Cases Reviewer in Constitutional Law

7/27/2019 Cases Reviewer in Constitutional Law

1/22

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1REVIEWER

Proclamation No. 1, February 25, 2986

PROCLAIMING THAT PRESIDENT CORAZON C. AQUINO AND VICEPRESIDENT SALVADOR H. LAUREL ARE TAKING POWERS OF THE

GOVERNMENT IN THE NAME AND BY WILL OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE

Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authorityemanates from them.On the basis of the peoples mandate clearly manifested lastFebruary 7, I and Salvador H. Laurel are taking power in the nameand by the will of the Filipino people as President and Vice-President, respectively.By the powers vested in me by the people, I ask all those in thecivil service to stay in place. Those who have not done anythingagainst the interests of the people have nothing to fear. I ask thatthey preserve all records with scrupulous care.The people expect a reorganization of government. Merit will berewarded. As a first step to restore confidence in publicadministration, I expect all appointive public officials to submittheir courtesy resignation beginning with the members of theSupreme Court.I pledge to do justice to the numerous victims of human rightsviolations.Consistent with the demands of the sovereign people, we pledge agovernment dedicated to upheld truth and justice, morality anddecency in government, freedom and democracy.To help me run the government, I have issued Executive Order No.1 dated February 25, 1986 appointing key cabinet ministers and

creating certain task forces.I ask our people not to relax but to be even more vigilant in thisone moment of triumph. The motherland cannot thank themenough. Yet, we all realize that more is required of each andeveryone of us to redeem our promises and prove to create a trulyjust society for our people.This is just the beginning. The same spirit which animated ourcampaign, and has led to our triumph, will once more prevail, bythe power of the people and by the grace of God.

Approved: February 25, 1986

.The 1986 Provisional

"Freedom" ConstitutionOf TheRepublic Of The Philippines

Full Text

Proclamation No. 3.

DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORMSMANDATED BY THE PEOPLE, PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS,ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR

AN ORDERLY TRANSITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER A NEWCONSTITUTION.

WHEREAS, the new government was installed through a directexercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of theNew Armed Forces of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, the heroic action of the people was done in defiance ofthe provisions of the1973 Constitution, as amended;WHEREAS, the direct mandate of the people as manifested by theirextraordinary action demands the complete reorganization of thegovernment, restoration of democracy, protection of basic rights,rebuilding of confidence in the entire governmental system,eradication of graft and corruption, restoration of peace and order,maintenance of the supremacy of civilian authority over themilitary, and the transition to a government under aNew

Constitution in the shortest time possible; .chan robles virtual lawlibraryWHEREAS, during the period of transition to aNew Constitution itmust be guaranteed that the government will respect basic humanrights and fundamental freedoms;.chan robles virtual law libraryWHEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines,by virtue of the powers vested in me by the sovereign mandate ofthe people, do hereby promulgate the following ProvisionalConstitution.

PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
http://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htm


2/22

PHILIPPINESARTICLE I

ADOPTION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION,AS AMENDED

Section 1. The provisions of ARTICLE I (National Territory), ARTICLE

III (Citizenship), ARTICLE IV (Bill of Rights), ARTICLE V (Duties andObligations of Citizens), and ARTICLE VI (Suffrage) of the 1973Constitution, as amended, remain in force and effect and arehereby adopted in toto as part of this Provisional Constitution..chanrobles virtual law librarySection 2. The provisions of ARTICLE II (Declaration of Principlesand State Policies), ARTICLE VII (The President), ARTICLE X (TheJudiciary), ARTICLE XI (Local Government), ARTICLE XII (TheConstitutional Commissions), ARTICLE XIII (Accountability of PublicOfficers), ARTICLE XIV (The National Economy and Patrimony of theNation), ARTICLE XV (General Provisions) of the 1973 Constitution,as amended, are hereby adopted as part of this ProvisionalConstitution, insofar as they are not inconsistent with theprovisions of this Proclamation..chan robles virtual law librarySection 3. ARTICLE VIII (The Batasang Pambansa), ARTICLE IX (ThePrime Minister and the Cabinet), ARTICLE XVI (Amendments),ARTICLE XVII (Transitory Provisions) and all amendments theretoare deemed superseded by this Proclamation. .chan robles virtuallaw library

ARTICLE IITHE PRESIDENT, THE VICE-PRESIDENT, AND THE CABINET

Section 1. Until a legislature is elected and convened under anewConstitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislativepower.The President shall give priority to measures to achieve themandate of the people to:.chan robles virtual law library(a) Completely reorganize the government and eradicate unjust

and oppressive structures, and all iniquitous vestiges of theprevious regime; .chan robles virtual law library(b) Make effective the guarantees of civil, political, human, social,economic and cultural rights and freedoms of the Filipino people,and provide remedies against violations thereof;(c) Rehabilitate the economy and promote the nationalistaspirations of the people;.chan robles virtual law library(d) Recover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders andsupporters of the previous regime and protect the interest of thepeople through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets ofaccounts;(e) Eradicate graft and corruption in government and punish those

guilty thereof; and, .chan robles virtual law library(f) Restore peace and order, settle the problem of insurgency, andpursue national reconciliation based on justice.Section 2. The President shall be assisted by a Cabinet which shallbe composed of Ministers with or without portfolio who shall be

appointed by the President. They shall be accountable to and holdoffice at the pleasure of the President.Section 3. The President shall have control of and exercisegeneral supervision over all local governments.Section 4. In case of permanent vacancy arising from death,incapacity or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shallbecome President..chan robles virtual law libraryIn case of death, permanent incapacity, or resignation of the Vice-President, the Cabinet shall choose from among themselves theMinister with portfolio who shall act as President.Section 5. The Vice-President may be appointed Member of theCabinet and may perform such other functions as may be assignedto him by the President..chan robles virtual law librarySection 6. The President, the Vice-President, and the Members ofthe Cabinet shall be subject to the disabilities provided for inSection 8, Article VII, and in Sections 6 and 7, Article IX,respectively, of the1973 Constitution, as amended.

