Consti 1 Trans

Constitutional Law 1 Based on the Lectures of Atty. Rovynne Jumao-as

Transcribed by Wigmore 2013-14

Headed, Compiled, and Edited by Eng Delicana

Constitutional Law 1 Atty. Jumao-as Lectures

2

Transcribed by 1-Wigmore 13-14 Headed, Compiled, and Edited by Eng Delicana

Editors Notes: This is a compilation of the transcriptions of the lectures of Atty. Rovynne Jumao-as. It

has long been settled that the best way to pass this class is to record and transcribe the lectures of

Atty. Jumao-as since everything that will be coming out of the exam simply comes from her

lectures and her notes.

This piece is a product of the teamwork, patience, and perseverance of the the 1-Wigmore

batch of 2013-14. Simply put, this piece could not have been made into fruition had we not

worked together for this project. Similar to the whole law school experience, teamwork and

helping one another is the best way to achieve the goals each one of us set.

.

By the way, you might notice na may mga kulang-kulang na parts. And some parts may

not be as easily understood as the other parts. But put in mind na libre ra ang paghatag ani na

transcript. So wala kay right mureklamo. Kung mureklamo ka, pag transcribe ug inyuha. Simple

as that. ^_^

Lastly, whoever receives a copy of this is blessed to have friends in the right places. But

it is still recommended that your class transcribes her lectures. There might be new pieces in her

lectures this year which are not included in our edition. And some of the information here may

not be 100 percent correct. Better to transcribe as a class and use this piece to cross-reference. In

short, ayawg tinamad! Hehehe.


3


So, in particular well be discussing the Philippine Constitution. What is therefore a Constitution? It is a body of rules and maxims in which the powers of the sovereignty are habitually exercised. It therefore dictates on how, when, or what powers

the sovereignty can exercise. That definition would cover both written and unwritten constitution. The Philippine Constitution in

particular is defined as an instrument by which the powers of the government are established, limited, and defined and by which

these powers are distributed. With that definition, we can see that the Constitution is both a source of power, grant of power, and

an alienation of power. Its the instrument which establishes, defines, and limites government powers. It is, in the case of the Philippines, the fundamental law of the land by which all other laws, acts, enactments of the government must conform with.

Otherwise, these acts or laws are null and void. What then is the purpose of enacting a Constitution? Do we need to have a

Constitution? If we are to be an organized society, the answer is YES. The Constitution would be the agreed precepts or body of

maxims. We would agree on what basic rules and principles we will obey. What would then be the purpose of the Constitution?

To establish the structure of the government or form of government.

To define, establish, or distribute the powers of the government. Do we give it to an individual person? Do we divide it? That is in the Constitution.

To establish the basic principles of which the sovereignty would be governed. In our case, we believe in the principle of separation of Church and State. We believe that the civilian is supreme over the military. Otherwise, if we dont put that there, military rule will be allowed.

Now, as the basic fundamentally law, it is supposed to be the basis of all other enactments. In the Philippines, we have this

hierarchy of laws and enactments. Above in the hierarchy is, of course, the Constitution. We also have laws, international or

executive agreements or treaties. Being under the hierarchy, they must also comply with the provisions of the Constitution.

Example of those laws are Republic Acts, Commonwealth Acts, Batas Pambansa, Presidential Decrees. Who enacts the

Presidential Decrees? It is, by the term itself, enacted by the President. When we say laws, they are supposed to be enacted by the

legislative authority. Meaning, under our framework, only the department which we give the authority to enact laws will be able

to enact laws. In our case, it is the Congress. But how come I wrote here Presidential Decrees? Because in the time of Marcos, he

was given legislative powers. During the Martial Law, Marcos also exercised legislative authority. So this should be qualified

(Presidential Decrees enacted by Marcos). Another one, Executive Orders. Who issues Executive Orders? The President. Why is

it here? Was there a time in our history that an EO was considered a law? When President Corazon Aquino was acting under

pursuant to the powers granted to her by the 1986 Freedom Constitution. During that time, the Freedom Constitution granted her

legislative authority. So this should also be qualified (the Executive Orders issued by President Aquino). Otherwise, this would

not be considered as laws. These would be administrative issuances. These are now the hierarchy of laws. What else? Presidential

Proclamations, Memorandum Circulars, Administrative Orders. These are issuances by the Executive Department. Because of

this hierarchy, administrative issuances must conform with the law which it implements. And that law must conform with the

Constitution.

Another issuance? Ordinance by LGUs (Local Government Units). LGUs under our structure also has the authority to legislate local laws which we call ordinances. So it is in the bottom of the hierarchy.

The principle is that all these, being at the bottom of the Constitution, must conform with the SUPREME AND

FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND which is THE CONSTITUTION.

Now, may I ask you, are you familiar with the Constitution? Have you seen the Philippine Constitution? It is mandatory in our

high school curriculum and college curriculum. But the question is: has it been taught to you? Have you opened the Philippine

Constitution? Thats our problem. As Filipinos, we lack that particular patriotism. We dont even know the basic Bill of Rights. These are all in the Constitution. All we know that there is the President, the Vice President, Congress, Senate, and judges. But

do we know how they are related to one another? That is all in the Constitution.

So that is our Constitution. Basically, it is what all laws must conform to. Otherwise, they are null and void. But there are no

penal provisions in the Constitution. It does not provide for punishment. Thats the function of criminal laws. Now, who is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution? In our structure, it is the Congress which enacts laws, the

President which implements laws, and the Judiciary which says that certain acts or laws conform with the Constitution. So that is

our basic separation of powers.

So when we study the Constitution during the entire first semester, we will not only be reading the provisions but also

the Supreme Court decisions because these are the body of decisions or interpretations by the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is

some truth in the saying that the Constitution is what the judge says it is. Example, Puno was about to resign. His resignation was

supposed to be a few days before the next Presidential Election. So the Constitutional question there is who is supposed to

appoint the next Chief Justice because our Constitution says that the president is the one who says who the next Supreme Court

Chief Justice is. Who is supposed to appoint the next Chief Justice when the vacancy occurred a few days before election? Is it

the incumbent but outgoing president? Or is it the incoming president? Now who will answer the question? The answer will be

the interpretation of the Constitution. And since we say it is the Judiciary, then the Constitution is what the Judiciary says it is. So

we just have to trust in the wisdom of the Judiciary. But later, you will discover that they will get it wrong sometimes, but not all

the time.

So a constitution could be classified according to its form, according to how it came about, and according to how it can change or

amended. According to form, it can either be written or unwritten. On how it came about, it can be enacted, conventional, or

cumulative or evolved. According to how it can be changed, it can be rigid or flexible. So how do we classify or Constitution? It

is written, conventional, and rigid as we will all know why later.


4


Qualities of a good written constitution:

Broad-it should be comprehensive enough to cover all possible contingencies. Would our 1987 Constitution be still applicable

in 2050, in the year 3000? If it is still applicable, then our Constitution is broad.

Brief-it is the basic and fundamental, all must conform with it. It should not provide for the dealings of legislation. The

dealings of legislation is the function of Congress. It is the Congress which decides laws depending on the needs of the

contemporary times, what should be amended, some problems which were not thought of prior to the enactment of law. But if

they should change a law, it should still conform with the Constitution.

