FOR SESSION 4

Prepare for GRADED RECITATION covering the following:

1. Continuation of session 03 outline (starting from suit against Government

agencies)

2. Additional –
a. Provision - Article II Section 1 (Republicanism)
b. Textbook - Fr. Joaquin Bernas
i. Separation of Powers – pp. 677-678
ii. Non-Delegation of Powers - pp. 685-696
c. SC Cases (see outline below)

OUTLINE
Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit (also called Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty)
- Suit against the Philippines as a State:
o Suit against Government Officers
o Suit against Government Agencies
§ Incorporated – test of suability is found in its charter (it is suable if its
charter says so, regardless of the functions it is performing) – Olizon vs.
Central Bank of the Philippines, GR L-16524, June 30, 1964;
§ Unincorporated –
• If governmental function – no suit without consent – Bureau of
Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Association, GR L-
15751, Jan. 28, 1961;
• If proprietary function – suit will lie
o Exception – no suit without consent when the act was a
necessary incident to its governmental function – Mobil
Philippines Exploration Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service,
GR L-23139, Dec. 17, 1966;
- Waiver of Immunity (Legislature)
- Forms of Consent
o Express
• Act No. 3083 – Philippine government "consents and submits to be
sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from
contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil
action between private parties."
• Procedure –
o Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by PD 1445 (and
Article IX-A, Section 7, Constitution) - Sayson vs.
Singzon, GR L-30044, Dec. 19, 1973;
o Must not perpetrate an injustice - Amigable vs. Cuenca,
GR L-26400, Feb. 29, 1972;
§ Special Law
o Implied
§ When the State itself commences litigation; or
§ When it enters into contract –
• U.S. vs. Ruiz, GR L-35645, May 22, 1985;
• U.S. vs. Guinto, GR 76607, Feb. 26, 1990;
• Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 129406, March 6, 2006;
 - Suability vs. Liability – Merritt vs. Government, GR L-11154, Mar. 21, 1916;
- Suability vs. Execution – Commissioner of Public Highways vs. San Diego, GR L-30098,
Feb. 18, 1970;

SEPARATION OF POWERS:

A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND – PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

- 1935 Constitution
- 1973 Constitution
- 1987 Constitution

B. ARTICLE II, SECTION 1 - DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE

- Republicanism
o Manifestations of Republicanism
§ OURS IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN
(Villavicencio vs. Lukban, GR L-14639, March 25, 1919);
§ Rule of the majority (Plurality in elections)
§ Accountability of public officials
§ Bill of Rights
§ Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws
§ SEPARATION OF POWERS
§ NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

Ø Under 1987 Constitution

Ø Why is it observed in our Government?
Ø What is the purpose?
Ø Acc. to Justice Laurel,
- to secure action
- to forestall overaction
- to prevent despotism
- to obtain efficiency
Ø To be understood not as INDEPENDENCE but INTERDEPENDENCE
Ø Doctrine of Blending of Powers
Ø Doctrine of Checks and Balances, Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013
(note: case involves various issues, but focus only on issue about “checks and
balances”);

Ø Which department ensures the constitutional distribution of powers?

- Does it mean such department is superior to the other departments?
• Angara vs. Electoral Commission (see session 2);
• Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima, GR 166715, Aug. 14, 2008;
• Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013 (note: case involves
various issues, but focus only on issue about “separation of
powers”);

v WHAT IS THE TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GIVEN POWER HAS

BEEN VALIDLY EXERCISED BY A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT?

Ø FIRST, SC determines whether the power has been constitutionally conferred

upon the department. Conferment of power is either: EXPRESS, IMPLIED,
INHERENT OR INCIDENTAL;

Ø SECOND, after sustaining the exercise of power (meaning, there is

determination of valid constitutional grant of power to exercise), the SC’s
official action does not stop there; it now then determines whether the act in
 question had been performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the
constitution.
- But you should qualify whether the question involved is Justiciable or
Political –
o JUSTICIABLE VS. POLITICAL QUESTIONS?
o TRULY POLITICAL QUESTIONS VS. NOT TRULY
POLITICAL QUESTIONS?
• Francisco vs. HR (see session 2)
• Tanada vs. Angara GR 118295, May 2, 1997
• Defensor vs. Guingona GR 134577, Nov. 18, 1998
• Vinuya vs. Exec. Secretary, GR 162230, April 28, 2010
• Arigo vs. Swift, GR 206510, Sept. 16, 2014
• Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013

PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

Ø General rule is non-delegation

• Potestas Delegata Non Potest Delegare
• Jaworski vs. PAGCOR, GR 144463, Jan. 14, 2004;
• Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013 (note: case
involves various issues, but focus only on issue about “non-
delegability of legislative power”);

Ø Not absolute, because there are exceptions (PERMISSIBLE

DELEGATIONS) – take note of the permissible delegations!

Ø Tests of Delegation
1. Again, general rule is, there is non-delegation of powers;
2. But there are exceptions, where powers can be permissibly delegated;
3. Assuming it falls under the exception, you still have to determine
whether these exceptions (permissible delegations) has been validly
made;
4. To be valid, delegation itself must be circumscribed by legislative
restrictions (otherwise, delegation is tantamount to abdication of
legislative authority, a total surrender by legislature of its prerogatives
in favor of the delegate);
- COMPLETENESS TEST
o People vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. L-45127, May 5, 1989
- SUFFICIENCY STANDARD TEST
o Chiongbian vs. Orbos GR 96754, June 22, 1995;
o Gerochi vs. Dept. of Energy GR 159796, July 17, 2007;
o Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013 (note:
case involves various issues, but focus only on issue
about “undue delegation” with regard to presidential
pork barrel);

Ø Principle of Sub-delegation of powers

1. Transmission of power from head of agency to his subordinates for
purposes of expediency and achieving maximum efficiency in public
service
2. Example is DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY
• President delegate certain powers to members of cabinet, who
are his alter egos;
• Villena vs. Secretary of Interior, GR L-46570, April 21, 1939;