INTRODUCTION

I. Constitutional Law

-Constitutional law is a term used to designate the law embodied in the constitution and the
legal principles growing out of the interpretation and application made by courts of the
constitution in specific cases.

-Constitution + Jurisprudence

- Political Law:

It is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the
governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the
inhabitants of its territory. (PEOPLE VS. PERFECTO, 43 Phil. 887)

II. The Constitution

A. Definition

-That body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the power of sovereignty are
habitually exercised. (Cooley)

-Puts limitations to the powers of government rather than being the source of powers.

-To prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign to the

several departments their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain first
principles on which government is founded.

B. Parts

1. Constitution of Government - The series of provisions outlining the organization of

the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its
administration and defining the electorate.

2. Constitution of Liberty - The series of proscriptions setting forth the fundamental civil
and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of government
as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.

3. Constitution of Sovereignty - The provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in

accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about. It
has to be changed through the instrumentality of the people.

C. Characteristics of a good written Constitution

1. Broad - it provides for the organization of the entire government and covers all
persons and things within the territory of the State and also because it must be
comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency

2. Brief - must confine itself to basic principles to be implemented w/ legislative details

more adjustable to change and easier to amend
 3. Definite - to prevent ambiguity in its provisions which could result in confusion and
divisiveness among the people

D. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

-It is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which
all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered.

-If a law violates any norm of the constitution, that law is null and void; it has no effect.
(This is an overstatement, for a law held unconstitutional is not always wholly a nullity)

-It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative
act repugnant to it.

-Constitutional supremacy produced judicial review.

1. Unconstitunality of law cannot be cured by reenactment

Case: Sameer v. Cabilles, G.R. No. 170139, August 05, 2014

The clause “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less” of Sec 10 Money Claims of RA 8042 Migrant Workers Act of 1995 was already
declared as unconstitutional in the 2009 case of Serrano v Gallant.

Its reinstatement by virtue of RA 10022 in 2010 cannot cure its unconstitunality -

when a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the
Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of
the same or a similar law or provision.

2. Constitutional Supremacy not an automatic excuse for non-compliance of treaty

Case: Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000

VFA is not unconstitutional. Sec 25 of Art XVII disallows foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities in the country, unless the following conditions are sufficiently
met, viz: (a) it must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by
the Senate and, when so required by congress, ratified by a majority of the votes
cast by the people in a national referendum; and (c) recognized as a treaty by the
other contracting state.

There was a concurrence by the Senate through Resolution No. 18 which was in
accordance to the Constitution. The requisite of being “recognized as a treaty”,
according to the court, means that the other contracting parties accept or
acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.

Thus, Constitutional Supremacy cannot be invoked as an automatic excuse for non-

compliance of a treaty.

3. Corollary concept: Judicial Supremacy

- it is a doctrine in which the Judiciary is vested with the power to annul the acts of
either the legislative or the executive or of both when not conformable to the
 fundamental law. [Assoc. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, GR
78742. July 14, 1989]

- it is the invocation of the power of judicial review under the Constitution.

[Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139]

E. Self-Executing vs Non-Self-Executing Provisions

Case: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

As a general rule, all provisions of the Constitution are self-executing, by virtue that it 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. Except for provisions which lays down a general principle,
such as those found in Art II of the 1987 Constitution – the right to life and the right to
health, among others.

Sec 10 paragraph 2 of Art XII – the Filipino First Policy is a mandatory, positive command
which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or
rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any
legislation to put it in operation.

III. The Constitution of the Philippines

A. Pre-1987 Constitution

Commonwealth Constitution (1935)

Constitution of 1973

Freedom Constitution (Feb. 25, 1986 – Proclamation No. 3 by Cory Aquino)

1987 Constitution (adopted on Feb. 02, 1987)

Cases:

Planas v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-35925, January 22, 1973 (a.k.a Plebiscite cases)

The series of cases which sought to prohibit the holding of the plebescite were
eventually dismissed being “moot and acadamic” upon the issuance of Presidential
Proclamation 1102 by President Marcos the Constitution was declared ratified and has
come into force and effect.

