Baybado, M.
Constitutional Law Reviewer
1-I UST CIVIL LAW
History of the Philippine Constitution
The Philippine legislative system has
undergone a series of evolutions that
reflected the sociopolitical conditions of the
times and the level of political maturity of
society.
It began with the unicameral Malolos
Congress of the short-lived Philippine
Republic of 1898-1899, followed by the
Philippine Commission of 1901, a colonial
legislative system composed of all-
American appointees. This body then
evolved into a bicameral, predominantly
elective, Filipino-controlled legislature by
virtue of the Jones Act of 1916, and lasted
until November 1935 when the semi-
independent Commonwealth Government
was inaugurated. A unicameral National
Assembly replaced the bicameral body after
the 1935 Philippine Constitution was
ratified. In 1941, the Constitution was
amended, again restoring the bicameral
legislature that came to be called the
Congress of the Philippines.
Except during the Japanese-sponsored
Philippine Republic from 1942-1945, the
Congress functioned as the national
legislature until September 1972 when
President Ferdinand E. Marcos placed the
country under martial law.
When martial law was declared, the
Constitutional Convention, by virtue of an
Act of Congress in 1971, was in the process
of drafting a new Constitution. The final
draft was adopted by the Convention on
November 29, 1972. This was ratified and
proclaimed by President Marcos on January
17, 1973 amidst widespread protest and
controversy. With the proclamation of a new
Constitution, the presidential form of
government was changed to a modified
parliamentary form. Congress was abolished
and was replaced by an elected unicameral
National Assembly, known as Batasang
Pambansa.
The Batasang Pambansa was made up of a
maximum of 200 Members elected from
different provinces with their component
cities, highly urbanized cities and districts of
Metropolitan Manila, appointed
representatives from various sectors such as
the youth, agricultural and industrial labor
sectors, and those chosen by the President
from the members of the Cabinet. The
Members had a term of six years.
1986 EDSA RevolutionThe world-famed
bloodless coup of February 22-25, 1986
ushered in a new political regime. President
Corazon Aquino, backed by a coalition of
forces from both ends of the political
spectrum, forged a new government,
triggering a chain of events that dramatically
changed the political landscape of the
country and signalled the rebirth of
democracy. These political changes were:
the abolition of the Batasang Pambansa
following the proclamation of a new
revolutionary government; the organization
of a Constitutional Commission that drafted
a new charter which, in turn, was ratified in
February 1987; the rebirth of the old
bicameral system; and the election of
Members to the new Congress.
The new Congress has the biggest
membership and is probably the most
powerful among its predecessor legislatures.
The Constitutional Commission (ConCom)
clothed it with vast powers to perform a
wider and more dynamic role. This fact is
partly reflected in the Charter itself, which
devotes 32 sections to the legislative
department compared with only 23 for the
executive and 16 for the judicial
departments.
Baybado, M.A
The new bicameral Congress consists of the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
The upper chamber or the Senate is
composed of 24 Members elected at-large
by the qualified voters of the Philippines. On
the other hand, the lower chamber or the
House of Representatives is composed of
not more than 250 members.
What is a preamble?
[Preamble is not a source of rights or of
obligations. (Jacobson v Massachussetts)]
- It sets down the origin, scope, and
purpose of the constitution, it is
useful as an aid in ascertaining the
meaning of ambiguous provisions in
the body of the constitution. It is thus
a source of light.
Parts of the Constitution
 Preamble
 Article I - National Territory
 Article II – Declaration of Principles
and State Policies (28 Sections)
 Article III – Bill of Rights (22
Sections)
 Article IV – Citizenship (5 Sections)
 Article V – Suffrage (2 Sections)
 Article VI – Legislative Department
(32 Sections)
 Article VII – Executive Department
(23 Sections)
 Article VIII – Judicial Department
(16 Sections)
 Article IX – Constitutional
Commissions (8 Sections)
 Article X – Local Government (21
Sections)
 Article XI – Accountability of Public
Officers (18 Sections)
 Article XII – National Economy and
Patrimony (22 Sections)
 Article XIII – Social Justice and
Human Rights (19 Sections)
 Article XIV – Education, Science
and Technology, Arts, Culture and
Sports (19 Sections)
 Article XV – The Family (4
Sections)
 Article XVI – General Provisions
(12 Sections)
 Article XVII – Amendments or
Revisions (4 Sections)
 Article XVIII – Transitory
Provisions (27 Sections)
Democracy and Republic
 Democracy – People are declared
supreme. Every citizen is an
individual repository of sovereignty.