ARTICLE IIIGOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION

Section 1. In the reorganization of the government, priority shallbe given to measures to promote economy, efficiency, and theeradication of graft and corruption. .chan robles virtual law library.chan robles virtual law librarySection 2. All elective and appointive officials and employeesunder the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwiseprovided by proclamation or executive order or upon the

designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, ifsuch is made within a period of one year from February 25, 1986.(See Executive Order No. 17, to amend this Section 2)..chan robles virtual law librarySection 3. Any public officer or employee separated from theservice as a result of the reorganization effected under thisProclamation shall, if entitled under the laws then in force, receivethe retirement and other benefits accruing thereunder.Section 4. The records, equipment, buildings, facilities and otherproperties of all government offices shall be carefully preserved. Incase any office or body is abolished or reorganized pursuant to thisProclamation, its funds and properties shall be transferred to the
http://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/aquinoexecutiveorderno17.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/aquinoexecutiveorderno17.htm


3/22

office or body to which its powers, functions, and responsibilitiessubstantially pertain.

ARTICLE IVEXISTING LAWS, TREATIES, AND CONTRACTS

Section 1. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,proclamations, letters of instruction, implementing rules andregulations, and other executive issuances not inconsistent withthis Proclamation shall remain operative until amended, modified,or repealed by the President or the regular legislative body to beestablished under a New Constitution.Section 2. The President may review all contracts, concessions,permits, or other forms of privileges for the exploration,development, exploitation, or utilization of natural resourcesentered into, granted, issued, or acquired before the date of thisProclamation and when the national interest requires, amend,modify, or revoke them. .chan robles virtual law library

ARTICLE VADOPTION OF A NEW CONSTITUTION

Section 1. Within sixty (60) days from date of this Proclamation,aCommissionshall be appointed by the President to draft a NewConstitution. TheCommission shall be composed of not less thanthirty (30) nor more than fifty (50) natural born citizens of thePhilippines, of recognized probity, known for their independence,nationalism and patriotism. They shall be chosen by the Presidentafter consultation with various sectors of society..chan roblesvirtual law librarySection 2. TheCommissionshall complete its work within as shorta period as may be consistent with the need both to hasten thereturn of normal constitutional government and to draft adocument truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the

Filipino people..chan robles virtual law librarySection 3. TheCommission shall conduct public hearings toensure that the people will have adequate participation in theformulation of the New Constitution..chan robles virtual law librarySection 4. The plenary sessions of theCommissionshall be publicand fully recorded..chan robles virtual law librarySection 5. TheNew Constitution shall be presented bytheCommission to the President who shall fix the date for theholding of a plebiscite. It shall become valid and effective uponratification by a majority of the votes cast in such plebiscite whichshall be held within a period of sixty (60) days following itssubmission to the President. .chan robles virtual law library

ARTICLE VIHOLDING OF ELECTIONS

Section 1. National elections shall be held as may be provided bytheNew Constitution.

Section 2. Local elections shall be held on a date to bedetermined by the President which shall not be earlier than thedate of the plebiscite for the ratification of theNewConstitution..chan robles virtual law library

ARTICLE VIIEFFECTIVE DATE

Section 1. This Proclamation shall take effect upon itspromulgation by the President. .chan robles virtual law librarySection 2. Pursuant to the letter and spirit of this Proclamation, aconsolidated official text of the Provisional Constitution shall bepromulgated by the President and published in English and Pilipinoin the Official Gazette and in newspapers of general circulation toinsure widespread dissemination.

THE 1987 CONSTITUTIONOF THE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ARTICLE XVIIITRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Section 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon itsratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held forthe purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.The foregoing proposed Constitution of the Republic of thePhilippines was approved by the Constitutional Commission of1986 on the twelfth day of October, Nineteen hundred and eighty-

six, and accordingly signed on the fifteenth day of October,Nineteen hundred and eighty-six at the Plenary Hall, NationalGovernment Center, Quezon City, by the Commissioners whosesignatures are hereunder affixed.Adopted:

Proclamation No. 58Proclaiming the Ratification of the Constitution of the

Republic of the Philippines Adopted by the ConstitutionalCommission of 1986, including the Ordinance Appended

Thereto
http://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/concomembers.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htm


4/22

WHEREAS, the Constitutional Commission of 1986 adopted theConstitution of the Republic of the Philippines on October 15, 1986,together with the Ordinance appended thereto, which shall becomevalid and effective upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast

in a plebiscite called for the purpose;WHEREAS, the Commission on Election, sitting as the nationalboard of canvassers for the February 2, 1987 plebiscite on theproposed Constitution, certified that:

1. The Commission on Election canvassed the returns from83,288 voting precincts throughout the country involving21,785,216 votes cast; and

2. On the basis of the canvass made by the Commission onElections, the results thereof are as follows:

a. Affirmative votes: 16,622,111b. Negative Votes: 4,953,375c. Abstentions: 209,730

A copy of the Certificate of Canvass of the Votes Cast in thePlebiscite Held on February 2, 1987, of the Commission onElections dated February 7, 1987 is hereto attached as Annex Aof this Proclamation.NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of thePhilippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the sovereignmandate of the people, do hereby proclaim that the Constitution ofthe Republic of the Philippines adopted by the ConstitutionalCommission of 1986, including the ordinance appended thereto,has been duly ratified by the Filipino people and is thereforeeffective and in full force and effect.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and causedthe seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed.Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of February in the year ofOur Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-seven.

The Civil Code of the PhilippinesAN ACT TO ORDAIN AND INSTITUTE THE CIVIL CODE OF THE

PHILIPPINESPRELIMINARY TITLE

CHAPTER I

EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS

Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and theirviolation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, orcustom or practice to the contrary.

When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with theConstitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall bevalid only when they are not contrary to the laws or theConstitution. (5a)

De Leon v. ESGUERRA

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite onFebruary 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the ProvisionalConstitution must be deemed to have been superseded.(Effectivity is immediately upon ratification)

Sanidad v. COMELEC

-Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and proposingamendments) is valid in martial law.-Amending process is a sovereign act, although theauthority to institute the same and the procedure to befollowed reside somehow in a particular body (Pres.Marcos).

Santiago v. COMELEC

The right of the people to directly propose amendments tothe Constitution through the system of initiative wouldremain entombed in a cold niche until Congress providesfor its implementation. Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.

CONCEPT OF STATE

STATECommunity of persons, more or less numerous,permanently occupying a fixed territory, and possessed ofan independent government organized for political ends towhich the great body of inhabitants render habitualobedience.

ELEMENTS: PEOPLE, TERRITORY, GOVERNMENT andSOVEREIGNTY


5/22

PEOPLEInhabitants of the state; must be numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend themselves and small enough to be easilyadministered and sustained.

TERRITORYFixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people ofthe state.

