MIDTERM NOTES
I. SOVEREIGNTY
-the supreme & uncontrollable power of the state to govern
itself
Characteristics/2 aspects:
a. Internal- manifested by ability of state to govern its
territory, passage of laws, territoriality
b. External- freedom from external control, exclusion of
external actors from domestic authority structures;
there’s still this if theoretically a state has the final say on
matters
Westphalian Concepts: 3 key principles of sovereignty (as
found in the Westphalian Treaty)
1. The principle of the sovereignty of states & the
fundamental right of political self-determination
2. Principle of equality between states
3. Principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal
affairs of another state
Modern Concept: Sovereignty Modern by Jackson (opposed
to “vacuum principles” of Westphalia)
-there are cases that the world must resolve by
explicit/implicit departures from traditional sovereignty
concepts (Westphalian)
-recognize certain international institutions as the legitimate
entities to decide on some parameters; provide also for a
system of checks & balances of those institutions
-traditional concepts themselves must evolve & be redefined
-develop the international community
-use concept of interdependence to justify new norms &
persuade nations to give consent
-break down the complex array of sovereignty concepts &
examine particular aspects in detail
CASES
1. Reagan vs CIR- Reagan disputes payment of income tax
from sale of his car
-(internal sovereignty) Phil is independent & sovereign, its
authority may be exercised over its entire domain; no portion
thereof that is beyond its power
-within its limits, its decrees are supreme, commands
paramount; laws govern therein; extent of its jurisdiction
both personal & territorial
-Doctrine of Auto-limitation- the property of a state-force
due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-
determination & self-restriction. A state, if it chooses to, may
refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable
competence; state asserts sovereignty
-such areas do not become impressed with an alien
character; they retain their status as native soil; its
jurisdiction may be diminished but it does not disappear; are
not & cannot be foreign territory; jurisdiction of the nation
susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself; can flow
from no other legitimate source other than the state
-not even the embassy premises of a foreign power are to be
considered outside the territorial domain of the host state
-Phil merely consent that USA exercise jurisdiction in some
cases; consent given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy,
expediency
-HENCE, in ceding territory, not surrendering sovereignty,
only exercise of sovereignty. Why? Because sovereignty is
absolute, indivisible & inalienable, hence, sovereignty can’t
be ceded
2. Tanada vs Angara- entered, signed & ratified membership
in WTO
-treaties really limit/restrict the absoluteness of (exercise of)
sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may surrender
some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater
benefits granted/derived from a convention/pact
-in pursuit of mutual objectives & benefits, states commonly
agree to limit exercise of absolute rights
-(exercise of ) sovereignty of state cannot in reality be
absolute because of restrictions: 1. Limitations imposed by
membership in the family of nations, 2. Limitations imposed
by treaty stipulations | interdependence
II. Sovereign Immunity: Doctrine of Non-Suability of State
 Related concept with sovereignty
Bases/Reasons/Grounds
1. Constitutional Basis- Article 16, section 3, 1987 Consti,
“The State may not be sued without its consent.”
2. Philosophical Basis- there can be no legal right as against
the authority that makes the law on which the right
depends (RP vs Villasor)
3. Sociological/Practical Basis- there would be loss of time
and energy; divert time & resources of state (RP vs
Villasor)
CASE: RP vs Villasor
-judge rendered decision to get funds of AFP
-state consent limits claimant’s action only up to the
completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution
& power of courts ends when judgment is rendered since
government funds may not be seized to satisfy judgments
Why is doctrine of non-suability not unjust? Go back to the
bases
 State may not be 1)sued without its 2)consent
-determine first if it’s suit against the state before getting
consent
When is it a suit against a state? 3 instances (enumerated)
1. Suing the state by its name (but name is just an indicator)
TESTS:
a) whether state will be asked to do an affirmative
act: 1)release funds, 2)release property
-if no affirmative act is needed, even if vs. RP, not
truly suit against the state
-b) whether state is performing governmental
function; if state is engaged in commercial/business
transaction (proprietary), it descends to the level of
a private individual & can then be sued (implied)
Example: Largo vs RP- prima facie suit against the
state, but not conclusively suit against the state
-When can this be a suit against the state? If state is asked to
do an affirmative act, release funds/property, and if state
performed governmental function
-If I file a case against state to give back property, is it suit
against the state? Yes since I’m asking state to do an
affirmative act which is to release property
-If a state is sued by name, is it suit against the state? May
be, may be not if state not asked to do affirmative acts to
satisfy eventual judgment such as releasing funds/property
CASES
1. Del Mar vs Phil Veterans Association- del Mar receiving
pensions from both Phil & USA, but Phil cancelled 1 of his
pensions
-exception to doctrine: a claimant institutes an action against
a functionary who fails to comply with his statutory duty to
release the amount claimed from the public funds already
apportioned by statute for benefit of said claimant
2. USA vs Ruiz- USA sued to allow company to perform work
on the sea wall/wharf
-sovereign, governmental acts/ jure imperii & private,
commercial, proprietary acts/ jure gestionis; state immunity
extends to jure imperii only
-restrictive application of state immunity is proper only when
the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the
foreign sovereign. A state may be said to have descended to
the level of an individual & can be deemed to have tacitly
given its consent to be sued only when it enters into
business contracts
-does not apply when contract relates to the exercise of its
sovereign functions; here, projects are integral part of naval
base, hence not dedicated to business purposes, still need
consent
-correct test for application of state immunity is not
conclusion of contract by a state but the legal nature of the
act
2. Suit against governmental agency
-Why/When is it suit in reality against the state even if
against governmental agency only? If it is against
unincorporated government agency where such government
agency will have to go back to state for satisfaction of
