Teejay Notes – February 5, 2018

“Establish that shall embody our ideals and aspirations”

- State: community of person, more or less numerous, occupying a defined territory,

possessed of an organized government and sovereignty (or capacity to enter into
legal relations).
- Province of North Cotabato v. GRP
- Case concerning the challenge on the constitutionality of the MOA between
the MILF and the RP
- The proposed MOA defined the people who would comprise the BJE; the
longitudes and the latitudes were likewise defined and included the
territorial waters and internal waters of the BJE; insofar as the resources in
the territorial sea, 85% would belong to the BJE and 15% to the RP while
resources from the internal waters pertain totally to the BJE; BJE was given
the capacity to directly contract with other states.
- The Court found that the elements for statehood are present in the
characterization of the BJE. Thus, it is unconstitutional. At the very least, the
BJE would be an associative state.
- Any agreement, therefore, that would confer the elements of the
Montevideo convention on any entity is inconsistent with the Constitution.
- Note that any political entity in the State must only possess internal self-
determination (autonomy) and not external self-determination
(independence).
- Elements of a State

1. People
- Numerous enough to be self-sustaining and capable of self-defense but
small enough to be easily administered.

2. Territory
- 5 items which comprise our terrestrial domain:
i. Items mentioned in Treaty of Paris and its amendment (which
added to PH territory Cagayan, Sulu, and Sibuto);
ii. Treaty with UK to include the Turtle and Mangsee Island;
iii. Inclusion of the Batanes Islands under the 1935 Constitution;
iv. Other territories claimed by the Philippines by historic right.

- Maritime territory
i. Magallona v. Ermita challenged the implementing law of UNCLOS III
which asserted that the law made PH subservient to international law.
But the Court found that the question is political.
ii. UNCLOS III maximized the water rights of archipelagic states.
iii. Note UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of
territory. International law provides that acquisition or loss of
 territory. UNCLOS III prescribes only for the proper land water ratio
and the length and contours by the baselines.
iv. UNCLOS III was challenged for providing unhampered access to
foreign ships to our internal (archipelagic) waters. The Court simply
disposed of the argument by saying that international permit this
already because of the customary right of innocent passage.
- Note the case of Capitol v. Provincial Government of Batangas –
realty tax case. Respondent basically wanted to impose realty tax on
underwater cables. SC responded by arguing that the cable pass
through our EEZ therefore taxable

- Aerial Domain
- anything State sends up, they are responsible for when it comes
down.

3. Government

- Agency or instrumentality in which the will of the state is formulated and

realized
- When a government does something bad, its on its own; when good, its
attributed to state
- Constituent functions (maintenance of peace and order; those that
constitute the very bonds of society) and ministrant (traditionally
optional, welfare, etc.)
o Traditional distinction between constituent and ministrant
functions are no longer relevant in the Philippines
- Parens Patriea – guardian of the rights of the people
o Last resort to justify official state act for the purpose of protecting
the rights and welfare of citizens (something akin to police power)
- Classes of government
o De Jure – one with legal title but bereft or power
o De Facto – exercises power but bereft of legal title
 See page 80
 Belligerent occupation
 Suspension of operation of political laws
o Ex. Law against treason, while political in
nature, is not suspended.
 Sovereignty is not lose, only the exercise of which
cannot be done
 Laws governing private rights continue to persist
unless changed by the belligerent occupant.

o Legitimate government – both de facto and de jure governments
(in one government)
4. Sovereignty

- Saguisag v. Executive Secretary regarding the EDCA

- Sovereignty is the possession of sovereign power and jurisdiction is
the authority to apply the law
- Sovereignty, therefore, is the authority to make the law
- Classes of sovereignty: internal (autonomy) and external
(independence)
- Classes of sovereignty: legal sovereignty (congress) and political
(people)

- The Philippines is a Democratic and Republican State

- Indications of Democratic set-up: Art. II, Secs. 1, 23; Art. III, Sec. 8, Art. XIII,
Secs. 15-16; Art. VI, Sec. 5; Art. X, Secs. 15, 18; Art. VIII, Sec. 8-9; Art. XII, Sec.
16;
- Greater private involvement (private sector) in the conduct of public affairs.
In other words, greater people involvement
- Republican characteristics:
- Representation is key to any republican regime
- Renovation entitles the citizenry to replace or renew the men in
government

- Republicanism
- In any republican regime, the will of the majority prevails
- Note, however, that at times plurality is enough. Why is this not inconsistent
with Republicanism? Simply, the constitution says so. Thus, it is permitted
that the will of a lesser number of senators may strike down the will of the
majority with respect to the concurrence of a treaty.

