ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2022
I. BASIC CONCEPTS UNDER THE 1987
CONSTITUTION
TOPIC OUTLINE UNDER THE SYLLABUS:
A. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND
STATE POLICIES
B. NATIONAL TERRITORY
C. SEPARATION OF POWERS
D. CHECKS AND BALANCES
E. STATE IMMUNITY
F. DELEGATION OF POWERS
G. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE
STATE
POLITICAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW
A. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND
STATE POLICIES
Self-Executing and Non-Self Executing
Provisions
- Self-Executing - provisions which are
complete in itself and become operative
without the aid of supplementary or enabling
legislation, or that which supplies a sufficient
rule by means of which the right it grants
may be enjoyed or protected (Manila Prince
Hotel v GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3,
1997).
- Non-Self-Executing - provisions which lay
down a general principle.
General Rule: The provisions of the Constitution are
considered self-executing, and do not require future
legislation for their enforcement.
Exceptions:
1. The principles found in Article II are not
intended to be self-executing principles
ready for enforcement through the courts.
They are used by the judiciary as aids or as
guides in the exercise of its power of judicial
review, and by the legislature in its
enactment of laws (Tondo Medical v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 167324, July 17, 2007).
2. The social and economic rights guaranteed
in Article XIII are also non-self-executing
provisions. (Bernas, Constitutional Rights
and Social Demands, 1, 2010).
Exceptions to the Exceptions:
1. Article II, Sec. 16 - The right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is self-executory and
does not need an implementing legislation
(Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July
30, 1993).
2. Article II, Sec. 28 – The duty of full public
disclosure is self-executory (Province of
North Cotabato v. GRP, G.R. No. 183591,
Oct. 14, 2008).
3. Article II, Sec. 15 - The right to health is also
self-executing (Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No.
204819, Apr. 8, 2014).
NOTE: Whether or not a provision is self-executing
depends on the language of the provision. Most of
the provisions in Article II are couched in non-self-
executing language.
Principles
Binding rules which must be observed in the conduct
of government.
PAGE 17 of 490
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2022
Policies
Guidelines for the orientation of the state.
Generally Accepted Principles of International
Law
Principles based on natural justice common to most
national systems of law.
Examples:
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, G.R. No. L-4254, Sept. 26, 1951).
2. The right of a country to establish military
commissions to try war criminals (Kuroda v.
Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, Mar. 26, 1949).
3. The Vienna Convention on Road Signs and
Signals (Agustin v. Edu, G.R. No. L-49112,
Feb. 2, 1979).
4. Duty to protect the premises of embassies
and legations (Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No.
L-65366, Nov. 9, 1983).
5. Pacta sunt servanda – international
agreements must be performed in good faith
(Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May
2, 1997).
The Philippines renounces aggressive war as an
instrument of national policy, but allows for a
defensive war.
Civilian Authority
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that
“[c]ivilian 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.”
Civilian Authority - The head of the armed forces is
a civilian president and the primary purpose of AFP
is to serve and protect the people.
Mark of Sovereignty - Positively, the military is the
guardian of the people and of the integrity of the
national territory and therefore ultimately of the
majesty of the law. Negatively, it is an expression
against military abuses.
Freedom from Nuclear Weapons
PROHIBITS DOES NOT PROHIBIT
Possession, control and Peaceful use of nuclear
manufacture of nuclear energy
weapons; nuclear arms
tests
POLITICAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW
Exceptions to policy against nuclear weapons may
be made by political departments, but must be
justified by demands of national interest.
Social Justice
The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development.
Social Justice has been defined as the humanization
of laws and the equalization of social and economic
forces by the State so that justice in its rational and
objectively secular conception may at least be
approximated (Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No. 47800,
Dec. 2, 1940).
Protection of the Life of the Unborn
It is not an assertion that the unborn is a legal person.
It is not an assertion that the life of the unborn is
placed exactly on the same level of the life of the
mother. Hence, when it is necessary to save the life
of the mother, the lie of the unborn may be sacrificed.
The Roe v. Wade doctrine allowing abortion up to the
6th month of pregnancy cannot be adopted in the
Philippines human lives are sacred from the moment
of conception, and that destroying those new lives is
never licit, no matter what the purported good
outcome would be (Imbong vs. Ochoa, G.R. No.