judgment; so ultimately it is a suit against the state
Steps in ascertaining if it’s suit against state:
a) Check what kind of agency is involved in the suit (& not the
function)
b) If the agency involved is unincorporated, determine if it is
doing a governmental/proprietary function
c) If doing governmental function, it is a suit against the state
& one will need its consent
Kinds of government agency:
a) Unincorporated government agency- no charter of its own;
merged with whole governmental machinery; no personality
of its own; derive personality from state itself
b) Incorporated government agency- has personality of its
own, so suit is against it, not against the state; has personality
separate & distinct from state; case you file is a case against it
only; can be sued even if doing governmental/proprietary
functions
CASES:
1. RP vs Feliciano
- Feliciano wants to be declared rightful owner of property in
question vs. NARRA’s claim
-action is directed against the RP, represented by the Land
Authority, a governmental agency created by RA
-failure of RP to assert defense of immunity from suit when
the case was tried before a lower court: now settled that such
defense may be invoked by the courts at any stage of the
proceedings
-consent of state to be sued must emanate from statutory
authority; can only be made by an act of the legislative body
2. Professional Video vs TESDA- TESDA & PROVI entered into
contract for I.D.s
-TESDA is an instrumentality of the government undertaking
governmental functions; unincorporated instrumentality of
the government operating under its own charter; as an
agency, cannot be sued without consent of state
-the fact that a non-corporate government entity performs a
proprietary function does not necessarily result in its being
suable; not suable if said proprietary function is undertaken
as an incident to its governmental function
-public funds cannot be object of garnishment proceedings
even if consent to be sued is given by state & liability is
adjudged; need corresponding appropriation law
3. Air Transportation Office vs. Spouses Ramos- land dispute
-non-suability does not extend to an agency engaged in a
function which is essentially a business; not regarded as suit
against the state; here, ATO was engaged in management &
maintenance of Loakan Airport; ATO is also an incorporated
agency
4. SHELL vs Jalos- Shell sued for its pipes causing pollution
-Shell not an agent of the state; only a service-contractor for
exploration & development
-an agent is any person who binds himself to render some
service in representation of another, with the consent of the
latter; Shell doesn’t represent; not an agent & can be sued
without state’s consent
3. Suit against a government official
-When is it suit in reality against the state even if against
government official only? IF these allegations are made:
a) Suing government official in his official capacity
b) The government official acted without bad faith, malice,
negligence & corruption
c) Suing government official not in his personal capacity
If there’s ANY of these allegations, NOT SUIT against the
state but against the official only:
a) Government official’s actions were unlawful & injurious to
the rights of others
b) Suing government official in his personal capacity
CASES:
1. Lansang vs CA- Lansang sought to evict GABI from selling in
Rizal Park
-rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the
state if satisfaction of judgment against the public official
concerned will require the state itself to perform a positive
act, such as appropriation of the necessary amount
-does not apply where official is charged in official capacity
for acts that are unlawful & injurious to the rights of others;
bad faith
-neither when sued in his personal capacity although he
committed acts complained of while he occupied a public
position
2. Calub vs CA – Forest Protection team confiscated
motorcycles & owners want them back
-immunity applies to officials performing activities within
their authority in good faith, without willfulness,
malice/corruption
-performed by them in the discharge of their official duties
-here, cannot prosper without state’s consent
QUESTIONS:
-When is a suit against the state? 3 instances (above)
-Given it’s a suit against the state, what will happen to the
suit? If there is no consent, case will be dismissed. If with
consent, case may proceed
-If it is a suit against the state, what do you do next?
Obtain CONSENT of state:
a) Express- only through law (not by president/sol gen, etc.)
A1. General law
-Art. 2180, New Civil Code: (express) consent is given
by state if filed against a special agent of the state
(here, consent to be sued is given to anyone who
comes within this provision)
-Money claims arising from contracts: one can lodge
money claim with Commission on Audit; if not acted
upon within 60 days, one can file a case in court
A2. Special law- pass law giving consent to be sued
for a particular person, e.g. Meritt
b)Implied consent
b1. When there is a valid claim for compensation arising from
the taking without just compensation & proper expropriation
proceedings
b2. When state sues, it opens itself for counterclaims
b3. When the state engages in commercial/business
transactions
b4. When injustice is done on a citizen
CASE: Merritt vs Phil
-Merritt had accident with General Hospital ambulance
-government passed act authorizing Merritt to bring suit
-state only liable for acts of its agents, employees when they
act as special agents; in this case, chauffer of the ambulance
was not a special agent
-whether state intends to make itself liable rests only with
legislature & not with court
SUABILITY not equal to LIABILITY
-consent to be sued only extends to proceedings anterior to
the stage of execution & power of courts ends when
judgment is rendered; only to prove liability
-to make state liable, one needs separate appropriation for
money claim
GENERAL PROCESS IN SUING THE STATE:
a) Identify if it’s a suit against the state; obtain consent
b) Prove state is liable
c) If liable, ask state to make separate appropriation through
legislature
d) If no appropriation is made, compel legislature through
mandamus
-process is long, hence, there is no practical benefit in suing
the state
GENERAL PROCESS FOR MONEY CLAIMS ARISING FROM
CONTRACTS:
-Under CA No. 327, as amended by PD No. 1445, a claim
against the government must first be filed with the
Commission on Audit, which must act upon it within sixty
days. If the claim is rejected the claimant is authorized to
elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on certiorari and in
effect sue the State with its consent.
-If case is won for money claim , there must be a separate
appropriation to get the money claim or purpose.
STEPS FOR MONEY CLAIMS ARISING FROM CONTRACTS:
1. File with the Commission on Audit to determine if the
complaint is tenable which must act upon it.
2. If rejected, the claimant is authorized to elevate the matter
to the Supreme Court on Certiorari.