The mere fact that the Government happens to be a majorstockholder of a corporation does not make it a publiccorporation.Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.Bacani vs NACOCO

Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions obsolete.Government has to provide for general welfare. PVTA vs CIR

Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad

Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the people)Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:- abrogation of laws in conflict with the political characterof the substituted sovereign (political law).- great body of municipal law regarding private anddomestic rights continue in force until abrogated orchanged by new ruler.

Cabanas v. PilapilLawyers League v. Aquino May 22, 1986

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh

Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues untilchanged by some competent legislative power (notchanged by mere change of sovereignty). All acts andproceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de facto governmentare good and valid.

Kinds of De facto government:

(1) de facto proper government obtained by force or

voice of the majority(2) paramount force by military forces who invade theterritory(3) independent government established by inhabitantsthrough insurrection

Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese occupation)was a de facto government.

Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine sovereignty overAmerican bases Philippine Government has not abdicated itssovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory.People vs Gozo

Laurel vs Misa

Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and permanentEffect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the government not transferred to occupier

Ruffy v Chief of Staff

The rule that laws of political nature or affecting politicalrelations are considered superseded or held in abeyanceduring the military occupation, is intended for thegoverning of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territoryand not for the enemies in arms.

ACT NO. 3083 - AN ACT DEFINING THE CONDITIONS UNDERWHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MAY

BE SUED

Section 1. Complaint against Government. Subject to theprovisions of this Act, the Government of the Philippine Islandshereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claiminvolving liability arising from contract, expressed or implied, whichcould serve as a basis of civil action between private parties.

Sec. 2. A person desiring to avail himself of the privilege hereinconferred must show that he has presented his claim to the InsularAuditor 1 and that the latter did not decide the same within twomonths from the date of its presentation.

Sec. 3. Venue. Original actions brought pursuant to the authority
http://www.facebook.com/xandradlchttp://www.facebook.com/xandradlc


6/22

conferred in this Act shall be instituted in the Court of First Instanceof the City of Manila or of the province were the claimant resides,at the option of the latter, upon which court exclusive originaljurisdiction is hereby conferred to hear and determine suchactions.

Sec. 4. Actions instituted as aforesaid shall be governed by thesame rules of procedure, both original and appellate, as if thelitigants were private parties.

Sec. 5. When the Government of the Philippine Island is plaintiff inan action instituted in any court of original jurisdiction, thedefendant shall have the right to assert therein, by way of set-offor counterclaim in a similar action between private parties.

Sec. 6. Process in actions brought against the Government of thePhilippine Islands pursuant to the authority granted in this Act shallbe served upon the Attorney-General 2 whose duty it shall be toappear and make defense, either himself or through delegates.

Sec. 7. Execution. No execution shall issue upon any judgmentrendered by any court against the Government of the PhilippineIslands under the provisions of this Act; but a copy thereof dulycertified by the clerk of the Court in which judgment is renderedshall be transmitted by such clerk to the Governor-General, 3within five days after the same becomes final.

Sec. 8. Transmittal of Decision. The Governor-General, 4 at thecommencement of each regular session of the Legislature, 5 shalltransmit to that body for appropriate action all decisions soreceived by him, and if said body determine that payment shouldbe made, it shall appropriate the sum which the Government has

been sentenced to pay, including the same in the appropriationsfor the ensuing year.

Sec. 9. This Act shall take effect on its approval

Art. 2180

The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only forone's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons forwhom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, areresponsible for the damages caused by the minor children who livein their company.Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors orincapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in

their company.The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise arelikewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in theservice of the branches in which the latter are employed or on theoccasion of their functions.Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by theiremployees and household helpers acting within the scope of theirassigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in anybusiness or industry.The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through aspecial agent; but not when the damage has been caused by theofficial to whom the task done properly pertains, in which casewhat is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shallbe liable for damages caused by their pupils and students orapprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when thepersons herein mentioned prove that they observed all thediligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)[(Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage toanother, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for thedamage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existingcontractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delictand is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)]

STATE IMMUNITY

Sanders v Veridiano

Mere allegation that a government functionary is beingsued in his personal capacity will not automatically removehim from the protection of the laws of public officers anddoctrine of state immunity

Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states.

Republic v Sandoval


7/22

State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed theincident; liability should fall on the public officers whocommitted acts beyond their authority

3 instances when suit is proper:1. when sued by its name

2. when unincorporated government agency is sued3. when the suit is against a government employee butliability belongs to the government

Festejo v Fernando

Officer or employee committing the tort is personally liableand maybe sued as any other citizen and held answerablefor whatever injury

A state may be said to have descended to the level of anindividual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given itsconsent to be sued only when it enters into business

contracts. USA vs Guinto The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to be

sued when it enters into a contract. However, it does notapply where the contract relates to the exercise of itssovereign functions. Veterans Manpower vs CA

The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil

By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives itsimmunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liabilityto the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, orextend its liability to any cause not previously recognized.It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liabilityand submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject toits right to interpose any lawful defense.

Amigable vs. Cuenca

The government, when it takes away a property from aprivate land owner for public use without going through thelegal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, theaggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against thegovernment without thereby violating the doctrine ofgovernmental immunity from suit. This doctrine cannot beused in perpetrating injustice to a citizen.

When the state files an action, it divests itself of the sovereigncharacter and shed its immunity form suit, descending to thelevel of an ordinary litigant. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

failure to allege in the complaint the existence of consent bythe State is a fatal defect (construction must be strict againstconferment of waiver. Immunity may be invoked by the courtsat any point/stage of the proceedings. Republic vs. Feliciano

USA vs. Ruiz

Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states:States may be sued when the proceedings arise out ofcommercial transactions of the foreign sovereign.

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on DiplomaticRelations, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the

civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state overany real action relating to private immovable property situatedin the territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds onbehalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission.The Holy See v Rosario,

Republic vs. Villasor

Judgment against the State cannot be enforced byexecution. It may limit claimants action only up to thecompletion of proceedings anterior to the state ofexecution. Power of courts end when judgment is rendered.[suability vs. liability]

Functions and public services cannot be allowed to beparalyzed or disrupted by the disruption of public funds.

Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC

Not all contracts entered into by the government operateas a waiver of its non-suability. Distinction must still bemade between one which is executed in the exercise of itssovereign function and another which is done in the


8/22

proprietary capacity. State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from

contract.

PNB vs. Pabalan

State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked withregard to funds of public corporations.

[suable corporations] Public funds of corporations whichcan sue and be sued are not exempt from gaarnishment.

The character of an incorporated agency allows it to sue andbe sued without qualification.Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assoc.

- Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime

compensation does not make work of Bureau of Printingproprietary.- Non-suability of the State is available to the agency even if

it is shown that it is engaged not only in governmentalfunctions but also, incidentally, in proprietary enterprises(unincorporated agency).

Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CAIf an agencys function is deemed proprietary, if such is anecessary incident of the primary and gov. function of suchagency, such agency is not suable (for an unincorporatedagency only).

Not all government entities whether corporate or not areimmune from suits. Immunity from suits is determined by thecharacter of the objects for which the entity was organized.

Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in whichthey have assumed to act in private or non-governmentalcapacity, and various suits against certain corporationscreated by the State to engage in matters partaking more ofthe nature of ordinary business are not regarded as suitsagainst the State. (Civil Aeronautics Administration v.Court of Appeals)

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme

The test of liability of the municipality depends on whetheror not the driver acting in behalf of the municipality isperforming governmental or proprietary functions. It hasalready been remarked that municipal corporations are

suable because their charters grant them the competenceto sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally notliable for torts committed by them in the discharge ofgovernmental functions and can be held answerable only ifit can be shown that they were acting in a proprietarycapacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the statemerely gives the claimants the right to show the defendantwas not acting in its governmental capacity when theinjury was inflicted or that the case comes under theexceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimantscannot recover.

Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez

Municipal funds in possession of municipal and provincialtreasurers are public funds exempt from execution.Municipal funds are held in trust for the people intendedand used for the accomplishments of the purposes forwhich municipal corporations are created and that tosubject said properties and public funds to execution wouldmaterially impede, even defeat and in some instancedestroy said purposes.

Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals

When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reasonto effect payment of a final money judgment rendered

against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy ofmandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval ofthe necessary appropriation ordinance and the correspondingdisbursement of municipal funds.

Fundamental Principles and State Policies

REPUBLICANISMOurs is a government of laws and not of men

Section 1


9/22

The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereigntyresides in the people and all government authority emanates fromthem.

Villavicencio v. Lukban:

Mayors act is unconstitutional. It was not authorized byany law or ordinance. Our government is a government oflaws and not of men.

INCORPORATION CLAUSEDoctrine of Incorporation: Every state, by membership ofthe family of nations, is bound by the general principles ofinternational law, which automatically is incorporated(becomes a part of) in its own laws.

Section 2

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

Kuroda v. Jalandoni:

think Japanese Lieutenant-General charged before themilitary commission.Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules and regulationslaid down on the Hague and Geneva Conventionsnotwithstanding that it is not a signatory thereto. It

embodied generally accepted principles of internationallaw binding upon all states.

Agustin v. Edu:

think triangular reflectorized early warning devices.Held: Legislative enactment is not necessary in order toauthorize the issuance of LOI prescribing the use oftriangular reflectorized early warning devices. This is alsoan illustration of generally accepted principles ofinternational law (Pacta sunt servanda).

Ichong v. Hernandez:

think Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is against theprinciple of Pacta sunt servanda.Held: the Retail TradeNationalization Law is not unconstitutional because it waspassed in the exercise of the police power which cannot bebargained away through the medium of a treaty.

Prevalence of National or Municipal law over Internationallaw: Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, notonly when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but alsowhen it runs counter to an act of Congress. Gonzales v.Hechanova:

A treaty cannot modify regulations governing admission toPhilippine bar (that would be an encroachment uponSupreme Court by the Executive) In re Garcia

Section 2 must be read with Secs. 7 and 8.

Section 7The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In itsrelations with other states, the paramount consideration shall benational sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and theright to self-determination.

Section 8The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts andpursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory

SUPREMACY OF CIVILIAN AUTHORITY

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

-to prevent military take-over.


10/22

DEFENSE OF THE STATE

Section 4The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect thepeople. The Government may call upon the people to defend theState and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required,under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military orcivil service.

People vs. Lagman- Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for failure to registerfor military service under the National Defense Act- SC upheld the National Defense Act. The duty of thegovernment to defend the state cannot be performedwithout an army. To leave an organization of an army to thewill of the citizens would be to make this duty of theGovernment excusable should there be no sufficient men

who volunteer to enlist therein.

PEACE AND ORDER

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

Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutionalright. The license to carry a firearm is neither a propertynor a property right. Neither does it create a vested right.Even if it were a property right, it cannot be consideredabsolute as to be placed beyond the reach of police power.The maintenance of peace and order, and the protection ofthe people against violence are constitutional duties of theState, and the right to bear firearm is to be construed inconnection and in harmony with these constitutionalduties. Chavez vs. Romulo

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

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

Aglipay vs. Ruiz

-There is no violation of the principle of the separation ofchurch and state. The issuance and sale of the stamps inquestion may be said to be linked with an event of areligious character, but the resulting propaganda, if any,received by the Catholic Church, was not the aim andpurpose of the government. The idea behind the issuanceof the postage stamps was to attract tourists to ourcountry and not primarily the religious event.- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religiousliberty , not mere religious toleration. However, religiousfreedom is not inhibition of profound reverence for religionand is not a denial of its influence in human affairs.

an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between thechurch and its members and relates to matter of faith, religiousdoctrines, worship and governance of the congregation.Examples of these affairs in which the State cannot meddle areproceedings for excommunication, ordination of religiousministers, administration of sacraments, and other activities towhich is attached religious significance. In this case, what isinvolved is the relationship of the church as an employer andthe minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has norelation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship ordoctrine of the church. Austria vs. NLRC

SOCIAL JUSTICESocial justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism,

nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization ofsocial and economic forces by the Stat xxx; is the promotion of thewelfare of all the people, xxx; through the maintenance of a propereconomic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of themembers of the community xxx; constitutionally, through theadoption of measure sxxx; exercise of powers underlying theexistence of all governments on the time-honored principle of saluspopuli est suprema lex.

Section 10The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national


11/22

development.

Ondoy .vs. Ignacio

-The principle of social justice applied in this case is amatter of protection, not equality. The Court recognized theright of the petitioner to the claim of compensationbecause her son was shown to have died while in theactual performance of his work. To strengthen theconstitutional scheme of social justice and protection tolabor, The Court made mention that as between a laborer,usually poor and unlettered, and the employer, who hasresources to secure able legal advice, the law has reasonto demand from the latter the stricter compliance.

Salonga vs. Farrales

-The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot beconsidered because it was shown that no contract, eitherto sell or of sale, was ever perfected between him and the

defendant. It must be remembered that social justicecannot be invoked to trample on the rights of propertyowners who under our Constitution and laws are alsoentitled to protection. The social justice consecrated in ourConstitution was not intended to take away rights from aperson and give them to another who is not entitledthereto.

