Gertrude Consti Notes PDF

ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CONSTI NOTES
ART 1: 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 dimensions,
form part of the internal waters of the Philippines .
NOTES
Purpose of Definition of National territory Archipelagic Principle
1. 1953 Consti  Assertion that ―waters around,
 Fear that US govt might between and connecting the islands of
dismember PH territory hence archipelago, irrespective of their bredth
this dismemberment could be and dimension form part of the internal
forestalled by definition waters of the Philippines
2. Under 1973 + Straight baseline method of
 For preservation of national delineating the territorial Sea
wealth, security and
manifestation of our solidarity 2 ways of Drawing Baseline
as people 1. NORMAL
3. Under 1987  Drawn following low water line along
 For educational value + coast as marked on large-scale charts
Apprehension officialy recognized by coastal state
2. STRAIGHT
 Drawn connecting selected points on
coasts. These divide internal waters
from territorial waters.
SCOPE OF NATIONAL TERRITORY EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
1.) Philippine Archipelago --- 200 nautical miles. A coastal nation has control
2.) All other territories over which of all economic resources within this zone,
Philippines has sovereignty or including fishing, mining, oil exploration etc.
jurisdiction
3.) Territorial Sea, Sea bed,
Subsoil, Insular Shelves and
other Submarine Areas
1
CONSTI NOTES
PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO Territorial Sea
 Archipelago – marginal belt of maritime water adjacent to the
 Body of water studded base lines extending 12 nautical miles outward,
with islands - subject to right of innocent
 Phil archipelago was passage by other states
delineated n Treaty of  RIGHT F INNOCENT PASSAGE
Paris, modified by Treaty 1. INTERNATIONAL STRAITS
of Washington and Treaty 2. TERRITORIAL SEA (NO AIR
with Great Brtain PASAGE OF AIRCRAFT
 1973 Const deleted GEENERALLY ALLOWED
mention of treaties to 3. ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS (AIR
erase every trace of our PASSAGE ALLOWED)
colonial history INTERNAL WATERS
 All other territories over which Phil  absolute sovereignty.
has sovereignty or jurisdiction  Waters around, between and
 Present or future connecting.
 Territorial Sea, Sea bed, the TERRESTRIAL
subsoil and insular shelves and  All surfaces of land above sea
other submarine areas FLUVIAL
st nd
corresponding to 1 and 2  Inland water
mentioned above. AERIAL
- Lays claim to extent  Air directly above territorial Sea
recognized by
International Law
I. TREATY OF PARIS 4 MARITIME ZONES
 Dec 1898 MARITIME WHAT IS THAT?! DISTANCE
 Spain ceded US ZONE

TERRITORIAL Marginal belt of 12 NM
―archipelago known as Phil
SEA maritime water
islands and coprehendng
adjacent to baselines
islands lying within.
** SUBJ TO RIGHT
 Technical descrption left
OF I.P
some doubt about inclusion
CONTIGUOS Coastal State may 24 NM
within ceded territory of ZONE exercise limited
Batanes islands to the north control necessary to
and of islands of Sibutu and prevent infringement
Cagayan de sulu as well as of its cusoms , fiscal,
Turtle and Mangsee immigration and
2
CONSTI NOTES
Islands. sanitary laws and
regulations within ts
II. TREATY OF WASHINGTON territory or territorial

sea
 Nov 1900, corrected error
EXCLUSIVE Coastal nation has 200 NM
w/ respect to Islands of
ECONOMIC control of all
Sibutu and Cagayan de
ZONE economic resources
Sulu and jurisdiction over
within this zone
Turtle and Mangsee including fishing,
Islands. mining, oil
III. TREATY OF GREAT BRITAIN exploration etc
 Jan 1930 CONTINENTAL Seabed & Subsoil of 200NM
 Doubts about Batanes, left SHELF the marine areas
unclarified. adjacent to the

coastal state but
outside of territorial
sea
CASES: (VALIDITY OF RA 9255)

 MAGALONA V. EXEC SECRETARY ERMITA
Recit Ready:
Petitioners are assailing constitutionality of RA 9522 which mandates the
adjustment of PH‘s archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline
regime of nearby territories.
HISTORY (PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF RA 9522)
1961 RA 3046
- Demarcating maritime baselines of Philippines as an Archipelagic state
- Followed framing of (UNCLOS 1 in 1958) [United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea]
- UNCLOS codified sovereign right of states parties over the ―territorial
sea‖
1968 RA 5446
- Legislature passed correcting typographical errors and reserving the
drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo
2009 RA 9522
- Act of congress amending RA 3046
- Propted by need to make RA 3046 compliant with terms of UNCLOS III
- UNCLOS III, prescribes water-land ratio, length and contour of
baselines of archipelagic state and sets deadline for filing application
for extended continental shelf
- Shortened one baseline, optimized location of some basepoints around
PH and classified adjacent territories (Kalayaan Island Group) and
3
CONSTI NOTES
Scarborough Shoal as ―regime of islands‖ whose islands generate their
own maritime zones.
*Petitioners, professors of law, law students, legislatr assail the constitutionality of RA

9522.
ISSUES: + HELD :
1. Whether RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime tterritory and logically, the
reach of Philippine State’s sovereign power in violation of Art 1 of 1987
Consti which embodies terms of Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties
 NO . UNCLOS III, has nothing to do w/ acquisition or loss of territory. It is
a multilateral treaty regulating sea-use rights over martime zones.
 Baseline law such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III, only serve to
mark out specific basepoints from which baselines are drawn either
straight/contoured and to serve as geographic starting points to measure
the breadth of maritime zones and continental shelf.
 This baseline delimitation done by states serves sto give notice to
international community of the scope that states can exercise treaty based
rights (sovereignty over territorial wasters, jurisdiction to enforce custom,
fiscal, immigration and other laws) and the right to exploit resources from
exclusive areas.
 Boundaries of rectangular delineated in the treaty of Paris cannot be used
as a basis SINCE UNCLOS IS ALREADY INTERNATIONALY AGREED
―ruler‖ or set of standards in measuring baselines.
 States acquire or lose territory through occupation, cession, accretion and
prescription. NOT THROUGH MULTILATERAL TREATIES.
 UNCLOS III did not surrender any territory since it only pertains to sea use
rights.
2. Whether RA 9522 opens country’s waters landard of baselines to maritime
passage by all vessels and aircrafts undermining Phil sovereignty and
national security contravening the country’s nuclear free policy and
damaging marine resources in violation of relevant consti provisions.
 NO. Philippines cannot defy customary international law of right to safe
passage as identified by Sec 2 of Art 2 ―Phil adopts the generally accepted
4
CONSTI NOTES
principles of int‘l law as part of the law of the land.
 UNCLOS III provides a safeguard since it allows states to exercise
sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of baselines, airspace
over t and submarine areas underneath.
 BUT IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW
PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION, government may pass
legislation designating routhes within archipelagic waters for innocent and
sea lanes passage.
3. Whether there is loss of large maritime area (loss of 15,000 nautical miles)
prejudicing the livelihood and subsistence fishermen by treating KIG as
regime of islands
 NO. RA 9522 followed basepoints of RA 3046, except for at least 9
basepoints that it skipped to optimize the location of basepoints and adjst
the length to comply with limitations of UNCLOS III
 This resulted in an increase of Philippine‘s total maritime space by
145,216 nautical miles.
RA 3046 RA 9522
Internal or Archipelagic 166,858 171,435
Waters
Territorial Sea 274,136 32,106
Exclusive Economic Zone 382,669
TOTAL 440,994 586,210
4. Whether Failure of RA 9522 to reference either Treaty of Paris or Sabah and

