Political Law – branch of public law

Constitutional Law – study of proper balance between authority and liberty

Constitution – body of rules and maxims
CLASSIFICATIONS:
(a) Written- contained in a document
(b) Unwritten- scattered and not found on documents; judicial decisions, customs,
fundamental characters chuchuchu
• source lang ang difference pero both are in writing

(c) Enacted- has a specific time and place may effort sa pag gawa
(d) Evolved- no specific time and place, a result of political evolution (ex. Judicial decisions)

(e) Rigid- strict process in amending

(f) Flexible- can be changed thru ordinary legislation
INTERPRETATIONS
(a) Verba Legis- ordinary meaning
(b) Ratio Legis est Anima- intent of framers (iba ang framers sa authors ha? ha? ha?)
(c) Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat- as a whole
*possible yung idea na kapag wala na talaga way, iininterpret in accordance sa pag kakaintindi
ng ordinary people (the consti is for and by the people)
HISTORY OF CONSTI – 5
• 1989 Malolos- unicameral, parl
• 1935- unicameral (1940 naging bic) presidential
• 1943- temporary consti, presidential (for world war ii purposes) (iba ang temporary sa
provisional)
• 1973- unicameral, parl
• 1986- provisional, presidential
*Feb. 25 1986 to Mar. 25, 1986 NO CONSTITUTION bc nireject ng people yung 1973 consti
ni marcos, governed by a revolutionary govt. therefore kapag tinanong kayo kung
necessary ang consti for a state IT’S A NO!!! and since walang consti ang ph non, ang nag
gogovern na law sakanila is the public international law like human rights, civil &
political rights ganown
1987 CONSTI- written, enacted, rigid
EFFECTIVITY DATE
1987- feb. 2 1987 upon ratification, meaning the act of voting di pweds na upon
proclamation like their arguments bc proclamation by the pres. is a mere act of announcing
e mas mabigat yung ratification kase it’s the people themselves who voted.
SELF EXECUTING OR NON-SELF EXECUTING
Provisions- presumed to be self-executing tho yung article ii- state policies and decl.
guidelines lang and not self-executing
 Article 15, 16, 28- source of rights, kahit nasa article ii sila, self-executing sila
*remember right to life, right to security, right to liberty- mga rights na di na need inutos ng
consti bc nag eexist na to upon birth, it means inherent tong rights na to
Modes of Proposing Amendments:
(a) Constitutional Convention- called, delegates are elected by popular vote (maybe
priests, lawyers, justices, congress chuchu)
(b) Constituent Assembly- members of congress not acting legislative powers BUT
constituent powers
(c) People’s Initiative- 12% of all registered voters na may 3% legislative district
Modes of Proposing Revision:
(a) Consti Convention
(b) Constituent Assembly
*why di kasama people’s initiative? It’s because our consti is meant to be permanent and
not easily changed by people if gusto nilang baguhin also, the consti itself ang nagsabing
need ng deliberative body in order to propose revisions via ra 6735
MODES OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION
(a) Extra-Constitution- no consti
(b) Revolution- oust the consti (like people power)
RA 6735
Requirements: COMELEC will prescribe necessary forms > people will draft proposal >
attach full text draft and make it a petition > gather signatures within deadline ni COMELEC
Sufficiency- incomplete, insufficient, wanting the aid of legislation ; silent on initiative on the
constitution ; lacking contents for initiative on the consti ; no subtitle (details)
*Santiago ruling – incomplete, insufficient
*Lambino ruling- same ruling by virtue of stare decisic (nag decide based on previous
ruling of the same case/issue (di naoverturn kase opinion lang pala ng justices na complete
si RA 6735 it’s called an obiter
STATE
State- legal concept
Nation- racial/ethnic concept
Elements: people, territory, government, sovereignty
*no need for consti, for establishment of state: no pero for public order: yes
