July 10

" The State is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed
territory, and possessed of an independent government,organized for political ends to which the
great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience"
Nation indicates a relation of birth or origin and implies a common race, usually characterized by
community of language and customs.
Nation is a racial or ethnic concept State is a legal concept

MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT ON THE ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (MOA-AD)

On July 16, 2008, representatives of the government and the separatist Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF) were able to come up with a proposed memorandum ofagreement on
ancestral domain (MOA-AD)
The MOA-AD proposed for a homeland for Moslem Filipinos, which was to be referredto as the
Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BIE)
This was to include the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (Sulu, Maguindanao, Lanao del
Sur, Taw Tawi, Basilan and Marawi City); six municipalities in Lanao del Norte; hundreds of villages
in the provinces of Sultan Kudarat, Lanao del Norte and
North Cotabato, which voted in 2001 to become part of the ARMM, and parts of Palawan,

BANGSAMORO JURIDICAL ENTITY (BIE)

On 28 October, 2021, President Duterte signed into law a bill postponing the first parliamentary
elections in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) from 2022 to
2025, thereby extending the political
transition in the region for another three years. The law amends Philippine Republic Act No. 11054,
better known as the Bangsamoro Organic Law, that had formally created the new autonomous
entity in the southern Philippines in early 2019, providing for a three-year
interim period before holding the BARMM's first parliamentary elections that would formally mark
the end of the transition.

Before the Supreme Court decision was released, Malacañang announced that it was dissolving the
government peace panel and that the administration would not sign the document because
violence had erupted in Mindanao. On Oct. 14, the Supreme Court, voting 8-7, declared the MOA-
AD unconstitutional and illegal The Supreme Court stated that the proposed agreement cannot be
reconciled with the present Constitution and laws. The concept of an associative relationship
between the GRP and the BE are unconstitutional for it pre-supposes that the associated entity is a
state.

BANGSAMORO JURIDICAL ENTITY (BIE)

On 28 October, 2021, President Duterte signed into law a bill postponing the first parliamentary
elections in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) from 2022 to
2025, thereby extending the political transition in the region for another three years. The law
amends Philippine Republic Act No. 11054, better known as the Bangsamoro Organic Law, that had
formally created the new autonomous entity in the southern Philippines in early 2019, providing
for a three-year Interim period before holding the BARMM's first parliamentary elections that
would formally mark the end of the transition

ELEMENTS OF THE STATE

1. People refers to the inhabitant of a state
2. Territory - the fixed potion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the state Under
the present Constitution, reference to treaties concluded by the US during its regime in our country
has been de-emphasized
3. Government - the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated,
expressed and realized No particular form of government is prescribed, so long as it is able to
represent the country in dealings with other countries.
4. Sovereignty - the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that state is
governed

CONSTITUENT VS. MINISTRANT FUNCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT

Constituent function refer to the compulsory function of the State like: the protection of its people,
determination of contractual rights between individuals; and administration of justice Ministrant
functions are those undertaken to advance the general interests of society such as, public works
and regulation of trade and industry This traditional classification of functions to be obsolete

DOCTRINE OF PARENS PATRIAE - GUARDIAN OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE

Goyernment of the PI. v Monte de Piedad - the government can file the suit for the State as parens
patria in representation of the legitimate claimants. Cabanas v Pilapil - the judiciary, as the
instrumentality of the State in its role of parens patriae cannot remain insensible to the validity of
the claim of the mother,

DE JURE AND DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS

A de jure government has rightful title. But it has no power or control, either because it has been
withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof. It is the
government that is recognized by other States, A de facto government actually exercised power or
control but is has not legal title. It is a government not established according to the constitution of
the
nation, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted
or displaced the government de jure.

In the case of Lawyers League for a better Philippines v Corazon Aquino, the Supreme Court held
that the people have made the judgment, they have accepted the government of Corazon Aquino
which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but
is a de jure government where the community of nations have recognized the legitimacy of her
government

Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is
governed Because sovereignty is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible,
inalienable and imprescriptible, sovereignty is not deemed suspended even if acts of sovereignty
cannot be exercise by the legitimate authority. In the Philippines, during the Japanese occupation,
sovereignty over the Philippines remained with the US even if it could not exercise control over the
territory.

During belligerent occupation, the political laws of the occupied territory was merely suspended.
Example was the time of the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. During this time, the
Constitution of the Commonwealth, being a political law, was not in effect in the Philippines, But
the non-political law like the Civil Code and the Insurance Code remalned in force. Suspension of
political laws affect only the civilian inhabitants

Ruff v Chief of Staff - members of the armed forces continued to be covered bythe National
Defense Act.

