship
and governance of the congregation. Examples of these affairs in which the State cannot meddle are proceedings for
excommunication, ordination of religious ministers, administration of sacraments, and other activities to which is attached
religious significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an
employee. It is purely secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the church.

Sec. 7, Article II (Independent Foreign Policy) The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with
other states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the
right to self-determination.

The word relations covers the whole gamut of treaties and international agreements and other kinds of intercourse.
This is the closest reference to military bases.
There is a marked antipathy in the Constitution towards foreign military presence in the country, or of foreign influence
in general. (Lim vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002)

Sec. 8, Article II (Policy of Freedom from Nuclear Weapons) The Philippines, consistent with the national interest,
adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
Clearly, the ban is on nuclear armsthat is, the use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, devices, and parts thereof.
And this includes not only possessing, controlling and manufacturing nuclear weapons, but also nuclear test in our territory, as
well as the use of our territory as dumping ground for radioactive waste.
The provision, however, is not a ban on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nor is it a ban on all nuclear-capable
vessels. For a vessel to be banned, it is not enough that it is capable of carrying nuclear arms; it must actually carry nuclear
arms.
Nuclear weapons, if stored in our territory, may invite threats of foreign invasion and there is a danger to the life and
limbs of the people because of the threat of explosion.

Sec. 9, Article II (Just and Dynamic Social Order) The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will
ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide
adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
It reflects a preoccupation with poverty as resulting from structures that mire the people in a life of dependence.

Sec. 10, Article II
(Social Justice)
The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
(Read Sections 1 and 2 of Article XIII)
Sections 1&2 of Article XIII: Section 1The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments.
Section 2The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of
initiative and self-reliance.
The Constitution covers all phases of national development but with more emphasis not only on economic inequities
but also on political and cultural inequities.

Sec. 11, Article II (Personal Dignity and Human Rights) The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights. (Read Sections 17-19 of Article XIII)
Section 12, Article II (The Family as Basic Social Institution) The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of
the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the government.
(Read Article XV)
The family here is to be understood as a stable heterosexual relationship whether formalized by civilly recognized
marriage or not. Calling the family a basic social institution is an assertion that the family is anterior to the State and is not a
creature of the State. The categorization of the family as autonomous is meant to protect the family against instrumentalization
by the State.

Protection of the Unborn The unborns entitlement to protection begins from conception, i.e., from the
moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at
conception and that conception takes place at fertilization.

The provision is intended to prevent the State from adopting the doctrine in US Supreme Court decision of Roe vs.
Wade, 410 US 113, which liberalized abortion laws up to the 6th month of pregnancy by allowing abortion at the discretion of
the mother any time during the first 6 months when it can be done without danger to the mother.
Natural Right and Duty of Parents Parents are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid them in the discharge
of their responsibility. The provision also highlights the inherent duty of the State to act as parens
patriae and to protect the right of persons and individuals who, because of age or inherent incapacity, are in an unfavorable
position vis--vis other parties.

People vs. Larin, G.R. No. 128777, October 7, 1998, RA 7610, which penalizes child prostitution and other sexual
abuses, was enacted in consonance with the policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all forms of
abuse, thus, the Court grants the victim full vindication and protection granted under the law.

Section 13, Article II Vital Role of the Youth in Nation-Building The State recognizes the vital role of the youth
in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well- being. It
shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
Section 14, Article II (Equality of Women and Men) The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall
ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. (Read Section 14, Article XIII)
PT&T Co. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997, the SC held that the petitioners policy of not accepting or considering as
disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination,
which is guaranteed all women workers under the Constitution. While a requirement that a woman employee must remain
unmarried may be justified as a bona fide occupational qualification where the particular requirements of the job would
demand the same, discrimination against married women cannot be adopted by the employer as a general principle.

Section 15, Article II (Right to Health) The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them. (Read Sections 11-13 of Article XIII as an aspect of Social Justice)

Section 16, Article II (Right to A Balanced and Healthful Ecology) 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.
Oposa vs. Factoran, J r., 224 SCRA 792, it was held that the 34 minors duly joined by their respective parents pleading the
cause of inter-generational responsibility and
inter-generational justice, had a valid cause of action in questioning the grant of Timber Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for
commercial logging purposes. The minors filed the action for themselves as representing their generation as well as
generations yet unborn. The SC, on the basis of Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health, recognized a right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala, G.R. No. 111088, J une 13, 1997, on the issue that the total log ban is a new policy
which should be applied prospectively and not affect the rights of petitioner vested under the Timber Licensing Agreement
(TLA), the Sc held that this is not a new policy but a mere reiteration of the policy of conservation and protection the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
This principle operated as an implicit limitation on legislative powers as on the two other powers.
In essence, separation of powers means the legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive, settlement of legal
controversies to the judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the others. But the separation is not total. The
system allows for checks and balances the net effect of which being that, in general, no one department is able to act
without the cooperation of at least one of the other departments.