3. In effect, the claimant can sue the State with its consent.
4. If the claimant won the case, when final judgment of the
Supreme Court rendered, he will return to Commission on
Audit.
5. Commission on Audit will submit a letter to the President
in which the latter will may recommend to the Congress to
make an appropriation law in the claimant’s favor.
6. If the Congress doesn’t make a law, the claimant may file a
petition for mandamus to compel the former to make a bill
for his claims enactment and approval of the necessary
appropriation ordinance and the corresponding disbursement
of funds
III. GOVERNMENT
-is the agency of the state through which the will of the state
is formulated, expressed & carried out
-here, government is the agent and the state is the principal
-order of the state: to do that which is beneficial, “State can
do no wrong”
CASE: US vs Dorr
-defendants convicted of libel against state
- contains no attack upon the governmental system by which
the authority of the U.S. is enforced in these islands. The form
of Goverment by a Civil Commission and a Civil Governor is
not assailed. It is the character of the men who are instructed
with the administration of the government that the writer is
seeking to bring into disrepute
-Administration means the aggregate of those persons in
whose hands the reins of the govt are for the time being
-Government is the agency of the state through which the
will of the state is formulated, expressed & carried out
 if government no longer does will of the state/mandate of
the principal/do acts which are beneficial, replace the
agent/government through the people & through the
Doctrine of Revolution/ Doctrine of Direct State Action
-Rebellion is an unsuccessful revolution; did not succeed
hence it becomes a crime, vs.
-Revolution/Direct State Action- able to unseat the
government since the state acted directly; successful
revolution
-Definition (Concurring Opinion Mendoza): an inherent right
of people to cast out their rulers, change their policy or effect
radical reforms in their system of government or institutions
by force or a general uprising when the legal and
constitutional methods of making such change have proved
inadequate or are so obstructed as to be unavailable. The
locus of positive law-making power lies with the people to
abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of
government without regard to the existing constitution
- Is revolution illegal? cannot be illegal since performed by
the state
-Is it constitutional? revolution cannot be deemed
unconstitutional/constitutional because it is not provided in
the constitution; it is extraconstitutional since this orbits
outside the loop of the constitution; right to revolt can’t be
placed in the constitution because state would then be
planting the seeds of its own destruction
-When is an act unconstitutional? when there is a provision
in the constitution and the act violates it
-Right to revolt cannot be recognized as a constitutional
principle; a constitution to provide for the right of the people
to revolt will carry with it the seeds of its own destruction; it
orbits outside the loop of the constitution. Rather, the right
to revolt is affirmed as a natural right
-Can Direct State Action/Revolution emanate from Art 2, sec
1 “The Phils is a democratic & republican state. Sovereignty
resides in the peope & all government authority derives
from them”? No because sovereignty of the people is only
manifested through the ballot and nothing else
CASE: Estrada vs Arroyo
-Arroyo became president after Estrada was forced to leave
-government of Arroyo is not revolutionary in character; oath
she took is under 1987 consti; she swore to preserve &
defend the 1987 consti; discharged powers of president
under 1987 consti
-distinction between EDSA 1 & 2: 1 involves the exercise of
people power of revolution which overthrew the whole
government; 2 Is an exercise of people power of freedom of
speech & assembly. 1 is extraconstitutional & 2 is
intraconstitutional & can be subject to judicial review; 1 is a
political question & 2 is a justiciable question
Kinds of Government
1. based on number of persons holding power
a) monarchy
b) oligarchy
c) democracy- direct/pure democracy (people take part
in passage of laws)
-indirect/republican (through reps)
2. based on relationship between legislative & executive
a. presidental
b. parliamentary
3. based on power of central authority
a) federal
b) unitary – Phils is unitary; what has been
decentralized is only function, not power
4. other class
a. de jure- government that has a valid title
but no actual control
b. de facto- no valid title but with actual
control
-Is our present government de facto/de jure? Neither; this
class is only during the war when there’s both de facto & de
jure existing; now, Phils has only one government & we are
not at war
CASES:
1. Co Kim Cham vs Tan Keh- wants to continue proceedings in
civil case since war is now over & japs have left
-THREE Kinds of de facto government:
A) that government that gets possession & control of,
usurps, by force/voice of majority, the rightful legal
government & maintains itself against the will of the latter
B) that which is established & maintained by military forces
who invade & occupy a territory of the enemy in the course
of war
-What is the effect of belligerent occupation?
There is no change in sovereignty (de jure sovereign is the
one not in control & de facto sovereign is the occupant).
Political laws, except the law on treason, are suspended;
municipal laws remain in force unless repealed by the
belligerent occupant. However at the end of the belligerent
occupation, when the occupant is ousted from the territory,
the political law which had been suspended during the
occupation shall automatically become effective again, under
the principle of postliminy
-On our Political Laws- immediately cease to have effect,
except insofar as they are continued in force by the express
consent of the ne sovereign
-On our Municipal Laws- those which are not in conflict with
the laws of the new sovereign may continue in force with the
express consent of the new sovereign or until changed by the
sovereign through legislative acts; not changed merely by
change of sovereignty
-On Judicial Decisions- good & valid during the occupation
and even beyond except those of a political complexion
which are automatically annulled as soon as the legitimate
authority is restored
Basis: Sec. III of the Hague Convention of 1907 - powers and
duties of de facto governments regulated
-Belligerent occupant has the right and is burdened with duty
to insure public order and safety during military occupation.
-He can suspend the old laws and promulgate new one and
make such changes in the old as he may see fit.
-He is enjoined to respect, unless absolutely prevented by the
circumstances, the municipal laws in force in the country -
enforce public order and regulate social and commercial life
of the country.