- Separation of Powers
- The difficulty here is that there are powers of government which is difficult
to determine where it properly pertains
- It is exercisable by a department if it is expressly granted
- If the power is inherent in the branch of government then it can be
exercised by such branch.
- The power of legislative investigation is inherent in congress
(actually it is expressly granted under the present constitution but
note that what is listed are limitations so inherent). Thus,
contumacious power is inherent to congress’ power of legislative
investigation. Note
- Doctrine of necessary implication
- Best illustrated by the case of Angara v. Electoral Commission
- Note that at the time, COMELEC was a statutory creation.
COMELEC was tasked to resolve election contests.
 - Position was respondent had no authority to promulgate
rules of procedure. Court held that such authority is
necessarily implied in order to effectively perform its statutory
duties.
- Once the power is established to be exercisable by a branch does not
necessarily mean that it is to the exclusion of others. Thus, the
following doctrines exist:
- Blending of powers
- Powers are exercised cooperatively; e.g. the
preparation of the national budget is by the president
and passed by congress.
- Checks and balances
- The exercise of power by one department is checked
by another department, e.g. presidential veto, amnesty
concurrence, etc.
- Cases on separation of powers
- Carpio v. Executive Secretary
- Regarding the constitutionality of one feature of the PNP Law
which establishes a joint oversight committee (of congress)
which will be involved in the implementation of the law. This is
challenged for encroaching on the exclusive power of the
executive to implement the law
- The Court held that the oversight authority is allowed
because it is not going to participate in the implementation of
the law. The committee is only to ensure to compliance with
the law crafted by them and to ensure that there is
coordination to allow for amendment, if the need arises
- Macalintal v. COMELEC & ABAKADA v. Purisima
- Joint legislative oversight committee in these cases were
struck down as unconstitutional because the committee were
allowed to change the IRR which encroaches on the executive
department’s right to implement the law.
- Legislative oversight must solely be for the purpose of
bureaucratic streamlining.
- 3 kinds:
i. Scrutiny
ii. Investigation
iii. Legislative veto
- Legislative oversight through scrutiny is permitted (question
hour) as provided for by Art. VI, Sec. 22
- Legislative oversight through investigation is permited as
provided for by Art. VI, Sec. 21 – this is coercive
- Legislative supervision or legislative veto is unconstitutional
because:
 i. Offends separation of powers – once a law is passed
the matter of implementation pertains exclusively to the
executive branch.
ii. Changing of the rule is effectively an amendment of
the law in violation of the rule on presentment. For this
to be done, it must go through the proper process for
the passage of a law
iii. Legislative oversight committee preempts the SC
exercise of judicial power in determining the validity of
the IRR.

- Belgica v. Executive Secretary

o PDAF Case
o 3 post enactment authorities were allowed by legislators:
 Authorized individual legislators were authorized to
identify projects
 Moreover, everytime a legislator would identify a
project not provided for in the budget, it amounts to
an amendment. Such cannot be exercised by an
individual legislator.
 Violates the rule on presentment as well
 Authorizes congressmen to allow the release of the funds
 Authorizes individual congressmen to re-align the funds
o Above amounted to involvement in implementation
o Sec. 27 Art. VI, veto must be total. Partial veto, generally is not
allowed, except for those affecting appropriations, revenue, and
tariff measures
 Cannot effectively exercise partial veto powers
o Many of the projects identified by legislators pertain local
government infrastructure projects which undermines local
autonomy
o Article VI, Sec. 14 was also violated because the individual
legislators might be acting for their pecuniary benefit

- Araullo v. Aquino
- Carpio-Morales v. CA
- Gonzales (theory of relative constitutionality)
- Sameer v. Cabiles