Purpose: To prevent concentration of powers in one department and thereby to avoid tyranny. The purpose was not to avoid
friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of governmental powers among the three departments,
topeople from autocracy.
1.To secure action 2.To forestall overaction 3.To preventd espotism 4.To obtain efficiency

In La bugal v. Ramos December 1, 2004, the court restrained itself from intruding into policy matters to allow the
President and Congress maximum discretion in using mineral resources of our country and in securing the assistance of foreign
groups to eradicate the grinding poverty of our people and answer their cry for viable employment opportunities in the country.
The Judiciary is loath to interfere with the due exercise by co-equal branches of government of their official functions. Let the
development of mining industry be the responsibility of the political branches of the government. The questioned provisions of
RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995) are not unconstitutional.

In Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464, in the absence of any administrative action taken against the RTC Judge by
the SC with regard to the formers certificate of service, the investigation conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the
SCs power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Principle of Blending of Powers: Instances when powers are not confined exclusively within one department but are assigned
to or shared by several departments.
Principle of Checks and Balances: This allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogative or to rectify
mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments. The first and safest criterion to determine whether a given power
has been validly exercised by a particular department is whether or not the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the
department claiming its exercisesince the conferment is usually done expressly. However, even in the absence of express
conferment, the exercise of the power may be justified under the doctrine of necessary implication. The grant of express
power carried with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

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

THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE
1. Police Power 2. Power of Eminent Domain 3.Power of Taxation

Similarities:
1. Inherent in the State, exercised even without need of express constitutional grant.
2.Necessary and indispensable; State cannot be effective without them.
3.Methods by which State interferes with private property.
4.Presupposes equivalent compensation.
5. Exercised primarily by the legislature.

DISTINCTIONS: page 33 YSAY

Limitations: Generally,Bill of Rights, although in some cases the exercise of thethe power prevails over specific constitutional
guarantees. The courts may annul the improvident exercise of police power.

These powers must not be exercised arbitrarily, to the prejudice of Bill of Rights.

In Ericta vs. City Government of Quezon City, 122 SCRA 759, the City Government of QC was not exercising police
power when they required private cemetery owners to reserve 6% of the burial lots for paupers burial ground. The SC held that
in police power, the property to be taken is to be destroyed. The 6% are private property of the cemetery owners. This is a
taking of private property. Sec. 9, Art. III: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Clearly, this is an invalid exercise of police power. The City was made to pay the owners just compensation.

In Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Sec. 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates
newspapers of general circulation in every province or city to provide free print space of not less than 12 page as COMELEC
space, was held to be an invalid exercise of police power there being no showing of the existence of a national emergency or
imperious public necessity for the taking of print space, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable and calibrated response
to such necessity. This was held to be an exercise of the power of eminent domain, albeit invalid, because the COMELEC
would not pay for the space to be given to it by the newspapers.

Police power and power of taxationcannot be delegated to administrative bodies. Police power and power of eminent
domain both involved taking. They differ in purpose. Police powerto destroy; because the property is harmful, obnoxious,
poses a risk to the public. Power of eminent domainonly private property is the subject of taking; the purpose is to
convert the private property to public use.

POLICE POWER
It is the power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.

It is the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and
reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge
to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its scope is
vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare.

It is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general
welfare of the people (now common good). (Binay vs. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508)

It has been described as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great
public needs. It is the power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable
laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for
the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. (Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD, G.R. No.
166494, J une 29, 2007)

Cabrera vs. Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, December 6, 2006, a careful reading of the questioned Resolution reveals that the
Ombudsman dismissed petitioners criminal complaint because respondents had validly resorted to the police power of the
State when they effected the demolition of the illegal fishpond in question following the declaration thereof as a nuisance per se.
in the words of the Ombudsman, those who participated in the blasting of the subject fishpond were only impelled by their
desire to serve the best interest of the general public; for the good and the highest good.
Requisites (Limitations): 1. Lawful subjectthe interests of the public in general as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require the exercise of this power.
2.Lawful meansthe means employed are reasonably for the accomplishment of
the purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals.