Definite-it should be clear, it should not be vague. Otherwise, it should lead to chaotic situations. So far, there are still no

provisions in the Constitution which is declared vague. Because, so far, the Supreme Court has interpreted it in such a way that it

is acceptable.

Those should also be the characteristics of your ESSAY ANSWERS. Broad, comprehensive enough. Brief, not 3 pages

long. And definite, you have a definite point, you have a definite stand.

Essential parts or basic parts of a good written constitution:

Constitution of liberty-There should be provisions or acknowledgement on civic or political rights of the citizens.

Constitution of government-there should be parts which provide for the structure and function of the government.

Constitution of sovereignty-there should be provisions on amendment or revision.

Our Constitution, therefore, is basically a good written constitution. Only that there are parts which violate the broad,

brief, and definite rule. Its not so brief. If you read it, there are very wrong parts as if the writer is making a speech. If not, there are those that are like poems or literary works. These should not have a place in a constitution.

How do you understand Constitutional Construction? How do you understand the word construction?

INTERPRETATION. Since you are now law school students, you should now use the word CONSTRUE. Construction means

interpretation. So what is the proper Constitutional Construction? The Construction should be to give effect to the intent of the

framers. How do we know the intent of the framers? You look at the history, why they enact this provision. If you cannot tell in

with the history, then you go to extrinsic aids. What are extrinsic aids? They could refer to records of the constitutional

convention.

Now, is it self-executing? The provisions are self-executing. It is prospective in application, not retroactive. It is

mandatory, not directory.

As far as we can recall in our history, we were conquered by Spain in 1521 to 1898. We were under the Spanish rule

for 300+ years of Spanish rule. When did the American rule begin? 1899 by virtue of the Treaty of Paris up to 1946. Thats 47 years. Thats 300+ years of Spanish rule against only 47 years under American regime. It was only within those 47 years that we were introduced to constitutionalism. Because before that, there was no constitution to speak of. In the Spanish rule, we were just

ruled without granting us any right under any constitution. Now, from 1899 to the current year, thats 114 years versus 300+ years under the Spanish rule. So imagine how influential the Spanish era was with regards to our culture and our system of

government. We had to change it. In fact, drastically from the Spanish rule up to the American regime and up to our

independence where we were given the authority or the right to decide for ourselves.

We had our constitution, first constitution written by ourselves in 1935. We had a Malolos constitution in 1899 but it

never saw the light of day. So it was really in 1935 that we drafted and ratified our own constitution. So in 1935 to 2013, we can

see how young our idea and our experience of a constitution is. Our idea of constitutionalism started with the entry of the

Americans. So we had that Schurman Commission who were a group of officers sent by the American president to study

constitutional condition of the Philippines. Their objective was to make a recommendation to America. They discovered that the

Filipinos were aspiring for independence but were not yet ready. But the good recommendation is that they recommended that

there should be a change on civil government because, before that, we were under military government. Thats why we had the Sooner amendment. Based on the recommendation, it was now the American president which exercised administrative

supervision over the Philippines. Still, there was still a military government. It was only until the second Philippine Commission

(aka Taft Commission) wherein we were now working under a civil government. The Taft Commission headed by Howard Taft

is now the legislative authority of the Philippines. So imagine in that time that the ones making laws for us were congressmen of

America. It was included there that there will be an enactment of municipal and provincial orders and codes. We were now

slowly established as municipalities and governments. By virtue of the Taft Commission, we were given our own Judicial

system.

After the Taft Commission, came the Philippine Bill of 1902. So it was a relevant enactment of the Taft Commission. It

was also known as the Cooper Act. The Philippine Bill of 1902 is actually the first organic act or organic law in the Philippines.

The salient features of that bill are as follows:

-Term Filipino was defined. -Bill of rights for Filipino.

-Appointment of Filipinos to represent the Philippines in the US congress.

-Establishment of a Philippine assembly. But it never came to be.

-Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916. Also known as the Jones Law. It was the first official commitment of the US to grant us our

independence. It provided for the framework for the creation of an autonomous government in preparation for our independence.


5


The Americans made good of this promise because, by 1934, the Philippine independent act was enacted or the Tydings-

McDuffie law. It was an act which granted the Philippines independence subject to a transitional period. By 1934, we were

allowed to have our own government and to draft our own constitution. But we were still under a transitional period of 10 years.

So the Philippines drafted the constitution quickly and had our own constitution by 1935. But since we were still under a

transitional period, we were called a Commonwealth Government. If you observe, the laws enacted during that time were called

Commonwealth Acts. Supposed to be, the transitional period was for 10 years. But it never came to be because the Japanese

occupation happened. We were granted independence only in 1946.

Thereafter, we were already independent and the Americans left. We were governed by our constitution. But the

constitution was drafted on volatile ground, to please the Americans. If they were happy with our constitution, they would grant

us our independence. So, there was unease. There was a feeling that it was only drafted to comply with the US bids. There was a

clamor for an amendment of the Constitution. So, the amendment happened in Javellana vs Executive Secretary. Now, as a

background, Javellana vs Executive Secretary has two parts: the plebiscite cases and the validity of the 1973 Constitution.

*Recitation*

*Insert Javellana Digest*

The bottomline is, they were still in the stage of determining of whether or not to give due course to the petition.

Majority voted to dismiss the petition. The ultimate decision was to not give due course to the petition. In other words, they

turned a blind eye to the validity of the petition. Since there was no majority to say whether or not it was acquiesced in by the

people or to say whether or not it is already in effect, and since they voted to dismiss it, there is no more legal obstacle to the

effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. If you read Bernas, he said History will be the judge of Javellana vs. Executive Secretary. But, we must accept it that it was decided under difficult times, under threat of life, risk for safety and security. It might

not have been the best time to be patriotic. But you can see how it was done. Thats why under our 1987 Constitution, we were very cautious. And there was also no legislature that time. All of them were in hiding. But, it was immaterial because we were

still in Martial Law. It was what Marcos said it was. Thats why I want you to appreciate our 1987 Constitution. So we had our People Power Revolution in 1986. By virtue of it, Proclamation No. 3 was authorized, which was the

transitional provisional constitution aka the Freedom Constitution. Under Proclamation No. 3, Aquino had both executive and

legislative authority because there was a deadline on the submission of the 1987 Constitution. So when did the 1987 Constitution

take effect?

*Recitation*

De Leon vs Esguerra involves the question of which constitution to follow for certain provisions. Would they follow

the old constitution or will they follow the 1987 Constitution. So they had to determine when the constitution took effect. The

issue was between Feb. 2, the date of the plebiscite, or Feb. 11, the date of results. So, is it during the date of the plebiscite or the

date of the result? The argument of the latter is that you cannot know if it was ratified unless you know the result. So that should

be the day of ratification. But the transitional provision provides that the Constitution will take effect only upon ratification of

the people pursuant to the votes casted during the day of the plebiscite. The votes were casted on Feb. 2, so that should be

the day of ratification. The proclamation of the results on Feb. 7 was only the official announcement of the results.

Elements of the State:

1. People

2. Territory

3. Government

4. Sovereignty

People. It must be of such a number sufficient for the continued existence of the State. The State would usually define

who will be its citizens because its citizens will be entitled foremost to the States protection. On the flip side of the coin, the citizen, while entitle to the States protection, is bound to the laws of the State. There are some that are specific to the citizens of the State. Wherever they may be found, even outside of the territory of the Philippines, there are laws which will follow them.

