Title:

Facts:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Macariola v. Judge Respondent Judge Asuncion was the
Asuncion
judge in CFI Leyte who heard Civil Case
No. 3010, which was a complaint for
partition filed by the Heirs of Francisco
Reyes against P Bernardita Macariola,
also an heir of Reyes, concerning the
properties left by the aforementioned
decedent.
o R
Judge
ordered
the
distribution of the properties
among the heirs of the
decedent, and the decision
became final and executory.
o One of the heirs sold her share
in the property to one Dr.
Galapon.
One year later, Dr. Galapon sold a
portion of this land to R Judge; The
following year R Judge conveyed the lot
to Traders, Inc., a corporation for
which R Judge served as president, and
his wife served as secretary.
P alleges that the actions of R Udge are
in violation of the Civil Code & the
Code of Commerce, in addition to RA
3019 & the Canons of Judicial Ethics

Held:

Doctrine/Notes:

ISSUE: W/N R Judges actions are in

contravention of the aforementioned
statutes. No, they are not.
When R Judge purchased a portion of
Lot 1184-E, the decision which he
rendered was already final and hence,
the lot in question was no longer
subject of the litigation
o Additionally, R Judge did not
buy the lot in question on
directly from the plaintiffs but
from Dr. Galapon.
o However: The conduct of [R
Judge] gave cause for [people]
to doubt the honesty and
fairness of his actuations and
the integrity of our courts of
justice"
Anent the issue of Art. 14* of the Code
of Commerce, the Court opined that
the statute supposedly violated takes
the nature of a political law, which is
abrogated upon the change of
sovereignty.
o Though part of a commercial
law, Art. 14 of the Code of
Commerce partakes of the
nature of a political law as it
regulates the relationship
between the government and
certain public officers and
employees.
o Upon
the
transfer
of
sovereignty from Spain to the
United States and later on from
the United States to the
Republic of the Philippines, Art.
14 of this Code of Commerce

Political Law: Political Law has been defined

as that branch of public law which deals
with the organization and operation of the
governmental organs of the State and
define the relations of the state with the
inhabitants of its territory.
* Article 14 The following cannot engage in
commerce, either in person or by proxy, nor
can they hold any office or have any direct,
administrative, or financial intervention in
commercial or industrial companies within the
limits of the districts, provinces, or towns in
which they discharge their duties:
1. Justices of the Supreme Court, judges and
officials of the department of public
prosecution in active service. This provision
shall not be applicable to mayors, municipal
judges, and municipal prosecuting attorneys
nor to those who by chance are temporarily
discharging the functions of judge or
prosecuting attorney.
Principle on the Change of Sovereignty:
Where there is change of sovereignty,
the political laws of the former
sovereign are considered automatically
abrogated, unless they are expressly
re-enacted by affirmative act of the new
sovereign.

2. Republic
v.
Sandiganbayan

3. Santiago
COMELEC

v.

must be deemed to have been

abrogated.
ISSUE: W/N the evidence sufficiently builds the case against Gen. Ramas & Dimaano.
No, it does not.
Some of the properties seized by the raiding team were considered by the R to
have been illegally seized.
o This is due to the fact that the search warrant that authorized the raid
was limited to Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition.
o Essentially, the raid team seized things that were not included in the
search warrant.
Petitioner PCGG argues that, at the time of the interregnum, a revolutionary
government was active which suspended the 1973 Constitution.
o i.e. Since the exclusionary right protecting people from an illegal search
applies only from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the acquired
possessions from the raid cannot be considered illegally obtained.
However, this is only partially correct. Although the government proceeding
the EDSA revolution overshadowed the 1973 Constitution, the resulting
revolutionary government was bound by no constitution or legal limitations
except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as the de jure
government, assumed under international law.
The Court held that, although the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution
was not operative at the time, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (Covenant) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(Declaration), both to which the Philippines is a signatory, remained in effect
during the period.
Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the
duty to insure that [n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.
Directives and orders issued by government officers were valid so long as these
officers did not exceed the authority granted them by the revolutionary
government.
Given how the raiding team confiscated items not included in the warrant, the
said items were considered illegally obtained and had to be promptly returned
to its owner

Under EO 1, s. 1986, the Presidential

Commission on Good Governance (PCGG)
was created to recover wrongfully acquired
wealth/possessions during the Marcos regime.
o The AFP Board was created to
investigate reports of unexplained
wealth and corrupt practices by AFP
personnel.
The AFP Board reported unexplained
wealth from Major General Ramas
o Pursuant to this, a raiding team
searched the premises of Dimaano,
the supposed mistress of Ramas.
o This team confiscated various
weapons,
ammunition,
and
communication equipment, along
with cash in the millions of pesos and
titles of land.
The petitioner avers that it is impossible for
Dimaano to claim that she owns the large
sums of money, as she was merely a secretary
at Ramas office.
o Petitioner also alleges that Ramas
acquired ill-gotten wealth by
exploiting his authoritative position
and his ties with President Marcos.
Three years later, in 1991, the respondent
Sandiganbayan dismissed the suit.The grounds
for such dismissal were:
o Lack of Jurisdiction of PCGG-AFP
Board
o Illegal Search & Seizure
For this reason PCGG filed the instant
petition.
Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin filed an initiatory petition with ISSUE: W/N the Delfin Petition can prosper under
COMELEC to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective RA 6735 cf. the 1987 Constitution. No, it cannot.
officials by peoples initiative.
RA 6735 is inadequate, as its provisions cannot
be construed as contemplating the application

4. Lambino
COMELEC

v.

o According to Delfin, his petition would be first submitted to the

Peoples
Initiative
to
Constitutional
people, and then formally filed with COMELEC and once it gets the
amendments.
12 per centum of signatures of the total number of registered voters
o Although the Constitution provided for
in the country that Art. XVII of the Constitution requires.
the right, it cannot be implemented if the
o The Delfin Petition seeks to amend sections of the provisions
congress fails to provide for its
concerning term limits for the executive & legislative departments, in
implementation.
addition to local government officials.
RA 6735 being inadequate to allow Peoples
Prior to the COMELEC hearing on the petition, Senator Defensor-Santiago,
Initiative, the ruling on w/n the proposition
Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for
constitutes a revision or an amendment is moot
prohibition on the following arguments:
& academic.
o The Constitutional provision of peoples initiative can only be
implemented by law to be passed by Congress. (P Senators SB No.
1290 is yet to be passed).
o R.A. 6735 is insufficient to enable Peoples Initiative on the
Constitution, because it:
Fails to provide subtitles on initiatives on the Constitution;
Provides for the effectivity of the law after publication which
cannot cover constitutional amendments which take effect
after ratification.
The Delfin Petition which extends or lifts term limits is a revision, not merely
an amendment.
Raul Lambino, together with other groups and individuals, ISSUE: W/N the Lambino petition is sufficient to allow COMELEC
commenced to gather signatures for an initiative petition to to submit it to the people for initiative. No, it is not.
change the 1987 Constitution.
The Lambino group failed to comply with the basic
requirements for conducting a peoples initiative. Lambino
In 2006, Raul Lambino and other groups and individuals, filed
himself admitted that the revised text submitted to the
their petition to the COMELEC to ratify their initiative petition
COMELEC had never been included in the document shown
under RA 6735
to the signatories to the petition.
o The petitions goal was the change of the Bicameralo The Constitution provides that the draft or proposal
Presidential system embodied in Arts. VI, VII, & VIII of
should be ready and shown to the people before they
the Constitution to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form
sign it. In this case, the petitioners failed to prove that
of government.
they have fully shown the draft to the people.
o The group claimed support of their petition from 6.3
o It is basic that in consent, assent, or agreement may
million people constituting the minimum least twelve
not be given when the signatory has no way of knowing
per centum (12%) requirement in the Constitution.
what he or she is agreeing to.
o The group also claimed that the signatures of said
o
The Lambino group also averred that they only
voters had already been verified by COMELEC election
distributed 100,000 copies of the petition. It is
registrars.
logistically impossible, therefore that all of the 6.3
The Lambino group petitioned COMELEC to submit their
million signatories of the petition were able to read
petition for plebiscite after due publication.
the full draft.

5. Espina v. Zamora,
Jr.

6. TMC Employees
v. CA

Later, the Lambino group submitted an Amended with the

COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed revised
text.
COMELEC then denied the groups petition for lack of an
enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution, as per the decision of the SC in Santiago v.
COMELEC.
The petitioners meanwhile averred that the Santiago ruling
only binds the parties to that case and their petition deserves
cognizance as an expression of the will of the sovereign
people.