Affected with public interestan industry is subject to control for the public good; it has been considered as the equivalent
of subject to the exercise of police power.

Construction: construed strictly and any doubt must be resolved against the grant.

Scope/Characteristics: It is the most pervasive, least limitable, and the most demanding of the three
powers. The justification is found in: salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere
tuo ut alienum non laedas (use your property so as not to impair others).

1.It cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract.
2.The taxing power may be used as an implement of police power
3. Eminent domain may be used as an implement to attain the police powerobjective (Association of Landowners vs.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform,175 SCRA 343).
4. In Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000, non-impairment of contracts or vested rights clauses will
have to yield to the superior and legitimate exercise by the State of the police power.
5. In PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, J une 21, 2004, the exercise of the constitutional right of every citizen to select a
profession or course of study may be regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace,
education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people. This regulation assumes particular pertinence in the field of
medicine, to protect the public from the potentially dead effects of incompetence and ignorance.

In Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534, the right to bear arms is merely statutory privilege. The license to carry firearm is
neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create a vested right. A permit to carry outside ones residence may be
revoked at any time. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered as absolute as to be beyond the reach of the police
power.

Who may exercise police power?
The power is inherently vested in Congress. However, they may validly delegate this power to the following:
1.the President
2.administrative bodiespublic and quasi-public corporations
3.the lawmaking bodies of local government unitsLocal government units exercise the power under the general welfare clause.

CANORECO vs. Torres, G.R. no. 127249, February 27, 1998, while police power may be delegated to the President by law,
RA 6939 and PD 260, as amended, do not authorize the President or any other administrative body, to take over the internal
management of a cooperative. Accordingly, Memorandum Order No. 409, issued by the President, constituting an ad hoc
committee to temporarily take over and manage the affairs of CANORECO is invalid.

In MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000, there is no provision in RA 7924 that empowers
the MMDA or its council to enact ordinance, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the
inhabitants of Metro Manila. Thus, MMDA may not order the opening of Neptune St. in the Bel-Air Subdivision to public traffic,
as it does not possess delegated police power.

Section 11, Article Xthe Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as
set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to
their own local executives and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created
shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination.

MMDA is not a special metropolitan political subdivision.

However, in MMDA vs. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005, although the law (RA 7924) does not grant the MMDA the
power to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses without need of any legislative enactment, the same law vests the
MMDA the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and regulations. Thus, where there is a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by
the legislature or those agencies to whom legislative power has been delegated, the MMDA is not precludedand in fact is
duty- boundto confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses in the exercise of its mandate of transport and traffic
management, as well as the administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services
and traffic education programs.

Additional Limitations (When exercised by delegate):
a. express grant bylaw
b. within territorial limits (for local government units, except when exercised toprotect water supply)
c.must not be contrary to law

For municipal ordinance to be valid:
1.it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2.it must not be unfair or oppressive;
3.it must not be partial or discriminatory;
4.it must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade;
5.it must not be unreasonable; and
6.it must be general in application and consistent with public policy.

In City of Manila vs. J udge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005, the SC declared as an invalid exercise of the
police power the City of Manila Ordinance No. 7783, which prohibited the establishment or operation of businesses providing
certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities in the Ermita-Malate area, for being contrary to the
Constitution, infringing the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws.

In Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197 (1994), solicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper
regulation by the State in the exercise of police power.

In Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs. CA, 329 SCRA 314 (2000), the issuance of business licenses and permits by a
municipality or city is essentiallyregulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units, to issue or
grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police power of the State within the contemplation of the
general welfare clause of the LGC.

The implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) is an exercise of police power and the power of
eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power
for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are
deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also taking under the power of eminent domain.
The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and
physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill
of rights provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. The CARL was not
intended to take away property without due process of law. The exercise of power of eminent domain requires that due process
be observed in the taking of private property. [Roxas and Co., vs. CA, 321 SCRA 106 (1999)]

Republic vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 141314, November 15, 2002, the regulation of rates to be charged by public
utilities is founded upon the police power of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the control and regulations of public
utilities are a valid exercise thereof. When a private property is used for a public purpose and is affected with public interest, it
ceases to be juris privati only and becomes subject to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good. Submission to
regulation may be withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but as long as the use of the property is continued, the same is
subject to public regulation.

In regulating rates charged by public utilities, the State protects the public against arbitrary and excessive rates while
maintaining the efficiency and quality of services rendered. However, the power to regulate rates does not give the State the
right to prescribe rates which are so low as to deprive the public utility of a reasonable return on investment.

