You are on page 1of 42

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CHAPTER 1:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
POLITICAL LAW
Branch of ublic law which deals with organization
and operation of governmental organs of the state;
defines relations of state with the inhabitants of its
territory
Political Law embraces Consti Law I and II,
Administrative Law, Law of Public Officers, Election
Law and Law on Municipal Corporations.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
Study of structure and powers of the Govt of Rep.
Of Phils.
Deals with certain basic concepts of political law:
- Nature of State
- Supremacy of Consti
- Sep. Of Powers
- Rule of Majority
CONSTITUTION
fundamental law of the state which contains principles on
which government is founded and regulates the division and
exercise of sovereign powers; legislation direct from the
people

Sovereignty ultimate resides in the people and all govt


authority emanates from them
It is upon ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT in public
affairs that success of Phils depend
Law provides All educational institutions shall
include study of Consti as part of the currucula
BASIS OF THE STUDY
Present (Feb. 2) 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
principal basis of consti
Provisions that have been retained in toto or with
modification in the new consti, 1935 & 1973
Constitution served as working drafts, an integral part
of study.
Along with U.S Consti and SC Rulings (bill of rights
incorporated in present Consti)
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Inhabitants originally consisted of disparate tribes
throughout more than 7,000 islands.
Tribes generally free, governed by laws
promulgated by datu or council of elders

Statute is a legislation from peoples representatives.

Written Constitution
more definite, cannot be easily bent and twisted by
legislature or courts
more difficult to ammend; may retard growth and
progress of state.
Must be broad, brief and definite

Unwritten Consti
Elastic and flexible
Can easily be modified to meet new or great
emergencies and changing conditions
May cause chaos to nation

Necessity of the Study


Every citizen should understand the mechanics and
motivations of his govt

SPAIN
1521 discovery of Phils by Magellan under rule of
Spain
Rizal and other Propagandists ignited spirit of
nationalism = Philippine Revolution
Started by Bonifacio won under Gen. Emilio
Aguinaldo
Philippine Revolution ended Spanish sovereignty in
PH

MALOLOS CONSTITUTION
1898 June 12 Philippine Independence
Proclamation
1899 Jan 21 1st Philippine Republic by Aguinaldo
as President
Malolos Constitution 1st democratic constitution in
whole asia; US, then at war with Spain, planted
sovereignty over PH

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

TREATY OF PARIS
1898 Dec 10 Treaty of Paris, cessiono of Phils by
Spain to US.
Filipinos were deluded into believing that US was
their allies, but US has their own imperialistic
designs on the Philippines
Disregarding the declaration of independence, US
concluded the TREATY of PARIS
December 10, 1898 TREATY of PARIS which
provided for the cession of the Philippine Islands by
Spain to US

AMERICA
Americans established a military government and
consolidated the three branches to military governor
which provoked the American libertarians who
invoked non-observance of doctrine of separation of
powers
Transitioned from military to civilian rule
SCHURMAN COMMISSION 1st Philippine
Commission to make a fact finding survey of Phil
Islands and submit the appropriate recommendations
to US congress
TAFT COMMSSION 2nd Philippine Commission
took over all legislative powers and some of
executive and judicial power of military government
SPOONER AMMENDMENT - July 4, 1901 civil
government was established in Phil with WILLIAM
HOWARD TAFT as 1st governor
PHILIPPINE ASSEMBLY
PHILIPPINE BILL of 1902, Philippines Assembly
was created in 1907 to sit with Phil. Commission in a
BICAMERAL legislature
SERGIO OSMENA as elected SPEAKER of
Philippine Assembly until 1916
1916-1935 PHILIPPINE AUTONOMY ACT or
JONES LAW established Phil legislature consisting
of Senate and House of Representatives
o Senate President: Manuel Quezon
o Speaker of the House: Sergio Osmena

1935 COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION


TYDINGS-MCDUFFIE
ACT
promised
independence if they could prove their capacity for
democratic government within 10 year transition
period.
o Demonstrate not only councils of peace but
also in barricades of WWII

JAPAN
2nd Republic: Jose P. Laurel (Japanese Occupation)

PROCLAMATION OF REPUBLIC OF PH
1946 July 4 - US formally withdrew sovereignty over
the Philippines
Manuel Roxas asserted freedom and proclaimed the
Republic of the Philippines
Republic of the Philippines, erratic course to
transform corrupted to decadent haves and
subverted on other by discontented have-nots and
parliament of the streets like student groups

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Constitutional Convention of 1971 started
deliberations on revision of 1935 Constitution and
fashioning the 1973 Constitution

1973 CONSTITUTION:
MARCOS REGIME
1972 September 21 - (Communist oriented groups)
President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No.
1081 Martial Law
1972 November 30 - Draft of the 1973 Constitution
was formally approved by the Constitutional
Convention
1973 January 10-15 - Meetings to citizens,
assemblies for ratification of 1973 Marcos
Constitution
1973 January 17 - Marcos issued Proclamation No.
1102 announcing that 1973 Constitution was ratified
by majority and thus, effective.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 2

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

1981 January 17 - President Marcos issued


Proclamation No. 2045 lifting Martial Law but
retained his STANDBY LEGISLATIVE powers
(unicameral)
o National Security Code
o Public Order Act
1985 - Marcos submitted resignation on the 10th day
following the proclamation of winners in a snap
election
1986 February 7 snap elections
o President: Marco
o Vice President: Arturo

All members
of
the
House
Representatives and Local Officials

of

PEOPLE POWER
1986 February 22 - Defense Minister Juan Ponce
Enrile and General Fidel V. Ramos began the
PEOPLE POWER (Peoples Constitution)
o President: Corazon Aquino
o Vice President: Salvador Laurel
*Both inducted on February 25, 1986
1986 - 1973 Constitution was amended by Appointed
Constitution in a short period of time

FREEDOM CONSTITUTION
Promulgation of the FREEDOM CONSTITUTION
(1st Act pending adoption of new Constitution
submitted at plebiscite held on February 2, 1987)
Pres. Cory Aquino created the Constitutional
Commission composed of 50 appointed members

1987 CONSTITUTION
1987 February 2 The body approved draft of the
new charter which was submitted to the people at a
plebiscite; successfully ratified by the people

REVIVED CONGRESS OF PH
1988 May 11 - Elections for revived Congress
1992 May 11 - General Elections
o President: Fidel Ramos
o Vice President: Joseph Estrada
o 24 Senators

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 3

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

1987 CONSTITUTION
CHAPTER 2:
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

The 1987 Constitution is the fourth fundamental law


to govern the Philippines since it became independent
on July 4, 1846
Aimed at correcting the short comings of the
previous constitutions and specifically eliminating all
the iniquitous vestiges of the past regime.

OUTSTANDING FEATURES

1935 CONSTITUTION

First fundamental law of the land operative during


the American period

1973 CONSTITUTION

Second constitution of the Philippines which was


enforced during the Marcos regime under martial law
1986 FREEDOM CONSTITUTION

1986 Freedom Constitution


A result of the People Power revolution under
President Corazon Aquino
Proclamation No. 9
o Created a Constitutional Commission
o 50 members appointed by Pres Cory to
frame a charter not later than September
2, 1986 (they did not meet deadline)
o ConCom was led by Justice Cecilia
Munoz Palma
o ConCom members are from various
sectors and represented diverse
persuasions.
o October 15, 1986 approval of the final
draft of the constitution
o Plebiscite scheduled within 3 months to
give the people more opportunity to
study the constitution
o Ratification campaign led by Pres Cory
herself
o Despite of doubts about some of its
provisions and especially of its length,
people approved the proposed
Constitution as they felt it would
provide stability the country sorely
needed at the time.

New Constitution consist of 18 articles


Revived the bicameral Congress of the Philippines
and the strictly Presidential system
Strengthen the independence of the judiciary with
new provisions for appointment (security of tenure)
and an increase in authority (now covers political
questions)
Provisions retained
Commonwealth Constitution
o Bill of Rights
1973 Constitution
o Constitutional Commissions
o Local governments
Creation of a Commission on Human Rights

NOTE:
What has made the present Constitution excessively
long is the inclusion of the provisions that should
have been embodied only in the implementing
statutes to be enacted by the legislature pursuant to
the basic constitutional principles.
Most notable flaw
o Verbosity and consequent prolixity which
dampen popular interest of the whole nation

SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to


which all other laws must conform.
All persons, including the highest officials of the land
must defer.
No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if
it conflicts with the Constitution.
Right or wrong the Constitution must be upheld as
long as it has not been changed by the sovereign
people.

PROSPECTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution must be quintessential rather than


superficial.
It must grow with society and march apace with the
progress of the race, drawing from the vicissitudes of
history the dynamism and vitality that will keep it, far
from becoming a petrified rule, a pulsing, living law
attuned to the heart-beat of the nation.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 4

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

PEOPLE
CHAPTER 3:
CONCEPT OF THE STATE
STATE
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 of inhabitants render habitual
obedience.

STATE vs NATION
STATE
-legal concept

NATION
- only a racial or ethnic
-indicates relation of birth or
origin and implies a common
race, usually characterized by
community
language
and
customs
-may comprise several states (e.g.,
the United States, which was a
melting pot of many nations)
-need not be a state at all
It is possible for a single state to be made up of more than
one nation.

It refers to the inhabitants of the State.


No legal requirements as to their number
Must be numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to
defend themselves
Small enough to be easily administered and sustained
Must come from both sexes to able to perpetuate
themselves
More comprehensive and less cohesive than the
nation
May develop and share certain characteristics and
interests such as
Common language
Common religion
Common set of customs and traditions that will
unite them into the more closely-knit entity
known as nation.
TERRITORY

The fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited


by the people of the State
Must be neither too big as to be difficult to
administer and defend nor too small as to be unable
to provide for the needs of the population
Can extend over a vast expanse (e.g. Russia &
China), or cover only a small area (e.g. Abu Dhabi)

STATE vs GOVERNMENT
STATE
-the principal
-an abstraction

GOVERNMENT
-only an element of State
-agent of the State
-externalizes the State
-articulates its will

COMPONENTS OF TERRITORY
Land mass known as the terrestrial domain
Inland and external waters, which make up the
maritime and fluvial domain
Air space above the land and waters, which is called
the aerial domain

ELEMENTS OF THE STATE


1.
2.
3.
4.

People
Territory
Government
Sovereignty
**Additional elements, according to some
writers, are recognition and possession. These
have not been generally accepted.

ARCHIPELAGO DOCTRINE
Connect the outermost points
Straight baselines
Waters enclosed / Internal waters
Regarded as one integrated unit instead of being
fragmented into many islands
Jamaica Convention on the Law of the Sea

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 5

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Defines our territorial seas


Ratified in 1994
Philippines is a signatory

NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of
its terrestrial, 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 dimension, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.

Physically lists the components of our territory


Article has deleted reference to territories we claim
by historic right or legal title
This does not mean an outright or formal
abandonment of such claim (over West Philippine
Seas Spratleys)
Best left to a judicial body capable of passing
judgment over the issue

Article 1 of 1973 Constitution covers the following


territories:
1. Those ceded to the United States by virtue of the
Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898.
2. Island of Cagayan, Sulu and Sibuto were not defined
in the Treaty of Paris.
3. Those defined in the treaty between US and Great
Britain, specifically the Turtle and Mangsee Islands.
4. The island of Batanes was covered under a general
statement in the 1935 Constitution.
5. Those contemplated in the phrase belonging to the
Philippines by historic right or legal title in the 1973
Constitution. (e.g. Malaysia)

GOVERNMENT

Agency or instrumentality, through which the will of


the State is formulated, expressed and realized.

