LegalPurple a.

definition
b. types: legal vs. political sovereignty
The world in the eyes of a law student
c. doctrine of jus postliminium
Constitutional Law 1 Course Syllabus d. effect of suspension or change in
sovereignty
This syllabus is taken from our consti teacher for the CASES:
benefit of the whole class. Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez, 75 Phil 113
Peralta vs. Director, 75 Phil 285
Alcantara vs. Director, 75 Phil 749
Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil 856
INTRODUCTION People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887
Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77
I. Pre-1987 Constitution Vilas vs. City of Manila, 42 Phil 953
CASES:
Planas v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-35925 January 22, 1973 (aka
B. Concept of “Act of State”
Plebiscite cases)
Javellana vs. Exec. Sec., 50 SCRA 33 (aka Ratification cases) C. Doctrine of the state as parens patriae
Aquino vs. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183
Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976 CASES:
Gov’t vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil 728
(affirming the validity of Javellana)
Cabanas vs. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94
Occeña v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-56350 April 2, 1981 (affirming
the validity of Javellana)
Phil. Bar Association vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 72915, December STATE IMMUNITY FORM SUIT
20, 1985
I. Basis

II. The 1987 Constitution CASE: Kawanakoa vs. Polybank, 205 US 349

III. The State as a Concept II. Suits Against Public Officials as Suits Against the
State
A. Elements of a state
A. Test: will require an affirmative act from the state
1. People
CASES:
2. Territory Garcia vs. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120
Ruiz vs. Cabahug, 102 Phil 110 (1957)
3. Government
a. functions: constituent vs. ministrant
B. Effect when public officer acts without, or in excess of,
jurisdiction
CASES:
ACCFA vs. FLU, 30 SCRA 649 CASE: Festejo vs. Fernando, GR No. L-5156, March 11, 1954
PVTA vs. CIR, 65 SCRA 416 (NOTE: text of main opinion is in Spanish; read dissent of
Justice Concepcion and the discussion in the book of Cruz to
get an idea what the case is all about)
b. Types of government: de jure vs. de facto
III. Suits Against Government Agencies
CASES:
Lawyer’s League vs. Aquino, GR 73748, 5/22/86 A. Test
Estrada vs. Arroyo, GR146710, 3/2/01
1. If incorporated: consult charter
c. the Government of the Republic of the Phils.
CASES:
d. “government” vs. “administration” Bermoy vs. Philippine Normal College, GR No. L-8670, May 18, 1956
Arcega vs. CA, 66 SCRA 229
Rago vs. CFI, 110 SCRA 460
Phil. Nat’l Railways vs. IAC, 217 SCRA 401
4. Sovereignty 2. If unincorporated: determine nature of primary
function
CASES: Merrit vs. Government of the Phil. Islands, supra
Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Ass’n, 1 SCRA Palafox vs. Ilocos Norte, GR No. L-10659, Jan. 31, 1958
340
Mobil Phils. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120
E. Exemptions From Legal Requirements of the
State
IV. Suits vs. Foreign States
F. Restrictive State Immunity: adhered by the
CASES: Philippines
Syquia vs. Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil 312 (read also the dissent of
Justice Perfecto)
Sanders vs. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88
Separation and Delegation of Powers
Holy See vs. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524
USA vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 I. SEPARATION OF POWERS

V. Waiver of Immunity: Consent to be Sued A. In the Constitution

A. Forms of Consent 1. The major departments (Art. VI, VII, and VIII)

1. Express 2. The constitutional commissions (Art. IX)

a. Thru a general law (Read Act No. 3083 3. The other independent bodies
and Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended
by PD 1445) o the Electoral Tribunals [Sec. 17, Art. VI and Sec. 4
CASE: Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360 (last par), Art. VII]
o the Commission on Appointments (Sec. 18, Art. VI)
b. Thru a special law o the Judicial and Bar Council (Sec. 8, Art. VIII)}
CASE: Merrit vs. Government of the Phil. Islands, 34
Phil 311 B. Manner of Conferment of Power
2. Implied
1. Express
a. When state commences litigation  Legislative power to Congress (Sec. 1, Art. VI)
CASES:  Executive power to the President (Sec. Art. VII)
Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., GR No. L-6060, Sept.
 Judicial power to SC, lower courts (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)
30, 1950
Lim vs. Brownell, 107 SCRA 345  Others (e.g. powers of the independent constitutional
b. When state enters into a contract bodies)
CASES:
US vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 2. Implied (Doctrine of Necessary Implication)
USA vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644
CASES:
B. Suit allowed even without consent to be sued 1. Angara vs. EC, 63 Phil 139
2. Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil 29
CASE: Santiago vs. Republic, 87 SCRA 294
3. Inherent or incidental
C. Consent to be Sued not Consent to Execution of
Judgment CASES:
1. In re Dick, 38 Phil 41
CASE: Rep. vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 2. In re Sotto, 82 Phil 595

