Psalm 31:24

These are notes from the lecture, as well as the format of this reviewer is based on the
syllabus of Atty. Victoria Loanzon. I also included notes from Fr. Bernas Green
Book/Primer, compiled other reviewers and recent jurisprudence indicated from the
syllabus.
(JULIUS GUZMAN | BATCH 8 | DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW)
Constitution. They filed the petition with COMELEC for it to hold a
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition, claiming that they had
the support of over 6 million individuals, constituting at least 12% of
all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at
least 3% of its registered voters. However, the COMELEC denied
the petition.

Do not despairlest surrender it is but a minute challenge that beholds For tomorrow The SC ruled to dismiss the petition. The court ruled that the
essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through
shall cast a myriad of might storms that only those with firm determination and Utopian initiative upon a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a
vision do survive Atty. Ed Buenaflor petition by the people. This means two essential elements must be
present.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
ATTY. VICTORIA V. LOANZON 2 elements of initiative
1. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal.
No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
I. Preliminary Considerations
2. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition.
A. Parts of the Constitution (G-S-L)
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the
(1) Constitution of Government Establishes the structure of proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express
government, its branches and their operation. their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. The full
text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face
a) Art. VI Legislative Department of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state
b) Art. VII Executive Department the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of
c) Art. VIII Judicial Department the several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the full
d) Art. IX Constitutional Commission. textof the proposed amendments before not after signing.
d.2) Civil Service Commission (Art. 9-b)
d.2) Commission on Elections (Art. 9-c) Distinction between
d.3) Commission on Audit (Art. 9-d) Amendment and Revision

(2) Constitution of Sovereignty Provides how the Constitution
may be changed.
a) Art. XVII Amendments or Revisions
CASE: LAMBINO V COMELEC (2006)
Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado (Lambino Group) commenced
gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
Amendment An addition or change within the lines of the original
constitution as will effect an improvement or better carry out the
purpose for which it was framed; a change that adds, reduces or
deletes without altering the basic principles involved: affects only the
specific provision being amended. (Lambino v COMELEC)
Revisions A change that alters a basic principle in the constitution,
like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of

GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER De La Salle University College of Law 1