*need ba ng recognition of other states para masabing state? No. pero in reality (sabi ni atty)
yes, for foreign trade and relationship purposes. Di uunlad ang isang state kung di naman siya
nirerecognize ng ibang states right
Police Power, Power of Eminent Domain, Power of Taxation- legislative in nature
GOVERNMENT
 (a) De Jure- with right, but no control/power
(b) De Facto- naging govt. by force (epal trips pero gusto ng tao) no right, with
power/control
- by force, pinilit ng masa
- established by military (colonialization) (ex. Japanese occupation)
- established by civilians (by pag aaklas trips)
Functions:
(a) Constituent- mandatory, for keeping peace and order, protecting private rights
(b) Ministrant- dati optional but mandatory na, for promoting social justice (education,
charity chuchu basta pang mabait na works)
SOVEREIGNTY
Legal- authority to make unli laws (binigay sa govt)
Political- authority ng people, this sovereignty is what influences lawmakers to make laws (kase
gusto ng mga tao)
Internal- govern within territory
External- free of external control (di pweds makialam foreign sovereign)
IMPERIUM AND DOMINIUM
Imperium- govern own state (galing sa mismong concept lang ng sovereignty)
Dominium- own and acquire property (exclusive rights) (we have dominium over sabah)
*may sesend akong vid for territory :> watch niyo nalang kung di niyo gets mga eez,
archipelagic waters shit
STATE IMMUNITY
Principle: no state can be sued without its consent
Exception: when the state gives its consent to be sued by:
(a) Express consent- by legislation general or special law
*example: special law RA 3038
(b) Implied Consent- when the state enters into a contract
*determine first kung commercial act or sovereign act: ang test ko is kung magkaka profit ba
yung state kase kung yes: edi it means it’s a commercial act
Sovereign Acts (jure imperii)- edewups sa immunity kase yung act nila is for the public so
they cannot be sued.
Commercial/Propriety Acts (jure gestionis)- dito may kita yung govt. thus, di nila pwede
iinvoke state immunity kumbaga nag enter sila sa financial contract edi ginusto nila yan
masue kung magkanda leche leche hahah :>>
*what if nag sue ang private person sa isang public official? Determine first kung lets say
nanalo si private party, anong ibibigay na damages sakanya (a) public funds ba? (b) sariling
pera ba nung public official? Kapag public funds gagamitin to pay, edi it’s a suit against
the state (so pwede mag invoke ng immunity and matic talo si private party). ALWAYS
DETERMINE KUNG SAN MANGGAGALING YUNG IPAPAMBAYAD NG STATE oks ba
Presidential Immunity- pres. cant be sued bahala na congress mag impeach pero private
persons cannot sue him (he’s the head of the govt dafuq u want)
*suability does not mean liability, nagbigay ng consent si state, Is it suable then? Yes.
Can the winner of the case claim damages then? NO!! need another waiver ng state oks
SEPARATION OF POWERS
Doctrine: departments cant encroach on another department
Exception: if there is a grave abuse of discretion (pasok judiciary)
CHECKS AND BALANCES
Doctrine: departments may check kung tama ba galaw ng ibang departments without
assuming total jurisdiction
*example: legislative mag eenact ng bill, and the president (as an executive) may veto the
bill of legislative (checkmate ka boi) isa pa, kunwari nag enact ng unconstitutional bill ang
legislative, mangingialam si judiciary as protector of the constitution
Justiciable Question- kapag may procedural issue automatic may jurisdiction ang judiciary
to decide the case
Political Question: internal issue ng isang department bawal makialam judiciary
(example: dinidiscipline ng congress ang isang member nila for disorderly behavior, hindi
pwede mag appeal si member sa court kase issue ng legislative yun, meaning political
question pero pag sumobra yung punishment like lets say ang maximum suspension of an
official is 60 days lang, tapos si congress nag suspend for 100 days then it becomes a
justiciable question so pasooook judiciary grave abuso na yan kapatid)