You are on page 1of 28

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
1. Verba Legis- Wherever possible,
the words used in the Constitution
must be given their ordinary
meaning except where technical
terms are employed.
Therefore, what it says according
to the text of the text of the
provision to be construed compels
acceptance and negates the power
of the courts to alter it, based on
the postulate that the framers and
the people mean what they say.
2. Ratio Legis est anima- Where there
is ambiguity, the words of the
Constitution should be interpreted
in accordance with the intent of its
framers.
3. Ut Magis Valeat quam pereat- In
case of conflict between two
provisions of the Constitution, the
court must harmonize them, if
practicable, and must lean in favor
of a construction which will render
every word operative, rather than
one which may make the words
idle and nugatory.
Unless it is expressly provided that a
legislative act is necessary to enforce
a
constitutional
mandate,
the
presumption now is that all provisions
of the constitution are self-executing.
A provision which lays down a general
principle, such as those found in Art. II
of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not
self-executing.
A provision which is complete in itself
and becomes operative without the
aid of supplementary or enabling
legislation, or that which supplies
sufficient rule by means of which the

right it grants may be enjoyed or


protected, is self-executing.
In the case of Manila Prince Hotel v.
GSIS, the SC held that Sec. 10, Second
par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution
is a mandatory, positive command
which is complete in itself and which
needs no further guidelines or
implementing laws or rules for its
enforcement.
The mere fact that legislation may
supplement and add to or prescribe a
penalty for the violation of a selfexecuting
constitutional
provision
does not render such a provision
ineffective in the absence of such
legislation.
A constitutional provision may be selfexecuting in one part, and not selfexecuting in another.
In Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, the
Supreme Court interpreted the term
patrimony in its plain and ordinary
meaning to pertain to heritage.
In Domino v. COMELEC, the term
residence has a technical meaning
under the Constitution.
Although
not
self-executing,
statements of policies and state
principles are used by the judiciary as
aids or as guides in the exercise of its
power of judicial review, and by the
legislature in its enactment of laws.
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime
Services,
the
Supreme
Court
invalidated the challenged provision of
law, not because it violated the state
policy on labor as a protected sector,
but because it violated the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


In the exercise of judicial review and
pursuant to the doctrine of separation
of powers, the judiciary does not in
reality nullify or invalidate an act of
the legislature, but only asserts the
solemn
and
sacred
obligation
assigned to it by the Constitution.
It is only the Supreme Court that can
oversee the judges and court
personnels administrative compliance
with all laws, rules, and regulations.
No other branch of government may
intrude into this power, without
running afoul of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
There is strong presumption of
constitutionality accorded to statutes.
He who attacks the constitutionality of
a law has the onus probandi to show
why such law is repugnant to the
constitution.
The political question doctrine applies
when the question calls for a ruling on
the wisdom, and not the legality, of a
particular
governmental
act
or
issuance.
In Vinuya v. Romulo, it was held that
cases involving foreign relations
generally involve political questions.
JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. SEPARATION OF POWERS
The separation of powers is a
fundamental principle in our system of
government. It obtains not through
express provision but by actual
division in our Constitution. Each
department of the government has
exclusive cognizance of matters within
its jurisdiction, and is supreme within
its own sphere. But it does not follow

from the fact that the three powers


are to be kept separate and distinct
that the Constitution intended them to
be
absolutely
unrestrained
and
independent of each other. The
Constitution has provided for an
elaborate system of checks and
balances to secure coordination in the
workings of the various departments
of the government. For example, the
Chief Executive under our Constitution
is so far made a check on the
legislative power that this assent is
required in the enactment of laws.
This, however, is subject to the further
check that a bill may become a law
notwithstanding the refusal of the
President to approve it, by a vote of
twothirds or threefourths, as the case
may be, of the National Assembly.
The President has also the right to
convene the Assembly in special
session whenever he chooses. On the
other hand, the National Assembly
operates as a check on the Executive
in the sense that its consent through
its Commission on Appointments is
necessary in the appointments of
certain officers and the concurrence
of a majority of all its members is
essential to the conclusion of treaties.
Furthermore, in its power to determine
what courts other than the Supreme
Court shall be established, to define
their jurisdiction and to appropriate
funds for their support, the National
Assembly
controls
the
judicial
department to a certain extent. The
Assembly also exercises the judicial
power of trying impeachments. And
the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme
Court as the final arbiter, effectively
checks the other departments in the
exercise of its power to determine the
law, and hence to declare executive
and legislative acts void if violative of
the Constitution.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


Anggara v. Electoral Commission
In this case, the NA has by resolution
confirmed the election of herein
petitioner to the said body. While EC
has by resolution fixed a date as the
last day for the filing of protest
against
election,
returns,
and
qualifications
of
its
members,
notwithstanding
the
previous
confirmation of NA. EC is a
constitutional organ created for a
specific purpose which is to
determine all contests relating to
election,
returns,
and
qualification of NA members, but
it is NOT a separate department
of the government. EC has acted
within its legitimate exercise of its
constitutional prerogative in assuming
to take cognizance of the protest filed
by respondent Ynsua against Angara,
and NAs resolution cannot in any
manner toll
Philippine Coconut v. Republic
3 branches must discharge their
respective functions within the limits
of
authority
conferred
by
the
Constitution.

Taway MPC v. La Trinidad


Police power does not include the
power to violate the Constitution.
Police power is the plenary power
vested in Congress to make laws
not
repugnant
to
the
Constitution. This rule is basic. The
Congress cannot grant legislative
franchises for the operation of public
utilities which shall be exclusive in
character and which shall not be
subject to amendment, alteration or
repeal when the common good so
requires. The effect of Sec. 47 of PD
198
which vests an exclusive

franchise upon public utilities violates


Sec. 5 of 1973 Constitution which
prohibits the same.
Metrobank v. Tobias
Tobias was charged with estafa
through
falsification
of
public
document. Tobias posits that the core
function of the Department of Justice
is to prosecute the guilty in criminal
cases, not to persecute; METROBANK
maintains that what the Secretary of
Justice did was to determine the
innocence of the accused, which
should not be done during the
preliminary investigation; and that the
CA disregarded such lapse.
Under the doctrine of separation
of powers, the courts have no
right to directly decide matters
over which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to
the Executive Branch of the
Government, or to substitute its own
judgments for the same branch, in
this case, the Dept. of Justice. The
settled policy is that the courts will
not interfere with the executive
determination of probable cause for
the purpose of filing information, in
the absence of grave abuse of
discretion
CSC v. Ramoneda-Pita
We have always maintained that it is
only the Supreme Court that can
oversee the judges and court
personnels
administrative
compliance with all laws, rules
and regulations. No other branch of
government may intrude into this
power, without running afoul of the
doctrine of separation of powers.
However, as aptly pointed out by the
OCA, Ramoneda-Pita was afforded the
full protection of the law, that is,

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


afforded due process. She was able to
file several affidavits and pleadings
before the CSC with counsel. It may
also be noted that the case had been
elevated to the Court of Appeals and
this Court, where the Resolution of
the CSC was upheld in both instances.

the plain and literal meaning of


the law as written by the
legislators

Garcia v. Drilon
It is settled that courts are not
concerned with the wisdom, justice,
policy, or expediency of a statute.
Hence, we dare not venture into the
real motivations and wisdom of the
members of Congress in limiting the
protection against violence and abuse
under R.A. 9262 to women and
children only. No proper challenge on
said grounds may be entertained in
this proceeding. Congress has made
its choice and it is not our prerogative
to supplant this judgment. The choice
may be perceived as erroneous but
even then, the remedy against it is to
seek its amendment or repeal by the
legislative. By the principle of
separation of powers, it is the
legislative that determines the
necessity, adequacy, wisdom and
expediency of any law. We only
step in when there is a violation of the
Constitution. However, none was
sufficiently shown in this case.