President Joseph E. Estrada signed into

law
RA
8762 (Retail
Trade
Liberalization Act of 2000), repealing
RA 1180, which absolutely prohibited
foreign nationals from engaging in the
retail trade business.
o The new law allows foreign
nationals in the retail industry
in businesses worth upwards of
$2.5 million
Petitioner-congressmen assail the
constitutionality of the new law,
averring that it violates Secs. 9, 19, & 20
of Art. II of the 1987 Constitution

The initiative power reserved to the people by the

Constitution applies only to amendments to the Constitution,
and not constitutional revisions
If the scope of the proposed petition is broad enough as to
constitute a substantial revision, then the change may not be
made to the Constitution under the method of the Peoples
Initiative.
Revision implies a change that either alters a basic principle in
the constitution or affects substantial provisions of the
constitution. An amendment, meanwhile, refers to a change
that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic
principle involved.
o The proposed amendments by the Lambino group
would change the present bicameral-presidential
system to a unicameral-parliamentary form of
government, which would constitute a radical change
in the manner in which the government is structured
under the Constitution.
o Such amendments are therefore not subject to the
Peoples Initiative method outlined in the
Constitution.
ISSUE: W/N the Retail Trade Liberalization Act is in contravention of the Constitution.
No, it is not.
Section 19, Article II of the 1987 Constitution requires the development of a selfreliant and independent national economy
o It does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of the economic
environment.
o The Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor
and enterprises, but it also recognizes the need for business exchange with
the rest of the world.
Under the new law, Filipinos continue to have the right to engage in the kinds of retail
business to which the law in question has permitted the entry of foreign investors.
The law does not prejudice the rights of Filipino owned enterprises, and such does
not propose an unfair situation between foreign Filipino businesses.
Additionally, in general the provisions of Art. II are not self-executory, and merely
provide guiding principles for legislators to follow in creating laws.

7. TMPC v. LTWD

Petitioner Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative is a

duly organized and registered cooperative organized
to provide domestic water services in Barangay
Tawang, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Respondent La Trinidad Water District is a local
water utility created under PD 198, as amended.
o It is authorized to supply water for
domestic, industrial and commercial
purposes within the municipality of La
Trinidad, Benguet.
P TMPC filed with the National Water Resources
Board (NWRB) an application for a certificate of
public convenience (CPC) to operate and maintain
a waterworks system in Brgy. Tawang.
o R LTWD opposed TMPCs application
on the ground that Section 47 of PD
No. 198 grants it an exclusive franchise.
NWRB approved TMPCs application for a CPC,
ruling that LTWDs franchise cannot be exclusive
since exclusive franchises are unconstitutional.
The RTC reversed this, interpreting the
Constitutional prohibition of exclusivity as meaning
franchises which the state has no power to control
(i.e. state-granted exclusivity is acceptable where
the state can revoke such exclusivity)
the Constitution does not necessarily prohibit a
franchise that is exclusive on its face [as long as
the franchisee] cannot set up its exclusive franchise
against the State.

ISSUE: W/N the grant of franchise to R

LTWD is repugnant to the Constitution. Yes,
it is.
The President, Congress and the Court
cannot create directly or indirectly
franchises for the operation of a public
utility that are exclusive in character. The
1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions*
expressly and clearly prohibit the
creation of exclusive franchises.
o Verba legis Rule: Plain words do
not require explanation.
o When the law is clear, there is
nothing for the courts to do but
to apply it.
In case of conflict between the
Constitution and a statute, the
Constitution always prevails because the
Constitution is the basic law to which all
other laws must conform to.
Under the doctrine of constitutional
supremacy, since the Constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and supreme
law of the nation, it is deemed written in
every statute and contract, such that
statutes and contracts in contravention
thereof are null and void.

Doctrine of Constitutional
Supremacy
if a law or contract
violates any norm of the
constitution that law or
contract
whether
promulgated by the legislative
or by the executive branch or
entered into by private
persons for private purposes
is null and void and without
any force and effect.
*Section 8, Article XIII of the
1935 Constitution: No
franchise, certificate, or any
other form of authorization
for the operation of a public
utility shall be exclusive in
character or for a longer
period than fifty years.
NOTE: This provision is
substantially recreated in the
1973 & 1987 Constitutions

NATIONAL TERRITORY
8. Magallona
v. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of ISSUE: W/N R.A. 9522 is constitutional. Yes, it is.
Ermita
RA 9522, which was passed in RA 9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate the countrys maritime zones and continental
compliance with the new provisions laid
shelf under UNCLOS III; it does not to delineate Philippine territory.
out in UNCLOS III, on two grounds:
o UNCLOS III and RA 9522 have nothing to do with acquisition or loss of
o It reduces Philippine maritime
territory
territory and the reach of the
o It is a multilateral treaty regulating sea-use rights over maritime zones
Philippine states sovereign
o UNCLOS III is a codification of norms regulating the conduct of states in the
power.
worlds oceans and submarine areas
o Opens the countrys waters Baseline laws such as RA 9522 are merely statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III
landward of the baselines to
signatories to delimit the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves

THE PHILIPPINE STATE

9. Badillo v. Tayag

10. Reagan v. CIR

maritime passage by all vessels

and aircraft, under the right of
innocent passage.
Respondents aver that RA 9522 forms
the countrys compliance with
UNCLOS III; It therefore operates to:
o Secure our territorial interests
by placing them more firmly
under
the
bounds
of
international law.
o Preserve Philippine territory
over the KIG or Scarborough
Shoal

o Under customary intl law, territory can only be acquired or lost through
occupation, cession, or prescription not by executing multilateral treaties
OR enacting statutes to comply with them
The assertion of loss of any territory under RA 9522 is unfounded, as RA 9522, by
optimizing location of basepoints, increased the Philippines total maritime space
Whether referred to as internal waters or archipelagic waters, the Philippines
exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines including
airspace
o This does not preclude international law norms which require territorial seas
to allow for maintenance of unimpeded expeditions navigation (international
law principle of freedom of navigation)
The right of innocent passage is a customary international law and is automatically
incorporated in the body of Philippine law; no modern State can validly invoke sovereignty
to absolutely forbid innocent passage

A parcel of land, claimed to be owned by the petitioners, was part of the

Bagong Silang Resettlement Project (BSRP) of the NHA pursuant to
Proclamation No. 843
The NHA then developed and subdivided the land into smaller lots that
were allocated, awarded and distributed to qualified beneficiaries.
On petition of the plaintiffs, the MTC ordered the NHA to vacate the
disputed land and pay rentals therefor.
The MTC issued a writ of garnishment, but the NHA refused to recognize
or comply with this.
The RTC however reversed the MTC decision and annulled the writ.
Petitioners therefore filed a suit to have this decision overturned.
Petitioner William Reagan, an American
citizen, was assigned to provide
technical assistance to the US Air Force
in Clark Air Base, Philippines.
In April of 1960, Reagan imported a taxfree 1960 Cadillac car valued at
$6,443.83
Three months later, P sold the car to
PFC Willie Johnson, J.R., of the U.S.
Marine Corps for $6,600.
As a result of the sale, Respondent
Commissioner of Internal Revenue

ISSUE: W/N the failure of the NHA to pay the proper

fees in the MTC allows the staying of the motion for
execution. No, it is not.
In cases involving property, a supersedeas bond is
required to assure the payment of damages to the
winning party regardless of extraneous matters
(e.g. banktruptcy of the of the parties).
However, when the State litigates, it is not
required to put up a bond for damages or even an
appeal bond because it is presumed to be always
solvent.

ISSUE: W/N P is liable the pay Philippine

income tax though the sale took place in
foreign soil. Yes, he is.
The Philippines is independent and
sovereign over its entire domain
o Though it may intentionally
limit the scope of action it
exercises over a part of the
land, this in no way equates to a
diminution of its sovereignty
over that land.
CJ Marshall: "The jurisdiction of the
nation within its own territory is

Concept of Auto-limitation
A state is not precluded from allowing
another power to participate in the
exercise of [jurisdiction] over portions
of its territory [but] it by no means
follows that such areas become impressed
with alien character they are not and
cannot be foreign territory

11. ACCFA
CUGCO

v.

STATE IMMUNITY

assessed P for income tax worth

P2,979.
After paying the tax, he sought for a
refund from respondent claiming that
he was exempt.
He therefore filed a case with the Court
of Tax Appeals seeking to recover the
sum of P2,979 plus the legal rate of
interest.

Petitioner ACCFA was created by RA

821 to provide credit and financial aid
to agricultural enterprises.
Respondent Unions (ASA & ACA) are
organizations of supervisors & rankand-file employees of the organization.
For non-compliance with the CBA, R
Unions went on strike from Oct-Nov.,
1963.
o CIR ordered P to comply with
the CBA.
o P filed herein action for
certiorari, alleging that it was
not required to comply.
During the pendency of the suit, RA
3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code)
reorganized ACCFA into ACA.

necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is

susceptible of no limitation not imposed
by itself.
Nothing in the Military Bases
Agreement
provides
absolute
exemption to American citizens
working therein.
o The base has not become
foreign soil or territory. The
Philippines jurisdictional rights
therein, certainly not excluding
the power to tax, have been
preserved
o Therefore, he is exempted for
his income tax as being
employed by the United States
Air Force, but is not exempted
from income tax derived from
the sale of the automobile.
ISSUE: W/N R Unions allowed to strike &
negotiate for CBAs. No, they are not.
Under the new law, ACA is granted
substantial independence in the pursuit
of the state policy of land reform.
o This
is
a
necessarily
governmental (i.e. ministerial)
function of the state.
RA 875 (Industrial Peace Act) bars
strikes by employees of the government
or any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof.
Therefore, R. Unions are a.) not entitled
to strike, & b.) not entitled to conduct
CBA negotiations
o However, fringe benefits under
the (invalid) CBA were
awarded after being approved
by the President

Functions of Government (President W.