use of UNCLOS framework of regime of islands to determine maritime
zones of KIG and Scarborough Shoal. Thus the statute dismembers a large
portion of national territory under 1935, 1973, 1987 constitutions. The
technical description under treaty of Paris is that Philippine Sovereignty
over territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the
archipelago embracing the rectangular area delineated in treaty.
 NO. Although Scarborough and KIG are outside baselines drawn around
archipelago under RA 9522, determination of KIG as ―regime of islands‖
under Philippines means that international community SHOULD
RESPECT PHILIPPINE‘S CLAIM TO REGIME OF ISLANDS AS PART
OF ITS TERRITORY OF ISLANDS.
5
CONSTI NOTES
 According to Sen.Santiago, we are still allowed by international law to
claim them as our own. ―Regime of Islands‖ classification is an exercise
of observance of PH‘s pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS
III.
― any naturally formed area of land surrounded by water above high
tide‖.
 Portions of KIG falls under the category of regime of islands that generate
their own applicable maritime zones.
 We cannot enclose KIG and Scarborough in baseline with the Philippine
archipelago for it would be breach of UNCLOSIII.
 UNCLOS III: Length of baseline shall not exceed 100 nautical miles save
3% of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical
miles. (Art 47-2)
 As for Sabah, Sec 2 Explicitly states that the definition of baselines of
territorial sea of the Philippine archipelago asprovided in this act is
without prejudice to the delineation of baselines of the territorial sea
around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo over which PH
has acquired dominion and sovereignty
NOTES:
*Innocent Passage – passage not prejudicial to interest of coastal state or contrary to
principles of international law.
**Baseline laws – statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III to delimit with precision the
extent of maritime zones and continental shelves
*** UNCLOS law of the seas not law of the territory
**** Territorial Sea – marginal belt of maritime water adjacent to the base lines
extending 12 nautical miles outward, subject to right of innocent passage by other
states
***** Internal Waters/Territoral waters – all parts of the sea landwards from baseline
and inland rivers and lakes (under 1973 consti, no right to innocent passage.
{established right of innocent passage BUT new rule applies to areas NOT previously
considered as internal waters.
 PCA CASE In matter of South China Sea Arbitration
RECIT READY:
 Arbitration between Philippines and China concerns disputes regarding legal
6
CONSTI NOTES
basis of maritime rights and entitlements in the South China Sea the status of
certain geographic features in South China Sea an the lawfulness of certain
action taken by China in said sea.
 South China Sea lies south of china and west of Philippines. Also near to
other countries such as Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.
(3.5 million sq.k)
 Southern portion of SC Sea is also location of Spratly Islands, a constellation
of small islands and coral reefs existing above or below water
 Basis for arbitration is the 1982 UNCLOS where both Phil and China are
parties in order to settle all issues relating to laws of the sea.
CHINA CLAIMS PHILIPPINE CLAIMS
1.) subject matter of - Respective right is govered by
arbitration is the UNCLOS
territorial sovereignty - Scarborough Shoal and eight of such
beyond scope of features of Spratlys are low-tide
convention. elevations or submerged bas that
2.) China & Phil Agreed to merely generate Territorial Sea and
resolve disputes via not exclusive economic zone or
bilateral agreement Continental Shelf
3.) Maritime delimitation - China violated UNCLOS by
interefering with Ph‘s sovereign rights
and freedoms, through construction
and fishing activities.
PCA RESPONSE TO CHINA’S CLAIMS
1.) No. PCA has jurisdiction. Matters submitted did not concern
sovereignty. Dispute is WON State has entitlement over maritime zones
2.) PCA did not violate PH & China bilateral agreement. Agreement did
not bind Phil into only one mode of asserting its rights under UNCLOS
3.) Maritime zone delimitation pertains to overlap of economic zones of
states.
EEC & MARITIME ZONE
-- ove its own EEZ
7
CONSTI NOTES
WHAT + DECISIONS
1. Nine Dash Line and China’s claim of historic rights in maritime areas of
SCS
- China‘s claim of historic rights to resources was incompatible with the
detailed allocation of rights and maritime zones in the convention.
- China had historic rights to resources of SCS waters, extinguished when
Convention entered into force to the extent that they were incompatible
with Convention‘s system of maritime zones.
- Prior to convention, waters of SCS beyond territorial sea were legally
considered part of high seas where vessels of any state can fish and
navigate,
- Historical navgaton as claimed were exercise of high sea freedoms
rather than a historic right. No evidence if china had historically
exercised exclusive control.
- NO BASIS FOR HISTORIC RIGHTS
2. Statues of features in SCS
 ART 13 & 121
: features above water at high tide: entitlement of at least 12 nautical
mile territorial sea
: features submerged during high tide generate no entitlement to
maritime zones
WHAT STATUS
Scarborough Shoal, Johnson Reef, High Tide Features
Cuateron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef
Subi Reef, Hughes Reef, Mischief Reef, Submerged at high tide in their natural
and Second Thomas Shoal condition
Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef High Tide features.
Whether any of the features claimed by China could generate an entitlement

to martime zones beyond 12 nautical miles
 Art 121 of Convention
Islands generate entitlement to an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles
and to a continental shelf
 (NO EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OR CONTINENTAL SHELF) But
rocks which
8
CONSTI NOTES
1.) Cannot sustain human habitation
2.) Or economic life
3.) Of their own
 All high tide features of Spratly Isands are legally rocks that do not generate an
exclusive economic zone.
Discussion:
1.) No. PCA has jurisdiction. Matters submitted did not concern sovereignty.
Dispute is WON State has entitlement over maritime zones
2.) PCA did not violate PH & China bilateral agreement. Agreement did not
bind Phil into only one mode of asserting its rights under UNCLOS
3.) Maritime zone delimitation pertains to overlap of economic zones of states.
 EEC & MARITIME ZONE
-- if china able to prove that island can prove its own EEZ
ART 2: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
TITLE OF THE ARTICLE:
1935 Consti - Declaration of Principles

- Described as the basic political creed of the nation.
SO WHAT DOES IT DO?!
1. Lays policies govt is bound to observe
2. Duty of citizen of citizen to serve state
3. Incumbent upon people to demand fulfillment of these govt
duties in exercise of right of suffrage
 Intended not to be self-executing
 MERE directives to the executive and legislature
--- FAILURE?
 Remedy not judicial but political (election)
- Obliged Judiciary: Be guided in exercise of power of J.R
1973 Consti - Changed title to declaration of Principles and State policies

- Did not effect an intent different from the Declaration of
Policies of the 1935 Consti
1987 Consti CONSTI NO. OF SECTIONS
1935 5
1973 10
1987 28
9
CONSTI NOTES
-
Written in the same spirit as 1935 and 1973 Consti
-
BUT there was an attempt to distinguish principles from
policies
 Principles
:RULES that must be observed: CONDUCT OF
STATE
 Policies
: Guidelines for orientation of the state
 However, distinction is of little significance because not all six principles are
self-executory and some policies already anchor justiciable rights.
 Most provisions are not self-executory except :
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.
The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in
the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.
Section 16 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.
CASES:
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LEGAL VALUE OF ART 2
 KILOSBAYAN V. MORATO
Facts:
 As a result of decision in Kilosbayan Incorporated v. Guingona invalidating
Contract of Lease betwee PCSO and PGMC on ground that it had been
made in violation of charter of PCSO, parties entered into negotiations for
a new agreement that will be consistent with latter‘s PCSO Charter.
 In Jan. 25, 1995, PCSO and PGMC signed an Equipment Lease
Agreement (ELA) wherein PGMC leased online lottery equipment and
accessories to PCSO. (Rental of 4.3% of the gross amount of ticket or at
least P35,000 per terminal annually).
 30% of the net receipts is allotted to charity.
 Term of lease is for 8 years. PCSO is to employ its own personnel and
responsible for the facilities.
 Upon the expiration of lease, PCSO may purchase the equipment for P25
million.
 Feb. 21, 1995. A petition was filed to declare ELA invalid because it is the
same as the Contract of Lease Petitioner's Contention: ELA was
substantially the same to the old lease contract.
10
CONSTI NOTES
 It is still violative of PCSO's charter. It is violative of the law regarding
public bidding.
 It violates Sec. 2(2) of Art. 9-D of the 1987 Constitution: Standing can no
longer be questioned because it has become the law of the case
 Respondent's reply: ELA is different from the Contract of Lease. There is
no bidding required because it fell in the exceptions provided in EO 301.
The power to determine if ELA is advantageous is vested in the Board of
Directors of PCSO. And tht PCSO does not have funds to purchase its
own on-line lottery equipment and has to enter lease contract
 Respondents question right of petitioners to bring suit on the ground that
they are not parties to contract of lease which they seek to nullify, they
have no personal and substantial interest likely to be enjoyed.
 Petitioners invoke the following Principles and State policies found in Art 2
of constitution
 Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,
liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for
the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
 Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of 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 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 support of the Government.
 Section 13. 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.
 Section 17. 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.
ISSUE:
WHETHER RESPONDENTS ARE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
11
CONSTI NOTES
 These are not however self-executing provisions, disregard of which can
give rise to cause of action in the court. They do not embody judicially
enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation.
 In actions for annulment of contracts, real parties are those who are
parties to the agreement and are bound ether principally or subsidiarity or
are prejudiced in their rights with respect to one of the contracting parties
and can show the detriment which would positively result to them from the
contract even though they did not intervene in it or wo claim a right to take
part in public bidding but have been legally excluded from it
PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRESENT CONTRACT
- PCSO and PGMC for operation of an on-line  PCSO now bears all loses
lottery system was actually a joint venture because the operation of the system
agreement or at the very least a contract is completely in its hands
involving collaboration or association with  Feature of new contract
another party and for that reason was void negates any doubt that it is anything
1.) PCSO had neither funds nor expertise to but a lease agreement
operate the online lottery system so it would be
dependent with PGMC for operations
2.) PGMC would exclusively bear all costs and
expenses for printing tickets, payment of
salaries. ―Unusual in lessor-lessee
relationship‖ but inherent with joint venture .
PGMC binds itself to bear all risks if revenue
for ticket sales on an annual basis are
insufficient to pay entire prize money
 It was in a effect a lease by PCSO of its
franchise to PGMC
 What PCSO is prohibited from doing is to invest in a business engaged in same
nature and it is prohibited from doing so whether in collaboration, association or
joint venture with others or by itself. PCSO should not invest in business of a
competitor.
 (MOTION for RECONSIDERATION)
 It was previously held that because there are no genuine issues of
constitutionality in this case, the rule concerning real party in
interest, applicable to private litigation rather than the more liberal
rule on standing applies to petitoners
 Two objections are made against the ruling
1. Constitutional policies and principles invoked by petitioners, while not
supplying the basis for affirmative relief from the courts, may
12
CONSTI NOTES
nonetheless be resorted to for striking down laws or official actions
which are inconsistent with them.
2. Constitution, by guaranteeing to independent people‘s organizations
the effective and reasonable participation in all levels of social, political
and economic decision making (Art XIII, Sec 6) grants them standing
to sue on constitutional ground.
 Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and
property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by
all the people of the blessings of democracy.
 Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of 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
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 support of the
Government.
 Section 13. 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.
Section 17. 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
 As already stated however, this provisions are not self-executing. They do not
confer rights which can be enforced in courts but only provide guidelines for
legislative or executive action.
 It is noteworthy that petitioners do not question the validity of law allowing
lotteries. It is the contract entered into by the PCSO and PGMC which they are
assailing.
 This case therefore does not raise issues of constitutionality but only of contract
of law which petitioners , not being privies to the agreement cannot raise.
 TONDO MEDICAL V. CA
RECIT READY:
Petitioner Estrada issued E.O 102, entitled ―Redirecting the Functions and
Operations of the DOH‖ which provided for the changes in roles, functions
and organizational process of DOH
Under assailed executive order, DOH refocused its mandate from being a
13
CONSTI NOTES
sole provider of health services to being a provider of specific health
services and technical assistance and LGUs are responsible for providing
medical assistance to their territories as part of the devolution of govt.
In line with said E.O, DOH launched the HSRA ―Health Sector Reform
Agenda‖ by HSRA technical working group which provided for 5 general
areas of reform
1. To provide fiscal autonomy to government hospitals
2. Secure funding for priority public health programs
3. Promote the development of local health systems and secure its
effective performance
4. Strengthen capacities of health regulatory agencies
5. Expand coverage of NHIP (National Health Insurance Program)
 Herein petitioners questioned the following violation of Sections of Article
2 of 1987 Consti
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,
liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for
the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy
Section 9. 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.
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.
Section 13. 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.
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them.
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It
shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
 When cases reached CA, it ruled that HSRA cannot be
14
CONSTI NOTES
declared void because of he aforementioned provisions of the
constitution are not self-executing; they are not judicially
enforceable constitutional rights and they provide only
guidelines for legislation
ISSUE + HELD:
Whether CA erred in ruling that any question on wisdom and efficacy of HSRA is
not a justiciable controversy and that the constitutional provisions protecting
health of Filipino people are not judicially enforceable
 No.
 As a general rule:
The constitution is considered self-executing since if it still requires future
legislation for their enforcement, the mandate of fundamental law can be easily
nullified by inaction of Congress.
HOWEVER
 Some provisions were declared by court as non-self-executing. As stated in
Tanada v. Agrava, the sections under Art II are not self-executing because Art 2
of consti is a declaration of principles ready for enforcement through the courts.
They are used by judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of
judicial review and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.
 (mere directives addressed to the executive and legislative departments)
 Bases Conversion and Development Authority V. COA