Perez v. People
Petitioner asserts that the law relied
upon in convicting him and the
sentence imposed is cruel and
therefore violates section 19 of article
iii (bill of rights) of the constitution.

Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic


The choice of June 12, 1945 as the
reckoning point of the requisite
possession and occupation was the
sole prerogative of Congress, the
determination of which should best be
left to the wisdom of the lawmakers.
Except that said date qualified the
period of possession and occupation,
no other legislative intent appears to
be associated with the fixing of the
date of June 12, 1945. Accordingly,
the Court should interpret only

He
who
attacks
the
constitutionality of a law has the
onus probandi to show why such
law
is
repugnant
to
the
Constitution. Failing to overcome its
presumption of constitutionality, a
claim that a law is cruel, unusual, or
inhuman, like the stance of petitioner,
must fail.

B.
PRESUMPTION
CONSTITUTIONALITY

OF

It is established doctrine that a


statute should be construed
whenever possible in harmony
with, rather than in violation of,
the Constitution. The presumption
is that the legislature intended to
enact a valid, sensible and just law
and one which operates no further
than may be necessary to effectuate
the specific purpose of the law.83 It is
presumed that the legislature has
acted within its constitutional powers.
So, it is the generally accepted rule
that every statute, or regularly
accepted act, is, or will be, or should
be, presumed to be valid and
constitutional.

C.
POLITICAL
QUESTION
JUSTICIABLE QUESTION

V.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


A
purely
justiciable
question
implies
a
given
right,
legally
demandable and enforceable, an act
or omission violative of such right,
and a remedy granted and sanctioned
by law, for said breach of right.
- Includes the duty to determine
won there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Govt.
Political
questions
are
neatly
associated with the wisdom, not the
legality of a particular act.
Oposa v. Factoran- Enjoining DENR
from
granting
timber
license
agreement is an encroachment to the
Executive Dept.
Comelec v. Cruz- to question the Act
of Congress in fixing the terms of the
Brgy. Officials is a political question to
their wisdom.
Vinuya
v.
RomuloQuestion
regarding reparations to be claimed to
the damage of comfort women in
WWII against Japan is a political
question.
IDEALS v. Psalm

Judicial Power ( Araullo v. Aquino)


1. Duty of the courts "to settle
actual controversies involving
rights
which
are
legally
demandable and enforceable"
2. "to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government."
Requisites of Judicial Inquiry
(Senate v. Ermita)
A-P-E-N
1. Actual Case or Controversy;
2. The question of constitutionality
must be raised by the proper
party;
3. The constitutional question must
be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and
4. The
decision
of
the
constitutional question must be
necessary to the determination
of the case itself.
I
ACTUAL CASE

D.
REQUISITES
INQUIRY

OF

JUDICIAL

Thus, the Constitution vests judicial


power in the Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law.
In creating a lower court, Congress
concomitantly
determines
the
jurisdiction of that court, and that
court, upon its creation, becomes by
operation of the Constitution one of
the repositories of judicial power.
However, only the Court is a
constitutionally created court, the
rest being created by Congress in its
exercise of the legislative power.

Actual Case or controversy, involves


- a conflict of legal rights,
- an assertion of opposite
legal claims susceptible of
judicial resolution.
- The case must not be moot or
academic or based on extralegal
or
other
similar
considerations not cognizable by
a court of justice.
There must be a contrariety of
legal rights that can be
interpreted and enforced on
the basis of existing law and
jurisprudence.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


A controversy must be one that is
appropriate for judicial determination.
A justiciable controversy is thus
distinguished from a difference or
dispute of a hypothetical or abstract
character or from one that is
academic or moot.
- definite and concrete, touching
the legal relations of parties
having adverse legal interests.
- real and substantial controversy
admitting of specific relief
through a decree that is
conclusive in character, as
distinguished from an opinion
advising what the law would be
upon hypothetical state of facts.
Where there is such a concrete case
admitting of an immediate and
definitive determination of the legal
rights of the parties in adversary
proceeding upon the facts alleged, the
adjudication of the rights of the
litigants may not require the award of
process or the payment of damages.
And it is not essential to the exercise
of the judicial power that an injunction
be sought; allegations that irreparable
injury is threatened are not required.
Counseling by the courts is contrary to
the doctrine of separation of powers
since their advice will not have force
of law but of a mere suggestion or
recommendation
that
may
be
accepted or rejected at will by the
department requesting it.
But where the purpose is to solicit
from the court a declaratory judgment
involving the interpretation of the
rights and duties of a person under
the provisions of a deed, will, contract,
or other written instrument, or a
statute or ordinance, the case is
deemed an actual controversy over

which the courts may validly assume


jurisdiction.
In Senate v. Ermita, the court resolved
the
petitions
questioning
the
constitutionality of E.O. 464 which
allowed
President
Arroyos
subordinates not to appear before the
Congress in connection with its
legislative inquiries, despite the
absence of any showing that she had
actually invoked it or prohibited them
from participating in said legislative
investigations.
- The Court found the assertion
that the President has not
withheld
her
consent
or
prohibited the appearance of
the
officials
concerned
immaterial in determining the
existence of an actual case or
controversy insofar as EO 464 is
concerned.
In Pimentel v. Aguirre,
citing Tanada v. Anggara,
- When
an
act
of
the
legislative department is
seriously alleged to have
infringed the Constitution,
settling
the
controversy
becomes the duty of this
Court,
mere enactment of the
questioned law or the approval
of the challenged action, the
dispute is said to have ripened
into a justiciable controversy
even without any other overt
act.
- Indeed, even a singular violation
of the Constitution and/or the
law is enough to awaken judicial
duty.
The Province of North Cotabato v. The
Governement of the Philippines Peace