In Pp. v Perfecto the SC ruled that the provision of the Spanish Penal Code for which he was
charged was abrogated with the end of the Spanish Rule

Macariola v Asunsion - the Code of Commerce was political and nature and was automatically
abrogated with the end of the Spanish rule

Act of State - an act done by the sovereign power of a country , or by its delegate, within the limits
of the power vested in him
An Act of State cannot be questioned or made the subject of legal proceedings in a court of law. It
is an act done by the political department of the government and not subject to judicial review.

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

A STATE MAY NOT BE SUED WITHOUT ITS CONSENT
It is a statement which recognizes the sovereign character of the State
It is an express affirmation of the unwritten rule that insulates it
from the jurisdiction of the courts of justice.

If engaged regularly in business or trade, or if the contract it has

entered into may be considered as purely commercial - a foreign state
may be sued in the host state.
RESTRICTIVE APPLICATION OF THE THEORY
Immunity from suit applies ONLY to sovereign or governmental activities.
State immunity will not extend to commercial, private and proprietary acts

State immunity may not be invoked

in the exercise of its power of eminent domain, when done without payment of
just compensation.
In China National Machinery y Sta. Maria, the Supreme Court allowed the suit
against the prime contractor designated by China since it failed to adduce
evidence that it has not consented to be sued under Chinese law
Even if it is performing governmental functions, it has to be considered that
immunity from suit is determined by the character of the objects for which
the entity was organized

Actions are rarely instituted directly against the State because such act
will provoke resort to the doctrine of State immunity.
In Sanders y Veridiano, where Sanders was being sued as officer of the
US government, the Supreme Court considered the same to be
a suit against the state for if it is proved that claimants have a right
to the payment of damages, such award will be satisfied not by the
officer, personally, but by the government of the US.
It will require the US government to perform a positive act to
satisfy the judgment, thus making the action a suit against that government
without its consent.

INSTANCES WHEN A PUBLIC OFFICER MAY BE SUED IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY WITHOUT OBTAINING THE CONSENT OF
THE STATE
1. TO REQUIRE HIM TO DO AN ACT REQUIRED BY LAW
2. RESTRAIN HIM FROM DOING AN ACT WHICH IS ALLEGED TO
BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Is a suit valid if a public officer acts without or in excess of jurisdiction

any injury cause by him is his own personal liability and cannot be
imputed to the State, as in the case of Festejo v Fernando.

In The Holy See vs Rosario, the Supreme Court dismissed a civil complaint
against the Holy See after the Dept of Foreign Affairs officially certified that
the Embassy is a duly accredited diplomatic mission,
exempt from
local jurisdiction.
It is only the Dept. of Ferieng Affairs which has the authority to make a
determination of immunity from suit.

WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
The State may, if it so desires, divest itself of its sovereign immunity
It may voluntarily open itself to suit

Forms of consent
Express consent - may be manifested by way of either a general or special law
Implied consent - when the State itself commences litigation or when it enters into a contract

IN THE PHILIPPINES
ACT NO. 3083 - general law providing for standing consent.
A claim against the government must first be filed with the COA, which must act upon it within 60
days.
Rejection of the same will authorize claimant to elevate the matter of the SC.

Express consent of the state to be sued may not be given by a mere counsel of the state
In cases where the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, through whom must the summons
be served?

Republic y Sandiganbayan
- doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot be invoked to defeat a valid claim arising from the exercise
by the State of eminent domain.

SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

1. INCORPORATED AGENCY - it has a charter of its own that invests it with its own juridical
personality. Test of suability is found in the charter
Municipal corporations can be sued, according to its charter

2. UNINCORPORATED AGENCY it has no separate juridical personality so it is necessary to

determine the nature of the function in which the agency is engaged.
Suable if the function is proprietary, unsuable it governmental

Mobil Phil. V Customs Arrastre

By authorizing the Bureau of Customs to engage in arrastre service, the law thereby impliedly
authorized it to be sued as arrastre operator, because the nature of this function is proprietary, not
governmental.

Shell Phil v Jalos

Shell cannot invoke state immunity because it is not an agent of the Republic of the Philippines, It is
just a service contractor for the exploration and development of one of the country's natural gas
reserves, While the Republic appointed Shell as the exclusive party to conduct petroleum
operations in the Camago-Malampayo area under the State's full control and supervision, it does
not follow that Shell has become the State's "agent" within the meaning of the law.

EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

When the State litigates, It is not required to put up a bond for damages, or an appeal bond - the
State is always solvent
Does this apply to GOCCs?

SUABILITY V LIABILITY
The mere fact that the state is suable does not mean that it is liable.
Waiver of immunity by the State does not mean concession of its liability.
Suability is the result of express or implied consent of the State Liability is determined after hearing
on the basis of relevant laws and established facts.

