CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I REVIEWER
separation of powers or the systems of checks-and-
AUGUST 29 RECITATION
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
 The Constitution, like any living law, must move with the
moving society it is supposed to govern.
 It must be able to adjust to change, conforming itself to the
needs of a society that must be dynamic if it is to progress
and endure.
 Change may be effected by a mere modification in its
interpretation by the courts. Where the provisions are
ambiguously worded, judges may read out of them in the
light of altered conditions, meanings that at an earlier time
were considered heretical.
 Iron rules – are Constitutional provisions that cannot be
altered except by formal amendment
DEFINITION
1. AMENDMENT – isolated or piecemeal changes
 A change that adds, reduces, or deletes without
altering the basic principles
 Generally involves a specific provision
 Ex: when the term of office of President was changed
from six to four years (1935 Constitution)
2. REVISION – a revamp or rewriting of the whole
instrument
 Alters the substantial provisions such as the
balances
 Ex: When the Constitutional Convention of 1971
rewrote the entire document and produced the 1973
Constitution
PROCEDURE
1. PROPOSAL – usually made either directly by Congress
or by a Constitutional Convention [Sec. 1(1) and (2) of
Art. XVII, respectively]
a. Congress or Constituent Assembly – direct
legislative action through a vote of at least ¾ of all
members on mere amendment or change of
specific provisions
b. Constitutional Convention – a body assembled for
the express purpose of framing, revising, or
amending the Constitution
 Overhaul of the entire Constitution
 More time, opportunity, and expertise
 The call may be made by a 2/3 of all members
 If not obained, the question of whether or not to
call a constitutional convention shall be decided
by a plebiscite approved by a majority vote
 In Imbong v. Commission on Elections, it was
held that Congress, acting as a constituent body,
may with the concurrence of two-thirds of all
members, call a constitutional convention in
general terms. The same Congress, acting as a
 legislative body, may pass the necessary
implementing law providing for the details of
the constitutional convention.
c. Initiative - when the proposal may be initiated
directly by the people (Sec. 2, Art. XVII)
 Provided that for an initiative, at least 12% of the
total registered voters, and 3% of every district
 Once every five years
 Enabling law by Congress
 Applicable on to amendments, not revision
Lambino v. Commission on Elections
 Provided for the distinction between an amendment and a
revision:
o A people’s initiative can only propose amendment
to the Constitution, since the Constitution itself
limits initiatives to amendments.
o Revision broadly implaces a change that alters a
basic principle in the constitution, including the
substantial entirety
o Quantitative Test – whether the proposed change
is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly
the substantial entirety by deletion or alteration of
numerous existing provisions (number of
provisions)
o Qualitative Test – the qualitative effects; whether
the change will “accomplish such far reaching
changes in the nature of our basic governmental
plan as to amount a revision”
 The Lambino group’s initiative is a revision, not merely an
amendment. Quantitatively, the proposed changes overhaul
two articles – Article VI and VII, affecting a total of 105
provisions. Qualitatively, the proposal alters substantially
the basic plan of government from presidential to
parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral
legislature.
o There can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an
amendment or a revision.
o A change in a single word of one sentence may be a
revision. For example, the substitution of the word
‘republican’ with ‘monarchic’ or ‘theocratic’,
radically overhauls the entire structure of
government. (a case-to-case basis)
o The choice of method lies in the discretion of
legislature
 The petitioners further claimed their initiative petition
satisfactorily met the required number of votes. It
subsequently asked the Commission on Elections to hold a
plebiscite pursuant to Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of
RA No. 6735.
 The respondent denied due course “for lack of an
enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend
the Constitution.” Santiago v. COMELEC declared the law
inadequate for purposes of implementing the initiative
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
 The essence of amendments through initiative is that the
proosal on its face is a petition by the people:
 a. The people must author and thus sign the entire
proposal. No agent or representative can sign on
their behalf.
b. The proposal must be embodied in a petition.
 Petitioners did not attach to their petition a copy of the
paper that the people were supposed to have signed as their
initiative petition.
 There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the
Lambino Group’s proposed changes in the signature sheet.
Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the
proposed changes is attached to it. They failed to show to
the 6.3 million signatories the full text of the proposed
changes.
 Any amendment or revision through a Constituent
Assembly or a Constitutional Convention shall be
ratified not earlier than 60 days or later than 90 days
after approval of such.
 Any amendment or revision through initiative shall
be ratified not earlier than 60 days or later than 90
days after certification by COMELEC of its
sufficiency.