Wilson)
"Constituent" exercised by the State
as attributes of sovereignty; Relating
to:
o Maintenance of peace
o Regulating
property and
property rights,
o Administration of justice and
the determination of political
duties of citizens
o National defense and foreign
relations
Ministrant Functions whose
exercise is optional on the part of the
government.

12. Merritt v. Govt.

of the Philippine
Islands

13. Republic
v.
Sandiganbayan
(2 nd Division)

ISSUE: W/N the State has conceded liability Definition of Special Agent
for the injury done to E. Merritt. No, it has One who is duly empowered by a definite
not.
order or commission to perform some act
or charged with some definite purpose.
The basic rule is that state is not liable
for the torts committed by its officers
or agents except when expressly made
so by the legislature.
By consenting to be sued a state simply
waives its immunity from suit.
o It does not, however, concede
its liability to plaintiff. It merely
gives a remedy to enforce a
preexisting liability and submits
itself to the jurisdiction of the
court.
Act No. 2457 does not extend the
Govt liability to any cause.
Additionally, according to the 1903 Civil
Code the state is only liable for the acts
of its agents, officers, and employees
when they act as special agents and the
driver of the ambulance was not such
agent.
Private Respondent Roberto S. Benedicto was under investigation ISSUE: W/N PCGG liable to PR for the loss of the shares.
Yes, it is.
for ill-gotten wealth by Petitioner PCGG
o Pursuant to this, PCGG sequestered 227 shares of stock of As the sequestrator of the shares of stock, P PCGG is
NOGCCI belonging to PR.
responsible for their safekeeping & management
o Members of the PCGG, sitting as the board of NOGCCI,
o Additionally, the liabilities which caused the
assessed certain dues on all shares of stock.
abovementioned shares to go into default were
o These dues were not paid by PCGG, and therefore the
laid upon them by PCGG officers themselves
abovementioned shares were auctioned to cover the State immunity cannot lie where the state is the body
deficiency.
initiating the suit.
Later, PR & P entered into a compromise agreement to lift
o This initiation of a suit brought the state down
sequestration of the shares.
to the level of PR.
o Pursuant to this, R Sandiganbayan ordered P to deposit the
o Having brought such suit, the state cannot claim
shares or their value with the court.
immunity from the consequences thereof.
o P invoked state immunity from suit.
Merritt got into an accident when his
motorcycle collided with a Philippine
General Hospital Ambulance, resulting
in serious injury and eventually actual
physical handicap.
Following
this,
The
Philippine
Legislature enacted Act No. 2457,
authorizing E. Merritt to bring suit
against the Government of the
Philippine Islands
The government in enacting Act No.
2457 expressed its consent to be sued,
however it is not clear whether the
same act also enabled any new cause of
action in favor of Merritt.

14. Mobil Philippines

v.
Customs
Arrastre Service
& Bureau of
Customs

15. ATO v. Spouses

Ramos

16. DOH
v.
Philpharmawealth
(2007)

ISSUE: W/N the non-suability of the Arrastre The operation of receiving,

government extend to entities performing
conveying, and loading or unloading
non-governmental functions. Yes, when the
merchandise on piers or wharves.
same is a necessary incident of governmental Doctrine of Necessary Incident If
functions.
said nongovernmental function is
The collection of taxes, tariffs & duties
undertaken as an incident to its
is unquestionably governmental in
governmental function, there is no
character.
waiver thereby of the sovereign
o For practical reasons, revenues
immunity from suit extended to such
and customs duties cannot be
government entity.
assessed and collected simply
on the basis of the importers
declaration.
o Customs
authorities
and
officers must see to it that the
declaration tallies with the
merchandise actually landed,
which
requires
arrastre
operations.
Therefore, P must be regarded as being
immune from suit.
A portion of the land of Respondents ISSUE: W/N ATO is immune from the On Unincorporated Govt. Agencies:
Spouses Ramos was being used as part consequences of the RTC judgement. No, it
An unincorporated government
is not.
of the Loakan Airport runway
agency without any separate juridical
o For this reason Petitioner Air The management & maintenance of
personality of its own enjoys immunity
Transportation Office agreed
Loakan Airport is not the exclusive
from suit because it is invested with an
to pay them PhP 778, 150.00.
prerogative of the State in its sovereign
inherent power of sovereignty. (e.g.
o However, they failed to pay the
capacity.
Executive Departments)
same, for which reason R filed Immunity from suits is determined by
a collection suit, which was
the character of the objects for which
granted by the RTC, who
the entity was organized.
ordered P to pay R.
Additionally, the doctrine of sovereign
P averred that it was immune from suit,
immunity cannot be invoked to defeat a
as the sale of land was entered into in
valid claim for compensation arising
exercise of governmental functions.
from the taking of property without just
compensation or due process of law.
The Secretary of Health, Alberto Romualdez, Jr. issued AO 27 &10, s. 1998, ISSUE: W/N State Immunity applies to DOH
which outlined the guidelines on the accreditation of government suppliers of officials in this case. No, it does not.
pharmaceutical products, and ensuring that only qualified bidders can transact As a rule, unauthorized acts of government
business with petitioner DOH.
officials or officers are not acts of the State.
A portion of Petitioner Mobil
Exploration Philippines shipment was
never delivered to it.
o P filed against Respondent
Customs Arrastre Service in
the CFI to recover the value of
the undelivered items.
In Union v. BoC, the SC ruled that right
to render said arrastre services is
deemed by Congress to be proprietary
or nongovernmental function."

17. DOH
v.
Philpharmawealth
(2013)

18. Torio v. Heirs of

Fontanilla

Respondent Phil. Pharmawealth Inc. then submitted to DOH a request for the Hence, the rule does not apply where the
inclusion of additional items in its list of accredited drug products.
public official is charged in his official capacity
for acts that are unauthorized or unlawful
Prior to the release of the result of such request for accreditation, the DOH
and injurious to the rights of others.
issued an invitation for bids for suppliers.
o Despite the lack of response from the DOH regarding its accreditation, The court also stated that an officer who
respondent submitted its bid for the contract, where it submitted the
exceeds the power conferred on him by law
lowest bid.
cannot hide behind the plea of sovereign
o In spite of this, the contract was awarded to another company due to
immunity and must bear the liability
the non-accreditation of the respondents Penicillin G Benzathine
personally.
product.
Respondent then filed the instant complaint for mandamus to require the DOH
to award the contract to Phil. Pharmawealth.
The petitioners subsequently filed a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of
state immunity. Respondent, however, argued that the doctrine of state
immunity is not applicable when the petitioners are being sued both in their
official and personal capacities.
The DOH issued Memorandum 171-C which provided ISSUE: W/N the dismissal of the instant case is merited. Yes, it is.
for sanctions to be imposed on government suppliers of The DOH can validly invoke state immunity. The DOH is an
pharmaceutical products in case of adverse findings
unincorporated agency, which performs sovereign or governmental
regarding their products.
functions. It has not consented, either expressly or impliedly, to be
sued.
In line with this memo, the DOH gave notice to PPI
(among others) of a BFAD report finding that PPI Additionally, the doctrine of state immunity extends to complaints
products which were being sold to the public were unfit
filed against state officials for acts done in the discharge and
for human consumption.
performance of their duties.
o However, "public officials can be held personally accountable
For failure to submit its explanation as required, the
for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with
DOH suspended its accreditation for two years pursuant
official duties where they have acted ultra vires or where
to AO 10 and Memorandum 171-C.
there is showing of bad faith."
PPI filed before a complaint with the RTC to have its
order of suspension and Memorandum 171-C declared Logically, there can be no legal right as against the authority that
makes the law on which the right depends.
null and void for violating its right to substantive due

However, the doctrine only conveys, the state may not be sued
process.
without its consent; its clear import then is that the State may at
The trial court dismissed the case, declaring the case to
times be sued. The State consent may be given either expressly or
be one instituted against the State.
impliedly.
The Municipal Council of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, organized the building of a ISSUE: W/N the holding of a town fiesta is a
governmental function such as would exempt P from
stage for a sarsuela during the fiesta.
liability. No, it is not.
During the fiesta, the stage collapsed, killing Vicente Fontanilla.
o For this, his heirs filed suit against the municipal council, herein Sec. 2282 of the Revised Administrative Code
does not command the organization of fiestas,
petitioners, for damages.
but merely allows it.
o The CFI denied this, but the CA reversed, hence the instant petition.

19. Hagonoy
Dumdum, Jr.

v.

20. Lockheed Agency

v. UP

P aver that the holding of a fiesta is part of the function of the municipality
and that it is therefore exempt from suit on the basis of its dispensing
governmental functions.

Therefore, it is a mere proprietary function.