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


Panel on Ancestral Domain where it
stressed that - - the law or act in question is not
yet effective does not negate
ripeness. When an act of the
President,
who
in
our
constitutional scheme is a
coequal of Congress, is seriously
alleged to have infringed the
Constitution and the laws,
settling the dispute becomes
the duty and the responsibility
of the courts.
In De Castro v. JBC, the court held that
the fact that JBC already
commenced the proceedings
for
the
selection
of
nominees to be included in a
short list to be submitted to
the
President
for
consideration of which of
them will succeed Chief
Justice Puno as the next
Chief Justice calls for judicial
determination.
- Although the position is not yet
vacant, the fact that the JBC
began
the
process
of
nomination pursuant to its rules
and practices, although it has
yet to decide whether to submit
the list of nominees to the
incumbent outgoing President or
to the next President, makes the
situation
ripe
for
judicial
determination
because the next steps are the
public
interview
of
the
candidates, the preparation of
the short list of candidates, and
the interview of constitutional
experts, as may be needed.
In Galicto v. Aquino, a petition
challenging the constitutionality of EO
7 issued by President Aquino which
provided for his power to establish the

compensation
systems
for
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations and government financial
institutions was likewise dismissed by
the Supreme Court after it found that
the Congress, through RA 10149, had,
in the meantime, expressly conferred
said power upon the President. For
the Court to still rule upon its
supposed constitutionality will merely
be an academic exercise.
MOOTNESS
In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the
Court opposed the OSG stating that A
moot and academic case is one that
ceases to present a justiciable
controversy by virtue of supervening
events, so that a declaration thereon
would be of no practical use or value.
Generally, courts decline jurisdiction
over such case or dismiss it on ground
of mootness.
The court held that President Arroyos
issuance of PP 1021 did not render the
petitions
questioning
the
constitutionality of PP1071 moot and
academic. There are vital issues
regarding the constitutional acts
which must not be afforded with
protection.
Further, it held that moot and
academic principle is not a
magical
formula
that
can
automatically dissuade the courts
in resolving a case. Courts will
decide cases, otherwise moot and
academic, if: GEFR
a grave violation of the
Constitution;
exceptional character of the
situation and the paramount
public interest is involved;

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


-

constitutional issue raised


requires
formulation
of
controlling principles to guide
the bench, the bar, and the
public; and
The case is capable of repetition
yet evading review.

In Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma,


the Court ruled on the merits of a
petition questioning the holding by
the respondent of two offices, despite
having ceased to do so during the
pendency of the case, considering
that the question of whether the
PCGG
Chairman
could
concurrently hold the position of
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel
was one capable of repetition.
In Pimentel v. Ermita, the court also
ruled on the issue pertaining to the
validity of the Presidents appointment
of acting secretaries without the
consent of the Commission on
Appointments while the Congress was
in session. While the President
presented ad interim appointments to
her appointees immediately after the
recess of Congress, the Court still
resolved the petition, noting that the
question of the constitutionality
of the Presidents appointment of
department secretaries in acting
capacities while Congress was in
session
is
one
capable
of
repetition.
Similarly, in Limkaichong v. Comelec,
SC
emphasized
that
Being
a
continuing requirement, one who
assails a member's citizenship or lack
of it may still question the same at
any time, the ten-day prescriptive
period
notwithstanding.
The
question
on
Limkaichongs
citizenship is likely to recur if she
would run again, as she did run,

for public office, hence capable of


repetition.
Further, in Araullo v. Aquino, the court
did not agree that the termination of
the DAP as a program was a
supervening event that effectively
mooted these consolidated cases. An
actual and justiciable controversy
exists in these consolidated cases
because of the incompatibility of the
perspectives of the parties on the
constitutionality of the DAP and its
relevant
issuances
satisfy
the
requirement for a conflict between
legal rights; that the challenged
executive acts were already being
implemented by the DBM, and there
are averments by the petitioners that
such implementation was repugnant
to the letter and spirit of the
Constitution; and the implementation
of the DAP entailed the allocation
and expenditure of huge sums of
public funds. The fact that public
funds
have
been
allocated,
disbursed or utilized by reason or
on account of such challenged
executive
acts
gave
rise,
therefore,
to
an
actual
controversy that is ripe for
adjudication by the Court.
In Akbayan v. Aquino, the Court
dismissed the petitioners demand to
be furnished with a copy of the full
text of Japan-Philippines Economic
Partnership Agreement, for having
become moot and academic, said
document having been already
made accessible to the public.
Similarly, the court also dismissed the
petition questioning former President
Estradas
eligibility
to
run
for
President during the 2010 Presidential
election, stressing that, since he was
not elected for the second time,

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


any discussion of his reelection
will simply be hypothetical and
speculative. It will serve no useful or
practical
purpose.
Pormento
v.
Estrada
II. PROPER PARTY
A proper party is one who has
sustained or is in immediate danger of
sustaining an injury as a result of the
act complained of. Until and unless
such actual or potential injury is
established, the complainant cannot
have the legal personality to raise the
constitutional question.
In Galicto v. Aquino, the general rules
where a party is allowed to raise a
constitutional question is when:
(1)he can show that he will
personally suffer some actual
or threatened injury because
of
the
allegedly
illegal
conduct of the government;
(2)the injury is fairly traceable
to the challenged action; and
(3)the injury is likely to be
redressed
by a favorable action.
In this case, the court declared that a
petitioner who has no vested right to
salary increases may not question or
be considered as having the legal
standing to assail an EO providing for
the same.
In Topacio v. Ong, the court dismissed
the petition filed by one who was not
seeking the seat of the respondent as
an
Associate
Justice
in
the
Sandiganbayan. It said that the
petition, which essentially called for
the nullification of the respondents
appointment to said court, constituted

a collateral attack on a public officers


title. The Court stressed that such a
challenge may be done only directly
by a quo warranto proceeding which
may be filed only by the Solicitor
General or a public prosecutor, as the
case may be, or by any person
claiming to be entitled to the public
office
or
position
usurped
or
unlawfully held or exercised by
another.
For a quo warranto
petition to be successful, the
private person suing must show a
clear right to the contested office.
In fact, not even a mere preferential
right to be appointed thereto can lend
a modicum of legal ground to proceed
with the action.
In Agan v. PIATCO, the court held that
petitioners have the requisite standing
for having a direct and substantial
interest to protect by reason of the
implementation
of
the
PIATCO
Contracts. They stand to lose their
source of livelihood, a property
right which is zealously protected
by the Constitution. Moreover,
subsisting concession agreements
between
MIAA
and
petitionersintervenors and service contracts
between international airlines and
petitioners-intervenors stand to be
nullified
or
terminated
by
the
operation of the NAIA IPT III under the
PIATCO
Contracts.
The
financial
prejudice brought about by the PIATCO
Contracts
on
petitioners
and
petitioners-intervenors in these cases
are legitimate interests sufficient to
confer on them the requisite standing
to file the instant petitions.
In Planters Products v. Fertiphil, the
Court did not agree on PPIs argument
that Fertiphil has no locus standi to
question the constitutionality of LOI
No. 1465 because it does not have a

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


personal and substantial interest in
the case or will sustain direct injury as
a result of its enforcement. It asserts
that Fertiphil did not suffer any
damage from the CRC imposition
because incidence of the levy fell on
the ultimate consumer or the farmers
themselves, not on the seller fertilizer
company.
Private v. Public Suits
In private suits, locus standi requires a
litigant to be a real party in interest,
which is defined as the party who
stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit. In
public suits, this Court recognizes the
difficulty of applying the doctrine
especially when plaintiff asserts a
public right on behalf of the general
public because of conflicting public
policy issues. On one end, there is the
right of the ordinary citizen to petition
the courts to be freed from unlawful
government intrusion and illegal
official action. At the other end, there
is the public policy precluding
excessive judicial interference in
official acts, which may unnecessarily
hinder the delivery of basic public
services.
Fertiphil suffered a direct injury from
the enforcement of LOI No. 1465. It
was required, and it did pay, the P10
levy imposed for every bag of fertilizer
sold on the domestic market. It may
be true that Fertiphil has passed some
or all of the levy to the ultimate
consumer, but that does not disqualify
it from attacking the constitutionality
of the LOI or from seeking a refund. As
seller, it bore the ultimate burden of
Doubted. If at all, it is candidates like
intervenor roger Panotes running for
mayor of Daet, Camarines Norte, who
can complain against 11(b) of R.A. No.

