Political Law Review - Sandoval Notes

8/10/2019 Political Law Review - Sandoval Notes

1/106

Political Law Review Notes (Atty. Edwin Sandoval)Prepared by: Atty Joan P. Gamboa

1

THE JUDICIARY

ART. VIII Sec. 1 Par. 1- The judicial power shall be vested in one SupremeCourt and in such lower courts as may be established by law

*The Supreme Court is the only constitutional court.

Q. SB?A. No. It is not a constitutional court, although mentioned in the Constitution.It is only a constitutionally mandated court.

*Judicial power is not vested in the Supreme Court alone. It is vested as wellin such lower courts as may be established by law. Such lower courts asmay be established by law (BP 129 Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980)

*Court of Appeals- referred to as lower collegiate courts

*Regional Trial Courts- courts of general jurisdiction

*Courts of limited jurisdiction- (1) Metropolitan Trial Courts (2) MTCC[chartered cities] (3) Municipal Trial Courts/ Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

*Sandiganbayan- special court having jurisdiction over public officers; co-equal with the Court of Appeals.

*Court of Tax Appeals- special court having jurisdiction over tax appealscases.

*SHARIAH COURTS- pursuant to Muslim Code; 2 levels:

(1) Shariah District Court- equivalent to RTC

(2) Shariah Circuit Court- equivalent to MTC

*QUASI JUDICIAL BODIES - strictly speaking, they are not courts- do notform part of the judicial system.

- They are administrative bodies performing quasi-judicial functions. In

Remedial Law, referred to loosely as special courts- Doctrine of PrimaryJurisdiction.

- Part of the executive.

Ex. CSC, SEC, COA, COMELEC

*Since quasi-judicial bodies are not strictly courts, their jurisdiction is strictlyconstrued against them.

JUDICIAL POWER AND POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

Q. What is JUDICIAL POWER?

A. JUDICIAL POWER includes the duty of the courts of justice to settleactual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable andenforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of anybranch or instrumentality of the government. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1, Par. 2)

- Not found in the 1935 and 1973 Constitution.

- Represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice toreview what was before forbidden territory.

DUTY - the provision uses the word DUTY. The settlement of controversiesand the determination of whether or not there has been grave abuse ofdiscretion is not merely a power- it is a duty of the courts as well.

-in power, the power holder has discretion to exercise.

-if it was only a power, then the courts has the discretion to

exercise it or not.Since it is a duty, there is no such discretion- the exercise of the

power is obligatory and mandatory upon the courts.

TWO PARTS OF THE DEFINITION

1. To settle actual controversies involving rights which are legallydemandable and enforceable. (TRADITIONAL)

-Very limited definition. Maybe defeated by the political question doctrine.

2. To determine whether or not there has been grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part ofany branch or instrumentality of the Government. (EXPANDED)

- Expanded Power of Judicial Review or the Extraordinary Power toDetermine Grave Abuse of Discretion as referred to by the Supreme Court.Political question doctrine has been greatly diminished.

Q. How does the definition of judicial power under the present Constitutionaffected the political question doctrine?

A. The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of judicial review. Under theexpanded definition, the Court cannot agree xxx that the issues involved is apolitical question beyond the jurisdiction of the court to review. When thegrant of power is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the issue ofwhether the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met or thelimitations respected is justiciable the problem being one of legality or


2/106


2

validity, not its wisdom. Moreover, the jurisdiction to delimit constitutionalboundaries has been given to this court. When political questions areinvolved, the Constitution limits the delimitation as to whether or not therehas been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess ofjurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is be ing questioned.

Q. What are political questions?A.-Origin: The principle of separation of powers.

-In turn, this principle is the result of our Presidential System of Government.

(In a Parliamentary government, the executive and the legislative branchesare welded together)

-Thus, legislative power is given to Congress; executive power is given tothe President and judicial power is given to the Supreme Court- 3 greatpowers distributed among 3 branches of government.

-The legislative and the executive are called POLITICAL BRANCHES of thegovernment, where policies are formulated, enacted and implemented.

-Questions of policy that are formulated by the political branches and thuscannot be the subject of judicial review. This includes questions involving thewisdom, propriety, efficacy or morality of an act.

TAADA VS. CUENCO - Classic definition of political question.