 Upholds Sec. 1, Art. II which states that “Sovereignty
resides in the people x x x”
 Where it is the Constitution that is being framed or
amended, it is imperative that approval come
directly from the people

POSITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

a. Theory of Conventional Sovereignty – It is CONSTITUENT VERSUS LEGISLATIVE POWERS

supreme over the other departments because the
power it exercises are in the nature of sovereign Constituent Powers Legislative Powers
Power to formulate a Power to pass, repeal, or
powers (Loomis v. Jackson)
Constitution to propose amend ordinary laws or
b. Theory of Inferiority – It is inferior to other amendments or revisions of statutes
departments since it is merely a creation of the the Constitution and to ratify
legislature (Woods’ Appeal) Exercised by Congress (by Ordinary power of Congress
c. Theory of Independence and Co-equality – As special constitutional and of the people, although
long as it exists and confines itself within its conferrment), by a through initiative and
jurisdiction, it must be considered independent and Constitutional Convention or referendum
Commission, by the people
co-equal (Frantz v. Autry)
through initiative and
 Observed in the Philippines (Mabanag v. Lopez referendum, and by sovereign
Vito) electorate
2. RATIFICATION – Approval by the majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite (Sec. 4, Art. XVII)
 RA NO. 6735 OTHERWISE THE “INITIATIVE AND f. PETITION – written instrument containing the proposition
REFERENDUM ACT” and required number of signatures

I - General Provisions EXERCISE (Sec. 4)

DEFINITION (Sec. 3)  The power of initiative and referendum may be

exercised by all registered voters
a. INITIATIVE – the power of the people to propose
amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact REQUIREMENTS (Sec. 5)
legislations through an election.
a. Generally, at least 10% of all registered voters, 3% of
i. Initative on the Constitution – petition proposing
every legislative district shall sign a petition
amendments
b. Petition for an initative on the Constitution shall have at
ii. Initative on Statutes – petition proposing to enact a
least 12% of all number of voters, 3% of every
national legislation
legislative district; done only once every five years
iii. Initative on Local Legislation – petition proposing to
c. Requisites for the petition:
enact a regional, provincial, municipal, or barangay
i. Contents or text of the proposed law sought to be
legislation
enacted, approved, or rejected, amended or repealed
b. INDIRECT INITIATIVE – exercise of initative by people
ii. The proposition
through a proposition sent to Congress or any legislative
iii. The reason(s) therefor
body for action
iv. It is not one of the exceptions provided herein
c. REFERENDUM – power of the electorate to approve or
v. Signatures of the petitioners or registered voters
reject an act or law, or part thereof passed by Congress
vi. An abstract or summary in not more than 100 words
i. Referendum on Statutes – petition to approve or reject
d. A referendum or initiative affecting a law passed by the
an act or law or part thereof passed by Congress
legislative assembly of an autonomous region, province,
ii. Referendum on Local Law – petition to approve or reject
or city needs at least 10% of registered voters in the
a law, resolution, or ordinance passed by regional
province or city, 3% of every legislative district; or
assemblies and local legislative bodies
3% of each municipality (in the case of a province)
d. PROPOSITION – measure proposed by the voters
or barangay (in a city)
e. PLEBISCITE – electoral process by which an initiative on
the Constitution is approved or rejected
 e. A referendum or initiative on an ordinance in the
municipality needs at least 10% of registered voters,
3% in every barangay
f. A referendum or initiative on a barangay ordinance
needs at least 10% of the registered voters
SPECIAL REGISTRATION (Sec. 6)
 COMELEC shall set a special registration day at least
three weeks before initiative or referendum.
VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURES (Sec. 7)
 Based on the registry list of voters, voter’s affidavits, and
voters identification cards used
i. If proposal is for enactment, approval, or
amendment, it shall become effective 15 days after
publication
ii. If proposal is to reject, it shall become repealed 15
days after publication
b. The proposition on an amendment in the Constitution
approved by a majority vote shall be effective as to the
day of the plebiscite
c. A national or local initiative proposition approved by
majority of votes cast in an election called for its
purpose shall become effective 15 days after certification
and proclamation by COMELEC
PROHIBITED MEASURES (Sec. 10)

II – National Initiative and Referendum
DATE (Sec. 8)
 Within 30 days from receipt of petition, COMELEC
upon determining the sufficiency of
petition ,publish the same in Filipino and English at
least twice in newspapers of general circulation
 Set the date of initiative or referendum not earlier than
45 days but not later than 90 days from determination
EFFECTIVITY (Sec. 9)
a. Proposed enactment, amendment, or rejection of a
national law, shall be approved by a majority vote.
a. No petition embracing more than one subject
b. Statutes involving emergency measures cannot be
subject to referendum until 90 days after its effectivity
INDIRECT INITIATIVE (Sec. 11)
the
 Any duly accredited people’s organization, may file a
petition for an indirect initiative with the House of
Representatives and other legislative bodies
 Petition shall include summary of the chief purposes
and contents of the bill proposed to be enacted.