U.P V. DIZON
University of the Philippines entered into a General Construction Agreement with
respondent Stern Builders Corporation for the construction and renovation of the
buildings in the campus of the UP in Los Bas. UP was able to pay its first and second
billing. However, the third billing was not paid due to its disallowance by the
Commission on Audit (COA). Thus, Stern Bullders sued the UP to collect the unpaid
balance

Held:

UP's funds, being government funds, are not subject to garnishment.

The UP correctly submits here that the garnishment of its funds to satisfy the judgment awards of
actual and moral damages (including attorney's fees) was not validly made if there was no special
appropriation by Congress.

07-23
SEAFDEC V NLRC
One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity from
local jurisdiction, Le, that it is Immune from the legal writs and processes
issued by the tribunals of the country where it is found.
-the host government may interfere in there operations or even influence or
control its policies and decisions of the organization;
- Impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities impartially
on behalf of its member-states
SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international organization, the Southeast Asian
Fisheries Development Center, organized through an agreement entered into in
Bangkok, Thailand on December 28, 1967 by the governments of Malaysia, Singapore,
Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines with Japan as the sponsoring
country
By reason of a termination due to financial constralnt, SEAFDEC was sued.
SEAFDEC interposed lack of jurisdiction of the NRC over the said international
organization.
The SC ruled that SEAFDEC is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of public
respondent NLRG

The International Rice Research Institute enjoys immunity from legal process
by virtue of Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1620.
Callado v IRRI
Callado, employed as a driver by IRRI, Figured in a vehicular accident while
transporting passengers from IRRI to the NAIA. IRRI dismissed his services.
Callado filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for Illegal dismissal, and
other claims.
While informed by IRRI of their Immunity from suit, the Labor considered
IRRI to have waived its immunity,

The Court ruled there was no valld walver. In fact, the institute wrote the Labor
Arbiter categorically informing him that the Institute will not walve its
diplomatic immunity.
Callao opted not to seek the help of the Council of IRRI Employees and
Management Grievance Committee.

DEA V NURC
In another illegal dismissal case against the ADB, the DFA notified the Labor
Arbiter that the ADB, as well as its President and Officers, were covered by an
immunity from legal process.
Claiming that ADB waived its immunity, the Labor Arbiter proceeded with the case for illegal
dismissal and its violation of the "labor-only" contracting law.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Bank's officers enjoy immunity in respect of all acts performed by
them in their official capacity. The granting of these
immunities and privileges are treaty covenants and commitments voluntarily assumed by the
Philippine Government Being an international organization
that has been extended diplomatic status, the AB is independent of the municipal law.
Veterans Manpower v CA
The PC Chief and PC-SUSIA was being sued flor unfair competition as it appeared to favor a
particular security agency.
The Supreme Court ruled that a public official may sometimes be held liable in his personal or
private capacity if he acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction, however,
since the acts for which the PC Chief was being called to account in this case were performed as
part of their official duties, without malice, gross negligence, or bad faith, no recovery may be had
against them in their private capacities. Furthermore, the Supreme Court agrees with the Court of
Appeals that the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 1986 does not constitute an implied
consent by the State to be sued.

Wylie v Rarang
Because of a libelous statement against her committed by M.H. Wylie, the assistant administrative
officer and Capt James Williams, the commanding officer of the US Naval Base in Subic Bay,
Olongapo City, Rarang fled a case for damages,
Both Wylie and Williams actively participated in the act complained of. US. officials in the
performance of their official functions are immune from suit.

Both Wylie and Williams were being sued in their personal capacities for their alleged tortious acts
in publishing a libelous article.

The SC held that are American naval officers who commit a crime while discharging official
functions are not covered by the principle of state immunity from suit

Killing a person in cold blood while on patrol duty, running over a child while driving with reckless
imprudence on an official trip, or slandering a person
during office hours could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement. Our laws and, we
presume, those of the United States do not allow the
commission of crimes in the name of official duty.

Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibility and non-accountability nor grant a
privileged status not calmed by any other official of
the Republic

PNB v Pabalan
A judgment was rendered against Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA). Judge Javier
Pabalan issued a writ of execution followed thereafter by a notice of garnishment of the funds of
respondent PVTA which were deposited with the Philippine National Bank (PNB). PNB objected on
the constitutional law doctrine of non-suability of a state. It alleged that such funds are public in
character.

The Supreme Court, however, stated that when the government enters into commercial business,
its abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated
like any other corporation. (Manila Hotel Employees Association vs. Manila Hotel Company)

City of Caloocan v Judge Allardo

Judge can order the garnishment of City funds to satisfy the judgment in favor of Santiago, whose
position was abolished through an ordinance. The rule on the immunity of public funds from
seizure or garnishment does not apply where the funds sought to be levied under execution are
already allocated by law specifically for the satisfaction of the money judgment against the
government. In such a case, the monetary judgment may be legally enforced by judicial processes.
Here, the amount was allocated for the back-pay obligation. Hence, The judgment of the trial court
could then be validly
enforced against such funds.

