CONSTITUITIONAL LAW I

POLITICAL LAW
Defines the relationship between the state and the
inhabitants of territory
Branch of public law which deals with the operation and
organization of the governmental of the state (const1)
Relationship= Rights and Obligations (consti 2)
Branches of Political Law:
i.
Constitutional Law
ii.
Election Law
iii.
Law of Public Offices
iv.
Administrative Law
v.
Law of Public Corporations
PUBLIC LAW
Branch of law which deals with the state, state agencies,
an protection of state interest
Governs
Branches of Public Law:
i.
Political
ii.
Criminal (state protects its interest)
iii.
International
PRIVATE LAW
Branch of law which deals with the relationship between
and among individuals
Branches of Private Law:
i.
Civil
ii.
Commercial
Case: Macariola v. Asuncion
Discusses Political Law
When there is transfer in sovereignty, public law is
automatically abrogated while private law is automatically
retained
Q: Why is this so?
A: Because private law is only concerned with the relationship
between and among individuals and not with the state.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Is the study of the constitution and principles growing out
of the interpretations of the provisions of the constitution
Subject matter: constitution + interpretation of the
provision in the constitution (jurisprudence)
Constitution- body of rules and maxims in accordance with the
powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised
Tells the state how to exercise the power
It is considered the limitations
Guidelines on how to exercise the power
The power of the state is from the state.

Inherent power
From the moment the state existed, there is power

Characteristics of Constitution
1. It is a limitation
Because it is not the source, it only serves as guidelines on
how to go about with the law
2. Doctrine of constitutional supremacy
Because it is supreme, all other laws should coincide with
it. If not, such law is considered null and void.
Case: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS
Q: If you have a constitutional provision (in the case: The Filipino
First Policy) not involved in a contract, can you still apply it?
A: Yes, because it is deemed written in every statute and contract for
it is the fundamental law of the land (it will prescribe the
framework).
Kinds of Constitution
1. Written/ unwritten
Written, provisions are written at one particular time
Written, one whose precepts are embodied in one
document or set of documents
Unwritten, not putting together provisions on a single
document at a single time
Unwritten, consist of rules which have not been integrated
into a singe, concrete form
Q: Can a constitution with written provisions be considered as an
unwritten constitution?
A: Yes.
2.
-

Rigid/ flexible
Rigid, when the manner of changing the constitution is
difficult
Flexible, when you can easily change it

Q: Is it flexible if it is constantly changing and rigid if never changed

at all?
A: No.
Q: What makes a process difficult?
A: It is difficult if you change it not in the way you change an
ordinary legislation.
AMENDMENT AND REVISIONS
Article XVII of the constitution
Intention:
Revision intention and plan must contemplate a
CONSIDERATION of all the provisions of the constitution to
determine which one should be altered or supported or
whether the whole document should be replaced with an
entirely new one

1|ang el s notes
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Amendment intention is to IMPROVE specific partsof the

existing constitution or to ADD to its provisions deemed
essential or to SUPRESS portions of it that seem obsolete,
or dangerous or misleading in their effect
Q: How are amendments and revisions done?
A:
Step I: Proposal by the people
Step II: Ratification- congress shall provided for the
implementation
Q: How do you propose?
A: (Amendments and revisions have diff. steps)
Ammendments (3)
1. Constituent assembly
Same congress not acting as legislative; upon a vote of
2. Constitutional convention
They make a separate body by having a 2/3 votes of all its
members
3. Peoples initiative: 12% of registered voters of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of
the registered voters therein [note: in proposing, one
should follow the ONE SUBJECT rule]
Revisions
1. Constituent Assembly
2. Constitutional Convention
RA 6735 peoples initiative is for national/local legislation
amendments only, not to constitution revisions (only for laws,
ordinances or resolutions
Q: How do you know if the process being done is amending or
revising?
A: Through the quantity and quality test
Quality, inquires into what will be changed. Whether the
fundamental principle with which the government is
founded of the constitution is changed
Revision, implies a change that alters a basic principle in the
constitution; it involves alterations of different portions of the
entire document
Quantity, how many provisions are to be changed (refers
to the number of)
Q: How do you ratify?
A: Submitted to the people on a single election plebiscite one time
Q: Constitutional Assembly is formed by a vote of of Congress.
Considering the fact that the Lower House comprises more than of
the Congress, can you exclude the senate from the vote?
A: For instance that they want the congress to vote jointly, it is to be
specified whether both houses vote jointly or separately.

When article 17 was finished, they thought it was still

under unicameral provision

Q: Is peoples initiative available today?

A: Peoples is not self executory.
There should be an enabling law.
(Case: Santiago v. Comelec)
Q: Was the decision carried over to Lambinos case?
A: No, because the cases are different. In Lambinos case, the matter
at hand was a revision rather than amendment.
In Lambinos Case
There were 105 sections changed (quanti)
What they wanted to change was the governmental
principle of checks and balances (quali)
In this case, they werent able to show the full contents or
laws of the proposed law
Q: why should the text be in full and not just an abstract?
A: because Art. XVII section 2 of the constitution clearly provides that
peoples initiative should be DIRECTLY PROPOSED, so that people will
fully comprehend the meaning and effect of the proposed changes to
enable them to make a free, intelligent and well-informed choice on
the matter
Q: Assuming you have an enabling law, how do you go about with
Peoples Initiative?
A: In the petition that you pass, the draft of the petition should be
embodied (it should be at the face of the petition)
Q: Is there an alternative way of making a petition? How do you do
it?
A: Yes, you attach your draft. The petition must state the fact/
reason for such attachment.
Q: What are the next steps after passing the draft?
A:
You let the people sign (voters only)
You then submit the signatures to COMELEC for them to
verify the signatures and to check its sufficiency. They have
to check if these people are live voters and if they complied
the 12% or 3% requirement.
After having the certification from COMELEC, you proceed
with the ratification which is done not earlier than 60 days
nor later than 90 day after the approval of such
amendments (after COMELEC signed it)

Our Constitution is patterned internationally

1. British - no written constitution
2. Continental- written consti but no interpretation of court

2|ang el s notes
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

3. American- written consti and interpreted by court (what we

follow in the Philippines)