 Psalm 31:24
checks and balances; alters the substantial entirety of the constitution,
as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution.
(Lambino v COMELEC)
Revisions may be proposed by:
1. Congress as a Constitutional Assembly - The Congress
upon a 2/3 votes of ALL its members.
2. Constitutional Convention Called into existence by:
(Section 3, Article XVII)
(i) 2/3 of all members of Congress; or
(ii) The electorate, in referendum called for by a majority
of all members of Congress
Amendments may be proposed by:
1. Congress as a Constitutional Assembly - The Congress
upon a 2/3 votes of ALL its members.
2. Constitutional Convention Called into existence by:
(Section 3, Article XVII)
(i) 2/3 of all members of Congress; or
(ii) The electorate, in referendum called for by a majority
of all members of Congress
3. People through Peoples Initiative - The people upon who
petition of 12% of total registered votes and 3% of each
legislative district, PROVIDED, that Congress enacts an
enabling law.
The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition is that the entire proposal on
its face is a petition by the people.
Essential Elements must be Present:
1. The people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No
agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
2. As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
The essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed
amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by
signing such complete proposal in a petition
Two Steps in the Amendatory Process
1. Proposal
2. Ratification
Judicial Review to determine if the Constitution is being
subjected to a revision or amendments:
1. Quantitative Test The Court examines only the number of
provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the
change.
2. Qualitative Test The Court looks into the qualitative effects
of the proposed change in the Constitution.
a. The main inquiry is whether the change will
accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature
of our basic governmental plan as to amount to
revision.
b. The changes include those to the fundamental
framework or the fundamental powers of its
branches; and
c. Those that jeopardize the traditional form of
government and the system of check balances.
Whether there is an alteration in the structure of
government is a proper subject of inquiry.
(3) Constitution of Liberty states the fundamental rights of the
people. (Art. III Bill of Rights)
B. Interpretation of the Constitution
(1) Verba Legis Whenever possible, the words used in the
Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where
technical term are employed.
(2) Ratio Legis Est Anima Words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers.
De La Salle University College of Law 2
Psalm 31:24
(3) Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat The Constitution should be
interpreted as a whole.
CASE: FRANCISCO V HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
It is clear, the framers intended initiation to start with the filing of
the complaint. (Application of 3 Interpretations above)
Commissioner Maambong (amicus curae) explained that the
obvious reason in deleting the phrase to initiate impeachment
proceedings as contained in the text of the provision of Section 3
(3) was to settele and make it understood once and for all that the
initiation of impeachment proceedings starts with the filing of the
complaint, and the vote of 1/3 of the House in a resolution of
impeachment does not initiate the impeachment proceedings which
was already initiated by the filing of a verified complaint under
Section 3, paragraph (2), Article XI of the Constitution.
Initiation takes place by:
1. The act of filing the impeachment verified complaint; and
2. Congress taking initial action of said complaint by its
referral to the house committee on Justice.
Therefore, once an impeachment complaint has been initiated on
the foregoin manner, another may not be filed with the same official
within 1 year.
CASE: MANILA PRINCE HOTEL V GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM (1997)
The SC ruled that the sale of the Manila Hotel to Renong is a
violation to the Constitution. Although the first paragraph of Article
12 Section 10 is non-self-executing, as it needs legislation. The
second part is a mandate that rights, privileges and concessions
covering national economy and patrimony of the state shall be given
presence to qualified Filipinos.
Estoppel wont work here when it violates the Constitution. Manila
hotel is part of Filipino culture as well thus the sale to Renong is
void.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
CASE: KNIGHTS OF RIZAL V DMCI HOMES, INC. (2017)
The Supreme Court held that there is no law prohibiting the
construction of the project, what is not expressly or impliedly
prohibited by law may be done, except when the act is contrary to
morals, customs and public order.
The principle is fundamental in a democratic society to protect the
weak against the strong, the minority against the majority and the
individual against the government
Issue on Nuisance Per Se: (Court ruled that Torre de Manila is
not nuisance per se)
Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as any act,
omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which:
(1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; (2) annoys
or offends the senses; (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality; (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any
public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or
impairs the use of property.
The Court recognize two kinds of nuisance per se:
1. Nuisance Per Se is one recognized as a nuisance under
any and all circumstances, because it constitutes a direct
menace to public health and safety and for that reason, may
be abated summarily under undefined law of necessity.
2. Nuisance per Accidents is that which depends upon
certain conditions and circumstances and its existence
being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due
hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized whether such thing
a law constitutes a nuisance.
De La Salle University College of Law 3
 Psalm 31:24
II. The State
Art. I National Territory
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of
the internal waters of the Philippines.
Note: It should be remembered that a constitution is municipal law. As
such, it binds only the nation promulgating it. Hence, a definition of
national territory in the constitution will bind internationally only if it is
supported by proof that can stand in international law. (BERNAS)
The Archipelagic Doctrine: A body of water stubbed with islands, or
the islands surrounded with water, is viewed as a unity of islands and
waters together forming one integrated unit.
Baseline Methods:
1. Normal The breadth of the territorial sea is measured from
the low waterline, following the indentations of the coast.
2. Straight drawn as straight lines connecting appropriate
points on the coast, without departing to tany appreciable
extent from the general direction of the coast.
ACCORDING TO UNCLOS
Internal ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY. Waters around,
Waters between and connecting the islands of the Phil.
Archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, including the waters in bays, rivers, and
lakes. No right of innocent passage for foreign
vessels exists. Also known as waters on the
landward side of baselines from which the breadth of
the territorial sea is calculated.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
Territorial (12 n.m) an adjacent belt of sea with a breadth of 12
Sea nautical miles measured from the baselines of a state
and over which the state has sovereignty. Ships of
the territorial sea is calculated.
Contiguous (24 nm) over which the coast may exercise limited
Zone control necessary to prevent infringement of its
customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and
regulations within its territory or territorial sea.
Exclusive (200 nm) A coastal nation has all control of all
Economic economic resources within this zone, including
Zone fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of
those resources, which include the sea, seabed and
subsoil to the exclusion of other state. However,
other nations have the right of navigation and
overflight over this area, subject to the regulation of
the coastal state.
Continental This is the seabed and subsoil of the submarine
Shelf areas adjacent to the coastal state but outside the
territorial sea. The continental shelf extends 200 nm,
and in some cases may extend up to 350 nm,.
Following the natural prolongation of the soil. The
coastal state has the right to explore and exploit the
natural resources in this area but does not extend to
other materials such as shipwrecks.
Innocent Passage: Passage not prejudicial to the interest of the
coastal state or contrary to the principles of international law.
Pacta Sunt Servanta Treaties must be complied in good faith or all
obligations must be fulfilled in good faith. It is a generally accepted
principle recognized by the independent state.
The Philippine as a State:
What is a State?
It is community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently
occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external
control and possessing a government to which a great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience.
De La Salle University College of Law 4
 Psalm 31:24
Elements of a State:
1. People
As requisite of for State hood Adequate for self-
sufficiency and defense; both sexes for perpetuity.
People simply means a community of persons sufficient
number and capable of maintaining the continued
existence of community and held together by a common
bond of law. It is of no legal consequence if they possess
diverse racial, cultural or economic interests.
2. Territory
The Philippine Archipelago body of water studded,
with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of Paris of
December 10, 1898, as modified by the Treaty of
Washington of November 7, 1900 and the treaty with
Great Britain of January 2, 1930. These are the same
treaties that delineated Philippine territory in Article I of
the 1935 Constitution.
All other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction This includes any territory
which presently belongs or might in the future belong to
the Philippines, through any of the internationally
accepted modes of acquiring territory.
o Batanes (1935 Constitution)
o Those contemplated in the 1973 Constitution
belonging to the Philippines by historic right
or legal title such as: Sabah, the Marianas,
Freedomland)
o Kalayaan Group of Islands (PD 1596, June
11, 1978)
3. Government
The agency or instrumentality through which the will of the
State is formulated, expressed and realized.
Functions of Government:
o Constituent / Jure or Jus Imperii which are mandatory
for the Government to perform because they constitute
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
the very bonds of society such as the maintenance of
peace and order, regulation of property and property
rights, the administration of justice, etc.
o Ministrant / Jure or Jus Gestionis Those intended to
promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the
people and which are merely optional for Government to
perform.
o The Principles for determining whethere or not a
government shall exercise certain of these optional
functions are: (BERNAS)
A That a government should do for the public
welfare those things which private capital would
not naturally undertake; and
That a government should do those things which
by its very nature it is better equipped to
administer for the public welfare than is any
private individual or group of individuals.
o (ACCFA v. CUGCO, 1969) The conceptual definitions of
constituent and ministrant function are still acceptable.
However, the growing complexities of modern society can
necessitate a realignment.
o (PHHC v. Court of Industrial Relations, 1987) Among
more recent decisions, housing has been found to be a
governmental function since housing is considered an
essential service.
o (Sps. Fontanilla v. Hon. Maliaman, 1991) But
undertaking to supply water for a price, as does the
government corporation National Irrigation Authority, is
considered a trade and not a governmental activity.
Classes of Government:
o De Jure (Government of Law) the legal,
legitimate government of a state and is so
recognized by the other states. It is an organized
government of a state which has the general
support of the people. (Example: (1) Corys
government; (2) GMAs
De La Salle University College of Law 5
Psalm 31:24
o De Facto (Government of Fact) It is a
government which actually exercises power or
control but without legal title. It is in actual
possession of authority and control of the state.
This includes the following:
Government gets possession and
control of or usurps by force or by the
voice of the majority.
Established and maintained by
invading military forces.
Established as an independent
government by inhabitants of a
country who rise in insurrection
against the parent state.
Other Classes of Government:
o Presidential vs. Parliamentary Government
The principal distinction is that in a presidential
government, there is separation of executive and
legislative powers; while in parliamentary, there is
fusion of both executive and legislative powers in
parliament, although the actual exercise of the
executive powers is vested in a Prime Minister
who is chosen by, and accountable to,
Parliament.
o Unitary vs. Federal Government A unitary
government is a single, centralized, exercising
powers over both the internal and external affairs
of the State; while a federal government consists
of autonomous state (local) government units
merged into a single State, with the National
government exercising a limited degree of power
over the domestic affairs but generally full
direction of the external affairs of the State.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
4. Sovereignty
The supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State
by which that State is governed.
Legal Sovereignty Supreme power to affect legal
interests either by legislative, executive or judicial action
(lodged in the people and exercised by state agencies)
Political Sovereignty is the sum total of all the
influences in a state, legal and non-legal, which determine
the course of law.
CASE: MAGALLONA v. ERMITA
UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss
of territory, it is a multilateral treaty regulating, among
others, sea-use rights over maritime zones and continental
shelves that UNCLOS delimits.
BASELINE LAWS such as RA 9522 are enacted by the
UNCLOS State Parties to mark out specific basepoints
along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either