RECIT READY:
 March 1992, Congress approved RA No. 7227 creating Bases Conversion
and Development Authority.
 Under Section 10, functions of the board include the determination of the
organizational structure and the adoption of a compensation and benefit
scheme at least equivalent to that of BSP.
 In line with its power to compensate in 1996, BCDA released Year end
Benefit (YEB) worth P10,000 and granted it to each contractual employee
and Board member.
 In 1999, BSP gave P30,000 YEB to its officials and employees
 In 2000, BSP increased YEB from P30,000 to P35,000.
15
CONSTI NOTES
 So pursuant to Sec 10 of RA 7227, which states that compensation and
benefit scheme of BCDA shall be at least equivalent to that of BSP, board
increased YEB .
 On February 2003, State Auditor IV, Corazon Espano of COA, issued
Audit Observattion Memorandum stating that the grant of Year End
Benefit to Board members was contrary to the DBM circular.
 They served a notice of disallowance to YEB thereafter.
 BCDA president and Chief Executive Officer Rufo Colayco requested the
reconsideration of decision appealing to COA.
ISSUE + HELD:
Whether board can grant YEB to its members and full time consultant on ground
that it is consistent with Sec 5 and 8 of Article 2.
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and
property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the
people of the blessings of democracy
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare.
 NO. Art 2 is a statement of general ideological principles and policies. It is not a
source of enforceable rights. Sec 5 and 18 of Article 2 are not self-executing
provisions.
 Board members and full time consultants cannot be granted YEB because of
said functions of the Board under Sec 10 of RA 7227. Since under Sec 9 of said
RA, it specifies that Board members shall receive a per diem for every board
meeting. It is limited only to not more than P5,000. This is limited to the total
amount of per diem for one month to not more than 4 meetings. Thus board is
limited by the law in terms of compensation
 Additionally, Under DBM Circular, it states that members of Board of Directors of
agencies are not salaried officials of govt,. As non-salaried officials they are not
entitled to… YEB and retirement benefits unless expressly provided by law ―to
which RA 7227 does not state
 As to full-time consultants, BCDA shall pay consultants a contract price because
they are not basic salary due because there is no employer-employee
relationship between them and BCDA
** PERA, ADCOM, YEB, Retirement Benefits
16
CONSTI NOTES
PRINCIPLES:
Section 1.
The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty

resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
them.
NOTES:
 DEFINITION OF STATE
International scene
 Repositories of legitimated authority over people ad territories
It is only in terms of state powers, prerogatives, jurisdictinnal limits and law
making capabilities that territorial limits and jurisdiction, responsibility for
official actions and a host of other questions of co-existence between nations
can be determined.
MONTEVIDEO CONVENTION OF 1933
 A person of international law that possess the following qualif : PERMANENT
POPULATION, DEFINED TERRITORY, GOVERNMENT AND CAPACITY TO
ENTER INTO RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER STATES
―State is the community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a

definite portion of territory, independent of external control and possessing an organized
government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. ‗
STATE vs.NATION
 Legal Concept  Ethnic concept
BUT definition is of little consequence for purposes
of constitutional law
SO… for purposes of constitution therefore the
word state is interchangabe with nation
ELEMENTS OF A STATE
1.) People  Community of persons sufficient in number and capable of
maintaining continued existence of community & held
together by common bond of law
 Segment of political society wherein legal sovereignty lies
2.) Territory  Consisting of land & waters & air space above them &
submarine areas below them

3.) Government  Institution aggregate of institution by which independent
society makes & carries out rules of action to enable men to
live in social state which are impose upon people forming
society by those who possess power/ authority of
17
CONSTI NOTES
prescribing them
 Institution by which state exercises power
4.) Sovereignty  Legal Sovereignty
- Supreme power to affect legal interests either by
legislative, executive, or judicial action (lodged in
the people, exercised by state agencies)
- Power to adapt or alter constitution
- Supreme power to make laws
 Political Sovereignty
- Sum total of all the influence in a state, legal or
non-legal which determines the course of law
 Entity does not cease to be a state even if all its territory
has been occupied by a foreign power
 Source of ultimate legal authority.
 Sovereign authority is not always directly exercised by the
people. It is normally delegated by people to govt and to
concrete persons in whose hands the powers of govt
temporarily reside.
 ―Sovereignty of the people‖ includes concept of government
officials have only the authority give them by law and
defined by law and such authority continues only with the
consent of the people.
2 THEORIES:
CONSTITUTIVERecognition ―constitutes‖ a state
 It‘s what makes a state a state and
confers legal personality on the
entity
DECLARATORY Merely ―declaratory‖ of existence of state
depends upon possession of the required
elements and not upon recognition.
NATIONAL SCALE  GOVT : LEGIS, EXEC & JUD

LOCAL SCALE  GOVT: REG, PROV, CITY, MUN, BARRIO
NOT INCLUE: GOVT ENTITIES w/c corporate personality sep & distict from govt
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
 Institution through which state  Consists of set of people currently
exercises power running institution
 It can change w/o change of govt
 EX: Aquino – Dutertard (whoops)
DOCTRINE OF AUTO LIMTATION

 States that PH adheres to principles of international law as a limitation to
exercise of its sovereignty.
 Any state may by its consent, express or implied submit to a restriction of
its sovereign rights
PRINCIPLE OF JUS POSTLIMINIUM (POSTLIMINITY)
 Political laws which has been suspended during occupation shall
automatically become effective again
18
CONSTI NOTES