JUDICIAL REVIEW
Manner of interpretation
The power of the courts to declare that a law or executive
act is not in accord with the constitution
Constitutional Supremacy

Judiciary (Courts)
Legislative (Congress)
Executive (President)
They are separate
Co-equal

Judicial review
is not judicial
supremacy
rather it is
constitutional
supremacy

Article VIII Section I

Judicial power includes the duty of the court of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights to which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and 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

Two Folds of Judicial Power

1. Settlement of Actual Controversies
2. Determination of whether there is grave abuse of discretion

supreme court and lower courts, as expressly provided for in the

constitution, is not just a power but also a duty and it was given as
expanded decision to include the power to correct any grave abuse
of discretion on the part of government branch/instrumentality.
Requisites of Judicial Review
1. Actual Case
- Actual clash of rights
- Not abstract/ hypothetical question/ moot
- Case or controversy requirement
- Conflict of legal rights
Q: Why is there a danger in giving counsel or suggestions on
hypothetical cases?
A:
1. It gives an inferior image to the court if advise is not followed
(subverts the ideas of separation of power)
2. Danger of taxing the people because of entertaining hypothetical
cases
3. There is a presumption of constitutionality
- It takes more than a hypothesis to override it
2. Proper Party
- has personal substantial interaction on the case because he has
sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury
- Test: Personal Injury/ Direct Injury
- should NOT be generalized interest
o Citizen can file- direct injury/ personal injury
o Tax payer can file- issue should be on disbursement of public
funds
o Legislative can file- allowed to sue to question the validity of
an official action which he claims infringes his prerogative as
a legislator

Judicial review is part and parcel of Judicial Power (power is broader)

Judicial Review is limited in knowing if law or executive act is not in
accordance with constitution.
Q: Is judicial review judiciary supremacy?
A: No, judicial review is merely an expression of the supremacy of the
constitution.
Court only declares the unconstitutionality of law/executive order.
Q: Why is it given to judiciary?
A: It is their inherent power by virtue of the doctrine of separation of
powers.
Case: Marbury vs. Madison
Q: Is the theory of judicial review in US the same here in the
Philippines?
A: No. While the power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to
the US supreme court and is discretionary in nature, Philippine

Case: Angara vs. COMELEC

Q: what is judicial review?
A: when judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it
ONLY ASSERTS THE SOLEMN AND SACRED OBLIGATION ASSIGNED TO
IT BY THE CONSTITUTION to determine conflicting claims of
authority. In case of CONFLICT, the judicial department is the only
constitutional organ which can be called upon to DETERMINE THE
PROPER ALLOCATION OF POWERS between the several departments
and among the integral or constituent units thereof
Case: Francisco v. House of Representatives
Q: Why was the case pursued even if there was no locus standing?
(Davide did not pass complain)
A: There is an exemption:
Transcendental Importance/ Paramount Public Interest
Q: when is there a case of transcendental importance?
A: There are instructive determinants (comply with one or all)
1. Characteristics of funds or other assets is involved in the case

3|ang el s notes
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

2. Clear disregard of a constitutional/ statutory prohibition by the

public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government
3. The lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest
in raising the question being raised
However, courts hold the decision of whether they will allow
transcendental importance: such liberality is not to be abused. It is
not an open invitation for the ignorant and the ignoble to file
petitions that prove nothing but their cerebral deficit. (Case: Lozano
v. Nograles)
Transcendental Importance is Subjective to the courts
3. CQ raised at the Earliest Opportunity
Q: Why is there a need to raise CQ on the earliest opportunity?
A: So that it will not be unfair to the defendant.

Plaintiff/
petitioner

Defendant/
respondent

Initiates the
whole process
through
complaint or
petition

Receives the
allegation and
give answer/
comment

CQ cannot just be an afterthought much more is a moot and

academic issue except if it is a case capable of repetition yet evading
review.
4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Question
- If you want the court to decide on constitutional grounds, there
should be no other issues which the court can decide on
- If there are two issues, court will not cling on the issue of
constitutionality
Purposeful Hesitation
To veer away on the issue of constitutionality for the issue
of respecting the wisdom of legislative and executive body
To doubt is to sustain!
Lis mota- an unavoidable question
Functions of Judicial Review
1. Checking (Case: Osmena vs. COMELEC; Ocenar vs. COMELEC)
- This invalidates a law or executive acts that is found to be contrary
to the constitution

- This educates the bench and bar as to the controlling principles and
concepts or matters on grave public importance for the guidance of
and restraint upon the future
- Court will not disregard and in effect condone wrong on the
simplistic and tolerant pretest that the case has become moot and
academic)
Case: Juason vs. C.A. and Ynot vs. IAC
Q: What courts can exercise judicial review?
A: Article VIII Section (in connection to Section 5)
All courts have the power for judicial review
Courts:
-

Deals with the issue of legality or constitutionality

What we present to the courts are legal questions
Courts cannot decide on questions of wisdom

Beneficial and Wise- questions referring to these matters are

policy statements
On this, decision is made by the people, that is why this
decision is given to people elected in office (branches)
Case: Estrada vs. Arroyo
Tenure vs. Term
Tenure- term of service
Term- provided for in the constitution
Fact: Estrada was thought to have resigned on the basis of the diary
of Angara.
Q: What is the definition of Political Question?
A: Baker v. Carr (refer to case) opposing Taada v. Cuenco: 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.
Q: How do you determine a TRULY POLITICAL question from a nonjusticeable political question?
A: You ask whether there are CONSTITUTIONALLY imposed
limitations 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 acted within such limits
Q: Is Estrada vs. Arroyo a political case?
A: No, because with regards to the issue of resignation, you call for
the provisions in the constitution. The question asked on the case at
hand was the legality of the resignation.

2. Legitimizing (Case: Osmena vs. COMELEC; Ocenar vs. COMELEC)

- This upholds the validity of the law that results from a mere
dismissal of a case challenging the validity of the law

Q: What is an example of a political question?

A: Pardon given to the convicted as it is a discretion of the president.

3. Symbolic (Case: Salonga vs. Pano; Javier vs. COMELEC)

Q: Why do courts do not decide on political questions?