Philippine Press Institute (PPI) vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which
mandates newspapers of general circulation in every province or city to provide free print space of not less than 12 page as
COMELEC space, was held to be invalid exercise of police power there being no showing of the existence of national
emergency or imperious public necessity for the taking of print space, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable and
calibrated response to such necessity.

Public purpose and use has broader concept now. It now includes VICARIOUS BENEFITS that society may derive from a
particular measure.
e.g. CONCERN FOR THE POORSC recognized this as one for public purpose and use.

POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN also known as the power of expropriation
The power of eminent domain is the power of the State to forcibly take private property for public use upon payment of just
compensation.
It is the right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular uses to promote public welfare.
It is governments right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose.
(Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 586)

The ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public, but even the private property of all citizens within
the territorial sovereignty, for public purpose.

POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN-DESTRUCTION DUE TO NECESSITY PAGE 40

Object of Expropriation:
1.anything that comes under the dominion of man
2.real, personal, tangible and intangible
3. property right
4.churches and other religious properties
5. property already devoted to public use

Except: money- because compensation is also money Who may exercise? Generally, the legislature, but also upon valid
delegation to:
1.the President;
2.lawmaking bodies of LGUs;
3.administrative bodiespublic and quasi-public corporations
4.Private enterprises performing public services.

In the case of Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, J uly 2, 2002, the power of eminent domain must, by enabling law,
be delegated to local governments by the national legislature, and thus, can only be as broad as the real authority would want it
to be. The grant of the power to local government units under RA 7160 cannot be understood as equal to the pervasive and all
encompassing power vested in the legislative branch of government.

J IL School Foundation vs. Municipality of Pasig, G. R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005Sec. 19, of the LGC requires
the LGU to tender a prior written definite and valid offer to acquire the property before the filing of the complaint for eminent
domain.
Filstream Intl Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716the exercise of the power of eminent domain is clearly superior to the final and
executor judgment rendered by the court in an ejectment case.

RP vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620services were considered embraced in the concept of property subject to taking under the power
of eminent domain. Republic, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, may require the telephone company to
permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of government service may
require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined by the court.

Where Expropriation Suit Is Filed:
In the Regional Trial Courtbecause it is incapable of pecuniary estimation

Requisites:
1. Necessitywhen exercised by:
a. Congressit is a political question; (Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 640)
b. Delegatethe determination of whether there is a genuine necessity for the exercise is a justiceable question (Republic vs.
La Orden de Po. Benedictinos, 1 SCRA 649).

The RTC has the power to inquire to the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether there is
a genuine necessity for it (Bardillon vs. Brgy. Masili of Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, April 30, 2003).
Lagcao vs. J udge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004there was no showing at all why petitioners property was
singled out for expropriation by the city ordinance or what necessity impelled the particular choice or selection. The ordinance
stated no reason for the choice of petitioners property as the site of a socialized housing project.

2. Private propertyall private property capable of ownership may be expropriated except money and choses in action; may
include services. (Republic vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620)

In City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, 40 Phil. 349, a cemetery open to the public was already in public use and no part
of the ground could be taken for other public uses under a general authority. The City of Manila was without authority to
expropriate the property. (The Congress itself should expropriate or there must be special grant.)

3. Taking there is taking when:
a.The owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property;
b. There is practical destruction or material impairment of the value of the
property;
c.The owner is deprived of the ordinary use of his property;
d. The owner is deprived of jurisdiction, supervision and control of his property.

Requisites for a valid taking: (EMADO)
a. The expropriator must enter a private property;
b. Entry must be for more than a momentary period;
c. Entry must be under warrant or color of authority;
d. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected;
e. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner anddeprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
(Republic vs. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336)

The taking of private property may include the impairment of the use of the property for which it was intended. In US vs.
Causby, 328 US 256, the flight of planes from a nearby military airport over plaintiffs property below the navigable airspace
resulting in the ruin of plaintiffs chicken farm was considered compensable taking. So also were low landing and take-off flights
which made nearby residential area unlivable (Griggs vs. Allegheny County, 369 US 84). This is taking in the constitutional
sense.

Avenida, Rizal used to be the commercial center of Manila. However, when the Light Railway Transit (LRT) was built, the
commercial value of Avenida was greatly diminished. The shops and stores had to close. The owners of these establishments
suffered losses because of the operation of the LRT along Avenida, Rizal. Are they entitled to be paid just compensation?
No. SC held that the kind of injury or loss that one must suffer that will justify the payment of just compensation must be a
special kind of injury or loss as in the case of Causby. If the injury or loss that one suffered is one which he suffered together
with the rest of the community, his only compensation in such a case is the altruistic feeling that somehow he is able to
contribute to the common good.