MINISTERIO V CFI OF CEBU

Property of Ministerio was taken by the government for the widening of the Gorordo road. He sued
for payment of just compensation but the Municipality
of Cebu invoked that it was sued without Its consent

The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot be an
Instrument for perpetrating an in justice on a citizen.

The Supreme Court decided that the lower court's decision of dismissing the complaint is reversed
and the case remanded to the lower court for
proceedings in accordance with law. If the constitutional mandate that the owner be compensated
for property taken for public use were to be respected, as it should, then a suit of this
character should not be summarily dismissed.

Separation of powers

The doctrine of separation of powers is intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one

person or group of persons what might lead to an
irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions.

Each of the three branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters
falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere.

Judicial legislation - when the courts limit the application or coverage of a law and impose
conditions which are not provided for in the law

Independence vs interdependence

Instance when there is a blending of powers among the branches of the government:
enactment of the general appropriations law.
Grant of amnesty by the President - needs the vote of the majority of all members of Congress

Instance when there is a blending of powers among the branches of the government:

enactment of the general appropriations law

Grant of amnesty by the President - needs the vote of the majority of all members of Congress

Checks and balances

In re Manzano

Judge Manzano of RTC, Bangui, Ilocos Norte requested from the Supreme
Court a resolution, (1) authorizing him to accept the appointment as a member of the Ilocos Norte
Provincial Committee on Justice considering his membership in the said committee as part of the
primary functions of an executive judge

The Supreme Court ruled that under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and
other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions (Sec. 12, Art.
VIlI, Constitution). Membership in the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice, which
discharges administrative functions, will be in violation of the
Constitution. Request denied.

Senate v Ermita

The doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact that certain information must, as a
matter of necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of the
public interest. The privilege being, by definition, an exemption from the obligation to disclose
information, In this case to Congress, the necessity must be of such high degree as to outweigh the
public interest in enforcing that obligation in a particular case.

JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS

A purely justiciable question is one where there is a given right, which is legally demandable and
enforceable, and an act or omission violative
of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.

When the matter falls under the discretion of another department, or under the discretion of the
people themselves, the decision that will be reached is in the category of a political question and
consequently, may not be the subject of judicial review.

Political question is also referred to as a question of policy.

It refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity or in regard to which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch.

It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality,of a particular measure.

SUPREME COURT'S VACILLATIONON THE DOCTRINE OF POLITICAL QUESTION

In Barcelon b Baker and in Montenegro v Castaneda - the Supreme Court held that the nature of
the President's power to determine the existence of the grounds for the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus was not justiciable, and was a political question, because of the superior
competence of the commander-in-chief to assess the peace and order condition of the country.

But in Lansang v Garcia, the Supreme Court asserted the right to inquire into the factual basis of
the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and
that the Court may annul the same if it appeared from its own investigation that the grounds
invoked by the President were not actually existing.

In Garcia-Padilla v Enrile, it made the questions power again discretionary

in the President.

But under Art. VII, Sec. 18 of the 1987 Constitution it is already provided that the Supreme Court
may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

POLITICAL QUESTIONS UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

The scope of political questions has been constricted since the definition of judicial power has been
expanded, not only to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and entorceable, but also to
determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
ofjurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Though the Constitution has specifically mentioned acts which are subject to judicial review, there
are those questions that remain prerogatives of the political departments that even with the
enlargement of the judicial review power, cannot be examined by the Courts of justice.

MBTC v Tobias - Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts have no right to directly
decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch
of the Government.

In the case of Neri v Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, the Supreme Court
found the Senate to have gravely abused its discretion since there was a legitímate claim of
executive privilege

The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry relates to
a power textually committed by the Constitution to the President, such as the area of military and
foreign relations, Under our Constitution, the President is the repository of the commander-in-
chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic powers. Consistent with the doctrine of separation of
powers, the information relating to these powers may enjoy , greater confidentiality than others.

DELEGATION OF POWERS
The principle of non-delegation of powers provides that what has been delegated cannot be re-
delegated.

It is based upon the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a
duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not
through the intervening mind of another.

A further delegation of such power would constitute a negation of his duty, in violation of the trust
reposed in the delegate mandated to discharge it directly.

The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of the
government but most important in the case of the legislative power because of the many instances
when the delegation is permitted.