Our Constitution requires our govt to be democratic


and republican.
It is an agent and a perfect representative within the
sphere of its agency, but is a lawless usurpation
outside of that.
Whatever good done by the govt is attributed to the
State but every harm inflicted on the people is
imputed to the govt.
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT

CONSTITUENT
Compulsory; constitute the very bonds of society
Constituent functions are the ff:
o Protection of persons and property from violence
and robbery
o Fixing of legal relations
o Regulation of property and determination of its
liabilities
o Contractual rights
o Definition and punishment for crimes
o Administration of justice in civil cases
o Administration of political duties, privileges and
relations of citizens
o Dealings of State with foreign powers
MINISTRANT
Optional; undertaken to advance the general interests
of society, such as:
o Public works
o Public charity
o Regulation of trade and industry
NOTE: The distinction between the two functions is
irrelevant in our jurisdiction.
Compulsory functions
It is now obligatory on the State to: (merely
ministrant & optional before)
Promote social justice
Provide social services
Afford protection to labor
Implement urban and agrarian reform programs
Ensure dignity, welfare and security of its
citizens
Maintain a fully integrated system of education

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 6

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Offer free elementary and secondary public


education
Promote scientific research and invention
Develop Filipino culture

DOCTRINE OF PARENS PATRIAE

Parens patriae guardian of the rights of the people


Important task of the govt act for the State as
parens patriae

CASE: Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte De


Piedad
Facts: The Spanish Government gave $400,000 as a
relief fund for those damaged during the earthquake
in the Philippines in 1863. A central relief board was
appointed and the funds were distributed to those
entitled to the relief fund.
After distributing the funds, a certain portion of the
money was left. The Monte de Piedad borrowed
$80,000 from the relief fund to be spent on measures
to save the Monte de Piedad from its present crisis
and promised to repay the sum in instalments of
$20,000 each within eight days following their claim.
However, the Monte de Piedad failed to pay the
promised amount and contested that it was a donation
to them.
Issue: W/N the Government of the Philippine Islands
is the proper party to maintain an action to recover
the funds loaned to the Monte de Piedad for the
purpose of carrying out the intention of the
contributors.
Held: The court held that the Philippine Government
is the proper party to maintain an action to recover
the funds loaned to the Monte de Piedad for the
purpose of carrying out the intention of the
contributors.
In accordance with the concept of Parens Patriae, it
is an inherent power of the Government to protect the
rights of the people. The Government is entitled to
intervene, through its officers, for the purpose of
asserting public interest on behalf of the public.
The Monte de Piedads claim that only the
beneficiaries and their heirs can institute a case to
claim the said amount cannot be given weight

because these beneficiaries often do not have the


capability of vindicating their rights, thus, it is the
duty of the government to ascertain these rights on
their behalf.
The government properly exercised its sovereign
functions to protect the interest of its people in filing
for suit to recover the loaned amount.

CLASSIFICATION GOVERNMENT
DE JURE
Rightful title but no power or control; either because
it has been withdrawn or not yet exercised

DE FACTO
Exercises power or control but without legal title;
government of fact
De Facto Proper
Gets possession and control, by force or by the voice
of the majority, of the rightful legal government and
maintains itself
Independent Government
Established as an independent government by the
inhabitants
De Facto government of paramount force
Established and maintained by military forces
2nd Republic of the Phil. was a de facto government
of paramount force Japanese occupation
Government of the Philippines
Corporate governmental entity though which the
functions of government are exercised throughout the
Philippines
Various arms through which political authority is
made effective
Autonomous regions, LGUs
Government-owned or controlled corp. engaged in
proprietary functions CANNOT be considered
part of the government

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 7

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Administration group of persons in whose hands the reins


of government are for the time being
It runs the government

It is transitional; government is permanent


CASE: Lawyers League for a Better Phil. v. Corazon C.
Aquino
Facts:
President
Corazon
Aquino
issued
Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing
that she and Vice President Laurel were taking
power.
On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued
providing the basis of the Aquino government
assumption of power by stating that the "new
government was installed through a direct exercise of
the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of
the New Armed Forces of the Philippines."
Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is
illegal because it was not established pursuant to the
1973 Constitution
Issue: W/N the government of Corazon Aquino is
legitimate
Held: The SC held that the government of Corazon
Aquino is legitimate. The legitimacy of the Aquino
government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to
the realm of politics where only the people are the
judge. The SC further held that:
1. The people have accepted the Aquino
government which is in effective control of
the entire country;
2. It is not merely a de facto government but in
fact and law a de jure government; and
3. The community of nations has recognized
the legitimacy of the new government.

- Congress is the legal


sovereign

Not deemed suspended although acts of sovereignty


cannot be exercised by the legitimate authority

EFFECT OF BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION


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

The supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a


State
Two kinds of sovereignty: legal and political

POLITICAL
- power behind the legal
sovereignty, or the sum of the
influences that operate upon it

Sovereignty may also be internal or external.


Internal sovereignty refers to the power of the
State to control its domestic affairs
External sovereignty refers to the power of the
State to direct its relations with other States
also known as independence

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOVEREIGNTY
1. Permanent
2. Exclusive
3. Comprehensive
4. Absolute
5. Indivisible
6. Inalienable
7. Imprescriptible.

SOVEREIGNTY

LEGAL
-authority which has the
power
to issue
final
commands

- different sectors that mold


public opinion

Sovereignty over the Philippines remained with the


US during the Japanese occupation, although
Americans could not exercise any control over the
occupied territory at the time
Political laws of the occupied territory are merely
suspended, subject to revival under the jus
postliminium upon the end of the occupation
Non-political laws are deemed continued unless
changed by the occupant
Constitution of the Commonwealth, being a political
law, was not effective in the Philippines during the
Japanese occupation.
Non-political laws like the Civil Code and the
Insurance Act remained in force during that

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 8

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

period except only where they were amended or


superseded
Suspending political laws affects only the
civilian inhabitants of the occupied territory and
is not intended to bind the enemies in arms.
A person convicted of treason against the
Japanese Imperial Forces was, after the
occupation, entitled to be released on the
ground that the sentence imposed on him for his
political offense had ceased to be valid.
But if the conviction was for a non-political
offense, say, defamation, the sentence would
not be affected by the termination of the
occupation.
Political laws of the former sovereign are not merely
suspended but abrogated. The laws fall to the ground
of ipso facto unless they are retained or re-enacted by
positive act of the new sovereign.
Non-political laws continue in operation for they
regulate private relations only, unless they are
changed by the new sovereign or are contrary to its
institutions.

CASE: People v. Perfecto


Facts: Fernando M. Guerrero, the Secretary of the
Philippine Senate, discovered that certain documents
which constituted the record of testimony given by
the witnesses in the investigation of oil companies
had disappeared from his office.
The Governor-general called for a special session to
look for the documents and find the guilty party. The
day following the convening of the Senate, the
newspaper La Nacion, edited by Mr. Gregorio
Perfecto, published libellous accusations against the
Philippine Senate and its officials.
The Philippine Senate filed a case against Gregorio
Perfecto in the municipal court of Manila and then in
the Court of First Instance of Manila, where both
courts found him guilty of violating Article 256 of
the Penal Code.
The aforesaid provision was extended to the
Philippines under the dominion of Spain to protect
the Kings Ministers of the Crown from defamation,
abuse, or insults.
Issue: W/N Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code
punishing Any person who, by *** writing, shall

defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or


other person in authority*** is still in force
Held: The court held that the Spanish Penal Code is
no longer in effect in the Philippine Islands when the
Treaty of Paris was ratified. It is the general principle
of public law that on acquisition of territory, the
previous political relations of the ceded region are
totally abrogated.
The first effect of the military occupation of the
enemys territory is the severance of the former
political relations of the inhabitants and the
establishment of a new political power. A majority of
the court thinks that the Philippine Libel Law Act
No. 277 had the effect of repealing article 256 of the
Penal Code.
The appellate court also believes that article 256 of
the Spanish Penal Code is not in force anymore
because it was abrogated by the change from the
Spanish to the Philippine sovereignty over the
Philippines and it is inconsistent with the democratic
principles of the American government.
The judgment was reversed and the defendantappellant acquitted.

CASE: Laurel vs. Misa


Facts: The accused is charged with Treason for
giving aid and comfort to the enemy during the
Japanese occupation. The accused contends that his
allegiance to the Philippine government was
suspended during the Japanese occupation. He argues
that punishment for crimes committed against the
legitimate government is suspended during military
occupation, since the laws punishing treason are
under the laws of the Commonwealth and are
therefore inoperative.
Issue: Whether or not allegiance of the accused was
suspended during the Japanese occupation
Held: The Supreme Court held that the existence of
sovereignty is not suspended during enemy
occupation and the allegiance of its inhabitants to
their legitimate government still subsists, therefore,
there is no such thing as suspended allegiance.
The Hague Convention states that the military
occupation of the enemy does not transfer the
sovereignty to the occupier and the exercise of the

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 9

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

rights of the sovereignty remains with the legitimate


government.
The accused committed treason against the national
security of the legitimate government because the
inhabitants of the occupied territory are still bound by
their allegiance to the legitimate government even
during enemy occupation. Petition denied.

CASE: Ruffy vs. Chief of Staf


Facts: During the Japanese occupation, Major Ruffy
was assigned as the commanding officer of the Bolo
Area in accordance with the special order issued to
them in a memorandum. Colonel Jurado removed
Major Ruffy as the commanding officer of the Bolo
Battalion and replaced him with Capt. Beloncio.
Major Ruffy allegedly murdered Colonel Jurado due
to his removal from the position.
The petitioners contend that the Articles of War was
suspended during the occupation of the Japanese and
therefore they cannot be subjected to military
jurisdiction.
Issue: W/N petitioners are subject to military law at
the time they committed the offense
Held: The court held that as officers in the Bolo Area
and the 6th military district, petitioners operated under
the orders of duly established commanders of the US
Army and are subject to the Articles of War.
The suspension of political laws must be restricted to
laws which are exclusively political in nature and this
rule does not bind enemies in arms.

ACTS OF STATE
An act done by the sovereign power of a country, or
by its delegate, within the limits of the power vested in him.

Cannot be questioned or made the subject of legal


proceedings in a court of law.
An act done by the political departments of the
government and not subject to judicial review.
- E.g., The decision of the President, in the exercise
of his diplomatic power, to extend recognition to a
newly- established foreign State or government.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 10

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

That sometime thereafter he filed his claim under


Commonwealth Act 400 and in April, he submitted
some papers in support of his claim to the Adjutant
General's Office upon the latter's request;

BASIS
Based on the provision of the Constitution that the
State may not be sued without its consent
Will result to impairment of its dignity

Thereafter, the Adjutant General disallowed his claim


for disability benefits; after further demands of the
plaintiff, the Adjutant General's Office alleged that
Commonwealth Act 400 had already been repealed
by Republic Act 610 which took effect on January 1,
1950;

DOCTRINE OF NON-SUABILITY
There can be no legal right against the authority
which makes the law on which the right depends
Purpose: So that the State can move
Doctrine sometimes called The Royal Prerogative of
Dishonesty
Recognizes the sovereign character of the State
Principle of Sovereign Equality of States all states
as sovereign equals cannot assert jurisdiction over
another
Also available to foreign states in so far as they are
sought to be sued in the courts of the local State

That by reason of the injuries suffered by plaintiff he


was deprived of his sight or vision rendering him
permanently disabled; and that by reason of the
unjustified refusal by defendants of plaintiff's claim,
The latter was deprived of his disability pension
totalling no less than P4,000 at the rate of P20 a
month and suffered thereby moral damages and
attorney's fees the amount of P2,000.00.
Issue: W/N the claim for damages for injuries
sustained by the plaintiff was a suit against the State.
W/N the court has the jurisdiction to the said case.
Held: Yes, this is a suit against the state since it
would need the appropriation of public funds to
satisfy the judgment if the claim were allowed.

CHAPTER 4:
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

APPLICATION
Actions are rarely instituted against the Republic of
the Philippines because of possible dismissal of the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction
Usual practice: file such claims against the officer of
the government.
Determine first if the State is a real party in interest
that is if the claim is proved, it will be a direct
liability of the State
If it is, the action will be dismissed unless the
immunity has been waived
CASE: Garcia v. Chief of Staff
Facts: Mariano E. Garcia filed an action to collect a
sum of money against the Chief of Staff and the
Adjutant General of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, the Chairman of the Philippine Veterans
Board and the Auditor General.
The complaint alleged: that the plaintiff suffered
injuries while undergoing the 10-month military
training at Camp Floridablanca, Pampanga;

A claim for the recovery of money against the


government should be filed with the Auditor General,
in line with the principle that the State cannot be sued
without its consent.

The Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction over


the subject matter, it being a money claim against the
government.
The plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative
remedies before coming to court; that the complaint
states no cause of action; and that the cause of action
is barred by the statute of limitations.

CASE: Ruiz v. Cabahug


Facts: Secretary of National Defense-Cabahug
accepted the bid of the Allied Technologists, Inc.,
to furnish the architectural and engineering
services in the construction of the Veterans
Hospital.