Territory. Pertains not only to the physical aspect of the State. It includes the land, the water, and the airspace. These

are the physical attributes of a State. Now territory may sometimes be not yet settled as to boundaries. Sometimes, there are

disputes when it comes to boundaries. Sometimes, a portion of the territory is being occupied by another sovereign. But in these

cases, it doesnt necessarily mean that the entity failed to comply with the idea of a State. It still remains to be a State notwithstanding that there are temporary problems when it comes to territory. Even if the entire territory is being occupied by

another sovereign provided that the occupation is merely temporary, it retains its characteristic as a State.

Reagan vs. CIR

There was a claim that the transaction which happened within the US military base no longer form parts of the territory

of the Philippines. That was the argument and therefore he can no longer be taxed by the Philippines. Now, the Philippines is an

independent and sovereign country. Thus, its laws are applicable in all corners of its territory. All are bound by it. If there are

some instances that some people are not bound by its laws, its because the Philippines consents to that. So that there is such a concept as autolimitation precisely because we have the legal capacity of self-determination. It also includes the legal capacity of

self-limitation or restriction. The general premise is that our control in power is inlimitable within our jurisdiction. If a portion of

our territory is granted to allow their sovereign, it does not mean that portion becomes alien, of alien nature in that when you go


6


to the military bases, you will now present your visa. It retains its characteristic as native soil. It is still part of our territory but

precisely theyre allowed there because we have the sovereign capacity to allow them to stay there but it is still within our territory.

With regards to foreign embassies, there is already international acceptance that they do not form part of the territory of the other

sovereign but is regarded as the territory of the host State. For example, an attach commits a crime within the embassy premises,

he still has committed a crime but he is not liable or prosecuted because the State consented to that and because it is the will of

the State that these certain kinds of persons will not be prosecuted. But it does not mean that they did not commit a violation of

our laws. If its not an attach committing a crime within that embassy premises, can the State, the host State prosecute him for violation of its laws? Yes, precisely because thats still within our territory. So thats territory for you.

Government. It is the instrumentality by which the will of the State and its functions are expressed. Or the State

functions through the government. When we talk about government, the Republic of the Philippines is the entity by which the

functions of the Philippine government are exercised throughout the Philippine Islands and it includes various arms through

which the political authorities made effective in the Philippines whether pertaining to the central government, the provincial

municipal branches, or other forms of government (Section 2 Revised Administrative Code).

When we talk about government, national government, it refers to those three great departments established by the

Constitution which are the executive, legislative, and judiciary. When hear about municipal corporations or local governments, it

only talks about organized local governments such as provinces, cities, or municipalities including baranggays. When we related

as a State with other countries, the government referred to is only the national government.

Now the government is the entity by which the powers and functions of the State are exercised. Now what are these

functions?

Government classifications:

1. Constituent

Mandatory functions of the government which forms the very bonds of society. In other words, these are the bonds by

which precisely the government is established. Basic mandatory functions and compulsory functions of the government.

Examples are: regulating property relations, property rights, maintenance of peace, prevention of crimes, foreign relationship and

affairs, determination of the political right of the citizens, administration of justice. These are the functions that cannot be

relegated to private entities. Can you imagine a State wherein the police force is a private entity? No because maintenance of

peace is a main function of the State. There are States which allow private police force but it doesnt mean that it can do away with its own police force.

2. Ministrant Are those that are optional functions of the government. These are the functions that the government may or may not

exercise to promote the general welfare of the society, for advancement of the society.

Those were the classifications in the case of Bacani vs NACOCO. Now the case happened in 1956. So that is an old

classification. Those were the distinctions in Bacani vs. NACOCO.

But in ACCFA vs. CUGCO, the Supreme Court said that the distinction becomes obsolete, if not practical because

there were some ministrant functions that were considered mandatory because of the increasing complexity and the demands of

modern times. For example, in Bacani vs NACOCO, you would say that public education, public works, public health which are

for the general welfare of the people are not governmental functions but rather ministrant functions. Thats in the definition under Bacani vs. NACOC. But in the latter case ACCFA vs. CUGCO, these functions promoting the general welfare are now

considered mandatory because times have changed, the needs and the demands of the modern times are more complex, we are

now tending towards social justice. In fact, it is now provided in our Constitution, say, the right to education. Its mandated to provide free education at least in the elementary level. So it is now mandated by the Constitution that these functions are no

longer considered ministrant but are now considered constituent. The better term therefore is governmental functions as against

proprietary functions. We will see this when we study State immunity. In other words, constituent or ministrant is no longer

applicable.

Another classification of government is on the basis of its legal existence:

1. De jure

Established pursuant to the legitimate sovereign or authority of the legitimate sovereign. For example, under the 1987

Constitution, a government, the officers can only be placed in power pursuant to an election.

2. De facto

Established in defiance to the legitimate sovereign. The Constitution does not prescribe occupation as a legitimate form

of change of government. So, in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez, when Japan occupied the Philippines and formed a

government for the Philippines, that is not pursuant to the authority of the legitimate sovereign, therefore it is considered as a de

facto government. In the case, the Supreme Court enumerated kinds of a de facto government:

1. Usurps by force or voice of the majority. If the people will revolt against the government and change the leaders.

2. Established and maintained by invading military force. Example is the Japanese military occupation in the case of Co Kim

Cham.

3. Established as an independent government by the inhabitance of the country. A government is formed in defiance of the

general order.


7


As in the case of Co Kim Cham, all acts not pertaining to political acts or not pursuant or in violation to political laws

are considered as valid.

The next question for our discussion is the characteristic of Aquinos government. Is it a de facto or a de jure government? We said last night that it is a de jure government because it was established by the people, the authority of the

legitimate sovereign and the legitimate sovereign is the people. But we knew that because the revolution became successful. If

the revolution failed and we werent able to establish a constitution, that government would be a de facto of the first kind. So, in Lawyers League, the Supreme Court dictated that the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable

question but its a political one. It is within the realm of the people to decide. Sovereignty is the will of the people and legitimate authority emanates from them. Thus, if the people say it is a government, then the Supreme Court cannot say otherwise. The

Supreme Court is merely a delegate of the people. That is also in In Re: Bermudez.

*Recitation In Re: Puno*

A revolution is a complete overthrow of a government by those who were previously subject to it. It is also defined as a

sudden and radical change in the government or political system. Usually, it is accompanied by violence or some act of violence.

Is that which occurs when the legal order is defied and is replaced with a new order. Now the government of Aquino is achieved

in violation of the 1973 Constitution. There is a drastic change in government not pursuant to the 1973 Constitution but in

defiance to it. Is revolution a right? Yes because the people have the inherent capacity to change its government, to change the

policy of the government to effect radical reforms to its system. But theres a qualification for that. The people can only do that if the legal constitutional methods of making those changes have proved to be inadequate or are so obstructed as to be unavailable.