Delegation of the legislative power has been more prevalent because of the growing inability of the
legislature to cope directly with the many problems demanding its attention.

The legislature may not have the competence, interest or time to provide the required direct
solutions.

Delegation of legislative powers is permitted in the following cases:

1. Delegation of tariff powers to the President

2. Delegation of emergency powers to the President
3. Delegation to the people at large
4. Delegation to administrative bodies.

The Tariff Power is found in Art. VI, Sec. 2B (2)

"The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to
such limitations and restrictions as it may
impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government"

This is to allow the president to act immediately on certain matters affecting the national economy
as delay may resuit in hardship to the people.

The Philippines' 1987 Constitution contains provisions concerning national emergencies:

First, in times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize
the President, for a limited perlod and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy (Article VI, Section 23 (2))

Second, in times of national emergency, when

The public interest so requires, the State
may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or
direct the operation of any privately owned publie utility or business affected with public interest,
(Article XIl, Section 17)

And third, the President as Commander-In-Chief can call out the armed forces as may be necessary
to prevent or suppress Iawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebeiiion, when
the publie safety requires it, the President can suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
impose a nationwide or partial martial law.
(Article VII, Section 18)

Emergency Powers as provided for in Art. VI, Sec. 23 (2), which provides:

"In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President,
for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers
necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by
resolution of
the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof"

This emergency power is granted to the President which in times of war or national emergency,
Congress may not be able to convene a quorum to
do business.

07-24

The Philippines' 1987 Constitution contains provisions concerning national emergencies:

First, in times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize
the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe,
to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy.
(Article VI, Section 23 (2))

Second, in times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during
the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the
operation of any privately owned public utility or business
affected with public interest. (Article XII, Section 17)

And third, the President as Commander-in-Chief can call out the armed forces as may be necessary
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when
the public safety requires it, the President can suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
impose a nationwide or partial martial law
(Article VII, Section 18)

In David v Arroyo, President Arroyo, on February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th
Anniversary of Edsa People Power, issued Presidential
Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a state of emergency. She cited as bases the political opposition's
having conspired with authoritarians of the extreme Left represented by the NDF-CPP-NPA and the
extreme Right, represented by
military adventurists, in a plot to unseat or assassinate her

On the same day, PGMA issued GO. No. 5 implementing PP1017, directing the members of the AFP
and PNP "to immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate actions and measures to
suppress and prevent acts of terrorism and lawless violence.

Chief of Staff Michael Defensor announced that "warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities,
including media, can already be implemented"

One of the issues raised in this case was whether or not Presidential Prociamation No,1017 and
General Order No. 5 are constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of PP 1017 and GO No. 5 is constitutional insofar as
Section 18, Article VIl of the Constitution is concerned, where the President can call-out the armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. However, there were other
acts that were made but were not part of her power as the President

David was arrested.

The permits to rally issued to KMU and NAFLU were cancelled. A search and seizure of media
offices of the Daily Tribune was carried out.

These acts go beyond the "calling-out" power of the President and is therefore unconstitutional.

On power to take-over-
During the existence of the state of national emergency, PP 1017 purports to grant the President,
without any authority or delegation from Congress, to take over or direct the operation of any
privately-owned public utility or business altected with public interest.

'This is pursuant to Section 17, Article XIi of the 1987 Constitution where it is provided that in times
of national emergency, when the public interest so
requires, the State may.. temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned
public utility or business affected with public interest.

But the Court ruled that Section 17, Article Xl provides that the taking over of private business
affected with public interest is just another facet
of the emergency powers generally reposed upon Congress.
Thus, the section refers to Congress, not the President.
Absent any law delegating the same to the President, then the President
cannot exercise the power provided in Section 17
Moreover, the exercise of such power is limited to "national emergency*
According to the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, national emergency does not
include strikes and riots.

The term "national emergency" is different from the status or condition with the power to declare
"state of emergency
The President cannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting the take over of
privately-owned public utility or business
affected with public interest.

THUS, the Proclamation does not authorize the President during the emergency to temporarily take
over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public
interest without authority from Congress.

While the President alone can declare a state of national emergency, with regards to taking over
privately-owned public utility or business affected withpublic interest, he has no power to take over
without legislation.

Thus, "PP 1017 declaring a national emergency under Section 17, Article VIl of the Constitution is
CONSTITUTIONAL, but such declaration does not authorize the President to take over privately-
owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior legislation."

In the case of Divinagracia v CBS, the Court stressed the restrictions on delegated powers.

Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS), a grantee of a legislative franchise, was allowed by
the NTC, through a Provisional Authority, to install, operate and maintain various AM and FM
station throughout the country.