The architectural requirements submitted by the


Allied Technologists through three of its architects,
Messrs. Enrique J. L Ruiz, Jose V. Herrera and

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 11

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Pablo D. Panlilio were approved by the United


States Veterans Administration because of the
technical objection to the capacity of the Allied
Technologists, Inc. to practice architecture and
upon the advice of the Secretary of Justice

The contract was signed on the part of the Allied


Technologists, Inc. by Ruiz as President and P. D.
Panlilio as Architect. When the defendants-officials
paid the Allied Technologists the contract price for
the architectural engineering service, they retained
15 per cent of the sum due, for the reason that
defendant Panlilio has asserted that he is the sole
and only architect of the Veterans Hospital to the
exclusion of plaintiffs Ruiz and Herrera, aided by
defendant Jimenez.
Unless defendants are prevented from recognizing
defendant Panlilio as the sole architect of the
contract and from paying the 15 per cent retained,
plaintiffs will be deprived of the monetary value of
their professional services and their professional
prestige and standing would be seriously impaired.
The plaintiffs wanted the defendants to cease
recognizing Panlilio as the sole architect of the
Veterans Hospital and from paying him the 15 per
cent retained, and that after hearing Ruiz, Herrera
and Panlilio be recognized as the architects of the
Veterans Hospital.
Issue: W/N this is a suit against the state
Held: No. SC held that this action is not against the
state, but an action instituted against the Secretary
of National Defense, in his official capacity for
payment of an architects professional fees for
which an appropriation had already been made by
the government.
As far as the state is concerned, it had already
discharged its obligation. It is against the officials
to compel them to act in accordance with the rights
to be established by the contending architects, or to
prevent them from making payment and
recognition until the contending architects have
established their respective rights and interests in
the funds retained and in the credit for the work
done.

CASE: Festejo v. Fernando

Facts: The defendant, as Director of the Bureau of


Public Works, without authority obtained first from
the Court of First Instance, without obtaining first a
right of way, and without the consent and knowledge
of the plaintiff, and against her express objection
unlawfully took possession of portions of the three
parcels of land, and caused an irrigation canal to be
constructed.

The plaintiff wanted the portions of the land to be


returned the land to its former condition under the
expenses of the defendant, or if not possible, to pay
to the plaintiff the sum of P19,343.20 as value of the
portions
Issue: W/N this is a suit against the state
Held: NO. The court held that in the trespass on
plaintiff's land, defendant committed acts outside the
scope of his authority. There can be no claim that he
invaded plaintiff's land innocently.

Ordinarily, the officer or employee committing the


tort is personally liable therefore, and may be sued as
any other citizen and held answerable for whatever
injury or damage results from his tortuous act. It is a
general rule that an officer-executive, administrative
quasi-judicial, ministerial, or otherwise who acts
outside the scope of his jurisdiction and without
authorization of law may thereby render himself
amenable to personal liability in a civil suit.

CASE: Holy See v. Rosario

Facts: The complaint alleged that: Msgr. Cirilos, Jr.,


on behalf of petitioner, agreed to sell to Ramon Licup
3 lots at P1,240.00 per square meters
The agreement to sell was made on the condition that
earnest money of P100,000.00 be paid by Licup to
the sellers, and that the sellers clear the said lots of
squatters who were then occupying the same;
Licup paid the earnest money to Msgr. Cirilos; in the
same month, Licup assigned his rights over the
property to private respondent and informed the
sellers of the said assignment;
However the squatters refused to vacate the lots,
proposing instead either that private respondent
undertake the eviction or that the earnest money be
returned to the latter;

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 12

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

private respondent counter proposed that if it would


undertake the eviction of the squatters, the purchase
price of the lots should be reduced from P1,240.00 to
P1,150.00 per square meter;

Msgr. Cirilos returned the earnest money of


P100,000.00 and wrote private respondent giving it
seven days from receipt of the letter to pay the
original purchase price in cash;
Private respondent sent the earnest money back to the
sellers, but later discovered that petitioner already,
sold the lots to Tropicana; and that the transfer
certificate of title over the lots were transferred and
registered in the name of Tropicana.
Issue: W/N the Holy See is immune from suit insofar
as its business relations regarding selling a lot to a
private entity

Held: Yes. The Holy See is immune from suit. The


Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy
See the status of a foreign sovereign. The Holy See,
through its Ambassador, the Papal Nuncio, has had
diplomatic representations with the Philippine
government since 1957 (Rollo, p. 87). This appears to
be the universal practice in international relations

As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987


Constitution, we have adopted the generally accepted
principles of International Law. Even without this
affirmation, such principles of International Law are
deemed incorporated as part of the law of the land as
a condition and consequence of our admission in the
society of nation

The Holy See is immune from suit for the act of


selling the lot of concern is non-proprietary in
nature. The lot was acquired by petitioner as a
donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. The
donation was made not for commercial purpose, but
for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the
official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio.
The decision to transfer the property and the
subsequent disposal thereof are likewise clothed with
a governmental character. Petitioner did not sell the
lot for profit or gain. It merely wanted to dispose of
the same because the squatters living thereon made it
almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the
purpose of the donation.

Holy See certified by DFA as a diplomatic mission


to the RP exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled
to all rights and privileges and immunities

WAIVER OF IMMUNITY

Built-in qualification of doctrine: the state may, if it


so desires, voluntarily open itself to suit.
State does not often avail of the immunity to take
undue advantage of parties that may have legitimate
claims against it

FORMS OF CONSENT
EXPRESS CONSENT
Consent is given by way of general law or special
law enacted by legislature
General law which allows the State to be sued:
Act 3083 The Government of PI hereby
consents and submits to be sued upon any
moneyed claim involving liability arising for
contract, express or implied, which could serve
as a basis of civil action between parties
Special law enacted by the Philippine
Legislature authorizing an individual to sue the
Philippine Government
NOTE: Express consent of the State to be sued must be
embodied in a duly enacted statute and not given by a mere
counsel of government

IMPLIED CONSENT
State commences litigation or when it enters into a
contract
Consent is given when it files a suit or when it enters
into a contract in exercise of its proprietary capacity
NOT ALL contracts are a waiver of its nonsuability
There are contracts executed in exercise of its
sovereign function
When the state gives its consent to be sued, it does
not thereby also consent to the execution of the
judgment against it

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 13

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CASE: Santiago v. Republic


Facts: On 20 Jan 1971, Santiago gratuitously donated
a parcel of land to the Bureau of Plant Industry. The
terms of the donation are; that the Bureau should
construct a building on the said lot and that the
building should be finished by December 7, 1974,
that the Bureau should install lighting facilities on the
said lot.
However, come 1976 there were still no
improvements on the lot. This prompted Santiago to
file a case pleading for the revocation of such
contract of donation.
The trial court dismissed the petition claiming that it
is a suit against the government and should not
prosper without the consent of the government.
Issue: W/N the state has not waived its immunity
from suit.
Held: The government has waived its immunity and
such waiver is implied by virtue of the terms
provided in the deed of donation. The government is
a beneficiary of the terms of the donation. But the
government through the Bureau has breached the
terms of the deed by not complying with such,
therefore, the donor Santiago has the right to have his
day in court and be heard. Further, to not allow the
donor to be heard would be unethical and contrary to
equity which the government so advances. Case
should prosper.
NOTE: When the State itself files a complaint, the defendant
is entitled to file a counterclaim against it.

CAPACITIES OF THE STATE IN ENTERING


INTO CONTRACTS
When the government enters into a contract, for the
State is then deemed to have divested itself of the mantle of
sovereign immunity and descended to the level of ordinary
individual.
JURE GESTIONIS
By right of economic or business relations;
commercial or proprietary acts. MAY BE SUED.

JURE IMPERII
By right of sovereign power and in the exercise of
sovereign functions. NO IMPLIED CONSENT.
NOTE: In exercising the power of eminent domain, the State
exercises a power jus imperii, where a property has been taken
without just compensation being paid; the defense of suit
cannot be set up in action for payment by the owner.
CASE: USA VS Ruiz
Facts: At times material to this case, the United
States of America had a naval base in Subic,
Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the
Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines
and the United States.
US invited the submission of bids for Repair offender
system and Repair typhoon damages. Eligio de
Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation,
submitted bids and complied with the requests based
on the letters received from the US.
In June 1972, a letter was received by the Eligio De
Guzman & Co indicating that the company did not
qualify to receive an award for the projects because
of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a
repair contract for the sea wall at the boat landings of
the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay.
The company sued the United States of America and
Messrs. James E. Galloway, William I. Collins and
Robert Gohier all members of the Engineering
Command of the U.S. Navy. The complaint is to
order the defendants to allow the plaintiff to perform
the work on the projects and, in the event that
specific performance was no longer possible, to order
the defendants to pay damages.
The company also asked for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from
entering into contracts with third parties for work on
the projects.
The defendants entered their special appearance for
the purpose only of questioning the jurisdiction of
this court over the subject matter of the complaint
and the persons of defendants, the subject matter of
the complaint being acts and omissions of the
individual defendants as agents of defendant United
States of America, a foreign sovereign which has not
given her consent to this suit or any other suit for the
causes of action asserted in the complaint.
Subsequently the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint which included an opposition to the
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The
company opposed the motion.\

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 14

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

The trial court denied the motion and issued the writ.
The defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no
avail.
Hence the instant petition which seeks to restrain
perpetually the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M
for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court
Issue: W/N the US naval base in bidding for said
contracts exercise governmental functions to be able
to invoke state immunity
Held: The petition is granted; the questioned orders
of the respondent-judge are set aside and are
dismissed. Costs against the private respondent.

WHO GIVES CONSENT?


Congress by way of law
May be general or special law, not from a mere
memorandum
Must be duly enacted
Consent by any counsel of the government is not
binding

SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

If filed against government agency: must ascertain


W/N the state, as the principal, has given its consent
The ascertainment will depend on W/N the
government agency impleaded is incorporated or
unincorporated

INCORPORATED AGENCY
Has a charter of its own that invests it with separate
juridical personality
Test of suability is found in its charter; it is suable if
the charter says so regardless of the function it is
performing
Ex. Municipal corporations (provinces/cities are
agencies of State), SSS, UP, GSIS

CASE: Bermoy vs. Philippine Normal College


Facts: Appeal from the order of the Court of First
Instance of Manila dismissing the action filed by
twenty 'employees of the Philippine Normal College
working under various capacities in its dormitory
known as the Normal Hall.

The order of dismissal was based on the ground that


neither one of the defendants was a corporation or a
juridical entity with capacity to be sued.
Issue: W/N the PNC is immune from suit by the
principle of non-suability of the state
Held: Order appealed from reversed and the case is
remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
The appeal is meritorious, because Republic Act No.
416 endows the Philippine Normal College with the
"general powers set out" in Section 13 of the
Corporation Law; and one of the powers enumerated
in the said section is the power "to sue and be sued in
any court.

UNINCORPORATED AGENCY
No separate juridical personality
Merged in the general machinery of government
Any suit filed against it is necessarily an action
against the Philippine Government of which it is part
Test of suability not available as there would be no
charter to consult
DOJ, Bureau of Printing Office
NOTE: Only incorporated agency can be sued if its own
charter says so. Unincorporated agency cannot be sued
without the states consent because it has no separate judicial
personality.

DETERMINE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF AGENCY


Suable: if it engages in proprietary function
Not suable if: governmental

CASE: National Airports Corporation v. Teodoro


Facts: The National Airports Corporation was
organized under Republic Act No. 224, which
expressly made the provisions of the Corporation
Law applicable to the said corporation. On November
10, 1950, the National Airports Corporation was
abolished by Executive Order No. 365 and to take its
place the Civil Aeronautics Administration was
created. Before the abolition, the Philippine Airlines,
Inc. paid to the National Airports Corporation P65,
245 as fees for landing and parking on Bacolod
Airport No. 2 for the period up to and including July
31, 1948.
These fees are said to have been due and payable to
the Capitol Subdivision, Inc., which owned the land

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 15

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

used by the National Airports Corporation as airport,


and the owner commenced an action in the Court of
First Instance of Negros Occidental against the
Philippine Airlines, Inc. In 1951 to recover the above
amount, The Philippine Airlines, Inc. countered with
a third-party complaint against the National Airports
Corporation, which by that time had been dissolved,
and served summons on the Civil Aeronautics
Administration.
The third party plaintiff alleged that it had paid to the
National Airports Corporation the fees claimed by the
Capitol Subdivision, Inc. "on the belief and
assumption that the third party defendant was the
lessee of the lands subject of the complaint and that
the third party defendant and its predecessors in
interest were the operators and maintainers of said
Bacolod Airport No. 2.
The Solicitor General, after answering the third party
complaint, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the thirdparty complaint, first, because the National Airports
Corporation "has lost its juridical personality," and,
second, because agency of the Republic of the
Philippines, unincorporated and not possessing
juridical personality under the law, is incapable of
suing and being sued."
Issue: W/N government corporate agency may be
W/N the Civil Aeronautics Administration can be
sued
Held: As a general rule, state cannot be sued without
its consent and there can be no legal basis against the
authority that formulate the law and which the law
depends. But the exemptions are the unincorporated
type of government and functioning for proprietary.
Not all government entities, whether corporate or
non-corporate, are immune to suits.
Immunity from suits is determined by the character
of the objects for which the entity was organized;
however contended that when a sovereign state enters
into a contract with a private person, the state can be
sued upon the theory that it has descended to the
level of an individual from which 'it can be implied
that it has given its consent to be sued under the
contract.
Among the general powers of the Civil Aeronautics
Administration are, under section 3 of Executive
Order No. 365, to execute contracts of any kind, to
purchase property, and to grant concession rights, and
under section 4, to charge landing fees, royalties on
sales to aircraft of aviation gasoline, accessories and
supplies, and rentals for the use of any property under
its management.