The municipality is liable, but the individual
councilors are not, as there is no evidence of
their actual involvement/negligence in the
building of the stage.
ISSUE:
W/N
Petitioner
can
be
made
liable for the contract entered into by Mayor
Respondent Emily Rose Go Ko Lim Chao
entered into an agreement with petitioner Ople with Emily Rose Go Ko Lim Chao. No, he may not.
municipality through Ople for the delivery of
motor vehicles for use by the municipality.
As a general rule, the state and its political subdivisions may not be sued without
their consent.
Despite having made several deliveries, Ople
o Consent is considered to be implied when the government enters
allegedly did not heed respondents claim for
into a business contract, as it then descends to the level of the other
payment.
contracting party; or it may be embodied in a general or special law
Respondent therefore filed a petition for
o
The Local Government Code of 1991 also local government units
collection of the amount, with interest at,
with the power to sue and be sued.
plus business damages, exemplary damages,
However, there is a difference between suability and liability. Where the
and attorneys fees.
suability of the state is conceded and by which liability is ascertained judicially,
o Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss
the state is at liberty to determine for itself whether to satisfy the judgment or
on the ground that the supposed
not.
contract was unenforceable under
o The State may limit claimants action only up to the completion of
the statute of frauds.
litigation anterior to execution based on obvious considerations of
They also averred that the supposed contract
public policy.
hardly smacks of the character of a
o Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the
transaction with the government, there being
corresponding appropriations as required by law.
no public bidding or allocations process.
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.
Lockheed was engaged with UP in a contract for security services, when ISSUE: W/N the money claim against UP can be made
several security guards assigned to UP filed complaints for payment of without resort to COA. No, it cannot.
underpaid wages.
The LA & NLRC held UP & Lockheed to be solidarily liable to complainants The court held that UP is a juridical personality
separate and distinct from the government and has
for their wage claims which the LA found meritorious.
the capacity to sue and be sued.
On the basis of UPs MR, the NLRC modified its judgement, stating that
the satisfaction of the judgment award will be only against the funds of UP Therefore, it cannot evade execution, and its funds
may be subject to garnishment or levy.
which are not identified as public funds.
UP filed a Motion to Quash Garnishment, contending that the funds being However, before execution may be had, a claim for
payment of the judgment award must first be filed
subjected to garnishment at the PNB are government/public funds.
with the COA.
Lockheed contends that because UP possesses its own charter, it is distinct
It is the COA which has primary jurisdiction to
from the state and thus, can be sued and be held liable.
examine, audit and settle all debts and claims of any

Lockheed moreover submits that UP cannot invoke state immunity to

justify and perpetrate an injustice.
UP contends that while it gave consent to suit, that suability does not
necessarily mean liability.
It asseverated that all money claims against the government must first be
filed with the Commission on Audit (COA).
21. Spouses Ortega Respondent City of Cebu engaged in an expropriation proceeding over
v. Cebu
land owned by the petitioners.
While the amount was pending litigation, the respondent provided the
court with an account number of the Philippine Postal Bank.
Upon the declaration of the amount due, the RTC issued a writ of
garnishment & execution upon the aforementioned account.
Respondents, baulking at the amount the land was valued at, filed an appeal on
the ground that the account number provided was for an account which did
not exist, and averred that the claim under law must be made with COA first.
22. Heirs of Rallos v.
Cebu

23. Holy See

Rosario

sort due from or owing the Government or any of

its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries.

ISSUE: W/N City of Cebus other bank accounts may

be subjected to garnishment. No, they may not.
The determination of just compensation in eminent
domain cases is a judicial function, and no legislative
or executive act can be controlling over a judicial
mandate.
However, as held in Makati v. CA, Courts have no
authority to garnish any other bank accounts by
reason of public policy.
Petitioners remedy, therefore, lies with the COA.
W/N judgement may in this case be levied against the City of Cebu.
No, it may not.
Based on considerations of public policy, no public funds
may be seized by writs of execution based on judgements
rendered in courts; Public funds may only be disbursed on
the basis of appropriation ordinances
o In this case, no appropriation ordinance was passed to
fulfill the claims of the Heirs
o In connection with this, filing of any money claims with
the COA is a sine qua non requirement for the
validation of those claims, as per Sec. 26 of P.D. No.
14452
In the case of U.P. v. Dizon, the SC held that COA
validation was necessary even in the face of a final and
executory decision of a court.

Two lots owned by the father of the Petitioner (P) were

expropriated by Public Respondent (PR);
P filed a complaint with the RTC for Forfeiture or the Payment
of Fair Market Value (FMV), plus damages.
o PR averred that subject lots were road lots, which are
not residential in character, and were occupied by it
w/o expropriation pursuant to Ord. No. 416 (1963)
RTC found for Heirs, awarding them the sum of PhP 34.9
million
o The RTC then issued a writ of execution in favor of
Heirs, additionally ordering for several Cebu banks to
provide sheriffs with lists of accounts held by them
belonging to PR.
The same order also ordered the Sangguniang Panlungsod
to draft an appropriation ordinance relative to the money
judgement.
v. A lot registered in the name of the Holy ISSUE: W/N the Holy See can invoke sovereign Acts of a State may be:
1. Jure imperii This refers to the
See was donated by the Archdiocese of immunity. Yes, it can.
public acts of a state.
Manila to the Papal Nuncio, which
represents the Holy See, who exercises The Court held that Holy See may properly 2. Jure gestionis This refers to acts
which are merely private in
sovereignty over the Vatican City,
invoke sovereign immunity for its noncharacter.
Rome, Italy, for his residence.
suability.
Respondents purchased the land International law recognizes the non-suability
through an agent, but when conflict
of diplomatic envoys, which is a generally

arose over the eviction of squatters on

the land, the Msgr. Cirilios, petitioners
representative, backed out of the
agreement and later sold the lot to a
third party.
Respondent then commenced a suit for
annulment of the sale.
The Holy See and Msgr. Cirilos moved
to dismiss the petition for lack of
jurisdiction based on sovereign
immunity from suit.

3. CNMEG
Santamaria

accepted principle which we adopt under the Article 31(A) of the 1961 Vienna
Constitution.
Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Because the Holy See is not an ordinary state, provide that diplomatic envoy shall be
its governmental functions (jure imperii) are granted immunity from civil and
administrative jurisdiction of the
substantially different than other states.

o Significantly, the Holy See receiving state over any real action
received the property for the site relating to private immovable
of its mission or the Apostolic property.

Nunciature in the Philippines.

This is necessarily an act jure imperii,
which renders the petitioner in this case
immune from suit.
v. Petitioner China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (CNMEG) ISSUE: W/N CNMEG is entitled to immunity from suit
entered into an MOU with Northrail for the conduct of a feasibility study before a local court.
on a possible railway line from Manila to San Fernando, La Union.
As enunciated in the case of Holy See v. Rosario,
o EXIM Bank of China and the DOF entered into an MOU
the Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory; It
wherein China agreed to extend credit to the Philippine
is therefore crucial to ascertain the legal nature of
government to finance the Project.
the act involved, because restrictive application of
State immunity is proper only when the
The Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines informed the Secretary of
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions
Finance of CNMEGs designation as the Contractor for the Northrail
of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities
Project.
or economic affairs.
o Northrail and CNMEG executed a Contract Agreement for
the construction of Phase I of the North Luzon Railway System While CNMEG is a state corporation owned and
o The DOF and EXIM Bank entered into a counterpart financial
operated by the Peoples Republic of China, it is
agreement.
clear that CNMEG entered into the contract in
view of its proprietary functions, rather than
The respondents filed a Complaint for Annulment of Contract against
governmental.
CNMEG, the Office of the Executive Secretary, and Northrail.
o Clearly, it was CNMEG that initiated
o Respondents alleged that the Contract Agreement and the
the undertaking, and not the Chinese
Loan Agreement were void for being contrary to:
government.
1. a) the Constitution;
o Letters from the Chinese ambassador
2. RA 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act)
make it clear that CNMEG, and not the
3. PD 1445 (Government Auditing Code)
Chinese government, initiated the
4. EO 292 (Admin Code)
Northrail Project.
CNMEG filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that RTC did not have the
o
Thus, the desire of CNMEG to secure
jurisdiction over (a) its person, as it was an agent of the Chinese government,
the Northrail Project was in the
making it immune from suit, and (b) the subject matter, as the Northrail
ordinary or regular course of its
Project was a product of an executive agreement.
business as a global construction
company.

4. Indonesia
Vinzon

v.

5. Liang v. People

Petitioner, Republic of Indonesia,

entered into a Maintenance Agreement
with respondent James Vinzon for a
consideration the maintenance of
equipment at the Embassy Main
Building, Embassy Annex Building and
the the official diplomatic residence.
Following the expiry of the old
agreement, a new minister assumed the
position of Chief of Administration,
who allegedly found respondents work
and services unsatisfactory and
therefore terminated the agreement.
Respondent claims that the aforesaid
termination was arbitrary and unlawful,
on the basis of his interactions with
members of the petitioners staff (albeit
not in relation to his obligations under
the agreement).
The RTC denied petitioners motion to
dismiss on the basis of the agreement
between the parties, which provides
that legal actions arising therefrom
[would] be settled according to the
laws of the Philippines and by the
proper court of Makati City,
Philippines.
The CA denied petitioners appeal,
hence the instant petition.
Petitioner Jeffrey Liang, an economist
who works for the Asian Development
Bank (ADB), allegedly defamed his coworker Joyce Cabal, for which he was
charged in the MTC with two counts of
Grave Oral Defamation.
The next day, the MTC received an
office of protocol from the DFA,
stating that, under Sec. 45 (a) of the
Agreement1 between the ADB and

The Petitioner is NOT immune from suit.