POLITICAL QUESTIONS refer to those questions which under theConstitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or inregard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to thelegislative or executive branch of the government.

TWO TYPES OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS

1. Those questions which under the Constitution are to be decidedby the people in their sovereign capacity.

Ex. Recall under the LGC-A mode of removing a local elective official even before the 3 yearterm on the ground of loss of trust/confidence.-There is only one ground for recall-loss of confidence.

EVARDONE VS. COMELEC

Loss of confidence as a ground for recall is a political question. After all, theinitiation of the recall process is not the recall itself. In the recall election, thepeople will decide whether or not they have lost their confidence in theofficial concerned. Hence, it is a question which has to be decided by thepeople in their sovereign capacity in the recall election itself. Not subject tojudicial review.

ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO-EDSA 1

*Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. Aquino

*Oliver Lozano filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning thelegitimacy of the Cory government.

*According to the petition, most of the people who went to EDSA are notreally serious in overthrowing the Marcos government. (Most were vendors)

SC: dismissed the petition.

*No matter, We will no longer inquire into the motives of the people in goingto EDSA. The facts were: because of the magnitude of the people who werein EDSA, Marcos fled to Hawaii, so that the Cory government was able totake effective control of the machinery of the State without resistance fromthe people. Furthermore, the international community has recognized theCory Government. Hence, there can be no more question as to the de jurestatus of the said government.

*The Aquino government was the result of a successful revolution by thesovereign people-it was installed through a direct exercise of the power of

the Filipino people, in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution.The legitimacy of a government sired by a successful revolution by peoplepower is beyond judicial scrutiny; such government automatically orbits outof the constitutional loop.

Estrada vs. Desierto

*Desierto argues that the legitimacy of Arroyos assumption to thepresidency is a political question, and invokes the ruling in the LawyersLeague case.

SC: No. (Justice Reynato S. Puno)

*Arroyos government is not revolutionary in character. The oath she took isthe oath under the 1987 Constitution. Indeed, she has stressed that she is

discharging the powers of the presidency under the authority of the 1987Constitution.

LEGAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN EDSA 1 AND EDSA 2

EDSA 1 EDSA 2

-Involves the exercise of the peoplepower of revolution whichoverthrows the whole government.

-Extra-constitutional and the

-Involves the exercise of the peoplepower of freedom of speech andfreedom to assemble, to petition thegovernment for redress ofgrievances which only affected the


3/106


3

legitimacy of the new governmentthat resulted from it cannot be thesubject of judicial review.

-Presented a political question.

Office of the President.

-Intra-constitutional and theresignation of the sitting Presidentthat it caused and the succession ofthe Vice President as president are

subject to judicial review.-Involves legal questions.

2. Those in regard to which full discretionary authority has beendelegated by the Constitution to the executive or legislative branchof the government.

Ex. Calling out power of the President under Article VII, Sec. 18

IBP VS. ZAMORADuring the time of President Estrada, he issued a LOI ordering thedeployment of Marines in the metropolis to conduct joint visibility patrols withmembers of the PNP in various shopping malls. IBP asks that the exerciseof such power be subjected to judicial review.

SC: No. When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppresslawless violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily exercises adiscretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. This is clear from the intentof the framers and from the text of the Constitution. Thus, the Court cannotbe compelled upon to overrule the Presidents wisdom or substitute its own.However this does not prevent an examination of whether such power wasexercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercisedin a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion.

3 powers under Art. VII, Sec. 18

1. Calling out power as commander-in-chief of AFP2. Declare Martial Law3. Suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

*Unlike in the past, the power to declare martial law and to suspend theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus were expressly made subject of judicialreview.

*Article VII, Sec. 18, Par 3- The Supreme Court may review in anappropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factualbasis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege ofthe writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision withinthirty days from its filing.

CALLING OUT POWER

-It is a political question, a question in regard to which full discretionaryauthority has been delegated by the Constitution to the President.

SC: It is the unclouded intent of the Court to grant to the President fulldiscretionary authority. The hands of the President should not be tied;

otherwise, this could be a veritable proscription for disaster. Unless graveabuse of discretion is shown, the Presidents exercise of the power shouldnot be questioned. Mere abuse of discretion will not suffice. To doubt is tosustain.

