Professional Documents
Culture Documents
File No. 2
Gen. Rule : The State may not be sued without its consent.
Basis : Sec. 3, Art. XVI of the Constitution.
1. This rule applies not only in favor of the Philippines but also in favor
of the foreign states.
2. The rule likewise prohibits a person from filing for interpleader, with
the State as one of the defendants being compelled to interplead.
CASES
The Rice and Corn Administration (RCA) is part of the government
being in fact an office under the office of the President and therefore,
cannot be sued without the consent of the State. The consent to be
effective must come from the State, acting through a duly enacted
statute. Thus, whatever counsel for defendant RCA agreed to had no
binding force in the government. That was clearly beyond the scope
of his authority (Republic vs. Purisima, 78 SCRA 470).
Forms of Consent
1. Express consent
2. Implied consent
i) express consent
CASES
Under its charter (RA 1161, Sec. 4K) the SSS can sue and be sued.
So, if assuming that the SSS enjoys immunity from suit as an entity
performing governmental functions by virtue of the explicit provision
of the enabling law, it can be sued. The government must be deemed
to have waived immunity in respect of the SSS, although it does not
thereby concede its liability (SSS vs. CA, 120 SCRA 707).
1. When the State enters into a private contract. The contract must be
entered into by the proper officer and within the scope of his
authority. UNLESS: the contract is merely incidental to the
performance of a governmental function.
CASES
The claim for damages for the use of property against the
intervenor dependant Republic of the Philippines to which it was
transferred cannot be maintained because of the immunity of the
State from suit. The claim obviously constitutes a charge against, or
financial liability to, the Government and consequently cannot be
entertained by the courts except with the consent of the government
(Lim vs. Brownell, 107 Phil 344).
When the government takes any property for public use, which is
condition upon the payment of just compensation, to be judicially
ascertained, it makes manifest that it submits to the jurisdiction of a
court. The Court may proceed with the complaint and determine the
compensation to which the petitioner are entitle (Ministerio vs. CFI, 40
SCRA 464).
Exceptions:
Exceptions:
1. eminent domain;
2. erroneous collection of taxes; or
3. where government aggress to pay interest pursuant to law.
CASES
The rule is and has always been that all government funds
deposited in the PNB or any other official depositary of the Philippine
Government by any of its agencies or instrumentalities remain
government funds and may not be subject to garnishment or levy, in
the absence of a corresponding appropriation as required by law.
Even though the rule as to immunity of a state from suit is relaxed,
the power of the courts ends when the judgment is rendered. The
functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be
allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds
from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.
However, the rule is not absolute and admits of a well-defined
exception, that it, when there is a corresponding appropriation is
required by law. In such a case, the monetary judgment may be
legally enforced by judicial processes (City of Caloocan vs. Allarde, GR
107271, Sept. 10, 2003).
CASES
The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the
status of a foreign sovereign. The privilege of sovereign immunity in
this case was sufficiently established by the memorandum and
certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Where the plea of
immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch, it is
the duty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass the
executive arm of the government in conducting the country’s foreign
relations. Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and
administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action
relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the
receiving state which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state
for the purposes of the mission (Holy See vs. Rosario, GR 101949, December
1, 1994).
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution;
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
i) Concept,
distinguished from nationality, kinds
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption
of the 1987 Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
Natural-born citizens:
1. Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any
act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.
2. Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV, Sec. 1(3) of 1987
Constitution.
CASES
1. By birth
Effects of naturalization:
1. On the wife:
Vests citizenship on the wife who might herself be lawfully
naturalized. She need not prove her qualifications but only that she
is not disqualified (Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Comm. Of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292).
3. By marriage:
Marriage of Filipino with an alien:
General Rule: The Filipino retains Philippine
citizenship.
Exception: If, by their act or omission they are
deemed under the law to have renounce it.
CASES
2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation
Art. IV, Sec. 1 (4) states that citizens are “those whose mothers are
citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching the age of majority,
elect the Philippine citizenship.” A minor who has not had the
opportunity to elect Philippine citizenship, therefore, is still an alien,
his father being an alien. It is illogical that Delfin follow the
repatriation of his Filipino mother since he was never a Filipino,
therefore he could not reacquire it. No rule or right (even right of
mother to retain custody of a minor child) should frustrate
government's action against violators of immigration laws (Villahermosa
vs. Commissioner, 80 Phil 541).
There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by
naturalization. These ways of acquiring citizenship correspond to the
two kinds of citizens: the natural-born citizen, and the naturalized
citizen. A person who at the time of his birth is a citizen of a
particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof.
Under the 1973 Constitution definition, there were two categories of,
Filipino citizens which were not considered natural-born: (1)
those who were naturalized and (2) those born before January 17,
1973, of Filipino mothers who, upon reaching the age of majority,
elected Philippine citizenship. Those "naturalized citizens" were not
considered natural-born obviously because they were not Filipinos at
birth and had to perform an act to acquire Philippine citizenship.
Those born of Filipino mothers before the effectivity of the 1973
Constitution were likewise not considered natural-born because they
also had to perform an act to perfect their Philippine citizenship.
CASES
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter's country
the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission
they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the
illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until
then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such
rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect
the secrecy of the ballot.
Qualifications:
CASES
The right to abstain from voting for a position deserves the same
respect as the exercise of the right to vote. To compel the COMELEC
to conduct a special for the position of congressman as demanded by
petitioners would be to nullify the decisions of the voters who cast
their votes in the May 1992 elections (Caram vs. Comelec, GR No. 1052 14,
August 30, 1993).
This rule applies to those who have not lost their domicile in the
Philippines.
CASES