POLITICAL LAW REVIEW – ANSWERS FOR THE FIRST MODULE

Allaric Luig Palmares

J.D.-IV

1. Discuss the relevance and similarity of Marbury vs. Madison (1 Cranch 1370)(1803)
with Angara v. Electoral Commission, July 15, 1936.

In the Marbury vs Madison, is the first case in the United States that discussed
that the Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and
consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature,
repugnant to the constitution is void. In the case it discussed that it is the emphatically
the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, those who apply
the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. By this, the
Supreme Court of the United States declared Sec. 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as
unconstitutional which became a judicial precedent in the principle of Judicial Review.
In the case of Angara v. Electoral Commission, the Supreme Court concluded that the
government established by the Constitution follows fundamentally the theory of
separation of power into the legislative, the executive and the judicial. That in cases of
conflict between the several departments and among the agencies thereof, the judiciary,
with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism devised
finally to resolve the conflict and allocate constitutional boundaries. That judicial
supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and
controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the
government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority.

2. The Department of Justice entered into a Contract of Security Services with Laging
Bantay Security Company, a duly registered security company, the detailed personnel of which
would guard the premises of the department and secure its personnel and records. DOJ was not
able to pay the salaries and allowances of the five guards which amounted to 200 thousand
pesos. The guards want to sue the DOJ but they were advised that they cannot sue considering
that the contract of security services was entered into by DOJ pursuant to its governmental
powers, thus DOJ still enjoys its immunity from suit. Is DOJ suable? Reason out.

No, the Department of Justice does not enjoy immunity from suit. The
Department of Justice was not able to pay the salaries and allowances of the five guards
which amounted to two hundred thousand pesos as money claim, as stated by the Court
in the Case of Department of Agriculture vs NLRC, 227 scra 693, the claims of private
respondents, i.e. for underpayment of wages, holiday pay, overtime pay and similar
 other items, arising from the Contract for Service, clearly constitute money claims. Act
No. 3083, aforecited, gives the consent of the State to be "sued upon any moneyed claim
involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, . . . Pursuant, however, to
Commonwealth Act ("C.A.") No. 327, as amended by Presidential Decree ("P.D.") No.
1145, the money claim first be brought to the Commission on Audit.

Hence, the Department of Justice is suable due to the fact that it was not able to pay the
salaries and allowances of the five guards which constitute money claims against the Department
of Justice, under which the claimants have to prosecute their money claims against the
Government under Commonwealth Act No. 327 as amended by P.D. 1445 to be brought to the
Commission on Audit.

3. The favorite pig of LDLT was hit during the crossfire when the police officers of Igbaras
Municipal Police Station were pursuing two kidnappers. Moved by so much grief and anger,
LDLT filed a case for damages against the municipality of Igbaras arguing that in the Charter of
the municipality it is expressly stated that it can sue and be sued. Can LDLT validly sue the
Municipality of Igbaras? Explain.

No, LDLT cannot validly sue the Municipality of Igbaras. Although municipal
corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be
sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the
discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown
that they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In the case at bar, the police officers of
Igbaras Municipal Police Station were pursuing two kidnappers when it hit the favorite
pig of LDLT during the crossfire in their regular performance of their official duty.
Hence, LDLT cannot validly sue the Municipality of Igbaras.

4. Pursuant to her powers under the Freedom Constitution, President Corazon Aquino
issued Executive Order No. 51, Milk code of the Philippines, many provisions of which were
adopted from the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code
adopted by the World Health Assemby (WHA) in 1981. The Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations (RIRR) of the Milk Code, however, contains provisions which are not found in the
Milk code itself but they are part of the Resolutions issued by the WHA, the policy making body
of the World Health Organization (WHO). When DOH officials were sued for abuse of authority
in connection with the issuance of the RIRR, they argued that the RIRR is constitutional because
of the doctrine of incorporation. Generally accepted principles of international law
automatically become part of the law of the law even though there is no domestic law adopting
them. Are the arguments of DOH officials correct?
 The arguments of DOH officials is incorrect. Generally accepted principles of
international law refers to norms of generally or customary international law which are
binding on all states. The Resolutions issued by the WHA are not norms of generally or
customary international law which are binding on all states. The Resolutions issued by
the WHA are generally not binding, but they "carry moral and political weight, as they
constitute the judgment on a health issue of the collective membership of the highest
international body in the field of health. Hence, the arguments of DOH officials that the
RIRR is constitutional because of the doctrine of incorporation. Generally accepted
principles of international law automatically become part of the law of the law even
though there is no domestic law adopting them is incorrect.

5. The new baseline law of the Philippines does not include those territories in the West
Philippine Sea which are contested. Is it a violation of Article I of the constitution?

Yes, it is a violation of Article I of the Constitution. Under Article I, of the

Constitution, 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.
It is specifically provided under the constitution that the national territory
comprises the Philippine archipelago and all other territories including the territories in
the West Philippine Sea. Hence, The new baseline law of the Philippines violates Article
I of the constitution.

