CONSTITUTION CASES
CASES FACTS
TANADA V. ANGARA In pursuant
MANILA PRINCE Manila Hotel –witnessed the
HOTEL v. GSIS history of the Philippines such
as the coup d’etat, catered for
distinguished guests and
foreign dignitaries. It has
become part of the Filipino
soul.
“FILIPINO FIRST” POLICY
ISSUES RULLING
(1) Are the provisions of (1) all provisions are self-executing,
the constitution non self- unless it is expressly provided that a
executing or self- legislative act is necessary
executing? WISDOM: constitution will be a captive of
a) Art XII congress; power to ignore and practically
b) Manila Hotel as nullify the mandate of the constitution;
part of the cataclysmic
national a) a.Yes, the state shall give
patrimony? preference to qualified Filipinos
b) b. Yes, Manila Hotel is a cultural
(2) Filipino First Policy self- heritage of the Philippines
executing?
(2) Yes.it is mandatory and positive
command
Parallelism in the Constitution
Not “self-executing” provisions (Art II Sec 19 and
Art XII Secs 10 and 12) – they do not embody
judicially enforceable constitutional rights but
guidelines for legislation
Doctrine of incorporation – bound by generally
accepted principles of international law, become
part of the law of land (ART II Sec 2)
CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON SOVEREIGNTY:
a. Limitations imposed by the very nature of
membership in the family of nations
b. limitations imposed by treaty stipulations
Pacta sunt servanda –international agreements
must be performed in good faith ; legally binding
obligation to parties
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
ART XII SEC 10 – National Economy and Patrimony;
included the privilege given to qualified Filipinos
concessions concerning national economy and
patrimony
State action covered by constitution; (1) engages
public function, (2) gov’t is so significantly involved
with the private actor as to make the gov’t
responsible for his action, (3)the government has
approved or authorized the action

LAMBINO V. COMELEC Republic Act 6735 – Initiative
and Referendum Law
(People’s initiative) Lambino
group collected signatures(6.3
M) for petition without
attaching the proposed
amendments/changes in the
petition sheet
Under the said proposal the
bicameral-presidential system
of gov’t would be changed
into the unitary-
parliamentary
2 essential requirements:
(1) the people must author
and sign the entire proposal.
No agent or rep can sign on
their behalf
(2) the proposal must be
embodied in the petition (full
text)
SANTIAGO V. Delfin of People’s Movement
COMELEC for People’s Initiative,
“petition to amend the
constitution, to lift term limits
of elective officialls”
Santiago et al, filed a special
civil action for prohibition
under rule 65 with the ff
arguments:
CONSTITUTION CASES
(1) WON RA No. 6735 is
sufficient to enable
amendment of the consti
by people’s initiative.
(2) Can the people validly
exercise People’s initiative
to amend the
constitution?
RA 6735 is unconstitutional
-Considering American Jurispudence this
case is logrolling – nullifies the entire
proposition
Gigantic fraud on people
Both qualitative and quantitative tests,
the lambino group’s initiative is a
REVISION
- changing articles Vi to VIII and
affecting a total of 105 provisions
- separation of power, affects the
entire structure of the
governemtn
(1) No. RA 6735 is inadequate to cover
the system of initiative on amendments
to the constitution. People’s initiative can
only propose, enach, reject or approve in
whole or part laws, ordinances,or
resolutions but not the constitution.
(2) No. while there are subtitles for
national and local initiatives, there is no
ART XVII SEC 1-4 (Amendments or revisions)
Petition of people’s initiative thru a plebiscite
-shall include full text of the proposed amendments
attached in the petition
-restricted to AMENDMENTS only
2 tests:
1. Quantitative - extensive, to change the
substantial entirety of the constitution;
deletion or alteration of numerous existing
provisions
2. Qualitative- whether the change will
accomplish such far-reaching changes in the
nature of our basic gov’t plan as to amount
to revision
ART XVII SEC II – non self-executing
ART VIII SEC 4 Par 3
On obtaining signatures in a people’s initiative
- Constitutional commission explicitly reveal
that the framers intended that the people
must first see full text of the proposed
amendments before they sign,, and that the
people must sign on a petition containing
such text
Initiative or referendum Law (RA 6735)
-main thrust of the law is initiative and referendum
on the nat’l and local laws
people are not accorded to “directly propose,
enact,approve or reject, in whole or part of the
constitution.
- they can only do so with respect to laws,
ordinances or resolutions

