CASE

ASSIGNMENTS - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

2. THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE

a. STATE DEFINED

b. ELEMENTS OF A STATE (under Montevideo Convention)
People
Territory
Philippine Archipelago
o Treaty of Paris (rectangular area);
o Treaty at Washington between Spain and US
(Cagayan de Sulu and Islands of Sibutu);
o Treaty between US and Great Britain (Turtle and
Mangsee Islands).
Archipelagic Doctrine
Regime of Islands (Scarborough Shoal and KIG)
Internal Waters vs. Archipelagic Waters - Magallona vs.
Ermita, GR 187167, Aug. 16, 2011
UNCLOS
o Territorial Sea
o Contiguous Zone
o Exclusive Economic Zone
o Continental Shelf
Government
Doctrine of Parens Patriae
o Cabaas vs. Pilapil, GR L-25843, July 25, 1974
Presidential vs. Parliamentary
Unitary vs. Federal (Duterte)
Sovereignty
Fifth Element - Recognition by other States
Constitutive theory
Declaratory theory

c. DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT (ROYAL
PREROGATIVE OF DISHONESTY)
Article XVI, Section 9
Foundation of the doctrine
Applicability of the doctrine -
Suit against the Republic of the Philippines Republic
vs. Villasor, GR L-30671, Nov. 28, 1973;
Suit against Foreign States under the principle of
Sovereign Equality of States
o Syquia vs. Almeda, GR L-1648, Aug. 17, 1949;
o Minucher vs. CA, GR 142396, Feb. 11, 2003;

 Suit against the UN and other specialized agencies

Lasco vs. UNRFNRE, GR 109095-109107, Feb. 23, 1995;
Suit against International Organizations Callado vs.
IRRI, GR 106483, May 22, 1995;

Suit against the Philippines as a State:
Suit against Government Officers
o Ultimate liability will fall on the government
Calub and Valencia vs. CA, GR 115634, April 27,
2000;
o Ultimate liability will fall on the officer Ruiz vs.
Cabahug, GR L-9990, Sept. 30, 1957;

Suit against Government Agencies
o Incorporated test of suability is found in its
charter (it is suable if its charter says so,
regardless of the functions it is performing)
Olizon vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, GR L-
16524, June 30, 1964;
o Unincorporated
- If governmental function no suit
without consent Bureau of Printing vs.
Bureau
of
Printing
Employees
Association, GR L-15751, Jan. 28, 1961;
- If proprietary function suit will lie
Exception no suit without
consent when the act was a
necessary incident to its
governmental function Mobil
Philippines Exploration Inc. vs.
Customs Arrastre Service, GR L-
23139, Dec. 17, 1966;
Waiver of Immunity (Legislature)
Forms of Consent
Express
o General Law
- Example - Commonwealth Act 327, as
amended by PD 1445 (and Article IX-A,
Section 7, Constitution) - Sayson vs.
Singzon, GR L-30044, Dec. 19, 1973;
- Must not perpetrate an injustice -
Amigable vs. Cuenca, GR L-26400, Feb. 29,
1972;
o Special Law

 Implied
o When the State itself commences litigation; or
o When it enters into contract -
- U.S. vs. Ruiz, GR L-35645, May 22, 1985;
- U.S. vs. Guinto, GR 76607, Feb. 26, 1990;
- Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 129406,
March 6, 2006;
Suability vs. Liability Merritt vs. Government, GR L-11154,
Mar. 21, 1916;
Suability vs. Execution Commissioner of Public Highways
vs. San Diego, GR L-30098, Feb. 18, 1970;

d. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE (inherent powers

exercised even without need of express constitutional grant)

POLICE POWER
Justification Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex; Sic Utere
Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas
Taxing power as an implement of Police power Lutz
vs, Araneta, GR L-7859, Dec. 22, 1955;
Eminent domain as an implement to attain the police
objective Association of Small Landowners vs.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, GR 78742, July 14, 1989;
Police power prevails over non-impairment of contracts
- Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, GR 126102, Dec. 4, 2000;
Police power prevails over right of every citizen to
select a profession PRC vs. De Guzman, GR 144681,
June 21, 2004;
Police power prevails over right to bear arms Chavez
vs. Romulo, GR 157036, June 9, 2004
Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003 is a legitimate
exercise of police power Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs.
DSWD, GR 166494, June 29, 2007;
The power is inherently vested in the Legislature;
Local Government Units exercise the power under the
general welfare clause;

TESTS FOR VALID EXERCISE:
o Lawful subject interest of the public in general
as distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the exercise of the power;
o Lawful means the means employed are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose, and not unduly oppressive on
individuals;