FUNCTIONS OF GOVT:
1. CONSTITUTENT
 Compulsory because it is constitute the very bonds of society.
( Keeping of order and providing for protection of persons and property from violence and
robbery; fixing of legal relations between man and wife; regulation of the holding, transmission
and interchange of property, and determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime; determination
of contract rights between individuals; definition and punishment of crime; administration of justice
in civil cases; determination of political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens; dealings of
state with foreign powers)
2. MINISTRANT
 Optional functions of the government intended for achieving a better life for the
community.
 PRINCIPLES OF DETERMINING WON GOVT SHALL EXERCISE CERTAIN OF THESE
OPTIONAL FUNCTIONS
1. Govt should do for public welfare those things which private capital would not
naturally undertake
2. Govt should do those things which by its very nature it is better equipped to
administer for the public welfare than in any private/group of indiv.
LEGITIMACY OF GOVERNMENT
1. DE FACTO
 Actually exercises power or control but without legal title
 Established in defiance of legitimate sovereign.
TYPES OF DEFACTO GOVERNMENT
st
1 Govt gets possession & control of or usurps by force or by voice of majority
nd
2 Established and maintained by invading military forces
rd
3 Established as an independent government by inhabitants of the country
who rise in insurrection against parent state
2. DE JURE
 Has rightful title but no power or control because same has been
withdrawn from it or becayse it has not yet actually entered into existence
thereof.
 Established by authority of legitimate sovereign
AS TO CONCENTRATION OF POWERS IN A GOVERNMENTAL BRANCH

1. PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT
 Separation of executive and legislative powers
 1935 Consti, this form of govt was borrowed from American system.
2. PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT
 Function of both executive and legislative powers of parliament although the
actual exercise of executive power is vested in Prime Minister who is chosen by
and accountable to parliament
 1973 Consti is a ―still-born‖ parliamentary system.
 ESSENTIAL FEATURES:
1. Members of Govt or Cabinet or the executive are, as a rule simultaneously
members of legislature
2. Govt/Cabinet consisting of political leaders of the majority party or of a coalition
who are also members of the legislative is in effect a committee of legislature
19
CONSTI NOTES
3. Govt/Cabinet has a pyramidal structure at the apex of which is the prime minister
or his equivalent
4. Govt/Cabinet remains in power only for as long as it enjoyrs support of majority in
legislature
5. Both govt & legis are possessed of control devices with which each can demand
of the other immediate political responsibility
 Consti revision of 1981 reverted to a form of government although adopting features of
parliamentarism, preserved the essence of presidentialism.
** Adoption of certain aspect in our parliamentary system in amended consti does not
alter its essentially presidential character.
 1987 consti has brought back the country to the presidential system of 1935 and has
removed the partliamentary features of 1973 consti but has imposed new limits on
powers of president
“DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE”

Republican state
 All government authority emanates from the people and exercised by
representative chosen by the people
 Purpose: guaranty against monarchy, oligarchy and pure democracy
 Supreme power resides in the body of people
DEMOCRATIC?
 PH not only a representative or republican state but also shares some aspects of direct
democracy such as initative and referendum
 ―justifiable redundancy‖ – Nolledo
CASES SEC 1:
 BACANI V. NACOCO (INCORPORATED)

- NACOCO is not a government entity w/in purview of section 2 of the Revised
administrative Code of 1917. Corporations performing certain functions of government
do not acquire that status for the simple reason that they do not come under the
classification of municipal or public coproratios. While NACOCO was organized for
the purpose of ―adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade
preferences in the US‖ and of providing ―Facilities for the better curing of copra
products and proper utilization of coconut by-products‖ a function of govt chose to
exercise to promote the coconut industry; it was given a corporate power separate
and distict from government, for it was made subject provisions of Corporation law in
so far as its corporate existence and powers that it may exercise are concerned. It
may sue and be sued in the same manner as any private corporations, and in this
sense, it is an entity different from our government.
- When however government choses to operate not through a government owned
20
CONSTI NOTES
corporation but through an unincorpated agency, the distinction between constituent
and ministrant factions can be useful.
- Our constitution has established 3 great departments, leg, exec & jud. Through which
the powers and functions of govt are exercised. These functions are 2 fold:
CONSITUENT AND MINISTRANT.
CONSTITUENT MINISTRANT
1.) Keeping of order and providing protections of 1.) Pubic works
persons and property from violence and 2.) Pubic education
robbery
3.) Public Charity
2.) Fixing of legal relations between man and
4.) Public health
wife and between parents and children
5.) Public safety regulations
3.) Regulation off holding, transmission and
interchange of property and determination of 6.) Regulatons of trade and industry
liabilities for debt/crime
4.) Determination of contract rights between
individuals
5.) Definition and punishment of crime
6.) Administration of justice in civil cases
7.) Determination of political duties, privileges
and relations of citizens
8.) Dealings of state with foreign powers
Govt required to exercise to promote its Functions which may by exercise

objectives as expressed in consti and promote certain aspects of the economic
which are exercised by it as an attribute life of our people such as NACOCO.
of sovereignty
- Function may not strictly be constituent in the sense of Bacani:
―growing complexities of modern society however have rendered this traditional classifications
of functions underealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be left to private
enterprise and initiative in which the government was called upon to enter optionally ―because
it was better equipped to administer for public welfare than any private individual or group‖.
Continue to lose their well defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that govt
must undertake n its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of
times (Justice Makalintal)
 ACCFA V. CUGCO ( UNINCORPORATED)

RECIT READY:
 Agricultral Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACFA) was a
government agency created under RA No. 821.
 Its administrative machinery was reorganized ad its name is changed to
Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under the Land Reform Code (RA 3844)
 On the otherhand ACCFA Supervisors Association (ASA) and ACCFA Workers
21
CONSTI NOTES
Association (AWA) herein referred to as Unions are labor organizations
composed of the supervisors aand rank and file employees, respectively in
ACCFA (now ACA)
 On Sept 1961, a Collective Barganing Agreement which was effective for 1 year
was entered between the Unions and ACA
 A few months after, Unions started protesting against alleged violations on non-
implemetation of said agreement.
 Oct 1962, Unions declared a strike which was ended when the strikers voluntarily
returned to work of Nov 1962.
 Oct 1962, Unions, together with mother union, Confederation of Unions in
Government Coproroations and Offices (CUGCO) filed a complaint against
ACCFA for having allegedly committed acts of unfair labor practice in violation of
CBA, the right to self-organization, discrimination against said members in the
matter of promotions and refusal to bargain.
 CIR rendered its decision and asked ACA to desist from committing any acts of
violation to CBA.
 ACA appealed decision by challenging jurisdiction of CIR to entertain petition of
Unions for certification election on ground that it (ACA) is engaged in government
functions
ISSUE + HELD:
Whether CIR has jurisdiction to entertain petition of Unions for Certification election
given that ACA is engaged in governmental functions
 No. Union have no right to the certification election sought by them nor
consequently to bargain collectively with petitioner
 No fringe benefits may be demanded based on CBA
 The power to audit operations of farmers‘ cooperatives and otherwise inquire into
their affairs as given in Sec 113 is in nature of a visitorial power of the sovereign
which only government agency specially delegated to do so by Congress may
legally exercise. The implementation of the land reform program of government is
most certainly a government and not a proprietary function.
 Although ACA is a government office and agency engaged in govt and not
proprietary function, these functins may not be strictly described as ―constituent‖
as distinguished from ―ministrant‖
 The growing complexities of modern society however have rendered this
traditional classification of the functions of govt quite unrealistic not to say
obsolete.
 The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which govt
22
CONSTI NOTES
was called upon to enter optionally and only because it was better equipped to
administer for public welfare than private individual or group of individuals,
continute to lose their well defined bounderies and to be absorbed within
activities that the govet must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet
the increasing challenges of the times.
 ACA was delegated under Land Reform Project Administration, a government
agency tasked to implement land reform. There can be no dispute as to the fact
that land reform program contemplated beyond the capabilities of any private
enterprise to translate into reality is a purely government function.
 Therefore, respondent unions are not entitled to the certification election sought.
Such certification admittedly for purpose of bargaining in behalf of employees
with respect to terms and conditions of employment including right to strike,.
 Given ACA has govt character, strike was contrary to RA 875 which prohibits
strikes against govt.
NOTES:
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS
CONSTITUENT (BACANI V. NACOCO) MINISTRANT
- Constitute the very bonds of the - Undertaken only by way of advancing
society and are compulsory in nature general interests of society and are
- Example: maintaining peace and merely otional
prevention of crime , regulating
property.
- Exercised by state as attribute of
sovereignty
*** ACA is a government office or agency engaged in governmental not
proprietary functions
An incorporated business, or a corporation, is a separate entity from the business owner and has natural
rights. Conversely, a business owner and an unincorporated business are the same, and the owner
personally bears all results of the business. Unincorporated businesses are usually sole proprietor or
partnership companies. The main difference between an incorporated and unincorporated business is the
way owners shoulder business activities.
EXAMPLES OF GOVT EXERCISING FUNCTIONS THROUGH CORP OR