The general premise is that we have a legal procedure for effecting change. But when this legal procedure are no longer adequate

as in the case of Martial Law, then we have the right to assemble. Im emphasizing this because, ordinarily, the people should not revolt because we have a system. Had the people power failed, the people would have been prosecuted for insurrection and for

inciting rebellion. Lawmaking power actually lies in the people. The original legislative authority is within the people. The legal

maxim is salus populi est suprema lex the voice of the people is the supreme law. In fact, in our Constitution, it says that

sovereignty lies in the people and all authority emanates from them. So Aquinos government is revolutionary, an entire new entity, but de jure.

What about the government of Arroyo? The legitimacy of Arroyos government was questioned in Estrada vs. Desierto. *Recitation Estrada vs. Desierto*

The question in this case revolves around the legitimacy of Arroyos government. The government of Aquino came into power through a revolution in defiance to the 1973 Constitution. The case is a political question because they cannot refer it

to any law and in the constitution. Therefore, it was the people who decided it for themselves. In Arroyos government, it was pursuant the revolutionary power of the people that is actually cited in the 1987 Constitution. So the Supreme Court, in the case

of Estrada vs. Desierto can refer it to an existing law and therefore it is a justciable case. In other words, Aquinos is extraconstitutional. In the words of the Supreme Court, it orbits outside the loop of the Constitution. On the other hand, Arroyos government is intraconstitutional.

Aquinos government is an overthrow of the entire government or change of the government. In fact, the case of In Re: Puno, the Supreme Court said that it is a completely new entity. But in Arroyos government, it was only a change of one department of the government. In fact, only one person. So thats the difference between the two governments. Is Arroyos government de facto or de jure? In fact, it is de jure.

Sovereignty. Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in the State by which that State is

governed. Inherent power of the State to control its affairs and even relate with other nations.

-if it pertains to the part of the State to controls its domestic affairs.

-refers to the relations with other States.

In relation to sovereignty under Article 16 particularly Section 3, it is provided that the State may not be sued without

its consent. This basic postulate, whether or not it is enshrined in the Constitution, refers to the recognition of the sovereign

power of the State. It is an express affirmation that the State is insulated from the jurisdiction of the courts. You cannot file a

claim against the State. The juridical practical norm is that the State can do no wrong. The practical right is that there can be no

longer rights that can be claimed against the authority that which grants the right. How can you claim the right from the entity

which grants the right? It is sometimes a ground for dishonesty because the State can always claim that it cannot be sued even if

it is a legitimate claim. Should we consider this principle as abhorable? No because it is out of necessity that he principle is born.

Why? If the State is allowed to be sued, it will be faced with multiple suits as many as there are persons, juridical or natural, with

a right to sue whether or not it has a legitimate claim against the State. Then it will defeat the functions of the government. The

idea is that the effects of suing the State will be far greater than the inconvenience brought by its unsuability.

*Recitation China National*

As discussed in this case, there are two doctrines on sovereign immunity.

1. Classical/Absolute-the sovereign, without its consent, cannot be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign. But it

has changed because of changes in the acts of States. Some states have now engaged in activities and affairs which are not purely

governmental but pertains something of an enterprise, commercial, or what we call proprietary.

2. Restrictive-provides that the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only when the acts are public or when the acts are jure

imperia of the State but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis.


8


In order to determine the immunity of the State, the first to determine is if it is engaged in a governmental function or a

proprietary function. The Philippines adheres to the restrictive doctrine. The first question is that when will you consider an act a

suit against the State. The general rule is that the suit is a suit against the State when ultimately the enforcement of the decision in

the case will require an affirmative act by the State such as the appropriation of money or funds in payment of that judgment. In

other words, the suit is not a suit against the State if there is no money judgment or financial requirement for the State to

appropriate funds for the payment of the judgment.

DOH vs. Philpharmawealth

In that case, Philpharmawealth engaged in the distribution and selling of drugs. It regularly participates in biddings of the DOH.

It requested the DOH to accredit a certain drug. But DOH did not act on that request until such a time that there was a bidding on

that drug. They still participated in the bidding and, in fact, it was the lowest bidder. However, because it was not accredited to

supply the drug, DOH granted the bid to another corporation (YSS). Thus, they filed a case.

There were asking for three kinds of relief:

1. Injunction for the court to annul the bidding.

2. Mandamus is to mandate. For the court to direct DOH to award the bid to Pharmawealth

3. Damages for failure to act for its request

But we will focus on the first two. So is it a suit against the State? The Supreme Court said it is not. The relief being

asked did not require the State to perform an affirmative act such as appropriating funds in payment of the judgment.

Pharmawealth was not seeking relief to require DOH to pay them some money. So it is not a suit against the State.

The next question is, who is then the State? If it is impleading against the Republic of the Philippines, then it is a suit

against the State. But rarely do lawyers implead the Republic of the Philippines as the respondent. Because the Philippines would

just exercise its immunity. So what do you do as the lawyer? You implead the government official. If you file a suit against a

department of the State, you determine if it is incorporated or unincorporated.

-Does it charter on its own? Then it has a juridical personality separate and distinct from the State. It is its own

person. Usually, charters grant government entities the capacity to sue and be sued.

-it has no juridical personality separate and distinct from the State. It is attached to the State. For example,

DOH, DePEd, DOJ. They have no personality separate and distinct. So in that case, usually it will be a suit against the State.

So in the case, DOH is unincorporated but the Supreme Court said that it can be sued. Why? Because the character of

the suit is not something that can be considered against the State.

So the next action is to implead government officials. If you cannot file a case against DOH, then you just file a case

against the Secretary of Health. Can you do that? It depends. There will also be a criteria to determine if, ultimately, it is a suit

against the State.

State Immmunity

So we said that the Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory. The immunity from suit is only restricted to jure

imperii or governmental acts. But it does not extend to jure gestionis or proprietary acts. And well know if it is a suit against the State if the ultimate liability falls upon the State to perform certain positive acts such as appropriating funds to satisfy judgement.

But if you say government office or instrumentality, it is relevant to know if it is incorporated or unincorporated government

agency because the latter has a personality separate and distinct from the State itself. So it has its own charter. And, usually,

charters would provide that they can sue and be sued. And it may not be a suit against the State.

Now going to public officials, the general rule is that, when it comes to public officials, the suit against him will

prosper or will be allowed because even the Constitution allows for judicial review of the acts of government officials because

the Constitution provides that public office is public trust. So they are liable for suits. But what we should determine is if the suit

against the public official is a suit against the State. Then the immunity will apply. So a suit against a public official is a suit

against the State if the ultimate liability falls upon the State. For example is a money judgement. The other way of saying is that it

will not be a suit against the State if the defendant or respondent is a public official if:

1. The relief demanded by the Supreme Court is no affirmative discharge to any obligation which belongs to the State in its political capacity.

Examples: if the suit is one for ejectment of a public official in a money judgement where theres already an appropriation and then the public official is not releasing the money; an official discharges, in his official capacity, acts which are

not authorized or will cause injury to the rights of others (see DOH vs Philpharmawealth).

2. When the person is not sued in his official capacity but in his personal capacity, then the suit will be allowed.

DENR vs CA

A motor vehicle was apprehended by the DENR carrying illegally sourced timber. The owner brought an action for

replevin for the recovery of the motor vehicle and the timber. Now, is it a suit against the State? The Supreme Court said that

even if the suit is against a public officer, they were sued in their official capacity because when they apprehended the motor

vehicle, they did so in their authority and by the authority of the State. So, in that case, it was a suit against the State and the State

cannot be sued without its consent.