4|ang el s notes
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

A: Aside from the fact that if doing so would subvert the idea of
separation of power, courts do not decide on political questions for
they are not elected by the people.
The executive and the legislative are the ones voted by the people so
you give them the right to tackle issues of wisdom. Because
theoretically, they reflect what people think is wise.
Article VIII: Judicial Department
Courts cannot say: they do not want to decide your case
because their power to decide is their duty.
You can only go to court if what you have is anchored on
law/constitution (legally demandable and enforceable)
Concepts of Judicial Power
1. Traditional- settlement of controversies
2. Expanded/ Certiorari Jurisdiction
- determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government.

A: There is an implicit caution of judicial supremacy. No one can

criticize the judiciary.
The difference of the judiciary and the leg/exec body is that the
voters have the prerogative to elect/reelect a candidate for leg/exec
body. However, it is hard to change the people that compose the
judiciary.
They can only be changed through the tedious procedure of
impeachment. This is why we should be vigilant for the grave abuse
of judiciary.
Q: What is the effect of declaring a law unconstitutional?
A: Use article 7 of the civil code: void as if never written in statute
books. However, there is a consideration on the DOCTRINE OF
OPERATIVE FACT
STATE
Case: The Province of North Cotabato v. GRP
BJE cannot stand because you are forming a state and there cannot
be a state within a state.

Discretion, traditionally is a political question and is off limits to

courts
-1987 Constitution changed it:
G.A.D. - justiceable issue: when the grant of power is qualified,
conditional or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the
prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met or the
limitations respected

STATE VS. NATION

State is a legal concept while nation is only a racial or
ethnic concept

Q: Why did the 1987 Constitution made grave abuse of discretion

a justiceable question?
A: Because during the martial law era, there was so much grave
abuse of discretion where solicitor generals defense to such cases is
it is a political question and got away with it.

Q: What makes up a state?

A:
Group of people
Having definite territory
Possessed by a government
Have a capacity to govern itself (sovereignty)

Q: How do you measure grave abuse?

A:
If discretion has been exercised whimsically, arbitrarily,
maliciously, capriciously
Bottom line is it is subject to the discretion of the court receiving it.
Issue on Economic Policy (Prosperity)
Judiciary will hesitate and exercise judicial restraint
Issue on Liberty
Judicial activism

STATE VS. GOVERNMENT

State is the principal, the government is its agent
Government externalizes the state and articulates its will

Q: What if you have all the elements to become a state but you are
not recognized by the international community, can you be called a
state?
A: Yes, because we follow the constitutive theory.
Two theories of state:
1. Constitutive- for as long as you have the elements
2. Declarative- you still have to be recognized by the international
community

Philippines- first in the world to define judicial power

Q: What is/are the advantage of conducting a judicial review?
A: Comfort from abuse. You can settle issues in court and not in the
streets.
Q: What is/are the disadvantage of our judiciary looking out for
discretion issues?

TERRITORY:
Must be definite; fixed portion of the surface of the earth
inhabited by people of the state
Article I of the constitution
Our territory is defined as the Philippine archipelago + all
other territories over which Philippines has sovereignty/
jurisdiction.

5|ang el s notes
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Additional info:
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 46)
Archipelago: group of islands, interconnecting water and
other natural features which are so closely interrelated
that such islands, waters and other natural features from
an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity or
which historically have been regarded as such
Question asked during bar exam
Q: Is the Philippines still claiming kalayaan and spratley islands?
A: Yes, because Article I of the constitution states that and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial
Archipelagic Doctrine of Territoriality
Draw straight baseline (outermost point)
Look at entire archipelago as a whole so that waters
around and between connecting the islands will not be
considered as high seas
Q: Is there a constitutional provision that supports the Archipelagic
doctrine of territoriality?
A: Yes, the last sentence of Article I states that The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless
of their breadth and dimension, form part of the internal waters of
the Philippines.
However
No one state can dictate another state. So whenever there are
disputes, it is settled by international law, customs or standards
Q: Why do you have Article I when dispute is not settled by it?
A:
1. It serves as a basis or evidence of your claim
2. So that people bound by the territory will know their
boundaries and be cautious of their limitation
3. Departing from the method employed in the 1935 constitution,
which described the national territory by reference to the
pertinent treaties conducted by the United States during its
regime in this country, the present rule now physically lists the
components of our territory and so de-emphasizes
recollection of our colonial past. The article has deleted
reference to the territories we claim by historic right or legal
title
PEOPLE
Inhabitants of the state
Numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend
themselves and small enough to be easily administered
and sustained

1.
2.
3.

Inhabitants citizens or foreigners alike

Citizens
Electors or voters

3 Modes of Acquiring Citizenship:

1. Jus soli acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of
birth
2. Jus Sanguinis acquisition of citizenship on the basis of
blood relationship
3. Naturalization the legal act of adopting an alien and
clothing him with the privilege of a native born citizen
Basic Philippine law follows the rule of jus sanguinis and provides for
naturalization
Case: Tecson vs. COMELEC
Q: Was there Filipino Citizens during the Spanish regime?
A: No. People were called then as SPANSIH SUBJECTS
Q: Was there a point in time in Philippine History when Jus Soli was
practiced?
A: Yes. From April 11, 1899 to July 1, 1902 as provided in the
Philippine Bill of 1902, citizenship was governed by Jus Soli as it is
what and still is the one followed in the United States.
Q: When did Philippine Citizenship took effect?
A: The term citizens of the Philippine islands appeared for the first
time in the Philippine Bill of 1902, also commonly referred to as the
Philippine Organic Act of 1902, the first comprehensive legislation of
the Congress of the Unites States on the Philippines
Case: Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar Vicente D.
Ching
Q: If you were born before of a Filipina mother and an alien father
before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, do the 1973 and
1987 Constitutions recognize such child as a Filipino?
A: No, unless upon reaching majority the child elects Philippine
citizenship pursuant to the 1935 constitution
Q: When must election be made?
A: It should be made within a reasonable period after reaching
majority, specifically 3 years after turning 21. This period may be
extended under certain circumstances, as when the person
concerned has always considered himself a Filipino
In the case of Ching, the lapse of 14 years form the age of
majority is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the
requirement of electing upon reaching the age of
majority. Moreover, Ching has offered no reason why he
delayed his election of Philippine citizenship.