These provisions confer upon 'the Civil Aeronautics


Administration the power to sue and be sued, which
is implied from the power to transact private
business. And if it has the power to sue and be sued
on its behalf, the Civil Aeronautics Administration
with greater reason should have the power to
prosecute and defend suits for and against the
National Airports Corporation, having acquired all
the properties, funds and chose in action and assumed
all the liabilities of the latter. According to the court,
the petition is denied with costs against the Civil
Aeronautics Administration.

NOTE: Non-suability is available if the agency is engaged not


only in governmental functions but also as a sideline function,
or in proprietary enterprises.
CASE: Bureau of Printing v. Bureau of Printing Employees
Association
Facts: The action in question was upon complaint
of the respondents Bureau of Printing Employees
Association (NLU) Pacifico Advincula, Roberto
Mendoza, Ponciano Arganda and Teodulo Toleran
filed by an acting prosecutor of the Industrial Court
against herein petitioner Bureau of Printing, Serafin
Salvador, the Acting Secretary of the Department of
General Services, and Mariano Ledesma the Director
of the Bureau of Printing.
The complaint alleged that Serafin Salvador and
Mariano Ledesma have been engaging in unfair labor
practices by interfering with, or coercing the
employees of the Bureau of Printing particularly the
members of the complaining association petition, in
the exercise of their right to self-organization an
discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of their
employment in order to discourage them from
pursuing the union activities.
Issue: W/N the action against the BOP is a suit
against the State without its consent
Held: Yes. The Bureau of Printing is an office of the
Government created by the Administrative Code of
1916 (Act No. 2657).
As such instrumentality of the Government, it
operates under the direct supervision of the Executive
Secretary, Office of the President, and is charged
with the execution of all printing and binding,
including work incidental to those processes, required
by the National Government and such other work of
the same character as said Bureau may, by law or by
order of the (Secretary of Finance) Executive

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 16

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Secretary, be authorized to undertake . . .. (See.


1644, Rev. Adm. Code).
It has no corporate existence, and its appropriations
are provided for in the General Appropriations Act.
Designed to meet the printing needs of the
Government, it is primarily a service bureau and
obviously, not engaged in business or occupation for
pecuniary profit.
Indeed, as an office of the Government, without any
corporate or juridical personality, the Bureau of
Printing cannot be sued. (Sec. 1, Rule 3, Rules of
Court). Any suit, action or proceeding against it, if it
were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit,
action or proceeding against the Government itself,
and the rule is settled that the Government cannot be
sued without its consent, much less over its objection.

CASE: Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals


Facts: S/S Pacific Hawk vessel with Registry No.
170 arrived on January 30, 1972 at the Port of Manila
carrying among others, 80 bales of screen net
consigned to Bagong Buhay Trading (Bagong
Buhay).
The import was classified under Tariff Heading no.
39.06-B of the Tariff and Customs Code at 35% ad
valorem. Bagong Buhay paid the duties and taxes due
in the amount of P11,350.00. The Office of the
Collector of Customs ordered a re-examination of the
shipment upon hearing the information that the
shipment consisted of mosquito net made of nylon
under Tariff Heading No. 62.02 of the Tariff and
Customs Code.
Upon re-examination, it turns out that the shipment
was undervalued in quantity and value as previously
declared. Thus the Collector of Customs forfeited the
shipment in favor of the government. Private
respondent filed a petition on August 20, 1976 for the
release of the questioned goods which the Court
denied.
On June 2,1986, 64 bales out of the 80 bales were
released to Bagong Buhay after several motion. The
sixteen remaining bales were missing. The
respondent claims that of the 143,454 yards released,
only 116,950 yards were in good condition and the
rest were in bad condition. Thus, respondents
demands that the Bureau of Customs be ordered to
pay for damages for the 43,050 yards it actually lost.
Issue: W/N the Collector of Customs may be held
liable for the 43,050 yards actually lost by the private
respondent.
Held: Bureau of Customs cannot be held liable for
actual damages that the private respondent sustained

with regard to its goods. Otherwise, to permit private


respondent's claim to prosper would violate the
doctrine of sovereign immunity. Since it demands
that the Commissioner of Customs be ordered to pay
for actual damages it sustained, for which ultimately
liability will fall on the government, it is obvious that
this case has been converted technically into a suit
against the state.
On this point, the political doctrine that state may
not be sued without its consent, categorically
applies. As an unincorporated government agency
without any separate judicial personality of its own,
the Bureau of Customs enjoys immunity from suit.
Along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it is
invested with an inherent power of sovereignty,
namely taxation.
As an agency, the Bureau of Customs performs the
governmental function of collecting revenues which
is defined not a proprietary function. Thus private
respondents claim for damages against the
Commissioner of Customs must fail.

EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL


REQUIREMENTS

When the state litigates, it is not required to:


Put up a bond for damages
Appeal bond
Pay the legal fees prescribed by the rules of court
Costs of suit
Interest except when expressly stipulated in the act
passed by the legislature

SUABILITY vs. LIABILITY

Waiver of immunity of state does not mean


concession of its liability
Suability
Result of express or
implied consent of the
State to be sued

Liability
Determined after hearing
on the basis of relevant
laws and established
facts

State may be sued but not liable


State allows itself to be sued to give the other party
an opportunity to prove that the state is liable.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 17

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CASE: Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands


Facts: Merrit, riding on a motorcycle at a speed of
ten to twelve miles an hour, collided with an
ambulance of the General Hospital which turned
suddenly and unexpectedly without having sounded
any whistle or horn.
Merrit was severely injured. His condition had
undergone depreciation and his efficiency as a
contractor was affected.
The inquiry at once arises whether the Government is
legally-liable for the damages resulting therefrom
even if the collision was due to the negligence
committed by an agent or employee of the
government which is the chauffeur.
Issue: W/N the Government may be held in this case.
Held: No. In a damage case, the responsibility of the
state is limited to that which it contracts through a
special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or
commission to perform some act or charged with
some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim,
and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions
imputable to a public official charged with some
administrative or technical office who can be held to
the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by
the law of civil responsibility.
Consequently, the trial court in not so deciding and in
sentencing the said entity to the payment of damages,
caused by an official of the second class referred to,
has by erroneous interpretation infringed the
provisions of articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil
Code.

CASE: Torio v. Fontanilla


Facts: The Municipal Council of Malasiqui,
Pangasinan, passed Resolution No. 159 to manage
the 1959 Malasiqui town fiesta celebration The
1959 Malasiqui Town Fiesta Executive Committee
was created, which, in turn, organized a subcommittee on entertainment and stage. A zarzuela
troupe, of which Vicente Fontanilla was a member,
arrived for their performance on January 22.
During the zarzuela, the stage collapsed and
Fontanilla was pinned underneath. He was
immediately hospitalized, but died the following day.
Fontanillas heirs filed a complaint to recover
damages against the Municipality of Malasiqui, its

Municipal Council and all the Councils individual


members.
The municipality invoked inter alia the defense that
as a legally and duly organized public corporation it
performs sovereign functions and the holding of a
town fiesta was an exercise of its governmental
functions from which no liability can arise to answer
for the negligence of any of its agents.
The councilors maintained that they merely acted as
the municipalitys agents in carrying out the
municipal ordinance and as such they are likewise
not liable for damages as the undertaking was not one
for profit; furthermore, they had exercised due care
and diligence in implementing the municipal
ordinance.
After trial, the RTC dismisses the complaint,
concluding that the Executive Committee had
exercised due diligence and care in selecting a
competent man for the construction of the stage, and
the collapse was due to forces beyond the control of
the committee. Consequently, the defendants were
not liable for the death of Vicente Fontanilla. Upon
appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts
decision and ordered all the defendants-appellees to
pay jointly and severally the heirs of Vicente
Fontanilla the sums of P12,000.00 by way of moral
and actual damages: P1200.00 its attorneys fees; and
the costs.
Issue: W/N the Municipality of Malasiqui may be
held liable
Held: Yes. Under Philippine laws, municipalities are
political bodies endowed with the faculties of
municipal corporations to be exercised by and
through their respective municipal governments in
conformity with law, and in their proper corporate
name, they may inter alia sue and be sued, and
contract and be contracted with.
The powers of a municipality are two-fold in
character: public, governmental or political on the
one hand; and corporate, private, or proprietary on
the other. Governmental powers are those exercised
by the corporation in administering the powers of the
state and promoting the public welfare.
These include the legislative, judicial public, and
political. Municipal powers, on the other hand, are
exercised for the special benefit and advantage of the
community. These include those which are
ministerial, private and corporate. This distinction of
powers is necessary in determining the liability of the
municipality for the acts of its agents which result in
injury to third persons.
If the injury is caused in the course of the
performance of a governmental function/duty, no

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 18

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

recovery can be had from the municipality unless


there is an existing statute on the matter, nor from its
officers, so long as they performed their duties
honestly and in good faith or that they did not act
wantonly and maliciously. With respect to proprietary
functions, the settled rule is that a municipal
corporation can be held liable to third persons ex
contract or ex delicto. They may also be subject to
suit upon contracts and its tort.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 19

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CHAPTER 5:
FUNDAMENTAL POLICIES AND STATE POLICIES

Purpose: emphasize and articulate more unequivocally the


objectives and limitations of governmental action in pursuit of
the general goals announced in the Preamble.
PREAMBLE

Not considered a source of substantive right


Purpose: To introduce
Enumerates the primary aims and expresses the
aspirations of the framers in drafting the Constitution

Build a just and humane society


Establish a Government
Promote the common good
Conserve and develop our patrimony
Secure to ourselves and our posterity

PEACE AND ORDER

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 law. - Art. 2 Sec. 2

Democratic and representative government


Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
emanates from them
People are declared supreme

DEMOCRATIC
Government of the people
People would act directly and not through their
representatives

Protection of life, liberty and power


Promotion of general welfare
THE INCORPORATION CLAUSE

REPUBLICANISM

REPUBLICAN
Representative form of Government
Run by the people and for the people
Essential features: representation and renovation
Purpose: To promote common welfare according to
the will of the people themselves

Imposed upon all citizens, including women


Non-combat/civil duties If not fit to be part of
military

VALID: defensive war


Philippines as a member of family of nation is bound
to the generally accepted principle which
automatically form parts of the law of the land.
If there is conflict between international law and
municipal law:
o First, harmonize them, so as to give effect to
both
If the conflict is irreconcilable:
o The statute should be upheld because it
represented an exercise an exercise of the
police power, which, being inherent cannot
be bargained away or surrendered through
the medium of a treaty.