PASI vs Trinidad


9


PASI has been assigned an orbital slot for its satellite. Then the undersecretary of DOTC awarded it to another, an

unknown bidder, the same orbital slot. So PASI filed a case not against DOTC but against the undersecretary. In this case, is it a

suit against the State? No because the act of the public officer was an act beyond her authority. And the plaintiff in this case did

not ask for liability or indemnity from the State but merely for injunction and nullity of the award. Had it been that there had been

damages sought, then it may have been considered as a suit against the State.

Now, lets say if it is a suit against the State, since we adhere to the restrictive theory, it is important to know whether the public official is performing a governmental act or a proprietary act.

PROVI vs TESDA

TESDA is a body attached to the Department of Labor. They train and accredit skills. Part of that is they issue ID cards.

The provider is PROVI. TESDA failed to pay for the ID cards. PROVI filed a suit to claim for payment. Does the immunity

apply? Yes because TESDA is an incorporated government agency attached to the Department of Labor. And then it is

performing a governmental function. The fact that it contracted with PROVI does not mean that it engaged in business. The

contract they entered into with PROVI was in relation to its governmental functions.

When a suit is against the State, the immunity is not absolute because Article 16, Section 3 provides that the State may

not be sued without its consent. Therefore, if the State consents, then it may be sued. Types of consent:

Express Consent -- given pursuant to a law, an enactment because it is only the congress which can allow suits to be

filed against the State. Consent given by the lawyer of the State is not recognizable. (See Act 3083)

The law says that the State consents to be sued provided that the money claim is first filed in the Commission on Audit.

Department of Agriculture vs NLRC

There is a certain security agency which contracted with the DA. The security agency fails to pay the statutory benefits

of the security guards. NLRC decided in favor of the guards because the labor code mandates these statutory benefits. NLRC

decided to make the security agency solidarily liable with DA. DA refused to pay on the ground of State immunity. Are they

immune? Yes because it is a government agency performing a governmental function and incorporated. It did not consent to be

sued. The Supreme Court discussed in that case that money claims should first be filed with the COA.

There are also special cases when the law grants a person the right to be sued in behalf of the State. You have to be a

special agent to be granted such a right.

Merritt vs Government

Merrit met an accident by an ambulance owned by a government hospital. A law was enacted to authorize him to file a

suit against the State. The Supreme Court said that the fact that the State consented to be sued doesnt mean that there is acknowledgement of liability. In that case, the ambulance driver did not act as a special agent of the government therefore the

State is not liable for his acts.

Implied Consent when the State enters into a contract or initiates an action. In these two instances, it can be said that the State descends to the level of an ordinary individual or an ordinary person therefore opening itself to counterclaims and

defenses of the other party. But not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability. Only

contracts which refer to commercial and proprietary acts serve as a waiver to non-suability. Contracts which are in accordance

with governmental functions do not operate as a waiver to non-suability.

Republic vs Sandiganbayan

Republic initiated a complaint against Negros Oriental Golf and Country Club for the reconveyance of some shares in

the country club owned by Benedicto. They actually sequestered the shares of Benadicto alleging that these shares were ill-

gotten. A reconveyance was filed but it turned out that the membership fees required for owning those shares were not paid. They

failed to return the shares or pay for the amount. They claimed non-suability. The Supreme Court said that it was Republic who

first initiated the action. Therefore, the State opened itself up to possible defenses and counterclaims. It has impliedly consented

to be sued in relation to those shares of stocks.

So a government agency performing governmental function may not be sued without its consent. But are there

instances when all these are present but still cannot claim immunity? Based on jurisprudence, the doctrine of State immunity

cannot be used to perpetrate injustice against a citizen.

EPG Construction vs Vigilar

DPWH is an agency of the State, incorporated, and performing governmental functions. But, in this case, the Supreme

Court said that it is not immune from suit based on the doctrine that State immunity cannot be used to perpetrate injustice against

a citizen. In this case, DPWH entered in contracts with several contractors and construction companies for a housing project. The

contract was only up to a certain stage. It so happened that, after that, there is no appropriation for the completion of the contract.

By virtue of a verbal assurance by DPWH that appropriation is forthcoming, they continued with the completion of the project.

Here, the Supreme Court said that the State cannot hide under the invisibility cloak of immunity. It must be pierced because, in

this case, it will cause injustice to the builders. How come they allowed it in this case unlike in PROVI? Because there was verbal

assurance, there were demand letters under a recommendation from the undersecretary. And the money was actually allowed to

be released by the secretary of DPWH. More importantly, the State has already enjoyed the fruits of the houses built.


10


Furthermore, the structures were already there. They didnt start from scratch. They only needed to finish what was stipulated in the contract.

Another instance where the immunity cannot be invoked by the State even when all the elements are present is when

the government takes property for public use which is conditioned upon the payment of just compensation. The taking of

property for just compensation is an exercise of the States power of eminent domain. Under the Bill of Rights, the State cannot claim property without payment of just compensation. In this case, the State takes a private property for public use. The owner

has the right to sue for payment because it is mandated by the Constitution.

ATO vs Sps. Ramos

Spouses Ramos found out that a portion of a runway actually belonged to them. The negotiated with ATO which is the

one administrating the airport in Baguio. They came to an agreement to enter into a legal sale. Later on, ATO failed to pay. So

Ramos filed for them to pay. ATO was now claiming immunity. ATO cannot invoke non-suability because it is not performing a

governmental function although it is a government agency. The management of airports is not an exclusive prerogative of the

State. So in this case, the State was running a business. The more important reason is that this is an example of taking private

property for public use which should not have been done if there is no expropriation proceeding. Since the State took it before

any expropriation, the State should pay the amount to Spouses Ramos.

Lets say the State has consented to be sued and theres an existing claim and theres judgement against the State. If the Court finds against the State, is the State ultimately liable? The answer is that suability is different from liability. The principle is

that, if the State consents to be sued, it agrees for the complainant to prove his claim. But it ends there. The duty of the Court

ends with the rendering of judgement. No court can order the State to appropriate or pay the complainant because it is in the

Constitution that public funds may only be released for appropriation and appropriation may only be had through a law. You

cannot misappropriate public funds other than which the law provides for. So if you have that judgement in your favor, what is is

your recourse? You file your claim with the Commission on Audit. The COA will determine and may recommend for

appropriation. Thats why in the case of Department of Agriculture vs NLRC, they had a judgement in favor but they had to recourse with COA pursuant to Act. 3083. They cannot right away ask for execution and garnishment. Neither can the judge and

the courts do that.

NHA vs Heirs of Guivelondo

The Supreme Court said that the funds of the government to pay the expropriation proceedings by the NHA can be

garnished because the NHA is unincorporated government agency. It has a personality separate and distinct from the government,

it has its own funds. It is a public corporation actually. So, execution can be had in this case.

Municipal corporations have their own charters. Under the Local Government Code, there is a provision that it is a

public corporation which has the capacity to sue and be sued. So the rule is that it is unincorporated, it has a personality separate

and distinct, it can sue and be sued. So is it correct to say the local government units cannot enjoy immunity? No. It is still a

government agency performing governmental function but only in the local level.