straight or contoured. To serve as geographic starting
points to measure breadth of the maritime zone and
continental shelf over which they exercise treaty based
rights.
State acquire or lose territory through:
1. Occupation
2. Accretion
3. Cession
4. Prescription
In the absence of municipal legislation, international law
norms in the UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent
passage rights over territorial sea or archipelagic waters,
subject to treatys limitations and conditions for their
existence.
CASE: REAGAN v. COMMISION ON INTERNAL REVENUE
Petitioner Reagan, a civilian employee of an American corporation
providing technical assistance to the US Air Force in the
Philippines, questioned the payment of the income tax assessed on
him by respondent CIR on an amount realized by him on a sale of
his automobile to a member of the US Marine Corps, the transaction
De La Salle University College of Law 6
Psalm 31:24
having taken place at the Clark Field Air Base at Pampanga. It is
his contention, that in legal contemplation the sale was made
outside Philippine territory and therefore beyond our jurisdictional
power to tax. He seeks that an amount of P2,979.00 as the income
tax paid by him be refunded.
The Court ruled that the [Military Bases] Agreement, it should be
noted, the Philippine Government merely consents that the United
States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. The consent was given
purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency over the
bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely
of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. This provision is not
and can not on principle or authority be construed as a limitation
upon the rights of the Philippine Government.
The State is not precluded from allowing another power to
participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions
of its territory. If it does so, it by no means follows that such areas
become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status
as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction
may be diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases
under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military
bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign
territory.
CASE: SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS
October 29, 1958, Original Certificate of Title was issued in favor of
Rafael Galvez, over four parcels of land. Lots No. 1 and 4 were
conveyed by Rafael Galvez in favor of Filipina Mamaril, Cleopatra
Llana, Regina Bustos, and Erlinda Balatbat in a deed of sale. Then
Mamaril et al. sold Lots No. 1 and 4 to Lepanto Consolidated Mining
Company. Unknown to the latest owner, the CIR of La Union issued
an Order in Land Registration Case No. N-361 declaring the deed
of sale between Galvez and Mamaril, et. al. (OCT No. 0-381) null
and void, and ordered the cancellation thereof.
The Court ruled that while it is true that prescription does not run
against the State, the same may not be invoked by the government
in this case since it is no longer interested in the subject matter.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
Moreover, to recognize the Government as a proper party to sue in
this case would set a bad precedent as it would allow the Republic
to prosecute, on behalf of government-owned or controlled
corporations, causes of action which have already prescribed, on
the pretext that the Government is the real party in interest against
whom prescription does not run, said corporations having been
created merely as agents for the realization of government
programs.
Parenthetically, petitioner was not a party to the original suit for
cancellation of title commenced by the Republic twenty-seven years
for which it is now being made to answer, nay, being made to suffer
financial losses.
It should also be noted that petitioner is unquestionably a buyer in
good faith and for value, having acquired the property in 1963, or 5
years after the issuance of the original certificate of title, as a third
transferee. If only not to do violence and to give some measure of
respect to the Torrens System, petitioner must be afforded some
measure of protection.
III. State Immunity
ARTICLE XVI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
General Rule: The State cannot be sued without its consent.
RATIONALE
There can be no legal right against the authority which makes
the law on which the right depends. (Republic v Villasor)
This is based on the principle on the juridical and practical on
the juridical and practical notion that the state can do no
wrong, which is a restatement of the expression The King can
do no wrong. (Santos v Santos, 1952)
De La Salle University College of Law 7
 Psalm 31:24
How do you determine whether a suit is against the state?
TEST On the assumption that decision is rendered against the public
officer or agency impleaded, will the enforcement thereof require an
affirmative act from the State, such as the appropriation of the needed
amount to satisfy judgment? If so, then it is a suit against the State.
(Republic v. Feliciano)
State immunity from suit may be invoked as long as the suit
really affects the property, rights or interests of the State and
not merely those of the officers nominally made party
defendants. (Tan v. Director Forestry)
If the suit would require an affirmative act of appropriation
should damages be awarded, it is a suit against the State.
(Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. v. CA)
A suit is against the State in the following instances:
a. When the Republic is sued by name
b. When the suit is against an unincorporated government
agency;
c. When the suit on its face against a government officer but the
case is such that ultimately liability will belong not to the officer
but to the government.
d. It produces adverse consequence to the public treasury in
terms of disbursement of public funds and loss of government
property.
e. It cannot prosper unless the State has given its consent.
A suit is not against the State:
a. When the purpose of the suit is to compel an officer charged
with the duty of making payments pursuant to an
appropriation made by law in favor of the plaintiff to make such
payment, since the suit is intended to compel performance of
a ministerial duty.
b. When from the allegations in the complaint, it is clear that the
respondent is a public officer action in rem that does not name
the government in particular.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
Exception: The State consents to be sued.
1. If it gives consent to be sued, express or implied:
Doctrine of Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty The State
may be sued if it gives consent, whether express or
implied.
Where no consent is shown, state immunity from suit may
be invoked as a defense by the courts at any stage of the
proceedings because waiver of immunity, being in
derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly and
must be construed in strictissimi juris. Ccordingly, the
complaint (or counterclaim) against the State must allege
the existence of such consent, otherwise, the complaint
may be dismissed. (Republic v. Feliciano)
Manner by which is consent is given.
A. Express Consent can be given only by an act of the
legislative body, in a general or special law. (Republic v.
Feliciano)
- Examples: (General Law and Special Law)
CA327, as amended by PD 1445, which requires that
all money claims against the government must first be
filed with the Commission on Audit before suit is
instituted in court;
Art. 2180 of the CC The State is responsible in like
manner when it acts through a special agent; but not
when the damage has been caused by the official to
whom the task done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Art. 2189 of the CC Provinces, cities and
municipalities shall be liable for damages for the
death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason
of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under their
control or provision.
De La Salle University College of Law 8
Psalm 31:24
Sec. 24 of the LGC Local government units and
their officials are not exempt from liability for death or
injury to persons or damage to property.
B. Implied Consent
When the state commences litigation, it becomes
vulnerable to a counter claim. (Froilan v. Pan Oriental
Shipping, 1954)
State enters into a business contract in the exercise
of its proprietary power. (Santos v. Santos, 1952);
When it would be inequitable for the State to invoke
immunity; and
When the state exercise its power of eminent domain.
2. In exceptional cases:
a. To compel payment of just compensation.
CASE: Amigable v. Cuenca
Facts: An action for the recovery of the value of
the property taken by the government and
converted into a public street without payment of
just compensation was allowed, despite the
failure of the property to file his claim with the
Auditor General.
Held: The Supreme Court said that suit may lie
because the doctrine of State immunity cannot be
used to perpetrate an injustice
b. Revocation of Conditional Donation
Santiago v. Republic The revocation of a
donation because of the failure of the defendant
to comply with stipulation conditions was allowed,
inasmuch as the action did not involve money
claim.
CASE: US v. RUIZ
The United States of America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales.
The base was one of those provided in the Military Bases
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
Agreement between the Philippines and the United States.
Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission
of bids for a couple of repair projects. Eligio de Guzman land Co.,
Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. The respondent
company filed a complaint against the defendants herein
demanding specific performance that the company be allowed to
perform the work on the projects and, in the event that specific
performance was no longer possible, to order the defendants to pay
damages.
The Court ruled that a State may be said to have descended the
level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given
its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.
It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its
sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of
the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United
States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the
government of the highest order, they are not utilized for nor
dedicated to commercial or business purposes.
CASE: REPUBLIC v. HIDALGO
Tarcila Laperal Mendoza filed an action for the annulment or
declaration of nullity of the title and deed of sale, reconveyance
and/or recovery of ownership and possession a property against
the Republic of the Philippinesin the RTC of Manila. It is also known
as the Arlegui Residence which housed two Philippine presidents
and which now holds the Office of the Press Secretary and the
News Information Bureau.
The Court ruled that it is settled that when the State gives its
consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent to an
unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State
waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the other party
an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the state has a liability.
The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be
allowed to paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds
from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law
De La Salle University College of Law 9
Psalm 31:24
CASE: MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI v. COURT OF APPEALS
(1990)
The present petition for review is an off-shoot of expropriation
proceedings initiated by petitioner Municipality of Makati against
private respondent Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Inc.,
Home Building System & Realty Corporation and one Arceli P. Jo,
involving a parcel of land and improvements and registered in the
name of the latter.
The Court ruled that for three years now, petitioner has enjoyed
possession and use of the subject property notwithstanding its
inexcusable failure to comply with its legal obligation to pay just
compensation. Just compensation means not only the correct
determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but
also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its
taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the
consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being
made to wait for a long period. The State's power of eminent domain
should be exercised within the bounds of fair play and justice. In the
case at bar, considering that valuable property has been taken, the
compensation to be paid fixed and the municipality is in full
possession and utilizing the property for public purpose, for three
(3) years, the Court finds that the municipality has had more than
reasonable time to pay full compensation.
CASE: UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DIZON (2012)
The UP entered into a General Construction Agreement with
respondent Stern Builders Corporation for the construction of the
extension building and the renovation of the College of Arts and
Sciences of UP in Los Banos. In the course of the implementation
of the contract, Stern Builders submitted three progress billings
corresponding to the work accomplishment, but the UP paid only
two of the billings. The third billing was not paid due to its
disallowance by the Commission on Audit. Despite the lifting of the
disallowance, the UP failed to pay the billing, prompting Stern
Builders to sue the UP and officials to collect the unpaid billing and
to recover various damages.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
The Court ruled that all the funds going into the possession of the
UP, including any interest accruing from the deposit of such funds
in any banking institution, constitute a "special trust fund," the
disbursement of which should always be aligned with the UPs
mission and purpose, and should always be subject to auditing by
the COA. The funds of the UP are government funds that are public
in character. They include the income accruing from the use of real
property ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the attainment
of its institutional objectives.
The funds of the UP are government funds that are public in
character. They include the income accruing from the use of real
property ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the attainment
of its institutional objectives. Hence, the funds subject of this action
could not be validly made the subject of writ of execution or
garnishment. The adverse judgment rendered against the UP in a
suit to which it had impliedly consented was not immediately
enforceable by execution against the UP, because suability of the
State did not necessarily mean its liability.