3 concepts by which the term PEOPLE is understood in the

constitution:

6|ang el s notes
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Q: How is election made?

A: Election must be expressed in a statement sworn before any
officer authorized to administer oaths and filed with the nearest civil
registry and accompanied by an oath of allegiance to the Philippine
Constitution
Q: What are the steps that should be taken by an alien woman
married to a Filipino citizen in order to acquire Philippine
citizenship?
A: Alien woman must file a petition for the cancellation of her alien
certificate of registration, alleging, among other things, that she is
married to a Filipino citizen and that she is not disqualified form
acquiring her husbands citizenship
Case: Bengson III vs. HRET
Q: What are the ways of acquiring citizenship?
A: By birth (natural-born citizens) and by naturalization (naturalized
citizens)
Natural Born Citizens
Are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his
Philippine citizenship (Article IV Section 2 of 1987 Consti)
Q: If you were born before Jan. 17, 1973 of a Filipino mother and
alien father, and you elected Filipino citizenship, are you a natural
born Filipino?
A: Yes, Article IV Section 2 further provides that those who elect
Philippine citizenship in acordane with paragraph (3), section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. (Take note: even if you
elected, thus you performed an act to acquire citizenship, you are
still a natural-born as provided in the 1987 constitution)
Q: Why is it important to know if you are Natural-born or not?
A: Because natural-born citizens are the only ones allowed to run for
constitutional offices. Moreover, there are some rights for naturalborn citizens that are not given to naturalized citizens (Article XII,
Section 7 and 8)
Case: Mo Ya vs. Commissioner
Q: Does a female alien becomes a Filipino citizen upon her marriage
to a Filipino citizen?
A: Under Section 15 of Commonewealth Act 473, an alien woman
marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a
Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the
Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien
woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here
follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he
takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer
from any of the disqualifications under said section 4 (Take note: in
this case, cancelling of the Alien Certificate Registration is needed.
Moreover, it is not necessary to have all the qualification but you
should not have any of the disqualifications stated in section 4)

RA 9139 provides different qualifications compared to CA

473 to become naturalized citizen
Naturalization may be obtained through a general law of
naturalization applied though a judicial process
Q: Where do you file naturalization for administrative proceedings?
A: Not in court but in Special Committee on Naturalization by
Solicitor General

Case: Limkaichong vs. COMELEC

Q: Who can raise question for disqualification on the basis of
citizenship?
A: Not anyone can question the citizenship of a person. It is the State
through the Solicitor General who can question.
Case: Valles vs. COMELEC
Q: Is having an alien passport and applying for an alien certificate
tantamount to renunciation of citizenship?
A: No, because for renunciation to effectively result in the loss of
citizenship, the same must be express. In the case at bar in
connection with the case of Aznar vs. COMELEC and Mercado vs.
Manzano, an application for an alien certificate of registration does
not amount to an express renunciation or repudiation of ones
citizenship. The application of for an alien certificate of registration
and the holding of Australian passport were mere acts of assertion of
the foreign citizenship before effectively renouncing it.
Q: Does marriage of a Filipina to an alien means you lose your
citizenship?
A: No. Artcile IV section 4 of the 1987 Constitution provides that
citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their
citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under
the law, to have renounced it.

3 ways of Reacquiring Philippine Citizenship

1. Naturalization / Judicial: RA 9139
- Must possess all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications
- Becomes executor after 2 years form its promulgation
- That during intervening period, the applicant has:
i.
Not left the Philippines
ii.
Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or
profession
iii.
Has not been convicted
iv.
Has not committed acts prejudicial to the
interest of the nation
2.

Repatriation / Administrative

7|ang el s notes
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

The act of repatriation allows a person to

recover or return to his original status before he
lost his Philippine citizenship

Q: Can one choose his or her own way on how to reacquire

citizenship?
A: No. There are conditions which should be taken into
consideration
-

Case: Bengson III vs. HRET

Repatriation may be had by those who lost their
citizenship due to:
a. Desertion of the armed forces
b. Services in the armed forces in the WWII
c. Service in the Armed Forces of the US at any other
time
d. Marriage to a Filipino woman to an alien
e. Political economic necessity (this was what was
applicable to the case)
Q: What are the Steps one should go through in
Repatriation?
st
A: 1 - File the petition for repatriation in the Special
Committee of Naturalization
upon approval
nd
2 - Take the oath of allegiance in the Local Civil
Registry where you last resided
after registering with the LCR
rd
3 File it in the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID) to acquire certificate of
repatriation (what completes the process)
Case: Altarejos vs. COMELEC, basis: Frivaldo vs. COMELEC
Q: When does the effect of retroactivity of repatriation
takes effect?
A: It retroacts on the date of filing of application for
candidacy
In the case of Altarejos, even if his repatriation was not
completed before the filing of candidacy, its effects
retroacted on the day of filing, making him qualified for
the position he was running for.
Case: Frivaldo vs. COMELEC
Q: When is the qualification of citizenship be construed?
A: Since the law does not specify the particular date or
time when the candidate must possess citizenship, the
court ruled that citizenship qualification must be construed
as applying to the time of proclamation of the elected
official and at the start of his term.