204819, April 8, 2014).
Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology is not
less important than any of the civil and political rights
enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The right to a
balanced and healthful ecology carries with it an
intergenerational responsibility to care for and
protect the environment (Oposa v. Factoran, G.R.
No. 101083, Jul. 30, 1993).
In environmental cases, the precautionary
principle is used when there is a lack of full scientific
certainty in establishing a causal link between human
activity and environmental effect. The precautionary
principle, as a principle of last resort, shifts the
burden of evidence of harm away from those likely to
suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the
status quo (International Service for the Acquisition
of Agri-Biotech v. Greenpeace, G.R. No. 209271,
Dec. 8, 2015).
Elements for the Application of Precautionary
Principle: (UPP)
1. Uncertainty
2. Possibility of irreversible harm
3. Possibility of serious harm
(International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
Biotech v. Greenpeace, G.R. No. 209271, Dec. 8,
2015)
PAGE 18 of 490
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2022
Standing to file an action for violation of
environmental laws
The enactment of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases enabled litigants enforcing
environmental rights to file their cases as citizen
suits. It liberalized standing for all cases filed
enforcing environmental laws and collapses the
traditional rule on personal and direct interest, based
on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.
The need to give animals legal standing in
environmental cases has been eliminated by the
Rules since any Filipino citizen, as a steward of
nature, is allowed to bring a suit to enforce
environmental laws (Resident Marine Mammals v.
Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, Apr. 21, 2015).
Requisites for the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan
(CPE)
1. There is an actual or threatened violation of
the Constitutional right to a balance and
healthful ecology;
2. The actual or threatened violation arises
from an unlawful act or omission of a Public
official or employee, or private individual or
entity;
3. The actual or threatened violation involves
or will lead to an Environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities of provinces. (LNL Archipelago
Minerals Inc v. Agham Party List, GR
209165, Apr. 12, 2016)
B. NATIONAL TERRITORY
Provision on National Territory
The National Territory comprises the Philippine
Archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which
the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains,
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The
waters around, between, and connecting the islands
of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimension, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines (PHIL. CONST., art. I, § 1)
Purpose of Article I
1. Initially it was to prevent the US from
dismembering the Philippines, an
acceptance by the US President of the
Constitution would oblige the US to keep the
integrity of the Philippine territory.
2. Now, it is to determine the State’s jurisdiction
over which it can exercise its sovereignty.
The government can exercise its power over
POLITICAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW
those areas included in the national territory
and citizens must respect that. At the same
time, citizens could demand its rights from
the government under those areas.
NOTE: It is only a municipal or local law. The
constitution is not definitive to claims of other states.
But it has value, if in history, no one questions it, we
can rely on the fact that it has not been challenged
but it does not stop others from claiming it.
Archipelagic Doctrine
A body of water studded with islands, or the islands
surrounded with water, is viewed as a unity of islands
and waters together forming one integrated unit.
[N.B. Embodied in Art. II, specifically by the mention
of the “Philippine archipelago” and the specification
on “internal waters.”]
Application to the Philippines
The waters around, between, and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth
and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of
the Philippines. (PHIL. CONST., art. I, § 1)
Treaty limits of the Philippine archipelago
1. Treaty of Paris of 10 December 1898: “Spain
cedes to the United States the archipelago
known as the Philippines Islands, and
comprehending the islands lying within the
following line” Article 3 of the said treaty
defines the metes and bounds of the
archipelago by longitude and latitude,
degrees and seconds. Technical
descriptions are made of the scope of the
archipelago as this may be found on the
surface of the earth.
2. Treaty of Washington of 7 November 1900
between the United States and Spain:
Ceding Cagayan, Sibuto and Sulu.
3. Treaty of 12 January 1930 between the
United States and Great Britain: Ceding the
Turtle and Mangsee Islands [BERNAS
(2003), cited in Justice Velasco’s concurring
opinion in Magallona v. Ermita (2011)].
Composition of National Territory
1. Philippine Archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein;
2. Internal Waters: waters around, between
and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of breadth and
dimension; and
3. All other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
It consists of:
PAGE 19 of 490
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2022
1. Territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular
shelves, and other submarine areas; and
2. Terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains.
Concept of Innocent Passage
Passage through territorial waters which is neither
prejudicial to the interests of the coastal state nor
contrary to recognized principles of international law.