Javellana v. Exec. Sec., 50 SCRA 33 (a.k.a Ratification cases)

A series of cases which challenged the validity of the ratification of the 1973
Constitution which were grounded on the following issues:

a. WoN the validity of the Presidential Proclamation 1102 is a political or

justiciable question? (Six justices said it is justiciable, three claim it to be political,
and one qualified his vote.
 b. WoN the New Constitution was validly ratified, with substantial if not strict
compliance to, conforming with the 1935 Constitutional provisions? (Six justices said
no, three said there was substantial compliance, and one qualified his vote).

c. WoN the people had acquiesced in the New Constitution (with or without valid
ratification)? (Four justices said the people had already accepted the New
Constitution, two said that there can be no free expression by people qualified to
vote of their acceptance or repudiation of the New Constitution under Martial Law,
one said he is not prepared to state that a New Constitution once accepted by the
people must be accorded recognition independently of valid ratifitcation, and three
expressed their lack of knowledge or competence to rule on the question because
under the regime of matial law with free expression of opinions restricted, they ahve
no means of knowing, to the point of judicial certainty, whether the people have
accepted the New Constitution or not).

d. WoN the petitioners are entitiled to relief? (Six justices voted to dismiss the
petition, four were for giving due course to the petitions).

e. WoN the New Constitution is already in force? (Four said yes by virtue of people’s
acceptance of the same, four said they could not with judicial certainty wether or not
the people had accepted the Constitution, and two declared the New Constitution is
not in force)

The SC decision concluded: “Accordingly, by virtue of the majority of six votes x x

x. with four dissenting votes x x x all of the aforementioned cases are hereby
dismissed. This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial
obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect. ”

Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183

Phil. Bar Association v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 72915, December 20, 1985

A petition to prohibit the holding of the 1986 snap elections filed at the Supreme Court by
the Phil. Bar Association was dismissed due to considerations other than legality had
already set in. The candidate were in the thick of the campaigning, and the people
were already looking forward to the elections.

B. The 1987 Constitution

Cases:

Republic v. Sandigan Bayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003

In Re: Letter of Associate Justice Renato S. Puno, A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA, June 29,
1992
THE STATE

I. Elements of a State

- A state is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a

fixed territory, and possessed of an independent government organized for political ends
to which the great body politic render habitual obedience.

- a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by ties

of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government
functioning under a regime of law. (CIR v. Campos Ruedas, 42 SCRA 23)

State v Nation

State = Legal or Juristic Concept

Nation = Ethnic or Racial Concept

State v Government

State possesses a government to which a great body of inhabitants render habitual

obedience.

Government is merely an instrumentality of the State throu which the will of the State is
implemented and realized.

A. People

- People refers simply to the inhabitants of the State.

B. Territory

- “The national territory comprises the Philippines archipelago, with all the islands and
waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its territorial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including
its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless
of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.”

(Art. 1, 1987 Constitution)

- Two (2) Parts of the National Territory:

1. The Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters embraced therein; and

2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

1. Read: Article I of the 1987 Constitution

 Case: Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011

2. The International Law concept of Association: “a state within a state”

Case: Province of North Cotabato v. GRP, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008

C. Government

- Government is the agency or instrumentality through the will of the State is formulated,
expressed and realized.

1. Functions: Constituent v. Ministrant

- Constituent.—Constituent functions constitute the very bonds of society and are

therefore compulsory.

- Ministrant.− Ministrant functions are those undertaken to advance the general

interests of society, such as public works, public charity, and regulation of trade and
industry.