being a registered voter you are expected to be a Filipino

citizen. Courts argument in the Frivaldo case states that
being a registered voter is just to make sure that you are
registered in the place where you are going to run for
office. It does not necessarily follow that you exercise your
right to vote.
DUAL CITIZENSHIP VS. DUAL ALLEGIANCE
Case: Mercado vs. Manzano
Dual Citizenship involuntary because it is due to the concurrent
application of different laws of two or more states. (example:
Philippines jus sanguinis, US jus soli Therefore, if you are born
of Filipino parents in the United States you have dual citizenship)
Dual Allegiance it is a result of an individuals volition; you profess
your allegiance by knowing and intending to do so
Q: Why is dual allegiance considered inimical to the national interest
and shall be dealt with by law?
A: based on what happened in Taiwan, dual allegiance can mean a
tragic capital outflow when the other country would have to endure
a capital famine which also means economic stagnation, worsening
unemployment and social trust.
Case: Calilung vs. Dutamanong
Q: How do you retain citizenship through RA 9225?
A: You take the oath of allegiance provided in Section 3 of RA 9225
Q: How do you reacquire citizenship through RA 9225?
A: Also by taking the oath of Allegiance
Q: When is RA 9225 used as means of Reacquisition or Retention?
A: If you are naturalized before the implementation of RA 9225 or
before August 29, 2003 reacquisition
If you are naturalized after the implementation retention
Q: Is it not that RA 9225 promotes Dual Allegiance?
A: No. because the latest allegiance that you have taken is that of
Philippine allegiance. This however does not mean that you have
renounced your foreign citizenship. Upon taking the oath, this just
means that the burden of dual allegiance is transferred to the
foreign country of which you are also a citizen.
Q: Can a person who reacquired or retained citizenship through the
oath of allegiance run for office?
A: No unless he or she should personally renounce the other
citizenship (personal and sworn renunciation). This is provided for in
Section (2) of RA 9225

Take note: the qualification of Filipino citizenship and

registered voter is separated. Thus, it does not follow that

8|ang el s notes
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

SOVEREIGNTY
Supreme and uncontrollable power inherent of the state
in to govern itself
Power of the state to govern persons and things within its
territory

1.

2.
3.

Q: What are the kinds of Sovereignty?

A:
1. Legal authority which has the power to issue final
commands
2. Political power behind the legal sovereign, or the sum
total of the influences that operate upon it
Q: How does the state governs itself (Characteristics of
Sovereignty)?
A:
1. Internal (territoriality) full control of domestic affairs
with in its territory
2. External (independence) which is freedom from external
control; freedom from external control is limited bec. we
enter into treaties and stipulations; freedom from eternal
control; direct its relations with other states, also known as
independence
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS:
1. Permanent
2. Exclusive
3. Comprehensive
4. Absolute
5. Indivisible
6. Inalienable
7. Imprescriptible

Case: Reagan vs CIR

Q: Can you give a portion of your sovereignty? (In the case: allowing
the US to take control of Clark Field Airbase)
A: NO, because sovereignty is indivisible
There is a difference between Sovereignty and Exercise of
Sovereignty
Exercise of Sovereignty it is what you give to the foreign or
international community when you enter into agreements or when
you allow them to control a portion of your territory
Q: When you waive a portion of exercise of sovereignty, is this not
diminution of sovereignty?
A: No, rather it is considered assertion of sovereignty. This is the
Doctrine of Auto-Limitation:
Jellinek is the property of a state-force due to which it
has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and
self restriction
The state may choose whether they want to exercise or not to
exercise its sovereignty.
You cannot give up something you dont have, thus, giving it up
means asserting your sovereignty
Westphalian Concept of Sovereignty (Jackson)

The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental

right of political self determination (right or control for internal
affairs)
The principle of legal equality between states (bec. of external
aspects, no state shall dictate to another state)
The principle of non intervention in internal affairs
control is manifested through enforcing laws (internal)

Right of self determination no control from other states.

Westphalian looks at the state as sovereign (look at the principles)

RELATED CONCEPT: DOCTRINE OF NON- SUABILITY OF THE STATE

Aritcle 16 Section 3 The State may not be sued without its consent
Q: given that provision, can you file a case against the state?
A: Yes, provided that the state gives its consent. You will need the
consent if it is established that the suit you filed is against the state.
(if this is not so then you have a case which is not an actual case)
Q: Why cant you sue the state?
A: Philosophy: How can you sue the authority who creates the rights
that you exercise
1. Holmes Philosophy: a sovereign is exempt form suit on
the logical and practical ground that there can be on legal right as
against the authority that makes the law on which the right
depends.
If we sue the state, then we sue ourselves (bec. of the
principle of of the people, by the people, for the people)
2. Case: Providence Washington Insurance Co. vs. Republic
of the Philippines: the loss of governmental efficiency and the
obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are far
greater if such a fundamental principle were abandoned and the
availability of judicial remedy were not thus restricted
We can be flooded by many cases if this is allowed. Its time
and money will be spent for many cases. (Sociological Basis)
3. Its the constitution itself that forbids us to sue the state
(Article 16, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution)
Q: When is a suit one against the state?
A: 1. When the Republic is sued by its NAME (this is only an
indicator, not a conclusive one)
Case: Del Mar vs. PVA
Q: Is the case of del Mar a suit against the state? (even if
you sue the state with its name)
A: No. It is only a suit against the state if in the end, the
case will require the state to give a positive or
affirmative action on the part of the state. In the present
case, there is nothing for the state to do because It
already directed the funds. What is left to do is the
proper disbursement of the funds. (so it is considered a
suit against the state if there is something that youre
asking the state to do for you: Either it will result to
disbursement of funds or release of property)

9|ang el s notes
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Case of US vs. Ruiz (even if you sue the state with its name)
Q: Is the case of US vs. Ruiz a suit against the state?
(even if you sue the state with its name)
A: No. It cannot be a suit against the state since US here,
in entering the contract, is performing his governmental
function. You can only be sued if you entered into a
contract wherein it is proprietary.
2 types of contracts:
a. Proprietary
b. Governmental function In this case the projects are an
integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the
defense of both the United States and the Philippines,
indisputably a function of the government of the highest
order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to
commercial or business purposes.
Q: If state enters into a proprietary contract, can it be sued?
A: Yes, because in this case, you descend your status. Because by
entering into business transaction it descends into the level of
private individual. So then the state cannot claim immunity.
Immunity is there bec. of the virtue that it is sovereign and it is
sovereign bec. it performs governmental function.
2. When the suit is against an UNINCORPORATED government
agency
Case of Republic vs. Feliciano (filed against LRA or NARRA)
This one is a suit against the state because LRA is
representing the state
Case of PNB vs. CIR
-

Illustration:
When you file a case against DPWH, bec it is merged in the govt.
machinery, the one who will pay for what is asked is the STATE.
Ex. GSIS - When you have your own charter, you have your own legal
personality. You exist independently from the state. If you ask for
money, they will not need to go to the STATE.
(Cities have their own charter, thus they can be sued. It is not
necessary that your charter will stipulate a provision that they can
sue and be sued. As long as they are created by a charter, they can
be sued)
3. When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the
case is such that ultimate liability will belong no to the officer but
to the government
Case: Lansang vs. CA (still acquitted though bec. bad faith was not
proven; in this case, lansang was being sued in his personal capacity
evident in the complaint. He was accused to have personal motives)
Q: How can a suit against a public official be a suit against the state?
A: It can be a suit against the state only if the acts done are in the
performance of their official duties. Moreover, the rule is that the
suit must be regarded as one against the state where satisfaction of
the judgment against the public official concerned will require the
state itself to perform a positive act, such as appropriation of the
amount necessary to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Q: Why is it stipulated in the performance of their official duties?
A: This is because the officials are agents of the state. They only
execute the orders of the state (you have to indicate in your
complain that you are suing in his official capacity)

This one is NOT a suit against the state because it has its
own corporate identity (who has sued: PHHC)

Q: Who will pay?