Divinagracia, a stockholder of CBS, fled two complaints with the NTC alleging that despite the
provisions of the law mandating the public offering of at least 30% of the common stocks of CBS, it
falled to make such offering.

Divinagracia prayed for the cancellation of all the Provisional Authorities of CBS. The NTC dismissed
the complaint saying that although it had full jurisdiction to revoke or cancel a Provisional Authority
for violations or infractions of the terms and conditions, it will refrain from exercising the same.

Does the NTC have full power to revoke the franchise?

Since legislative franchises are extended through statutes, they should receive recognition as the
ultimate expression of State policy.
Allowing the NTC to countermand State policy by revoking CBS's vested legal right to
operate broadcast stations, even if it was not empowered to do so by law, unduly gives to a mere
administrative agency veto power over the implementation of the law andthe enforcement of
especially vested legal rights

That concern would not arise if Congress had similarly empowered the NTC with the power to
revoke a franchisee's right to operate broadcast stations. But as earlier stated, there is no such
expression in the law, and by presuming such right the Court will be acting contrary to the stated
State interest as expressed in respondents' legislative franchises.

The Supreme Court stated that while the President or the State can exercise such authority through
the NTC, such can be exercised only under limited and
rather drastic circumstances.

But it does not vest in the NTC the broad authority to cancel licenses and permits.
DELEGATION OF POWER TO THE PEOPLE

With regards to delegation of power to the people, the prevailing doctrine is that, except in those
cases where, by the Constitution, the people have expressly reserved to themselves a power of
decision, the power of legislation cannot be exercised by them.

'Two instances when legislative power is delegated to the people at large.

1. Referendum - the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation

through an election called for the purpose
It is a method of submitting an important legislative measure to a direct vote of the whole people.

2. Plebiscite - a device to obtain a direct popular vote on a matter of political importance, but
chiefly in order to create some more or less permanent political condition, like a proposal to amend
the Constitution

DELEGATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

The power of eminent domain and the police power have been delegated by the legislature to the
local law-making bodies.

SOLICITOR GENERAL v. METROPOLITAN MANILA AUTHORITY -

scope is only as far as Congress allows it. Thus, delegated legislation may not violate a statute.

SOLICITOR GENERAL V MMA

MMA issued an ordinance authorizing itself to detach the license plate/tow and
impound attended / unattended/ abandoned motor vehicles illegally parked or obstructing the flow
of traffic in Metro Manila. Private petitioners contended that the ordinance passed by MMA and
the
provisions of the decision in the Gonong Case were conflicting. The MMA argued that there was no
conflict between the two. It stressed that the decision itself said that the confiscation of license
plates was invalid in the absence of a valid law or ordinance, which was why the ordinance was
enacted. The Authority also pointed out that the ordinance could not be attacked collaterally
but only in a direct action challenging its validity

In the Gonong Case 1990, the Court held that the confiscation of the license
plates of motor vehicles for traffic violations was not among the sanctions that could be imposed
by the Metro Manila Commission under PD 1605. It was there also observed that even the
confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic violations
was not directly prescribed by the decree nor was it allowed by the decree to be imposed by the
Commission.

One of the issues raised in this case was whether or not there was a valid delegation of legislative
power
The Supreme Court ruled that there was a valid delegation of legislative power to promulgate such
measures, it appearing that the requisites of such delegation are present. These requisites are 1)
the completeness of the statute making the delegation; and 2) the presence of a sufficient
standard.

But the Supreme Court said that problem before them was not the validity of the delegation of
legislative power The question was on the validity of the exercise of such delegated power.

DELEGATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

Specialized activities and their peculiar problems makes it necessary to entrust to administrative
agencies the "power of subordinate legislation."

The administrative bodies fill in the details on a law which Congress may not have the opportunity
or the competence to provide.

But for an administrative regulation to be valid, its promulgation must be authorized by the
legislature, it must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature. It must be
promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and it must be reasonable.

Executive Secretary v Southwing

The issue on the importation ban runs afoul the third requisite for a valid administrative order. To
be valid, an administrative issuance must not be ultra
vires or beyond the limits of the authority conferred. It must not suppiant or modify the
Constitution, its enabling statute and other existing laws, for such is
the sole function of the legislature which the other branches of the government cannot usurp. As
held in United BF Homeowner's Association v. BF Homes. Inc

The rule-making power of a public administrative body is a delegated legislative power, which it
may not use either to abridge the authority piven it
by Congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended, Constitutional
and statutory provisions control what rules and
regulations may be promulgated by such a body, as well as with respect to what fields are subject
to regulation by it. It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions
of the Constitution or a statute,
particularly the statute it is administering or which created it, or which are in derogation of, or
defeat, the purpose of a statute.