paying the levy. It faced the possibility


of severe sanctions for failure to pay
the levy. The fact of payment is
sufficient injury to Fertiphil. Moreover,
Fertiphil suffered harm from the
enforcement of the LOI because it was
compelled to factor in its product the
levy. The levy certainly rendered the
fertilizer products of Fertiphil and
other domestic sellers much more
expensive. The harm to their business
consists not only in fewer clients
because of the increased price, but
also in adopting alternative corporate
strategies to meet the demands of LOI
No. 1465. Fertiphil and other fertilizer
sellers may have shouldered all or
part of the levy just to be competitive
in the market. The harm occasioned
on the business of Fertiphil is
sufficient injury for purposes of locus
standi.
In Osmea v. COMELEC, the petitioners
seek to reexamine the ruling on NPC
v. COMELEC which upheld the validity
of RA 6646, the Electoral Reforms Law
of 1987 which prohibits mass media
from selling or giving free of charge
print space or air time for campaign or
other political purposes, except to the
COMELEC. The petitioners contend
that the ban on political advertising
has not only failed to level the playing
field, [but] actually worked to the
grave disadvantage of the poor
candidate by depriving them of a
medium which they can afford to pay
for while their more affluent rivals can
always resort to other means of
reaching
voters.
In
this
case,
petitioners financial ability cannot be
6646. Ironically, the latter is for the
law contending that it has tosome
extent, reduced the advantages of
moneyed politicians and parties over

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


their rivals who are similarly situated
as Panotes.
TAXPAYER
Mamba v. Lara
Requisites for TAXPAYER
Public funds derived from taxation
are
disbursed
by
a
political
subdivision or instrumentality and in
doing so, a law is violated or some
irregularity is committed and
the petitioner is directly affected by
the alleged act
Southern Hemisphere v.
Anti-Terrorism Council
A taxpayer suit is proper only when
there is an exercise of the spending
or taxing power of Congress,[
whereas citizen standing must rest
on direct and personal interest in the
proceeding
RA 9372 is a penal statute and does
not
even
provide
for
any
appropriation from Congress for its
implementation, while none of the
individual
petitioner-citizens
has
alleged any direct and personal
interest in the implementation of the
law.
It bears to stress that generalized
interests, albeit accompanied by the
assertion of a public right, do not
establish locus standi. Evidence of a
direct and personal interest is key.
CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERS
SENATE V. ERMITA
The senate has the fundamental
right not only for intelligent publicdecision making in a democratic
system,
but
also
of
sound
legislation. In this case, issuance of
EO 464 prohibiting the officials from
appearing in the Senate hearing as

without the consent of the President


is an impairment of the Congress
right to information in aid of
legislation. Hence, they are the
proper party to question such
action.
Sanlakas v. Executive
Issuance of E.O. 467 by the
President in her executive capacity
and
as
a
commander-in-chief
declaring a state of rebellion is
challenged. The members of the
congress
may
claim
requisite
standing to the extent that the
power of the congress is
impaired,
since
his
office
confers a right to participate in
the exercise of the powers of
that institution.
Pimentel v. Ermita
The ad-interim appointment without
the consent of the COA might have
infringed
its
power,
but
the
Congress cannot claim a stand
because it is independent from COA.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
Prov. of Batangas v. Romulo
The injury that the petitioner claims to
suffer involves the diminution of its
share in the IRA because of the
General Appropriations act where
conditions were imposed for the
release of IRAs to the LGUs.
Prov. of North Cot. v. GPPPAD
LGUs can seek relief in order to
protect or vindicate an interest of its
own, and of the other LGUs. In this
case, LGUs would suffer as their
territories, whether whole or in part,
are to be included in the intended
domain of the BJE.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination

CITIZENS
1. Denial of some right or privilege
to which he is lawfully entitled;
or he is about to be subjected to
some burdens or penalties by
reason of the statute or act
complained of;
2. Issue concerns public right of a
citizen

CHAVEZ V. PCGG
Anchored on the right of the people
to information and access to
official records, documents, and
papers, and petitioner, a former
solicitor general, has a standing
as a citizen. Therefore, matters
involving agreements with the heirs of
Marcos and negotiations regarding his
ill-gotten wealth must be disclosed.
AKBAYAN V. AQUINO
In a petition anchored upon the right
of the people to information on
matters of public concern, which is a
public right by its very nature,
petitioners need not show that
they have any legal or special
interest in the result, it being
sufficient to show that they are
citizens and, therefore, part of the
general public which possesses the
right to information and thus have the
standing to demand copies of JPEPA.
CHAVEZ v. PEA and AMARI
the enforcement of the constitutional
right to information and the equitable
diffusion of natural resources are
matters of transcendental importance
which clothe the petitioner with locus
standi;

TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE - CDL


- the character of funds or assets
involved in the controversy,
- a
clear
disregard
of
constitutional
or
statutory
prohibition, and
- the lack of any other party with
a more direct and specific

TATAD V. SECRETARY
There is not a dot of disagreement
between the petitioners and the
respondents on the far reaching
importance of the validity of RA No.
8180 deregulating our downstream oil
industry. Thus, there is no good sense
in being hypertechnical on the
standing of petitioners for they pose
issues which are significant to our
people and which deserve our
forthright resolution.
BAYAN V. EXECUTIVE
Notwithstanding, in view of the
paramount
importance
and
the
constitutional significance of the
issues regarding VFA raised in the
petitions, this Court, in the exercise of
its sound discretion, brushes aside
the procedural barrier and takes
cognizance of the petitions, as we
have done in the early Emergency
Powers Cases.
CAPALLA v. COMELEC
In order to achieve the modernization
program of the Philippine Electoral
System,
which
includes
the
automation
of
the
counting,
transmission and canvassing of votes
for the May 2010 national and local
elections with systems integration and
over-all project management in a
comprehensive and well-managed
manner, the Comelec entered into an

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


AES contract with Smartmatic-TIM for
the lease of goods and purchase of
services under the contract, with
option to purchase the goods.
Elections is a matter of great
public concern.
DAVID V. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
It must always be borne in mind that
the question of locus standi is but
corollary to the bigger question of
proper exercise of judicial power. This
is the underlying legal tenet of the
liberality
doctrine
on
legal
standing. It cannot be doubted that
the validity of PP No. 1017 and G.O.
No. 5 is a judicial question which is of
paramount importance to the Filipino
people.