1. Exception C. Purpose of separation of powers

CASE: PNB vs. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595

D. Suability vs. Liability

1. Read also The Local Government Code of

II. COROLLARY CONCEPTS
1991
D. Corollary Concepts
CASES:
1. Blending (Overlap) of Powers
CASE: Springer vs. PI, 277 US 189
2. Checks and Balances
 Lawmaking by Congress, veto by the President, override of
the veto by the Congress (Sec. 27, Art. VI)
 Grant of amnesty by the president, concurrence by the
Congress (Sec. 19, Art. VI)
 Entry into treaty by the president, concurrence by the
Senate (Sec. 20, Art. VII)
 Conviction by the judiciary, pardon by the President (Sec.
19, Art. VIII)
 Jurisdiction of courts may be reduced by the Congress (Sec.
2, Art. VIII)
 Congress may abolish lower courts (Sec. 1 and 2, Art. VIII)
CASES:
1. Ocampovs. Sec., GR L-7918, 1/18/55
2. De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294
3. Delegation of Powers
 General Rule: potestas delegata non delegari potest
 Basis
 Exception: instances of permissible delegation
 Tariff powers to the president [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI]
 Emergency powers to the president [Sec 23 (2), Art.
VI]
CASES:
1. Araneta vs. Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368
2. Rodriguez vs. Gella, 92 Phil 603
 Legislative power to the people at large: System on
initiative and referendum (Sec. 32, Art. VI)
 Legislative power to LGUs (See Sec. 16 and 19 of RA
7160)
 Legislative power to administrative bodies (power of
subordinate legislation)
CASE: Cruz vs. Youngberg, 56 SCRA 234
i. Basis
ii. How effected
iii. Two tests of valid delegation
CASE: Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA, G.R. No. 76633 October
18, 1988
a. Completeness test
CASE: US vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1
b. Sufficient standards test
CASES:
1. Pp vs. Rosenthal, 68 Phil 328
2. Cervantes vs. Auditor, 91 Phil 359
3. Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726
4. Hirabayashi vs. US, 320 U.S. 81
5. Dela Llana vs. Alba, supra
6. PP vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56
7. Inot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
iv. Application of the two tests: concurrent, not
alternate
CASES:
Pelaez vs. Auditor, 15 SCRA 569
Add: Tatad v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 124360 November
5, 1997
 Delegation of ascertainment of facts, not
delegation of legislative power
CASE: Abakada Guro vs. Ermita, GR 168056, 9/1/05
(Decision); 10/18/05 (Resolution)
E. Role of judiciary in separation of powers (Sec. 1, Art.
VIII)
CASE: Angara vs. Electoral Commission, supra
1. Supremacy of the Constitution upheld by the judiciary
2. Justiciable and Political Questions
CASES:
1. Tanada vs. Cuenco, 100 Phil 1101
2. Sanidad vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333
3. Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496
4. Tanada vs. Angara, GR 118295, 5/2/97
5. Aytona vs. Castillo, 4 SCRA 1
6. Javellana vs. Executive Sec., supra
7. De la Llana vs. COMELEC, supra
8. Custodio vs. Senate, 42 O.G. 1243
9. Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil 83
10. Osmena vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863
11. Vera vs. Avelino, 77 SCRA 192
12. PBA vs. Comelec, GR 72915, 12/20/85
13. De Castro vs. Committee, GR 71688, 9/10/85
14. Romulo vs. Iniguez, 141 SCRA 263
15. Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17
16. Meralco vs. Pasay Trans., 57 Phil 825
17. Endencia vs. David, GR L-6455,8/31/53
 · Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171
· Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez, 75 Phil 113
3. Expanded jurisdiction under the 1987 Constitution
· Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155
[sec. 1 (2nd par.), Art. VIII]
· Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230
 Also: Determination of the sufficiency of factual basis · In re Garcia, 2 SCRA 984
of Martial Law: Sec. 18, Art. VII
3. Renunciation of War (Sec. 2)
 Grant of plenary power to other branches: not bar to a) See also: Independent Foreign Policy (Sec. 7) and
judicial inquiry Nuclear-Free Policy (Sec. 8)
CASE: Bondoc vs. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710 Sept. 26, 1991 b) See also Sec. 25, Art. XIII: Re former US Military
Bases