Bureau of Customs Employee Association vs. Hon, Teves

Republic Act No. 9335 also known as the Attrition Act of 2005 was enacted to
optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BI) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC).

The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets
by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives
Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board which was tasked to assist the President
in the evaluation.

Is there a valid delegation of power to the Revenue Performance Evaluation Board?

Section 7 of the law specifies the limits of the Board's authority and identifies the conditions under
which officials and employees whose revenue collection falls short of the target by at least 7.5%
may be removed from the service.

The Supreme Court ruled that the law passed the completeness and sufficient standard test.

TESTS OF DELEGATION
1. Completeness test - when it sets forth the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by
the delegate.

If there are gaps in the law that will prevent its enforcement unless they are first filled, the
delegate should step into the shoes of the legislature
and exercise a legislative function to repair the omission.

U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho

The Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 2868 "An Act penalizing the monopoly and holding of,
and speculation in, palay, rice, and corn under extraordinary circumstances,
regulating the distribution and sale thereof, and authorizing the Governor- General xxx to issue the
necessary rules and regulations therefore Xxx

Pursuant thereto, the Governor-General issued Executive Order No. 53 fixing the price at which rice
should be sold. Defendant Ang Tang Ho who sold rice at a price greater than that fixed by Executive
Order No. 53 was found guilty of violation thereof He
contested the validity of said law averring that it constituted invalid delegation of legislative power.

When Act No. 2868 is analyzed, it is the violation of the proclamation of the Governor-General
which constitutes the crime. Without that proclamation, it
was not crime to sell rice at any price. In other words, the Legislature left it to the sole discretion of
the Governor-General to say what was and what was not "any cause" for enforcing the act, and
what was and what was not "an extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice or corn," and under
certain
undefined conditions to fix the price at which rice should be sold, without regard to grade or
quality, also to say whether a proclamation should be issued, if so, when, and whether or not the
law should be enforced, how long it should be enforced, and when the law should be suspended.

The Legislature did not specify or define what was "any cause," or what was "an extraordinary rise
in the price of rice, palay or corn, Neither did it specify or define the conditions upon which the
proclamation should be issued
xxxxxxIn the absence of the proclamation, no crime was committed. The alleged sale was made a
crime, if at all, because the Governor-General
issued the proclamation.
The Supreme Court held that Act No, 2868, in so far as it undertakes to
authorize the Governor- General in his discretion to issue a proclamation, fixing
the price of rice, and to make the sale of rice in violation of the price of rice, and
to make the sale of rice in violation of the proclamation a crime, is
unconstitutional and void.

2. Sufficient Standard Test - is intended to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority by
defining, the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and
effected. The purpose of the sufficient standard test is to prevent a total transference of legislative
power from the lawmaking body to the delegate, "who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the
legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative

To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegate's authority,
announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to
be implemented.

Abakada Guro Party-list et, al vs. Executive Secretary (G.R No. 168056)

On May 24, 2005, the President signed into law Republic Act 9337 or the VAT
Reform Act Before the law took effect on July 1, 2005, the Court issued a TRO enjoining
government from implementing the law in response to a slew of
petitions for certiorari and prohibition questioning the constitutionality of the new law

Petitioners allege that the grant of stand-by authority to the President to increase the VAT rate is
an abdication by Congress of its exclusive power to tax because such delegation is not covered by
Section 28 (2), Article VI Consti. They
argue that VAT is a tax levied on the sale or exchange of goods and services which can't be included
within the purview of tariffs under the exemption delegation since this refers to customs duties,
tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the government and usually imposed on
imported/exported goods.

in this case, it is not a delegation of legislative power BUT a delegation of ascertainment of facts
upon which enforcement and administration of the increased rate under the law is contingent. The
legislature has made the operation of the 12%
rate effective Jannary 1, 2006, contingent upon a specified fact or condition. It leaves the entire
operation or non-operation of the 12% rate upon factual matters outside of the control of the
executive. No discretion would be exercised by the President. Highlighting the absence of
discretion is the fact that the word SHAlL is used in the
common proviso. The use of the word SHALL connotes a mandatory order. Its use in a statute
denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion.

Thus, it is the ministerial duty of the President to immediately impose the 12% rate upon the
existence of any of the conditions specified by Congress. This is a duty, which cannot be evaded by
the President. It is a clear directive to impose the 12% VAT rate
when the specified conditions are present.
IF THE LAW DOES NOT PINPOINT A STANDARD -

The Courts will bend over backward to locate the same elsewhere in order to spare the
statute, if it can, from constitutional infirmity.

In the case of Hirabashiv US,

The Act of Congress of March 21, 1942 provided that all persons of Japanese ancestry should be in
their residence daily between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This act was adopted by the
military commander. Hirabishi was found to have violated this law.