A: The state. Because the suit is in your official capacity which is
ordered by the state.

Q: When is a case against government agency a case against the

state?
A: You first make a distinction if the agency is incorporated or
unincorporated. It is a case against the state if you sue an
unincorporated agency.

Q: What if you sue against his personal capacity for acts which are
unlawful. Will it be a suit against the state?
A: No, because in this case, one has exceeded the performance of his
or her action. State will not pay the excess of your performance. (you
have to prove that the officer acted in an unlawful and injurious way)

Q: When are you considered an incorporated agency?

A: When that agency has a charter of its own

Case: Calub vs. Court of Appeals (in this case, it was a suit against the
state because they acted in accordance to their duty (discharge of
official duty))
Q: What if you sue X in his official capacity, but it is alleged and
established that he performed it in acts that are malicious or tainted
in corruption. Will that be considered as a suit against the state?
A: NO.(opinion of the CA which was later set aside) It is still a
personal liability. A suit against a public officer who acted illegally or
beyond the scope of his authority could not be considered a suit
against the state

If it doesnt have a charter it is considered to be merged in the

whole governmental machinery. (ex. BIR, BOC, DPWH)
GSIS, PAGIBIG existed bec. there is a charter that created it
Q: Why is a suit against incorporated agency not a suit against the
state?
A: This is because they have a personality separate and distinct
personality from the state. Moreover, as a member of a corporation,
a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a
corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the
affairs of the corporation, that are expressly given by the
incorporating act."

Q: What happens next if it is a suit against a state?

A: The effect is dismissible by the court either upon motion of the
government lawyer (when you ask the court: I move to dismiss the
case early) or motu proprio (instance of the court even without the
request of government lawyer. State on its own accord will dismiss
the case if it is clear that there is no consent)

10 | a n g e l s n o t e s
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

If you dont want the case to be dismissed, the next thing you do is
to get consent.
CONSENT
Case: Republic vs. Feliciano
The SC held that the Proclamation of the President of the
Philippines (recognizing private rights to the land) cannot
be the source of consent, since the Proclamation is not a
legislative act
Q: Are there any other expressed consent aside from a legislative act
(law)?
A: NO other way. The only way is through the form of law
(legislative act)
Two kinds of Law(consent): Case: Merrit vs. GPI
1. General law act 3083 (money claim), art 2180 NCC (acts
of omission of the states of SPECIAL AGENTS (who has
fixed duties but at that time performed a different
function due to a special order but such order be issued in
an official statement)
2. Special law peculiar only to certain persons; what Merrit
obtained Act 2457 (an act applicable to him; You acquire
this act by requesting the legislative department to enact
it)

Scope of consent - Act 3083; When a money

judgment is given against the government, the
ordinary rule for execution would not apply, for the
consent of the government to be sued is only up to
the point of judgment. If it does not pay, it cannot be
compelled to pay by attachment or otherwise

All others are implied (implied consent)

1. State is the one who commences or initiated the case
you can file a counter suit, state becomes vulnerable to
counterclaims
2. Forced sale/expropriation: when one will be paid just
compensation when his property will be used by the
government which is to be determined by the court, thus
the state opens the possibility of being sued (It opens the
possibility for a case because compensation is determined
only by court)
3. When the state enters into a business contract government is deemed to have descended to the level of
the other contacting party and divested of its sovereign
immunity from suit with its implied consent
Q: What will happen after the state gives its consent?
A: There will be a trial. But it doesnt mean that there is a liability. All
the consent means is an opportunity to prove that the state is liable.
Case: RP vs. Villasor
The consent to be sued is only up to the judgment and not
to the execution thereof because public funds are
reserved only for specific purposes. Judgment can only be
enforced if there is a separate, specific appropriation for it
made by congress

Execution consent to be sued extends only to the proceedings

anterior to execution (Prior to execution. So you need another form
of consent that the state should make certain appropriation in
compliance with the consent and judgment (there should be a law
again giving you the appropriation)
MANDAMUS compel the government to comply with the judgment

GOVERNMENT
is the agency of the state (principal) through which the will of the
state is formulated, expressed and carried out
- Government is that institution or aggregate of institutions by which
an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action
which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state or which
are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who
possess the power or authority of prescribing them. (Case: US vs.
Dorr)
- Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a society.
(US v Dorr, 2 Phil 332, 339).
Q: What is the difference between government and administration?
A: A government is permanent but an administration is transitional
In the case of the state, the instruction of the principal to the agent
is to do that which is beneficial. That is why
State can do no wrong mistake is thus attributed to the agent,
not the state.
If you have an agent not doing what was asked, then the state can
replace the agent (Doctrine of Direct State Action: may be carried
out by the people through a revolution [Doctrine of Revolution])
Q: When state changes the agent through a direct state action under
the doctrine of revolution, is the revolution legal?
A: Yes, it can be legal.
Q: If a revolution is legal, how can you have a crime of rebellion?
A: A revolution is legal when it becomes a state action. It becomes a
state action if the revolution succeeds. (If Revolution is successful
then it is a state action. If it is not successful then it will be
considered as rebellion )
Case: Concurring Opinion of Mendoza: Estrada vs. Arroyo
Q: Is revolution considered constitutional?
A: NO. The constitution prescribes for its methods to change its
administration, however, a revolution is not considered as one of its
ways Indeed, the right to revolt cannot be recognized as a
constitutional principle. A constitution to provide for the right of the
people to revolt will carry with it the seeds of its own destruction.
Rather, the right to revolt is affirmed as a natural right. Even then, it
must be exercised only for weighty and serious reasons.
Sovereignty resides in the people all it allows is that sovereignty be
expressed in the ballot. Anything outside that is unconstitutional.
(Article 2 section 1)
Q: Given the provision of Article 2 section 1, is a revolution
considered then as unconstitutional?