INSTRUMENTALITIES
GOCC
 Any agency, organized as stock/non-stock corporation
 Vested w/ functions relating to public needs
 Owned by Govt directly/through instrumentalities: at least 51% capital stock
REQUIREMENTS:
23
CONSTI NOTES
1.) Stock/Non-stock corporation
2.) Public Function
3.) Governement ownership
EXAMPLES: GSIS, LBP, DAP, LRTA (not super reliable kasi wiki to, igets mo na lang concept)
 VFP V. REYES
RECIT READY:
 Veterans Federation of the Philippines is an organization created under RA 2640
in 1960.
 Over 2002-2003, VFP received multiple letters from the Secretary of National
Defense
1st letter
------ asking for a clarification between the relationship of VFP and the Philippine
Veterans Bank to DND.
Sections of RA 2640:
Sec 1: VFP shall be under the control and supervision of DND secretary
Sec 12: VFP shall make an audit to the President or to DND Secretary
2nd letter
---- circular clarifying relationship between VFP and DND
Sec 3: Clarifies that VFPindeed is underneath control and supervision of DND and is
required to make audits like a government agency.
3rd Letter
----- mandating VFP to conduct a management audit.
 VFP filed a petition for certiorari claiming that DND unfairly expanded the scope
of control and supervision in RA 2640. Petitioner laims that it is not a public nor
government entity but a private organization and advances this claim to prove
that DND Circular is invalid exercise of respondent secretary‘s control and
supervision.
 They pray that court issue an injunction of the DND circular and may it be
declared as null and void
ISSUE + HELD:
Whether veterans federation created by law is a public office, considering that it does not
possess a portion of the sovereign functions of government and considering fthrer that it
has no budgetary appropriation from DBM and its funds comes from membership dues.
 Yup, VFP is a public corporation.This is evident in the definition of power to control.
 Power of an officer to alter, modify or nullify and set aside what a subordinate has done
in the performance of his duties to substitute the judgment of the former or that of the
latter.
24
CONSTI NOTES
 Definition of supervision on the other hand is ―overseeing or the power or authority of an
officer to see the subordinate officers perform their duties.
 If the later fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such ation or step as
prescribed by law to make them perform their duties.
 Thus department circular are mere consequences of control and supervision.
 As such, VFP is underneath the DND secretary, a public officer.
 Our constitution explicitly prohibit the regulation by special laws of private corporations
with the exception of GOCC.
 Hence it would be impermissible for law to grant control of VFP to a public official if it
were neither a public corp or unincorporated government entity nor GOCC
 Additionally public character can be understood as that of exercising sovereign function.
In several cases, we have dealt with issue of whether certain specific activities can be
classified as sovereign functions. These cases, which deal with activities not
immediately apparent to be sovereign functions, upheld the public sovereign nature of
operations needed either to promote social justice or stimulate patriotic sentiments for
love of country
 Areas which used to be left to private enterprice and initiative continue to lose their well-
defined bounderies and to be absorbed within activities that government must undertake
in its sovereign capacity.
 In the case at bar, functions of petitioner corporation enshrined in Sec 4 of RA 2640
should most certainly fall within category of sovereign functions.
 Protection of interests of war veterans is not only meant to promote social justice, but is
also intended to reward patriotism.
 All the functions in Sec 4 cocern the lives and lost their limbs in fighting for and
defending our nation. It would be injustice of catastrophic proportions to say that it is
beyond sovereignty‘s power to reward the people who defend her.
 Source of funds does not matter. RA 2640 itsself states that these are public funds.
(Exclusive benefit of veterans, sole purpose of benefits and not profit of members.
 Defense that DND did not exercise control because it historically has never done sso,
letting members control for themselves voluntarily. As we all know, laws are repealed by
disuse, custom or practice to the contrary,.
NOTES:
Public office
- is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law by which, for a given period,
either fixed b law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with
some portion of sovereign functions of government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the
public
25
CONSTI NOTES
** there is nothing wrong whether legally or morally from raising revenues through non-
traditional methods.
*** DND more of an expert than DBM in knowing the organizations under it.
 JAVIER V. SANDIGANBAYAN
RECIT READY?
o RA 8047: ―Book Publishing Industry Development Act‖ : states goal in promoting
continuing development in book publishing industry.
o Law provided for the creation of National Book Development Board (NBDP)
---- under administration & supervision of Office of the President
o SETUP: Pres appoints (5 govt official) (6 private sector)
o JAVIER—appointed to governing board (private sec), she was pres of Book Suppliers
Associations of PH
o President issued travel authority to Madrid Conference & Book Fair in Spain
(P139,199.00)
o Javier did not attend (WTF DIBA, INDIANIN BA NAMAN?!)
o Auditor Martin asked for immediate refund of money issued for travel
o NOTICES were given but failed to do so , therefore a case of MALVERSATION OF
FUNDS WAS FILED.
ISSUE + HELD
 WHETHER PETITIONER IS A PUBLIC OFFICER THUS SANDIGANBAYAN HAS
JURISICTION OVER HER
 NBDB  Statutory govt agency & persons who participated therein even if they are from
private sector: are public officers to the extent that they are performing duty for the
benefit of the public.
 While member of board remains as private individual, still, when individual is performing
fuction as member of board/when person is supposed to travel is given govt money
 PRIVATE SECTOR - PUBLIC SECTOR
 Javier, being a board member w/ salary grade 28 is therefore under the jurisdiction of
sandiganbayan
NOTES!!!
Public office
 right, authority and duty created and conferred by law for a given period either fixed by
law/enduring at pleasure of creating power
: an individual is invested w/ some sovereign portion of government for the benefit of the
public.
26
CONSTI NOTES
INSTRUMENTALITIES
 Vested w/ corporate powers to perform efficiently government functions
 Agencies of national government that by reason of some special function or jurisdiction
perform or exercise allotted operational autonomy & are not integrated w/in department
framework
RUBRIC TO BECOME GOVT INSTRUMENTALITY
1.) Regulatory Agencies
2.) Chartered institution
3.) Govt corporate entities/Govt instrumentality w/ corporate power.
 MIAA V. CA
RECIT READY?
 Manila International Airport Authority operates NAIA in
Paranaque City
 E.O 903 MIAA administers land improvement & equipment in
NAIA complex
 Office of Govt Corporate Counsel withdrew real estate tax
exemption
 After failing to win case at COA, Paranaque announced pubic
auction sale of Airport lands and buildings
 City of Paranaque asked for payment of Real estate tax
ISSUE: WHETHER AIRPORT LANDS AND BUILDINGS OF MIAA ARE EXEMPT
FROM REAL ESTATE TAX UNDER EXISTING LAWS?
 Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are exempt from real estate tax imposed by
PQue.
 MIAA is a Govt instrumentality vested w/ corporate powers to perform efficiently
govt functions
 Not a GOCC, not a stock/non-stock corp, no capital stock
 Airport lands and buildings of MIAA owned by republic of the Phiippines.
PUBLIC DOMINION  intended for public purpose
Public dominion:
1.) Intended for public uses such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports, and
bridges.
 MIAA exercises govt powers of eminent domain, police authority and levying of
27
CONSTI NOTES
fees and charges at the same time, MIAA exercises all the powers of a
corporation under corporation law, in so far as it is not inconsistent w/ provisions
of executive order.
 When law makes a government instrumentality operationally autonomous, the
instrumentality remains part of the National government machinery although not
integrated in departmental framework.
 FUNA V. MECO AND COA
RECIT READY
 Chinese Civil War :
 CHINA 2 GOVTS ESPOSING COMPETING ASSERTIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY
1.) People Republic of China – Mainland (PROC)
2.) Republic of China – Taiwan (ROC)
 PH  Diplomatic relations with PROC, formall ended diplomatic rel with ROC
 ―Joint Communique PH & China‖  PH recognizes PROC as Sole Legal Govt of
China
 PH ―One China Policy‖ Did not preclude PH from keeping unofficial relation‘s
with Taiwan
 Manila Economic Cultural Office: Dec 16,1997
 (MECO) Non-stock, Non-profit Corp : Corp Code
---------- established & develop commercial and industrial interest of Fil Nationals in
T.wan
--------- became the corp entity entrusted by PH govt
RESPONSIBILITY OF FOSTERING FRIENDLY & UNOFFICIAL RELATIONS WITH
PEOPLE OF TAIWAN (Trade, Economic Cooperations, Cultural and Scientific
exchanges)
 MECO – authorized by govt to perform certain cultural &other functions
 Relates to PH interest in Taiwan, oversees OFW rights & interests, promotes PH
tourism, facilitate travel, etc.
 FUNA—sent letter to COA requesting Financial & audit report of MECO
 MECO is a GOCC under peration of DTI
 COA—NO NOT A GOVT AGENCY
HELD:
 MECO NOT A GOCC/GOVT INSTRUMENTALITY
 Well, because it is not a stock/n-stock corp and does not operate
28
CONSTI NOTES
outside departmental framework
 MECO can‘t be said to partake government functions
 NOT SUFFIENT TO BE GOCC
 NOT OWNED BY GOVT
 NOT CONTROLLED : (as proven in election of board in by laws)
 ―Sui Generis”entity = one of its kind. It was not intended to
operate as ordinary corp it is ENTRUSTED WITH DELICATE AND
PRECARIOUS RESPONSIBILITY OF PERSUING UNOFFICIAL
RELATION.
QUASI-PUBLIC CORP
 Specific Private Corporation for public service
 private corporations that render public service, supply public wants, or pursue
other eleemosynary objectives. While purposely organized for the gain or benefit
of its members, they are required by law to discharge functions for the public
benefit.
 PHIL SOCIETY V. COA
RECIT READY:
Petitioner: incorporated as a juridical entity by Act No. 1285 through the
National Commssion
Members: Animal Aficionados & Animal Propagandist
CHARTER  enforce laws relating to cruelty inflicted upon animals and
protection of animals/ promote welfare
It is imbued w/ powers of policing in order to enforce protection of animals
& share ½ fines imposed & collected
RESCINDED BY CA NO. 148
 Work w/ local police
 Share money collected with municipal office
Dec 1,2003 : COA Officer attempted  Conduct audit survey
Petitioner claimed
- PRIVATE ENTITY AND NOT UDER JURISDICTION OF COA
- Even though it was created by special legislation in 1905, there was no
general law existing at that time where it could be organized and
incorporated
29
CONSTI NOTES
- At the time of the enactment of Act No. 1285, the original Corporation
Law, Act No. 1459, was not yet in existence. Act No. 1285 antedated both
the Corporation Law and the constitution of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Important to note is that the nature of the petitioner as a
corporate entity is distinguished from the sociedad anonimas under the
Spanish Code of Commerce.
ISSUE + HELD:
WHETHER PETITIONER QUALIFIES AS A GOVT AGENCY WHICH MAY BE
AUDITED BY COA?
No.
The general principle of prospectivity of the law likewise applies to Act No.
1459, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, which had been enacted
by virtue of the plenary powers of the Philippine Commission on March 1,
1906, a little over a year after January 19, 1905, the time the petitioner
emerged as a juridical entity. Even the Corporation Law respects the
rights and powers of juridical entities organized beforehand
CHARTER TEST: Test to determine WON corp is GOCC/Private
 Is it created by its own charter for exercise of public function or
incorporation under general corporation law
 Provided by 1935 & 1987 consti
SINCE PETITIONER WAS CREAATED IN 1905,charter test cannot be
applied.
NOTES:
TRUE CRITERIA TO STATE:
Corp created by state as agency/instrumentality to help In govt function?
It must be stressed that a quasi-public corporation is a species of private
corporations, but the qualifying factor is the type of service the former
renders to the public: if it performs a public service, then it becomes a
quasi-public corporation
STATE UNIV
 SERENA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
RECIT READY:
30
CONSTI NOTES
 Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student of the University of the
Philippines-Cebu. A student of a state university is known as a government
scholar. She was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada on December 21,
1999 as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term starting January 1,
2000 and ending on December 31, 2000.
 Accused movant charged for the crime of estafa is a government scholar and a
student regent of the University of the Phillipines, Diliman, Quezon City.
 While in the performance of her official functions, she represented to former
President Estrada that the renovation of the Vinzons Hall of the UP will be
renovated and renamed as Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada Student Hall (Vixon‘s
hall) and for which purpose accused requested the amount of P15,000,000.00.
 Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over her person
because as a UP student regent, she was not a public officer due to the
following: 1.) that being merely a member in representation of the student body
since she merely represented her peers; 2.) that she was a simple student and
did not receive any salary as a UP student regent; and 3.) she does not fall under
Salary Grade 27.
 The Ombudsman contends that petitioner, as a member of the BOR is a public
officer, since she had the general powers of administration and exercise the
corporate powers of UP. Compensation is not an essential part of public office.
 Moreover, the Charter of the University of the Philippines reveals that the Board
of Regents, to which accused-movant belongs, exclusively exercises the general
powers of administration and corporate powers in the university. It is well-
established in corporation law that the corporation can act only through its board
of directors, or board of trustees in the case of non-stock corporations.
Issue: WON a government scholar and UP student regent is a public officer.
Held: Yes.
First, Public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by
law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion
of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercise by him for the
benefit of the public.
The individual so invested is a public officer. (Laurel vs
Desierto)Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the public office.
31
CONSTI NOTES
An investment in an individual of some portion of the sovereign functions
of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public
makes one a public officer.
Second, Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explicitly vest the
Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations. Hence, it is not only
the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to
those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express
mandate of law, petitioner is a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No.
1606 the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Third, it is well established that compensation is not an essential element
of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office.
Hence, Petitioner is a public officer by express mandate of P.D.No. 1606
and jurisprudence
DE JURE AND DE FACTO GOVT