-BUT, laws of political in nature are suspended
PRINCIPLE OF POSTLIMINY (POSTLIMINIUM)
-the fact that a territory which has been occupied by an
enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate
government of sovereignty, does not except in a very few
cases, wipe out the effects of acts done by an invader, which
for one reason or another it is within his competence to do.
-Judicial acts done under his control, when they are not of a
political complexion, administrative acts so done, to the
extent that they take effect during the continuance of his
control, and the various acts done during the same time by
private persons under the sanction of municipal law, remain
good.
C) that established as an independent government by the
inhabitants of the country who rise in insurrection against
the parent state
2. Lawyers League vs Aquino- issue is Aquino’s govt
-legitimacy of Aquino govt is not justiciable but belongs to the
realm of politics where only the peope are the judge
-not merely de facto but a de jure govt; accepted by the
people & community of nations
Functions of government
1. Constituent function- those which constitute the bond of
society & are therefore compulsory & not optional such as
keeping of order & providing protection
2. Ministrant- undertaken only to advance the general
interest of society & are optional
-now, distinction between constituent & ministrant is
already blurred
3. Doctrine of Parens Patriae- parent of the people; the state
has the sovereign power of guardianship over persons
under disability
CASE: Govt vs de Piedad
-money loaned to de piedad; state now has to get it back for
those damaged by earthquake
-duty of the government to exercise supervision & control
over the money & devote it to the object for which it was
originally destined
-in bringing this suit, government is exercising its sovereign
functions or powers and its being the parent of the people
IV. Principles of Goverment
ARTICLE 2:
1. Sec 1, “The Phils is a democratic & republican state.
Sovereignty resides in the people & all government
authority emanates from them.”
-Is stating democratic & republic redundant? No; if you leave
only republican, you leave out philosophical basis which is
democracy; also, people legislating thru initiative &
referendum is purely democratic & not republican since they
can directly exercise powers of government
Ways by which people directly exercise sovereignty:
a)Election b)plebiscite c)initiative d)recall e)referendum
Democracy & Republicanism (Dissenting of Puno)
a) Plato- did not want democracy; those of low quality would
dominate the state by mere numerical superiority
b) Aristotle- democracy could be done if upper class govern
for they represent people of greatest refinement & quality
c) Middle Ages- industrial revolution enabled Europe to rise
because of the efforts of individuals; theory of popular
sovereignty developed where all people were equal; social
contract theory also came where it is the act of people
exercising their sovereignty & creating a govt to which they
consent
d) John Locke- democracy should be limited to people with
personal stake in society: land owners
e) Thomas Jefferson- people including ordinary folk should be
given chance to govern since they are the only competent
guardians of their liberties
RIGHT OF REVOLUTION (Concurring Opinion Mendoza)-
inherent right of the people to cast out their rulers, change
their policy or effect radical reforms by force
-sovereign will of people expressed through ballot; any
exercise of the powers of sovereignty in any other way is
unconstitutional
-right to revolt cannot be recognized as a consti principle; it is
only affirmed as a natural right & must be exercised only for
weighty & serious reasons
2. Sec 2, “The Phils renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, & adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land….”
-not renouncing defensive war, only aggressive war, so there
is still need to maintain AFP
-DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION vs DOCTRINE OF
TRANSFORMATION
Distinguish first:
1. Domestic/municipal law- national laws; statutes
2. Generally accepted principles of international law (GAPIL)-
never just international law; has to be GAPIL, e.g.
prohibition on genocide
DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION: GAPIL is adopted as part of
the law of the land & accepted
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION: Congress has to make
GAPIL into national legislation before anyone can invoke a
GAPIL
-in Phils, we adhere to Incorporation as stated in Sec 2
Problem: What if domestic law in conflict with GAPIL? FIRST,
try to harmonize both. Only in case of irreconcilable conflit
should one apply rules; can’t directly uphold domestic law
since it’s equal in footing with GAPIL; except if GAPIl conflicts
with Consti; then Consti prevails
CASES:
1. Philip Morris vs CA- Morris sued Fortune since latter used
similar trademark of MARK, MARK TEN and LARk
-our municipal law on trademarks regarding requirement of
actual use in Phils must subordinate an international
agreement inasmuch as the apparent clash is being decided
by a municipal tribunal
-fact that intl law has been made part of the law of the land
doesn’t mean primacy of intl law over municipal law
-under doc of incorp, int’l law is given equal standing to
national law
2. Sec of Justice vs Lantion- extradition case
-pacta sunt servanda- parties to a treaty must keep their
agreement in good faith
-under doc of incorp, no further legislative action is needed
to make intl rules applicable in the domestic sphere
-if conflict is irreconcilable, municipal law should be upheld
since courts are organs of municipal law & accordingly bound
by it under all circumstances
3. Sec 3, “Civilian authority is at all times supreme over the
military. The AFP is the protector of the people & the state.
Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the state & the
integrity of the national territory.”
a)The principle of civilian supremacy
-this is in line with the principle that “sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority emanates from
them,” and this supremacy is “at all times, supreme over the
military.”
b)The principle that the AFP is “the protector of the people
and the State.”
- if the President of the RP, or high government officials are
the ones committing abuses while in the performance of their
duties, the AFP is obliged, under Sec. 3, to protect the people
of the State, against their abuses. In other words, the interest
of the people is more supreme than official’s interest
-President is commander in chief; even in martial law,
President is highest civil authority
4. Sec 4, “The prime duty of the government is to serve &
protect the people. The government may call upon the
people to defend the state; all citizens may be required by
law to render personal, military or civil service.”
-government as protector of the people & people as
defenders of the state
5. Sec 6, “The separation of church & state shall be
inviolable.”