NO STANDING
PAGUIA
V.
OFFICE
OF
THE
PRESIDENT
Three factors are relevant in our
determination to allow third party
suits so we can reach and resolve the
merits of the crucial issues raised : CD-L
- the character of funds or assets
involved in the controversy,
-a clear disregard of constitutional or
statutory prohibition, and
- the lack of any other party with a
more direct and specific interest to
bring the suit
Implicit in a petition seeking a
judicial
interpretation
of
a
statutory
provision
on
the
retirement of government personnel
occasioned
by
its
seemingly
ambiguous crafting is the admission

that
a
"clear
disregard
of
constitutional or statutory prohibition"
is absent.
IBP V. ZAMORA
The mere invocation by the IBP of its
duty to preserve the rule of law and
nothing more, while undoubtedly true,
is not sufficient to clothe it with
standing in this case. What the IBP
projects as injurious is the supposed
militarization of law enforcement
which might threaten Philippine
democratic institutions and may
cause more harm than good in the
long run. Not only is the presumed
injury not personal in character, it is
likewise too vague, highly speculative
and
uncertain
to
satisfy
the
requirement of standing.
VELARDE V. SJS
There was no showing in the Petition
for Declaratory Relief that SJS as a
political party or its members as
registered voters would be adversely
affected by the alleged acts of the
respondents below, if the question at
issue was not resolved. There was no
allegation that SJS had suffered or
would be deprived of votes due to the
acts imputed to the said respondents.
Neither did it allege that any of its
members would be denied the right of
suffrage or the privilege to be voted
for a public office they are seeking.
AMIN V. EXECUTIVE
Petitioners Anak Mindanao Party-List
Group
(AMIN)
and
Mamalo
Descendants
Organization,
Inc.
(MDOI) assail the constitutionality of
Executive Order (E.O.) Nos. 364 and
379, both issued in 2004 by President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Transforming
The Department Of Agrarian Reform
Into The Department Of Land Reform

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


They find it impermissible for the
Executive to intrude into the domain
of the Legislature.
An examination of MDOIs nebulous
claims of negative impact and
probable setbacks shows that they
are too abstract to be considered
judicially cognizable. And the line of
causation it proffers between the
challenged action and alleged injury is
too attenuated. Vague propositions
that the implementation of the
assailed orders will work injustice and
violate the rights of its members
cannot clothe MDOI with the requisite
standing. Neither would its status as a
peoples organization vest it with the
legal standing to assail the validity of
the executive orders.
EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY means
that
the
question
of
unconstitutionality of the act in
question
should
have
been
immediately raised in the proceedings
in the court below.
In Sta. Rosa v. Amante, the court
held that it must be pointed out that
all
controversies
on
the
implementation of the CARP fall under
the jurisdiction of the DAR, even
though they raise questions that are
also legal or constitutional in nature.
The earliest opportunity to raise a
constitutional issue is to raise it in the
pleadings before a competent court
that can resolve the same, such that,
if it is not raised in the pleadings,
it cannot be considered at the
trial, and, if not considered at the
trial, it cannot be considered on
appeal.

In Estarija v. Ranada, petitioner


raised the issue of constitutionality of
Rep. Act No. 6770 in his motion for
the
reconsideration
of
the
Ombudsmans decision. Verily, the
Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to
entertain
questions
on
the
constitutionality of a law. Thus, when
petitioner
raised
the
issue
of
constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 6770
before the Court of Appeals, which is
the
competent
court,
the
constitutional question was raised at
the
earliest
opportune
time.
Furthermore,
this
Court
may
determine, in the exercise of sound
discretion,
the
time
when
a
constitutional issue may be passed
upon
In Garcia v. Drilon, it was held that
Family Courts have authority and
jurisdiction
to
consider
the
constitutionality of a statute.
At the outset, it must be stressed that
Family Courts are special courts, of
the same level as Regional Trial
Courts. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise
known as the "Family Courts Act of
1997," family courts have exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide
cases of domestic violence against
women and children. In accordance
with said law, the Supreme Court
designated from among the branches
of the Regional Trial Courts at least
one Family Court in each of several
key cities identified. To achieve
harmony with the first mentioned law,
Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides
that
Regional
Trial
Courts
designated as Family Courts shall
have
original
and
exclusive
jurisdiction over cases of VAWC
defined under the latter law.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


LIS MOTA
a court should not pass upon a
constitutional question and decide a
law to be unconstitutional or invalid,
unless such question is raised by the
parties
In Liban v. Gordon, it was held that
the court should not have declared
void certain sections of R.A. No. 95, as
amended by Presidential Decree (P.D.)
Nos. 1264 and 1643, the PNRC
Charter. Instead, the Court should
have exercised judicial restraint on
this matter, especially since there was
some other ground upon which the
Court could have based its judgment.
Furthermore, the PNRC, the entity
most adversely affected by this
declaration
of
unconstitutionality,
which was not even originally a party
to this case, was being compelled, as
a consequence of the Decision, to
suddenly reorganize and incorporate
under the Corporation Code, after
more than sixty (60) years of
existence in this country.
In Garcia v. Executive, it was held
that Petitioner Garcias failed to show
that he resorted to these measures
before filing the instant petition. His
belief
that
these
oversight
mechanisms are unrealistic and
5. Transcendental importance
CDL
o the character of funds or
assets involved in the
controversy,
o a
clear
disregard
of
constitutional or statutory
9.
10.
11.
12.

insufficient does not permit disregard


of these remedies. if the case can be
disposed of on some other ground,
such as the application of the statute
or the general law, then the court
must
not
pass
upon
such
constitutional question.
SUMMARY
1. taxpayers,
o there must be a claim of
illegal disbursement of
public funds or that the
tax
measure
is
unconstitutional;
2. voters,
o there must be a showing
of obvious interest in the
validity of the election law
in question;
3. concerned citizens,
o there must be a showing
that the issues raised are
of
transcendental
importance which must be
settled early; and
o violation of a right they
are lawfully entitled
4. legislators,
o there must be a claim that
the
official
action
complained of infringes
upon their prerogatives as
legislators.
prohibition, and the lack
of any other party with a
more direct and specific
interest to bring the suit
6.
7.
8.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


51.

II. NATIONAL TERRITORY

52.
53.
Art.
1
The
national
territory comprises the:
- Philippine archipelago
o with all the islands and
the waters embraced
therein, and
o All other territories over
which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction
54. Consisting of its
o Terrestrial,
fluvial,
and
aerial domains
55. Including its TS-S-S-IS-SAW
o Territorial sea, the seabed,
the subsoil, the insular
shelves,
and
other
submarine areas.
- The waters: Around, between,
and connecting the islands of
the archipelago,
o Regardless
of
their
breadth and dimensions,
form a part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
56.
UNCLOS- United Nations
Convention on the Law of the
Sea prescribes
1. Water-Land Ratio
2. Length- shall not exceed 100
nm except for the 3% of the
total number of baselines which
can reach to 125 nm.
3. Contour of the Baselinesdrawing of baselines shall not
depart to any appreciable extent
from the general configuration
of the archipelago.
57.
58.
RA 9522
- Shortened one baseline
- Optimized the location of some
base points around the Phil.
archipelago