Q. What is the effect of the EXPANDED CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL POWERon the political question doctrine?

A. It has lessened the political question doctrine. Thus, even if it is a politicalquestion, if there appears to be abuse of discretion, the Court may review it.

*The burden is upon petitioners- the ones assailing the act.

*It must be grave abuse of discretion to warrant judicial intervention.

*Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.*To doubt is to sustain the act of the person.

Q. Why the difference in treatment?

A. Calling out power is the lesser and more benign power while the power todeclare martial law and to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusare the greater powers which involve direct curtailment of civil libertiesthereby necessitating safeguards of Congress and judicial review of theCourt. (IBP VS. ZAMORA)

DAVID VS. GMA*PGMA exercised the calling out power when she issued GO 5 and PP1017, not the martial law power. The acts taken purportedly to carry out theissuances were ultra vires, hence, unconstitutional. The exercise of thecalling out power does not involve the direct curtailment and suppression ofcivil liberties and individual freedoms. However GO 5 and PP1017 areconstitutional. Petitioners failed to counteract the factual bases therefore asalleged by the Solgen.

Q. Why not the martial law powers?

A. There was no case of invasion or rebellion. President will be required tosubmit report to (kulang page ko, sorry...)


4/106


4

Q. What are the THREE IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT?

A. 1. Checking2. Legitimizing3. Symbolic

SYMBOLIC FUNCTION OF THE COURT - It is the duty of the Court toformulate guiding and controlling principles, precepts, doctrines or rules. Ithas the symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar on the extentof protection given by Constitutional guaranties.

Q. What are the requisites for a proper exercise of the power ofJUDICIAL REVIEW?

A. The time-tested standards for the exercise of judicial review are:1. The existence of an appropriate case;2. An interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutionalquestion;3. The plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and4. The necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order todecide the case.

A. THE MEANING OF ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY

-It means an existing case or controversy which is both ripe for resolutionand susceptible of judicial determination and that which is not conjectural orclarificatory, or that which seeks to resolve hypothetical or feignedconstitutional problems. (IBP VS. ZAMORA)

*There must also be a conflict of rights-opposing views or contentions-if not,the Court would be resolving issues that remain unfocused because theylack concreteness.

*The controversy must also be justiciable-meaning susceptible of judicialdetermination.

Q. May courts render advisory opinions?

A. No, courts can only decide actual controversies, not hypotheticalquestions or cases.

-There must be an actual case or controversy to be resolved.

-The definition of judicial power under Art. VIII is clear. The evil sought to beavoided is the possible violation of due process. It is also repugnant to thePrinciple of Separation of Powers. If a case is bought involving the sameissue, the court might be forced to follow.

*On the other hand, INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE can renderadvisory opinions.

Q. Basis?

A. 1. Statute of ICJ itself

2. UN Charter2 MAIN FUNCTIONS OF THE ICJ:

1. To resolve contentious cases

2. To render advisory opinions to UN organs

MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASES - A moot and academic case is one thatceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events,so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on groundof mootness. (David vs. GMA)

*The moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that canautomatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will decide

cases, otherwise moot and academic, if:

1. There is a grave violation of the Constitution;2. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public

interest involved;3. When constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling

principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review. (David vs.

GMA)

B. PROPER PARTY REQUIREMENT

Q. What is the meaning of locus standi?

A. LEGAL STANDINGor LOCUS STANDIhas been defined as a personaland substantial interest in the case, such that a party has sustained or willsustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is beingchallenged.

The term INTEREST means a material interest, an interest in issueaffected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the questioninvolved, or a mere incidental interest.

*The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges suchpersonal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concreteadverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the


5/106


5

court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. (IBP vs.Zamora)

IBP VS. ZAMORAIBP has no locus standi. The mere invocation of its duty to preserve the ruleof law is a too general interest. It has not shown any injury it has suffered nor

will suffer by virtue of the act complained of. The presumed injury is notpersonal, too vague, highly speculative and uncertain to confer locus standi.However, IBP has advanced constitutional issues which deserve attention ofthis court, in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents.