-this is a requirement to the state; as long as state doesn’t
breach the wall; let the church be even if they do something
Implemented by:
5.1 Art 3, sec 5, Freedom of Religion Clause, “No law shall
be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
2 fold concept:
a) non-establishment of religion- but there is operation of
sectarian schools, religious instruction in public schools,
tax exemption, aid to religion
b) free exercise of religion- state can’t establish religion, but
when one chooses religion, state should allow its exercise
5.2 Art 6, sec 28, par 3, “Charitable institutions, churches
and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit cemeteries & all lands buildings,
improvements actually, directly & exclusively used for
religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be
exempt from taxation”
-state has to exempt from tax in order to avoid establishment
of religion
-avoid excessive entanglement with religion; avoid constant
contact; if you tax them, they will keep on coming back to the
state & this will foster excessive entanglement
5.3. Art 6, sec 29, par 2 “No public money.. shall be
appropriated.. for any church.. except when such priest.. is
assigned to the AFP.. leprosarium.”
-allowed to be appropriated since people in said institutions
have limited mobility ; so as not to curtail religion, allow
priests to go to these institutions
CASE: Aglipay vs Ruiz
-government sold postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd
intl eucharistic congress
-union of church & state is prejudicial to both
-the act here does not contemplate a religious purpose;
issuance by postage stamps not inspired by any
denomination; not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic
Church
-selling the stamps was to advertise the Phils & attract more
tourists; officials merely took advantage of an event
considered as national importance
-on the stamp, what is shown is not chalice but map of Phils;
what’s emphasized is Manila as seat of that congress, not the
congress; these are mere incidental results
CASES/ OTHER Policies of government:
1. Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS- FILIPINO FIRST POLICY
-Filipinos (qualified) should be given preference in the grant
of concessions, privileges & rights covering national
patrimony
This policy is product of Phil nationalism
2. Tanada vs Angara- ECONOMIC NATIONALISM
-Consti mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, but it also
recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of
the world; limits protection of Filipino enterprises only
against foreign competition & trade practices that are unfair
-policy of SELF-RELIANT & INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ECONOMY- does not rule out foreign competition; not
intended to be an isolationist policy
3. Calalang vs Williams- SOCIAL JUSTICE
-animal drawn vehicles prohibited from passing in certain
street
-Social justice: insure the well-being & economic security of
the people; humanization of laws & equalization of social &
economic forces by the state; bringing greatest good to the
greatest number; salus populi est supreme lex
4. Oposa vs Factoran- PROMOTION OF BALANCED &
HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY
-twin concepts: intergenerational responsibility & 1) Check on Congress:
intergenerational justice
-represent their (minors) generation & generations yet
unborn
-the judicious management & conservation of the country’s
resources; duty to refrain from impairing the environment
5. Valmonte vs Belmonte- HONEST PUBLIC SERVICE & FULL
DISCLOSURE
-to furnish copy to media of those who obtained clean loan
-right of the people on matters of public concern shall be
recognized; an informed citizenry is vital to the democratic
government
-right to information is premise of right to speech &
expression; goes hand in hand with full public disclosure &
honest public service
-2 reqs for right to information: limited to transactions
involving public interest; no exact definition for public
interest; court has to determine on case-to-case basis; &
information sought not among those excluded by law
-GSIS funds assume public character since GSIS is trustee of
govt & its employees
6. Akbayan vs Aquino- HONEST PUBLIC SERVICE & FULL
DISCLOSURE
-demand copy of JPEPA full text including negotiations
- diplomatic negotiations are covered by the doctrine of
executive privilege, thus constituting an exception to the
right to information and the policy of full public disclosure
-information on inter-government exchanges prior to
conclusion of treaties may be subject to reasonable
safeguards for the sake of national interest
- recognized exceptions: privileged information, military and
diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national
security and public order
-presumption that the public interest favors confidentiality
can be defeated only by a strong showing that the
responsibilities of that institution cannot responsibly be
fulfilled without access to records of the President's
deliberation
V. POWERS & STRUCTURE OF PHIL GOVERNMENT:
DOCTRING OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
-Doc of Separation of Powers has 3 assumptions:
1) the powers of government are divided into 3, legislative,
executive & judicial
2) these 3 powers are distributed to 3 branches
3)these 3 branches are separate & co-equal (exc. when there
is blending of powers)
Purpose? To prevent concentration of powers
Where in the Consti is Sep of Powers found? Art 6,7,8;
legislative, executive & judicial powers are actually
distributed in the constitution
CHECKS & BALANCES- to look into the action of one branch to
ensure that the other branch performs its power/duty
-by Judiciary: judicial review
-by President- veto power
2) check on President
-by judiciary: judicial review
-by Congress: concurrence (in treaties), check on
appointments, impeachment, override veto
3) check on judiciary:
-by President: can grant pardon to convict to temper
harshness of sentence
-by Congress: can limit jurisdiction of courts
 NOT A VALID CHECK- when Congress passes law that does
not set forth policy but interprets the law – interpretation
of the law is not the province of the legislature
 DIRECT CHECK ON JUDICIARY- when Congress passes a law
that changes the conditions on which the law is based
-BLENDING OF POWERS- instances of sharing powers among
the 3 branches
CASE: Separate Opinion, Justice Puno
- prevents the concentration of legislative, executive, and
judicial powers to a single branch of government by deftly
allocating their exercise to the three branches
-dates back from the time of Aristotle but the “modern”
concept owes to Locke and Montesquieu
-Locke: advocated the proper division of the legislative,
executive and federative powers; that executive powers
should not be placed in one person or group of persons
exercising legislative power because “it may be too great a
temptation to human frailty
- Montesquieu: redefined concept; legislative and executive
powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of
magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions
may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact
tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner
-American Revolution: separation of powers requires a
watertight compartmentalization of the executive, judicial,
and legislative functions and permits no sharing of
government
-In our constitution, it obtains not through express provision
in the Consi but by actual division in our consti
-principle of separation of powers (1) allows the “blending”
of some of the executive, legislative, or judicial powers in one
body; (2) does not prevent one branch of government from
inquiring into the affairs of the other branches to maintain
the balance of power; (3) but ensures that there is no
encroachment on matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the other branches
VI. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT: STRUCTURE
Article 6
Sec 1 “The Legislative power shall be vested in the Congress
of the Phil which shall consist of a Senate & HOR, except to
the extent reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative & referendum.”