Jaime vs Apostol

A driver employed by the Municipality of Koronadal was driving the mayor. They met an accident which led to the

death of a minor. A suit was filed by the parents against the driver, the mayor, the owner of the vehicle, and the municipality.

Who is the employer of the driver? It is the municipality. Only that the driver was assigned to the mayor. Is the municipality

liable? No. In this case, local government units are not liable for the torts, negligent acts of its agents. It has to consent to be sued.

Municipality vs Dumdum

A business woman entered into a contract with the Municipality of Hagonoy to provide certain vehicles or heavy

equipment. The municipality failed to pay. So is the municipality liable in this case? Pending trial, the business woman was

actually asking the court for a writ of attachment. So is that order proper? No because even if theres a valid judgement, in favor of the businesswoman, ultimately a judgement against the municipality is not automatically executionary. It cannot be executed.

Suability is different from liability.

Municipality of Makati vs CA

This is an expropriation case and the Supreme Court already already rendered a judgement in favor the private owners

of the property. The municipality refused to pay. In this case, the Supreme Court said that theres recourse for the private owner. The private owner can file a case for mandamus for the court to mandate to order the Sanggunian to enact an ordinance to order

the payment of the judgement. But take note that this is only an order against a local legislature. There is yet to be a case where

the Court ordered mandamus against the national legislature.

Art. 1 National Territory Section 1. 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.


11


The constitution is a municipal law. It applies only within our territorial jurisdiction. In other words, whatever claims of

territory written in our constitution would have no effect whatsoever regarding a position of our laws in territory as far as the

international community is concerned. Territory of a particular state must be based on some legally and internationally acceptable

evidence such as some legal instruments.

The scope of our territory has been defined in various separate documents. Such as the Treaty of Paris, Treaty of

Washington in 1900s which included some island like Cagayan and Sibutu, the Treaty between treaty in 1930s which included

Turtle and Mangsee Islands. Since these are treaties, it means that our claims to these territories are internationally acceptable and

recognized. So whatever we write in our constitution is actually immaterial. Its just for the purpose of our guidance. Bernas would say that if we define the national territory in the 1987 constitution it would serve only one purpose, for educational

purpose. Thats just for the purpose of discussion because our rights over territories are defined in internationally acceptable laws, agreements or treaties.

What comprises National Territory? Under article 1 the National territory comprises of the Philippine Archipelago with all the waters and islands embraced

therein and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. Now with regards to these two

compositions of the national territory, these would include the terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains. Not only the land, water and

air but including the territorial sea, seabed, subsoil and other submarine areas. Thats the proper way of dividing the national territory.

What is an archipelago? In the 1982 Convention on the Law of Sea, it has defined archipelagos as:

A group of islands including parts of islands interconnecting waters and other national features form an intrinsic geographical,

economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.

Why is there a need to define and archipelago? Because if we compare the Philippines to the United States of America, the latter is a large mass of land whereas the

Philippines is an area with several and separate islands so when you say archipelago, its a group of islands surrounded with water but you still consider it as one integral whole or a body of water studded with islands. The idea is that you call it an

archipelago because you consider it as one unit. So the Philippines is actually an archipelago.

Why do we have to put all other territories in our constitution in article 1? Its because the Philippines have claims over other territories some of which has already been accepted, some not yet

and some are still under controversy. So, just to be safe that we are not surrendering our claims over these territories, authors

have found it necessary to put it here. Foremost is Batanes. Batanes is actually not included in the treaties that have been

previously mentioned but we have been exercising territorial jurisdiction over this island and it has been internationally accepted.

No one is contesting our claim over Batanes. But there are territories which are being contested by others; they are the Spratley

Islands or the Kalayaan group of islands. Several countries are claiming Kalayaan Islands; Vietnam, China, Brunei and many

others. Also under controversy are Sabah, Scarborough Shoals and Marianas Island. This will also include all other territories that

we may later on acquire through the form or mode that is internationally acceptable. It have been mentioned that this would

include territorial sea.

What is territorial sea? Territorial sea would be that portion or part of the sea over which the coastal state would still exercise sovereignty. Its

still part of the territory. All rights can still be exercised over this area.

Who defines how far the territorial sea is? The International Treaty or agreement does. Before, they defined it using the cannon-shot rule. The territorial sea is

measured based on the reach of a cannon ball if it is shot seawards. It will be the basis on the extent of protection that the state

can provide to its citizen. With this as basis, the international community has agreed that the territorial sea is 3 nautical miles

from the baseline.

Changes in modern time, we dont use cannon anymore on warfares. The international community has agreed that the territorial sea will be 12 nautical miles from the baseline.

Is the baseline relevant?

Yes because it is the starting point from which we would measure our territorial sea.

How do we define baseline?

There are two methods of tracing the baseline, either Normal baseline method or straight baseline method.

Normal method is you follow the contour or the sinuosity of the outermost points of the archipelago.

Straight baseline method consists of drawing straight lines connecting the outermost points on the coast without

departing to any appreciable points from the general contour of the archipelago. This method is used in the Phillipines.


12


Remember territorial sea is just 12 nautical miles from the baseline. If they use the normal method, the Mindanao

island will be separated from Visayas since Mindanao sea is more than 12 nautical miles. So the Mindanao sea will not be

considered as our internal waters. Even Sibuyan Sea which separates Panay island (Visayas) from Luzon. If we dont use the straight line method, these seas will be considered as high seas.

Is this method acceptable? Any claims of territory should be internationally acceptable, so yes, it is acceptable. When it comes to the rights to the

seas the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea shall be followed which started in 1958 with the convention on

territorial sea. Thats where they defined the 12 nautical miles. And in 1982 it defined the maritime zones and other rights over the maritime zone.

What are the maritime zones recognized by the UNCLOS? 1. Territorial sea which is the 12 nautical miles where we have the right to exercise sovereignty over it. Without this, know that

after territorial sea they are already considered as high seas but we agreed that we will identify some maritime zone over which

we could exercise our rights.

2. The contiguous zone which is 24 nautical miles from baseline. We have the right to implement immigration laws, custom

laws, fiscal laws and sanitation laws.

3. The Exclusive Economic Zone which is 200 nautical miles from the baseline. We have the right to explore and exploit living

and non-living resources.

What is archipelagic doctrine? The archipelagic doctrine is espoused particularly by the Philippines along with the Bahamas, Indonesia, Papua New

Guinea and Fiji because all these are archipelagic states. We claimed that the straight baseline method is to be used. Those inside

the line should be considered as one integral whole. Another claim is that the waters around, between and connecting the islands

regardless of their dimensions are considered as internal waters. So, are all these claims internationally acceptable? The straight

line method is accepted, considering the islands as integral whole is accepted but as to our theory that these should be

considered as internal water is not accepted. In the UNCLOS, the claimed internal water is to be recognized as archipelagic

waters.

Whats the difference between archipelagic and internal waters? It is internal water if it is in our position that we consider these to be similar to lakes and rivers between islands. They

are exclusively ours and there is no right to innocent passage. Whereas archipelagic water, the international customary laws

would require that there will be right to innocent passage by foreign vessels.

What is innocent passage?