11 | a n g e l s n o t e s
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

A: No. What makes something unconstitutional is when the

constitution says it is unconstitutional. The fact that it is not at all
mentioned in the constitution, it is then considered as extraconstitutional (not in the constitution but also not prohibited by the
constitution)

warranted by the laws of the rightful govt.

5.

Edsa 1 extra-constitutional (exercise of the people on their right to

revolt (natural right)
Edsa 2 intra-constitutional; freedom of expression.. the people
rallied and erap gave in to it
6.
Kinds of Government
1. Based on number of persons holding power
a. Monarchy 1 ruler
b. Oligarchy aristocracy; held by a few
c. Democracy majority of the people
i. Direct or pure peoples will directly
expressed by them
ii. Indirect or republican ruled though a
government by the people
2. Based on relationship between legislative and executive
a. Presidential separate Legislative and Executive
b. Parliamentary fused
3. Based on power of central authority
a. Unitary
b. Federal
4. Other classification Case: Co Kim Cham vs. Tan Keh
a. De jure if it has legal title but no power or
control either because this has been withdrawn
form it or because it has not yet actually entered
into the exercise thereof (established by
legitimate sovereignty)
b. De facto actual control but no legal title
(established in defiance of legislative
sovereignty)
Q: What are the kinds of de facto Governments:
a. Formed through rebellion - The government 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. Formed through insurrection - That established as an
independent government by the inhabitants of a
country who rise in insurrection against the parent
state.
c. Formed through occupation - That which is
established and maintained by military forces who
invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the
course of war, and w/c is denominated as a
government of paramount force, like the Second
Republic of the Philippines established by the
Japanese belligerent.

Its existence is maintained by active military

power w/in the territories, and against the
rightful authority of an established and lawful
government

During its existence, it must necessarily be

obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who,
by acts of obedience rendered in submission to
such force, do not become responsible, as
wrongdoers, for those acts though not

Function of government
a. Ministrants optional functions of government;
those undertaken to advance the general
interest of society, such as public works, charity,
and regulation of trade and industry
b. Constituent compulsory functions which
constitute the very bonds of society
But this is blurred, you have to do both functions
Principle of government
a. Doctrine of parens patriae: guardian of the
rights of the people Case: GP vs. Monte de
Piedad (sovereign will is made known to us by
legislative enactments; legislative or government
of the state has the right to enforce all charities
of public nature, by virtue of his superintending
authority over the public interest)

PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

Article 2
Principles: binding rules that must be followed whether or
not they pass a law
Policies : guidelines to be observed (to guide the state in
passage, enforcement and application of laws); guidelines
which set out a goal to be reached, generally an
improvement in economic, political, or social feature of
the country
The Philippines is a Democratic and Republican State
Section 1: Principle of republicanism (democratic and republican
state)
Republican people rule through their representatives. (we are not
entirely republican because there are instances that we act directly
instead of our representatives. Ex: peoples initiative)
Under this principle, the Philippines is a democratic state that is, a
government for, of, and by the people. But it is not a pure
democracy. Thus, while it is true that the people are the possessors
of sovereign power, it is equally the case that they cannot exercise
the powers of government directly, but only through the medium of
their duly elected representatives.

Their participation in government consists of : (Case: Tolentino

vs. COMELEC)
1. Suffrage electing the officials to whom they delegate the
right of government.
2. Plebiscite

Ratifying the Constitution

Approving any amendment thereto

With respect to local matters, approving any changes

in boundaries, mergers, divisions, and even abolition
of local offices

Creating metropolitan authorities, and

Creating autonomous regions

3. Initiative and referendum enacting or proposing laws, local
or national, in a referendum.
4. Recall (Under the Local Government Code.) [as added by
Prof. Barlongay.]

12 | a n g e l s n o t e s
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

It is for the court to decided if an International Law is to be

considered as a GAPIL (Not all treaties are GAPIL)

Features of Republicanism:
1. It is a govt of laws and not of men;
2. There is periodic holding of elections;
3. There is observance of principle of separation of powers
and of checks and balances;
4. There is observance of the role that the legislature cannot
pass or enact irrepealable laws.
Case: Tolentino vs COMELEC necessary to emphasize
democratic portion of republicanism

Section 3: Civilian authority is supreme over the military

Civilian authority is AT ALL TIMES supreme over the
military
Q: how is such supremacy institutionalized?
A: The president of the country is a civilian but is the commander in
chief of the armed forces. Civilian officials are superior to military
only when law makes them so

Q: why mention democratic and republican? (Pardonable

redundancy)
A: Because, you want to recognize the instances when people act
directly and not though their representatives. (peoples organization
and initiative)

Q: Is it possible, during exceptional circumstances that the military

be over civilians?
A: NO because section 3 specifies AT ALL TIMES. Thus there is no
way that military be over civilian. That is why president is the head
or commander in chief of armed forces. (President highest civilian
officer)

Section 2: The Philippines 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

Government as Protector of the people, and people as defender of

the state

What we are renouncing is AGGRESSIVE WAR

General Accepted
Principle in
International Law

Municipal Law (domestic

law, in contrary
distinguished to
international law)

DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION if this is followed, the scenario

is if I am in State A and I want to invoke a GAPIL, the only way I can
invoke it in State A if there is be a domestic legislation that makes it
into a municipal law (it is when it is reduced to a domestic law that it
can be invoked in a state)
DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION By the mere fact that it is GAPIL it
automatically forms part of the law of the land. Therefore, it can be
invoked even if there is no domestic law converting it into a
domestic legislation. (This is what we practice in the Philippines:
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land)
Case: Philip Moris vs. CA
Q: What if GAPIL conflicts with Domestic Law or Domestic with
GAPIL? (Radically different)
A: The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries,
decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with,
but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. The later
enactment is what will prevail.
Case: Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
Q: But if GAPIL conflicts with the Constitution?
A: Then it is clear that the constitution will have to prevail

Section 4: The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect

the people. The Government 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.
Section 5: 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 blessing of
democracy.