Cases:

Bacani v. National Coconut Corp., G.R. No. L-9657, November 29, 1956

ACCFA v. FLU, 30 SCRA 649

PVTA v. CIR, 65 SCRA 416

2. Types of Government: De Jure v. De Facto

- 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 the
exercise thereof.

- De Facto government is a government of fact, that is, it actually exercises power or

control but without legal title.

Three types of De Facto Government:

a. by Paramount Force – by foreign occupation -> usually established in times

of war

b. by Insurrection – by a domestic group who is against the parent state ->

e.g. MILF

c. by Revolution – by force or voice of majority taking possession or control

against the rightful legal government -> e.g. Cory’s administration (de jure) vs
Marcos (de fecto) administration after the snap elections

Cases:

Co Kim Chan v. Valdez, G.R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945

Peralta v. Director, 75 Phil 285

 Alcantara v. Director, 75 Phil 749

Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil 856

Lawyer’s League v. Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986

Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146710, March 02, 2001

3. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines

- “The corporate governmental entity through the functions of the government are
exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from
the context, various arms through which political authority is made effective in the
Philippines, whether pertaining to autonomous regions, provincial, city, municipal, or
barangay subdivisions or other form of local government.”

(Administrative Code of 1987, Sec 2 (1))

- A government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) engaged in proprietary

functions cannot be considered part of the Government for purposes of exemption
from the application of the statute of limitations.

4. Government v. Administration

- The Administration runs the Government.

- Administration is the group of persons in whose hands are on the reins of

Government for the time being.

- Administration is transitional whereas the government is permanent

D. Sovereignty

1. Definition

- Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which

that State is governed.

2. Types: Legal v. Political Sovereignty

- Legal Sovereignty - The authority which has the power to issue final commands

- Political Sovereignty - The power behind the legal sovereign, or the sum of the
influences that operate upon it

3. Sovereignty as auto-limitation

* Doctrine of Self Auto-Limitation

 - A principle under which any state may by its consent, express or implied, submit to
a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what
otherwise is a plenary power.

- There is no limitation on the sovereignty but there is a limitation on the exercise of

sovereignty.

- “is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal
self-determination and self-restriction” (Jellinek)

Case: Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997

4. Doctrine of Jus Postliminium

- When a foreign power occupies a state and exercises the powers of government,
the political laws of the said state are deemed automatically suspended but the
former government automatically comes to life and will be in force and in effect again
upon the re-establishment of the former government.

(Taylor, International Law, p. 615.)

5. Effect of Suspension or Change in Sovereignty

Cases:

Co Kim Chan v. Valdez, supra

People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887

Macariola v. Asucion, 114 SCRA 77

Vilas v. City of Manila, 42 Phil 953

Gov’t v. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil 728

II. Doctrine of the State as Parens Patriae

- One of the important tasks of the government is to act for the State as parens patriae, or
guardian of the rights of people.

- Public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent,
legal guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual
who is in need of protection.

- the inherent power and authority of the state to provide protection to the persons and
property of the persons non-suijuris

- Non-sui Juris Persons are those who lack the legal capacity to act on his own behalf
like the child or the insane persons.

Cases:

Gov’t v. Monte Piedad, supra (to provide protection to persons and property)
 Cabanas v. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94 (Non-sui Juris Persons)

III. State Immunity from Suits

- The State immunity from suit is not based on constitutional provisions but based on jus
cogens in international law.

Positivist theory – no legal right as against which makes the law or where the right is based

Sociological theory – if you are deprived of the right to suit then the inconvenience of not
able to sue should be subordinated by the higher interest of the public

Consent theory – the state cannot be sued when we approved the 1987 Constitution

Equality among states – a state is banned from suing another state

A. Basis

- The State may not be sued without its consent” (Art. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution).

- There can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right
depends.

Case: Kawanakoa v. Polybank, 205 US 349

B. Concept of Restrictive State Immunity

-This immunity is recognized only with respect to the sovereign or public acts of the state,
and cannot be invoked with respect to a private or proprietary acts.