a) consti can ONLY be
amended by people’s
initiative is there is an
enabling law passed by
congress, to which no
such law has yet been
passed
b) RA 6735 does not
suffice as an enabling
law on people’s
initiative on the consti,
unlike in other modes
of initiative
HOLY SEE V. JUDGE Lateran Treaty established the
ROSARIO JR. statehood of the Vatican City.
Ambassador is the Papal
Nuncio
THE PROVINCE OF Memorandum of Agreement
NORTH COTABATO on Ancestral Domain (MOA-
V.THE GOV’T OF THE AD) –between Moro Islamic
REPUBLIC OF THE Liberation Front (MILF) and
PHILIPPINES the Rep. of the Philippines
Bangsamoro Judicial Entity
(BJE) – a far more powerful
entity than the autonomic
region recognized in the
constitution
CONSTITUTION CASES
subtitle for the initiative on the
constitution
(1) Is the concept of (1) No. Art X Sec 1 “Territorial and
“association” recognized political subdivision of the Philippines are
under the present the province cities, municipalites and
constitution? barangays. There shall be an autonomous
Is it in violation of the regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
following: Cordilleras as herein provided”
a) ART X Sec 1
b) RA 8371 a) Yes. From a plebiscite “Organic
Act”cordillera only voted –
Cordillera Aministrative Region
ART XVII, SEC 2 –not self executing
- Found in SEC 32, ART VI of the consti
the law being incomplete or inadequate cannot be
cured by empowering the COMELEC to promulgate
implementing rules and regulations
REVISION CANNOT BE DONE BY PEOPLE’S
INITIATIVE (initiative)
ROP has accorded the Holy see the status of a
foreign sovereign
Newer or Restrictive Theory of State Immunity
from Suit :
Jure Imperii (sovereign functions- not undertaken
for gain or profit) vs. Jure Gestionis (proprietary
capacity)
Question of inquiry: shall also include whether the
foreign state engaged in an activity in the regular
course of business
Associated state – two states of unequal power
voluntarily established durable links
- Transitional device of former colonies on
their way to FULL independence
- the constitution or Philippines doesn’t
provide for a TRANSITORY STATUS
preparing any part of the Phil territory to
independence
- The consti doesn’t allow a state within a
state . No autonomous region “within the
framework of this consti, and the nat’l

BBL – Bangsamoro Basic Law
(not yet declared as
unconstitutional because it
hasn’t been signed yet)
MAGALLONA VS. In pursuant of the UNCLOS,
ERMITA 2009 the congress amended
RA 3046 to RA 9522 to be
compliant with UNCLOS III or
1984
- Shorten the baseline
- Optimize the location
of some basepoint
- Classify KIG and
Scaborough Shoal as
“regime of islands”
CONSTITUTION CASES
- Marawi City-at first didn’t join,
includes Lanao Del Sur, Sulu,
Marawi, Maguindanao,Sulu,
Basilan
b) Yes accrdg. to RA 8371 or the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of
1997
Whether or not the - Unclos nor RA 9522 is not a
contentions of Magallona means to acquire, or lose
et al are tenable (capable territory.
of being defended)? - The treaty and the baseline law
has nothing to do with the
Whether RA 9522 is acquisition, enlargement, or
constitutional? diminution of the Philippine
territory.
- acquisition or loss of territory is
the international law principle
on occupation, accretion, cession
and prescription and NOT the
execution of multilateral treaties
on the regulations of sea-use
rights or enacting statutes to
comply with the treaty’s terms to
delimit maritime zones and
continental shelves
sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of
ROP.”
- Not even ARMM has an associate
relationship with the national government
---UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ART X Sec 18- Organic Act
ART X Sec 15 is consistent with Right of self-
determination (internal –people’s pursiot of its
own pol, eco, soial and cultural dev’t within an
existing state) –Indigenous people
Doctrine of Transformation – general principles of
International Law do not automatically form part of
the national law (not applicable in the philippines)
ART I – National Territory
RA 9522- framwork on the Regime of Islands
consistent with ART 121 of UNCLOS(Kalayaan Island
Group by PD 1596 and Bajo de Masinloc known as
scarborough shoal)
- did not reduce the territory of the
Philippines,but in fact increased it (from
440,994 square nautical miles to the
maritime extent of 586, 210 sq. n. m
Right of innocent passage- no state can absolutely
invoke sovereignty or innocent passage
Three regimes