The State shall pursue an independent foreign


policy. In its relations with other states the paramount
consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, national interest, and the right of selfdetermination. - Art. 2 Sec 7
Reason: Serves to underlie our fear of foreign
domination

DEFENSE OF STATE

Inherent right of every State to existence and selfpreservation; to repel any threat to its security
Military and civil works

The Philippines, consistent with the national interest,


adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapon
in its territory. - Art. 2 Sec 8

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 20

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CASE: Kuroda v. Jalandoni


Facts: Kuroda was charged against EO No, 68 with
having unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge
his duties as such commander to control the
operations of members of his command, permitting
them to commit brutal atrocities and other high
crimes against non-combatant civilian and prisoners
of the Imperial Japanese Forces, in violation of the
laws and customs of war.
Kuroda then argued that the said order is
unconstitutional and violated our local laws. He
further stated that the respondent has no jurisdiction
to try Kuroda for acts committed in violation of the
Hague Convention and Geneva Convention as such
PH is not a signatory.
Issue: WON EO 68 is valid and constitutional.
Held: EO 68 is valid and constitutional. It was issued
by the President to trial the accused war criminals.
The President acted in accordance with the generally
accepted principles and policies of international law
which are part of our Constitution. Though PH was
not a signatory of the two conventions, the rules and
principles of those still form part of the law of our
nation.
CASE: Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh
Facts: When the Imperial Japanese Forces, as the de
facto government, occupied Manila, they proclaimed
that all laws now in force in the Commonwealth, as
well as the executive and judicial institutions, shall
continue to be effective.
Sometime in 1943, The Republic of the Philippines
was inaugurated. Gen. MacArthur issued a
proclamation saying that all laws and regulations and
processes of any other government on the Philippines
than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void
and without legal effect.
This proclamation became the basis of a judge to not
continue the judicial proceeding.
Issue: W/N MacArthurs proclamation invalidating
all laws, regulations and processes of the occupation
government also applies to judicial decisions
Held:
NO. It is a well-known principle of
international law that all judgments and judicial
proceedings which are not of a political complexion
of a de facto government remain good and valid even
after the occupied territory had come again into the
power of the titular sovereign.
It should be presumed that it would not have been the
intention of Gen. MacArthur, in using the phrase

processes of any other government in his


proclamation, to refer to judicial processes, in
violation of said principle of international law.
CASE: Ichong v. Hernandez
Facts: Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who
entered the country to take advantage of retail
business opportunities in PH. For some time he and
his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a
monopoly in the local market in Pasay.
Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA
1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the
purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to
engage in the retail business. Ichong then petitioned
for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that
it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP
which, according to him, violates the equal protection
clause.
He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the
business here in the country who helps in the income
generation of the country he should be given equal
opportunity.
Issue: W/N a law may invalidate or supersede treaties
or generally accepted principles.
Held: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a
generally accepted principle. In this case, there is no
conflict at all between the raised generally accepted
principle and with RA 1180. The equal protection of
the law clause does not demand absolute equality
amongst residents.
For the sake of argument, even if it would be
assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with a
statute then the statute must be upheld because it
represented an exercise of the police power which,
being inherent could not be bargained away or
surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence,
Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his
market stalls in the Pasay city market.

REARING OF YOUTH
The State recognizes the sanctity of the family life
and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life
of the mother, and the life of the unborn from conception. The

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 21

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of


the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral
character shall receive the aid and support of government. Art. 2 Sec 12

Purpose:
Against abortion
Equal protection due the mother
Not closing the door to divorce, the legislature
can allow it in its discretion

The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in


nation building, and shall promote and protect their physical,
moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being. It shall
inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism and
encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. - Art.
2 Sec 13

Reason:
Upsurge reaction to the youth activism prior to
the adoption of 1973 Constitution
Art. 14 Sec. 1 - To protect and promote the
right of all citizens to quality education at all
levels and to take all appropriate steps to make
such education accessible to all.

WOMEN
The State shall recognize the role of women in
nation-building and shall ensure the fundamental equality
before the law of women and men. - Art. 2 Sec 14

SOCIAL JUSTICE
The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order
that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation
and free the people from poverty through policies that provide
adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising
standard of living and an improved quality of life for all. Art. 2 Sec 9
The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development. - Art. 2 Sec 10

The State values the dignity of every human person and


guarantees full respect for human rights. - Art. 2 Sec 11
The State affirms labor as a primary social economic
force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their
welfare. - Art. 2 Sec 18
The state shall promote comprehensive
development and agrarian reform. - Art. 2 Sec 21

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE


The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable.- Section 6 of Article II

The state should not use its money and coercive


power to establish religion.
It is not only the State that is prohibited from
interfering ecclesiastical affairs; the Church is
likewise barred from meddling in purely secular
matters
Union of Church and State tends to destroy
government and to degrade religion

CASE: Aglipay v. Ruiz


Facts: Director of Posts announced that he would
order the issuance of postage stamps commemorating
the celebration in the City of Manila of the 33rd
International Eucharistic Congress, organized by the
Roman Catholic Church
Petitioner Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine
Independent Church, requested Vicente Sotto to
denounce the matter to the President. The Director of
Posts publicly announced having sent to the United
States the designs of the postage for printing. The
said stamps were actually issued and sold though the
greater part remained unsold.
Petitioner alleged that the provisions of Section 23,
Sub 3, Article VI, of the Constitution were violated in
the issuance and selling of the commemorative
postage stamps.
Issue: W/Nnot the issuance of stamps was in
violation of the principle of separation of church and
state
Held: NO. Religious freedom, as a constitutional

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

rural

Page 22

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

mandate, is not inhibition of profound reverence for


religion and is not denial of its influence in human
affairs.
There has been no constitutional infraction in this
case. Act No. 4052 granted the Director of Posts,
with the approval of the Sec. of Public Works and
Communications, discretion to issue postage stamps
with new designs. Even if we were to assume that
these officials made use of a poor judgment in issuing
and selling the postage stamps in question, still, the
case of the petitioner would fail to take in weight.
The court resolved to deny the petition for a writ of
prohibition.

ECONOMY
The State shall develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by
Filipinos Section 19

SUPREMACY OF CIVILIAN AUTHORITY


Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the
people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the
State and the integrity of the national territory. Section 3

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is the


protector of the people and the state
The President, a civilian official, shall be the
commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the
Philippines (external manifestation)
National Defense Act (CA No.1)
The State may require compulsory military
service and cannot be refused on the ground of
religious belief

its inhabitants to develop their resources and


contribute to the progress of the whole nation
Acquire sense of involvement that will encourage
more active participation in the direction of public
affairs as members of the body politics

PHs agreement with World Trade Organization


which requires the PH to place nationals and products
of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos
and local products
Economic Nationalism; to attain a balanced
development of economy

The State recognizes the indispensable role of the


private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed
investments. Section 20

The Constitution recognizes the private sector as a


catalyst in the development of the economy, since the
resources of the government are not enough to
develop the economy without sacrificing public
service

The State shall promote comprehensive rural


development and agrarian reform. Section 21

LOCAL AUTONOMY

The state aims to distribute land to the landless to


promote general welfare of the people

Provisions serves to demonstrate the desire of


framers to clutter the Constitution which should be
limited only to general statements in concise and
clear language

The State shall ensure the autonomy of local


governments. Section 25

Article X of the 1987 Constitution entitled Local


Government
Local Government Code
Self-governing State
Concept: giving the local government units not only
more and greater powers but also providing them
with ampler means and resources in order to enable
them to meet their enlarged responsibilities
Vitalization of the local government unit will enable

MISCELLANEOUS

Presumably incorporated in the fundamental law only


to accommodate authors and their ideas at the
expense of the quality and nature of the Constitution

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 23

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

The State shall protect and promote the right to health of


the people and instill health consciousness among them.
Section 15 [RH Bill topic]
The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature. Section 16 [Environmental
issue]
The State shall give priority to education, science and
technology, arts, culture and sports to foster patriotism and
nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total
human liberation and development. Section 17

The policy giving priority to education is embodied


in the enactment of RA No. 6655 mandating free
elementary and high school education

The State recognizes and promotes the rights of


indigenous cultural communities within the framework of
national unity and development. Section 22
Group refers to those non-dominant groups who want
to preserve their ethnic, religious or linguistic
traditions that are different from others
The State shall encourage non-governmental,
community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the
welfare
of
the
nation.

Section
23
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribe by law, the
State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure
of all its transactions involving public interest. Section 28

The right of the public on information of public


concern is not absolute because it is subject to
reasonable conditions that may be prescribed by law.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 24

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CHAPTER
CHAPTER 6:
SEPARATION OF POWERS
The three great branches of Government has
exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling
within its own constitutionally allocated sphere.

CHECKS AND BALANCES

BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
Executive enforce and administer laws
Legislative propose, enact, amend and repeal laws
Judiciary interpret laws

Purpose: To prevent the concentration of authority in one


person or group of persons that might lead to irreparable error
or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican
institution. It promotes INTERDEPENDENCE.
CASE: Pangasinan Transport Co. vs. Public Service
Commission
Issues: W/N the legislative power granted to Public
Service Commission is unconstitutional and void
because it is without limitation
W/N it constitutes undue delegation of power
Held: The challenged provisions of Commonwealth
Act No. 454 are valid and constitutional because it is
a proper delegation of legislative power, so called
Subordinate Legislation. It is a valid delegation
because of the growing complexities of modern
government, the complexities or multiplication of
the subjects of governmental regulation and the
increased difficulty of administering the laws. All
that has been delegated to the Commission is the
administrative function, involving the use of
discretion to carry out the will of the National
Assembly having in view, in addition, the promotion
of public interests in a proper and suitable manner.

Refers to instances when powers are assigned to or


shared by several departments.
Powers are not confined exclusively to or shared by
several departments
Examples:

Allows one department to resist encroachments upon


its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excesses
committed by the other departments
Counteraction the ends of government are better
achieved through the exercise by its agencies of only
powers assigned to them
Examples:
Law-making Power of Congress Vetoed by the
President and then may be overridden by the
Congress
Refusal of Congress to Amnesties and Treaties
made by the President
President may grant pardon to criminals
convicted by Supreme Court
Congress may limit jurisdiction of Supreme
Court
Supreme Court may invalidate act done by
Congress, the President and his subordinates, or
the Constitutional Commission

ROLE OF JUDICIARY

BLENDING OF POWERS

Power of Appointment
General Appropriations Law
Grant of Amnesty by the President
Deputation of Law Enforcement Agencies and
Instrumentalities of the Government

They uphold the supremacy of the constitution


First and Safest CRITERION: whether or not the
power in question, regardless of its nature, has been
constitutionally conferred upon the department
claiming its exercise
Example:
Power to impeach essentially Executive
Power to try and decide impeachment cases
Congress

DOCTRINE OF IMPLICATION
Grant of an express power carries with it all other
powers that may be reasonably inferred from it

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 25

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CASE: Angara vs. Electoral Commission


Issues: W/N the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over
the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of
the controversy upon the foregoing related facts, and
in the affirmative
Ruling: In the case at bar, here is then presented an
actual controversy involving as it does a conflict of a
grave constitutional nature between the National
Assembly
on
one
hand,
and
the Electoral Commission on the other. Although the
Electoral Commission may not be interfered with,
when and while acting within the limits of its
authority, it does not follow that it is beyond the
reach of the constitutional mechanism adopted by the
people and that it is not subject to constitutional
restrictions.
The Electoral Commission is not a separate
department of the government, and even if it were,
conflicting claims of authority under the fundamental
law between departmental powers and agencies of the
government are necessarily determined by the
judiciary in justiciable and appropriate cases.
CASE: Arnault v. Nazareno
Issue: W/N either House of Congress has the power
to punish a person not a member for contempt
Held: YES, Once an inquiry is admitted or
established to be within the jurisdiction of a
legislative body to make, the investigating committee
has the power to require a witness to answer any
question pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to
his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the
legislative body to make, must be material or
necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by
the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to expel a
Member; and every question which the investigator is
empowered to coerce a witness to answer must be
material or pertinent to the subject of the inquiry or
investigation. So a witness may not be coerced to
answer a question that obviously has no relation to
the subject of the inquiry.
Note that, the fact that the legislative body has
jurisdiction or the power to make the inquiry would
not preclude judicial intervention to correct a clear
abuse of discretion in the exercise of that power.

JUSTICIABLE QUESTIONS

Implies a given right, legally demandable and


enforceable

An act or omission violative of such right


Remedy granted and sanctioned by law
Right that is ENFORCEABLE

POLITICAL QUESTIONS

When matter falls under the discretion of other


department or especially the people themselves
A question of public policy
Question which, under the constitution, are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity
Associated with the WISDOM, not the legality of a
particularly
May not be subject of judicial review

CASE: Taada v. Angara


Issue: W/N the provisions of the Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization and the
Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments
included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of
that agreement cited by petitioners directly
contravene or undermine the letter, spirit and intent
of Section 19, Article II and Sections 10 and 12,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
Held: The question thus posed is judicial rather than
political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure
that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld.
Once a controversy as to the application or
interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised
before this Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a
legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional
mandate to decide.
What the Senate did was a valid exercise of its
authority. As to whether such exercise was wise,
beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial
inquiry and review. That is a matter between the
elected policy makers and the people.