TAXPAYERS SUITTo constitute a taxpayers suit, two requisites must be met, namely:

1. That public funds are disbursed by a political subdivision orinstrumentality and in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularityis committed; and

2. That the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged ultra vires act.

KILOSBAYAN VS. MORATO*Kilosbayan filed 2 petitions as a taxpayer.

SC: Taxpayer suit does not lie because the issue does not involve thedisbursement of public funds. Rather, what is involved was the interpretationof the charter of the PCSO.

C. THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MUST BE RAISED AT THEEARLIEST OPPORTUNE TIME

It is not the date of the filing of the petition that determines whether theconstitutional issue was raised at the earliest opportunity. The earliestopportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings beforea competent court that can resolve the same, such that, if it is not raised inthe pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and if not considered atthe trial, it cannot be considered on appeal. (Matibag vs. Benipayo)

- However in criminal cases, the accused may raise the constitutionalquestion even for the first time on appeal. This is because criminal casesinvolve the basic rights of the accused to life and liberty.

MATIBAG VS. BENIPAYO

*Matibag questioned the legality of the appointments of Benipayo, Borra andTuason on 03 August 2001, when their first appointments were issued on 22April 2001. Thus, it is argued that the constitutional question was not raisedon the earliest possible opportunity.

SC: No. It is not the date of the filing that determines whether theconstitutional question was raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The

earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in thepleadings before a competent court that can resolve it, such that if not raisedin the pleadings, it cannot be raised on appeal. Here, Matibag questionedthe legality of said appointments when she filed her petition before theSupreme Court, which is the earliest opportunity for pleading theconstitutional issue before a competent body.

D. THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MUST BE THE VERY LIS MOTAOF THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY

*The constitutional question must be the main issue of the controversy.

*There is no way that the Court may resolve the entire case, unless it firstresolves the constitutional question raised.

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS (ARTICLE XVII)

3 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A GOOD WRITTEN CONSTITUTION:

1. Constitution of Government: Articles VI, VII, VIII, IX, X

2. Constitution of Liberty: Article III (Bill of Rights)

3. Constitution of Sovereignty: Article XVII (Amendatory Process)

AMENDMENT REVISION

-refers to a change that adds,reduces or deletes without alteringthe basic principle involved.

-affects only the specific provisionbeing amended.

-isolated or piecemeal changes in theConstitution.

Ex. Lowering of the voting age.

-implies a change that alters a basicprinciple in the Constitution.

-if the change alters the substantialentirety of the constitution, as whenthe changes affect substantialprovisions of the constitution.

-affects several provisions in theconstitution.

-overhaul of the whole Constitution.Ex. Altering the principle ofseparation of powers or the systemof checks and balances.

TWO PART TEST

1. QUANTITATIVE TEST: asks whether the proposed change is soextensive in its provisions as to change directly the substantialentirety of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous


6/106


7/106


7

*If Congress intended to fully provide for the implementation of the initiativeon amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitletherefore, considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, orhierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose amendmentsto the Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national andlocal laws.

*SC declared RA 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative onamendments to the Constitution and have failed to provide a sufficientstandard for subordinate legislation (there is undue delegation of power toComelec). To this extent, RA 6735 is unconstitutional.

*Article XVII, Sec. 2 remains non self executing.

*Peoples Initiative on the Constitution is limited only to proposingamendments not revisions.

RATIFICATION

*Any proposed change must be submitted to the people in a plebiscite not areferendum.

*Article XVII, Sec. 4- Any amendment to or revision of this Constitutionunder Sec. 1 hereof (Con Ass) shall be valid when ratified by a majority ofthe votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days notlater than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

Any amendment under Sec. 2 hereof (Con Com) shall be valid when ratifiedby a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlierthan 60 days nor later than 90 days after the certification by the Comelec ofthe sufficiency of the petition.

CHA-CHA NOT ALLOWED

*Article XVII, Sec. 2 remains to be non self executing. The implementing lawwas declared unconstitutional. (Santiago vs. Comelec)

*Peoples initiative is limited only to amendments.

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT

Article XVI, Sec. 3- The State may not be sued without its consent.

Q. What if the Constitution does not provide for state immunity?

A. Through the DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION (Article II, Sec. 2), thePhilippines have adopted the generally accepted principles of internationallaw as part of the law of the land. State immunity from suit is a generallyaccepted principle of international law. Hence we are bound by it.