-legislative power not exclusive to Congress; shared with the
people under system of initiative & referendum
-initiative on Consti- no enabling law yet; only for national &
local legislation
Sec 2 “The Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators who
shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Phils, as
may be provided by law”
Sec 5, 1 “The HOR shall be composed of not more than 250
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected
from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces,
cities, & the Metropolitan Manila Area… & those who, as
provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
system..”
Sec 5, 2 “ The party-list reps shall constitute 20 percentum of
the total number of reps including those under the party-list.
For 3 consecutive terms after the ratification of the COnsti, ½
of the seats allocated to party-list reps shall be filled… from
the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth.. exc. the religious sector”
Structure of Legislative Department- composed of the
Congress of the Phil—2 houses
-Senate – 24 senators; Can only be increased by
constitutional amendment
-House of Reps – not more than 250
Can this be increased by legislation/law? Ways of creating
legislative district, thereby increasing number of
representatives:
1. Create a province (in the constitution)- allocate a seat for
one representative
2. create a city with a pop of at least 250 thousand
(allocating one seat)
3. Pass a district apportionment law/ general
reapportionment law- create a legislative district: req:
contiguous (close by, nearby), compact, adjacent
territories
Reason for req.? – to prevent gerrymandering – unfair
distribution of legislative district
Exception: no decided case yet if req. is mandatory, to be
interpreted literally. Required only “as far as practicable”
CASE: Sema vs COMELEC
-creation of Shariff Kabunsuan as province
-the creation of any of the four local government units –
province, city, municipality or barangay – must comply with
three conditions: 1) creation of a local government unit must
follow the criteria fixed in the LGC 2)such creation must not
conflict with the Constitution 3) there must be a plebiscite in
the political units affected
- a province cannot be created without a legislative
district/city with a population of 250,000/more cannot also
be created without a legislative district
-power to increase allowable membership in the HOR & to
reapportion legislative districts, vested exclusively in
Congress
-when a province is created, a legislative district is created by
operation of the Consti because the Consti provides that
"each province shall have at least 1 representative" in HOR
2 kinds of members of HOR:
1. District representatives- created in 3 ways
2. Party-list- 20 percent of the total number of
representatives including those under the party list
-To compute: Formula in BANAT
Qualifications/disqualifications as a registered party list
(Bagong Bayan):
 1. Represent the marginalized and the underrepresented-
examples are labor, peasant
2. Major political parties can be a party-list- show that they
represent the marginalized and underrepresented
What’s prohibited is registration of religious group; but if
you didn’t register your religious org, you can
3. must not be funded by the government
Seats for the Party-list (VETERANS)
1. 20 percent allocation for party-list – inviolable
2. 2% threshold – minimum 2% of the total valid votes cast
for the party-list = entitled to one seat
3. Three-seat limit rule
4. Proportional representation
1,2,3 rule- different scenarios / Veterans Ruling –
Knowing how to compute additional seats
1. Determine the first party (highest votes for party-list)-
give maximum number to the first party (3 seats), to the
next parties, can’t get 3 seats anymore
2. Determine additional seats to be given to the first party –
if you can only give 1 to first party, can’t give additional
seats to next parties (proportion and rule- can’t give
more seats to those below first party) then possible can’t
fill up entire 55 seats
NEW RULING: BANAT CASE for computation of additional
seats; VETERANS, only for inviolable parameters & first round
of allocating seats
CASES:
1. Navarro vs Ermita- creation of Province of Dinagat Islands
-A province may be created: if it has an average annual
income, as certified by the Department of Finance, of not less
than P20,000,000.00 based on 1991 constant prices & either
of the following requisites: contiguous territory of at least
2,000 sq km, as certified by the Lands Management Bureau or
pop of not less than 250,000 as certified by the NSO;
provided that the territory need not be contiguous if it
comprises 2/more islands or is separated by a chartered city
or cities w/c do not contribute to the income of the province
- territory has reference only to the mass of land area &
excludes the waters over w/c the political unit exercises
control
-failed to comply with pop/territory req
-gerrymandering is the formation of one legislative district
out of separate territories for the purpose of favoring a
candidate or a party
2. Aquino vs COMELEC- created additional legislative district
(LD) for the Province of Camarines Sur by reconfiguring the
existing 1st & 2nd LD of the province
- There is no specific provision in the Consti that fixes a
250,000 minimum population that must compose an LD
- a 250,000 minimum population only for a city to be entitled
to a representative
- a city with a population of at least two hundred fifty
thousand (250,000) shall have at least one representative
- its legislative district may still be increased since it has met
the minimum population requirement of 250,000
-Mariano case limited the application of the 250,000
minimum pop requirement for cities only to its initial LD.
While Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution requires a
city to have a minimum pop of 250,000 to be entitled to a
representative, it does not have to increase its pop by
another 250,000 to be entitled to an additional district
3. Aldaba vs COMELEC- If laws creating LD are unquestionably
within the ambit of this Court’s judicial review power, then
there is more reason to hold justiciable subsidiary questions
impacting on their constitutionality, such as compliance with
constitutional limitation under Section 5(3), Article VI of the
1987 Consti that only cities with at least 250,000 constituents
are entitled to representation in Congress
- compliance with the pop requirement in the creation &
conversion of LGUs shall be proved exclusively by an NSO
certification
-the creation by RA 9591 of a legislative district for Malolos
City, carving the city from the former 1st Legislative District,
leaves the town of Bulacan isolated from the rest of the
geographic mass of that district. This contravenes the
requirement in Section 5(3), Article VI that each LD shall
"comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and
adjacent territory
4. Tobias vs Abalos- An Act Converting the Mun. of
Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the
City of Mandaluyong
-the creation of a separate congressional district for
Mandaluyong is not a subject separate & distinct from the
subject of its conversion into a highly urbanized city but is a
natural & logical consequence of its conversion into a highly
urbanized city
- the present limit of 250 members is not absolute; may be
increased, if Congress itself so mandates through a legislative
enactment
5. Mariano vs COMELEC- Converting the Mun. of Makati Into
a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati
-reapportionment of legislative districts may be made
through a special law
-to hold that reapportionment can only be made through a
general apportionment law, with a review of all the legislative
districts allotted to each local government unit nationwide,
would create an inequitable situation where a new city or
province created by Congress will be denied legislative
representation for an indeterminate period of time
- stood at four hundred fifty thousand (450,000), its LD may
still be increased since it has met the minimum population
requirement of two hundred fifty thousand 250,000;
not0;necessary it reaches 500,00; a city whose population has
increased to more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000)
shall be entitled to at least one congressional representative
6. Veterans vs COMELEC- 4 INVIOLABLE PARAMETERS FOR
PARTY-LIST
a) the 20 percent allocation - the combined number of all
party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the
total membership of the House of Representatives, including
those elected under the party list.
b) the 2 percent threshold - only those parties garnering a
minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the
party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the HOR
c) the three-seat limit - each qualified party, regardless of the
number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
maximum of three seats; that is, one “qualifying” and two
additional seats.
d) proportional representation - the additional seats which a
qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion
to their total number of votes.”
- Determination of the Total Number of Party-Lists:
No. of district representatives
---------------------------------- x .20 = No. of party-list
.80 representatives
- This formulation means that any increase in the number of
district representatives, as may be provided by law, will
necessarily result in a corresponding increase in the number
of party-list seats
-20 percent allocation a mere ceiling
-PROCESS FOR 1st ROUND:
a) is to rank all the participating parties according to the votes
they each obtained
b) The percentage of their respective votes as against the
total number of votes cast for the party-list system is then
determined. All those that garnered at least 2 percent of the
total votes cast have an assured or guaranteed seat in the
HOR
-process for 2nd round/distribution of additional seats – see
BANAT ruling since computation here was overruled
7. Bantay Rep vs COMELEC- party list elections must not be
personality oriented; the people are to vote for sectoral
parties, organizations, or coalitions, not for their nominees
- Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose and release
the names of the nominees of the party-list groups
8. CIBAC vs COMELEC- equal to at least six percent of the total
valid votes cast for all the party list groups, then the first
party shall be entitled to two additional seats or a total of
three seats overall
-overruled by BANAT
9. Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC- party-list system is a social
justice tool designed not only to give more law to the great
masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable
them to become veritable lawmakers themselves,
empowered to participate directly in the enactment of laws
designed to benefit them; intends to make the marginalized
& underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the
State's benevolence, but active participants in the
mainstream of representative democracy
- a "party" is "either a political party or a sectoral party or a
coalition of parties."; law defines "political party" as "an
organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
platform, principles & policies for the general conduct of
government and which, as the most immediate means of
securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports
certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public
office
- political parties – even the major ones -- may participate in
the party-list elections; but the requisite character of these
parties must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list
system
- Filipino-style party-list system, which will "enable" the
election to the House of Representatives of Filipino citizens,
1. who belong to marginalized &underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties; and
2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. who could contribute to the formulation & enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole
- not enough for the candidate to claim representation; party-
list organization or party must factually & truly represent the
marginalized and underrepresented constituencies
A party/organization must not be disqualified under Section 6
of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for
disqualification as follows:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or
association organized for religious purposes
(2) It advocates violence/ unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party/organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government,
foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether
directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly
through third parties for partisan election purposes;
(5) It violates/ fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations
relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least 1 year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections/ fails
to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list
system in the 2 preceding elections for the constituency in
which it has registered
-Qualifications of Party-List Nominees: No person shall be
nominated as party-list rep unless he is a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read
and write, a bona fide member of the party or organization
which he seeks to represent for at 90 days preceding the day
of the election, and is at least 25 years of age on the day of
the election
10. Torayno vs COMELEC- disqualification of Emano as
mayoral candidate; failed to meet the one-year residence
requirement
-in requiring candidates to have a minimum period of
residence in the area in which they seek to be elected, the
Consti or the law intends to prevent the possibility of a
"stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions &
needs of a community & not identified with the latter from
[seeking] an elective office to serve that community
-He owned a house in the city & resided there together with
his family; paid his 1998 community tax & registered as a
voter therein. To all intents and purposes of the Constitution
& the law, he is a resident of Cagayan de Oro City & eligible to
run for mayor thereof
-the actual, physical & personal presence of herein private
respondent in Cagayan de Oro City is substantial enough to
show his intention to fulfill the duties of mayor & for the
voters to evaluate his qualifications for the mayorship
11. BANAT vs COMELEC- the Constitution left the manner of
allocating the seats available to party-list reps to the wisdom
of the legislature
