#5 before September 13, 2023

DELEGATION OF POWERS
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
Under this doctrine, the State cannot be
sued without its consent. (Sec. 3, Art.
XVI, 1987 Constitution). It reflects
nothing
less than recognition of the sovereign
character of the State and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively
insulating it from the jurisdiction of
courts. It is based on the very essence of
sovereignty. (Department of Agriculture
v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 104269, November 11,
1993)
There can be no legal right against the
authority which makes the law on which
the right depends (Republic vs. Villasor,
GRN
#5 before September 13, 2023

L‐30671, November 28, 1973).

However, it may be sued if it gives
consent, whether express or implied.
Express consent of the State may be
manifested through general or special
law. Solicitor General cannot validly
waive
immunity from suit. Only the Congress
can (Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No. L‐
36084, Aug.31, 1977).
Implied consent is given when the State
itself commences litigation or when it
enters into a contract. There is an
implied
consent when the state enters into a
business contract. (US v. Ruiz, G.R. No.
L‐35645 May 22, 1985). However, this
rule is not
absolute.
Not all contracts entered into by the
government operate as a waiver of its
#5 before September 13, 2023

nonsuability. Distinction must still be

made
between one which is executed in the
exercise of its sovereign function and
another which is done in its proprietary
capacity. A State may be said to have
descended to the level of an individual
and can this be deemed to have actually
given
its consent to be sued only when it
enters into business contracts. It does
not apply where the contract relates to
the
exercise of its sovereign functions.
(Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)
A suit considered as suit against the
State under the following instances:
1. When the Republic is sued by name;
2. When the suit is against an
unincorporated government agency;
#5 before September 13, 2023

3. When the suit is on its face against a

government officer but the case is such.
While the doctrine appears to prohibit
only suits against the state without its
consent, it is also applicable to
complaints
filed against officials of the state for
acts allegedly performed by them in the
discharge of their duties. The rule is that
if the
judgment against such officials will
require the state itself to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same, such
as the
appropriation of the amount needed to
pay the damages awarded against them,
the suit must be regarded as against the
state itself, although it has not been
formally impleaded.
It is a different matter where the public
official is made to account in his
#5 before September 13, 2023

capacity as such for acts contrary to law

and
injurious to the rights of plaintiff.
Inasmuch as the State authorizes only
legal acts by its officers, unauthorized
acts of govt.
officials or officers are not acts of the
State, and an action against the officials
or officers by one whose rights have
been
invaded or violated by such acts, for the
protection of his rights, is not a suit
against the State within the rule of
immunity of
the State from suit. The doctrine of state
immunity cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice.
The cloak of immunity is removed from
the moment the public official is sued in
his individual capacity such as where he
#5 before September 13, 2023

acts without authority or in excess of the

powers vested in him. A public official
may be liable in his personal capacity
for
whatever damage he may have caused
by his act done with malice and in bad
faith, or beyond the scope of his
authority or
jurisdiction. In this case, the officers are
liable for damages.
The doctrine is also available to foreign
States insofar as they are sought to be
sued in the courts of the local State. The
added basis in this case is the principle
of the sovereign equality of States,
under w/c one State cannot assert
jurisdiction
over another in violation of the maxim
par in parem non habet imperium. To do
so would "unduly vex the peace of
nations."
#5 before September 13, 2023

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

Under this doctrine, the State cannot be
sued without its consent. (Sec. 3, Art.
XVI, 1987 Constitution). It reflects
nothing
less than recognition of the sovereign
character of the State and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively
insulating it from the jurisdiction of
courts. It is based on the very essence of
sovereignty. (Department of Agriculture
v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 104269, November 11,
1993)
There can be no legal right against the
authority which makes the law on which
the right depends (Republic vs. Villasor,
GRN
#5 before September 13, 2023

L‐30671, November 28, 1973).