W/N Petitioners enjoy immunity from suit. Yes, they do. Par in parem non habet imperium:
International law is founded largely upon the Equals do not have authority
principles of reciprocity, comity, independence, and over one another.
equality of States.
o The rule that a State may not be sued Theory of Sovereign Immunity
2. Restrictive Theory
without its consent is a necessary
States are immune in
consequence of the principles of
their actions jure imperii,
independence and equality of States.
but not in regards
o In the case of foreign States, the rule is
actions jure gestionis.
derived from the principle of the
3. Absolute Theory
sovereign equality of States, as
States are absolutely
expressed in the maxim par in parem
immune in their actions.
non habet imperium.
The Philippines adopts a restrictive theory of
sovereign immunity, in response to the increasing
interrelations of sovereign states with private
enterprise.
o Therefore, the mere entering into a
contract by a foreign State with a
private party cannot be construed as
the ultimate test of whether or not it is
an act jure imperii or jure gestionis.
The Maintenance Agreement was entered into by
the Republic of Indonesia in the discharge of its
governmental functions.
1. Regardless of contractual stipulations which
seem to imply otherwise, it cannot be deemed
to have waived its immunity from suit.
ISSUE: W/N P enjoys immunity from
charges of defamation, in connection with
the Agreement. No, he does not.
First, DFA certification of immunity is
preliminary and not controlling.
Dismissal of the initial case without
notice to the prosecution is in violation
of the prosecutions right to due
process of law.

Art. 31 (c) of the Vienna Convention on

Diplomatic Relations
Actions relating to any professional
activity exercised by the diplomatic agent
outside his official functions are not
covered by immunity.

the Philippines, P had immunity from Additionally, immunity under Sec. 45 (a)
suit.
of the Agreement qualifies immunity
For this reason, the MTC judge
with the clause in their official
dismissed the charge without notice to
capacity.
the prosecution
Slandering a person is not an act
The Prosecution then filed a petition
covered in immunity, because the
for mandamus and certiorari with the
commission of a crime cannot be
RTC, who overturned the MTC ruling
considered and official duty.
and ordered the arrest of P
Ps Motion for Reconsideration was
denied, for which reason P elevated the
case to the Supreme Court.
6. Arigo v. Swift
The USS Guardian of the US Navy ran ISSUE: W/N the US Government has given its consent to be sued & held liable for
aground on an area near the Tubbataha Reefs, the aforementioned damage through the VFA.
a marine habitat of which entry and certain Any waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
human activities are prevented and afforded
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as for the issuance of the writ of
protection by RA 10067.
kalikasan.
Petitioners to seek for issuance of Writ of Since the respondents are being sued in their official capacity as officers of the
Kalikasan from the SC.
US Navy, remedial actions would require the appropriation of funds by the US
government and therefore the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself.
Among those impleaded are US officials in
their capacity as commanding officers of the In this case, by entering into a restricted area in contravention of the law
US Navy.
establishing the TRNP as a national park, the US Navy ship violated the right of
innocent passage under UNCLOS.
Petitioners claimed that the grounding,
salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the Although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of longUSS Guardian violated their constitutional
standing policy, the US considers itself bound by customary international rules
rights to a balanced and healthful ecology
on the traditional uses of the oceans, which is codified in UNCLOS.
since these events caused and continue to Hence, non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will
cause environmental damage of such
disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters
magnitude as to affect other provinces
and territorial sea. It is thus expected of the US to bear international
surrounding the Tubbataha Reefs.
responsibility under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian grounding
which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs.
PRINCIPLES & STATE POLICIES
7. Naval
v. Angel Naval served as a member of the ISSUE: W/N a provincial board member's Sec. 8 Art. 10 of the 1987 Constitution:
COMELEC
Sangguniang Bayan of the 2nd district of election for the 4 th time in a renamed "the term of office of local elective
Camarines Sur from 2004-2007 and district constitutes a violation of the three- officials shall be three years and no such
term limit rule. Yes, it does.
official shall serve for more than three
2007-2010.
On Oct 12, 2009, RA 9716 went into The 3 rd district was merely renamed and consecutive terms..."
consists of municipalities from the
effect, reapportioning the legislative
former 2nd district whom Naval had One term gap or rest after three
districts in Camarines Sur
consecutive terms is a compromise

8. Maquera v. Borra

9. Manalo v. Sistoza

o This law created a new 2 nd

district and renamed the other
four districts.
In 2010 he won as SB member of 3 rd
district and was re-elected in 2013.
He again seeks to run for the same
position contending that he has only
served the 3rd district twice.
Julia filed a petition with the COMELEC
to assail his candidacy
RA 4421 requires a candidate to post a
surety bond equivalent to one-year
salary of position to which he is a
candidate,
Under the law, this bond shall be
forfeited in favor of government if the
candidate fails to obtain at least 10% of
the votes cast for the office, there being
no more than four candidates for the
office.
The law is intended to curb the practice
of nuisance candidates.

already served as SB member for two

terms.
Sustaining petitioners arguments would
practically allow him to hold the same
office for 15 years.
The Constitution mandates the strict
implementation of the three-term limit
rule.

among members of the Constitutional

Committee.
Framers recognized the propensity of
public
officers
to
perpetuate
themselves while in power
o Hence the adoption of
provisions on term limits and a
guarantee of every citizens
equal access to public service.

ISSUE: WON RA 4421 is unconstitutional as Bengzon, concurring: Among the political

it provides for property requirements for rights of a Filipino is the right to vote and
candidates to public offices. Yes, it is.
be voted for public office. RA 4421
Imposition of property qualifications is provides a barrier that would stop suitable
inconsistent with the nature and men and women from presenting
essence of the republican system themselves as prospective candidates. In
ordained in the Constitution and the fact it enables rich candidates, whether
principle of social justice underlying the nuisance or not to present themselves for
election.
same.
RA 4421 is unconstitutional as it
provides for property qualifications
which is not among the requirements
set by the Constitution for candidates
to public offices.
Petitioner Jesulito Manola questions the legality of ISSUE: W?N the aforementioned appointments require CA concurrence. No,
Pres. Aquinos appointments of Respondent PNP they do not.
officers w/o confirmation of the Commission on Under Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, the president has the
Appointments
power to make four kinds of appointments:
o Heads of Executive Depts., Ambassadors, Public Ministers &
He contends that Secs. 26 & 31 of RA 6975 require
Consuls, Officers of the AFP, with the concurrence of CA.
the confirmation of the CA for appointments for the
o All other officers whose appointment is not provided for by law.
Chief of the PNP to the rank of the chief
o All those whose appointment is vested in the President by law.
superintendent.
o All those whose appointment is vested in the President by
o He also contends that the constitution
Congress.
requires consent of CA for appointments to
the AFP, and that the PNP, being akin to the It is clear therefore that only presidential appointments belonging to the
AFP, requires similar concurrence.
first group require the confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments
o Secs. 26 & 31 of RA 6975 are therefore unconstitutional.
Section 6 of Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that
the PNP is separate and distinct from the AFP, and is civilian in character.

10. Garcia
Executive
Secretary

v.

11. DBM v. Manilas

Finest

Sec. 2 of RA 6975 also provides that No element of the police force shall
be military
Petitioner was issued a Restriction to Quarters ISSUE: W/N the Office of the President acted with NOTE: The power
a
(civilian)
under guard pending investigation of his case. He grave abuse of discretion in confirming the sentence of of
president
to
was charged for failure to disclose all his existing the petitioner. No, it did not.
assets in his SALN and for acquiring the status of The power of the President to approve or confirm, mitigate,
remit
a
an immigrant/ permanent resident of the US while
disapprove the entire or any part of the sentence and
in active military service.
given by the court martial is provided in Art. 48 of sentence of erring
military personnel is
the Articles of War.
He was found guilty by the General Court Martial
and sentenced him to two years imprisonment and The Articles of War is silent however as to the a clear recognition
dishonorable discharge from military service.
deduction of the period of preventive confinement of the superiority of
authority
to the penalty imposed. As the General Court civilian
After 6 years and 2 months of preventive
Martial is a court within the strictest sense of the over the military
confinement petitioner was released from Camp
word and acts as a criminal court, certain
Crame.
provisions of the RPC insofar as those which are
The Office of the President then confirmed the
not provided in the Articles of War can be
sentence imposed and provided that the sentence
supplementary.
shall not be mitigated by any previous confinement.

Petition is dismissed but Art. 29 of the RPC applies,

Petitioner was therefore arrested and detained he
the time within which the petitioner was under
filed a petition with the SC seeking to annul and set
preventive confinement should be credited to the
aside the confirmation of sentence promulgated by
sentence confirmed by the President
the Office of the President.
ISSUE:
W/N
the
INP retirees are entitled to The rationale behind the passage of RA
In 1975, P.D. 765 was issued
constituting the Integrated National the same retirement benefits as PNP 6975 was to restore and underscore the
civilian character of police work which was
Police (INP) to be composed of the retirees. Yes, they are.
Philippine Constabulary (PC) as the Contrary to the position of the muddled in the martial law years.
nucleus and the various integrated
petitioners, the INP was never, as
police forces as component thereof.
posited by petitioners, abolished or
terminated out of existence by RA
In 1990, RA 6975 known as the PNP
6975. The INP was absorbed by the
Law was enacted, Sec. 23 of said law
PNP.
provides that the PNP would initially
consist of the members of the INP as INP retirees are therefore entitled to
well as officers and personnel of the PC.
the same retirement benefits as PNP
retirees. Sec. 38 of said law provides for
RA 6975 was amended by RA 8551
its retroactivity in
which reengineered the retirement
scheme in the police organization.
favor of PNP members and officers
retired or separated from the time
INP retirees recognized the disparity in
specified in the law.
the retirement benefits between them
and PNP retirees hence they filed a
petition for declaratory relief, alleging

12. Carpio
Executive
Secretary

v.