Innocent passage means the unimpeded passage of foreign vessels provided that it is not prejudicial to the economic

interest and security of the coastal state both passage on the sea and on air. The state has the right to designate the routes.

Magallona Vs. Ermita In 2009, the congress enacted RA 9522 which is an amendment to RA 3046. The purpose of this law is to demarcate

the points as basis for the baseline. In 1982, the UNCLOS was amended where there is now a prescribed water to land ratio. So to

comply with the prescribed contour, water to land ratio and length of baseline, congress enacted 9522 to amend 3046. As a result

of the amendment, they have maximized and stretched the territorial sea but Magallona, professors of UP and even law students

filed a case and questioned the constitutionality of 9522. In comparing 9522 and 3046, they said that 9522 diminished our

maritime territory. But Supreme Court said its not correct to say that it has reduced our territory because the mode of acquiring or losing a territory are through internationally accepted modes which are: occupation, cession, accretion or prescription. You

cannot acquire or lose a territory by enacting alone. So the Supreme Court said it does not result to a diminution of territory.

UNCLOS have required us to identify where the baselines are so that we can identify up to where the 12, 24 and 200 nautical

miles would reach. So it is in fact, advantageous to our part because we have already identified our baselines.

Another objection was raised again by the petitioners stating that in 9522, the congress has classified the KIG and

Scarborough Shoals as Regime Islands. The point of the petitioner is that we are surrendering our claim to the said islands

because it is not included in the baseline rather they are considered as regime of islands having their own maritime zone. The

Supreme Court said that we cannot include this because we will be violating an international agreement which says that the

baseline should not depart from any appreciable point to the general contour. So its just practical that we consider KIG and Scarborough as Regime of Islands having its own maritime zone. It does not in any way mean that we surrender our claim to

these islands. In fact 9522 specifically states that we are exercising sovereignty and jurisdiction over these islands.

Another objection made again by the petitioner is that internal waters should not be available for the right to innocent

passage but the supreme court said whether you call it internal waters or archipelagic waters, we are bound by customary

international laws. Even without 9522, we are still mandated by international law to provide the right to innocent passage.

Otherwise, they would suffer retaliation from neighboring states. No state can claim the right to absolutely prohibit a vessel from

passing through its archipelagic waters. Being member of the international community, we are to follow its rules. The state

through the congress has the right to designate routes for the passage of foreign vessels.


13


Enacting the baseline law is actually beneficial for our territorial protection and the exercise of our right. If we do not

have these baselines, if we opt not to have this baseline law, there would be no starting point as far as the international

community is concerned from measuring the territorial zones and the exclusive economic zones. In other words, we would be

inviting foreign vessels and entity to explore our exclusive economic zones. And when we go to the international court, it would

weaken our position because we have no actual instrument that would demarcate from where the 12, 24 and 200 nautical miles

would be measured. Baseline law serves as to point and mark the starting point of our maritime zones. By marking the maritime

zone, it would give notice to other countries to where our right is. In conclusion of the case, 9522 is constitutional.

Article II

Declaration of Principles and State Policies

The principles are merely guidelines for the operation of the Philippine government. These are the guidelines which the

government is ought to observe. Basically, these are ideological principles. These are simply useful in interpreting provisions of

the Constitution and the laws. In other words, if the Congress enacts a law, it should be pursuant to the principles and policies of

the Constitution. When we say principles, usually, the general rule is that these are binding rules which must be observed. While

policies are just guidelines. But, based on jurisprudence, the distinction is immaterial because the general rule is that these are

merely guidelines.

PRINCIPLES

Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government

authority emanates from them.

Basically, this is a quotation for government that we are democratic and republican. What do you mean by democratic

and republican? The definition is in the second sentencethat authority rests in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

Republican means that we observe a representative-type of government. That is, we elect our officers and we have the

option to change them if they happen to be unsatisfactory. It is a government run by the people, for the people through a

representative. And the representative acts through the mandate of the people and he knows that he is accountable to the public at

all times because public office is of public trust.

Democratic means that the people has, in some instance, the option to directly in the government particularly in the

initiative and referendum kind.

Now, since sovereignty resides in the people, actions of government officials which are not sanction, provided that no

law supports it no matter how noble the action is, becomes invalid. No government official is above the law.

Villavicencio vs Lukban

The mayor of Manila shipped the women of ill-repute from the red light districts of Manila to Davao. The intention of

the mayor was somewhat noble. He wanted to rid the place of immorality. But there was no law that time authorizing him to ship

these women to Mindanao. The relatives of the women filed a case against the mayor. And in their decision, the Court said that

no official is above the law. The law is the only supreme power in the government. And any person in public office is only more

bound and subject to the law being representatives of the people.

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.

As regards to the renunciation of war, it is actually adopting an international acceptance because all members of the

international community have agreed to renounce war as an instrument of policy. In other words, in case of conflict between

other countries and other states, war will not be an option because these countries or states renounce war as an instrument of

national policy. But it does not mean that, in case there is aggression, we will not do the same. If war is brought to us, then

retaliation will not violate this principle because what we renounce is offensive war.

Adoption of international law is consistent with incorporation. As members of the international community, we have

already agreed to incorporate into our laws the internationally accepted principles. One example of an internationally accepted

principle is the principle of pacta sunt servanda which means that international agreements should be complied with faithfully. In

other words, when we enter into international treaties and agreements, we have the legal obligation to comply with the things in

the treaty. That is automatically incorporated in our laws. In case of conflict between the international law and the local law,

efforts should be made to reconcile them. But if there is no way to reconcile them, then, in the exercise of sovereignty, we will

follow the local law as oppose to the international law.

Taada vs Angara The Philippines is a signatory in the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. Now there are provisions in

that international agreement which require that party State to make their laws in such a way that they will comply with what has

been agreed. This has been questioned as unconstitutional because it placed undue limitation on the power of the legislative

power of the Congress. The general principle is that the power of the Congress is plenary. In other words, the Congress has the


14


power to determine what laws will be proper. But in this case, it seems that the international community was dictating the

Philippines to enact laws in order to conform to the agreements in this WTO. Is this tantamount to undue limitation on the

legislative powers of the Congress? This exemplifies pacta sunt servanda. Meaning that, as a signatory in an international

agreement, we are not only under moral obligation but also legal obligation to comply with the provisions in that agreement. And

besides, in the principle we have stated in the Constitution, we will adopt international laws. And this includes treaties and

agreements as part of the laws of the land. A state which was contracted by international agreements or obligations is bound to

make its legislations such modifications as deemed necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations under the agreement.

Does that reduce our sovereignty? The answer to that question is the concept of auto-limitation. Precisely we have that right to

determine which way to go that includes the right to limit or restrict the exercise of sovereignty. In this case, there is no violation

of any constitutional law. More importantly, there is observance of the provisions of this international agreement.

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.

The role of the military is to protect the people and the state. Civilian authority is at all times above and supreme over

the military. That authority is clearly manifested by the fact that the Commander-in-Chief of the military is the President. The

CIC is a civilian. He was placed in that position by the Constitution because we believe that at all times civilian authority is

supreme over the military. In other words, there is a distinction between the military and the police. When it comes to protection

of our state and security of our sovereignty, it is military work. When it comes to implementation or enforcement of civilian laws,

it is the function of the police. In other words, you cannot put the military to enforce traffic laws or to run after a theft

because these are civilian enforcement laws.