However, it may be sued if it gives
consent, whether express or implied.
Express consent of the State may be
manifested through general or special
law. Solicitor General cannot validly
waive
immunity from suit. Only the Congress
can (Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No. L‐
36084, Aug.31, 1977).
Implied consent is given when the State
itself commences litigation or when it
enters into a contract. There is an
implied
consent when the state enters into a
business contract. (US v. Ruiz, G.R. No.
L‐35645 May 22, 1985). However, this
rule is not
absolute.
Not all contracts entered into by the
government operate as a waiver of its
#5 before September 13, 2023

nonsuability. Distinction must still be

made
between one which is executed in the
exercise of its sovereign function and
another which is done in its proprietary
capacity. A State may be said to have
descended to the level of an individual
and can this be deemed to have actually
given
its consent to be sued only when it
enters into business contracts. It does
not apply where the contract relates to
the
exercise of its sovereign functions.
(Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)
A suit considered as suit against the
State under the following instances:
1. When the Republic is sued by name;
2. When the suit is against an
unincorporated government agency;
#5 before September 13, 2023

3. When the suit is on its face against a

government officer but the case is such.
While the doctrine appears to prohibit
only suits against the state without its
consent, it is also applicable to
complaints
filed against officials of the state for
acts allegedly performed by them in the
discharge of their duties. The rule is that
if the
judgment against such officials will
require the state itself to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same, such
as the
appropriation of the amount needed to
pay the damages awarded against them,
the suit must be regarded as against the
state itself, although it has not been
formally impleaded.
It is a different matter where the public
official is made to account in his
#5 before September 13, 2023

capacity as such for acts contrary to law

and
injurious to the rights of plaintiff.
Inasmuch as the State authorizes only
legal acts by its officers, unauthorized
acts of govt.
officials or officers are not acts of the
State, and an action against the officials
or officers by one whose rights have
been
invaded or violated by such acts, for the
protection of his rights, is not a suit
against the State within the rule of
immunity of
the State from suit. The doctrine of state
immunity cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice.
The cloak of immunity is removed from
the moment the public official is sued in
his individual capacity such as where he
#5 before September 13, 2023

acts without authority or in excess of the

powers vested in him. A public official
may be liable in his personal capacity
for
whatever damage he may have caused
by his act done with malice and in bad
faith, or beyond the scope of his
authority or
jurisdiction. In this case, the officers are
liable for damages.
The doctrine is also available to foreign
States insofar as they are sought to be
sued in the courts of the local State. The
added basis in this case is the principle
of the sovereign equality of States,
under w/c one State cannot assert
jurisdiction
over another in violation of the maxim
par in parem non habet imperium. To do
so would "unduly vex the peace of
nations."
#5 before September 13, 2023

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

Under this doctrine, the State cannot be
sued without its consent. (Sec. 3, Art.
XVI, 1987 Constitution). It reflects
nothing
less than recognition of the sovereign
character of the State and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively
insulating it from the jurisdiction of
courts. It is based on the very essence of
sovereignty. (Department of Agriculture
v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 104269, November 11,
1993)
There can be no legal right against the
authority which makes the law on which
the right depends (Republic vs. Villasor,
GRN
#5 before September 13, 2023

L‐30671, November 28, 1973).

However, it may be sued if it gives
consent, whether express or implied.
Express consent of the State may be
manifested through general or special
law. Solicitor General cannot validly
waive
immunity from suit. Only the Congress
can (Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No. L‐
36084, Aug.31, 1977).
Implied consent is given when the State
itself commences litigation or when it
enters into a contract. There is an
implied
consent when the state enters into a
business contract. (US v. Ruiz, G.R. No.
L‐35645 May 22, 1985). However, this
rule is not
absolute.
Not all contracts entered into by the
government operate as a waiver of its
#5 before September 13, 2023

nonsuability. Distinction must still be

made
between one which is executed in the
exercise of its sovereign function and
another which is done in its proprietary
capacity. A State may be said to have
descended to the level of an individual
and can this be deemed to have actually
given
its consent to be sued only when it
enters into business contracts. It does
not apply where the contract relates to
the
exercise of its sovereign functions.
(Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)
A suit considered as suit against the
State under the following instances:
1. When the Republic is sued by name;
2. When the suit is against an
unincorporated government agency;
#5 before September 13, 2023