13. Villavicencio
Lukban

v.

that they were entitled to the same

retirement benefits as PNP retirees.
Petitioner assails the constitutionality of
RA 6975: An Act Establishing the
Philippine National Police Under a
Reorganized Department of the
Interior and Local Government, and for
Other Purposes
Petitioner avers that this is
unconstitutional as it limits the power
of the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) to
administrative
control over the PNP, which is
provided for in the Constitution.

ISSUE: WON RA 6975 which restructures Doctrine of qualified political agency

the PNP under the DILG detracts the The President cannot be expected to
mandate of the Constitution that the PNP
exercise his control powers all at the
shall be controlled by the NAPOLCOM. No,
same time and in person, he will have
it does not.
to delegate some of them to his
The President has control over all
Cabinet members.
executive departments, bureaus, and Under this doctrine, all executive and
offices. The circumstance that the
administrative
organizations
are
NAPOLCOM and the PNP are placed
adjuncts
of
the
Executive
under the DILG is merely an
Department, the heads of various
administrative realignment that would
executive departments are assistants
bolster coordination between said
and agents of the Chief Executive, and
offices and LGUs.
except in cases where the Chief
The police force is not being integrated
Executive is required by law to act in
with the military and is not part of the
person, the administrative functions
AFP.
are performed by and through the
executive departments, and the acts of
Sec. 12 of RA 6975 enforces the
the secretaries of such departments
proposition that the national police
performed in the regular course of
force does not fall under the
business, unless disapproved by the
Commander-in-Chief powers of the
Chief Executive, are acts of the Chief
President. As a civilian agency, it
Executive.
properly comes within the exercise by
the President of the power of executive
control.
Petition is therefore dismissed for lack
of merit
Lukban, the mayor of the city of Manila ordered the ISSUE: WON the City Mayor had the authority to order the deportation
segregated district for women of ill repute. City of the women to Davao. No, he did not.
authorities then arranged for them to be brought to We are a government of laws and not of men. There is no law which
Davao as laborers.
provides the mayor with the authority to force said women to
change their domicile from Manila to Davao against their will.
170 women were received as laborers by Francisco Sales,
and by Feliciano Yigo and Rafael Castillo, who had no Despite their being in a sense lepers of society they are Philippine
information that the women were prostitutes who had
citizens protected by the same constitutional guaranties as other
been expelled from the city of Manila.
citizens. His intentions to suppress the social evil was commendable
however his methods were unlawful.
Relatives of the women filed a petition for habeas corpus
with the SC.
Lukban was found to be in contempt of court for not immediately
bringing the women back to Manila.

14. PHAP v. Duque

III

15. Tanada v. Angara

Petitioner as representative for

manufacturers of breastmilk
substitutes seek to nullify A.O.
2006-0012 entitled Revised Rules
and Regulations of E.O. 51
Otherwise Known as the Milk
Code, Relevant International
Agreements, Penalizing Violations
Thereof and Other Purposes
(RIRR) issued by the DOH.
The Milk Code was issued by
Pres. Aquino on Oct 28, 1986 to
give effect to the International
Code of Marketing of Breastmilk
Substitutes (ICMBS), a code
adopted by the World Health
Assembly (WHA) in 1981.
Petitioners posit that the RIRR is
not valid as it contains provisions
that are not constitutional and
goes beyond the law it is
supposed to implement.
DOH argues on the other hand
that the RIRR implements not
only the Milk Code but also
various international instruments.
They
contend
that
said
international instruments are
deemed part of the law of the land
and
therefore
they
may
implement them with the RIRR.

ISSUE: WON the provisions of the

WHA Resolutions can be validly
implemented by the DOH through
the RIRR. No, it cannot.
WHA Resolutions only constitute
soft laws, which is a term for nonbinding norms, principles, and
practices that influence state
behavior, as opposed to hard laws
which are binding rules of
international law.
Respondents failed to establish
that the provisions of WHA
Resolutions
are
customary
international law which may be
deemed part of the law of the
land.
Legislation is needed to transform
the WHA Resolutions as part of
the law of the land which can be
implemented by executive
agencies.
Thus only the provisions of the
IRR in consonance with the Milk
Code (but not those of
subsequent WHA Resolutions)
can be validly implemented by the
DOH through the RIRR.
Secs. 4(f), 11, and 46 of A.O.
2006-0012 (RIRR) are declared
null and void for being ultra vires.

PH joined the WTO with the goal of

improving access to foreign markets
through the reduction of tariffs on its
exports particularly agricultural and
industrial products.
Petitioner argues that the WTO
agreement violates the mandate of the
1987 Constitution to "develop a self-

Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can

become part of the sphere of domestic law either
by transformation or incorporation.
o Transformation requires that an
international law be transformed into a
domestic law through a constitutional
mechanism such as local legislation.
o Incorporation applies when by mere
constitutional declaration, international
law is deemed to have the force of
domestic law.
Sec. 2 Art. 2 of the 1987 Constitution embodies
the
incorporation
method:
"The
Philippines...adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of
the land..."
Fr. Bernas defines customary international law as
"a general and consistent practice of states
followed by them from a sense of legal obligation
(opinio juris).
The statement contains the two basic elements of
custom:
1. Material Factor: How states behave, which
includes several elements such as duration,
consistency, and generality of the practice
of states.
2. 2) Psychological or Subjective factor: Why
states behave the way they do. Opinio
juris, or the belief that a certain form of
behavior is obligatory is what makes a
practice an international rule. Without it,
practice is not a law
ISSUE: W/N the WTO agreement violates The Senate after deliberation gave its
Constitution
mandating
economic
consent to the WTO thereby making it
nationalism as provided in Sec. 19 Art. 2 and
"a part of the law of the land" is a
Secs. 10 & 12 Art. 12 all of the 1987
legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty
Constitution. No, it does not.
and power.
Art. 2 and some articles of Art. 12 are While sovereignty has traditionally
not self- executing provisions; i.e. they
been deemed absolute on the domestic
do
not
embody
enforceable
level, it is however subject to

reliant and independent national

economy effectively controlled by
Filipinos"

16. Taruc v. de la
Cruz

17. Calalang
Williams

v.

constitutional rights but guidelines for

legislation.
The Constitution does not intend the
state to pursue an isolationist policy. It
did not shut out foreign investments,
goods, and services in the development
of the Philippine economy. While the
Constitution does not encourage the
unlimited entry of foreign goods, it does
not prohibit them either. In fact, it
allows an exchange on the basis of
equality and reciprocity, frowning only
on foreign competition that is unfair.
Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
Petitioners were lay members of the ISSUE: WON the courts have jurisdiction to
Philippine Independent Church (PIC) hear cases involving the excommunication
while the respondents were the bishop of members of a religious institution. No, it
does not.
and parish priest of said church.
Fr. Florano's wife belonged to a political In our jurisdiction, we hold the Church
and the State to be separate and distinct
party opposed by Taruc's thus the
from one another.
animosity between the two.
Hostility worsened when Taruc In a form of government where the
complete separation of civil and
organized an open mass to be
ecclesiastical authority
celebrated by a different priest, Fr.
Ambong during the town fiesta.
is insisted upon, the civil courts must
not allow themselves to intrude unduly
Thus
Bishop
Dela
Cruz
in matters of an ecclesiastical nature.
excommunicated petitioners from PIC.

In Fonacier v CA it was held that in

Petitioners filed a complaint for
disputes involving religious institutions
damages contending that their
there is one area which the Court
expulsion was illegal because it was
should not touch doctrinal and
done without trial and thus violates
disciplinary differences.
their right to due process.
Petition denied for lack of merit.
Commonwealth Act 548 was ISSUE: WON Commonwealth Act 548 which
passed by the National Assembly prohibits animal-drawn vehicles to pass through
in the exercise of police power of certain streets is constitutional. Yes, it is.
the state. It aims to promote safe Public welfare lies at the bottom of enactment
transit
upon
and
avoid
of the said law, the state in order to promote
obstructions on national roads, in
the general welfare may interfere with

restrictions and limitations voluntarily

agreed to by the Philippines as a
member of the family of nations.
The Constitution did not envision a
hermit-type isolation from the rest of
the world.

Sec. 6 Art. 2 of the 1987

CONSTITUTION
The separation of the Church and State
shall be inviolable.
Sec. 5 Art. 3 of the 1987
CONSTITUTION
No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. The free exercise
and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No
religious tests shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.

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 sense, may at least
be approximated. Social justice means the

18. Oposa
Factoran

v.