 Procedure is the same as the enactment of any
legislative measure (said bill has precedence over
pending bills)

APPEAL (Sec. 12)

  The decision of the COMELEC on the sufficiency or
insufficiency of the petition may be appealed to the
Supreme Court within 30 days from notice
III – Local Initiative and Referendum
PROCEDURE IN LOCAL INITIATIVE (Sec. 13)
a. Not less than 2,000 registered voters (autonomous
regions), 1,000 (provinces and cities), 100
(municipalities), and 50 (barangays) may file a petition.
b. If no favorable action is made within 30 days, the
proponents may invoke their power of initiative
c. Proposition shall be numbered serially from 1
d. Two or more propositions may be submitted in an
initiative
e. Proponents have 120 days (autonomous regions), 90
days (provinces and cities), 60 days (municipalities) and
30 days (barangays) from notice mentioned in
subsection (b) to collect required number of signatures
f. The petition shall be signed before the Election
Registrar
g. Upon the lapse of the period herein, the COMELEC,
shall certify as to whether or not the required numbers
has been obtained.
h. If the required number is obtained, proposition shall be
submitted to the voters within 90 days (autonomous
regions), 60 days (provinces and cities), 45 days
(municipalities), and 30 days (barangays)
EFFECTIVITY OF LOCAL PROPOSITIONS (Sec. 14)
 15 days after certification by the Commission, otherwise
the proposition is defeated
LIMITATIONS ON LOCAL INITIATIVES
a. Not more once a year
b. Only to subject matters within the powers of the local
legislative bodies
c. If at any time before the initiative, the local legislative
body shall adopt the proposition, the initiative shall be
cancelled. (Those against may apply for initiative)
LIMITATIONS UPON LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES (Sec.
16)
 Proposition approved by initiative or referendum shall
not be repealed, modified, or amended within 6
months
 May be amended, modified, or repealed within 3 years
by a ¾ vote of all members.
 In case of barangays, period shall be 1 year after
expiration of the first 6 months
LOCAL REFERENDUM (Sec. 17)
 Any local legislative body may submit referendum to
registered voters, held within 60 days (provinces and
cities), 45 days (municipalities), and 30 days (barangays)
AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS (Sec. 18)
  Nothing in this act shall prevent or preclude the courts
from declaring null and void any proposition for
violation of the Constitution or want of capacity of the
local legislative body
IV – Final Provisions
APPLICABILITY OF THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE (Sec.
19)
 Shall apply to all initiatives and referenda
RULES AND REGULATIONS (Sec. 20)
 COMELEC is empowered to promulgate such rules and
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes of this Act
APPROPRIATIONS (Sec. 21)
 Charged against the Contingent Fund in the General
Appropriations Act of the current year (initial)
 Such sums as may be necessary for full implementation
shall be included in the annual General
Appropriations Act
THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION
 The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to
which all other laws must conform and to which all
persons, including the highest officials, must defer.
 No act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution
 Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy – a law
contradictory to the Constitution is null and void (Manila
Prince Hotel v. GSIS)
REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS
After the ouster of former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive
Order No. 1, creating the Presidential Commission on Good
Governance tasked with the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of
Marcos, his family, relatives, and close associates. The PCGG
also established the AFP Board which specifically investigated
corruption cases committed by military personnel in
conjunction with the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth. On March 3,
1986, respondent Elizabeth Dimaano’s residence was raided by
the Philippine Constabulary, where military equipment,
together with jewelry, land titles, and monies were confiscated.
The search warrant filed was captioned “Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunition”. Additionally, Dimaano was not
present during the raid and only her cousins were at her
residence. The team also seized items which were not included
in the warrant. According to the sworn statement of the
members of the AFP, respondent Dimaano was the alleged
mistress of Commanding General Josephus Q. Ramas, who was
investigated by the PCGG in connection with alleged ill-gotten
wealth as a subordinate of President Marcos.
An Amended Complaint was filed by Sol. Gen. Francisco
Chavez naming the Republic of the Philippines as petitioner,
represented by the PCGG with Ramas and Dimaano as co-
defendants.
