Macariola v.

Asuncion
POLITICAL LAW v
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Case no. 133-J I J. Makasiar
Macariola v. Asuncion
POLITICAL LAW v
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Case no. 133-J I J. Makasiar
Macariola v. Asuncion
POLITICAL LAW v
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Case no. 133-J I J. Makasiar
Macariola v. Asuncion
POLITICAL LAW v
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Case no. 133-J I J. Makasiar
Macariola vs Asuncion
Issue:
W/N Judge Asuncion violated paragraphs 1 and 5 of Article 14 Code of
Commerce when he associated himself as a stockholder and a ranking officer
in the said corporation.
NO. Judge Asuncion did violated paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Article 14
Code of Commerce.
Notes:

 Political law is a branch of public law that deals with the organizations
and operations of the governmental organs of the state and relations of
the state with the inhabitants.
 Code of Commerce is the present Spanish Code of Commerce of 1885
with some modifications which was extended to the Philippines by the
Royal Decree of August 1888 and took effect as law in this jurisdiction on
December 1, 1888.
 Code of Commerce is a part of Commercial laws, but it has the nature of
political law because it regulates the relationship between government
and certain public officers (justice and judge).
 Code of Commerce partakes in the nature of administrative law because
it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and employees in
engaging in business; hence, it is political in essence.
 Upon the transfer of the sovereignty from Spain to US, US to the
Philippines, Art. 14 of this Code of Commerce must be revoked because
of the change in sovereignty unless they are expressly re-enacted by the
new sovereign.
Ruling:
Article 14 — The following cannot engage in commerce, either in person or by
proxy, nor can they hold any office or have
any direct, administrative, or financial intervention in commercial or industrial
companies within the limits of the districts,
provinces, or towns in which they discharge their duties:
"1. Justices of the Supreme Court, judges and officials of the department of
public prosecution in active service. This
provision shall not be applicable to mayors, municipal judges, and municipal
prosecuting attorneys nor to those who by
chance are temporarily discharging the functions of judge or prosecuting
attorney.
xxx xxx xxx
"5. Those who by virtue of laws or special provisions may not engage in
commerce in a determinate territory.
Article 14 — The following cannot engage in commerce, either in person or by
proxy, nor can they hold any office or have any direct, administrative, or
financial intervention in commercial or industrial companies within the limits
of the districts, provinces, or towns in which they discharge their duties:

1. Justices of the Supreme Court, judges and officials of the department of

public prosecution in active service. This provision shall not be applicable to
mayors, municipal judges, and municipal prosecuting attorneys nor to those
who by chance are temporarily discharging the functions of judge or
prosecuting attorney.

5. Those who by virtue of laws or special provisions may not engage in

commerce in a determinate territory.

Application:
Under these facts, the Code of Commerce did not continue after the change in
sovereignty from Spain to US and to Philippines. Furthermore, Article 14 of the
Code of Commerce is not legally binding and cannot apply to the respondent.
Conclusion:
THEREFORE, Judge Asuncion did not violate paragraphs 1 and 5 of Article 14
Code of Commerce when he associated himself as a stockholder and a ranking
officer in the said corporation
 U.S. vs. Dorr
Issue:
W/N the Article published by the respondents is in violation of the Art. 292 for
it directly attacks the U.S. government and the Insular Government of the Phil.
Island?
NO. The Article published by the respondents is not violating the Art. 292
for it did not directly attack the U.S. government and the Insular
Government of the Phil. Island.
Notes:
 Government is defined as “the institution or aggregate of institutions by
which an independent society makes and carries out those rules”.
 The Sedition Act of 1798, the term ‘government’ is used in an abstract
sense (President, Congress), meaning the existing political system, its
laws and institutions.
Ruling:
Article 292, Section 8 of the Commission
Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or
circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the
Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or which tend to disturb or
obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or which tend to instigate
others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or
incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities, or to disturb the peace of the community, the
safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil
practices, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by
imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
Analysis:
“Under these facts, the Article 292 defines the meaning of insular of the
government of the Phil. Islands as a system. On the other hand, the Sedition
act of 1798 defines government in an abstract sense (President and Congress).
The article that was released attacked the ‘government’ as the aggregate of
public officials who run it and not the system.”
Conclusion:
THEREFORE, the article published by the respondents did not violate the Art.
292 for it directly attacked the ‘government’ as the aggregate of public officials
who run it and not the system