19. Imbong v. Ochoa

the interest and convenience of

the public.
Petitioner
assails
the
constitutionality
of
Commonwealth Act 548 which
prohibits animal-drawn vehicles
to pass and pick up passengers in
certain places to the detriment
not only of their owners but to
the riding public as well.

promotion of the welfare of all the people,

the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic
stability of all the competent elements of
society, through the maintenance of a
proper economic and social equilibrium in
the interrelations of the members of the
community, constitutionally, through the
adoption of measures legally justifiable, or
extra-constitutionally, through the exercise
of powers underlying the existence of all
governments on the time-honored
principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
The right to a balanced and healthful
ecology (Sec. 16 Art. 2 of the 1987
Constitution), was for the first time
incorporated in the fundamental law.
The said right carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.

ISSUE: WON petitioners have locus standi to

file the case for future generations. Yes, they
do.
Petitioners' personality to sue in behalf
of the succeeding generations can only
be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar
as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned.
The minors' assertion of their right to a
sound environment constitutes the
performance of their obligation to
ensure the protection of that right for
the generations yet to come.
Petition is granted.
ISSUE: WON the RH Law is unconstitutional for violating the
constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. No, it is not.
The constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two
guarantees:
1. The Establishment Clause which prohibits the state
from sponsoring any religion or favoring any religion
against other groups,
2. The Free Exercise Clause which prohibits the state
from unduly interfering with the outside manifestations
of one's belief and faith.

Minors represented by their parents

instituted the complaint alleging that all
citizens are entitled to the full benefit,
use and enjoyment of the country's
virgin tropical rainforests.
They asseverate that they represent
their generation as well as generations
yet unborn and pray that timber
licenses be cancelled and for the DENR
to cease and desist from receiving
applications for new timber license
agreements.

RA 10354 the Responsible

Parenthood
and
Reproductive Health Act of
2012 (RH Law) was enacted
by Congress on Dec. 21,
2012.
14 petitions and 2 petitionsin-intervention
were
submitted to the SC to
assail the constitutionality
of said law.

personal liberty, with property and with

business and occupations.
Persons and property may be subjected to all
kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to
secure the general comfort, health, and
prosperity of the state.
To this fundamental aim of the government
the rights of an individual are subordinated.
Petition denied.

Sec. 5 Art. III of the 1987

Constitution
(1. Establishment Clause) No
law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.
(2. Free Exercise Clause) The
free exercise and enjoyment of
religious
profession
and
worship, without discrimination

As the establishment clause limits what government can do

with religion, it also limits what the religious sects can or
cannot do with
the government. Petitioners are misguided in their supposition
that the government cannot enhance its population control
program through the RH Law simply because the use of
contraception is against their religious beliefs.
The duty to refer imposed by the RH Law violates the religious
belief of the medical practitioner as he is immediately burdened
to perform an act against his belief. The same holds true for
hospitals operated by religious groups and healthcare
providers. However, while generally healthcare service
providers cannot be forced to render reproductive healthcare
procedures if doing so would contravene their religious beliefs,
an exception must be made in life-threatening cases that
require the performance of emergency procedures.
The court declared RA 10354 as constitutional except with
respect to certain provisions declared to be unconstitutional.
20. MMDA
v. Initially, respondents filed a complaint ISSUE: WON petitioners may be directed by the court
Concerned
against petitioners for the cleanup, to clean up Manila Bay. Yes, they may.
Citizens of Manila rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila The MMDA's duty to put up an adequate and
Bay
Bay alleging that the water quality of Manila
appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and
Bay had fallen far below the allowable
liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage
standards set by P.D. 1152 or the Philippine
disposal system is ministerial, its duty being a
Environment Code.
statutory imposition and thus cannot be
Petitioners argued that provisions of P.D.
characterized as discretionary.
1152 relate only to cleaning of specific P.D. 1152 requires them to take such measures as
pollution incidents and not to cleaning in
may be necessary to meet the prescribed water
general, and that the cleaning of Manila Bay
quality standards.
is not a ministerial act which can be Even assuming the absence of a categorical
compelled
provision specifically mandating petitioners to clean
by a mandamus.
up the bay, they and the men and women
representing them cannot escape their obligation to
future generations of Filipino to keep the waters of
Manila Bay as clean and clear as humanly possible.
21. Espina v. Zamora, Petitioners assail the constitutionality of ISSUE: WON Secs. 9, 19 & 20 of Art. 2 of
Jr.
the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of the 1987 Constitution are self-executing.
2000 (RA 8762) which is said to be in No, they are not.
breach of the constitutional mandate Said provisions are not self-executing
for development of a self-reliant and
policies and legislative failure to pursue

or preference, shall forever be

allowed.
No religious tests shall be
required for the exercise of civil
or political rights.

In Oposa v Factoran the court

stated that the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology
need not even be written in the
Constitution for it is assumed,
like other civil and political
rights
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,
to exist from the inception of
mankind and it is an issue of
transcendental importance with
intergenerational implications.

22. Pamatong
COMELEC

v.

independent
national
economy
effectively controlled by Filipinos. (Sec.
19 Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

RA 8762 expressly repealed RA 1180

which absolutely prohibited foreign
nationals from engaging in the retail
trade business in the country.
Respondents argue that the provisions
of the Constitution invoked by
petitioners are not self-executing thus
they are not judicially demandable.

Petitioner filed his COC for President

and respondent refused to give due
course to his COC.
He then moved for reconsideration
however respondent declared him and
other 35 candidates as nuisance
candidates who could not wage a
nationwide campaign.
Petitioner filed a writ of certiorari
seeking to reverse the resolutions
which were allegedly in violation of his
right to "equal access to opportunities
for public service" under Sec. 26 Art. 2
of the Constitution.

SEPARATION OF POWERS
23. Endencia v. David

such cannot give rise to a cause of

action in the courts.
Sec. 19 Art. II does not impose a policy
of Filipino monopoly of the economic
environment.
RA 8762 has provided strict standards
and safeguards in foreign participation in
the retail business.
While the Constitution mandates a bias
in favor of Filipino goods, services,
labor, and enterprises, it also recognizes
the need for business exchange with the
rest of the world, it does not rule out
the entry of foreign investments, goods,
and services but it does not encourage
their unlimited entry into the country.
ISSUE: WON the equal access provision in Sec. 26 Art.
2 of the Constitution is self-executing. No, it does not.
Provisions under Art. 2 are generally considered
not self-executing including the equal access
provision invoked by petitioner. Thus, they do not
contain any judicially enforceable constitutional
right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative
or executive action.
There is no constitutional right to run for or hold a
public office and particularly to seek the presidency.
What is recognized is merely a subject to
limitations imposed by law.
Owing to the superior interest in ensuring a
credible and orderly election, the state could
exclude nuisance candidates. The determination of
bona fide candidates is governed by statutes, and
the concept is satisfactorily embodied in the
Omnibus Election Code.
Case was remanded to the COMELEC to
determine whether petitioner is a nuisance
candidate as contemplated in Sec. 69 of the
Omnibus Election Code.

Sec. 26 Art. 2 of the 1987

Constitution
The State shall guarantee equal
access to opportunities for
public service, and prohibit
political dynasties as may be
defined by law.

24. Abakada Guro v.

Purisima
25. Senate
Blue
Ribbon
v.
Majaducon
26. In Re: Exemption
from Court Fees
of Cooperatives
27. Ople v. Torres
28. KMU v. NEDA
Director-General
29. Silverio
v.
Republic
30. In Re: Judge
Rodolfo
U.
Manzano
31. Osmena, Jr. v.
Pendatun
32. Mendoza
v.
People
33. Corpuz v. People
CHECKS & BALANCES
34. Angara
v.
Electoral
Commission

Angara's election to the National

Assembly was confirmed in Dec. 3,
1935. The National Assembly passed a
resolution stating that no further
protests regarding the election shall be
entertained.
On Dec. 8, Pedro Ynsua filed a Motion
of Protest against Angara with the
Electoral Commission.
Dec. 9: The Electoral Commission
announced that it would be the last day
for the filing of protests.
Angara then filed a Motion to Dismiss
the protest alleging that it was filed
beyond the timeline set for protests by
the National Assembly.
Electoral Commission took cognizance
of the

ISSUE: WON the confirmation of the

National Assembly of any member deprives
the Electoral Commission of its incidental
power to prescribe the time within which
protests against the election of any member
should be filed. Yes, it does.
The Electoral Commission is the sole
judge of all contests relating to the
election, return, and qualifications of
members of the National Assembly.
The present (i.e. 1935) Constitution has
transformed all powers previously
exercised by legislature with respect to
contests relating to elections.
Such transfer was full, clear, and
complete and carried with it the implied
power to prescribe the rules and

Concept of Check and Balance:

The purpose in creating the Electoral
Commission was to have an independent
constitutional organ pass upon all contests
relating to elections, returns, and
qualifications of the National Assembly,
devoid of partisan influence and
consideration, which would be frustrated if
the National Assembly were to retain the
power to prescribe rules and regulations
regarding the manner of conducting said
protests.

35. Gonzales III v.

Office of the
President

36. SB
of
Don
Mariano Marcos
v. Martinez

protest and thus Angara filed a motion

for prohibition with the SC.