Example: Entry into territorial waters by a cruise ship.
Future Acquisitions included in National Territory
The clause includes any territory presently belonging
or those that might in the future belong to the
Philippines through any of the accepted international
modes of acquiring territory.
Territories belonging to Philippines by historic
right or title
The clause also includes what was referred to under
the 1973 Constitution as territories “belonging to the
Philippines by historic right or legal title,” that is,
territories which, depending on available evidence,
might belong to the Philippines (e.g., Sabah, the
Marianas, Freedomland) (Bernas, Constitutional
Rights and Social Demands, 8, 2010).
Under Article 3 of the UNCLOS, “every state has the
right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to
a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured
from the baselines.”
Contiguous Zone
It is an area of water which extends up to 24 nautical
miles from the baseline (12 nautical miles from the
Territorial Sea). Although not part of the territory, the
coastal State may exercise jurisdiction to prevent
infringement of customs, fiscal, immigration, or
sanitary laws.
Exclusive Economic Zone
This refers to the body of water extending up to 200
nautical miles beyond the baseline, within which the
state may exercise sovereign rights to explore,
exploit, conserve, and manage the natural resources.
Extended Continental Shelf
Portion of the continental shelf that lies beyond the
200 nautical mile limit. A coastal state may establish
a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its
coastline.
The coastal state may establish the outer limits of its
juridical continental shelf wherever the continental
margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles by
establishing the foot of the continental slope, by
POLITICAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW
meeting the requirements of Article 76, paragraphs
4-7, of the UNCLOS.
The Philippine archipelago and all other territories
consist of the following domains: (TAFA)
1. Terrestrial;
2. Aerial;
3. Fluvial; and
4. All other territories outside archipelago over
which RP has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Normal Baseline Method
The baseline is drawn following the low-water line
along the coasts as marked on large-scale charts
officially recognized by the coastal State. This line
follows the sinuosities of the coast and therefore
would normally not consist of straight lines (Section
5, 1982 LOS; Bernas, 1987 Philippine Constitution: A
Commentary, 23, 2009).
Straight Baseline Method
Consists of drawing straight lines connecting
appropriate points on the coast without departing to
any appreciable extent from the general direction of
the coast, in order to delineate the internal waters
from the territorial waters of an archipelago.
The Baseline Law (R.A. 9522, 2009)
R.A. No. 9522–amended R.A. No. 3046, entitled "An
Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of
the Philippines;" specified that baselines of Kalayaan
Group of Islands and Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough
Shoal) shall be determined as “Regime of Islands”
under the Republic of the Philippines, consistent with
the UNCLOS.
R.A. No. 9522 is constitutional:
(a) It is a statutory tool to demarcate the
maritime zone and continental shelf of the
Philippines under UNCLOS III, and does not
alter the national territory. Baselines laws are
nothing but statutory mechanisms for
UNCLOS III state parties to delimit with
precision the extent of their maritime zones
and continental shelves. The law has nothing
to do with acquisition, enlargement, or
diminution of territory, as States may only
acquire (or lose) territory through the
following modes: (CAPO) Cession,
Accretion, Prescription, and Occupation
(Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167,
2011).
(b) The law also does not abandon the country’s
claim to Sabah, as it does not expressly
repeal the entirety of R.A. No. 5446.
(Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, Jul.
16, 2011)
PAGE 20 of 490
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2022 POLITICAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW

The law also does not convert internal waters into 2. BUT Scarborough Shoal ONLY has a
archipelagic waters (which allow the right of innocent Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.
passage). The Philippines still exercises sovereignty 3. There can be a Continental Shelf without an
over the body of water lying landward of the EEZ, but not an EEZ without a Continental
baselines including the air space over it and the Shelf.
submarine areas underneath. The political branches
of the Philippine government, in the competent C. SEPARATION OF POWERS
discharge of their constitutional powers, may pass
legislation designating routes within the archipelagic An allocation of the three great powers of
waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage government in the following manner: legislation to
(Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, Jul. 16, Congress, execution of laws to the Executive, and
2011). settlement of legal controversies to the Judiciary. It is
also an implicit limitation on their powers, preventing
The Baselines Law does not abandon the one from invading the domain of the others, but the
Philippines’ claim over Sabah under RA 5446. The separation is not total.
definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the
Philippine Archipelago is without prejudice to the The principle of separation of powers ordains that
delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea each of the three great government branches has
around the territory of Sabah, situated in North exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in concerns
Borneo, over which the Philippines has acquired falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere;
dominion and sovereignty (R.A. No. 556, § 2). e.g., the judiciary as Justice Laurel emphatically
asserted “will neither direct nor restrain executive [or
Maritime Zones legislative] action” (Republic v. Bayao, G.R. No.
179492, Jun 5, 2013).
TERRITORIAL 12 nautical Absolute
SEA miles from Sovereignty D. CHECKS AND BALANCES
baselines
CONTIGUOUS 24 nautical Enforcement A system operating between and among the three
ZONE miles from of customs, branches of government the net effect of which is that
baselines fiscal, no one department is able to act without the
immigration, cooperation of at least one of the other departments.
sanitation laws
Examples:
EXCLUSIVE 200 nautical Exploitation of
1. Legislation in the form of an enrolled bill
ECONOMIC miles from living and non-
needs final approval from the President to
ZONE baselines living
become a law;
resources
2. President must obtain the concurrence of
CONTINENTAL Submerged Sovereign Congress to complete certain acts (e.g.
SHELF prolongation of rights of granting of amnesty);
the land exploration 3. Money can be released from the Treasury
territory and only by authority of Congress;
exploitation of 4. Appropriation, revenue, tariff, increases in
living and non- public debt and private bills originate in
living House of Representatives;
resources of 5. SC can declare acts of Congress or the
the seabed Executive unconstitutional.

Regime of Islands E. STATE IMMUNITY

Under Article 121 of the UNCLOS III, any naturally
formed area of land surrounded by water, which is BASIS: Art. XVI, Sec. 3: “The state may not be sued
above water at high tides, qualifies under the without its consent.” This is based on the principle of
category of “regime of islands” whose islands equality of states — par in parem non habet
generate their own applicable maritime zones (e.g., imperium.
Kalayaan Islands and Scarborough Shoal).
1.
Kalayaan Islands has its own Territorial Sea,
Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic
Zone.

PAGE 21 of 490
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2022
Doctrine of State Immunity
It refers to a principle by which a state, its agents, and
property are immune from the jurisdiction of another
state (MAGALLONA).
Principle of Equality of States
This principle is premised on the juridical equality of
states, according to which a state may not impose its
authority or extend its jurisdiction to another state
without the consent of the latter through a waiver of
immunity. Thus, domestic courts must decline to hear
cases against foreign sovereigns out of deference to
their role as sovereigns.
Kinds of Immunity
1. Absolute sovereign immunity - where a
state cannot be sued in a foreign court no
matter what the act it is sued for; and
2. Restrictive sovereign immunity - where a
state is immune from suits involving
governmental actions (jure imperii), but not
from those arising from commercial or non-
governmental activity (jure gestionis).
Summary
General rule – The State cannot be sued.
Exception – The State consents to be sued.
How a State gives its consent
1. Express consent
a. General Law
b. Special Law
2. Implied consent
a. When the State commences
litigation, it becomes vulnerable to a
counterclaim; (US v. Guinto, G.R.
No. 76590, Feb. 26, 1990)
b. State enters into a business
contract (thus exercising
proprietary functions); (Id.)
c. When it would be inequitable for the
State to invoke immunity;
d. In eminent domain cases.
State's Business Contracts
A State’s commercial activity is a descent to the level
of individuals and there is a form of tacit consent to
be sued when it enters into business contracts with
others.
However, not every contract entered into is a form of
tacit consent to be sued. It depends upon whether the
foreign state is engaged in the activity in the regular
course of business. If not, or if it is in pursuit of a
sovereign activity, it falls within the exemption of acts
jure imperii especially when not intended for gain or
profit.
POLITICAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW
A party who feels transgressed by anyone claiming
immunity may ask his own government to espouse
his cause through diplomatic channels.