Classified adj. territories


o Kalayaan Group of Is.
o Bajo
de
masinloc/Scarborough
o
59.
MAGALLONA V. ERMITA
60.
Petitioners challenged RA
9522 which made RA 3046
compliant with the UNCLOS III
provisions on the ff: grounds
- It reduces the Phil. maritime
territory in violation the terms in
treaty of paris and ancillary
treaties
- Opens the countrys water
landwards to maritime passage
by all vessels and aircrafts,
undermining Phil. sovereignty
and national security
- Treatment of KIG and SS as
regime of islands prejudices the
livelihood
of
fishermens
subsistence.
61.
ISSUE #1: Held:
62.
UNCLOS III has nothing to
do with the acquisition or loss of
territory. It is a multilateral
treaty regulating, sea-use rights
over maritime zones that it
delimits.
- It plays no role in the
acquisition, enlargement, or
diminution of territory. States
acquire
territory
through:
occupation, accretion, cession,
and prescription. (OCAP)
63.
64.
ISSUE #2: Held:
65.
Whether referred to as
Internal waters under Art. 1 or
archipelagic waters in UNCLOS
III,
the
Phil.
exercises

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


sovereignty over the body of
water lying landward of the
baselines, including the air
space over it and the submarine
areas underneath, subject to
customary International Law of
Freedom of Navigation (Right of
Innocent Passage).
66.
67.
ISSUE #3: Held:
68.
Sec. 2 of RA 9522
encloses KIG and SS as a part of
Phil. claim of its sovereignty and
jurisdiction.
In
fact,
the
demarcation of the baselines
enables the Phil. to delimit its
EEZ, reserving solely to the Phil.
the exploitation of all living and
nonliving resources within such
zone.
69.
70.
71.
72.
Graduated
Authority
from baselines
73.
1. Territorial waters- 12
nautical miles
74. - Exercise of sovereignty:
75.
2. Contiguous Zone- 24
nautical miles
76. - enforce customs, fiscal,
immigration,
and
sanitation
laws
77.
3.
Exclusive
Economic
Zone- 200 nm
78. - right to exploit the living
and non-living resources in the
EEZ and continental shelf
79.
80.

III. GOVERNMENT

81.
the
agency
or
instrumentality through which
the will of the State is

formulated
expressed
and
realized
82.
83.
TYPE: democratic
and
republican
84.
85.
A.
FUNCTIONS:
Constituent and Ministrant
86. Constituent constitute
the very bonds of society and
are therefore compulsory.
87. Ministrant

those
undertaken to advance general
interests of the society, such as
public works, public charity, and
regulation of trade and industry.
These functions are optional.
88.
89.
B.
DOCTRINE
OF
PARENS
PATRIAE

the
important
tasks
of
the
government is to act as
guardians of the people.
90.
91.
C. De Jure and De Facto
Governments
92. De Jure- government that
has rightful title but no power or
control, either because
o this has been withdrawn
from it or because
o has
not
yet
actually
entered into the exercise
thereof
93. De facto- a government
of fact, that is, it actually
exercises power or control but
without legal title
94.
95.
Kinds of De facto:
1. through possession and control
by force or by the voice of
majority, de jure maintains itself
against the will of de facto.
2. Independent
govt
as
established by inhabitants who
rise in insurrection against
parent state

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


3. By military forces who invade
and occupy a territory of the
enemy in the course of war
96.
D.
Govt
of
the
Philippinescorporate
governmental entity through
which
the
functions
of
government
are
exercised
throughout
the
Philippines;
government owned or controlled
corporation
engaged
in
propriety functions cannot be
considered
part
of
the
Government for purposes of
exemption from the application
of the statute of limitations.
97.
98.
E. Administration- group
of persons in whose hands the
reins of the government are for
the time being. It is transitional,
whereas
government
is
permanent.
99.
100.

113.
Characteristics:
114. permanent,
exclusive,
comprehensive,
absolute,
indivisible,
inalienable,
imprescriptible
115.
116.
Act of the State
- Act done by the sovereign
power of the country, or by its
delegate, within the limits of the
power vested in him; cannot be
made
subject
to
legal
proceedings in a court of law.
117.
118.
119.

IV. SOVEREIGNTY

Supreme and uncontrollable


power inherent in a State by
which it is governed
101.
102.
2 Kinds: Legal and Political
103. Legal- to issue final
commands;
104. exercise of acts
105. Political- power behind
the legal
106. sovereign, or the sum of
the influences
107. that operate upon it
108.
109.
Internal or External
110. Internal- power of the
state to control its domestic
affairs
111. External- power to direct
its relations with other States,
also known as independence;
112.

CHAPTER 4:

THE DOCTRINE OF STATE


IMMUNITY

120.
121.
Classical Theory: The
State may not be sued without
its consent. (Article XVI, sec. 3)
122.
123.
General Rule: for a state
to be sued, it shall waive its
immunity.
124.
125.
Reason: I-P-SES
Indiscriminate suits against the
State will result in the impairment
of its dignity
No legal right against the authority
which makes the law on which the
right depends (Justice Holmes)
Prejudicial to Public Welfare
- Demands and inconveniences of
litigation will divert the time and
resources of the state from the
more pressing matters
Sovereign Equality of States
- One
State
cannot
assert
jurisdiction over another in
violation of the maxim par in
parem non habet imperium. To

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination

do so would unduly vex the


peace of nations.
Recognition of
the Sovereign
Character of the State
126.
Restrictive Theory: legal
nature of the act involved must
be ascertained- whether the
entity
claiming
immunity
performs governmental (Jure
imperii), as opposed to propriety
functions (Jure gestionis).
127.
128.
Exception to the Gen. rule
129.
Foreign states may be
sued in the host state if
engaged in a
a. Regular business or trade
b. NaturePurely
commercial,
private, and propriety acts (Jure
Gestionis)
130.
131.
Exception to Exception
Contracts entered into by its
governmental or sovereign acts
(Jure
Imperii),
Restrictive
Application
132.
133.
China
National
Machinery (CNMEG)
134.
v. Sta. Maria
135.
665 SCRA 189
136.
137.
Issue #1: Whether CNMEG
is entitled to Immunity
138.
CNMEG is engaged in a
propriety activity:
(1) The
parties executed the CA for the
purpose of constructing the
Luzon Railways.
(1)Memorandum of Understanding
where CNMEG has expressed
interest in the rehabilitation
and/or modernization of the
MLN from Metro Manila to San
Fernando, La Union .
139.
It
was
CNMEG
that
initiated the undertaking and
NOT
Chinese
govt.
The

Feasibility study was conducted


not because of any diplomatic
gratuity from or exercise of
sovereign functions by China,
but was plainly a business
strategy employed by CNMEG
with a view to securing the
commercial enterprise.
(2)Letter confirming (1) by Amb.
Wang
- This
would
categorize
CNMEG
as
the
state
corporation
within
the
Peoples Republic of China
which
initiated
our
Governments involvement in
the Project.
140.
The desire of CNMEG to
secure the Northrail Project was
in the ordinary or regular course
of its business as a global
construction company. The use
of the term state corporation to
refer to CNMEG was only
descriptive of its nature as a
government-owned
and/or
-controlled corporation, and its
assignment as the Primary
Contractor did not imply that it
was acting on behalf of China in
the performance of the latters
sovereign functions.
(3)Loan Agreement
- private and commercial acts
done and performed for
commercial purposes under
the laws of the Republic of
the Philippines and neither
the Borrower nor any of its
assets is entitled to any
immunity
or
privilege
(sovereign
or
otherwise)
from suit, execution or any
other legal process with
respect to its obligations
under this Agreement, as the
case
may
be,
in
any
jurisdiction