Sandiganbayan dismissed the complaint and ordered
the return of the confiscated items to Dimaano as these were
illegally seized and therefore inadmissible in court. Petitioner
argued that the court erred in declaring said items as illegally
seized because the exclusionary right arising from an illegal
search applies only on the date of ratification of the 1987
Constitution, and was not in effect during the date of the raid.
Furthermore, they claimed that all rights under the Bill of
Rights had been reverted to their embryonic stage at the time of
the search.
Petitioner prayed that reliefs be sought in its Amended
Complaint, or alternatively the remand of the case to the
Sandiganbayan for further proceedings allowing petitioner to
complete presentation of evidence.
ISSUE
Whether or not the 1973 Constitution, specifically the Bill
of Rights, was in effect at the time of the search and whether the
protection accorded by the Covenant and Declaration remained
in effect?
RULING
The Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution was not
operative. During the interregnum, the directives and orders of
the Revolutionary Government were supreme, because no
constitution limited their extent and scope. With the
abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution,
there was no municipal law higher than the directives and
orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, a person could
not invoke any exclusionary right under the Bill of Rights
because there was neither a Constitution nor a Bill of Rights.
The protection accorded to individuals under the
Covenant and Declaration, however, remained in effect. The
Revolutionary Government, after installing itself as the de jure
government, assumed responsibility for the State’s good
compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a
signatory. The Revolutionary Government did not repudiate the
Covenant or the declaration during the interregnum.
METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION
1. Verba Legis - Whenever possible, the words used in the
Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning,
except where technical terms are employed. (Francisco
v. House of Representatives)
 Not being a lawyer’s document, language must be
understood in a sense they have a common use
2. Ratio Legis Est Anima - Where there is ambiguity, the
words of the Constitution must be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of the framers.
 The court in construing the Constitution should
bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished
and the evils sought to be prevented or remedied.
 A doubtful provision shall be examined in the light
of the history of the times, conditions, and
 circumstances under which the Constitution was
framed.
3. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat - The Constitution has
to be interpreted as a whole. If the plain meaning of
the word is not clear, resort to other aids available.
 Sections bearing on a particular subject should be
considered and interpreted together as to effectuate
the whole purpose of the Constitution.
 One section is not allowed to defeat another.
4. Self-Executing Powers - A constitutional provision is
self-executing if the nature and extent of the right
conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
Constitution.
 Complete in itself and becomes operative without
supplementary or enabling legislation
 In case of doubt, the Constitution should be
considered as self-executing, rather than non-self-
executing as a contrary rule would give the
legislature discretion to determine when, or
whether, they shall be effective.
5. Mandatory vs. Directory
a. Mandatory – those which contains words of
command or of prohibition, and non-compliance
with the same renders the proceedings to which it
relates illegal and void.
b. Directory - those which are permissible or
discretionary in nature and merely outline the act
to be done in such a way that no injury can result
from ignoring it or that its purpose can be
accomplished in a manner other than that
prescribed
 The intention of the framers must be
ascertained, but must not depend on the
provision itself.
i. Terminology – mandatory phrases like
“shall” and “must”, while directory phrases
are “may” and “it is lawful”
ii. Materiality of the Provisions – mandatory
are those provisions which relate to matters
of substance or affects substantial rights;
directory are those not material or do not
affect any substantial right
iii. Consequences – Mandatory where failure of
performance will result to an injury or
prejudice of rights; directory if it will not
iv. Penalty – where a legislative provision is
accompanied by a penalty, the provision is
mandatory
6. Prospective vs. Retroactive
a. Prospective - operates upon or regulates acts or
transactions taking place after the law takes effect.
In case of doubt, it will be resolved against
retroactivity
 As a general rule, laws are prospective in
nature.
b. Retroactive - creates obligation, takes away or
impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws,
or creates new obligation or imposes new duty, or
 attaches new disability in respect of transactions or
considerations already passed.
i. When the law itself provides
ii. When the intent to make the law retroactive
is implied
GOVERNMENT
DEFINITION
 The agency through which the will of the State is
formulated, expressed, and carried out
FUNCTIONS
1. Constituent – mandatory for the Government to perform
because they constitute the very bonds of society
(maintenance of peace and order, regulation of property
rights, administration of justice, etc.)