Q. Ethical basis?

A. There can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law onwhich the right depends. (Justice Holmes)

Q. Does the Doctrine of State Immunity form Suit apply also to foreignagreements?

A. Yes. We are bound by the DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY. Allstates are sovereign equals. An equal may not assume jurisdiction overanother equal. Otherwise it will unduly vex the peace of nations. This isanother generally accepted principle of international law as expressed in theLatin maxim par in parem non habet imperium.

Q. Can you sue the State?

A. A State may not be sued without its consent. Hence, you can actually suethe State, for as long as the State gives its consent.

Q. How does a State waive its immunity from suit?

A. Either EXPRESSLY or IMPLIEDLY.

EXPRESSLY: Through the enactment by Congress of a general law orspecial law.

Q. May the Solgen validly waive immunity from suit?

A. No. A mere lawyer of the government cannot validly waive immunity fromsuit. Only the Congress can. (Republic vs. Purisima)

*Waiver of immunity constitutes a derogation of sovereignty. Hence, it isalways construed strictly or strictissimi juris.

1. GENERAL LAW

Ex. Act No. 3083- applies to any money claims arising from contracts withthe government whether express or implied.

-must be correlated with COMMONWEALTH ACT 387 as amended by PD1445 or the GENERAL AUDITING LAW- any money claim arising fromcontract with the government whether expressed or implied must first bepresented to COA and only when COA refuses payment that a party cansue.

Q. Where?

A. SC. Decisions of COA are reviewable by SC via petition for certiorari.(DAR vs. NLRC, J. Vitug)


8/106


8

Q. A contract was entered into with DPWH for the construction of roads.When the roads were finished, the contractor was not paid. Contractor suedthe government before the RTC. Will the suit prosper?

A. No. It will be dismissed for lack of cause of action. He failed to exhaust alladministrative remedies provided for by law under CA 327 as amended by

PD 1445.2. SPECIAL LAWS

Ex. Article 2180, NCC- The State is responsible xxx when it acts though aspecial agent xxx.

Ex. Article 2189, NCC- Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable fordamages for the death of, or injuries suffered by any person by reason of thedefective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and otherpublic works under their control or supervision.

TEOTICO VS. CITY OF MANILA

*City of Manila contends that it cannot be held liable under its charter.

*SC held that the provision in the charter is a general provision in a speciallaw. On the other hand, Article 2189 is a special provision found in a generallaw. A special provision found in a general law prevails over the generalprovision found in the charter of the City of Manila. City of Manila is liable.

KILATKO VS. CITY OF DAGUPAN

*City of Dagupan contended that the manhole is found in the national road.

*SC held that the ownership of the road is immaterial. Even if it is a nationalroad, the LGU is liable. Article 2189 merely requires supervision over themaintenance of the national road. City of Dagupan has supervision. Hence,liable.

Ex. Sec. 24, Local Government Code- Liability for Damages- Localgovernment units and their officials are not exempt from liability for death orinjury to persons or damage to property.

Ex. Charters of GOCC- GSIS, DBP, LBP

*Charter-special law creating GOCC

*The provision in the charter on whether it may sue or be sued is an expresswaiver by special law.

IMPLIEDLY-2 ways:

1. When the State itself commences litigation, thereby opening itselfto counterclaim.

Ex. Government sued A and A filed an answer with a counterclaim. Thegovernment cannot ask for the dismissal of the counterclaim on theground of state immunity from suit. Otherwise, it would be the height ofinjustice.

2. When the State enters into a contract with private party.

*Here, the government is deemed to have gone down into the level of aprivate entity; there is parity now with the contracting parties; therefore,it is deemed to have waived its immunity from suit.

*This rule used to be absolute. (US vs. Lyons)

*However, this rule is no longer absolute-

US VS. RUIZ

*This involved the construction of wharves in Subic Bay at the timeSubic was still under the US pursuant to a treaty. Contractor was notpaid so he sued the Subic Naval Authorities. Subic Naval Authoritiesmoved to dismiss invoking State Immunity from Suit. On the other hand,the contractor contends that the State entered into a contract (relying on

the old rule).SC: The traditional rule of immunity exempts a state from being sued incourts of another state without its consent or waiver. This rule is anecessary consequence of the principle of independence and equalityof states. However, rules of international law are not petrified; they areconstantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of thestates have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish thembetween sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private,commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that stateimmunity now extends only to acts jure imperii. The restrictiveapplication of state immunity is now the rule in the US, UK and otherstates in Western Europe.