Calalang vs. Williams

-Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, noratomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws andthe equalization of social and economic forces by the State

so that justice in its rational and objectively secularconception may at least be approximated. Social justicemeans the promotion of the welfare of all the people, theadoption by the Government of measures calculated toinsure economic stability of all the competent elements ofsociety, through the maintenance of a proper economicand social equilibrium in the interrelations of the membersof the community, constitutionally, through the adoption ofmeasures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally,through the exercise of powers underlying the existence ofall governments on the time-honored principle of saluspopuli est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be

founded on the recognition of the necessity ofinterdependence among divers and diverse units of asociety and of the protection that should be equally andevenly extended to all groups as a combined force in oursocial and economic life, consistent with the fundamentaland paramount objective of the state of promoting thehealth, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringingabout "the greatest good to the greatest number.

The new provisions on Social Justice in Art II are:

Section 9Section 10Section 11

Section 18The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shallprotect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.

Bernardo vs. NLRC

The SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Personsmandates that qualified disabled persons be granted thesame terms and conditions of employment as qualifiedable bodied employees; thus, once hey have attained thestatus of regular workers, they should be accorded all thebenefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbalcontracts to the contrary. This treatment is rooted notmerely in charity or accommodation, but in justice for all.

Section 21The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and

agrarian reform.

REARING OF THE YOUTHThe state cannot unreasonably interfere with the exerciseby parents of their natural right and duty to rear theirchildren, but it may regulate xxx under the police power

Section 12The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protectand strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.


12/22

It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of theunborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty ofparents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and thedevelopment of moral character shall receive the support of theGovernment.

The theory is that the better the home, the better thenation; and also that the strength of the family lies in thecorrect upbringing of its children.

Meyer vs. Nebraska

it is incompetent for the government to prohibit theteaching of a foreign language to students since there isnothing inherently harmful in the language that will impairthe upbringing of a child.

Section 13The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-buildingand shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual,intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youthpatriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement inpublic and civic affairs.

Promote civic efficiency and moral character of our youngcitizens but also their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual,and social well being so that they will be fully preparedwhen they assume their responsibility of leadership in thedirection of our countrys destiny.

Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge

Youthful Offender: A person charged with an offense butfound to be a youthful offender could be provisionallyreleased on recognizance at courts decision.

WOMEN

Section 14The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, andshall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of womenand men

PT&T Co. vs. NLRC

the SC held that the petitioners policy of not accepting orconsidering as disqualified from work any woman workerwho contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and theright against, discrimination, which is guaranteed allwomen workers under the Constitution. While arequirement that a woman employee must remainunmarried may be justified as a bona fide occupationalqualification where the particular requirements of the jobwould demand the same, discrimination against marriedwomen cannot be adopted by the employer as a generalprinciple.

RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGYThe right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it

the correlative duty to refrain from impairing theenvironment.

Section 16The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to abalanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm andharmony of nature.

Oposa vs. Factoran

[Intergenerational Responsibility / Intergenerational Justice]the 34 minors duly joined by their respective parentspleading the cause of inter-generational responsibilityand inter-generational justice, had a valid cause of action

in questioning the grant of Timber Licensing Agreements(TLAs) for commercial logging purposes. The minors filedthe action for themselves as representing their generationas well as generations yet unborn. The SC, on the basis ofSection 16, Article II linked with the right to health,recognized a right to a balanced and healthful ecologyand the correlative duty to refrain from impairing theenvironment.

MISCELLANEOUS


13/22

Section 15The State shall protect and promote the right to health of thepeople and instill health consciousness among them.

Section 17The State shall give priority to education, science and technology,arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism,accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation anddevelopment.

PRC vs. De Guzman

while it is true that the SC has upheld the constitutionalright of every citizen to select a profession or course ofstudy subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admissionand academic requirements, the exercise of this right maybe regulated pursuant to the police power of the State tosafeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety

and general welfare. Thus, persons who desire to engage inthe learned professions requiring scientific or technicalknowledge may be required to take an examination as aprerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. Thisregulation assumes particular pertinence in the field ofmedicine, in order to protect the public from the potentiallydeadly effects of incompetence and ignorance.

PMMS, Inc. vs. CA

the Court said that the requirement that a school must firstobtain government authorization before operating is basedon the State policy that educational programs and/or

operations shall be of good quality and, therefore, shall atleast satisfy minimum standards with respect to curricula,teaching staff, physical plant and facilities andadministrative and management viability.

Section 22The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenouscultural communities within the framework of national unity anddevelopment.Section 23The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, orsectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation

Section 28Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the stateadopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all itstransactions involving public interest.

ECONOMY

Section 19The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent nationaleconomy effectively controlled by Filipinos.

Section 20The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector,encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to neededinvestments.

Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA,

the SC said that although the Constitution enshrines freeenterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to theGovernment the power to intervene whenever necessaryfor the promotion of the general welfare as reflected inSections 6 & 19 of Article XII.

Section 21The State shall promote comprehensive rural development andagrarian reform.

ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OFAGRARIAN REFORM

Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State thatenables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended forpublic use upon payment of just compensation to theowner. Private rights must yield to the irresistible demandsof the public interest on the time-honored justification, asin the case of the policed power, that the welfare of thepeople is the supreme law.

LOCAL AUTONOMYThe principle of local autonomy does not make local


14/22

governments sovereign within the state or an imperium inimperio. Local governments can only be an intra sovereignsubdivision of one sovereign nation. It can only mean ameasure of decentralization of the function of government.

Section 25The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.

BASCO VS PAGCOR

Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means thedecentralization and does not make the local governmentssovereign within the State or an imperium imperio.

Decentralization of administration is merely delegation ofadministrative powers to the LGUs in order to broaden thebase of governmental power. Decentralization of power isthe abdication by the national government powers.

LIMBONA VS MANGELIN

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Purpose:

to prevent concentration of authority in one person

or group of persons that might lead to anirreversible error or abuse in its exercise to thedetriment of our republican institutions.

System of check and balance with accordance to theconstitution

Limitations: Supremacy of the Constitution/Constitutional

provisions.

Role of the Judiciary:

It sees to it that the constitutional distribution of

powers among the several departments of thegovernment is respected and observed.

Allocated constitutional boundaries or invalidates

the acts of a coordinate body.

Art 8 Sec 12The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courtsestablished by law shall not be designated to any agencyperforming quasi-judicial or administrative function.