Lucena Grande Central Terminal vs. JAC

Liner, GR 148339, Feb. 23, 2005;
- Philippine Press Institute vs. Comelec, GR
L-119694, May 22, 1995;
- City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta
- City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, GR
118127, April 12, 2005;
- Pasong Bayabas Farmers Assoc. vs. CA, GR
142359 and 142980, May 25, 2004;

EMINENT DOMAIN (Sec. 9, Art. III, Sec. 18, Art. XII, Sec. 4 &
9, Art. XIII)
Distinguished from police power:
o Police power is the power of the State to
promote public welfare by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and property;
o Power of eminent domain is the inherent right
of the State to condemn private property to
public use upon payment of just compensation.
The power is inherently vested in the Legislature;
Local Government Units have no inherent power of
eminent domain they can exercise power only when
expressly authorized by the Legislature (Masikip vs.
City of Pasig, GR 136349, Jan. 23, 2006);
o Power of LGUs to expropriate, Sec. 19, RA 7160
Moday vs. CA, GR 107916, Feb. 20, 1997;
o There should be ordinance, not mere resolution
The power is superior to the final and executory
judgment rendered by the court in an ejectment case
(Filstream International Inc. vs. CA, GR 125218, Jan. 23,
1998);
Eminent domain cases are construed against the
expropriator (San Roque Realty vs. Republic, GR
163130, Sept. 7, 2007);

REQUISITES:
o Necessity
- Justiciable question whether there is
genuine necessity for it Bardillon vs.
Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna, GR
146886, April 30, 2003;

o Private property
- Subjects of eminent domain


o Taking in the constitutional sense
- It can either be the actual taking or
appropriation of title, or the imposition of
a burden upon the owner without loss of
title or possession;

o Public use
- Not confined to actual use by the public;
now synonymous to public interest,
public benefit, public welfare and public
convenience Reyes vs. NHA, GR 147511,
Jan. 20, 2003;
- Public use has been broadened to cover
uses which, while not directly available to
the public, redound to their indirect
advantage or benefit Heirs of Juancho
Ardona vs. Reyes, GR L-60549, Oct. 26,
1983;

o Just compensation
- FMV that sum of money which a person,
desirous but not compelled to buy, and an
owner, willing but not compelled to sell,
would agree on as a price to be given and
received therefor;
Modification of the above-rule
where only a part of a certain
property is expropriated NPC vs.
Spouses Chiong, GR 152436, June
20, 2003;
- Tax credit as just compensation - CIR vs.
Central Luzon Drug Corp., GR 148512,
June 26, 2006;
- Judicial prerogative ascertainment of
what constitutes just compensation;
- Form of compensation cash or in Land
Bank bonds Sta. Rosa Realty & Devt.
Corp. vs. CA, GR 112526, Oct. 12, 2001;
- Reckoning point of market value of the
property Nepomuceno vs. City of
Surigao, GR 146091, July 28, 2008;
- Right of landowner in case of non-
payment of just compensation Republic
of the Philippines vs. CA, GR 146587, July
2, 2002;

Exception: Republic of the

Philippines vs. Vicente Lim, GR
161656, June 29, 2005;
Due process o law defendant must be
given an opportunity to be heard;

Expropriation under Sec. 18, Art. XII as distinguished

from Sec. 17, Art. XII David vs. Arroyo, GR 171396,
May 3, 2006;

Expropriations under Sec. 4 and 9, Art. XIII -
o CARP using eminent domain as an instrument
to accomplish the police objects - Association of
Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, GR 78742, July 14, 1989;
o RA 7279 or Urban Development and Housing Act
of 1992 Filstream International Inc. vs. CA, GR
125218, Jan. 23, 1998;

POWER OF TAXATION
Limitations
o Due process of law
o Equal protection clause
o Public purpose
Double taxation not allowed if the same will result in a
violation of the equal protection clause
Tax exemptions
o Sec. 28(4), Art. VI, Constitution
o Sec. 28(3), Art. VI, Constitution
o Sec. 4(3), Art. XIV, Constitution
o Sec. 4(4), Art. XIV, Constitution
Police Power vs. Power of Taxation Gerochi vs.
Department of Energy, GR 159796, July 17, 2007;
License Fee vs. Tax Physical Therapy Organization vs.
Municipal Board of Manila, GR L-10448, Aug. 30, 1957
Supremacy of the national government over local
governments in taxation MIAA vs. CA, GR 155650, July
20, 2006.