ARIGO V.ADMIRAL USS GUARDIAN – over the
SWIFT Tubataha reef violates
environmental laws and
regulations
REPUBLIC Mendiola Massacre
V.SANDOVAL
Public respondent contend
that the government has
waived its immunity from suit
based on the acts and
pronouncements of the
President (Cory Aquino) as
well as the recommendation
of the commission to
indemnify the victims and/or
heirs
CURRENT ISSUES (as of September 2016) :
CONSTITUTION CASES
(1) WON the US has given
its consent to be sued
under the VFA?
(2) US liable of the damage
of Tubataha reef
(1) Was there a consented
waiver of immunity by the
state under the
circumstances?
(2) If none, can liability still
attach to the state
nonetheless, on the
context of implied liability
by the acts of its officers,
which were done as mere
agents thereof
- The law did not abandon the
Sabah claim.
(1) waiver of state immunity applies only
to criminal jurisdiction and not to special
civil action such as the writ of Kalikasan
(2) Yes , in relation to the grounding
incident on the customary laws of
navigation (violation of RA 10067)
- claim for damages caused by
environmental laws must be filed
separately
(1) there was no consented waiver on
the part of the state.
- recommendation of the commission to
indemnify the heirs of deceased does not
mean LIABILITY
- whatever the president acts or
utterances doesn’t among to the sate
having waived its immunity from suit
-this case doesn’t qualify as a suit against
a state
2) State is not accountable for the acts of
the liable officers
-public officials having acted beyond the
scope of their authority, may be held
liable for damages
-determination of the extent of responsibility of U.S.
gov’t as regards to the damage of tubataha reef
exclusively with the executive branch
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity –non-suability of
states (jus imperii vs.jus gestionis)
Par im Parem non habit imperium – all states are
equal and cannot assert jurisdiction over one
another
Doctrine of State Immunity
State instances when a suit against the State is
proper:
1. When the republic is sued by name
2. suit is against an UNINCORPORATED
GOVERNMENT AGENCY
3. when the suit is on its face against a government
officer but the case is such that ULTIMATE LIABLITY
will belong not to the officer but to the government

ISSUE
Spartlys and West Philippine sea
Duterte imposing excessive fines
Duterte ideas on imposing Martial law
CONSTITUTION CASES
FACTS
Spartly Islands – West Palawan (Kalayaan
Island Group)
- Contested and protected area
- Former Pres.Aquino Jr. referred it as
West Philippine Sea
- Philippines holding elections
municipal officials (effective
occupation) PD 1596
- May 20, 1980 Philippine registered
its claim with UN secretariat (reason:
history, indispensable need, and
effective occupation and control)
Scarborough Shoal – hollow portion of the
sea,avoided by fishermen and navigators
-Panatag shoal ; bajo de masinloc
- Permanent court of arbitration in hague –
award
UNCLOS – United Nations Convention on the
Laws of the Sea (1989) achipelagic sea lanes
where foreign vessels amy pass through or
traverse
WON it is in violation of SEC 19 ART III
Is there a constitutional crisis if the president No, public safety requires it a mere qualifying
was allowed to declare martial law?
CONCEPTS CONSTI
Right of innocent passage- allow the vessel to ART I – National Territory – Philippine
pass though the territorial warers of another Archipelago, and all other territories which
state, subject to certain restrictions the Philippines has sovereignty and
jurisdiction
Right of arrival under stress – an arrival of
the vessel ata port not of destination on Doctrine of Effective Occupation-discovery
account of lack of provisions, well founded alone is not enough (act of sovereignty)
fear of seizure,by reason of accident of the
sea disabling it to navigate
UNCLOS requiring the designation of
achipelagic sealanes- passage is permissive
and not mandatory, the philippines can
decide not t allow that(burden to Phil
security)
Yes excessive fines are not allowed by the
constitution
The legislative has the power to impose law
of fines
Sec 18 ART VII – President as the
phrase commander in chief of all armed forces of
the Philippines – call out such forces to
prevent (1)lawless violence;(2) invasion or
rebellion
 CONSTITUTION CASES
In cases of invasion or rebellion when public
safety requires it, not exceeding 60 days may
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, or place the Phil or any part thereof
under martial Law
Within 48 hours – pres submits the report to
the congress (votes of the majority)
congress has power to revoke the martial law
-duration of martial law is only up to 60 days
-SC may review the suspension of the
privilege of writ
Duterte on Federalism Unitary to federalism Amount to revision