CASE: Noblejas v. Teehankee


Issue: Whether the Commissioner of Land
Registratoin may only be investigated by the
Supreme Court (in view of his having a rank
equivalent to a judge)

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 26

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Ruling: If the law had really intended to include the


general grant of rank and privileges equivalent to
Judges, the right to be investigated and be
suspended or removed only by the Supreme Court,
then such grant of privileges would be
unconstitutional, since it would violate the doctrine
of separation of powers because it would charge the
Supreme Court with an administrative function of
supervisory control over executive officials,
simultaneously reducing pro tanto, the control of the
Chief Executive over such officials.
There is no inherent power in the Executive or
Legislative to charge the Judiciary with
administrative functions except when reasonable
incidental to the fulfillment of judicial duties.
The judiciary cannot give decisions which are merely
advisory, nor can it exercise or participate in the
exercise of functions which are essentially legislative
or administrative. The Supreme Court and its
members should not and cannot be required to
exercise any power or to perform any trust or to
assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with
the administration of judicial functions.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 27

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CHAPTER 7:
DELEGATION OF POWERS

PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF
POWERS

Principle of Agency the general rule is that what


has been delegated cannot be delegated
Exceptions:
a. Constitution provides and authorizes the
delegation;
b. By immemorial practice of delegating legislative
power to local governments. It based upon the
ethical principle that such delegated power
constitutes not only a right but a duty to be
performed by the delegated through the
instrumentality of his own judgment and not
through the intervening mind of another.

PERMISSIBLE DELEGATION

Delegation in the legislative powers is permitted in


the following cases:
a. Delegation of tariff powers to the President
b. Delegation of emergency powers to the President
c. Delegation to the people at large
d. Delegation to local governments
e. Delegation to administrative bodies

EMERGENCY POWERS
Article 23(2) states that, in times of war and
national emergency, the Congress may authorize the President
subject to the limited period and restrictions prescribed by
Congress to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry
out a declared national policy.

TARIFF POWERS
Article VI Section 28(2), the Congress by law may
authorize the President to fix tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues and other duties withing
the framework of national development subject to the
limitations and restrictions provided by the Congress.

Emergency power is self-liquidating it ceases when


there is no more emergency
Not likely that quorum can be convened to enable it
to do business
Must be solved within the shortest possible time
No emergency, no delegation

CONDITIONS FOR VESTURE OF EMERGENCY


POWERS
1.
2.
3.
4.

Presence of war or other national emergency


Delegation is for a limited period
Delegation is subject to restrictions prescribed by
Congress
Emergency powers are exercised to carry out national
policy declared by Congress

DELEGATION TO THE PEOPLE

Purpose: Growth of society; Legislature may not


have the competence to provide the required
solutions

The President is granted stand-by or flexible tariff


powers
Reason: Necessity of giving the chief executive the
authority to act immediately on certain matters
affecting national economy

People surrendered law-making power to Congress


when they adopted the Constitution
The function of legislation cannot be exercised by the
people even to the extent of accepting or rejecting a
law which has been framed for their consideration
Except: Where the people have expressly reserved
themselves a power of decision through:
Referendum
Plebiscite

REFERENDUM

Method of submitting an important legislative


measure to a direct vote of the whole people

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 28

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

PLEBISCITE

Literally means decree of the people


Device to obtain a direct popular vote on matter of
political importance to create more or less permanent
political condition

DELEGATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Municipalities, Cities, Provinces, Barangay

Local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the


national lawmaking body on matters of purely local
concern.
Local affairs shall be managed by local authorities
and general affairs by the central authority
Grant of authority to prescribe local regulations
Example: Eminent domain & General welfare clause
police power expressly delegated by the
legislature to the local law-making bodies

DELEGATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

Power of Subordinate Legislation what is delegated


is not the law-making power but the rule-making or
law execution power under the two theories:
Administrative bodies may implement the broad
policies laid down in a statute by filling in the
details which the Congress is not competent to
provide (E.g. Supplementary regulations)

CONTINGENT REGULATION

It is effected through supplementary regulation such


as implementing rules and regulations which have the
force and effect of law
Allowed to ascertain the existence of particular
contingencies and on the basis thereof enforce or
suspend the operation of law

CASE: Cruz v. Youngberg


Facts: Petitioner Mauricio Cruz brought a petition
before the Court of First Instance of Manila for the
issuance of a writ of mandatory injunction against the
respondent Director of the Bureau of Animal
Industry, Stanton Youngberg, requiring him to issue a

permit for the landing of ten large cattle imported by


the petitioner and for the slaughter thereof.
Cruz attacked the constitutionality of Act No. 3155,
which at present prohibits the importation of cattle
from foreign countries into the Philippine Islands. He
also asserted that the sole purpose of the enactment
was to prevent the introduction of cattle diseases
in the country. The respondent asserted that the
petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action.
Issue: W/N Act No. 3155 is unconstitutional
W/N the lower court erred in not holding that the
power given by Act No. 3155 to the GovernorGeneral to suspend or not, at his discretion, the
prohibition provided in the act constitutes an
unlawful delegation of the legislative powers
Ruling: No. The latter was passed by the Legislature
to protect the cattle industry of the country and to
prevent the introduction of cattle diseases through
importation of foreign cattle. It is now generally
recognized that the promotion of industries affecting
the public welfare and the development of the
resources of the country are objects within the scope
of the police power. The Government of the
Philippine Islands has the right to the exercise of the
sovereign police power in the promotion of the
general welfare and the public interest. At the time
the Act No. 3155 was promulgated there was
reasonable necessity therefore and it cannot be said
that the Legislature exceeded its power in passing the
Act.
No. The true distinction is between the delegation of
power to make the law, which necessarily involves
discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an
authority or discretion as to its execution, to be
exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first
cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be
made. There is no unlawful delegation of legislative
power in the case at bar.

TESTS OF DELEGATION

To ensure that the power to be delegated is not lawmaking but merely law execution.
To be valid, the delegation itself must be
circumscribed by legislative restrictions and not a
roving commission that will give the delegate
unlimited legislative authority effecting a total
surrender by the legislature of its prerogatives in
favor of the delegate.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 29

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

COMPLETENESS TEST

Complete in all its essential terms and conditions


where nothing is left for the delegated to do except to
enforce it.
Invalid delegation If there is a gap that will prevent
its enforcement unless they are first filled, the
delegate will be given opportunity to step into the
shoes of legislature to repair omissions

CASE: US v. Ang Tang Ho


On 30 July 1919, the Philippine Legislature (during
special session) passed and approved Act No. 2868
entitled An Act Penalizing the Monopoly and
Hoarding of Rice, Palay and Corn. The said act under
extraordinary circumstances authorizes the Governor
General to issue the necessary Rules and Regulations
in regulating the distribution of such products.
Pursuant to this Act.
On 1 August 1919, the GG issued EO 53 which was
published on 20 August 1919. The said EO fixed the
price at which rice should be sold. On the other hand,
Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer, voluntarily, criminally
and illegally sold a ganta of rice to Pedro Trinidad at
the price of eighty centavos. The said amount was
way higher than that prescribed by the EO.
The sale was done on the 6th of August 1919. On 08
August 1919, he was charged in violation of the said
EO. He was found guilty as charged and was
sentenced to 5 months imprisonment plus a P500.00
fine. He appealed the sentence countering that there
is an undue delegation of power to the Governor
General.
Issue: W/N there is undue delegation to the Governor
General.
Held: Ang Tang Hos conviction must be reversed
because he committed the act prior to the publication
of the EO. Hence, he cannot be ex post facto charged
of the crime. Further, one cannot be convicted of a
violation of a law or of an order issued pursuant to
the law when both the law and the order fail to set up
an ascertainable standard of guilt.
The said Act, as to the judgment of the SC, wholly
fails to provide definitely and clearly what the
standard policy should contain, so that it could be put
in use as a uniform policy required to take the place
of all others without the determination of the
insurance commissioner in respect to matters
involving the exercise of a legislative discretion that
could not be delegated, and without which the act
could not possibly be put in use.

The law must be complete in all its terms and


provisions when it leaves the legislative branch of the
government and nothing must be left to the judgment
of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the
legislature, so that, in form and substance, it is a law
in all its details in presenti, but which may be left to
take effect in future, if necessary, upon the
ascertainment of any prescribed fact or event.

SUFFICIENCY STANDARD TEST


Intended to map out the boundaries of the delegates
authority by defining the legislative policy and
indicating the circumstances under which it is to be
pursued and effected. (Examples: justice and equity,
national security, sense and experience of men)

CASE: People v. Vera


Facts: Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in
Manila. He filed for reconsideration which was
elevated to the SC. While awaiting a new trial, he
appealed for probation alleging that he us innocent of
the crime he was convicted of. Judge Tuason of the
Manila CFI directed the appeal to the Insular
Probation Office. The IPO denied the application.
However, Judge Vera upon another request by the
petitioner allowed the petition to be ser for hearing.
The City prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has
no power to place Cu under probation because it is
violation of Sec. 11 Act No. 4221 which provides
that the act of Legislation granting provincial boards
the power to provide a system of probation to
convicted person. Nowhere in the law s stated that
the law is applicable to a city like Manila because it
is only indicated therein that only provinces are
covered. The said law provides absolute discretion
to provincial boards and this also constitutes
undue delegation of power.
Issue: W/N there is undue delegation of power
Held: The provincial boards are given absolute
discretion which is a violation of the Constitution and
the doctrine of non-delegation of power.
There is undue delegation of power because there is
no standard provided by Congress on how provincial
boards must act in carrying out a system of probation.

CASE: Pelaez v. Auditor-General


Facts: From Sept 04 to Oct 29, 1964, the President
(Marcos) issued executive orders creating 33
municipalities this is purportedly in pursuant to Sec
68 of the Revised Administrative Code which

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 30

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

provides that the President of the Philippines may by


executive order define the boundary, or boundaries,
of any province, sub-province, municipality,
[township] municipal district or other political
subdivision, and increase or diminish the territory
comprised therein, may divide any province into one
or more subprovinces
The VP Emmanuel Pelaez and a taxpayer filed a
special civil action to prohibit the auditor general
from disbursing funds to be appropriated for the said
municipalities. Pelaez claims that the EOs are
unconstitutional. He said that Sec 68 of the RAC has
been impliedly repealed by Sec 3 of RA 2370 which
provides that barrios may not be created or their
boundaries altered nor their names changed except
by Act of Congress or of the corresponding
provincial board upon petition of a majority of the
voters in the areas affected and the
recommendation of the council of the municipality
or municipalities in which the proposed barrio is
situated.
Issue: W/N Congress has delegated the power to
create barrios to the President by virtue of Sec 68 of
the RAC.
Held: Although Congress may delegate to another
branch of the government the power to fill in the
details in the execution, enforcement or
administration of a law, it is essential, to forestall a
violation of the principle of separation of powers, that
said law:
(a) be complete in itself it must set forth therein
the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented
by the delegate and
(b) fix a standard the limits of which are
sufficiently determinate or determinable to which
the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions. Indeed, without a statutory declaration of
policy, the delegate would, in effect, make or
formulate such policy, which is the essence of every
law; and, without the aforementioned standard, there
would be no means to determine, with reasonable
certainty, whether the delegate has acted within or
beyond the scope of his authority.
In the case at bar, the power to create municipalities
is eminently legislative in character not
administrative.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 31

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CHAPTER 8:
DELEGATION OF POWERS

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Sec. 1, Art. 6 of the Constitution indicates that the


legislative power does not exclusively lie in the
Congress, in view of the reservation made regarding
initiative and referendum.

INITIATIVE
Power of the people to propose bills and laws, and to
enact or reject them at the polls, independent of the
legislative assembly
REFERENDUM
Right reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act
or measure which has been passed by a legislative
body
Method of submitting an important legislative
measure to a direct vote of the whole body
NON-LEGISLATIVE POWERS BUT LODGED IN
CONGRESS
The Congress also discharges powers of a nonlegislative nature, among them are:
Canvass of the presidential elections;
The declaration of the existence of a state of
war;
The confirmation of amnesties;
Presidential appointments (through the
Commission on Appointments);
The amendment or revision of the
Constitution, and;
Impeachment.

SENATE

COMPOSITION
Sec. 2 of Art.6 states that: The Senate shall be
composed of 24 Senators who shall be elected at
large by the qualified voters of the Philippines.

This rule intends to make the Senate a training


ground for national leaders and possibly a springboard to the Presidency.
The feeling is that the Senator, will have a broader
outlook of the problems of the country instead of
being restricted by parochial viewpoints and narrow
interests.
The Senate is likely to be more circumspect and
broad-minded than the House of Representatives.