Section 6: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

(Statements couched in the negative is MANDATORY)
2 concepts of religion in constitution:
1. No establishment of religion
2. Free exercise of religion should be guaranteed
Separation of church and State
1. State cannot establish a religion (Freedom OF Religion is equal
to Freedom FROM Religion)
Case: Aglipay vs. Ruiz
o it was not establishment of religion because the
law is primarily secular (in purpose) never mind
that there are religious benefits as long as these
are just incidental. The main objective was to
promote tourism which was a secular objective.
(other example: fiestas such as Sinulog)
OMA Case
o This was for the national, cultural community
(primarily secular) and not for religious benefits
or establishments
-

If general-general: the newer law will prevail

However, Penalizing immorality is somehow imposing

religion

13 | a n g e l s n o t e s
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

2.

Free exercise of Religion - once you have opted a religion that

you are free to exercise
o 2 aspects of free exercise

Freedom to believe (is absolute)

Freedom to act in accordance to your belief

(there is limitation) by considerations of public
welfare

environmental balance will not be irreversibly disrupted: whatever

we do will affect succeeding generation)

Q: if we are not supposed to establish Religion, why are there

provisions that somehow establish such? (ex. Preamble: Almighty
God or Divine Providence in the Constitution; Holidays; Immorality)
A: These provisions merely recognize the influence of religion
(elevating influence) to the people and not of Religion alone.
Precisely why religion is considered as part of our culture.

Case: Basco vs. Pagcor

Pagcor should not be taxed coz there is a law. But manila said
that this cannot be so because. Manila is considered autonomous.
However, SC made clear that we are still unitary but decentralize
(not of power but of functions: functions are devolved to local
government units but they do not have the power to oppose the
national law)
Autonomy is nothing but decentralization of functions
Of two kinds decentralization
o Power
o Functions

Q: But why allow tax exemptions?

A: Philosophical explanation: If you dont give exemptions, you will
have religion continually interacting with the state with regards to
taxes. (It will be chaotic)
It is important for the non establishment of religion to prevent
excessive entanglement of religion and state.
Immorality
There are concepts of morality that is not based on
religion but society believes it so (SECULAR MORALITY).
And when there are civil laws that makes immorality
ground for rejection or termination, this is because of
secular morality.
Q: Why are there provisions that priests, etc can be paid when they
are assigned to armed forces, penal institution, govt. orphanage and
leprosarium?
A: Because you want to address the free exercise of religion in the
areas where there is limited freedom. It has been said that there is
an inherent contradiction between non-establishment of religion and
free exercise of religion.
(other articles on separation of church and state: based on
photocopy)
State Policies
Section 10: The state shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development
Case: Calalang vs. Williams prohibits animal drawn vehicle is not a
violation of social justice
SC is not sympathy towards the certain group; its nothing but
seeing to it that laws are being humanized and that laws are
equalized (definition of social justice)
Section 15: Promotion of Health and Ecology
Case: Oposa vs. Factoran
Q: Is there such a thing as right of balance and helpful ecology?
A: Yes, even if it is not placed in Article III (Bill of Rights). Its no less
than a civil and political right because it involves self preservation
and perpetration. (inter- generational responsibility: responsibility of
the state to preserve and to see to it that ecological or

Section 25: Autonomy of Local Governments

-

Guaranteeing autonomy of local government.

Autonomy: right to be left alone

Section 28
Right to full public disclosure
Full public disclosure of public interest and is subject to
limitations as may be provided for by law.
Case: Valmonte vs. Belmonte
Considering the nature of its funds, the GSIS is expected to
manage its resources with utmost prudence and in strict compliance
with the pertinent laws or rules and regulations. In sum, the public
nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the public office held by
the alleged borrowers make the information sought clearly a matter
of public interest and concern.
Case: Akbayan vs. Aquino
The Court holds that, in determining whether information
is covered by the right to information, a specific showing of need
for such information is not a relevant consideration, but only
whether the same is a matter of public concern. When, however,
the government has claimed executive privilege, and it has
established that the information is indeed covered by the same,
then the party demanding it, if it is to overcome the privilege, must
show that that the information is vital, not simply for the satisfaction
of its curiosity, but for its ability to effectively and reasonably
participate in social, political, and economic decision-making

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

Case: Dissenting opinion of Puno in Macalinal vs. COMELEC
Concept:
4 PREMISES:
1. In every government there are three sorts of power:
legislative (make laws); the executive (enforce the law)
and judicial (interpret/apply law)
2. These powers are given to 3 departments
3. These dept are separate and distinct. Coequal
4. Being separate and distinct, the exercise of one in
usurpation in the power of another is declared null and
void

14 | a n g e l s n o t e s
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Q: Why is there a need to separate the exercise of power?

A: This is because, if the same man would exercise the three powers:
there would be an end of everything, were the same man or the
same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise
those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the
public resolutions, and that of trying the causes of individuals.
Separation of powers is founded on the belief that by establishing
equilibrium among the 3 power holders, harmony will result, power
will not be concentrated and thus tyranny will be avoided
Reason:
Q: Where do you find the concept of separation of powers in the
constitution?
A: You cannot find the term of separation of power in the
constitution. Article 6, 7 and 8 are the manifestations that the
constitution applies the said principle. What are discussed are:
DOCTRINE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES
Exec to congress veto power of the president (vetoes the
bill)
Exec to judiciary appointment and pardoning of power
Leg to exec override the veto of pres; confirmation of
appointments; appropriation; revoke the declaration of
marital law of president; power of impeachment
Leg to judiciary power of impeachment ; pass a new law
amending the law that was made basis of the court on its
previous decision
Judiciary to congress judicial review
Judiciary to leg judicial review

BLENDING OR SHARING OF POWERS

Ex. Congress and exec share power
1. making laws
2. Appropriation of laws power
3. Giving Amnesty
4. Treaty making

15 | a n g e l s n o t e s
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I