a. Keeping of order and providing for protection of
persons and property from violence and robbery
b. Fixing of legal relations between husband and wife and
parents and children
c. Regulation of holding, transmission, and interchange of
property, and determination of liabilities for debt and
crime
d. Determination of contractual rights between individuals
e. Definition and punishment of crimes
f. Administration of justice in civil cases
g. Administration of political duties, privileges, and
relations of citizens
h. Dealings of the State with foreign powers, preservation
from external danger or encroachment and
advancement of international interests
2. Ministrant – promote the welfare, progress and prosperity
of the people; merely optional; general interests of society
 Distinguishes the paternalistic from individualistic
government
a. Public works
b. Public charity
c. Regulation of trade and industry
DOCTRINE OF PARENS PATRIAE
 Parens Patriae or guardian of the rights of the people
 In Government of the Philippine Islands v. Monte de
Piedad, contributions were collected during the Spanish
regime for the relief of victims of an earthquake, but part of
the money was never distributed and instead deposited with
defendant bank. In an action for its recovery filed by the
government, the defendant questioned the competence of
plaintiff, contending that the suit could be instituted only
by intended beneficiarties themselves or their heirs. The
Supreme Court rejected this view and upheld the right of
the government to file the case for the State as parens
patriae in representation of the legitimate claimants.
 In Cabanas v. Pilapil, the government acting for the State
as parens patriae chose the mother of an illegitimate
child as against his uncle to be the trustee of the
 insuranc eproceeds left him by his father, who had
expressly designated the uncle. The judiciary, as an
agency of the State actingas parens patriae, is called upon
whenever a pending suit or litigation affects one who is a
minor to accord priority to his best interest.
 The prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme
power of every State. What is more, there is this
Constitutional provision, “The State shall strengthen the
family as a basic social institution.” (Sec. 12, Art. II)
 In Soriano v. Laguardia, petitioner questioned the
lawfulness of the suspension of his religious television
program by the MTRCB. He invoked , among others, his
freedoms of speech and religion, claiming that the
suspension constituted censorship. The Supreme Court
rejected his contentions after finding that the petitioner had
uttered expletives in the course of the program, which
regularly aired during a time when children could view the
same. The welfare of the children and the State’s
mandate to protect and care for them, as parens
patriae, constitute a substantial and compelling
government interest in regulating petitioner’s
utterances.
 In De la Cruz v. Garcia, the Supreme Court allowed the
registration of an illegitimate child using the surname of his
deceased father, declaring that it is “the policy of the
Family Code to liberalize rule on the investigation of
the paternity and filiation of children, especially of
illegitimate children x x x.”
CLASSIFICATION
1. De Jure vs. De Facto
a. De Jure – has rightful title but no power or control,
either because this has been withdrawn from it or
because it has not yet actuall entered into the exercise
thereof.
b. De Facto – government of fact, it actually exercises
power or control but without legal title
Three Kinds of De Facto Government
i. Government that gets possession and control of, or
usursps, by force or by voice of the majority the
rightful legal government and maintains itself
against the will of the latter (e.g. Government of
England under the Commonweath, first by
Parliament and later by Cromwell as Protector)
ii. That established as an independent government by
the inhabitants of a country who rise in
insurrection against the parent state (e.g.
Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Union
during the war of secession in the United States)
iii. A government of paramount force, that which is
established and maintained by militar forces who
invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the
course of war (e.g. Castine in Maine reduced to a
British posession, Tampico in Mexico occupied by
the United States)
 The Second Philippine Republic was a de facto
government of paramount force.
  In Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v.
Aquino, the Supreme Court upheld that the
government of Aquino is not merely a de facto
government but in fact and law a de jure government as
a consequence of the EDSA Revolution.
2. Presidential vs. Parliamentary
a. Presidential – separation of executive (President) and
legislative powers (Congress)
b. Parliamentary – fusion of executive and legislative
powers in Parliament, although actual exercise of
executive powers is vested in a Prime Minister chosen
by the former
3. Unitary vs. Federal
a. Unitary – single, centralized government, exercising
powers over both internal and external affairs of the
State
b. Federal – autonomous state (local) government units
merged into a single State, with the national
government exercising a limited degree of power over
domestic affairs, but generally full direction of the
external affairs of the State
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
 The corporate governmental entity through which the
functions of government are exercised throughout the
Philippines, including the various arms through which
political authority is made effective in the Philippines,
whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, provincial,
city, municipal, or barangay subdivisions or other forms of
local government [Sec. 2(1), Administrative Code of 1987]
 A government-owned or controlled corporation engaged in
proprietary functions cannot be considered part of the
Government for purposes of exemption from the
application of the statute of limitations.
 Government Agency – any of the various units of the
government including a department, bureau, office,
instrumentality or GOCC, or a local government or a
distinct unit therein.