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


141.
CNMEG claims immunity
on the ground that the Aug 30
MOU on the financing of the
Northrail Project was signed by
the Philippine and Chinese
governments,
and
its
assignment as the Primary
Contractor meant that it was
bound
to
perform
a
governmental function on behalf
of China. However, the Loan
Agreement, which originated
from the same Aug 30 MOU,
belies this reasoning,
142.
143.
CNMEG
presented
a
Certification executed by the
Economic
and
Commercial
Office of the Embassy of the
Peoples Republic of China,
stating that the Northrail Project
is in pursuit of a sovereign
activity.
(must
be
DFA
certification)
144.
145.
ISSUE #2: WON CA is an
executive agreement
- Vienna
Convention:
International
agreement
concluded
a. between States in
b. written form
c. governed by international law
146.
In the case at bar,
the
st
rd
1 and 3 req. are absent.
147.
148.
149.
Note: Not all acts Jure
Imperii may exempt the State
from suit.
150.
Ex. Power of Eminent
Domain: when done w/o just
compensation
151.
152.
GTZ v. CA
153.
585 SCRA 150
154.
155.
Facts: Germany and the

Philippines entered
into
a
Technical
Cooperation
Agreement (TCA), pursuant to
which
both
signed
an
arrangement
promoting
the
Social
Health
Insurance
Networking and Empowerment
(SHINE)
project.
The
two
governments
named
their
respective
implementing
organizations: the Department
of Health (DOH) and the
Philippine
Health
Insurance
Corporation (PHIC) for
the
Philippines and GTZ for the
implementation
of Germanys
contributions
as
an
implementing agency of the
Federal Govt of Germany.
156.
157.
Issue: Whether GTZ was
not immune from suit
158.
159.
SC:
Being
an
implementing agency of a State
does not automatically vest GTZ
with the ability to invoke State
Immunity from suit.
160.
161.
GTZ has failed to establish
that under German law, it has
not consented to be sued
despite it being owned by the
Federal Republic of Germany.
We adhere to the rule that in the
absence of evidence to the
contrary, foreign laws on a
particular subject are presumed
to be the same as those of the
Philippines, and following the
most intelligent assumption we
can gather, GTZ is akin to a
governmental
owned
or
controlled
corporation
without
original
charter
which, by virtue of the
Corporation
Code,
has
expressly consented to be

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination

sued.
162.
DFA function:
- Determination of persons and
institutions
covered
by
diplomatic immunities
- Issues
certification
of
respondents diplomatic status
and entitlement to diplomatic
privileges including immunity
from suits
- The issuance of certification by
DFA does not preclude the court
from ascertaining its intrinsic
validity
163.
164.
SUIT AGAINST PUBLIC
OFFICERS
165.
It is understood, of
course, that where a public
officer acts without or in excess
of jurisdiction, any injury caused
by him is his own personal
liability and cannot be imputed
to the State.
1. WON the officer has acted
within the bounds of his official
capacity; or within the scope of
his authority
a. State acting through a
special agent; state holds
immunity.
2. WON there is a need of an
affirmative action by the State
to satisfy for the damages
(ultimate test)
166.
167.
NOT AGAINST THE STATE,
but solidary to the public officer
1. Duty is required by law
2. Restrained from doing an act
alleged to be unconstitutional
3. Recovering from him taxes
unlawfully assessed or collected
4. Recovery of title
5. Special Agent function foreign
to ones regular exercise of
office.

168.
169.
170.
SUITS
AGAINST
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
171.
Where suit is filed not
against the government itself or
its officials but against one of its
entities, it must be ascertained
whether or not the State, as the
principal that may ultimately be
held liable, has given its consent
to be sued.
172.
173.
SUABILITY the result of
the express or implied consent
of the State to be sued
174.
175.
Test of Suability
176.
KINDS OF AGENCY
1. INCORPORATED AGENCY
has a charter of its own that
invests it with a separate
juridical personality, like the SSS
and
University
of
the
Philippines.
- CHARTER TEST:
o It is suable if the charter
says so.
177.
2. UNINCORPORATED AGENCY
has
no
separate
juridical
personality but is merged in the
general
machinery
of
the
government,
like
the
Department of Justice, the
Bureau of Mines and the
Government of Printing Office.
Any suit filed against it is an
action against the Philippine
Government. Therefore, it is
now the primary function of the
acts which is subject to the
- NATURE test
o Jure Imperii (immuned)
o Jure Gestionis (suable)
178.
FORMS OF CONSENT
1. Expressed

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


-

Special law (charter test of the


Inc)
- General law
2. Implied
- Commences litigation
- Enters into a contract of
proprietary nature
- Agreement
to
submit
any
dispute to arbitration (CNMEG)
- Expropriation:
perpetrates
injustice
179.
180.
Act No. 3083: "The
Government of the
181. Philippine Islands hereby
consents and submits to be
sued upon any moneyed claim
involving liability arising from
contract, express or implied,
which could serve as a basis of
civil action between private
parties.
182.
183.
CA No. 327 (amended
by PD No. 1445)
184.
A claim against the
government must first be filed
with
the
Commission
on
Audit, which must act upon it
within sixty days.
185.
Rejection of the claim will
authorize
the
claimant
to
elevate the matter to the
Supreme Court on certiorari
and in effect sue the State with
its consent.
186.
187.
Under this rule, the COA
has the primary jurisdiction to
examine, audit, and settle all
debts and claims of any sort
due
from
or
owing
the
Government or any of its
subdivisions.
188.
189.
If the claim is about just
compensation, where the State
uses a private land for public

purposes, it is not required to


file the claim with the Auditor
General (Commission on Audit).
In addition, if the suit does not
involve money, to file with the
Commission on Audit is not
needed.
190.
191.
192.
University
of
the
Philippines
193.
v. Dizon
194.
195.
HELD: UPs funds, being
government funds,
196.
are
not
subject
to
garnishment.
197.
198.
Despite its establishment
as a body corporate, the UP
remains to be a "chartered
institution"
performing
a
legitimate government function.
It is an institution of higher
learning, not a corporation
established
for
profit
and
declaring any dividends. As a
governmental
instrumentality,
promoting
quality
and
accessible
education,
UP
administers
special
funds
sourced from the fees and
income
from
yearly
appropriations,
subject
to
auditing by the COA. These
funds are public in character.
They include income from the
use of real property ceded to
the UP that may be spent only
for
the
attainment
of
institutional objectives. Hence,
the funds subject of this action
could not be validly made the
subject of the RTCs writ of
execution or garnishment.
199.
200.
HELD:
COA
must
adjudicate private respondents

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


claim before execution should
proceed. COA must adjudicate
private
respondents
claim
before
execution
should
proceed
201.
202.
GARNISHMENT
OF
FUNDS
203.
RULE: Where the State
gives its consent to be sued by
private parties either by general
or special law, it may limit
claimants action only up to the
completion
of
proceedings
anterior
to
the
stage
of
execution
power of courts ends when the
judgment is rendered,
- Public policy: government funds
and properties may not be
seized under writs of execution
or garnishment to satisfy such
judgments
- Disbursements of public funds
must be covered by the
corresponding appropriation as
required by law. The functions
and public services rendered by
the State cannot be allowed to
be paralyzed or disrupted by the
diversion of public funds from
their legitimate and specific
objects, as appropriated by law.
204.
funds
of
public
corporations which can sue and
be sued were NOT exempt from
garnishment.
205.
206.
funds appertained to one
of the regular departments or
offices in the government is a
bar to garnishment
207.
208.
LIABILITY is determined
after hearing on the basis of
relevant
laws
and
the
established facts.
209.