This is a consolidated case regarding the

removal from office of Deputy
Ombudsman Gonzales III and Special
Prosecutor Sulit.
The two were under investigation for
supposed gross negligence and grave
misconduct in the investigation as to
allegations of robbery, grave threat,
robbery extortion and physical injury
made against Senior Inspector Rolando
Mendoza.
Ostensibly as a result of their
misconduct, SI Mendoza took a
tourist bus in Rizal Park hostage, and
the resulting stand-off and gun battle
left 9 dead and 9 injured.
As a result, President Aquino
constituted an Investigation and Review
Committee, whose findings led to
petitioners dismissal.
Martinez filed a case with the court to
assail the Sangguniang Bayan's decision
to remove him as Punong Barangay of
Brgy. Don Mariano Marcos.
This was as a result of charges of
misappropriation of funds for Martinez
failure to properly report expenses and
revenues from activities under his
purview.

regulations as to the time and filing of

protests.
Electoral Commission was acting within
the legitimate
exercise of its
constitutional prerogative in assuming
to take cognizance of the protest filed
by Ynsua, resolution by the National
Assembly cannot toll the time for filing
protests.
ISSUE: WON RA 6770 is unconstitutional
insofar as it grants disciplinary jurisdiction to
the President over a Deputy Ombudsman
and a Special Prosecutor. Yes, it is.
Deputy Ombudsman: RA 6770 is
unconstitutional for granting disciplinary
powers to the President over a Deputy
Ombudsman, in violation of the
independence of the Office of the
Ombudsman.
Special Prosecutor: However the court
did not consider the Office of the
Special Prosector to be within the
Office of the Ombudsman and thus is
not entitled to the independence the
latter enjoys under the Constitution

Office of the Ombudsman was created to

serve as a check and balance to the
executive department. Subjecting the
Deputy Ombudsman to discipline and
removal by the President whose own alter
egos and officials in the executive
department are
subject to
the
Ombudsman's disciplinary authority risks
the independence of the Office of the
Ombudsman itself.

ISSUE: WON the Sangguniang Bayan may

remove an elective local official from office.
No, it may not.
Sec. 60 of the LGC conferred upon the
courts the power to remove elective
officials from office.
LGUs may impose penalties or suspend
to erring officials however it may not go
beyond mere suspension.

The rule which confers to the proper

courts the power to remove an
elective official from office is intended
as a check against any capriciousness or
partisan activity by the disciplinary
authority.
This is because courts are expected to
be non-partisan, and are subject to
review by higher courts in cases of
grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.

37. Aguilar v. DOJ

Tetet Aguilar was arrested on charges of extortion ISSUE: WON the judiciary can reexamine a public prosecutor's determination
and on suspicion of being a member of the CPP- of probable cause which is an executive function. Yes, it can.
NPA; He was later killed by respondent military Determination of probable cause by public prosecutor is essentially an
personnel, who alleged that he had attempted to
executive function; however, the judiciary, through a special civil action of
take a grenade from one of them.
certiorari, may determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
His father filed a case alleging that he was
branch or instrumentality of the government.
deliberately murdered despite his peaceful
surrender.
Dangupon admitted that he shot Tetet; Fortuno and Abordo were with
Dangupon during the time Tetet was killed thus an existence of probable
The DOJ acquitted the military personnel present
cause on the part of the 3 officials.
during Tetet's arrest stating their actions were
merely in self-defense and in performance of their The rule is that where a killing is admitted, the burden of proof of
duty.
justification for such a killing shifts to the one who has admitted it.
DELEGATION OF POWERS
38. Araneta
v. These are consolidated cases assailing ISSUE: WON executive orders of the President issued in virtue of Commonwealth Act
Dinglasan
the validity of executive orders issued No. 671 are valid. No, they are not valid.
CA 671 was issued specifically by reason of a total emergency, for which reason
by the President in virtue of
Commonwealth Act 671 (An Act
Congress could no longer regularly meet and pass laws, which made it necessary
Declaring Total Emergency as a Result
to confer upon the president the power to pass laws.
of War Involving the Philippines and
CA 671 therefore must be considered as inoperative from the time when Congress
Authorizing
the
President
to
met in regular session on May 25, 1946
Promulgate Rules and Regulations to
It must be therefore that EOs 62, 192, 225, and 226 were issued without authority
Meet Such Emergency.)
of law.
These petitions aver that as the total
The National Assembly restricted the life of the emergency powers of the
emergency (i.e. the Japanese invasion
President to the time the legislative was prevented from holding sessions due to
& occupation) has since ceased, the law
enemy action or other causes brought by war.
granting the President such emergency
Congress delegated its power by simple majority; any law repealing it would have
powers is necessarily inoperative.
to go through the regular process, which would involve the presidential veto which
may only be overcome by a two-thirds vote of Congress
The scenario that Congress it might not be able to regain its powers except by a
two-third vote is not in harmony with the Constitution.
39. Rodriguez
v. Rodriguez seek to invalidate EOs 545 ISSUE: WON EO 545 and 546 are valid. No, If the President had ceased to have powers
Gella
with regards to general appropriations
and 546 issued in 1952 pursuant to CA they are not.
671.
As held in Araneta v Dinglasan, none can remain in respect of special
o EO 545: appropriating 37M for
executive orders issued in pursuant to appropriations: otherwise he may
urgent and essential public
CA 671 are to be considered ineffective. accomplish indirectly what he cannot do
works
The President did not invoke any actual directly.
o EO 546: appropriating 11M for
emergencies emanating from the
relief in provinces and cities
Second World War for which CA 671
ravaged by calamities
was intended.

40. Pelaez v. Auditor

General

41. Gerochi v. DOE

HB 727 intending to revoke CA 671

was vetoed by the President due to
Korean war and his perception that war
subsists.
CA 671 was already declared
inoperative by SC in Araneta v
Dinglasan.
In 1964, Pres. Marcos issued EOs
creating 33 municipalities purportedly
pursuant to Sec. 68 of the Revised
Administrative Code
Then-VP Pelaez filed a special civil
action to prohibit the auditor general
from disbursing funds to be
appropriated for said municipalities.
He claims that the EOs were
unconstitutional and Sec. 68 of the RAC
had been impliedly repealed by Sec. 3 of
RA 2370 which provides that barrios
may not be created or their boundaries
altered nor their names changed except
by act of Congress.
If the President under this new law
cannot even create a barrio more so a
municipality which is composed of
several barrios.
Auditor General countered that
municipalities are exempt from the bar
and that municipalities may be created
without creating barrios and that the
power to create a municipality has been
delegated by Congress to the President.

EOs 545 and 546 are declared null and

void.

ISSUE: WON Congress has delegated the

power to create municipalities to the
President by virtue of Sec. 68 of the Revised
Admin Code. No, it has not.
No such delegation was made. Although
Congress may delegate powers to
another branch, it is essential that the
law is:
1. complete in itself;
2. fix a standard.
Set forth a policy to be executed by the
delegate and the limits of which are
sufficiently determinate to which the
delegate must conform in the
performance of such function. Sec. 68
lacked such standards without such
there would be no means to determine
whether the delegate has acted within
the scope of his authority.
Sec. 68 provides the qualifying clause "as
the public welfare may require" proper
interpretation for this is that the
President may change the seat of power
within any subdivision as public welfare
may NOT require the creation of
municipalities.
The SC declared that the power to
create municipalities is essentially
legislative in character and not
administrative.
Katulong ng Bayan and Environmentalist ISSUE: WON the universal charge is a form
Consumer's Network prays that Sec. of tax and that the delegated power to the
34 of RA 9136 Electric Power Industry ERC is thus unconstitutional. No, it is not.

Tests for valid delegation:

1. Completeness test: the law must
be complete in all its essential
terms and conditions when it
leaves the legislature so that there
will be nothing left for the delegate
to do when it reaches him except
to enforce it.
2. Sufficient standard test: it must fix
a standard (the limits of which are
sufficiently determinate) to which
the delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions.
Sec. 68, RAC: the President may by
executive order define the boundary of any
municipality and may change the seat of
government within any subdivision to such
place therein as the public welfare may
require.

If the generation of revenue is the

primary purpose and regulation is

Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA) imposing a

universal
charge
be
declared
unconstitutional.
These groups allege that the universal
charge imposed under Sec. 34 of EPIRA
is a tax and there is undue delegation of
legislative power to tax on the part of
the Energy Regulatory Commission.

42. Dagan
v.
Philracom
43. PAL v. CAB
44. Marc Donnely &
Associates
v.
Agregado
45. Southern Cross
v. CeMAP & DTI
46. Quezon City v.
Bayantel

Universal charge is not a form of

taxation but is incidental to the state's
police power.

The valid exercise of the power of

subordinate legislation is subject to the
statutes compliance with the a.)
Completeness Test, and b) the
Sufficient Standard Test.
EPIRA in its entirety is complete in that
all its essential terms and conditions and
sufficient standards.
Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

merely incidental, then the imposition

is a tax.
However, if the primary purpose is
regulation and revenue generation is
merely incidental, it does not make the
imposition a tax.
Universal charge is not a tax but an
exaction in the exercise of State's
police power.
Primary rule: potestas delegata non
delegari potes (what has been delegated
cannot further be delegated)
However, given the volume of and
variety of interaction in today's society,
it is doubtful if the legislature can
promulgate laws that will deal
adequately with and respond promptly
to the minutiae of everyday life. Hence,
there is a need to delegate to
administrative bodies the authority to
promulgate rules and regulations to
implement a given statute and
effectuate its policies.