-Cannot be invoked when the foreign state sues in the court of another state -> otherwise
they would be deemed to have submitted itself to the ordinary incidents of procedure and
a counterclaim may be validly set-up against them.

C. Typologies of suits against the state

1. Suits against Public Officials

a. Test will require an affirmitve act from the state

CASES

Garcia v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120

- money claim against the government, or the state, must first be filed with the
Commission on Audit -> must not involve criminal or administrative cases against
political officers or agencies or instruments, but civil cases

Ruiz v. Cabahug 102 Phil 110 (1957)

- before a government may be sued, it must be shown that the government has
given it’s consent to be sued either expressly or implied through it’s overt acts ->
 e.g. there is actual appropriation of money made for such intended action or
claim.

Republic V. Sandoval G.R. No. 84607, March 19, 1993

Sanders v. Veridiano, G.R. No. L-46930, June 10, 1988 (162 SCRA 88)

b. Effect when public officer acts without, or in excess of jurisdiction

CASE: Festejo v. Fernando, GR No. L-5156, March 11, 1954 (NOTE: opinion
in Spanish; read dissent of J. Concepcion and the discussion of Cruz to get
an idean what the case is all about)

c. Case may be dismissed as against the government, but maintained as against

the ddefendant government officials.

CASE: Republic v, Sandoval supra

2. Suits Against Government Agencies

a. Test

i. If incorpotated consult the charter

CASES

Bermoy v. PNC, GR No. L-8670, May 18, 1956

Arcega v. CA, 66 SCRA 229

Rayo v. CFI, 110 SCRA 460

PNR v. IAC, 217 SCRA 401

ii. If unincorporated determine nature of primary function

CASES:

Bureau of Printing v. Bureau of Printing Employees Ass’n, 1 SCRA

340

Mobil Pgils v. Customs Arrastre Service 18 SCRA 1120

Air Transportation Office v. Sps. Ramos G.R. No. 159402, February

23, 2011

3. Suits Against Foreign States

CASES:

Syquia v. Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil 312 (read also the dissent of Juctice
Perfecto)

Sanders v. Veridiano 162 SCRA 88

Holy See v. Rosario 238 SCRA 524

 U.S. v. Guinto (and companion cases), 182 SCRA 644

U.S. v. Ruiz G.R. No. L-35645 May 22, 1985

D. Waiver of Immunity Consent to be Sued

1. Forms of Consent

a. Express

i. Thru a general law Read Act No. 3083 and C.A. 327, as amended by P.D.
1445)

ii. Thru a special law

CASES:

Meritt v. Government of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil 311

Lim v. Brownell, G.R. No. L-8587, March 24, 1960

b. Implied

i. When state commences litigation

CASES:

Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Cop., GR No. L-6060, Sept 30, 1950

Lim v. Brownell, supra

ii. When state enters into a proprietory contract

CASES:

U.S. v Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487

U.S. v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644

iii. Suit allowed to avoid perpetrating an injustice

CASES:

Ministerio v. CFI, G.R. No. L-31635, August 31, 1971 (40 SCRA 464)

Amigable v. Cuenca, G.R. No. L-26400, February 29, 1972, 43 CRA 360

Santiago v. Republic, 87 SCRA 294

E. Suability vs. Liability

 1. Read also The Local Government Code of 1991

CASES:

U.S. v. Rodrigo, G.R. No. 79470, February 26, 1990

Meritt v. Government of the Phil. Islands, supra

B. Consent to be Sued not Consent to Execution of Judgement

Case: Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84

i. Exception

CASE: PNB v. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595

C. State immunity personal to the state, cannot be invoked by other

CASE: Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. v. Jalos, G.R. No. 179918, September 8,
2010

D. Presidential immunity from suits

CASES:

Saez v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 183533, August 31, 2010

Rodriguez v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 191805, November 15, 2011

Lozada v. Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 184379-8-, April 24, 2012