210.
Test of Liability
211.
PURPOSE:
Supreme
Court held a municipality liable
for
a
tort
committed
in
connection with the celebration
of a town fiesta, which was
considered
a
proprietary
function.
1. PUBLIC USE- not subject to
levy
212. -ie. Funds or taxes due to
municipal corp.
2. QUASI-PRIVATE- maybe seized
and sold
3. TEMPORARILY PRIVATE- may
not be subject for execution,
unless abandoned.
213.
214.
Presumption
of
Solvency:
215.
Does not extend to GOCCs
where the state is a major
stockholder
216.
217.
SUABILITY v. LIABILITY
218.
Suability depends on the
consent of the state to be sued
219.
220.
Liability
depends
on
applicable law and established
facts
- State shall be responsible only
for torts when it acts through a
special agent and not when the
damage has been caused by the
official or employee to whom
task properly pertains
221.
222.

CHAPTER 5:

223.
FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES
224.

AND STATE POLICIES

225.
Preamble
226.
227.
sovereign
Filipino

We, the
people,

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


imploring the aid of Almighty
God, in order to build a just and
humane society and establish a
Government that shall embody
our ideals and aspirations,
promote the common good,
conserve and develop our
patrimony,
and
secure
to
ourselves and our posterity the
blessings of independence and
democracy under the rule of law
and a regime of truth, justice,
freedom, love, equality and
peace,
do
ordain
and
promulgate this Constitution.
228.
3. The Preamble is not considered
a source of substantive right
since its purpose is only to
introduce, to walk before, the
Constitution.
229.
230.
REPUBLICANISM
a
representative government, a
government run by and for the
people.
Its
essence
is
representation and renovation.
231.
232.
INCORPORATION
CLAUSE Every State, is by
reason of its membership in the
family of nations, bound by the
generally accepted principles of
international law, which are
considered to be automatically
part of its own laws.
233.
234.
Social Justice
Social
Justice is neither communism,
nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy, but the humanization
of laws and the equalization of
social and economic forces by
the State so that justice in its
rational and objectively secular
conception may at least be
approximated.

4. Social
Justice
means
the
promotion of the welfare of all
the people, the adoption by the
Government
of
measures
calculated to insure economic
stability of all the component
elements of society, through the
maintenance
of
a
proper
economic and social equilibrium
in the interrelations of the
members of the community,
constitutionality, through the
adoption of measures legally
justifiable,
or
extraconstitutionally, through the
exercise of powers underlying
the existence of all governments
on the time-honored principle of
salus populi est suprema lex.
235.
236.

ARTICLE II

237.
DECLARATION
PRINCIPLES
AND
POLICIES PRINCIPLES

OF
STATE

5. Intended to lay down the rules


underlying
our
system
of
government and must therefore
be adhered to in the conduct of
public affairs and the resolution
of public issues.
6. Purpose: to emphasize and
articulate more unequivocally
the objectives and limitations of
govtal action in pursuit of the
general goals announced in the
Preamble.
7. Mere legislative guides, which
absent enabling legislation, do
not
embody
enforceable
constitutional rights.
238.
Section 1. The Philippines
is a democratic and republican
State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government
authority emanates from them.
239.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


240.
Section 2. The Philippines
renounces war as an instrument
of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the
law of the land and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation,
and amity with all nations.
241.
242.
Section
3.
Civilian
authority is, at all times,
supreme over the military. The
Armed Forces of the Philippines
is the protector of the people
and the State. Its goal is to
secure the sovereignty of the
State and the integrity of the
national territory.
243.
244.
Section 4. The prime duty
of the Government is to serve
and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the
people to defend the State and,
in the fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under
conditions provided by law, to
render personal, military or civil
service.
245.
246.
Section
5.
The
maintenance of peace and
order, the protection of life,
liberty,
and
property,
and
promotion of the general welfare
are essential for the enjoyment
by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.
247.
248.
Section 6. The separation
of Church and State shall be
inviolable.
249.
250.
Section 9. The State shall
promote a just and dynamic
social order that will ensure the
prosperity and independence of

the nation and free the people


from poverty through policies
that provide adequate social
services,
promote
full
employment, a rising standard
of living, and an improved
quality of life for all.
251.
252.
Section 10. The State shall
promote social justice in all
phases of national development.
253.
254.
Section 11. The State
values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights.
255.
256.
Section 12. The State
recognizes the sanctity of family
life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. It
shall equally protect the life of
the mother and the life of the
unborn from conception. The
natural and primary right and
duty of parents in the rearing of
the youth for civic efficiency and
the development of moral
character shall receive the
support of the Government.
257.
258.
Section 13. The State
recognizes the vital role of the
youth in nation-building and
shall promote and protect their
physical,
moral,
spiritual,
intellectual, and social wellbeing. It shall inculcate in the
youth
patriotism
and
nationalism,
and
encourage
their involvement in public and
civic affairs.
259.
Section 14. The State
recognizes the role of women in
nation-building, and shall ensure
the fundamental equality before
the law of women and men.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


260.
261.
Section 15. The State shall
protect and promote the right to
health of the people and instill
health consciousness among
them.
262.
263.
Section 16. The State shall
protect and advance the right of
the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with
the rhythm and harmony of
nature.
264.
265.
Section 17. The 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
and development.
266.
267.
Section 18. The State
affirms labor as a primary social
economic force. It shall protect
the rights of workers and
promote their welfare.
268.
269.
Section 19. The State shall
develop
a
self-reliant
and
independent national economy
effectively
controlled
by
Filipinos.
270.
271.
Section 20. The State
recognizes the indispensable
role of the private sector,
encourages private enterprise,
and provides incentives to
needed investments.
272.
273.
Section 21. The State shall
promote comprehensive rural
development
and
agrarian
reform.
274.

275.
Section 22. The State
recognizes and promotes the
rights of indigenous cultural
communities
within
the
framework of national unity and
development.
276.
277.
Section 23. The State shall
encourage
non-governmental,
community-based, or sectoral
278.
organizations
that
promote the welfare of the
nation.
279.
Section 24. The State
recognizes the vital role of
communication and information
in nationbuilding.
280.
281.
Section 25. The State shall
ensure the autonomy of local
governments.
282.
283.
Section 26. The State shall
guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service
and prohibit political dynasties
as may be defined by law.
284.
285.
Section 27. The State shall
maintain honesty and integrity
in the public service and take
positive and effective measures
against graft and corruption.
286.
287.
Section 28. Subject to
reasonable
conditions
prescribed by law, the State
adopts and implements a policy
of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public
interest.
288.
289.
290.
291.

Constitutional Law 1 st Examination


292.
293.
294.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
307.
308.

295.
296.
297.