-In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats
shall no longer be included because they have already been
allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, the
remaining available seats for allocation as "additional seats"
are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List System
less the guaranteed seats
- we do not limit our allocation of additional seats in to the
two-percenters
- TWO STEPS IN THE SECOND ROUND OF SEAT ALLOCATION:
a) the percentage is multiplied by the remaining available
seats; the whole integer of the product of the percentage and
of the remaining available seats corresponds to a party’s
share in the remaining available seats
b) assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank
until all available seats are completely distributed
-20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a
ceiling; however, we cannot allow the continued existence of
a provision in the law which will systematically prevent the
constitutionally allocated 20% party-list representatives from
being filled
- In the second round allocation of additional seats, there is
no minimum vote requirement to obtain a party-list seat
-However, a party-list organization has to obtain a sufficient
number of votes to gain a seat in the 2nd round of seat
allocation. What is deemed a sufficient number of votes is
dependent upon the circumstances of each election
12. Ladlad vs COMELEC- choices are not to be legally
prohibited merely because they are different; COMELEC
refused to enlist Ladlas as party-list
- the enumeration of marginalized & under-represented
sectors is not exclusive; crucial element is not whether a
sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular
organization complies with the requirements of the
Constitution and RA 7941
- governmental reliance on religious justification is
inconsistent with this policy of neutrality
- As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is
not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of
homosexuals from participation in the party-list system
13. Brotherhood vs COMELEC- The disqualification for failure
to get 2% party-list votes in 2 preceding elections should be
understood in light of the Banat ruling that party-list groups
or organizations garnering less than 2% of the party-list votes
may yet qualify for a seat in the allocation of additional seats
- a party-list group or organization which qualified in the
second round of seat allocation cannot now validly be
delisted for the reason alone that it garnered less than 2% in
the last two elections
VII. QUALIFICATIONS & TERM OF OFFICE
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election,
is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a
registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less
than two years immediately preceding the day of the election
Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years
and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at
noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their
election. No Senator shall serve for more than two
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he
was elected
Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of
Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-
five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the
party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in
which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period
of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of
the election.cralaw
Section 7. The Members of the House of Representatives
shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin,
unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth
day of June next following their election. No Member of the
House of Representatives shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he
was elected.cralaw
Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular
election of the Senators and the Members of the House of
Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May
CASE: SJS vs Drug Board
-Aquilino Pimentel, Father of LGC
-students, private employees, public employees can be
required to undergo drug testing
-candidates for public office, can’t be required; add
qualification by consti amendment
NATURE of qualifications:
-exclusive & continuing (they must be possessed for the
entire duration of member’s incumbency)
RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT:
Residence to be construed as domicile, not actual residence
-How to prove intent to return? establish some degree of
permanence (beach house not of that nature); intention not
to abandon/animus manendi (left place only to pursue
studies); intent to return/animus revertendi
-Separate Opinion of Justice Puno: Domicile has been defined
as an individual’s permanent home or the place to which
whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to
return and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense
that they disclose intent.
-Macalintalvs COMELEC: domicile of origin is not easily lost.
To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must
demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of
domicile; bona fide intention of abandoning the former place
of residence and establishing a new one; and acts which
correspond with purpose
TERM VS. TENURE
Section 4 (2), “No Senator shall serve for more than two
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he
was elected”
-Problem: When you are removed from office, can you run
again (making it 3rd term for senator)? –if middle of term you
were removed from office, will running again make it 2 terms
still? YES. It was interrupted. Involuntary (interrupted term is
not consecutive with the next term. Only uninterrupted is
consecutive)
CASES:
1. Dimaporo vs. Mitra- Dimaporo was elected Rep for
the 2nd LD of Lanao del Su; filed COMELEC a Certificate of
Candidacy for the position of Regional Governor of the
ARMM so the HOR excluded him from the roll
Grounds by which term may be shortened:
a) Section 13, Article VI: Forfeiture of his seat by holding any
other office or employment in the government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or
subsidiaries;
b) Section 16 (3): Expulsion as a disciplinary action for
disorderly behavior;
c) Section 17: Disqualification as determined by resolution of
the Electoral Tribunal in an election contest; and,
d) Section 7, par. 2: Voluntary renunciation of office
-rather than cut short the term of office of elective public
officials, this statutory provision seeks to ensure that such
officials serve out their entire term of office by discouraging
them from running for another public office and thereby
cutting short their tenure by making it clear that should they
fail in their candidacy, they cannot go back to their former
position
- term of office: may not be extended or shortened by the
legislature; tenure: the period during which an officer
actually holds the office may be affected by circumstances
within or beyond the power of said officer. Tenure may be
shorter than the term or it may not exist at all. These
situations will not change the duration of the term of office
-when an elective official covered thereby files a certificate of
candidacy for another office, he is deemed to have
voluntarily cut short his tenure, not his term. The term
remains and his successor, if any, is allowed to serve its
unexpired portion
2. Gaminade vs COA- term of CSC chairman & members:
appointed by the President with the consent of the COA for a
term of 7 years without reappointment
-term: the time during which the officer may claim to hold
office as of right, and fixes the interval after which the several
incumbents shall succeed one another | tenure: period of
time during which the incumbent actually holds the office
- served as de facto officer in good faith until 2000 & thus
entitled to receive her salary and other emoluments for
actual service rendered
3. Socrates vs COMELEC- recall of Socrates
- After3 consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot
seek immediate reelection for a 4th term. The prohibited
election refers to the next regular election for the same
office following the end of the third consecutive term. Any
subsequent election, like recall election, is no longer covered
by the prohibition for two reasons: a subsequent election like
a recall election is no longer an immediate reelection after3
consecutive terms; the intervening period constitutes an
involuntary interruption in the continuity of service.

President: Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III

Vice: Jejomar Binay
Senate President: Juan Ponce Enrile
House Speaker: Feliciano Belmonte, Jr.

-TREATY: must be concurred in by at least 2/3 of all members

of Senate
-each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.. &
with concurrence of two-thirds of all its members, suspend,
expel a member