In re Manzano

- Members of the SC and other courts shall not bedesignated to any agency performing quasi-judicial oradministrative functions.- The committee performs administrative function* whichunder Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution prohibitsmembers of the SC and other courts established by law tobe designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial oradministrative functions. To quote CJ Fernando in Garcia vs.Macaraig, he said that while the doctrine of separation ofpowers is a relative theory not to be enforced withpedantic rigor, the practical demands of government

precluding its doctrine application, it cannot justify amember of the judiciary being required to assume aposition or perform a duty non-judicial in character.

Administrative functions are those which involves the

regulation and control the conduct and affairs ofindividuals for their own welfare and the promulgationof rules and regulations to better carry out the policyof the legislative or such as are devolved upon theadministrative agency by the organic law of itsexistence.

DOCTRINE OF IMPLICATIONThe grant of an express power carries with it all other

powers that may be necessarily inferred from it.

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

- Separation of powers as actual division than obtainedthrough express provision- Judiciary is the only Constitutional Arbiter to allocateConstitutional Boundaries- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the Constitutionasserted by the judiciary (not supremacy of the judiciaryitself)- Judicial Review is limited to Actual Litigation. Judiciary


15/22

does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice orexpediency of litigation.- The Electoral Commission is an independent, impartial,and non-partisan tribunal. The sole power to determinecontests regarding the elections, returns, and qualificationsof the members of the National Assembly has beentransferred in totality to the Electoral Commission. Itspower is clear, complete, and exclusive.

Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the lawcannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretionto determine how the law may be enforced.

Completeness test and Sufficient Standard Test:Completeness Test = complete in all its terms andconditions when it leaves the legislature such that what is leftis merely its enforcement.Sufficient Standard Test = adequate guidelines orlimitations in the law to map out the boundaries of thedelegates authority and prevent the delegation from runningriot.

Subordinate Legislation = delegated power to issue rulesto carry out the general provision of the statute.(Administrative bodies implement the broad policies bypromulgating their supplementary regulations.) EasternShipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA

JUSTICIABLE QUESTIONImplies a given right xxx, an act or omission violative ofsaid right, and a remedy granted or sanctioned by law, forsaid breach of right.

Casibang vs. Aquino

- Political Question = question of policy; question to bedecided by the people in their sovereign capacity or fulldiscretionary authority- Justiciable Question = implies a given right, legallydemandable and enforceable; an act or omission violativeof such right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by lawfor said breach of right.

POLITICAL QUESTION

Connotes question of policy. It refers to those questionswhich, under the Constitution, are to be decided by thepeople in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to whichfull discretionary authority has been delegated to thebranch of the government. Issues dependent upon thewidom, not legality, of a particular measure.

Tanada v Cuenco

Think Senate Electoral TribunalThe issue at baris not a political question for the senate isnot clothed with full discretionary authority in the choiceof members of the SET.

Sanidad v. COMELEC

On whether the case is justiciablePolitical questions are associated with the wisdom of the

legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of thecontroversy refers to the legality or validity of thecontested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. If the Constitution provides how it may beamended, the judiciary as the interpreter of thatConstitution, can declare whether the procedure followedor the authority assumed was valid or not.

On whether the President may propose Constitutionalamendments

If the President has been legitimately discharging thelegislative functions of the interim Assembly, there is noreason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that

Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution,which is but an adjunct, although peculiar, to its grosslegislative power.

(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had legislative powersand there was no legislative department at the time)

Daza v. Singson

Where the legality or validity of the act is in question andnot the wisdom of the act, the Court may take jurisdictionand decide on the acts validity. Even in political questions


16/22

the Court may take jurisdiction under the expanded judicialpower extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

(Judicial power includes the duty to settle actualcontroversies involving rights which are legallydemandable and enforceable, and to determine whether ornot there has been a grave abuse of discretion amountingto lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branchor instrumentality of Government.)

JUDICIAL POWERIncludes the duty to determine whether or not there hasbeen a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack orexcess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch orinstrumentality of the government.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Sec. 1:

Legaspi v Civil Service Commission

- It becomes apparent that when a Mandamus proceedinginvolves the assertion of a public right, the requirement ofpersonal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that thepetitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general"public" which possesses the right.

-"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properlyconstrued, it embraces every person.

Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.

- A party's standing before this Court is a proceduraltechnicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion,set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised.

- In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi,ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, and evenassociation of planters, and non-profit civic organizationswere allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before thisCourt to question the constitutionality or validity of laws,acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various governmentagencies or instrumentalities.

Vilconza vs. Enriquez

Kilosbayan v Morato

- The voting on petitioners' standing in the previous casewas a narrow one, seven (7) members sustainingpetitioners' standing and six (6) denying petitioners' rightto bring the suit. The majority was thus a tenuous one thatis not likely to be maintained in any subsequent litigation.In addition, there have been charges in the membership ofthe Court, with the retirement of Justice Cruz and Bidin andthe appointment of the writer of this opinion and JusticeFrancisco. Given this fact it is hardly tenable to insist onthe maintenance of the ruling as to petitioners' standing.

Santiago vs Bautista

- The courts may not exercise judicial power when there isno applicable law.- Case at bar: An award of honors to a student by a boardof teachers may not be reversed by a court where theawards are governed by no applicable law.

Daza v Singson- Even if the issue presented was political in nature, theCourt is still not be precluded from resolving it under theexpanded jurisdiction conferred upon it that now covers, inproper cases, even the political question.- That where serious constitutional questions are involved,"the transcendental importance to the public of these

cases demands that they be settled promptly anddefinitely brushing aside, if we must, technicalities ofprocedure."

Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals

-There can be no justification for judicial interference inthe business of an administrative agency, except when itviolates a citizen's constitutional rights, or commits a graveabuse of discretion, or acts in excess of, or withoutjurisdiction.


17/22

- Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of theAsset Privatization Trust (administrative body), nor block,by an injunction, the discharge of its functions and theimplementation of its decisions in connection with theacquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it.

Malaga v Penachos, Jr.

- It was previously declared the prohibition pertained to theissuance of injunctions or restraining orders by courtsagainst administrative acts in controversies involving factsor the exercise of discretion in technical cases. The Courtobserved that to allow the courts to judge these matterswould disturb the smooth functioning of the administrativemachinery. On issues definitely outside of this dimensionand involving questions of law, courts could not beprevented by any law (in this case, P.D. No. 605) fromexercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrativeacts.