*A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual andthus deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when itenters into business contracts.

*The purpose of the wharves is the defense of US troops and of thePhilippines. Defense of the state is of the highest order and hence, isjure imperii.

*Case was dismissed because there was no waiver.

*Not all contracts are deemed to be a waiver of state immunity; mustdistinguish between:


9/106


9

ACTA JURE IMPERII: contracts entered into by the government in itssovereign capacity; no waiver of state immunity from suit.

ACTA JURE GESTIONIS: contracts entered into by the government inits commercial and proprietary capacity; there is waiver of stateimmunity from suit. (Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit)

Q. In the Ruiz case, can the contractor invoke Act No. 3083?

A. No. Because Act No. 3083 waives the immunity of the Philippinegovernment only; not of other governments.

Q. What is the remedy of the contractor?

A. Under international law, he will have to convince his state through theassistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs to take his case up with theother state.

Q. Raintree contracted with the Armed Forces of the Philippines for thesupply of ponchos to be used by the soldiers. Raintree was not paid. CanRaintree sue?

A. Yes, under Act No. 3083. This is a money claim arising from contract.There is no need to invoke implied waiver, since there is already an expresswaiver.

US VS. GUINTO

A Filipino cook in a restaurant inside Camp John Hay poured urine into thesoup stock used in cooking the vegetables served to the customers. He wasdismissed. He filed a complaint for damages against the US Air ForceRecreation Center at Camp John Hay who operates the restaurant. Thelatter invoked the Doctrine of Immunity from Suit and moved to dismiss.

SC: The restaurant services offered partake of the nature of a businessenterprise undertaken by the US government in its proprietary capacity.Such services are not extended to the American servicemen for free as a

perquisite of membership in the Armed Forces of the US. Neither does itappear that they are exclusively offered to these servicemen; on thecontrary, it is well known that they are available to the general public as well,including the tourists in Baguio City, many of whom make it a point to visitJohn Hay for this reason. All persons availing themselves of this facility payfor the privilege like all other customers in ordinary restaurants. Although theprices are concededly reasonable and relatively low, such services areundoubtedly operated for profit as a commercial and not a governmentalactivity.

*The case was remanded to the Labor arbiter. There is waiver of immunity.

SUABILITY VS. LIABILITY

*The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it isliable. A state can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued.SUABILITY is just a matter of a state giving its consent to be sued.LIABILITY is a matter of applicable law and circumstance of the case.Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself tobe sued. When the state does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only givingthe plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable.

*Waiver merely gives the claimant the opportunity to prove that the state isliable.

MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO LA UNION VS. JUDGE FIRME

San Fernando owned a dump truck being driven by its official driver, whilehauling gravel, it collided with a jeep, killing the latters passenger. The heirssued the municipality for damages. The municipality moved to dismiss onthe ground of immunity of state from suit. Without resolving the motion,Judge Firme proceeded to resolve the case and held the municipality liablesince its charter expressly provides that it may sue and be sued.

SC: Suability is not the same as liability. Municipality can invoke defenses-that at the time the accident happened, it was engaged in the performanceof governmental function (repair of municipal roads). This is a case ofDAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA (Damage without injury).

Q. What if the dump truck was then hauling lumber for the repair of a publicmarket instead of gravel for the repair of municipal road?

A. The operation of a public market is a proprietary function. It is classifiedas a business enterprise of the local government. Hence, the municipalgovernment would then be in the performance of a proprietary function. Assuch, it would not be a valid defense to liability.

TORIO VS. FONTANILLA

*The holding of a town fiesta even if the purpose is to commemorate areligious or historical event of the town is in essence an act for the specialbenefit of the community and not for the general welfare of the publicperformed in pursuance of a policy of the state. xxx It is a proprietary activity.Thus, the municipality may be held liable.