CASE: ARIGO v. SWIFT (2014)
In 2013, the USS Guardian of the US Navy ran aground on an area
near the Tubbataha Reefs, a marine habitat of which entry and
certain human activities are prevented and afforded protection by a
Philippine law. The grounding incident prompted the petitioners to
seek for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan with TEPO from the SC.
The Court ruled that the general rule on states immunity from suit
applies in this case. First, any waiver of State immunity under the
VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil
actions such as for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan. Hence,
contrary to petitioners claim, the US government could not be
deemed to have waived its immunity from suit.
Second, the US respondents were sued in their official capacity as
commanding officers of the US Navy who have control and
supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. Since the
satisfaction of any judgment against these officials would require
remedial actions and the appropriation of funds by the US
government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself.
De La Salle University College of Law 10
Psalm 31:24
Thus, the principle of State Immunity in correlation with the
principle of States as sovereign equals par in parem non habet non
imperium bars the exercise of jurisdiction by the court over their
persons.
CASE: CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT CORP.
(GROUP) v. SANTAMARIA (2012)
On 14 September 2002, petitioner China National Machinery &
Equipment Corp. (Group) (CNMEG), represented by its
chairperson, Ren Hongbin, entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the North Luzon Railways Corporation
(Northrail), represented by its president, Jose L. Cortes, Jr. for the
conduct of a feasibility study on a possible railway line from Manila
to San Fernando, La Union (the Northrail Project).
The Court ruled that the CNMEG is engaged in proprietary activity
Theories on Sovereign Immunity: According to the classical or
absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made
a respondent in the courts of another sovereign. According to the
newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is
recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a
state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis. Since
the Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory, it is crucial to
ascertain the legal nature of the act involved, whether the entity
claiming immunity performs governmental, as opposed to
proprietary, functions. The restrictive application of State immunity
is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial
transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or
economic affairs.
CASE: LIANG v. PEOPLE
Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development
Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory
words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City
with two counts of grave oral defamation.
The Court ruled that the slandering a person could not possibly be
covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow
the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
official duty. It is well-settled principle of law that a public official
may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage
he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or
beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE PUNO:
Section 45 (a) of the ADB Headquarters Agreement accords the
same immunity to the officers and staff of the bank. There can be
no dispute that international officials are entitled to immunity only
with respect to acts performed in their official capacity, unlike
international organizations which enjoy absolute immunity
Clearly, the most important immunity to an international official, in
the discharge of his international functions, is immunity from local
jurisdiction.
Historically, international officials were granted diplomatic
privileges and immunities and were thus considered immune for
both private and official acts. In practice, this wide grant of
diplomatic prerogatives was curtailed because of practical
necessity and because the proper functioning of the organization
did not require such extensive immunity for its officials.
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a
diplomatic envoy is immune from criminal jurisdiction of the
receiving State for all acts, whether private or official, and hence he
cannot be arrested, prosecuted and punished for any offense he
may commit, unless his diplomatic immunity is waived. On the other
hand, officials of international organizations enjoy functional
immunities, that is, only those necessary for the exercise of the
functions of the organization and the fulfillment of its purposes
It is not within the power of the DFA, as the agency in charge of
the executive departments foreign relations, nor the ADB, as the
international organization vested with the right to waive immunity,
to invoke immunity for private acts of bank official and employees,
since no such prerogative exists in the first place. If the immunity
does not exist, there is nothing to certify.
De La Salle University College of Law 11
 Psalm 31:24
CASE: REPUBLIC v. BENIGNO (2015)
Spouses Dante and Lolita Benigno filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Calamba, Laguna (Calamba RTC) an Application for
Registration6 of title under Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the
Property Registration Decree to a 293-square meter lot in Barangay
Batong Malake, Los Baos, Laguna.
The Court ruled that while petitioner, through the Office of the
Solicitor General, was admittedly ornery in the prosecution of its
case, it is nonetheless true that as a matter of doctrine, illegal acts
of government agents do not bind the State, and the Government
is never estopped from questioning the acts of its officials, more so
if they are erroneous, let alone irregular.
This principle applies in land registration cases. Certainly, the State
will not be allowed to abdicate its authority over lands of the public
domain just because its agents and officers have been negligent in
the performance of their duties.
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong
to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to
ownership in land and charged with the conservation of such
patrimony.
IV. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances
Principle of Separation of Powers Each department of the
government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction,
and is supreme within its own sphere. The government established by
the Constitution follows fundamentally the theory of separation of
powers into the legislative, executive and the judicial. Each branch
performs duties vested in it by the Constitution.
Two Ways to Violate Separation of Powers
1. Encroachment stepping on the powers.
2. Abrogation of Powers Refusal to perform.
Principle of Checks and Balances There is harmony among the
three branches by allowing each branch to exercise the power to
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
examine if there is an encroachment of the functions of each
respective branch. (E.g. veto power of the President as check on
improvident legislation, etc.)
Principle of Blending Powers Instances when powers are not
confined exclusively within one department but are assigned to or
shared by several departments. (E.g. enactment of general
appropriations law)
Doctrine of Political Question Connotes what it means in ordinary
parlance, namely a question of policy. It refers to those questions
which, under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of
government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom,
not legally of a particular measure.
CASE: SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. v
CABILES (2014)
Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a
recruitment and placement agency. Respondent Joy Cabiles was
hired thus signed a one-year employment contract for a monthly
salary of NT$15,360.00. Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan
Wacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal). She alleged that in her employment
contract, she agreed to work as quality control for one year. In
Taiwan, she was asked to work as a cutter. Sameer claims, a
certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy, without prior notice,
that she was terminated and that she should immediately report to
their office to get her salary and passport. Joy filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal with the NLRC against petitioner and Wacoal. LA
dismissed the complaint. NLRC reversed LAs decision. CA
affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission.
The Court ruled that the equal protection of the law is a guarantee
that persons under like circumstances and falling within the same
class are treated alike, in terms of privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced.97 It is a guarantee against undue favor and
individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the
oppression of inequality. In creating laws, the legislature has the
De La Salle University College of Law 12
Psalm 31:24
power to make distinctions and classifications. In exercising such
power, it has a wide discretion.100cralawred
The equal protection clause does not infringe on this legislative
power. A law is void on this basis, only if classifications are made
arbitrarily. There is no violation of the equal protection clause if the
law applies equally to persons within the same class and if there
are reasonable grounds for distinguishing between those falling
within the class and those who do not fall within the class. A law
that does not violate the equal protection clause prescribes a
reasonable classification. Hence, the Congress classification may
be subjected to judicial review.
CASE: OPLE v. TORRES (1998)
Administrative Order No 308, otherwise known as Adoption of a
National Computerized Identification Reference System was
issued by President Fidel Ramos on 12 December 1996. Senator
Blas Ople filed a petition to invalidate the said order for violating the
right to privacy. He contends that the order must be invalidated on
two constitutional grounds, (1) that it is a usurpation of the power to
legislate; and (2) that it intrudes the citizens right to privacy.
The Court ruled that the congress is vested with the power to enact
laws, while the President executes the laws. The Presidents
administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies
and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental
organs. An administrative order refers to acts of the President
which relate to particular aspects of governmental operation in
pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be
promulgated in administrative orders. An administrative order is an
ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects
in the administrative operation of government. It must be in
harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of
implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.
A.O. No. 308 establishes for the first time a National Computerized
Identification Reference System. It does not simply implement the
Administrative Code of 1987. This administrative order redefines
the parameters of some basic rights of the citizenry vis-a-vis the
State, as well as the line that separates the administrative power of
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
the President to make rules and the legislative power of Congress.
It deals with a subject that should be covered by law.
CASE: KILUSANG MAYO UNO v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NEDA
In 2005, Executive Order No. 420 was passed. This law sought to
harmonize and streamline the countrys id system. Kilusang Mayo
Uno, Bayan Muna, and other concerned groups sought to enjoin
the Director-General from implementing the EO because they
allege that the said EO is unconstitutional for it infringes upon the
right to privacy of the people and that the same is a usurpation of
legislative power by the president.
The Court ruled that sec 17, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution
provides that the President shall have control of all executive
departments, bureaus and offices. The same Section also
mandates the President to ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed. Certainly, under this constitutional power of control the
President can direct all government entities, in the exercise of their
functions under existing laws, to adopt a uniform ID data collection
and ID format to achieve savings, efficiency, reliability,
compatibility, and convenience to the public.
The Presidents constitutional power of control is self-executing and
does not need any implementing legislation. Of course, the
Presidents power of control is limited to the Executive branch of
government and does not extend to the Judiciary or to the
independent constitutional commissions. Thus, EO 420 does not
apply to the Judiciary, or to the COMELEC which under existing
laws is also authorized to issue voters ID cards. This only shows
that EO 420 does not establish a national ID system because
legislation is needed to establish a single ID system that is
compulsory for all branches of government.
CASE: SENAETE v. ERMITA
EO 464 basically prohibited Department heads, Senior officials of
executive departments who in the judgment of the department
heads are covered by the executive privilege; Generals and flag
officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and such other
officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the
De La Salle University College of Law 13
Psalm 31:24
executive privilege; Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with
rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who
in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the
executive privilege; Senior national security officials who in the
judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the
executive privilege; and Such other officers as may be determined
by the President, from appearing in such hearings conducted by
Congress without first securing the presidents approval.
The Court ruled that the requirement then to secure presidential
consent under Section 1, limited as it is only to appearances in the
question hour, is valid on its face. For under Section 22, Article VI
of the Constitution, the appearance of department heads in the
question hour is discretionary on their part. Section 1 cannot,
however, be applied to appearances of department heads in
inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in such
instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear
in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is subsequently
made, either by the President herself or by the Executive Secretary.