PACU v Secretary of Education

-Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual casesand controversies.

(Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education mightunder the law withdraw the permit of one of petitionersdoes not constitute a justiciable controversy.)

- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questionsto satisfy scholarly interest therein however intellectuallysolid the problem may be. This is especially true where the

issues "reach constitutional dimensions, for then therecomes into play regard for the court's duty to avoiddecision of constitutional issues unless avoidance becomesevasion.

Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC

- Considering that those contingencies mentioned by thepetitioners may or may not happen, petitioners merelypose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to anactual case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents ofTaguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to

raise this abstract issue (city of Makati is involved). Worse,they raise this futuristic issue in a petition for declaratoryrelief over which this Court has no jurisdiction.

Macasiano v National Housing Authority

-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that theconstitutionality of an act of the legislature will not bedetermined by the courts unless that question is properlyraised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessaryto a determination of the case.

J. Joya v PCGG

- The rule is settled that no question involving theconstitutionality or validity of a law or governmental actmay be heard and decided by the court unless there iscompliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry,

namely: that the question must be raised by the properparty; that there must be an actual case or controversy;that the question must be raised at the earliest possibleopportunity; and, that the decision on the constitutional orlegal question must be necessary to the determination ofthe case itself. But the most important are the first two (2)requisites.

- Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify tochallenge the legality of official acts done by thegovernment. A taxpayer's suit can prosper only if thegovernmental acts being questioned involve disbursementof public funds upon the theory that the expenditure of

public funds by an officer of the state for the purpose ofadministering an unconstitutional act constitutes amisapplication of such funds, which may be enjoined at therequest of a taxpayer.

Dumlao v COMELEC

- For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and actions. Onepetitioner does not join other petitioners in the burden oftheir complaint, nor do the latter join the former in his.They, respectively, contest completely different statutoryprovisions.


18/22

- For another, there are standards that have to be followedin the exercise of the function of judicial review, namely:(1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interestpersonal and substantial by the party raising theconstitutional question; (3) the plea that the function beexercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessitythat the constitutional question be passed upon in order todecide the case.

Bugnay Const. and Devt. Corp. v Laron

- The doctrine holds that only when the act complained ofdirectly involves an illegal disbursement of public fundsraised by taxation will the taxpayer's suit be allowed. Theessence of a taxpayer's right to institute such an actionhinges on the existence of that requisite pecuniary ormonetary interest.

- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficientlyshow that he would be benefited or injured by thejudgment or entitled to the avails of the suit as a real partyin interest.

PHILCONSA v Enriquez

- The Senators have legal standing to question the validityof the veto. When a veto was made in excess of theauthority of the President, it impermissibily intrudes into

the domain of the Legislature. A member of Congress canquestion an act of the Executive which injures Congress asan institution.

Tatad v Garcia, Jr.

-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allowtaxpayers to question contracts entered into by thenational government or government-owned or controlledcorporations allegedly in contravention of the law and todisallow the same when only municipal contracts areinvolved (just like in Bugnay case since no public money

was involved).

Oposa v Factoran, Jr.

- CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the complaint is ofcommon and general interest not just to several, but to allcitizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the partiesare so numerous, it becomes impracticable, if not totallyimpossible, to bring all of them before the court.

- Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeedinggenerations can only be based on the concept ofintergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to abalanced and healthful ecology is concerned.

- Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility tothe next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the fullenjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a littledifferently, the minors` assertion of their right to a sound

environment constitutes, at the same time, theperformance of their obligation to ensure the protection ofthat right for the generations to come.

Lozada v COMELEC

- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition,for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money is beingillegally spent. It is only when an act complained of, whichmay include a legislative enactment or statute, involvesthe illegal expenditure of public money that the so-calledtaxpayer suit may be allowed.- The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns

the validity of a statute must have a personal andsubstantial interest in the case such that he has sustained,or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is thatindispensable element of a dispute which serves in part tocast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution.When the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance"shared in substantially equal measure by all or a largeclass of citizens, that harm alone normally does notwarrant exercise of jurisdiction.


19/22

SECTION 3

Bengzon v Lim

- What is fiscal autonomy? It contemplates a guarantee offull flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with thewisdom and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizesthe power and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fixrates of compensation not exceeding the highest ratesauthorized by law for compensation and play plans of thegovernment and allocate and disburse such sums as maybe provided by law or prescribed by them in the course ofthe discharge of their functions. Fiscal autonomy meansfreedom from outside control.

- The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and theOmbudsman must have the independence and f lexibilityneeded in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The

imposition of restrictions and constraints on the mannerthe independent constitutional offices allocate and utilizethe funds appropriated for their operations is anathema tofiscal autonomy and violative not only of the expressmandate of the Constitution but especially as regards theSupreme Court, of the independence and separation ofpowers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutionalsystem is based

SECTION 4

Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court of Appeals, et.al.

- Reorganization is purely an internal matter of the Court towhich petitioner certainly has no business at all.

- The Court with its new membership is not obliged tofollow blindly a decision upholding a party's case when,after its re-examination, the same calls for a rectification.

SECTION 5

Drilon v Lim

- The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate

jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courtsin all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of anytreaty, international or executive agreement, law,presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,ordinance, or regulation is in question.

- In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts areadvised to act with the utmost circumspection, bearing inmind the consequences of a declaration ofunconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no less thanon the doctrine of separation of powers. As the questionedact is usually the handiwork of the legislative or theexecutive departments, or both, it will be prudent for suchcourts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to thehigher judgment of this Court in the consideration of itsvalidity, which is better determined after a thoroughdeliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrenceof the majority of those who participated in its discussion.

Larranaga v Court of Appeals

(Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation fromCebu City to Manila because of the extensive coverage ofthe proceedings by the Cebu media which allegedlyinfluenced the people's perception of petitioner's characterand guilt.)

- The Court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicialpublicity under certain circumstances can deprive anaccused of his due process right to fair trial. It waspreviously held that to warrant a finding of prejudicialpublicity there must be allegation and proof that the judges

have been unduly influenced, not simply that they mightbe, by the barrage in publicity.- In the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that thetone and content of the publicity that attended theinvestigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness andimpartiality of the DOJ Panel.

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals

- It is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure ofcontrol over cases paced under its appellate jurisdiction.For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its


20/22

appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment oflegislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction canunnecessarily burden the Court and thereby undermine itsessential function of expounding the law in its mostprofound national aspects.