Extent of Immunity
Immunity from jurisdiction is enjoyed by both the
head of State and by the State itself. The State's
diplomatic agents, including consuls to a certain
extent, are also exempt from the jurisdiction of local
courts and administrative tribunals.
Restrictive Application of State Immunity
This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts
a State from being sued in the courts of another State
without the former's consent or waiver has evolved
into a restrictive doctrine which distinguishes
sovereign and governmental acts (Jure imperii) from
private, commercial and proprietary acts (Jure
gestionis). Under the restrictive rule of State
immunity, State immunity extends only to acts jure
imperii. The restrictive application of State immunity
is proper only when the proceedings arise out of
commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its
commercial activities or economic affairs (Arigo v.
Swift, G.R. No. 206510, Sept. 16, 2014).
Scope of State Immunity
Jure Imperii - Immunity is granted only with respect
to their governmental acts
Jure Gestionis - Immunity is not granted with
respect to their commercial acts
Difference between Jure Gestionis and Jure
Imperii
JURE GESTIONIS JURE IMPERII
By right of economic or By right of sovereign
business relation power, in the exercise of
sovereign functions
May be sued May not be sued
Two Conflicting Concepts of Sovereign
Immunity:
1. Classical or absolute theory – sovereign
cannot, without its consent, be made a
respondent in the courts of another
sovereign; and
2. Newer or restrictive theory – the immunity
of the sovereign is recognized only with
regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a
state but not with regard to private acts or
acts jure gestionis.
A certification executed by the Economic Commercial
Office of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of
China stating that a project is in pursuit of a sovereign
activity is not the kind of certification that can
PAGE 22 of 490
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2022
establish entitlement to immunity from suit. It
unequivocally refers to the determination of the
Foreign Office of the state where it is used (China
National Machinery Equipment v. Santa Maria, G.R.
No. 185572, Feb. 7, 2012).
When Suit is Considered against the State: (NUO)
1. The Republic is sued by Name
2. Suits against an Unincorporated
government agency
3. Suit is against a government Official, but is
such that ultimate liability shall devolve on
the government
It produces adverse consequences to the public
treasury in terms of disbursement of public funds and
loss of government property.
It cannot prosper unless the State has given its
consent.
When Not Against the State
It was held that the suit is not against the State:
1. When the purpose of the suit is to compel an
officer charged with the duty of making payments
pursuant to an appropriation made by law in
favor of the plaintiff to make such payment, since
the suit is intended to compel performance of a
ministerial duty (Begosa v. PVA, G.R. No. L-
25916, Apr. 30, 1970);
2. When from the allegations in the complaint, it is
clear that the respondent is a public officer sued
in a private capacity;
3. When the action is not in personam with the
government as the named defendant, but an
action in rem that does not name the government
in particular.
Test to Determine if Suit is Against the State
Will the enforcement thereof (decisions rendered
against the public officer or agency impleaded)
require an affirmative act from the State, such as the
appropriation of the needed amount to satisfy the
judgment? If so, then it is a suit against the State
(Sanders v Verdiano, G.R. No. L-46930, June 10,
1988).
Duration of Immunity of Head of State
Immunity of head of state for private acts lasts while
a person is still in office; for public acts, even after
office.
Consent to be Sued is Given by the State either
EXPRESSLY or IMPLIEDLY
EXPRESS
The law expressly grants the authority to sue the
State or any of its agencies.
POLITICAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW
a. General Law: Authorizes any person who
meets the conditions stated in the law to sue
the government in accordance with the
procedure in the law (e.g. money claims
arising from contract express or implied,
liability of local government units for torts)
b. Special Law: may come in the form of a
private bill authorizing a named individual to
bring a suit on a special claim.
IMPLIED (CBIP)
a. When the State Commences litigation, it
becomes vulnerable to counterclaim;
b. When the State enters into a Business
contract (in jure gestionis or proprietary
functions);
c. When it would be Inequitable for the State to
invoke its immunity; and
d. In instances when the State takes private
property for Public use or purpose (Eminent
Domain).