ADMINISTRATION
Government Administration
The agency through which the The group of persons in whose
will of the people is hands the reins of government
formulated, expressed, and are for the time being.
carried out
Permanent Transitional
 Thus, we speak of the Aquino administration as directing
the affairs of the Government of the Philippines for a given
time.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOVEREIGNTY
1. PERMANENCE – The chief characteristic of sovereignty.
Sovereignty lasts as long as an independent state lasts.
The death of the king, the overthrow of the government,
and addiction of power does not lead to the destruction of
sovereignty.
 “Sovereignty does not cease with the death or temporary
disposession of a particular bearer or the re-organization of
the state, but shifts immediately to a new bearer.” (Dr.
Garner)
2. EXCLUSIVENESS – There can be no two sovereigns in
one independent state; and if the two sovereigns exist in a
state, the unity of that state will be destroyed. There cannot
exist another sovereign state within the existing sovereign
state.
3. ABSOLUTENESS – Sovereignty is absolute and unlimited.
The sovereign is entitled to do whatsoever he likes.
Sovereignty is subject to none.
4. INDIVISIBILITY – It is the life-blood of sovereignty.
Sovereignty cannot be divided state. According to Calhoun,
“Sovereignty is an entire thing; to divide it is to destroy
it.”
5. INALIENABILITY – The State cannot part with its
sovereignty. In other words, we can say that the sovereign
does not remain the sovereign or the sovereign state if he or
the state transfers his or its sovereignty to any other person
or state.
LAW OF THE SEA
 Law of the Sea – a body of customs, treaties, and
international agreements by which governments maintain
order, productivity, and peaceful relations on the sea.
1. BASELINES – a statutory mechanism for the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III parties to
delimit with precision the extent of their maritime
zones and continental shelves.
 Gives notice to the international community of the scope of
maritime space and submarine areas within which the
State parties exercise treaty-based rights
a. Exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters
b. Jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and
sanitary laws in the contiguous zone
c. Right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the
exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf
2. ARCHIPELAGIC STATES – A state constituted wholly by
one or more archipelagos and may include other islands
 Archipelagic Doctrine – An archipelago, which consists of
a number of islands separated by bodies of water, should be
treated as one integral unit.
3. STRAIGHT ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINES – Imaginary
straight lines are drawn joining the outermost points of the
outermost islands of the archipelago, enclosing an area of
which should not be more than 9:1 (water to land ratio)
 The drawing of the baselines should not depart from the
general configuration of the archipelago.
4. ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS – Waters within the baseline
form part of the internal waters of the territory
5. ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES PASSAGE – The exercise in
accordance with the Convention of the rights of
 navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for UNCLOS to adjudicate disputes arising out of the
the purpose of continuous, expeditious, and interpretation and application of the Convention
unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or
EEZ and another
6. REGIME OF ISLANDS – An island is a naturally formed
area of land surrounded by water which is above water at
high tide.
 Each island has its own territorial sea, contiguous zone,
exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf.
7. INTERNAL WATERS – “The waters around, between, and
surrounding the islands of the archipelago, regardless of
their breadth and dimension, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
8. TERRITORIAL SEA – Defined under UNCLOS as the 12
nautical mile zone from the baseline or low-water line
along the coast.
RA 9522 OTHERWISE “AN ACT TO DEFINE THE BASELINES
9. CONTIGUOUS ZONE – Refers to the waters beyond and
OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES”
adjacent to its territorial sea and up to the extent of 24
nautical miles from the baseline  The baselines of the Philippine archipelago are defined and
10. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE – An area of the ocean, described (101 base points)
generally extending 200 nautical miles beyond a state’s  Regime of Islands – the baseline in the areas over which
territorial sea within which the State has jurisdiction the Philippines exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction
over living and non-living resources.  Includes other areas over which the Philippines exercises
11. CONTINENTAL SHELF – comprises the seabed and sovereignty and jurisdiction:
subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond the 1. Kalayaan Island Group (PD 1596)
territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its 2. Bajo de Masinloc or the Scarborough Shoal
land territory to the outer edge of continental margin, or a
distance of 200 nautical miles from the baseline United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
12. INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE
 Adopted in 1982
SEA – An independent judicial body established by the
 Ratified by the Philippines in 1983
  Provides for the following:
a. Contiguous zone of 12 nautical miles
b. Exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles
 Technically, the contiguous zone and EEZ are not part
of the territory of the State, but it enjoys
preferential right over the marine resources within
these zones
DOMINIUM VERSUS IMPERIUM
1. DOMINIUM – The capacity to own or acquire property
including lands held by the State in its proprietary
capacity
 Regalian Doctrine or Jura Regalia – All lands were
held from the Crown (foundation of Sec. 2, Art. XII and
introduced by the Spaniards through th Laws of Indies
or Royal Cedula which laid down the foundation that all
lands that were not acquired from the government
either by purchase or grant, belong to the public
domain.
o “All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora
and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State and shall not be alienated
with the exception of agricultural lands.”
o The exploration, development, and
utilization of natural resources shall be under
the full control and supervision of the State
o The State may enter into co-production, joint
venture, or production-sharing agreements
with Filipino citizens or corporations or
associations at least 60% owned by Filipinos for
a period not exceeding 25 years
 As adopted in a republican system, ownership is now
vested in the State and not the monarchy.