 CO KIM CHAM V. VALDEZ TAN KEH
RECIT READY
 Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during the Japanese occupation,
with the Court of First Instance of Manila.
 After the Liberation of the Manila and the American occupation, Judge Arsenio
Dizon refused to continue hearings on the case, saying that a proclamation
issued by General Douglas MacArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial
proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines and, without an
enabling law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and
continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the
Philippines (the Philippine government under the Japanese).
The court resolved three issues:
1. Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese
occupation were valid and remained valid even after the American occupation;
2. Whether or not the October 23, 1944 proclamation MacArthur issued in which he
declared that ―all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the
32
CONSTI NOTES
Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal
effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control‖ invalidated all
judgments and judicial acts and proceedings of the courts;
3. And whether or not if they were not invalidated by MacArthur‘s proclamation, those
courts could continue hearing the cases pending before them.
Ratio:
Political and international law recognizes that all acts and proceedings of a
de facto government are good and valid. The Philippine Executive
Commission and the Republic of the Philippines under the Japanese
occupation may be considered de facto governments, supported by the
military force and deriving their authority from the laws of war.
Municipal laws and private laws, however, usually remain in force unless
suspended or changed by the conqueror.
Civil obedience is expected even during war, for ―the existence of a state of
insurrection and war did not loosen the bonds of society, or do away with civil
government or the regular administration of the laws.
And if they were not valid, then it would not have been necessary for MacArthur
to come out with a proclamation abrogating them
The second question, the court said, hinges on the interpretation of the phrase
―processes of any other government‖ and whether or not he intended it to annul
all other judgments and judicial proceedings of courts during the Japanese
military occupation.
IF, according to international law, non-political judgments and judicial
proceedings of de facto governments are valid and remain valid even after
the occupied territory has been liberated, then it could not have been
MacArthur’s intention to refer to judicial processes, which would be in
violation of international law.
A well-known rule of statutory construction is: “A statute ought never to be
construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction
remains.”
Another is that “where great inconvenience will result from a particular
construction, or great mischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or the
court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the makers
of the law, unless required by clear and unequivocal words.”
33
CONSTI NOTES
Annulling judgments of courts made during the Japanese occupation would clog
the dockets and violate international law, therefore what MacArthur said should
not be construed to mean that judicial proceedings are included in the phrase
―processes of any other governments.‖
In the case of US vs Reiter, the court said that if such laws and institutions are
continued in use by the occupant, they become his and derive their force from
him.
The laws and courts of the Philippines did not become, by being continued as
required by the law of nations, laws and courts of Japan.
It is a legal maxim that, excepting of a political nature, ―law once established
continues until changed by some competent legislative power. IT IS NOT
CHANGED MERELY BY CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY.‖ Until, of course, the
new sovereign by legislative act creates a change.
Therefore, even assuming that Japan legally acquired sovereignty over the
Philippines, and the laws and courts of the Philippines had become courts of
Japan, as the said courts and laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon
them have continued in force until now, it follows that the same courts may
continue exercising the same jurisdiction over cases pending therein before the
restoration of the Commonwealth Government, until abolished or the laws
creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed by the said
government.
DECISION: Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, ordering him to take cognizance of and continue to
final judgment the proceedings in civil case no. 3012.
Summary of ratio:
1. International law says the acts of a de facto government are valid and civil laws
continue even during occupation unless repealed.
2. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, but this cannot be applied on
judicial proceedings because such a construction would violate the law of nations.
3. Since the laws remain valid, the court must continue hearing the case pending before
it.
***3 kinds of de facto government: one established through rebellion (govt gets
possession and control through force or the voice of the majority and maintains itself
against the will of the rightful government)
34
CONSTI NOTES
through occupation (established and maintained by military forces who invade and
occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war; denoted as a government of
paramount force)
through insurrection (established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a
country who rise in insurrection against the parent state)
 LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PUNO