Specific Rules
a. When State Commences Litigation
Exception: When the State intervenes not for
the purpose of asking for any affirmative relief,
but only for the purpose of resisting the claim
precisely because of immunity from suit (Lim v
Brownell, GR No. L-8587, Mar 24 1960).
b. When State enters a Business Contract
Types of Capacity of the State in entering into
contracts:
1. Acta jure gestionis - by right of economic
or business relations; commercial or
proprietary acts. The State may be sued (US
v. Guinto, GR. No. 76607, Feb. 26, 1990)
2. Acta jure imperii - by right of sovereign
power and in the exercise of sovereign
functions; there is no implied consent to be
sued (US v. Ruiz, GR No. 35645, May 22,
1985)
c. When State Executes and Enters Private
Contracts
● General Rule: The State may be sued if a
private contract is entered into by the proper
office and within the scope of his authority.
● Exception: When the private contract is
incidental to the performance of a government
function.
Suits against Public Officers
General Rule: The doctrine of state immunity also
applies to complaints filed against officials of the
State for acts performed by them in the discharge of
their duties within the scope of their authority.
PAGE 23 of 490
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2022
Exception: The doctrine of immunity from suit will
not apply and may not be invoked where the public
official is being sued in his:
1. private and personal capacity as an ordinary
citizen
2. for acts without authority or in excess of the
powers vested in him. (Lansang v. CA, G.R.
102667, Feb. 23, 2000)
Rule on Liability of Public Officers (SGU)
1. Acting beyond Scope of Authority: When a
public officer acts in bad faith, or beyond the
scope of his authority, he can be held
personally liable for damages.
2. Acting in Good Faith: If a public officer acted
pursuant to his official duties, without malice,
negligence, or bad faith, he is not personally
liable, and the suit is really one against the
State
3. Ultra Vires Act: Where a public officer has
committed an ultra vires act, or where there is
showing of bad faith, malice, or gross
negligence, the officer can be held personally
accountable even if such acts were claimed to
have been performed in connection with
official duties (Wylie v. Rarang, G.R. No.
74135, May 28, 1992).
Suits against Government Agencies
1. Incorporated: If the charter provides that the
agency can sue and be sued, then suit will lie,
including one for tort. The provision in the
charter constitutes express consent on the
party of the State to be sued (PNB v. CIR, G.R.
No. L-32667, Jan 31, 1978)
2. Unincorporated:
a. Performs governmental functions: Cannot
be without State consent even if performing
proprietary function incidentally. Thus,
even in the exercise of proprietary
functions, an unincorporated agency still
cannot be sued without its consent.
b. Performs proprietary functions: Can be
sued except when the proprietary functions
are indispensable in the discharge of its
governmental functions (Mobil PHL
Exploration v. Customs Arrastre Service,
GR No. 23139, Dec 17, 1966)
Case Law Exceptions when State/Public Officer
May Be Sued without Prior Consent (RUPJuG)
1. To compel him to do an act Required by law;
2. To restrain him from enforcing an act claimed
to be Unconstitutional
3. To compel the Payment of damages from an
already appropriated assurance fund or to
refund tax overpayments from a fund already
available for the purpose;
POLITICAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW
4. To secure a Judgement that the officer
impleaded may satisfy by himself without the
State having to do a positive act to assist him;
5. Where the Government itself has violated its
own laws.
(Sanders v Verdiano, G.R. No. L-46930, Jun 10,
1988)
Rules regarding Garnishment of Government
Funds
General Rule: Garnishment of government funds is
not allowed. Whether the money is deposited by way
of general or special deposit, they remain
government funds and are not subject to
garnishment.
Exceptions:
1. Where a law or ordinance has been enacted
appropriating a specific amount to pay a valid
government obligation, then the money can be
garnished
2. If the funds belong to a public corporation or a
GOCC which is clothed with a personality of its
own, then the funds are not exempt from
garnishment (NHA v. Guivelando, G.R. No.