A system of government in which
power is vested in people and
exercised by them directly or
through freely elected
represnetatives.
 Republic – A representative
government, a government run by
and for the people. The essence of
republicanism is representation and
renovation, the selection by the
citizenry of a corps of public
functionaries who derive their
mandate from the people and act on
their behalf, serving for a limited
period only, after which they are
replaced or retained at the option of
their principal.
Citizenship
 Personal and more or less permanent
membership in a political
community. It denotes possession
within that particular community of
full civil and political rights subject
to special disqualifications such as
minority.
 It imposes the duty of allegiance to
the political community.
Baybado, M.A
 Modern law recognizes three distinct
modes of acquiring citizenship: (1)
Jus Sanguinis – acquisition of
citizenship on the basis of blood
relationship; (2) Jus Soli –
acquisition of citizenship on the
basis of place of birth; (3)
Naturalization – the legal act of
adopting an alien and clothing him
with the privilege of a native-born
citizen. The basic Philippine law
follows the rule of jus sanguinis
and provides for naturalization.
 These are those who were citizens at
the time of adoption of the 1973
constitution:
o Those who are citizens of the
Philippine Islands at the time
of the adoption of the (1935)
constitution;
o Those born in the Philippine
Islands of foreign parents
who, before the adoption of
this Constitution, had been
elected to public office in the
Philippine Islands;
o Those whose fathers are
citizens of the Philippines;
o Those whose mothers are
citizens of the Philippines
and, upon reaching the age of
majority, elect Philippine
citizenship.
o Those who are naturalized in
accordance with law.
Suffrage
 Suffrage traditionally has been
understood as the right to vote in
elections or the obligation to vote.
 Suffrage may be exercised by all
citizens of the Philippines not
otherwise disqualified by law, who
are at least eighteen years of age, and
who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year and
in the place wherein they propose to
vote for at least six months
immediately preceding the election.
 The following are not qualified to
vote: (1) Any person who has been
sentenced by final judgment to suffer
an imprisonment of not less than one
year, such disability not having been
removed by plenary pardon; (2) Any
person who has been adjudged by
final judgment by competent court of
having violated his allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines; and (3)
Insane or feeble-minded persons.
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS (Case Digest)
Facts:
The Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) decided to sell through public
bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and
outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel
(MHC). In a close bidding, two bidders
participated: Manila Prince Hotel
Corporation (MPHC), a Filipino
corporation, which offered to buy 51% of
the MHC at P41.58 per share, and Renong
Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-
Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for
the same number of shares at P44.00 per
share, or P2.42 more than the bid of
petitioner.
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard
as the winning bidder and the execution of
the contracts, the MPHC matched the bid
price  in a letter to GSIS. MPHC sent a
manager’s check to the GSIS in a
subsequent letter, which GSIS refused to
accept. On 17 October 1995, perhaps
apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the
tender of the matching bid, MPHC came to
the Court on prohibition and mandamus.
Baybado, M.A
Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art.
XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits
that the Manila Hotel has been identified
with the Filipino nation and has practically
become a historical monument which
reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage
and culture.
Respondents assert that Sec. 10, second par.,
Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely
a statement of principle and policy since it is
not a self-executing provision and requires
implementing legislation(s)
Issue:
WON the provisions of the Constitution,
particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-
executing
Ruling:
Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution is a self-executing provision.