QUALIFICATIONS
Sec. 3, Art. 6 states the qualifications for
membership in the Senate, who must be:
A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
At least 35 years old;
Able to read and write
A registered voter;
A resident of the Philippines for not less
than 2 years immediately preceding the day
of the election.
According to Art. 4, Sec.2, of the Constitution:
natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3,
Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

The age of qualification must be possessed on the day


of the elections.
Residence is to be defined as the place where one
habitually resides and to which, when he is absent, he
has the intention of returning.
The qualifications prescribed are continuing
requirements and they must be possessed for the
entire duration of the members incumbency.
Amend the Constitution to include additional
requirements

TERM
The term of office of the Senators shall be 6 years
and shall commence at noon on the 30th day of June
next following their election.
The first 12 obtaining the highest number of votes
shall serve for 6 years and the remaining 12 for 3
years.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 32

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

The continuity of the life of the Senate is


intended to encourage the maintenance of Senate
policies as well as guarantee that there will be
experienced members who can help and train
newcomers in the discharge of their duties.
No Senator shall serve for more than 2
consecutive terms.

QUALIFICATIONS
Naturalized-born citizen
At least twenty-five years of age
Able to read and write
Registered voter in the district in which he shall be
elected
Resident for a period of NOT LESS THAN ONE
YEAR immediately preceding the election day

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMPOSITION
The HOR consists of two kinds of members:
District Representatives, who are elected
directly and personally, and;
Party-list Representatives, who are chosen
indirectly through the party they represent.

NOTE: Residence requirement is to ensure familiarity with


the conditions and problems of constituency sought to be
represented.

PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES

DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES

The HOR shall be composed of not more than 250


members, elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities and the
Metro Manila area in accordance with the number of
their respective inhabitants
Basis: Uniform and progressive ratio
Districts:
Provinces
Cities
Metropolitan Manila
Each city with a population of at least 250,000 or
each province, shall have at least 1 district
representative
The initial apportionment shall be subject to
adjustment by the Congress within 3 years after the
return of every enumeration to make the
representation of the entire nation as equitable as
possible.

GERRYMANDERING
The arrangement of districts in such a way as to favor
the election of preferred candidates through the
inclusion therein only of those areas where they
expect to win.

20% of the total membership of the HOR. For 3


consecutive terms, one-half of the seats allocated to
party-list representatives shall be filled, by election or
selection from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth and
such other sectors, except the religious sector.
Basis: Proportional representation
Marginalized sectors:
Labor
Peasant
Fisher-folks
Urban poor
Indigenous cultural communities
Elderly
Handicapped
Women
Youth
Veteran
Overseas workers and professionals

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Not later than 90 days before Election Day, any
political party, organization, coalition may file a
verified petition through its presidents or secretary
for its participation in the party-list system, attaching
a copy of its constitution, by laws, platform, and list
of officers.
The group shall also submit to the COMELEC at
least 5 names from which its representatives may be

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 33

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes


(with written consent).
Every voter shall be entitled to 2 votes: 1 for the
candidate for member of the HOR in his legislative
district and 1 for the party or organization he wants
represented in the HOR.
The participants in the party-list system shall
be ranked according to the number of votes
they received, with those getting at least 2%
of the total votes cast for the system being
entitled to one seat each.
Those obtaining more than 2% shall be
given additional seats, but none of them
shall have more than 3 seats.
Party-list representatives shall have the same
rights and are subject to the same inhibitions
and disqualifications as the district
representative. EXCEPT, when any partylist representative changes his political party
during his term of office, he shall forfeit his
seat.

TERM
Article VI, Section 7. The Members of the House of
Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years
which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon
on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
No Member of the House of Representatives shall
serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service
for the full term for which he was elected.

Term Office/Limit: 3 years, commencing at noon on


the 30th day of June next following their election.
Maximum number of terms 3 terms or 9 years.
Voluntary renunciation of office shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected
Purpose: To synchronize elections

ELECTIONS
Article VI, Sec. 6 No person shall be a Member of
the House of Representatives unless he is a naturalized-born
citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the elections, is at
least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and
except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the
district in which he shall be elected, resident thereof for a
period of not less than one year immediately preceding the
day of the election.

QUALIFICATIONS
Naturalized-born citizen
At least twenty-five years of age but not more than
thirty years old on the day of the election
Able to read and write
Registered voter
Resident of the Philippines for a period of NOT
LESS THAN ONE YEAR immediately preceding the
day of the election
Must be a bona fide member of the party at least 90
days preceding the election day

For Members of HOR: all members shall be up for


election every three years
For Senate: one-half of the Senate shall be up for
election every three years
In case of vacancy, special election may be called to
fill in such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law,
but the elected official shall serve only for the
unexpired term

SALARIES

The salaries of Senators and Members of HOR shall


be determined by law
o No increase until after the expiration of
full term of all the Members of the Senate
and HOR approving such increase
*decrease is not prohibited, even during the
term
No prohibition against receipt of allowances

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 34

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

*seeks to avoid recurrence of abuse in the


allotment of allowances which were refused
to be divulged to the people
Shall be open to public inspection and audited by
Commission on Audit
Reduction of salaries is not prohibited

PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES

Article VI, Section 11. A Senator or Member of the


House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by
not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from
arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be
questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any
speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee
thereof.

Purpose:
to ensure representation of the constituents of the
member of Congress by preventing attempts to
keep him from attending its sessions;
enables legislator to express views without fear
of inability to support his statements with
evidence

PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST

Civil arrests
Criminal offenses punishable by not more
than 6 years imprisonment
May be arrested even when House is in
session, for crimes punishable by a penalty
for more than 6 years
Immunity applies only while Congress is in
session entire period from its initial
convening until final adjournment

PRIVILEGE OF SPEECH AND DEBATE

Requirements:
1st Remarks must be made while the
legislature or the legislative committee
is functioning

2nd Must be made in connection with


the discharge of official duties

CASE: Jimenez v. Cabangbang


Facts: The defendant, Bartolome Cabangbang, a
member of the House of Representatives and
Chairman of its Committee on National Defense,
published an open letter to the President that was in
several newspapers of general circulation in the
Philippines. The letter contained allegations against
AFP officers, with aid of some political strategists,
that deemed to have three operational plans.
The first plan was said to be an insidious plan or a
massive political build-up. The second, a coup
dtat and the third was a modification of Plan no.
1 The letter also included recommendations to ask a
number of government officials to resign from their
positions. The plaintiffs, who were those mentioned
in the letter filed a case to recover damages, claiming
that said letter was libelous.
Issues: W/N the publication was a privileged
communication.
W/N the said letter was libelous as to entitle the
plaintiffs for damages
Ruling: The letter or publication in question was not
a privileged communication as those specified in the
Constitution wherein a Congressman is privileged
from arrest from any speech or debate uttered
during sessions of the Congress.
Such speech or debate only referred to utterances
made during the performance of their official
functions as members of the Congress, whether in or
out of the halls of the Congress. The publication of
said letter was ruled as not a performance of the
defendants official duty.
The Court held that the letter in question is not
sufficient to support plaintiffs action for damages
since the letter clearly implied that plaintiffs were not
among the planners of said coup detat.

CASE: Osmena v. Pendatun


Facts: Congressman Sergio Osmena, Jr. was found
guilty of serious disorderly behavior and was
suspended from office for 15 months. The reason was
due to Osmenas speech which he delivered during a
session in Congress, stating serious imputations of
bribery against the President. In which, Osmena
wasnt also able to prove.
Osmena contended that the Constitution gave him
complete parliamentary immunity, in which he ought
not to be questioned; that his speech constituted no

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 35

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

disorderly behavior; and, that the House had no


power to suspend its members.
Issue: Whether or not the claims of Osmena against
his suspension are correct.
Ruling: It was held by the Court that parliamentary
immunity of the members of the Congress was not
absolute. The immunity does not protect any member
from responsibility whenever his words and conduct
are considered disorderly or unbecoming a member
thereof. In addition, it was held that a personal attack
upon the President constitutes disorderly behavior.
Negating the claim of Osmena of the Houses
jurisdiction over the case, it was ruled that the
Congress has the inherent legislative prerogative of
suspension which the Constitution did not impair.
Petition was dismissed.

INCOMPATIBLE OFFICES

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Article VI, Section 12. All Members of the Senate


and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of
office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business
interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential
conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed
legislation of which they are authors.
Purpose: To reduce and prevent Members from using their
official positions for ulterior purposes

Full disclosure of their financial and business


interests is necessary for Members of Congress
They shall notify the House concerned of a potential
conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a
proposed legislation of which they are authors

INCOMPATIBLE AND
FORBIDDEN OFFICES

Article VI, Section 13. No Senator or Member of the


House of Representatives may hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term
without forfeiting his seat xxx

Prohibition from such is not absolute as he may


forfeit his seat
Prevent from owing loyalty to another branch of the
government to the detriment of the independence of
the legislature and doctrine of separation of powers
Forfeiture of legislators seat or cessation of his
tenure shall be automatic upon holding of
incompatible office.
No forfeiture shall take place if the member of
Congress holds the other government office in an ex
oficio capacity or is an extension of the legislative
position or is in aid of legislative duties (examples:
Electoral Tribunal, U.P. Board of Regents, treaty
negotiators, etc.)

Section 13. xxx Neither shall he be appointed to


any office which may have been created or the emoluments
thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.
FORBIDDEN OFFICES

Prohibition from such shall last only for the duration


of the term for which member of Congress was
elected
Office created during his term of office

Purpose: To prevent trafficking in public office

CASE: Adaza v. Pacana


Adaza, the governor and Pacana, vice-governor both
ran for a Senate position. Only Adaza won and took
his oath as a senator. Pacana automatically assumed
governorship.
Issue: W/N Adaza can serve as a member of the
Batasan and as a governor of the province
simultaneously.
Held: Adaza automatically forfeited the governorship
the moment he took his oath as a member of the
Batasang Pambasa
Section 10. A member of the National Assembly
[now Batasan Pambansa] shall not hold any other
office or employment in the government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including
government-owned
or
controlled

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 36

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

corporations, during his tenure, except that of prime


minister or member of the cabinet . . .

INHIBITIONS AND
DISQUALIFICATIONS
Sec.14. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any
court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasijudicial and other administrative bodies.

Appearance of legislator is now barred before all


courts of justice
Disqualification applies to Electoral Tribunals and
all administrative bodies
Purpose: To prevent legislator from exerting undue
influence, deliberately or not, upon the body where
he is appearing
Mere appearance is enough powers of legislator can
be exercised to reward or punish a judge deciding his
case
Prohibited appearance must be personal

Illustration: Lawyer-legislator may still engage in the


practice of his profession except when it comes to trials and
hearings before the bodies above-mentioned. The appearance
may be made not by him but by some other member of his law
office.
CASE: Puyat v. De Guzman
Facts: A legislator appeared as counsel for one of the
parties in dispute before SEC. After prohibition to
appear as counsel, legislator purchased shares in the
corporation he was to represent. He sought to
intervene as a stockholder.
Issue: W/N Fernandez, acting as a stockholder of IPI,
can appear and intervene in the SEC case without
violating the constitutional provision that an
assemblyman must not appear as counsel in such
courts or bodies
Held: No, Fernandez cannot appear before the SEC
body under the guise that he is not appearing as a
counsel. Even though he is a stockholder and that he
has a legal interest in the matter in litigation he is still
barred from appearing. He bought the stocks before
the litigation took place.
During the conference he presented himself as
counsel but because it is clearly stated that he cannot
do so under the constitution he instead presented
himself as a party of interest which is clearly a
work around and is clearly an act after the fact. A

mere work around to get himself involved in the


litigation. What could not be done directly could not
likewise be done indirectly.

INDIRECT APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL


Circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition

INTERVENTION
To enable him to appear actively in the proceeding in
some other capacity
..Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be
interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise
or special privilege granted by the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any
government-owned or controlled corporation, or its
subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in
any matter before any office of the Government for his
pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on
account of his office.

PROHIBITED
FROM
BEING
FINANCIALLY
INTERESTED IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Legislators are prohibited from being financially
interested in any contract with the government
including GOCC or in any franchise or special
privileges granted by any of these during the term of
his office.
Prohibited because of the influence they can easily
exercise in obtaining these concessions
Purpose: To prevent abuses from being committed
by the members of the Congress to the prejudice of
the public welfare and legitimate contractors who
might be placed at a disadvantageous position vis-vis legislator
NOTE: Not every transaction with the government is barred
by this provision

Contracts referred are only those involving financial


interests
Financial interests legislator expects to derive
some profit at the expense of the government

Illustration: A contract for public works or the sale of office


equipment or supplies to the government. It cannot be said that
legislator will profit financially from a contract of carriage
with a government airline since it is the carrier that will
benefit from the passengers fare.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 37

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

.. He shall not intervene in any matter before any


office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he
may be called upon to act on account of his office.