When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department
heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to
such information is not as imperative as that of the President to
whom, as Chief Executive, such department heads must give a
report of their performance as a matter of duty. In such instances,
Section 22, in keeping with the separation of powers, states that
Congress may only request their appearance. Nonetheless, when
the inquiry in which Congress requires their appearance is in aid of
legislation under Section 21, the appearance is mandatory for the
same reasons stated in Arnault.
CASE: MAMISCAL v. ABDULLAH (2015)
Mamiscal and Adelaidah decided to have divorce repudiated
Adelaidahs (talaq) embodied in an agreement (kapasadan) but later
on they reconciled. Despite such, Adelaidah still filed the Certificate
of Divorce (COD) with the office of Abdullah for registration. Albeit
the same was not signed by Mamiscal it was annotated in the
certificate that it was executed in the presence of two witnesses and
in accordance with Islamic Law. Abdullah then issued the Certificate
of Registration of Divorce finalizing the same.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
The Court ruled that they do not have jurisdiction to impose the
proper disciplinary action against civil registrars. Sharia Circuit
Court which, under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines (Muslim Code) enjoys exclusive original jurisdiction to
resolve disputes relating to divorce. The civil registrar is the person
charged by law for the recording of vital events and other
documents affecting the civil status of persons. The Civil Registry
Law embraces all acts of civil life affecting the status of persons and
is applicable to all persons residing in the Philippines.
The test of jurisdiction is the nature of the offense and not the
personality of the offender. The fact that the complaint charges
Abdullah for "conduct unbecoming of a court employee" is of no
moment. Well-settled is the rule that what controls is not the
designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the
complaint. Unless jurisdiction has been conferred by some
legislative act, no court or tribunal can act on a matter submitted to
it.
CASE: ARROYO v. DE VENECIA (1997)
The validity of a law on tax on cigarettes and beer was assailed as
invalid because they failed to get the yeas and nays and didnt listen
to objections of Senator Arroyo when he gave them contrary to the
provisions of the Rules of the HR and under the Constitution, the
HR can make their own internal rules and a violation of such is a
violation of the Constitution.
The SC ruled that such were merely internal rules and are
procedural with which the Court has no concern. They may be
waived or disregarded by the legislative body.
Note: Enrolled Bill - Under the Enrolled Bill Doctrine, the signing
by the Speaker and the President of the Senate and the certification
of the secretaries of both houses are conclusive of its due
enactment and is a conclusive presumption except when there is
necessity to go behind and consult the journal to determine whether
certain provisions of a statute have been approved. In this case
however, there is no necessity to go behind the enrolled bill doctrine
and so the Court will respect the certification that the bill has been
duly passed.
De La Salle University College of Law 14
 Psalm 31:24
V. Delegation of Powers
QUESTION: It is common knowledge that, as a matter of practice,
numerous statutes have been passed creating administrative
agencies and authorizing them to exercise vast regulatory powers and
the issuance of rules and regulations to implement laws. Such rules
have the force of law. Is this a delegation of law making power?
ANSWER: NO. What is delegated is NOT legislative or law-making,
but rather rule-making power or law execution
Such power is known as QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
Quasi-legislative power is the authority delegated by the
law-making body to the administrative body to adopt rules
and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of a
law and implement legislative policy.
Legislative power involves the discretion to determine
what the law shall be. Quasi-legislative power only
involves the discretion to determine how the law shall be
enforced. The former cannot be delegated. The latter can
be delegated.
Administrative agencies may be given the:
1. Power of Subordinate or Supplemental Legislation
Filling up the details of an already complete statute for its
enforcement; or
2. Power of Contingent Legislation Ascertain the facts
necessary to bring a contingent law into actual operation.
Validity of Subordinate/Contingent Legislation
Rule Congress may delegate Rule-Making powers to administrative
agencies. However, the statute making the delegation must:
1. Be Complete in Itself (Completeness Test)
It must set forth therein the policy to be carried out or
implemented by the delegate.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
Without a statutory declaration of policy, the delegate
would in effect, make or formulate such policy, which is
the essence of law.
2. Fix Sufficient Standards (Sufficient Standards Test)
It must fix a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate or determinable to which the delegate must
conform in the performance of his functions.
Without such standard, there would be no means to
determine, with reasonable certainty, whether the
delegate has acted within or beyond the scope of his
authority.
NOTE: These requirements are to ensure that the power delegated by
the legislature to administrative agencies is not law-making power. If
they are satisfied, the regulations passed by an administrative body
pursuant to the delegation made by the statute are just as binding as
if the regulation had been written in the original statute itself. If,
however these requirements are not satisfied, the regulation will not
be allowed to affect private rights.
CASE: ARANETA v. DINGLASAN (1949)
Antonio Araneta is being charged for allegedly violating of
Executive Order 62 which regulates rentals for houses and lots for
residential buildings. Judge Rafael Dinglasan was the judge hearing
the case. Araneta appealed seeking to prohibit Dinglasan and the
Fiscal from proceeding with the case. He averred that EO 62 was
issued by virtue of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 671 which he
claimed ceased to exist, hence, the EO has no legal basis.
They all aver that CA 671, otherwise known as AN ACT
DECLARING A STATE OF TOTAL EMERGENCY AS A RESULT
OF WAR INVOLVING THE PHILIPPINES AND AUTHORIZING
THE PRESIDENT TO PROMULGATE RULES AND
REGULATIONS TO MEET SUCH EMERGENCY or simply the
Emergency Powers Act, is already inoperative and that all EOs
issued pursuant to said CA had likewise ceased.
De La Salle University College of Law 15
Psalm 31:24
The Court ruled CA 671, which granted emergency powers to the
president, became inoperative ex proprio vigore when Congress
met in regular session on May 25, 1946, and that Executive Orders
Nos. 62, 192, 225 and 226 were issued without authority of law. In
setting the first regular session of Congress instead of the first
special session which preceded it as the point of expiration of the
Act, the SC is giving effect to the purpose and intention of the
National Assembly. In a special session, the Congress may
consider general legislation or only such subjects as he (President)
may designate. Such acts were to be good only up to the
corresponding dates of adjournment of the following sessions of the
Legislature, unless sooner amended or repealed by the National
Assembly. Even if war continues to rage on, new legislation must
be made and approved in order to continue the EPAs, otherwise it
is lifted upon reconvening or upon early repeal.
CASE: SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION v.
CEMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES (2005)
Respondent, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) accepted an
application from Philcemcor (PCMC), alleging that the importation
of gray Portland cement in increased quantities has caused
declines in domestic production, capacity utilization, market share,
sales and employment; as well as caused depressed local prices.
Accordingly, Philcemcor sought the imposition at first of provisional,
then later, definitive safeguard measures on the import of cement
pursuant to the SMA (Rep. Act No. 8800, also known as the
Safeguard Measures Act. Southern Cross filed the present petition,
the petition argues in the main that the Court of Appeals has no
jurisdiction over Philcemcors petition, the proper remedy being a
petition for review with the CTA conformably with the SMA, and;
that the factual findings of the Tariff Commission on the existence
or non-existence conditions warranting the imposition of general
safeguard measures are binding upon the DTI Secretary.
The SC ruled that the the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the
case back to the DTI Secretary, with the instruction that the DTI
Secretary may impose a general safeguard measure even if there
is no positive final determination from the Tariff Commission.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
The delegation of the taxation power by the legislative to the
executive is authorized by the Constitution itself. At the same time,
the Constitution also grants the delegating authority (Congress) the
right to impose restrictions and limitations on the taxation power
delegated to the President. The restrictions and limitations imposed
by Congress take on the mantle of a constitutional command, which
the executive branch is obliged to observe.
In the case at bar, the recommendations of the Tariff Commission,
as rendered under Section 13, are not obligatory on the DTI
Secretary. Nothing in the SMA mandates the DTI Secretary to adopt
the recommendations made by the Tariff Commission. In fact, the
SMA requires that the DTI Secretary establish that the application
of such safeguard measures is in the public interest,
notwithstanding the Tariff Commissions recommendation on the
appropriate safeguard measure based on its positive final
determination. Unlike the recommendations of the Tariff
Commission, its determination has a different effect on the DTI
Secretary. Only on the basis of a positive final determination made
by the Tariff Commission under Section 5 can the DTI Secretary
impose a general safeguard measure. Clearly, then the DTI
Secretary is bound by the determination made by the Tariff
Commission.
CASE: PALAEZ v. AUDITOR GENERAL (2008)
President Ferdinand Marcos issued executive orders creating 33
municipalities. Pelaez argues: If the President, under this new law,
cannot even create a barrio, how can he create a municipality which
is composed of several barrios, since barrios are units of
municipalities?
The Court ruled that said creation of municipalities were
unconstitutional. Congress did not delegate power here. Although
Congress may delegate to another branch of the government the
power to fill in the details in the execution, enforcement or
administration of a law, it is essential, to forestall a violation of the
principle of separation of powers, that said law: (a) be complete in
itself it must set forth therein the policy to be executed, carried
out or implemented by the delegate and (b) fix a standard
the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable to
De La Salle University College of Law 16
Psalm 31:24
which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions. In this case, Sec. 68 lacked any such standard. Indeed,
without a statutory declaration of policy, the delegate would, in
effect, make or formulate such policy, which is the essence of every
law; and, without the aforementioned standard, there would be no
means to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether the
delegate has acted within or beyond the scope of his authority.
CASE: SEMA v. COMELEC
The Court held that ARMM cannot validly create local Government
units because there is neither an express prohibition nor an express
grant of authority in the Constitution for Congress to delegate to
regional or local legislative bodies the power to create local
government units.
However, under its plenary legislative powers, Congress can
delegate to local legislative bodies the power to create local
government units, subject to reasonable standards and provided no
conflict arises with any provision of the Constitution. In fact,
Congress has delegated to provincial boards, and city and
municipal councils, the power to create barangays within their
jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the criteria established in the
Local Government Code, and the plebiscite requirement in Section
10, Article X of the Constitution. Hence, ARMM cannot validly
create Shariff Kabunsuan province.
CASE: NPC DRIVERS AND MECHANICS ASSOCIATION v.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION
On June 8, 2001, Republic Act No. 9136 or the Electric Power
Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA Law) was approved and
signed by President Macapagal-Arroyo. It provides a framework for
the restructuring of the electric power industry, specifically (1) the
privatization of the assets of NPC, (2) the transition to the desired
competitive structure, and (3) the definition of the responsibilities of
the various government agencies and private entities. Thus, under
such law, a new National Power Board of Directors (NPB) was
constituted.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
Petitioners filed a Petition for Injunction which assails the validity of
the NPB Resolutions by maintaining that no quorum existed during
the NPB Resolutions meeting. Further, they argue that of the seven
persons present in the meeting, only three are NPB members. The
remaining four are merely representatives of other NPB members
not present in the said meeting thus, rendering the said Resolutions
void
The Court ruled that the Legislature is the one who vested the
power to exercise judgment and discretion in running the affairs to
the NPB. Discretion means a power or right conferred to them by
law of acting officially in certain circumstances, according to the
dictates of their own judgment and conscience, uncontrolled by the
judgment or conscience of others.
Hence, the court held that the department secretaries cannot
delegate their duties as members of the NPB, much less their power
to vote and approve board resolutions because it is their personal
judgment that must be exercised in the fulfillment of such
responsibility.
CASE: HEIRS OF LATAYAN v. TAN
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation
patents, certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued
under any agrarian reform program are within the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Reform.