A provision which lays down a general
principle, such as those found in Article II of
the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-
executing. But a provision which is
complete in itself and becomes operative
without the aid of supplementary or enabling
legislation, or that which supplies sufficient
rule by means of which the right it grants
may be enjoyed or protected, is self-
executing.
Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a
legislative act is necessary to enforce a
constitutional mandate, the presumption
now is that all provisions of the constitution
are self-executing. If the constitutional
provisions are treated as requiring
legislation instead of self-executing, the
legislature would have the power to ignore
and practically nullify the mandate of the
fundamental law.
In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, Art.
XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory,
positive command which is complete in itself
and which needs no further guidelines or
implementing laws or rules for its
enforcement. From its very words the
provision does not require any legislation to
put it in operation.
Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc.
(Case Digest)
Facts:
DMCI Project Developers, Inc. acquired a
lot in the City of Manila. The said lot was
earmarked for the construction of Torre de
Manila Condominium project. After having
acquired all the necessary permits and
documents, the DMCI-PDI was ready to
commence the intended project. However,
the City of Manila Council issued a
resolution to temporarily suspend the
Building Permit until such time that issues
had been cleared. Consultations after
consultations had he been initiated both by
the City of Manila and DMCI-PDI. Finally,
On Jan. 2014, the City Council of Manila,
issued another resolution ratifying and
confirming all previously issued permits,
licenses and approvals issued by the City for
Torre de Manila.
Knights of Rizal, on the other hand, filed a
petition for injunction seeking TRO, and
later a permanent injunction, against the
construction of the project. The KOR
argued that the building, if completed,
would be a sore to the view of the
monument, an endangerment to the nation’s
cultural heritage, and a construction borne
out of bad faith.
Baybado, M.A
Issue:
WON the court should issue a writ of
mandamus against the City Officials to stop
the construction of Torre de Manila.
Ruling:
No, The SC ruled that there was no law
prohibiting the construction of the project.
It was not even considered as contrary to
morals, customs and public order. The
project was way well from the Park where
the monument was located. The SC ruled
further that a mandamus did not lie against
the City of Manila. It is categorically clear
that “a mandamus is issued when there is a
clear legal duty imposed upon the office or
the officer sought to be compelled to
perform an act, and the party seeking
mandamus has a clear legal right to the
performance of such act.” In the case at bar,
such factors were wanting. Nowhere was it
found in the ordinance, or in any Law or rule
that the construction of such building
outside the Rizal Park was prohibited if the
building was within the background
sightline or vision of the Rizal Monument.
Thus, the petition was lacking of merit and,
thus dismissed.
Elements of the State
People
 Inhabitants of the state.
 No legal requirements as to their
number, as long as it I numerous
enough to be self-sufficing and to
defend themselves and small enough
to be easily administered and
sustained.
Territory
 Fixed portion of the surface of the
earth inhabited by the people of the
state.
 Practical requirement is that it must
neither be too big as to be difficult to
administer and defend nor too small
as to be unable to provide for the
needs of the population.
Components of Territory
 Land mass also known as
terrestrial domain, the inland and
external waters which make up
the maritime and fluvial domain,
and the airspace above the land
and waters called the aerial
domain.
Archipelago Doctrine
 Under which, we connect the
outermost points of our
archipelago with straight
baselines and consider all waters
enclosed thereby as internal
waters.
The Government
 The agency or instrumentality
through which the will of the
state is formulated, expressed
and realized.
 No particular form of
government is prescribed
provided only that the
government is able to represent
the state in its dealings with other
states.
 The government performs to
kinds of functions, wit, the
constituent and the ministrant.
De Jure Government
 This kind of government has rightful
title but no power or control, either
because this has been withdrawn
from it or because it has not yet
Baybado, M.A
actually entered into exercise
thereof.
De Facto Government
 A government of fact, that is, it
actually exercises power or control
but without legal title. There are
three (3) kinds of this government
 (1) The government that gets
possession and control of, or usurps
by force or by the voice of the
majority, the rightful legal
government and maintains itself
against the will of the latter; (2) That
established as an independent
government by the inhabitants of a
country who rise in insurrection
against the parent state; and (3) That
which is established and maintained
by military forces who invade and
occupy a territory of the enemy in
the course of war, and which is
denominated as a government of
paramount force.