 Hence, any person claiming ownership of a portion of
the public domain must be able to show title from the
state according to any of the recognized modes of
acquisition of title
 If a person is the owner of the agricultural land in which
minerals are discovered, the person’s ownership of such
land does not give him the right to extract or utilize
the said minerals without the State’s permission.
The agricultural land is converted into a mineral land
and the owner is entitled to compensation under the
Mining Law or in appropriate expropriation
proceedings.
 Limits on Dominium
a. Only agricultural lands may be alienated
2. IMPERIUM – The government authority possessed by the
State which is appropriately embraced in the concept of
sovereignty
ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE
 An act done by the sovereign power of the country or by its
delegate within the limits of the power vested in him.
 It cannot be questioned or made the subjet of legal
proceedings in the court of law.
 An act done by the political departments of the government
and not subject to judicial review (e.g. diplomatic
powers - decision of the President to extend recognition to
a newly-established foreign State or government)
 In the case of PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, the Act of State
Doctrine “states that courts will not sit in judgment on the
acts of the government of another in due deference to the
independence of sovereignty of every sovereign state.”
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
 Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty
 “The State may not be sued without its consent.” (Sec. 3,
Art. XVI)
 Recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an
express affirmation of the unwritten rule insulating it from
the jurisdiction of the courts of justice
BASIS
 Indiscriminate suits against the State will result in the
impairment of its dignity, besides being a challenge
to its infallibility
 “There can be no legal right against the authority which
makes the law on which the right depends.” (Justice
Holmes)
 The demands and incoveniences of litigation will divert
the time and resources of the State from more pressing
matters to the prejudice of the public welfare.
PAR IN PAREM NON HABET IMPERIUM
 Principle of Sovereignty of States – One State cannot
assert jurisdiction over another in violation of the
maxim
 This does not mean that foreign states would be
immune from all suits at all times.
 GENERAL RULE: States cannot assert jurisdiction over
other States through suit.
o EXCEPTION: When the foreign and local state
are engaged regularly in a business or trade; or
even if not so engaged, on the basis of contracts
in the host state which are purely commercial,
private, and proprietary acts (jus gestionis)
 The application of the doctrine of immunity has been
restricted to sovereign or governmental activities or jus
imperii.
 The Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory of
application.
 In German Agency for Technical Cooperation v. CA,
petitioner moved to dismiss a complaint for illegal
dismissal filed against it before the National Labor
Relations Commission, contending that the latter had
no jurisdiction over it, as it was the “implementing
agency of the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany” and “its acts were in the discharge of
governmental functions and sovereign acts.” Supreme
Court rejected these contentions stating petitioner
did not present adequate evidence to establish that
 it enjoys the immunity generally accorded to its
parent country.
 In China National Machinery and Equipment
Corporation v. Sta. Maria, petitioner, designated by
the Republic of China as its prime contractor for the
Northrail Project of the Philippines, as certified by its
Chinese ambassador, claimed sovereign immunity in
connection with a suit against it. The Supreme Court
rejected its claim citing the case of GATC v. CA, that
CNMEG is to be presumed a GOCC without original
character. It has the capacity to sue and be sued.
TEST TO DETERMINE IF THE SUIT IS AGAINST THE STATE
 The usual practice is to file claims not against the State, but
against the officer of government who is supposed to
discharge the responsibility or grant the redress demanded.
 It is important to determine if the State is the real party
in interest, that is, that the claim if proved will be a
direct liability of the State and not merely of the officer
impleaded.
 In Garcia v. Chief of Staff, it was held that a claim for
damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff while undergoing
military training as required by law was actually a sue
against the State, since it would need the
appropriation of public funds to satisfy the judgment if
the claim were allowed. Although filed against the chief of
staff, it was dismissed because the State had not waived its
immunity.