154411, Jun 19, 2003)
To enforce monetary decisions against the
Government, a person may file a claim with the
Commission on Audit. It is settled jurisprudence that
upon determination of State liability, the prosecution,
enforcement, or satisfaction thereof must still be
pursued in accordance with the rules and procedures
laid down in P.D. No 1445 (Government Auditing
Code of the Philippines). All money claims against
the Government must first be filed with the
Commission on Audit, which must act upon it within
60 days. Rejection of the claim will authorize the
claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court
on certiorari and in effect, sue the State thereby
(Department of Agriculture v NLRC, G.R. No 104269,
Nov. 11, 1993; PD 1445, § 49-50)
Consent to be Sued is Not Equivalent to Consent
to Liability
- The fact that the State consented to being sued
does not mean that the State will ultimately be
held liable (US v. Guinto, G.R. 76607, Feb. 26,
1990)
- Even if the case is decided against the State,
an award cannot be satisfied by writs of
execution or garnishment against public funds.
No money shall be paid out of the public
treasury unless pursuant to an appropriation
made by law
PAGE 24 of 490
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2022
Payment of interest by the Government in Money
Judgment Against it:
General Rule: Government cannot be made to pay
interests
Exceptions (EEG):
1. Eminent domain
2. Erroneous collection of tax
3. Government agrees to pay interest pursuant to
law
Immunity from Jurisdiction
General rule: The jurisdiction of a state within its
territory is complete and absolute
Exceptions (SDH):
1. Sovereign immunity
2. Diplomatic immunity
3. Hostis Humanis Generis - enemy of all mankind
or crimes justiciable by any state anywhere e.g.
piracy (Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876,
1980)
Acts of State Immunity
Every state is bound to respect the independence of
every other sovereign state, and the courts of one
country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the
government of another, done within its own territory.
Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must
be obtained through the means open to be availed of
by sovereign powers as between themselves
This immunity is for the benefit of the State. Thus,
only the Sstate may waive it.
Nothing in the complaint would require a court to
pass judgment on any official act of the Philippine
government. Just as raising the specter of political
issues cannot sustain dismissal under the political
question doctrine, neither does a general invocation
of international law or foreign relations mean that an
act of state is an essential element of a claim. It
cannot be thought that every case touching foreign
relations lies beyond judicial cognizance. (Provincial
Government of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc G.R.
No. 07-1630, 2009)
The commission of a crime by a state official, which
is an international crime against humanity and jus
cogens, is NOT an act done in an official capacity on
behalf of the state. As a matter of general customary
international law, a head of state will PERSONALLY
be liable to account if there is sufficient evidence that
he authorized or perpetrated serious international
crimes. Individuals who commit international crimes
are internationally accountable for them.
POLITICAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW
General Rule: Any person who in performing an act
of the state, commits a criminal offense is immune
from prosecution. This applies not only to ex-heads
of state and ex-ambassadors but to all state officials
who have been involved in carrying out the functions
of the state (Immunity Ratione Materiae/Functional
Immunity - “Immunity of the official”)
Exception: Functional Immunity of state officials of
the foreing state could no longer be invoked in cases
of international crimes (Regina v. Bartle and the
Commissioner of Police, “Pinochet Case”)
Exception to the Exception: When the case is
brought against the State itself for liability to damages
(e.g. civil proceedings against a state), the rationale
for the judgment in the Pinochet case has no bearing.
NOTE: A state is not deprived of immunity by reason
of the fact that it is accused of serious violations of
international human rights law or the international law
of armed conflict. The court distinguished between
immunity and substantive jus cogens rules of
international law and held that a finding of immunity
does not equal a finding that a state did not owe
reparations (Jurisdictional Immunities of the State:
Germany v. Italy, 2012).
F. DELEGATION OF POWERS
General Rule: Legislative power is vested in
Congress which consists of the Senate and the
House of Representatives by the sovereign Filipino
people. Congress cannot delegate its legislative
power under the maxim delegata potestas non potest
delegari (delegated power may not be delegated).
Exceptions: (PLATE)
1. Delegation to the People – To the extent
reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum.
2. Delegation to Local Government Units – Local
legislative bodies are allowed by our Constitution
to legislate on purely public matters. Since what
was given to local legislative bodies are not
power to make rules and regulations but
legislative power, the rules on valid delegation do
not apply. However, when what is given to local
legislative body is executive power, the rules
applicable to the empowerment of administrative
agencies also become applicable (Rubi v.
Provincial Board, G.R. No. L-14078, March 7,
1919).
a. The BPO issued by the Punong Barangay is
not an undue delegation of legislative power
for it merely orders the perpetrator to desist
from (a) causing physical harm to the
PAGE 25 of 490