Sovereignty
 The supreme and uncontrollable
power inherent in a state by which
that state is governed.
Two Kinds of Sovereignty
 Legal – Authority which has the
power to issue final commands. The
congress is the legal sovereign in the
Philippines.
 Political – The power behind the
legal sovereign, or the sum of
influences that operate upon it.
Different sectors that mold public
opinion make up the political
sovereign.
Internal and External Sovereignty
 Internal – Refers to the power of the
state to control its domestic affairs.
 External – The power of the state to
direct its relations with other states,
also known as, independence.
Magallona v. Ermita (Case Digest)
Facts:
n 1961, Congress passed R.A. 3046
demarcating the maritime baselines of the
Philippines as an Archepelagic State
pursuant to UNCLOS I of 9158, codifying
the sovereignty of State parties over their
territorial sea. Then in 1968, it was amended
by R.A. 5446, correcting some errors in
R.A. 3046 reserving the drawing of
baselines around Sabah.
In 2009, it was again amended by R.A.
9522, to be compliant with the UNCLOS III
of 1984. The requirements complied with
are: to shorten one baseline, to optimize the
location of some basepoints and classify
KIG and Scarborough Shoal as ‘regime of
islands’.
Petitioner now assails the constitutionality
of the law for three main reasons:
1. it reduces the Philippine maritime
territory under Article 1;
2. it opens the country’s waters to innocent
and sea lanes passages hence undermining
our sovereignty and security; and
3. treating KIG and Scarborough as ‘regime
of islands’ would weaken our claim over
those territories.
Issue:
WON R.A. 9522 is constitutional
Ruling:
1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with
acquisition or loss of territory. it is just a
codified norm that regulates conduct of
States. On the other hand, RA 9522 is a
baseline law to mark out basepoints along
coasts, serving as geographic starting points
Baybado, M.A
to measure. it merely notices the
international community of the scope of our
maritime space.
2. If passages is the issue, domestically, the
legislature can enact legislation designating
routes within the archipelagic waters to
regulate innocent and sea lanes passages. but
in the absence of such, international law
norms operate.
The fact that for archipelagic states, their
waters are subject to both passages does not
place them in lesser footing vis a vis
continental coastal states. Moreover, RIOP
is a customary international law, no modern
state can invoke its sovereignty to forbid
such passage.
3. On the KIG issue, RA 9522 merely
followed the basepoints mapped by RA
3046 and in fact, it increased the Phils.’ total
maritime space. Moreover, the itself
commits the Phils.’ continues claim of
sovereignty and jurisdiction over KIG.
If not, it would be a breach to 2 provisions
of the UNCLOS III:
Art. 47 (3): ‘drawing of basepoints shall not
depart to any appreciable extent from the
general configuration of the archipelago’.
Art 47 (2): the length of baselines shall not
exceed 100 mm.
KIG and SS are far from our baselines, if we
draw to include them, we’ll breach the rules:
that it should follow the natural
configuration of the archipelago.
State Immunity
 A recognition of the sovereign
character of the state and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule
insulating it from the jurisdiction of
the courts of justice.
(Can state immunity be given???? No
Answer)
Waiver of State Immunity
 Yes, the state may, if it so desires,
divest itself of its sovereign
immunity and thereby voluntarily
open itself to suit.
 In fine, the state may be sued if it
gives consent.
Forms or Ways of Wavering
 Express – May be manifested either
through a general law or a special
law.
 Implied – Given when the state itself
commences litigation or when it
enters into a contract.
Court cannot garnish/levy public
funds and public property
 In the case of Republic of the
Philippines v. Villasor, the judge in
this case issued a writ of execution
against the funds of the A.F.P. to
satisfy a judgment rendered against
the state/ Philippine Government.