SENATE PRESIDENT & SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE


No fixed term and may be replaced at any time at the
pleasure of the majority; continued incumbency
depends upon the partisan alignments of their
colleagues

Illustration: Congressman expediting the collection of civil


servants retirement checks for a stipulated fee.

SESSIONS
Sec.15. The Congress shall convene once every year
on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a
different date is fixed by law, ad shall continue to be in session
for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days
before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may
call a special session at any time.
MANDATORY RECESS
Prescribed for the 30-day period before the opening
of the next regular session, excluding Saturdays,
Sundays and legal holidays.
30-day period minimum period of recess and may
be lengthened by Congress in its discretion; may be
called in special session at any time by the President
It may be called in special session at any time by the
President
PRESIDENTS CALL NOT NECESSARY
When Congress meets to canvass the Presidential
election
When both Presidency and the Vice-Presidency are
vacated
When it decides to exercise the power impeachment
(particularly where the respondent is the President
himself)

OFFICERS
Sec.16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and
the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of
all its respective Members.
Each house shall choose such other officers as it may
deem necessary.

OTHER OFFICERS
Not part of Constitution: Senate President pro
tempore, Speaker pro tempore, Majority and
Minority floor leaders, Chairmen of various standing
and special committees and Secretary and Sergeantat-arms (last 2 are non-members of the legislature)
Congress in accordance with their rules chose such
officers

QUORUM
Sec.16. (2) A majority of each House shall
constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may
adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of the
absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as
such House may provide.

Quorum based on between those physically present


and the total number or membership of the body; any
number sufficient to transact business which may be
less than the majority of the membership
In our Constitution, it is required that quorum be a
majority of each House

DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS
Sec.16. (3) Each House may determine the rules of
its own proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and with the concurrence of 2/3 of all its Members,
suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when
imposed, shall not exceed 60 days.

Purpose: For the orderly conduct of the sessions of


the Congress
Unless such rules violate fundamental or individual
rights, they are within the exclusive jurisdiction of
each House to formulate or interpret and may not be
judicially reversed.
Inherent power even without the provision, such
authority may still be exercised by each House with
the concurrence of a majority vote
Courts may annul:

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 38

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

any expulsion or suspension of a


member that is not concurred by at least
2/3 of entire body
any suspension meted out by the
legislature, even with required 2/3 vote,
in excess of the 60-day maximum
duration
*Such are procedural matters therefore justiciable.

DISORDERLY BEHAVIOR
Prerogative of Congress and cannot be judicially
reviewed; matter of political question
Disciplinary measures imposed by Congress:
expulsion and suspension
deletion of parliamentary remarks from the
record
fine
imprisonment
censure (sometimes called soft impeachment)

CASE: Alejandrino v. Quezon


Facts: A resolution was adopted by the Philippine
Senate composed of the respondent Senators, on
February 5, 1924, depriving Senator Alejandrino of
all the prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments of
his office for the period of one year from the first of
January, 1924.
Jose Alejandrino, Senator for the Twelfth District, be,
as he is hereby declared guilty of disorderly conduct
and flagrant violation of the privileges of the Senate
for having treacherously assaulted the Honorable
Vicente de Vera, Senator for the Sixth District on the
occasion of the debate regarding the credentials of
said Mr. Alejandrino
Issue: W/N resolution above quoted is
unconstitutional and entirely of no effect, for five
reasons.
Held: Supreme Court does not possess the power of
coercion to make the Philippine Senate take any
particular action. Judiciary is not the repository of all
wisdom and all power. We rule that neither the
Philippine Legislature nor a branch thereof can be
directly controlled in the exercise of their legislative
powers by any judicial process.
The court accordingly lacks jurisdiction to consider
the petition and the demurrer must be sustained.

JOURNALS
Sec.16. (4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its
proceedings, and from time to time publish the same,
excepting such pasrts as may, in its judgement, affect national
security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the
request of 1/5 of the Members present, be entered in the
Journal.
Each House shall also keep a Record of its
proceedings.

Purposes:
To authenticate proceedings
To interpret laws through the study of debates
held thereon
To provide proof of what actually transpired in
the legislation
To inform the people of the official conduct of
their respective legislators

Constitution requires that journals and records be


published from time to time
Exception: Parts that may affect national security
not to be divulged to public
In line with constitutional guarantee right to
information on matters of public concern

JOURNAL
Minutes of what transpired during a legislative
session

RECORD
Word-for-word transcript of the proceedings taken
during the session

ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE

Shall always prevail over records and journals


Official copy of the approved legislation & bears the
certification of presiding officers of legislative body
Conclusive upon courts as regards the tenor of
measure passed by Congress & approved by
President
Duly introduced, finally passed by both Houses,
signed by proper officers of each, approved by the
President and filed by Secretary of the State

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 39

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CASE: Casco Chemical Co. v. Gimenez


Facts: Casco Chemical Co., which is engaged in the
manufacture of synthetic resin glues used in bonding
lumber and veneer by plywood and hardwood
producers, bought foreign exchange for the
importation of urea and formaldehyde which are the
main raw materials in the production of the said
glues. They paid P33,765.42 in November and
December 1949 and P6345.72 in May 1960.
Prior thereto, the petitioner sought the refund of the
first and second sum relying upon Resolution No.
1529 of the Monetary Board of said bank, dated
November 3, 1959, declaring that the separate
importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt from
said fee. The Auditor of the Bank, Pedro Gimenez,
refused to pass in audit and approve the said refund
on the ground that the exemption granted by the
board in not in accord with the provision of section 2
of RA 2609.
Issue: W/N Urea and formaldehyde are exempt by
law from the payment of the margin fee.
Held: No, it is not exempt from payment of the
marginal fee. Urea formaldehyde is clearly a finished
product which is distinct from urea and
formaldehyde.
The petitioners contends that the bill approved in
Congress contained the conjunction and between
the terms urea and formaldehyde separately as
essential elements in the manufacture of urea
formaldehyde and not the latter. But this is not
reflective of the view of the Senate and the intent of
the House of Representatives in passing the bill. If
there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill
before it was passed the only remedy is by
amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial
decree.

CASE: Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance


Facts: RA 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded
Value-Added Tax Law, is an act that seeks to widen
the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance
its administration by amending the National Internal
Revenue Code. There are various suits questioning
and challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716 on
various grounds.
Tolentino contends that RA 7716 did not originate
exclusively from the House of Representatives but is
a mere consolidation of HB. No. 11197 and SB. No.
1630 and it did not pass three readings on separate
days on the Senate thus violating Article VI, Sections
24 and 26(2) of the Constitution, respectively.

Issue: W/N RA 7716 violated Art. VI, Section 24 and


Art. VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution.
Held: No. The phrase originate exclusively refers
to the revenue bill and not to the revenue law. It is
sufficient that the House of Representatives initiated
the passage of the bill which may undergo extensive
changes in the Senate.
SB. No. 1630, having been certified as urgent by the
President need not meet the requirement not only of
printing but also of reading the bill on separate days.

CASE: Astorga v. Villegas


Facts: HB No. 9266 was passed. Sen. Tolentino
made substantial amendments which were approved
by the Senate. The House, without notice of said
amendments, thereafter signed its approval until all
the presiding officers of both houses certified and
attested to the bill. The President also signed it and
thereupon became RA 4065.
Senator Tolentino made a press statement that the
enrolled copy of House Bill No. 9266 was a wrong
version of the bill because it did not embody the
amendments introduced by him and approved by the
Senate. Both the Senate President and the
President withdrew their signatures and denounced
RA 4065 as invalid. Petitioner argued that the
authentication of the presiding officers of the
Congress is conclusive proof of a bills due
enactment.
Issue: W/N HB No. 9266 is considered enacted and
valid
Held: Since both the Senate President and the Chief
Executive withdrew their signatures therein, the court
declared that the bill was not duly enacted
and therefore did not become a law.
The Constitution requires that each House shall keep
a journal. An importance of having a journal is that in
the absence of attestation or evidence of the bills
due enactment, the court may resort to the journals of
the Congress to verify such. Where the journal
discloses that substantial amendment were introduced
and approved and were not incorporated in the
printed text sent to the President for signature, the
court can declare that the bill has not been duly
enacted and did not become a law.

ADJOURNMENT

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 40

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

(5) Neither House during the sessions of the


Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for
more than three days, nor to any other place than that in
which the two Houses shall be sitting

Purpose:
Constant need for contact and consultation
between the two bodies
It is necessary that there be a prior agreement
before either of them decides to adjourn for more
than 3 days

Place

Refers not to the building, but to the political unit


where the two Houses may be sitting.

ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS

Decisions of Electoral Tribunal are not appealable to the


Supreme Court unless if there is grave abuse of discretion
(Robles vs. House of Representatives)

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
Sec. 18 There shall be a Commission on
Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex
officio Chairman, 12 senators and 12 members of the House of
Representatives, elected by each house on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and
parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall
not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on
all appointment submitted to it within 30 session days of the
Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by
a majority vote of all the Members.
COMPOSITION

Sec. 17 The Senate and the House of


Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal, which
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of their respective Members. Each
Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of 9 members, three of
whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated
by the Chief Justice, and the remaining 6 shall be Members of
the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may
be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registers under the party-list system represented
therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be
its Chairman

12 Senators
12 House of Representative Members
President of Senate = Chairman

Elected on the basis of proportional representation


Chairman shall not vote unless there is a tie
Commission shall act on all appointment submitted to
it within 30 DAYS from their submission
Ruling by majority of its members
Can only meet while the congress is in session

AD INTERIM APPOINTMENTS
COMPOSITION

9 members
o 3 Justices of SC (appointed by Chief Justice)
o 6 Members of Senate of HR (respectively)
o *Senior Justice Chairman

Should be acted upon at the time of the adjournment


of the Congress, even if the thirty day period has not
yet expired, are deemed by-passed under Article 7
Sec. 16

ORGANIZATION
IMPORTANT DOCTRINES

The Electoral Tribunal is an independent body (Taada


vs. Cuenco)

Sec. 19 The Electoral Tribunals and the


Commission on Appointments shall be constituted with 30

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 41

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall


have been organized with the election of the President and the
Speaker. The Commission on Appointment shall meet only
while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or
a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and
functions as are herein conferred upon it.

Basis: The need to enable to the President to exercise


his appointing power with dispatch in coordination
with the COA.

Issue: W/N the HRET lost its jurisdiction when


Santos filed a motion to withdraw protest thus when
they ordered the revision of the unrevised protested
ballot, they committed grave abuse of discretion.
Held: No, the mere filing of the motion to withdraw
without any action does not divest the HRET of its
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost
upon the instance of the parties but continues until
the case is terminated. No grave abuse of discretion
by the HRET.

AD INTERIM APPOINTMENTS

Permitted because COA can only meet while the


congress is in session
Subject to the confirmation or rejection of COA

WHEN CONGRESS IS IN SESSION

President must first clear his nominations with the


COA
That is why the COA has to be constituted ASAP
Unless it is organized, no appointment can be made
by the President in the meantime

ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS

Need to be organized ASAP also


Because of the rash of election contests waiting to be
filed after or even before the proclamation of winners
Can continue functioning even during recess

CASE: Robles v. HRET


Facts: Robles and Santos ran against each other as
Congressman of Caloocan. However, Santos lost. He
then filed an election protest against Robles in the
HRET. He asked that the ballots in certain specific
precincts be recounted. Soon after, he also filed an
urgent motion to recall and disregard the withdrawal
of protest. However, the HRET still pursued the
recounting of ballots. Thus, Robles files a certiorari
and temporary restraining order against the HRET in
the Supreme Court.

1-A: CHAPTER 1: BENEDICTO. DELA CRUZ. TEMANIL. 18: ORTEGA. 2: CANCIO. FRANCISCO. OBIAS. 3: DELOS SANTOS. GAPIT. PIELAGO.
4: AMANSEC. ESCASINAS PERLAS. 5: BACAY. BELARMINO. CAPISTRANO. 6: CABRERA. LUPAC. OCAMPO. TALATALA. 7: SAGMIT. SILVA.
8: DUGUIL. GALVEZ. MELGAR. UY. 9: MOLINA. SIATON.

Page 42