Consequently, the Department of Agrarian Reform and
Adjudication Board is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the herein
controversy, rendering its decision null and void. Jurisdiction lies
with the Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary to
resolve the issues of classification of landholdings for coverage
(whether the subject property is a private or government-owned
land), and identification of qualified beneficiaries. Hence, no error
can be attributed to the CA in dismissing the case without prejudice
to its re-filing
De La Salle University College of Law 17
 Psalm 31:24
CASE: MOVERTRADE CORPORATION v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT
The case is a petition of certiorari assailing the decision of the
commission on audit which denied the petitioner Movertrade
Corporations claim for payment for dredging works with side
dumping of spoil in Pampanga Bay and the primary Pasac-Guagua-
San Fernando Waterways amounting to Php 7,354,897.10.
Petitioner ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the part of
respondent COA in denying its money claim. It insists that it did not
violate paragraph 11 of the Contract Agreement and alleges it was
respondent DPWH who failed to provide adequate spoil sites.
The Court ruled that there is no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of COA in denying petitioners money claim as the evidence on
record undoubtedly supports the factual findings of respondent
COA. It does not to belabor that in the absence of grave abuse of
discretion, the decisions and resolutions of respondent COA are
accorded not only with respect but also with finality, not only on the
basis of the doctrine of separation of powers, but also of its
presumed expertise in the laws it is entrusted to enforce.
VI. State Principles and Policies
***Only important provisions with related jurisprudence that were
discussed by Atty. Loanzo are provided in this topic.
ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
A. PRINCIPLES
SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.
Republican State
A state wherein all government authority emanates from the people
and is exercised by representatives chosen by the people.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
RATIONALE: To prevent concentration of authority in one person or
group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its
exercise to the detriment of republican institutions. To secure action,
to forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and to obtain efficiency.
(Pangasinan Transportation Co. v. Public Service Commission)
Legitimacy of Governments:
1. De Jure: Established by authority of a legitimate sovereign.
(E.g. Corys Government; GMAs Government after the
impeachment of Pres. Estrada)
2. De Facto: Established in defiance of a legitimate sovereign:
Government gets possession and control of or usurps
by for or by the voice of the majority.
Established and maintained by invading military
forces;
Established as an independent government by
inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection
against the parent state.
Manifestations of Republicanism (accd. To Nachura):
1. Ours is a government of laws and not of men. (Villavicencio v.
Lukban; People v. Veneracion)
2. Rule of the Majority.
3. Accountability of public officials
4. Bill of Rights
5. Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws.
6. Separation of Powers.
Three Ways to Reacquire Citizenship:
1. Judicial Proceedings;
2. Administrative Proceedings (RA 9225 Reacquistion /
Repatriation)
3. Acts of Congress
De La Salle University College of Law 18
Psalm 31:24
CASE: MAQUERA v. BORRA (1965)
Supreme Court held that RA 4421 which requires all candidates for
national, provincial, city and municipal offices to post a surety bond
equivalent to the one-year salary or emoluments of the position to
which he is a candidate, property qualifications are inconsistent with
the nature and essence of the Republican system ordained in our
Constitution and the principle of social justice underlying the same.
The court reasoned out that Sovereignty resides in the people and
all government authority emanates from them, and this, in turn,
implies necessarily that the right to vote and to be voted shall not
be dependent upon the wealth of the individual concerned. Social
justice presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike,
and that, accordingly, no person shall, by reason of poverty, be
denied the chance to be elected to public office.
CASE: VILLAVICENCIO v. LUKBAN (1919)
Justo Lukban, who was then the Mayor of the City of Manila,
ordered the deportation of 170 prostitutes to Davao. His reason for
doing so was to preserve the morals of the people of Manila. The
families of the prostitutes came forward to file charges against
Lukban, et. al, They prayed for a writ of habeas corpus to be issued
against the respondents to compel them to bring back the 170
women who were deported to Mindanao against their will.
The SC held that the Philippines clearly a government of laws.
Lukban committed a grave abuse of discretion by deporting the
prostitutes to a new domicile against their will. There is no law
expressly authorizing his action. On the contrary, there is a law
punishing public officials, not expressly authorized by law or
regulation, who compels any person to change his residence.
CASE: PEOPLE v. VENERACION (1995)
In August 1994, four accused were found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of rape with homicide committed against a seven year old girl.
The Presiding judge was Lorenzo Veneracion. Under Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code which treats of the crime of Rape with
Homicide, the penalty imposable shall be death. However, Judge
Veneracion refused to impose the death penalty but instead he
sentenced the four accused to reclusion perpetua.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
The Supreme Court ruled that the judge must impose the death
penalty. The obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our
system of justice. If judges, under the guise of religious or political
beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within
which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office,
then law becomes meaningless. A government of laws, not of men
excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting
under its authority. Under this system, judges are guided by the
Rule of Law, and ought to protect and enforce it without fear or
favor, resist encroachments by governments, political parties, or
even the interference of their own personal beliefs.
The law mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge
should impose the proper penalty provided for by the law on the
accused regardless of his own religious or moral beliefs
CASE: PARRENO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (2007)
Salvador Parreo served in the AFP for 32 years before his
retirement, after which he received pension payments. Parreo
then migrated to Hawaii and became a naturalized American
citizen. The AFP subsequently stopped Parreos pension, in
accordance with Section 27 of PD 1638 which provides that a
retiree who loses his Filipino citizenship shall have his retirement
benefits terminated. Parreo requested for reconsideration but the
Judge Advocate General of the AFP denied his petition. Thus, he
filed a claim before the COA for the continuance of his monthly
pension. The COA denied Parreos claim for lack of jurisdiction,
and advised Parreo to file the case in the proper court.
The SC rule that the petitioners loss of Filipino citizenship
constitutes a substantial distinction that distinguishes him from
other retirees who retain their Filipino citizenship. A retiree who had
lost his Filipino citizenship already renounced his allegiance to the
state. Thus, he may no longer be compelled by the state to render
compulsory military service when the need arises, which the state
may require of not only its private citizens, but also citizens who
have retired from military service.
De La Salle University College of Law 19
 Psalm 31:24
Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
What kind of war is renounced by the Philippines?
The Philippine denounces aggressive war NOT defensive war.
Some Generally Accepted Principles:
1. Right of an alien to be released on bail while awaiting
deportation when his failure to leave the country is due to the
fact that no country will accept him.
2. The right of a country to establish military commissions to try
war criminals.
3. The duty to protect the premises of embassies and legations.
(JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing)
4. Some generally accepted principles incorporated in treaties
such as the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals.
(Agustin v. Edu, 1979)
Doctrine of Incorporation
The country is bound by generally accepted principles of law, which
are considered automatically part of our own laws. (Tanada v. Angara)
Doctrine of Transformation
The transformation method requires that an international law be
transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism
such as local legislation. Hence, treaties become part of the law of the
land through transformation pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the
Constitution. (Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association v. Duque
III, G.R. No. 173034, [October 9, 2007], 561 PHIL 386-451)
Equal Standing of International Law and Municipal Law
The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the
land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law
over national law in the municipal sphere. Under the doctrine of
incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
are given a standing equal, not superior to national legislation. (Phillip
Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals)
What is Soft Law?
It does not fall into any of the categories of international law, it is an
expression of non-binding and practices that influence state behavior.
E.g. UNDHR, WHO, WIPO, etc.). Hence, the duty is neither binding
nor enforceable, but its powerful politically. (Pharmaceutical and
Health Care v. Duque)
SECTION 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the
military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the
people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State
and the integrity of the national territory.
SECTION 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect
the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the
State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under
conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.
SECTION 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of
life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy.
How is the Principle of Civilian Supremacy institutionalized?
The Principle is institutionalized by the provision which makes the
President, a civilian and precisely as civilian, commander-in-chief of
the armed forces. But this does not mean that civilian officials are
superior to military officials. Civilian officials are superior to military
officials only when a law makes them so. (Bernas)
Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
B. State Policies
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In
its relations with other states the paramount consideration shall be
De La Salle University College of Law 20
 Psalm 31:24
national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right
to self-determination.
What is the general characteristic of the provisions protecting
rights in Article II?
In general they are not self-executing provisions. They need
implementing acts of Congress. They require implementing
legislation. (Bernas)
In the conduct of the nations foreign relations, what principles
must guide the government?
The government must maintain an independent foreign policy and give
paramount consideration to national sovereignty, territorial integrity,
national interest, and self-discrimination. (Bernas)
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest,
adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its
territory.
General Rule: The Constitution prescribes a policy of freedom from
nuclear weapons. The policy includes the prohibition not only of the
possession, control, and manufacture of nuclear weapons but also
nuclear arms tests.
Exception to the Rule: It may be made by the political departments;
but it must be justified by the demands of the national interest. But the
policy does not prohibit the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order
that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free
the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social
services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an
improved quality of life for all.
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
Social Justice
Equalization of economic, political and social opportunities with
special emphasis on the duty of the state to tilt the balance of social
forces.
CASE: CALALANG v. WILLIAMS (1940)
The regulation aims to promote safe transit and avoid obstructions
on national roads in the interest and convenience of the public.
Persons and property may be subject to all kinds of restraints and
burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and
prosperity of the State. To this fundamental aims of the government,
the rights of the individual are subordinated.
Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism,
nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of
social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational
and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people,
the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure
economic stability of all the 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 principles of
Salus Populi est Suprema Lex.(Justice Laurel)
CASE: PLDT v. NLRC (1988)
In this case, the Supreme Court set the rules as to when separation
pay is proper in cases where the employee is dismissed for valid
reasons.
As a rule, and under the Labor Code, a person dismissed for just
and authorized causes is not entitled to separation pay. However,
based on equity, an exception can be made if the employee is
dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those
reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for the valid
dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or an offense
involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a
De La Salle University College of Law 21
 Psalm 31:24
fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the
dismissed employee separation pay, or financial assistance, or
whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice.
In the case at bar, the reason for Abucays dismissal is due to her
acceptance of a bribe which is dishonesty and is immoral. The fact