3. When the suit is on its face against a

government officer but the case is such.
While the doctrine appears to prohibit
only suits against the state without its
consent, it is also applicable to
complaints
filed against officials of the state for
acts allegedly performed by them in the
discharge of their duties. The rule is that
if the
judgment against such officials will
require the state itself to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same, such
as the
appropriation of the amount needed to
pay the damages awarded against them,
the suit must be regarded as against the
state itself, although it has not been
formally impleaded.
It is a different matter where the public
official is made to account in his
#5 before September 13, 2023

capacity as such for acts contrary to law

and
injurious to the rights of plaintiff.
Inasmuch as the State authorizes only
legal acts by its officers, unauthorized
acts of govt.
officials or officers are not acts of the
State, and an action against the officials
or officers by one whose rights have
been
invaded or violated by such acts, for the
protection of his rights, is not a suit
against the State within the rule of
immunity of
the State from suit. The doctrine of state
immunity cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice.
The cloak of immunity is removed from
the moment the public official is sued in
his individual capacity such as where he
#5 before September 13, 2023

acts without authority or in excess of the

powers vested in him. A public official
may be liable in his personal capacity
for
whatever damage he may have caused
by his act done with malice and in bad
faith, or beyond the scope of his
authority or
jurisdiction. In this case, the officers are
liable for damages.
The doctrine is also available to foreign
States insofar as they are sought to be
sued in the courts of the local State. The
added basis in this case is the principle
of the sovereign equality of States,
under w/c one State cannot assert
jurisdiction
over another in violation of the maxim
par in parem non habet imperium. To do
so would "unduly vex the peace of
nations."
#5 before September 13, 2023

What is Delegation of Powers?

Fundamentally, legislative power is an attribute of sovereignty, in that the Constitution

itself, the fundamental law of the State, is a legislation of the sovereign people.
However, through the Constitution, the people “delegated” the legislative power to the
Congress of the Philippines. Section 1, Article VI states that “Legislative power shall be
vested in the Congress of the Philippines…” The delegation of power entails a surrender
of authority to the representatives, or in the case of legislative power, to the Congress.
Thus, law-making can only be performed by the Congress, even if the law it enacts
involves the people.

What is the Principle of Non-delegation of Powers?

The Congress cannot further delegate the power delegated to it by the people. This is
in keeping with the principle of non-delegation of powers which is applicable to all the
three branches of the government. The rule states that what has been delegated
cannot further be delegated – potestas delegata non delegari potest. A delegated
power must be discharged directly by the delegate and not through the delegate’s
agent. It is basically an ethical principle which requires direct performance by the
delegate of an entrusted power. Further delegation therefore constitutes violation of
the trust reposed by the delegator on the delegate. The people, through the
Constitution, delegated lawmaking powers to the Congress, and as such, it cannot as a
rule delegate further the same to another.

Exceptions to the Principle of Non-delegation of Powers

Permissible Delegation:

(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President.

Article 6, Section 28(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.”

- the reason for this delegation is the necessity, not to say expediency, of giving the
chief executive the authority to act immediately on certain matters affecting the
national economy lest delay result in hardship to the people.

(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President.

Article 6, Section 23(2). “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 its next adjournment.”

The conditions for the vesture of emergency powers in the President are the following:
#5 before September 13, 2023

a. There must be war or other national emergency.

b. The delegation must be for a limited period only.
c. The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may prescribe.
d. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by
the Congress.

Important points:

* the emergency powers are self-liquidating unless sooner withdrawn.

* Conferment of emergency powers on the President is not mandatory on the
Congress. The Congress may choose to hold on to its legislative powers and validly
refuse to delegate it.

(3) Delegation to the people at large.

- The Congress further delegates its legislative power by allowing direct legislation by
the people in cases of initiative and referendum.

(4) Delegation to local governments.

- This delegation is based on the principle that the local government is in better
position than the national government to act on purely local concerns. Legislative
power is therefore given to them for effective local legislation.

(5) Delegation to administrative bodies.

- The Congress delegates the so called “power of subordinate legislation” to

administrative bodies. Due to the growing complexity of modern society, it has become
necessary to allow specialized administrative bodies to promulgate supplementary
rules, so that they can deal with technical problems with more expertise and dispatch
than the Congress or the courts. Regulations or supplementary rules passed by the
administrative bodies are intended to fill-in the gaps and provide details to what is
otherwise a broad statute passed by Congress. For the rules and regulations to be valid
and binding, they must be in accordance with the statute on which they are based,
complete in themselves, and fix sufficient standards. If any of the requirements is not
satisfied, the regulation will not be allowed to affect private rights

The Completeness Test

Ideally, the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it
leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it
reaches him except enforce it.

Sufficient Standard Test

It 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 is to prevent a total transference of
legislative power from the lawmaking body to the delegate.