A. Preamble 4. Defense of the State (Sec. 4)

B. Art. I: National Territory · Pp. vs. Lagman, GR 45892, 7/13/1938
1. Archipelagic state; archipelago · Pp. vs. Soza, GR 45893, 7/13/1938
a) Def’n. under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) 5. Separation of Church and State (Sec. 6)
Read the salient points of the 1982 U.N. Convention on a) See also Sec. 5, Art. III (The non-establishment
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) clause and free-exercise clause)
b) significance of definition · Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201

2. Territorial sea 6. Social Justice and Human Rights (Sec. 9-11; 18;
a) Sovereignty: exercised by the coastal state 21)
b) Right of innocent passage: ships of other states a) See also Art. XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights)
· Calalang vs. Williams, 70 SCRA 726
3. Baselines · Ass’n of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian,
a) Def’n. under the UNCLOS 175 SCRA 343
b) Ways of drawing baselines: normal baseline
method vs. straight baseline method: See Art. 7 (1), 7. Family, Women and Youth (Sec. 12-14)
UNCLOS a) See Sec. 14, Art. XIII (re working women)
b) See also Art. XIV (The Family)
4. Archipelagic (internal/inland) waters: par.1, Art. I c) Read the salient features of the United Nations
a) Sovereignty by coastal state; no Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
right of innocent passage Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

5. Significant phrase: “all other territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction”
C. Art. II: Fundamental Principles & State Policies
Art II provisions generally not self-executing
· Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156.
February 3, 1997 (Read also the main dissent of Justice
Puno, and the separate concurrences and dissents of
the other magistrates)
· PT&T vs. NLRC, GR 118978, 5/23/97
8. Right to Health (Sec. 15); Right to Healthful and
Balanced Ecology (Sec. 16)
a) See also the Rule on the Writ of Kalikasan
· LLDA vs. CA, GR 120865-71, 12/7/95 [Wrong citation:
Should have been G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994.]
· Oposa vs. Factoran, GR 101083, 7/30/93

1. Republicanism (Sec. 1) 9. Education, Science and Technology, etc. (Sec. 17)

a) Also: Supremacy of Civilian Authority (Sec. 3) a) Read also Art. XIV (Education, Science and
Technology, etc.)
2. The Incorporation clause (Sec. 2) 10. Labor as primary social economic force (Sec. 18)
a) Relate with Sec. 13, Art. XIII
· Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No.
167614, March 24, 2009 (See concurrence of Brion, J.)
11. National Economy (Sec. 19-21)
a) Read also Art. XII (National Economy and
Patrimony)
· Tanada vs. Angara, G.R. 118295, 5/2/97
· Garcia vs. Corona, G.R. 132451, 12/17/99

12. Indigenous Cultural Communities (Sec. 22)

· Cruz vs. Sec., G.R. 135385, 12/6/00

13. Local Autonomy (Sec. 25)

a) Read Art. X (Local Government)
(NOTE: Separately covered by the study of the Local
Government Code of 1991)
14. Opportunities for Public Service and Anti-Political
Dynasty (Sec. 26)
· Pamatong vs. Comelec, G.R. 161872, 4/13/04

15. Honesty and Integrity in Public Service (Sec. 27)

a) Read Art. XI (Accountability of Public Officers)
16. Full disclosure of Public Transactions (Sec. 27)
a) Also read Sec. 7, Art. III, the right to information on
matters of public concern
· North Cotabato v. Government of RP, G.R. No.
183591, October 14, 2008