that she has worked with the PLDT for more than a decade, if it is
to be considered at all, should be taken against her as it reflects a
regrettable lack of loyalty that she should have strengthened
instead of betraying during all of her 10 years of service with the
company.
CASE: QUIAMBAO v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY
The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals found that
petitioners unauthorized absences and repeated infractions of
company rules on employee discipline manifest gross and habitual
neglect of duty that merited the imposition of the supreme penalty
of dismissal from work. Serious misconduct is said to be a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
indicative of wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. Oddly,
petitioner never advanced any valid reason to justify his absences.
Following jurisprudence, it is held that a series of irregularities when
put together may constitute serious misconduct. Hence, the
petitioner is not entitled to separation pay. The liberality of the law
can never be extended to the unworthy and undeserving.
SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.
SECTION 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social
institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of
the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive the support of the
Government.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
SECTION 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-
building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual,
intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth
patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public
and civic affairs.
SECTION 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-
building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of
women and men.
SECTION 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health
of the people and instill health consciousness among them.
What effect does the declaration of family autonomy have?
It accepts the principle that the family is anterior to the State and is not
a creature of the State. It protects the family from the
instrumentalization by the State. (Bernas)
What is the legal meaning and purpose of the protection that is
guaranteed for the unborn? This is NOT -
1. An assertion that the unborn is a legal person.
2. An assertion that the life of the unborn is placed exactly on the
level of the life of the mother.
3.
Why is the protection made to begin from the time conception?
US Jurisprudence, Roe v. Wade the case which liberalized abortion
laws up to the sixth month of pregnancy by allowing abortion any time
during the first six months of pregnancy provided it can be done
without danger to the mother.
The framers of the Constitution also intended for (a) conception to
refer to the moment of fertilization and (b) the protection of the
unborn child upon fertilization. (Imbong v. Ochoa)
De La Salle University College of Law 22
 Psalm 31:24
Doctrine of Parens Patriae
The government may act as guardian of the rights of people who may
be disadvantaged or suffering from some disability or misfortune.
(Government of the Philippine Islands v. Monte de Piedad)
CASE: IMBONG v. OCHOA
Family
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution states: The State
recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It
shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn
from conception.
In its plain and ordinary meaning (a canon in statutory construction),
the traditional meaning of conception according to reputable
dictionaries cited by the ponente is that life begins at fertilization.
Medical sources also support the view that conception begins at
fertilization.
The framers of the Constitution also intended for (a) conception to
refer to the moment of fertilization and (b) the protection of the
unborn child upon fertilization. In addition, they did not intend to ban
all contraceptives for being unconstitutional; only those that kill or
destroy the fertilized ovum would be prohibited. Contraceptives that
actually prevent the union of the male sperm and female ovum, and
those that similarly take action before fertilization should be deemed
non-abortive, and thus constitutionally permissible.
The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting the life of
the unborn child was to prevent the Legislature from passing a
measure prevent abortion. The Court cannot interpret this
otherwise. The RH Law is in line with this intent and actually
prohibits abortion. By using the word or in defining abortifacient
(Section 4(a)), the RH Law prohibits not only drugs or devices that
prevent implantation but also those that induce abortion and induce
the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers womb. The RH Law
recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has life and that the
State has a bounded duty to protect it.
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
However, the authors of the IRR gravely abused their office when
they redefined the meaning of abortifacient by using the term
primarily. Recognizing as abortifacients only those that primarily
induce abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers
womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be
implanted in the mothers womb (Sec. 3.01(a) of the IRR) would
pave the way for the approval of contraceptives that may harm or
destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization. This
violates Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. For the same
reason, the definition of contraceptives under the IRR (Sec 3.01(j)),
which also uses the term primarily, must be struck down.
Health and Protection
The RH Law does not intend to do away with RA 4729 (1966). With
RA 4729 in place, the Court believes adequate safeguards exist to
ensure that only safe contraceptives are made available to the
public. In fulfilling its mandate under Sec. 10 of the RH Law, the
DOH must keep in mind the provisions of RA 4729: the
contraceptives it will procure shall be from a duly licensed drug
store or pharmaceutical company and that the actual distribution of
these contraceptive drugs and devices will be done following a
prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.
Meanwhile, the requirement of Section 9 of the RH Law is to be
considered mandatory only after these devices and materials
have been tested, evaluated and approved by the FDA. Congress
cannot determine that contraceptives are safe, legal, non-
abortificient and effective.
Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature.
Self-executing provision recognizes an enforceable right
1. It confers standing on minors to challenge logging policies
of the government. (Oposa v. Factoran)
2. The Supreme Court upheld te empowerment of the Laguna
Lake Development Authority to protect the inhabitants of the
Laguna Lake Area from the deterious effects of pollutants
De La Salle University College of Law 23
Psalm 31:24
coming from garbage dumping and the discharge of wastes in
the area as against the local autonomy claim of local
governments in the area. (LLDA v. CA)
3. Several government agents were required by mandamus to
undertake the cleaning of Manila Bay and its surroundings.
(MMDA v. Residents of Manila Bay)
CASE: OPOSA v. FACTORAN (1003)
The petitioners can file a class suit because they represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn. Their 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. Such a right, as
hereinafter expounded, considers the rhythm and harmony of
nature. Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm
and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of
the countrys forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-
shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their
exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to
the present as well as future generations.
CASE: METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v, CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY (2008)
The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by
Mandamus. While the implementation of the MMDA's mandated
tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of
the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done
is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus.
Under what other judicial discipline describes as continuing
mandamus , the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances,
issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision
would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or
indifference.
Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government
agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the
containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific
pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
to act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident, as
long as water quality has deteriorated to a degree where its state
will adversely affect its best usage. Section 17 & 20 are of general
application and are not for specific pollution incidents only. The fact
that the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and
scope that it is well -nigh impossible to draw the line between
a specific and a general pollution incident.
CASE: BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC. v. PROVINCE OF
AKLAN
Claiming that tourist arrivals to Boracay would reach 1 million in the
future, respondent Province of Aklan planned to expand the port
facilities at Barangay Caticlan, Municipality of Malay. Thus,on May
7, 2009, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Aklan Province issued a resolution, authorizing
Governor Carlito Marquez to file an application with respondent
Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) to reclaim the 2.64 hectares
of foreshore area in Caticlan. In the same year, the Province
deliberated on the possible expansion from its original proposed
reclamation area of 2.64 hectares to 40 hectares in order to
maximize the utilization of its resources.
SC held that there was no proper, timely, and sufficient public
consultation for the project DENR DAO 2003-30 provides that
project proponents should initiate public consultations early in
order to ensure that environmentally relevant concerns of
stakeholders are taken into consideration in the EIA study and the
formulation of the management plan. Thus, the law requires the
Province, being the delegate of the PRAs power to reclaim land in
this case, to conduct prior consultations and prior approval.
However, the information dissemination conducted months after the
ECC had already been issued was insufficient to comply with the
requirements under the LGC. Furthermore, the lack of prior public
consultation and approval is not corrected by the subsequent
endorsement of the reclamation project by the Sangguniang
Barangay of Caticlan and the Sangguniang Bayan in 2012, which
were both undoubtedly achieved at the urging and insistence of the
Province.
De La Salle University College of Law 24
Psalm 31:24
CASE: PAJE v. CASINO (2015)
In the case at bar, applying the rule of action, that the Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) should have first secured a
Certificate Non-Overlap (CNO) before entering into the Lease and
Development Agreement (LDA) with Redondo Peninsula (RP)
Energy for the following reasons.
First, the Subic area is historically known to be the home of our
brothers and sisters belonging to the Aeta communities
Second, SBMA and RP Energy claim that the SBMA Ecology
Center verified with the National Commission on Indigenous People
(NCIP) that the project site does not overlap with an ancestral
domain.
Third, that the project site was formerly used as the firing range of
the U.S. Armed Forces does not preclude the possibility that a
present or future claim of ancestral domain may be made over the
aforesaid site
Fourth, that the project site was subsequently classified by the
SBMA as forming part of an industrial zone does not exempt it from
the CNO requirement.
Fifth, SBMA argues that the CNO issued to HHIC should, for all
intents and purposes, be applicable to RP Energy.
The SC ruled that the appellate court correctly ruled that the Casio
Group failed to substantiate its claims that the construction and
operation of the power plant will cause environmental damage of
the magnitude contemplated under the writ of kalikasan. On the
other hand, RP Energy presented evidence to establish that the
subject project will not cause grave environmental damage, through
its Environmental Management Plan, which will ensure that the
project will operate within the limits of existing environmental laws
and standard.
The Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan, which is Part III of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases, was issued by the Court
pursuant to its power to promulgate rules for the protection and
GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER
enforcement of constitutional rights, in particular, the individuals
right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
The writ is categorized as a special civil action and was, thus,
conceptualized as an extraordinary remedy, which aims to provide
judicial relief from threatened or actual violation/s of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a
magnitude or degree of damage that transcends political and
territorial boundaries. It is intended to provide a stronger defense
for environmental rights through judicial efforts where institutional
arrangements of enforcement, implementation and legislation have
fallen short and seeks to address the potentially exponential
nature of large-scale ecological threats.
SECTION 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and
technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and
nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human
liberation and development.
SECTION 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic
force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
CASE: MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF SOCIAL
WELFARE
RA 7432 amended by RA 9257 on giving the senior citizens a 20%
discount on tax deduction is a legitimate exercise of police power
which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has general welfare
for its object.
Accordingly, it has been described as "the most essential, insistent
and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great
public needs." It is the power vested in the legislature by the
constitution to make, ordain and establish all manner of wholesome
and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties
or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to
be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the
subjects of the same."
De La Salle University College of Law 25
 Psalm 31:24