RECIT READY:
 Petitioner Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, a member of the Court of Appeals,
wrote a letter dated 14 November 1990 addressed to this Court, seeking the
correction of his seniority ranking in the Court of Appeals.
 It appears from the records that petitioner was first appointed Associate Justice
of the Court of Appeals on 20 June 1980 but took his oath of office for said
position only on 29 November 1982, after serving as Assistant Solicitor General
in the Office of the Solicitor General since 1974.
 On 17 January 1983, the Court of Appeals was reorganized and became the
Intermediate Appellate Court pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 entitled ―An
Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor and For Other
Purposes‖.
 Petitioner was appointed Appellate Justice in the First Special Cases Division of
the Intermediate Appellate Court. On 7 November 1984, petitioner accepted an
appointment to be Deputy Minister of Justice in the Ministry of Justice; he thus
ceased to be a member of the Judiciary.
 The aftermath of the EDSA Revolution in February 1986 brought about a
35
CONSTI NOTES
reorganization of the entire government, including the Judiciary.
 To effect the reorganization of the Intermediate Appellate Court and other lower
courts, a Screening Committee was created, with the then Minister of Justice,
now Senator Neptali Gonzales as Chairman and then Solicitor General, now
Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations Sedfrey Ordoñez as Vice Chairman
 . President Corazon C. Aquino, exercising legislative powers by virtue of the
revolution, issued Executive Order No. 33 to govern the aforementioned
reorganization of the Judiciary
 The Screening Committee recommended the return of petitioner as Associate
Justice of the new Court of Appeals and assigned him the rank of number eleven
(11) in the roster of appellate court justices. When the appointments were signed
by President Aquino on 28 July 1986, petitioner‘s seniority ranking changed,
however, from number eleven (11) to number twenty six (26).
 Petitioner now alleges that the change in his seniority ranking could only be
attributed to inadvertence for, otherwise, it would run counter to the provisions of
Section 2 of Executive Order No. 33.
 Petitioner elaborates that President Aquino is presumed to have intended to
comply with her own Executive Order No. 33 so much so that the correction of
the inadvertent error would only implement the intent of the President as well as
the spirit of Executive Order No. 33 and will not provoke any kind of constitutional
confrontation (between the President and the Supreme Court).
 In a resolution of the Court en banc dated 29 November 1990, the Court granted
Justice Puno‘s request. The Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, the
Honorable Rodolfo A. Nocon, is directed to correct the seniority rank of Justice
Puno from number twelve (12) to number five (5).
 However, a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Court en banc
dated 29 November 1990 was later filed by Associate Justices Jose C. Campos,
Jr. and Luis A. Javellana, two (2) of the Associate Justices affected by the
ordered correction.
 They contend that the present Court of Appeals is a new Court with fifty one (51)
members and that petitioner could not claim a reappointment to a prior court;
neither can he claim that he was returning to his former court, for the courts
where he had previously been appointed ceased to exist at the date of his last
appointment
36
CONSTI NOTES
 Petitioner argues that, by virtue of Executive Order No. 33 read in relation to B.P.
Blg. 129, his seniority ranking in the Court of Appeals is now number five (5) for,
though President Aquino rose to power by virtue of a revolution, she had pledged
at the issuance of Proclamation No. 3 (otherwise known as the Freedom
Constitution) that ―no right provided under the unratified 1973 Constitution (shall)
be absent in the Freedom Constitution‖.
 Moreover, since the last sentence of Section 2 of Executive Order No. 33 virtually
re-enacted the last sentence of Sec. 3, Chapter 1 of B.P. Blg. 129, statutory
construction rules on simultaneous repeal and re-enactment mandate, according
to positioner, the preservation and enforcement of all rights and liabilities which
had accrued under the original statute.
 Furthermore, petitioner avers that, although the power of appointment is
executive in character and cannot be usurped by any other branch of the
Government, such power can still be regulated by the Constitution and by the
appropriate law, in this case, by the limits set by Executive Order No. 33 for the
power of appointment cannot be wielded in violation of law
ISSUE:
Whether or not the present Court of Appeals is a new court such that it would
negate any claim to precedence or seniority admittedly enjoyed by petitioner in
the Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court which existing prior to
Executive Order No. 33.
HELD:
It is the holding of the Court that the present Court of Appeals is a new entity,
different and distinct from the Court of Appeals or the Intermediate Appellate
Court existing prior to Executive Order No. 33, for it was created in the wake of
the massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary government of
Corazon C. Aquino in the aftermath of the people power (EDSA) revolution in
1986. A revolution has been defined as ―the complete overthrow of the
established government in any country or state by those who were previously
subject to it‖, or as ―a sudden, radical and fundamental change in the government
or political system usually effected with violence or at least some acts of
violence.‖
37
CONSTI NOTES
It has been said that ―the locus of positive law-making power lies with the people
of the state‖ and from there is derived ―the right of the people to abolish, to
reform and to alter any existing form of government without regard to the existing
constitution.‖
These summarize the Aquino government‘s position that its mandate is taken
from ―a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people.
A question which naturally comes to mind is whether the then existing legal order
was overthrown by the Aquino government. ―A legal order is the authoritative
code of a polity. Such code consists of all the rules found in the enactments of
the organs of the polity. Where the state operates under a written constitution, its
organs may be readily determined from a reading of its provisions. Once such
organs are ascertained, it becomes an easy matter to locate their enactments.
The rules in such enactments, along with those in the constitution, comprise the
legal order of that constitutional state.‖ It is assumed that the legal order remains
as a ―culture system‖ of the polity as long as the latter endures and that a point
may be reached, however, where the legal system ceases to be operative as a
whole for it is no longer obeyed by the population nor enforced by the officials.
It is widely known that Mrs. Aquino‘s rise to the presidency was not due to
constitutional processes; in fact, it was achieved in violation of the provisions of
the 1973 Constitution as a Batasang Pambansa resolution had earlier declared
Mr. Marcos as the winner in the 1986 presidential election. Thus it can be said
that the organization of Mrs. Aquino‘s Government which was met by little
resistance and her control of the state evidenced by the appointment of the
Cabinet and other key officers of the administration, the departure of the Marcos
Cabinet officials, revamp of the Judiciary and the Military signalled the point
where the legal system then in effect, had ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino.
The Court GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration and the seniority rankings of
members of the Court of Appeals, including that of the petitioner, at the time the
appointments were made by the President in 1986, are recognized and upheld.
38
CONSTI NOTES
 REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN
RECIT READY
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the
Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) dated 18 November 1991 and 25
March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037.
The first Resolution dismissed petitioners (Republic of the Philippines) Amended
Complaint and ordered the return of the confiscated items to respondent Elizabeth
Dimaano, while the second Resolution denied petitioners (Republic of the Philippines)
Motion for Reconsideration.
 Petitioner prays for the grant of the reliefs sought in its Amended Complaint, or in
the alternative, for the remand of this case to the Sandiganbayan (First Division)
for further proceedings allowing petitioner to complete the presentation of its
evidence.
Statement of Facts
 President Corazon C. Aquino, immediately upon assuming Malacañang, enacts
Executive Order 1 (EO No. 1) or the Presidential Commission on Good
Governance (PCGG). It is mandated to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and
close associates.
 EO No. 1 vested the PCGG with the power:
(a) to conduct investigation as may be necessary in order to accomplish and carry out
the purposes of this order and the power
(h) to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
purpose of this order.
 Accordingly, the PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, created an
AFP Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board) tasked to investigate reports of unexplained
wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or
retired.
AFP Board
 The AFP Board, in line with its mandate, investigates Major General Q. Josephus
Ramas.
 On July 1987, the AFP Board issues a resolution and findings on Ramas‘ alleged
39
CONSTI NOTES
ill gotten wealth. It submits the following findings:
 Evidence in the record showed that respondent is the owner of a house and lot
located at 15-Yakan St., La Vista, Quezon City. The aforementioned property in
Quezon City may be estimated modestly at P700,000.00.
 owner of a house and lot located in Cebu City. The lot has an area of 3,327
square meters.
 Communication equipment and facilities are found in the premises of Elizabeth
Dimaano, a Confidential Agent of the Military Security Unit, and are confiscated
by elements of the PC Command of Batangas.
 These items could not have been in the possession of Elizabeth Dimaano if not
given for her use by respondent Commanding General of the Philippine Army.
 Aside from the military equipment/items and communications equipment, the
raiding team was also able to confiscate money in the amount of P2,870,000.00
and $50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano on 3 March 1986.
 Aside from the military equipment/items and communications equipment, the
raiding team was also able to confiscate money in the amount of P2,870,000.00
and $50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano on 3 March 1986.
 Elizabeth Dimaano is allegedly Major General Q. Josephus Ramas‘ mistress.
She does not have any means to acquire the communications equipment as well
as the aforementioned money.
 The AFP Board finds a prima facie case against Major General Josephus Ramas
for ill gotten wealth and unexplained wealth in the amount of P2,974,134.00 and
$50,000 US Dollars.
 Decision: It is recommended that Maj. Gen. Josephus Q. Ramas (ret.) be
prosecuted and tried for violation of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and RA 1379, as amended, otherwise
known as The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property.
 On 1 August 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act
No. 1379 (RA No. 1379) against Ramas.
 Amended Complaint: Amended Complaint further alleged that Ramas acquired
funds, assets and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as an
army officer and his other income from legitimately acquired property by taking
undue advantage of his public office and/or using his power, authority and
influence as such officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and as a
40
CONSTI NOTES
subordinate and close associate of the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos.
 The Amended Complaint also alleged that the AFP Board, after a previous
inquiry, found reasonable ground to believe that respondents have violated RA
No. 1379. The Amended Complaint prayed for, among others, the forfeiture of
respondents properties, funds and equipment in favor of the State.
Ramas’ Answer:
 Ramas contends that his property consisted only of a residential house at La
Vista Subdivision, Quezon City, valued at P700,000, which was not out of
proportion to his salary and other legitimate income.
 He denies ownership of any mansion in Cebu City and the cash, communications
equipment and other items confiscated from the house of Dimaano.
 Dimaano filed her own Answer to the Amended Complaint. Admitting her
employment as a clerk-typist in the office of Ramas from January-November
1978 only, Dimaano claimed ownership of the monies, communications
equipment, jewelry and land titles taken from her house by the Philippine
Constabulary raiding team.
The Sandiganbayan
 On 13 April 1989, petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint in
order to charge the delinquent properties with being subject to forfeiture as
having been unlawfully acquired by defendant Dimaano alone x x x.
 Petitioner fails to present witnesses and delays the court for over a year.
 on 18 May 1990, petitioner again expressed its inability to proceed to trial
because it had no further evidence to present. Again, in the interest of justice, the
Sandiganbayan granted petitioner 60 days within which to file an appropriate
pleading. The Sandiganbayan, however, warned petitioner that failure to act
would constrain the court to take drastic action.
 Private respondents then filed their motions to dismiss based on Republic v.
Migrino.The Court held in Migrino that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to
investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of mere position held
without a showing that they are subordinates of former President Marcos.
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
(1.) The actions taken by the PCGG are not in accordance with the rulings of the
Supreme Court in Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan[10] and Republic v. Migrino[11] which
involve the same issues.
41
CONSTI NOTES
(2.) No previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases was
conducted against Ramas and Dimaano.
(3.) The evidence adduced against Ramas does not constitute a prima facie case
against him.
(4.) There was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated.
Issues
PCGG’s Jurisdiction to Investigate Private Respondents
Propriety of Dismissal of Case Before Completion of Presentation of Evidence —
Petitioner also contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case before
completion of the presentation of petitioners evidence.
Third Issue: Legality of the Search and Seizure — Petitioner claims that the
Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the properties confiscated from Dimaanos house as
illegally seized and therefore inadmissible in evidence. This issue bears a significant
effect on petitioners case since these properties comprise most of petitioners evidence
against private respondents. Petitioner will not have much evidence to support its case
against private respondents if these properties are inadmissible in evidence.Ruling
First issue:
The PCGG, through the AFP Board, can only investigate the unexplained wealth and
corrupt practices of AFP personnel who fall under either of the two categories
mentioned in Section 2 of EO No. 1. These are: (1) AFP personnel who have
accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the administration of former President Marcos by
being the latters immediate family, relative, subordinate or close associate, taking
undue advantage of their public office or using their powers, influence x x x; or (2) AFP
personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the President assigns
their cases to the PCGG.
Ramas case should fall under the first category of AFP personnel before the PCGG
could exercise its jurisdiction over him. Petitioner argues that Ramas was undoubtedly a
subordinate of former President Marcos because of his position as the Commanding
General of the Philippine Army. Petitioner claims that Ramas position enabled him to
receive orders directly from his commander-in-chief, undeniably making him a
subordinate of former President Marcos.
We hold that Ramas was not a subordinate of former President Marcos in the sense
contemplated under EO No. 1 and its amendments.
Mere position held by a military officer does not automatically make him a subordinate
42
CONSTI NOTES
as this term is used in EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A absent a showing that he enjoyed
close association with former President Marcos.
Second issue:
Based on the findings of the Sandiganbayan and the records of this case, we find that
petitioner has only itself to blame for non-completion of the presentation of its evidence.
First, this case has been pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan dismissed it.
Third issue:
On 3 March 1986, the Constabulary raiding team served at Dimaanos residence a
search warrant captioned Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. Dimaano was
not present during the raid but Dimaanos cousins witnessed the raid. The raiding team
seized the items detailed in the seizure receipt together with other items not included in
the search warrant. The raiding team seized these items: one baby armalite rifle with
two magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56 ammunition; one pistol, caliber .45; communications
equipment, cash consisting of P2,870,000 and US$50,000, jewelry, and land titles.
Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the raiding team conducted the
search and seizure on March 3, 1986 or five days after the successful EDSA revolution.
Petitioner argues that a revolutionary government was operative at that time by virtue of
Proclamation No. 1 announcing that President Aquino and Vice President Laurel were
taking power in the name and by the will of the Filipino people. Petitioner asserts that
the revolutionary government effectively withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution
which guaranteed private respondents exclusionary right.
Moreover, petitioner argues that the exclusionary right arising from an illegal search
applies only beginning 2 February 1987, the date of ratification of the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioner contends that all rights under the Bill of Rights had already reverted to its
embryonic stage at the time of the search. Therefore, the government may confiscate
the monies and items taken from Dimaano and use the same in evidence against her
since at the time of their seizure, private respondents did not enjoy any constitutional
right.
Petitioner is partly right in its arguments.
The correct issues are: (1) whether the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill
of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum, that is, after the actual and
effective take-over of power by the revolutionary government following the cessation of
resistance by loyalist forces up to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of
the Provisional Constitution); and (2) whether the protection accorded to individuals
43
CONSTI NOTES
under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaration) remained in effect during the
interregnum.
We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum. However, we rule that the protection accorded to individuals under the
Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum.
During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were
the supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives
and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution,
there was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary
government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary
right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights
during the interregnum.
As the Court explained in Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno:A revolution has
been defined as the complete overthrow of the established government in any country
or state by those who were previously subject to it or as a sudden, radical and
fundamental change in the government or political system, usually effected with
violence or at least some acts of violence. In Kelsen‘s book, General Theory of Law and
State, it is defined as that which occurs whenever the legal order of a community is
nullified and replaced by a new order . . . a way not prescribed by the first order itself.
During the interregnum, the government in power was concededly a revolutionary
government bound by no constitution. No one could validly question the sequestration
orders as violative of the Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of Rights during the
interregnum. However, upon the adoption of the Freedom Constitution, the sequestered
companies assailed the sequestration orders as contrary to the Bill of Rights of the
Freedom Constitution.
The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration during
the interregnum. Whether the revolutionary government could have repudiated all its
obligations under the Covenant or the Declaration is another matter and is not the issue
here. Suffice it to say that the Court considers the Declaration as part of customary
international law, and that Filipinos as human beings are proper subjects of the rules of
international law laid down in the Covenant. The fact is the revolutionary government
did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration in the same way it repudiated the
1973 Constitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not
44
CONSTI NOTES
escape responsibility for the States good faith compliance with its treaty obligations
under international law.
During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and
orders issued by government officers were valid so long as these officers did not
exceed the authority granted them by the revolutionary government. The directives and
orders should not have also violated the Covenant or the Declaration. In this case, the
revolutionary government presumptively sanctioned the warrant since the revolutionary
government did not repudiate it. The warrant, issued by a judge upon proper
application, specified the items to be searched and seized. The warrant is thus valid
with respect to the items specifically described in the warrant.
It is obvious from the testimony of Captain Sebastian that the warrant did not include the
monies, communications equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding team
confiscated. The search warrant did not particularly describe these items and the raiding
team confiscated them on its own authority. The raiding team had no legal basis to
seize these items without showing that these items could be the subject of warrantless
search and seizure. Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized
these items.The seizure of these items was therefore void, and unless these items are
contraband per se, and they are not, they must be returned to the person from whom
the raiding seized them. However, we do not declare that such person is the lawful
owner of these items, merely that the search and seizure warrant could not be used as
basis to seize and withhold these items from the possessor. We thus hold that these
items should be returned immediately to Dimaano.
The Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The questioned Resolutions of
the Sandiganbayan dated 18 November 1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil Case No.
0037, remanding the records of this case to the Ombudsman for such appropriate
action as the evidence may warrant, and referring this case to the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue for a determination of any tax liability of respondent
Elizabeth Dimaano, are AFFIRMED.
45
CONSTI NOTES
SOVEREIGNTY
 PEOPLE V. GOZO
46
CONSTI NOTES
47