IBP vs. Zamora

President Erap called out the AFP invoking his powers under Section 18, Article 7 to help in the visibility patrols in

Metro Manila. They had a project which involved visibility patrols due to the alarming increase of criminality in Manila. In other

words, the marines were placed on the streets. The people in Manila got alarmed. Could this be a violation of this principle? Is

the military now being used to enforce civilian laws? The Court said no. In this case, we have to take note that the visibility patrol

is headed by the police. Now the police has the obligation to orient the military on visibility patrolling procedures by police

officers. It is the police who provided them with the necessary implements. It was also the police who process persons who get

arrested. In other words, the role of the military in this case was merely assistive. So there is no violation of this provision. Here,

civilian authority is still supreme over the military. The police, by the way, is civilian by nature. The Supreme Court also

recognized certain civilian enforcement activities wherein the military was used to assist like elections, enforcement of agrarian

laws, enforcement of departmental laws, and enforcement of customs laws. But they do it pursuant to civilian laws and not

through the laws of war or military laws.

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 fulfilment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render

personal, military or civil service.

Because it is the duty of the state or the government to protect the people, it has the power to mandate the people to

protect the people. Civilian military training may mandatory during this time. Do we have the ground to object if we are called to

render mandatory military service? No because the people was the one who drafted the Constitution in the first place. And it was

the people who gave the state or the government or the state this right to call us to render military service.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the

general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

The General Welfare Law.

Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

There are several principles which support the separation of State and Church as being inviolable.

STATE POLICIES

Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount

consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.

Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear

weapons in its territory.

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.

Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.


15


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures

against graft and corruption.

Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public

disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest

When it comes to policies, the general rule is that these are merely guidelines. These are not enforceable rights. While

they are stated as policies, it doesnt mean that they can be claimed as right by the courts.

Lim vs. Executive Secretary

This is about the Balikatan exercise pursuant to the defense treaty in 1951 and the Visiting Forces Agreement of 1999,

both signed by the US and the Philippines. Generally, these treaties supply for the authority for the US military to come to the

Philippines and conduct military exercises. And the Visiting Forces Agreement is the rules and regulations that the military will

observe if they are in the Philippines. This was during when anti-terrorism was very active immediately after 9/11. Because of

this as an offshoot, US military came here. Some people feared that they were just placed here in case theres an anti-terrorism activity or war that will happen. Now, will these treaties and agreements allow offensive war to be engaged by US military men

in the Philippines? To answer this question, the Court looked not only UN agreement or the charter of the UN which prohibits its

member states from threat and use of force against the integrity of another state but also the principles and policies stated in the

Constitution. So the first principle is the renunciation of war. This is bolstered by Section 7 which states that the state shall pursue

an independent foreign policy in its relations with other states the paramount consideration national sovereignty, territorial

integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination. This principle and policy dictates and points to the fact that these

US military men in the Philippines are not supposed to engage in offensive war. And the treaties and agreements we entered into

with them do not allow them to engage in offensive war. So in interpreting these agreements, the Court can use the principles and

policies stated in Article II.

Bar Matter 6325

This is a petition to use maiden name to take the 2006 Bar Examination by Josephine Uy-Timosa. She wanted to use

Uy instead of Timosa because she was undergoing separation or annulment with her husband during that time. Should the

petition be granted? The governing law in this case is Article 370 of the Civil Code. (Please refer to Article 370). The options in

Article 370 are the only options available. How will they be construed? The Court ruled that since the word may was used in the said provision, then the wifes use of the husbands name is optional not obligatory. The Court looked into the policy as stated in Section 14 which says that the state recognizes the role of women in nation building, , and shall ensure the fundamental

equality before the law of women and men. The Court said that, if this Constitutional provision means anything at all, it signifies

that women, no less than men, shall enjoy the same rights afforded by law and this includes the freedom of choice in the use of


16


name upon marriage. In other words, it is not true that you shall always change your name. The Court said that marriage does not

change a womans name, and if I may add, identity as well. It merely changes the womans status from single to married. In interpreting Art. 370, the Court used Section 14 as a guideline. It is not in itself an enforceable right. But there is a law which

now gives the parameters as to the role of women.

Since these are mere guidelines, the general rule is that the policies are not self-executing. In other words, these are not

judicially enforceable rights. They do not delegate rights that we can enforce or invoke before the courts. There is still a need for

legislation to determine the parameters on how these policies or principles will be exercised or implemented.

Tanada vs. Angara

In this case, one of the provisions to which the petitioners were reacting to is that provision which states that the

Philippines shall enact laws that these laws shall give equal treatment to the imported goods. Theres the commitment of the parties to give equal treatment to imported products. Invoking Section 19, is this a judicially enforceable right? Does this mean

that only Filipinos can exercise trade within the Philippines? If this is not complied with, does this make the act of the state and

the Congress here null and void? The Court said no. This section, along with other sections, is not self-executing. They are

merely guidelines. Contrary to the belief of the petitioner, it does not necessarily out the entry of foreign investments and

services. It merely states that, as a policy, that the state shall develop self-reliance and national economy. Independence here

refers to the freedom from foreign control over national economy especially in such strategic industry as to the development of

natural resources and public utilities.

Kilosbayan vs. Morato

Petitioners argue that, if we introduce gambling in the Philippines, it will destroy the sanctity of family life pursuant to

Section 12. They also allege that it violates Sections 13 and 17. The Court said nullity cannot be invoked through these sections

because these do not, by themselves, grant judicially enforceable rights. In other words, a law must be enacted prohibiting

gambling absolutely.

Pamatong vs. COMELEC

The Court questioned is there a constitutional right to run for public office? Pamatong ran for presidency but was

declared as nuisance because, per the COMELEC, he had to capacity to run a national campaign. In questioning the resolution of

the COMELEC, he invoked Section 26. Does the first phrase of Section 26 mean that all of us have the constitutional right to run

for public office? The Court said that Section 26 is merely a guideline. It is not a judicially enforceable right. It does not create or

grant a right to run for public office. Public office is a privilege only to those who are qualified. The disregard of the provision

does not give rise to a cause of action because it is not self-executing.

Is there a section which the Court already declared as self-executing?

Oposa vs Factoran

In this case, the petitioners were minors representing themselves, and the next generation. Ordinarily, this will not pass

the Rules of Court. It will be automatically dismissed. The cause of action is that they are seeking for the cancellation of Timber

License Agreements. They invoke Section 16. How did they justify it to the point of convincing the Court that the right to a

balanced and healthful ecology is already in the status of a right that you can already invoke? They coined the term

intergenerational responsibility. They are saying that this generation has the obligation to preserve and protect the ecology for the benefit of the next generation and the generations to come. This is often quoted in decisions of courts outside the Philippines.

The Court said that the right to a healthful and balanced ecology already transcends just being merely a guideline. It is now a

right equal to the right to life because it means the right to self-preservation. How can civilization continue if we do not exercise

this intergenerational responsibility? This right is in a different classification because it ultimately boils down to self-

preservation. So far, Section 16 has been declared as self-executing.

So what is citizenship? It is a membership in a political c

Consti 1 Trans

Documents

Transcript of Consti 1 Trans