While the Constitution protects property rights, petitioners must SECTION 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the
accept the realities of business and the State, in the exercise of public service and take positive and effective measures against graft
police power, can intervene in the operations of a business which and corruption.
may result in an impairment
of property rights in the process. SECTION 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the
State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
We, thus, found that the 20% discount as well as the tax deduction transactions involving public interest.
scheme is a valid exercise of the police power of the State because
it is for the welfare of the Senior Citizens.
- END -
SECTION 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipinos.

SECTION 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the

private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives
to needed investments.

SECTION 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural

development and agrarian reform.

SECTION 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of

indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity
and development.

SECTION 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental,

community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare
of the nation.

SECTION 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication

and information in nation-building.

SECTION 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local

governments.

SECTION 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities

for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined
by law.

GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER De La Salle University College of Law 26

 Psalm 31:24

EXAM PRAYER TO ST. JOSEPH CUPERTINO

This powerful prayer is very effective in examinations. It has to be said before appearing in the examination. There are two variants to this prayer.
Both the prayers are equally effective.

You can choose any one of these:-

First Prayer
O Great St. Joseph of Cupertino who while on earth did obtain from God the grace to be asked at your examination only the questions you knew,
obtain for me a like favour in the examinations for which I am now preparing. In return I promise to make you known and cause you to be invoked.
Through Christ our Lord. St. Joseph of Cupertino, Pray for us. Amen.

Second Prayer
Prayer O St. Joseph of Cupertino who by your prayer obtained from God to be asked at your examination, the only preposition you knew. Grant that
I may like you succeed in the (here mention the name of Examination) examination.

In return I promise to make you known and cause you to be invoked. O St. Joseph of Cupertino pray for me O Holy Ghost enlighten me Our Lady
of Good Studies pray for me Sacred Head of Jesus, Seat of divine wisdom, enlighten me. Remember, when you succeed in the exam s then you
should thank St. Joseph of Cupertino.

Live Jesus in our Hearts! Forever!

GOOD LUCK!

GUZMAN, JULIUS | CONSTI1 MIDTERM REVIEWER De La Salle University College of Law 27