CANORECO vs. CA, G.R. No. 109338, November 20, 2000, The owner of the property cut the electric lines alleging that it
impaired him of the use of his property. The SC held that the property owner was not justified in cutting the electric lines. His
property becomes the servient estate subject to the encumbrance, and the acquisition of an easement of right of way filed by an
electric power company for the construction of transmission lines falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain.
However since there was an impairment of the use of the property, he is entitled to the payment of just compensation.

The establishment of an easement is a form of compensable taking. In NAPOCOR vs. Sps. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 60077,
J anuary 18, 1991, the owner of the land was awarded full compensation against the NAPOCORs argument that the owners
were not totally deprived of the use of the land and could still plant the same crops as long as they did not come into contact
with the wires. The Court said: the right of way easement perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as
manifested by the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines no plant higher than 3 meters is
allowed. Furthermore, because of the high-tension current conveyed through the transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that
may be caused beneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all, plaintiff only pays the fee to defendant
once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on said affected portion of their property.

In People vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 44, a municipal ordinance prohibiting a building which would impair the view of the plaza from
the highway was considered taking. The property owner was held to be entitled to payment of just compensation.

In Velarma vs. CA, 252 SCRA 400, the owner of the property can recover possession of the property from squatters, even if he
agreed to transfer the property to the Government, until the transfer is consummated or the expropriation case is filed.

Taking under Eminent Domain Proceeding- Taking under Police Power PAGE 44

Philippine Press Institute (PPI) vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which
mandates newspapers of general circulation in every province or city to provide free print space of not less than 12 page as
COMELEC space, was held to be an exercise of power of eminent domain, albeit invalid, because the COMELEC would not pay
for the space to be given to it by the newspapers.

TELEBAP, Inc. vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 1998, the constitutionality of Sec. 92 of BP 881 (requiring radio and television
station owners and operators to give to the COMELEC radio and television time free of charge) was challenged on the ground
that it violated the due process clause and the eminent domain provision of the Constitution by taking airtime from radio and
television broadcasting stations without payment of just compensation. The SC held that all broadcasting, whether by radio or
by television stations, is licensed by the government. Airwaves frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals
who want to broadcast than there frequencies to assign. A franchise is thus a privilege subject, among other things, to
amendment by Congress in accordance with the constitutional provision that any such franchise or right granted x x x shall be
subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires (Art. XII, Sec.11).

In the granting of the privilege to operate broadcast stations and thereafter supervising radio and television stations,
the State spends considerable public funds in licensing and supervising such stations. It would be strange if it cannot even
require the licensees to render public service by giving free airtime. x x x As radio and television broadcast stations do not own
the airwaves, no private property is taken by the requirement that they provide airtime to the COMELEC.

PPI vs. COMELEC- TELEBAP vs. COMELEC page 45

Shifting argument alleged in TELEBAP: both PPI and TELEBAP are media of communication and information. Equal
protection clause was raised as an issue. The SC ruled that equal protection clause does not guarantee absolute equality.
There may be classification. Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be treated differently if there is a
basis for valid classification.

4. Public usepublic interest; public benefit; public welfare; public convenience (Reyes vs. NHA, G.R. No. 147511,
J anuary 20, 2003).
The general conceptmeeting public need or public exigency; may include indirect public benefit or advantage.
In Estate of Salud J imenez vs. PEZA, 349 SCRA 240, public use is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general
welfare.
It has been broadened to include not only uses directly available to the public but also those which redound to their indirect
benefit; that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of the property does not necessarily diminish the essence
and character of public use. (Manosca vs. CA, 252 SCRA 412)
In Filstream Intl Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716, the fact that the property is less than 12 hectare and that only a few could
actually benefit from the expropriation does not diminish its public use character, inasmuch as public use now includes the
broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including, in particular, urban land reform and housing.
By express legislative authority granted by Congress in Sec. 19, RA 7160, LGUs may expropriate private property for public
use, or purpose, or welfare, for the benefit of the poor and the landless. Thus, in Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 568, the SC held
that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur was without authority to disapprove Bunawan Municipal Resolution No.
43-89 because, clearly, the Municipality of Bunawan has authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and its
Sanggguniang Bayan the capacity to promulgate the assailed resolution. PAGE 46