The Court interpreted together the intention of Act of March 21, 2942 with the related Executive
Order and Proclamations which were enacted and found that it was within the constitutional
power of Congress and the executive arm of the Government to prescribe this curfew order for the
period under consideration and that its promulgation ton by the military commander involved no
unlawful delegation of legislative power.

The "Declaration of Principles and State Policies" is a statement of the basic ideological principles
and policies that underlie the Constitution.

Its provisions shed light on the meaning of the other provisions of the Constitution and they are a
guide for all departments of the government in the implementation of the Constitution.

ART II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people
and all government authority emanates from them.

A republican government is one where representative are chosen by the people at large.

The essence of republic rule is indirect rule, determined by the rule of the majority.

*Constitutional authoritarianism, is what we had under the Marcos regime.

It was the assumption of extraordinary powers by President Marcos, under the 1973 Constitution,
which included the legislative, judicial and even
constituent powers.

Constitutional authoritarianism can be compatible with a republican state if the Constitution upon
which the Executive bases his assumption of power is a legitimate expression of the people's will
and if the Executive who assumes power received his office through a valid election by the people.

What is the presidential form of government?

There is a "separation of powers."

Legislative power is given to the Legislature whose members hold office for a fixed term
The executive power is given to a separate Executive who also holds office for a fixed term.
The judicial power is held by an independent Judiciary

The system is founded on the belief that by establishing equilibrium among the three power
holders, harmony will result, power will not be
concentrated, and thus tyranny will be avoided.

But because of the prominent position which the system gives to the President as chief executive, it
is designated as a presidential form of government.

SOVEREIGNTY
Under our Constitution, sovereignty resides in the people. Actual sovereignty is exercised by the
people through the electoral process.
The observance of the rule of the majority is an unwritten law of every popular government.

While the will of the majority must always prevail, this does not mean that the majority is always
right.

Democracy does not only mean a government by the majority but the assurance of certain
fundamental right to oppose the government in power.

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the lasy of the land and adheres to the policy of
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

The Briand-Kellog Pact is the treaty which provided for the renunciation of War as an instrument of
National Policy, done at Paris August 27, 1928.

What the Philippines renounces is aggressive war, not defensive war.

Among the principles of international law acknowledged by the Court as part of the law of the land
are:
1. The right of an alien to be released on bail while awaiting deportation when his failure to leave
the country is due to the fact that no country will
accept him, Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70 (1951).
2. The right of a country to establish military commissions to try war criminals, Kuroda v. Jalandoni,
83 Phil. 171 (1949).
Some generally accepted principles have been incorporated in treaties. E.g, the Vienna Convention
on Road Signs and Signals, Agustin v. Edu, 88
SCRA 195, 213 (1979); the duty to protect the premises of embassies, J.B.L Reyes v. Bagatsing,G.R.
No. 65366, October 1983

KURODA V JALANDONI
On 26 March 1949, the Supreme Court of the Philippines confirmed the constitutionality of
Executive Order No. 68 (EO 68) issued by the President of the Philippines establishing the National
War Crimes Office which prescribes rules and regulations governing the trial of war criminals who
committed war crimes against the Filipino people.
In Kuroda v. alandoni, Shigenori Kuroda, a Lieutenant General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in
the Philippines between 1943 and 1944, was tried for war crimes under a complaint identical with
the charge filed against General Tomoyuki Yamashita.

Kuroda challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order no. 68 and argued that the Philippines
were not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and
therefore he was charged of "crimes not based on law, national and international." The appellant
also held that the Military Commission created under EO 68 had no jurisdiction

The Supreme Court rejected Kuroda's argument, holding that "in accordance with the generally
accepted principles of international law of the present day (.] all those persons, military or civilians,
who have been guilty of planning, preparing, or waging a war of aggression and of commission of
crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violations of laws and customs of war,
of humanity, and civilization, are held accountable thereof" The Supreme Court further argued that
it did not matter that the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions because the
rules and principles embodied were generally accepted and thus formed part of the law of the land
by virtue of the Incorporation Clause.

Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the Military Commission, having been convened by
virtue of EO 68, has the jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed against civilians and
prisoners of war during the period covering 1943 - 1944 in violation of the Hague and Geneva
Conventions.

Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the
Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the
State and the integrity of the national territory

The provision on supremacy of civilian authority is inherent in a republican system of government.

The principle is institutionalized by the provision which makes the President, a civilian and precisely
as civilian, commander- in chief of the armed forces.

Even in times of war, the armed forces is at all times, subordinate to civilian authority.

Section 4.The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.
The Government may cali upon the people to defend the State and, In the fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or cívil
service.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and
promotion of the general welfare are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

Strong fences make good neighbors.