Aruelo v Court of Appeals

- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can not adopt arule prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in the regularcourts. The power to promulgate rules concerningpleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vested onthe Supreme Court.

Javellana v DILG

(Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 andDLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 does not violateArticle VIII. Section 5 of the Constitution. Neither the

statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court'spower and authority to prescribe rules on the practice oflaw.)

- The Local Government Code and DLG MemorandumCircular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct forpublic officials to avoid conflicts of interest between thedischarge of their public duties and the private practice oftheir profession, in those instances where the law allows it.

SECTION 6

Maceda v Vasquez

- In the absence of any administrative action taken againsta person by the Court with regard to his certificates ofservice, the investigation being conducted by theOmbudsman encroaches into the Court's power ofadministrative supervision over all courts and itspersonnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation ofpowers.

- Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other courtemployee arises from their administrative duties, theOmbudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer

the same to the Court for determination whether saidJudge or court employee had acted within the scope oftheir administrative duties.

Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.

- The rules even in an administrative case demands that ifthe respondent Judge should be disciplined for gravemisconduct or any graver offense, the evidence presentedagainst him should be competent and derived from directknowledge. The judiciary, to which respondent belongs, noless demands that before its member could be faulted, itshould be only after due investigation and based oncompetent proofs, no less. This is all the more so when asin this case the charges are penal in nature.

('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not amere error of judgment. It results that even if respondentwere not correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial

actuations cannot be regarded as grave misconduct, unlessthe contrary sufficiently appears.)

SECTION 10

Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue

- The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was todelete the proposed express grant of exemption frompayment of income tax to members of the Judiciary, so asto "give substance to equality among the three branches ofGovernment.

SECTION 11

De La Llana v Alba

-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure.This Court is empowered "to discipline judges of inferiorcourts and, by a vote of at least eight members, order theirdismissal." Thus, it possesses the competence to removejudges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President whowas vested with such power. Removal is, of course, to bedistinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition ofthe office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office.


21/22

After the abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case ofremoval, there is an office with an occupant who wouldthereby lose his position. It is in that sense that from thestandpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment ofsecurity of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for theincumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one ofseparation. As to its effect, no distinction exists betweenremoval and the abolition of the office. Realistically, it isdevoid of significance. He ceases to be a member of thejudiciary.

People v Gacott, Jr.

- To require the entire Court to deliberate upon andparticipate in all administrative matters or cases regardlessof the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in acongested docket and undue delay in the adjudication ofcases in the Court, especially in administrative matters,since even cases involving the penalty of reprimand would

require action by the Court en banc.

- Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases involvingdismissal of judges of lower courts are specifically requiredto be decided by the Court en banc, in cognizance of theneed for a thorough and judicious evaluation of seriouscharges against members of the judiciary, it is only whenthe penalty imposed does not exceed suspension of morethan one year or a fine of P10,000.00, or both, that theadministrative matter may be decided in division.

SECTION 12

In Re: Manzano

- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structureof government. Their integrity and performance in theadjudication of cases contribute to the solidity of suchstructure. As public officials, they are trustees of an orderlysociety. Even as non-members of Provincial/CityCommittees on Justice, RTC judges should renderassistance to said Committees to help promote thelandable purposes for which they exist, but only when suchassistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillmentof their judicial duties.

SECTION 14

Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals

- The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions allthe time. It has ample discretion to formulate decisionsand/or minute resolutions, provided a legal basis is given,depending on its evaluation of a case.

- As it is settled that an order dismissing a case forinsufficient evidence is a judgment on the merits, it isimperative that it be a reasoned decision clearly anddistinctly stating therein the facts and the law on which it isbased.

Mendoza v CFI

- What is expected of the judiciary "is that the decision

rendered makes clear why either party prevailed under theapplicable law to the facts as established. Nor is there anyregid formula as to the language to be employed to satisfythe requirement of clarity and distinctness. The discretionof the particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited,is necessarily broad. There is no sacramental form of wordswhich he must use upon pain of being considered ashaving failed to abide by what the Constitution directs."

- The provision has been held to refer only to decisions ofthe merits and not to orders of the trial court resolvingincidental matters such as the one at bar. (content of theresolution: incident in the prosecution of petitioner)

Borromeo v Court of Appeals

- The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigantsthat it disposes of the bulk of its cases by minuteresolutions and decrees them as final and executory, aswhere a case is patently without merit, where the issuesraised are factual in nature, where the decision appealedfrom is supported by substantial evidence and is in accordwith the facts of the case and the applicable laws, where itis clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to


22/22

forestall the early execution of judgment and for non-compliance with the rules. The resolution denying duecourse or dismissing the petition always gives the legalbasis.

- When the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any

subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments, ormotions decides to deny due course to the petition andstates that the questions raised are factual or no reversibleerror in the respondent court's decision is shown or forsome other legal basis stated in the resolution, there issufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.

- Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members ofthe Court who took part in the deliberations of a case nordo they require the certification of the Chief Justice.

Valdez v Court of Appeals

- The (lower) court statement in the decision that a partyhas proven his case while the other has not, is not thefindings of facts contemplated by the Constitution and therules to be clearly and distinctly stated.- This Court has said again and again that it is not a trier offacts and that it relies, on the factual findings of the lowercourt and the appellate court which are conclusive.

Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Court of Appeals

- The constitutional mandate that no decision shall berendered by any court without expressing therein clearly

and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is baseddoes not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions"which adopt by reference the findings of fact andconclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferiortribunals.

Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc v Court of Appeals

- It has long been settled that this Court has discretion todecide whether a "minute resolution" should be used inlieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case and thata minute Resolution of dismissal of a Petition for Review on

Certiorari constitutes an adjudication on the merits of thecontroversy or subject matter of the Petition. It has beenstressed by the Court that the grant of due course to aPetition for Review is "not a matter of right, but of soundjudicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explainthe Court's denial. For one thing, the facts and law are

already mentioned in the Court of Appeals' opinion."

Prudential Bank v Castro

-The Constitutional mandate that "no . . . motion forreconsideration of a decision of the court shall be . . .denied without stating the legal basis therefor" isinapplicable in administrative cases. And even if it were,said Resolution stated the legal basis for the denial and,therefore, adhered faithfully to the Constitutionalrequirement. "Lack of merit," which was one of the groundsfor denial, is a legal basis.

-(certification issue) The requirement of a certificationrefers to decisions to judicial cases and not toadministrative cases. Besides, since the decision was a percuriam decision, a formal certification is not required.

Documents

Cases Reviewer in Constitutional Law