 The supreme court rendered the writ
unlawful and made the following
remarks:
o The state may not be sued
without its consent. A
corollary, both dictated by
logic and sound sense from
such a basic concept, is that
public funds cannot be the
object of garnishment
proceedings even if the
consent to be sued had been
previously granted and the
state liability adjudged.
Baybado, M.A

United States of America v. Ruiz (Case into business contracts. It does not apply
Digest) where the contract relates the exercise of its
sovereign function. In this case, the projects
Facts: are an integral part of the naval base which
The United States of America had a naval is devoted to the defense of both the US and
base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one the Philippines, indisputably a function of
of those provided in the Military Bases the government of the highest order; they
Agreement between the Philippines and the are not utilized for nor dedicated to
US. Respondent alleges that it won in the commercial or business purposes.
bidding conducted by the US fro the
construction of wharves in said base that Governmental Functions and
was wrongly awarded to another group. For Proprietary Functions
this reason, a suit for specific performance
was filed by him against the US.  Governmental - A
governmental function
Issue: includes services that
WON the United States Naval Base in only the government
bidding for said contracts exercise does, such as restaurant
governmental functions to be able to invoke inspection, animal
state immunity. control, health and safety
permits and licenses,
Ruling: sanitation, vital statistics,
The traditional rule of State immunity and related functions.
exempts a state from being sued in the  Propietary - A proprietary
courts of another state without its consent or function is one that a
waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence private entity can
of the principles of independence and perform, and is not
equality of states. However, the rules of uniquely for the benefit of
international law are not petrified; they are the general public. The
constantly developing and evolving. And discretionary function
because the activities of states have defense applies to
multiplied, it has been necessary to discretionary
distinguish them — between sovereign and governmental functions,
governmental acts and private, commercial but not for proprietary (or
and proprietary acts. The result is that state ministerial) functions.
immunity now extends only to sovereign
and governmental acts.
Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v.
The restrictive application of state immunity Customs Arrastre Service (Case Digest)
is proper only when the proceedings arise Facts:
out of commercial transactions of the
foreign sovereign, its commercial activities This case was filed by Mobil Phil
or economic affairs. A state may be said to Exploration Inc. against the Customs
have descended to the level of an individual Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs
and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given to recover the value of the undelivered case
its consent to be sued only when it enters of rotary drill parts.
Baybado, M.A

Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped

from abroad, consigned to Mobil Philippines
Exploration, Inc. The shipment was
discharged to the custody of the Customs
Arrastre Service, the unit of the Bureau of
Customs then handling arrastre operations
therein. The Customs Arrastre Service later
delivered to the broker of the consignee
three cases only of the shipment. Mobil
Philippines Exploration, Inc filed suit in the
Court of First Instance of Manila against the
Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of
Customs to recover the value of the
undelivered case plus other damages.
Diplomatic Immunity
 A doctrine of international
law in which certain officials
from foreign governments are
not subject to the jurisdiction
of local courts and authorities
of the hosting country for
their official activities (as
well as their personal
activities, to a large extent).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Document which proves that a

complaint on the ground that not being person enjoys diplomatic status
persons under the law, defendants cannot be
sued. Appellant contends that not all
government entities are immune from suit;
that defendant Bureau of Customs as
operator of the arrastre service at the Port of
Manila, is discharging proprietary functions
and as such, can be sued by private
individuals.
Issue:
WON both Customs Arrastre Service and
the Bureau of Customs can invoke state
immunity.
Ruling:
The Bureau of Custom, is a part of
Department of Finance. It does not have a
separate juridical personality of its own
apart from that of the national government.
Its primary function is governmental, that of
assessing and collecting lawful revenues
from imported articles and all other tariff
and customs duties, fees, charges, fines and
penalties (Sec. 602, R.A. 1937). To this
function, arrastre service is a necessary
incident. As stated in the law, agencies of
the government is not suable if it is
performing governmental functions and if it
an unincorporated government entity
without a separate juridical personality.