6. What is the effect if as a result of the application of the straight baseline method by
archipelagic states like the Philippines, bodies of water which previously are not part of internal
waters, already become internal waters and are therefore under the jurisdiction and sovereignty
of the Philippines? Can the Philippines block foreign ships and planes from entering these
internal waters?
 Yes, the result of the application of the straight baseline method by states like the
Philippines, bodies of water which previously are not part of internal waters, already
become internal waters and are therefore under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the
Philippines.
Yes, the Philippines can block foreign ships and planes from entering these
internal waters by suspending the right of innocent passage of foreign ships when it
deemed essential for the protection of national security provided that such suspension
shall take effect after due publication.

7. Due to the paralyzing corruption in Philhealth, the aging President of the Philippines
issued an Executive Order creating the Presidential Commission on Philhealth Corruption
(PCPC) with the main task of investigating all forms of corruption in Philhealth and make
recommendation to the President. Some members of the Makabayan Block in Congress
questioned the said Executive Order because it violates the separation of powers as only
Congress can create an office. The bright boys of Malacanang defended the said E.O. as valid
because it is pursuant to the residual powers of the Chief Executive. Reason out whose argument
is valid.

The argument of Malanang is valid. As declared by the Supreme Court, the

residual power it is the power borne by the President’s duty to preserve and defend the
Constitution. It may also be viewed as a power implicit in the President’s duty to take
care that the laws are faithfully executed. The President’s power to conduct
investigations to aid him in ensuring the faithful execution of laws in this case,
fundamental laws on public accountability and transparency is inherent in the President’s
powers as the Chief Executive. That the authority of the President to conduct
investigations and to create bodies to execute this power is not explicitly mentioned in the
Constitution or in statutes does not mean that he is bereft of such authority.
One of the recognized powers of the President granted pursuant to this
constitutionally-mandated duty is the power to create ad hoc committees. This flows from
the obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws have been faithfully executed. in
Department of Health v. Camposano, it was ruled that The Chief Executive’s power to
create the Ad hoc Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. Having been
constitutionally granted full control of the Executive Department, to which respondents
belong, the President has the obligation to ensure that all executive officials and
employees faithfully comply with the law. With AO 298 as mandate, the legality of the
investigation is sustained. Such validity is not affected by the fact that the investigating
team and the PCAGC had the same composition, or that the former used the offices and
facilities of the latter in conducting the inquiry.
 Hence, the argument of Malacanang defended the said E.O. as valid because it is
pursuant to the residual powers of the Chief Executive. Reason out whose argument is valid.

8. Can a bill be validly enacted into law banning the display of religious images and
artifacts in hospitals? Lay down your specific arguments for or against it.

No, a bill banning the display of religious images and artifacts in hospitals cannot
be validly enacted into law. Such bill is in violation of Article III, section 5 of the 1987
Constitution. Under the free exercise clause, one has the right to act according to one’s
beliefs although subject to regulation. Display of religious images and artifacts in
hospitals is an act according to one’s religious beliefs,
Hence, a bill banning the display of religious images and artifacts in hospitals is
unconstitutional as it infringes the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship.

9. The court is not supposed to venture and intervene into decisions of the Executive Branch
that affect economic policies. As a court it has no “judicial authority to wade into the
unchartered ocean of social and economic policy-making.” Is this standard followed by the
court in the cases of Garcia v. Board of Investment, 191 SCRA 288 and Tanada v. Anagara, 272
SCRS 18?

In Garcia v. Board of Investments The Court did not intervene into decisions of
the Executive Branch, under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government.
There is an actual controversy in the above-mentioned case whether the
petrochemical plant should remain in Bataan or should be transferred to Batangas, and
whether its feedstock originally of naphtha only should be changed to naphtha and/or
liquefied petroleum gas as the approved amended application of the BPC, now Luzon
Petrochemical Corporation (LPC), shows. And in the light of the categorical admission
of the BOI that it is the investor who has the final choice of the site and the decision on
the feedstock, whether or not it constitutes a grave abuse of discretion for the BOI to
yield to the wishes of the investor, national interest notwithstanding. We rule that the
 Court has a constitutional duty to step into this controversy and determine the paramount
issue.

In the case of Tanada v. Anagara, the Court also did not intervene the decisions of
the Executive branch, in seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it
contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an
action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes
not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. "The question thus
posed is judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the
supremacy of the Constitution is upheld. Once a "controversy as to the application or
interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court (as in the instant case), it
becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide. It is the
judicial department's duty and power to strike down grave abuse of discretion on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of government including Congress.

10. The move of the Dying Hard Duterte Supporters (DHDS) to amend the constitution
through the process of initiative and referendum will not be successful because it is very clear in
the case of Miriam Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec that Republic Act No. 6735 is not sufficient
for the purpose of amending the constitution. If you are the anointed counsel of the DHDS how
can you counter that argument to pave the way for the amendment of the constitution through
initiative and referendum? Explain.

If I am the counsel of DHDS, to pave the way for the amendment of the
constitution through the initiative and referendum, as Republic Act No. 6735 is not
sufficient to amend the constitution which another statute is needed. To pave the way for
the amendment of the constitution through initiative and referendum, I will suggest that
we will use Republic Act No. 6735 to pass a statute allowing the amendment of the
constitution through initiative and referendum,