Gertrude Consti Notes PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gertrude Consti Notes PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO

ART 1: NATIONAL TERRITORY

 Spain ceded US ZONE

Turtle and Mangsee immigration and

II. TREATY OF WASHINGTON territory or territorial

unclarified. adjacent to the

CASES: (VALIDITY OF RA 9255)

*Petitioners, professors of law, law students, legislatr assail the constitutionality of RA

Exclusive Economic Zone 382,669

TOTAL 440,994 586,210

4. Whether Failure of RA 9522 to reference either Treaty of Paris or Sabah and

Whether any of the features claimed by China could generate an entitlement

ART 2: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE:

1935 Consti - Declaration of Principles

1973 Consti - Changed title to declaration of Principles and State policies

 Bases Conversion and Development Authority V. COA

The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty

―State is the community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a

NATIONAL SCALE  GOVT : LEGIS, EXEC & JUD

DOCTRINE OF AUTO LIMTATION

AS TO CONCENTRATION OF POWERS IN A GOVERNMENTAL BRANCH

“DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE”

 BACANI V. NACOCO (INCORPORATED)

8.) Dealings of state with foreign powers

Govt required to exercise to promote its Functions which may by exercise

 ACCFA V. CUGCO ( UNINCORPORATED)

EXAMPLES OF GOVT EXERCISING FUNCTIONS THROUGH CORP OR

DE JURE AND DE FACTO GOVT

 LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PUNO

You might also like