 In Sanders v. Veridiano, where two American employees
of the Subic Naval Base sued its commanding general and
director of special services for damages for allegedly
defamatory remarks, the Supreme Court ruled that the suit
will require the government to perform an affirmative
act to satisfy the judgment if decision is rendered and
defendant is impleaded. Thus, the suit is against the
government.
 In Tan v. Director of Forestry, it was said that State
immunity from suit may be invoked as long as the suit
really affects the property, rights, or interests of the
State and not merely those of officers nominally made party
defendants. The promotion of public welfare and protection
of inhabitants near the public forest are property rights of
the State.
 In Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, the suit for damages file against the PC
Chief and PC-SUSIA would require affirmative act of
appropriation should the damages be awarded.
SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
1. INCORPORATED – If the Charter provides, then the suit
will lie (there is a separate legal entity for the agency)
 Municipal Corporations – Agencies of the State
engaged in governmental functions, and therefore,
should enjoy state immunity
o EXCEPTIONS: They are subject to suit if their
respective charters provide so. Furthermore, one
of the corporate powers of the local government
unit is the power to sue and be sued (Sec. 22,
LGC)
  In PNR v. Intermediate Appellate Court, it was held
that while the charter is silent, the PNR is “not
performing any governmental function” and may
thus be sued.
2. UNINCORPORATED – Inquire into the principal
functions of the agency
a. Governmental Functions – It cannot be sued without
its consent.
 In the Veterans Manpower case, the Court ruled
that the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA are
instrumentalities of the government and thus may
not be sued without consent.
 In Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals, it was held
that the Bureau of Customs, being an
unincorporated agency vested with the inherent
power of taxation, may not be sued without consent.
o EXCEPTION: In Department of
Agriculture v. NLRC, because of the
express consent in Act No. 3038, where the
government consents and submits to be sued
upon any money claim involving liability
arising from contract, express or implied, the
DA may be sued despite being an
unincorporated agency with governmental
functions
b. Proprietary Functions – The suit will lie because
when the State engages in principally proprietary
functions, it descends to the level of a private
individual and may therefore, be vulnerable to suit.
SUITS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS
 The Doctrine of Immunity also applies to officials of the
State for acts performed by them in the discharge of
duties
 In the Veterans Manpower case, the suit against the PC
and PC-SUSIA was dismissed for being a suit against the
state, since the suit was against public officers in the
discharge of official functions which are governmental in
character.
o EXCEPTION: In Sanders v. Veridiano, exceptions
were laid out when a public officer may be sued
without the consent of the State:
a. To compel him to do an act required by law;
b. To restrain him from enforcing an act
claimed to be unconstitutional;
c. To compel payment of damages already
appropriated or to refund tax over-payments
from fund already available for that purpose;
d. To secure a judgment that the officer
impleaded may satisfy himself without the
State having to do a positive act to assist
himn;
e. Where the government itself has violated its
own laws
o EXCEPTION: Shauf v. CA held that the
unauthorized acts of governmental officials are
not acts of the State, thus public officer may be
sued and held personally liable.
 o EXCEPTION: Where the public official is sued in his
personal capacity, even if the acts complained of
where committed while the public official was
occupying a public position.
WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
 It must be observed that the State does not often avail itself
of this rule to take undue advantage of parties that may
have legitimte claims against it.
 The State may be sued if it gives its consent
Form of Consent
1. EXPRESS – May be manifested either through a general law
or a special law.
a. General Law – Act No. 3083, CA No. 327 as amended
by PD No. 1445
b. Special Law – enacted by the Legislature authorizing
an individual to sue the government for injuries he
had sustained when his motorcycle collided with a
government ambulance
 In Republic v. Purisima, it was held that the express
consent of the State must be embodied in a duly
enacted statute and not be given by mere counsel
of government. The waiver made by the lawyer for the
Rice and Corn Administration was held as not binding.
 Under Rule 14, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure,
where the defendant is the Republic, service of sumons
must be made to the Solicitor General.
 In Amigable v. Cuenca, plaintiff demanded the right to
sue the government for recovery of the value of her
property which had been converted into public streets
without just compensation. Although she had not
previously filed the claim with the Auditor General, the
Court decided in her favor, reiterating Ministerio v.
City of Cebu.
2. IMPLIED – Is given when a State itself commences
litigation or when it enters into a contract.
EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
 When the State litigates, either directly or through its
authorized officers, it is not required to put up a bond
for damages or an appeal bond since it can be assumed
that it is always solvent.
 This general rule is not applicable to GOCCs because they
have legal personalities distinct from their shareholders, as
ruled in Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation v. Pacana
 The State cannot be asked to pay the legal fees prescribed in
the Rules of Court or the costs of the suit.