EXECUTION OF JUDGEMENT

Q. Assume that you are allowed by the State to sue. After trial, judgementwas rendered in your favor, holding the State liable. Judgement thereafterattained finality. Can you garnish or levy government funds to execute thejudgement?


10/106


10

A. No. It will paralyze the operations of the government. Waiver extends onlyup to the rendition of judgement. Execution requires another waiver. Thedisbursement of public funds requires an appropriate appropriation law.

Q. Remedy?

A. To make representation with the proper legislative authority for the

enactment of an appropriation law necessary to satisfy the judgement.

Q. What if the legislative authority refuses to enact the law?

A. Go to the courts and ask for MANDAMUS to compel the legislativeauthority to enact the required law. True, the duty to appropriate isdiscretionary. The exception however, as in this case, is when there isalready a money judgement against the government, the discretionary dutybecomes ministerial. The state must be the first to respect and obey thedecisions of the Courts. (Municipality of Makati vs. IAC)

SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES

Distinguish:

1. INCORPORATED AGENCIES: These are agencies with separatecharters creating them.

- They have personality separate and distinct from the Philippinegovernment.

- The test of suability will depend whether or not its charter allows itto sue and be sued.

Ex. SSS, GSIS, PCSO, Phil. Postal Corporation

2. UNINCORPORATED AGENCIES: These agencies have no charter.

- They do not have separate personality. A suit against them is reallya suit against the government. Test of suability depends uponwhether or not it is performing a governmental or proprietary

function.SUIT AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIALS

Q. When do you consider a suit against public officials as a suit against thestate itself?

A. The suit must be regarded as one against the State where the satisfactionof judgement against the public official concerned will require the State itselfto perform a positive act such as appropriation of the amount necessary topay the damages awarded to the plaintiff. (LANSANG VS. GARCIA)

*The official was charged in his official capacity in the performance of officialduties. In this case, the official was acting only as an agent of the State.

*However, this rule does not apply if:

(1) Acts were unlawful or illegal;

(2) Acts were done in a personal capacityREPUBLIC VS. SANDOVAL

*This case does not qualify as a suit against the State. xxx While theRepublic in this case is sued by name, the ultimate liability does not pertainto the government. Although the military officers and personnel weredischarging their official functions when the incident occurred, their functionsceased to be official the moment they exceeded their authority. Based on thecommission findings, there was lack of justification by the government forcesin the use of firearms. Moreover, the members of the police and militarycrowd dispersal units committed a prohibited act under BP 180 as there wasunnecessary firing by them in dispersing the marchers.

EXCEPTIONAL CASES: The doctrine of State Immunity from Suit cannot

serve as an instance to perpetuate injustice on a citizen.*However, this should not be invoked indiscriminately because thecircumstances obtaining in the following cases are peculiar.

AMIGABLE VS. CUENCA

*Amigable owned a lot in Cebu City. There is no annotation in favor of thegovernment in the TCT. Then without prior appropriation or negotiated sale,the government used a portion of the said lot for the construction of roads.Amigable then filed a complaint against the Republic, and Cuenca, in thelatters capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways.

SC: Where the government takes away property from a private landownerfor public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or

negotiated sale. The aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit againstthe government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmentalimmunity from suit without its consent.

REASON-MINISTERIO VS. CFI OF CEBU

*The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as aninstrument of perpetration of injustice on a citizen. Had the governmentfollowed the procedure indicated by the governing law (Rule 87) at the time,a complaint would not have been filed by it and only upon payment ofcompensation fixed by the judgement or after tender of the party entitled tosuch payment of the amount fixed. May it have the right to enter in and


11/106


11

upon the land so condemned, to appropriate the same to the public usedefined in the judgement.

*Actually, in Amigable and Ministerio cases there is an implied waiver. Thisimplied waiver lies in the failure to commence the proper action. The actionfiled by the petitioners amount to a counterclaim, had the government fledthe proper action. It only became a petition because the government did notfollow the legal procedure.

CITIZENSHIP

(ARTICLE IV, 1987 CONSTITUTION)

The following are the citizens of the Philippines (Sec. 1)

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoptionof the 1987 Constitution.

2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.

3. Those born before 17 January 1973, of Filipino mothers, who electPhilippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority

4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoptionof the 1987 Constitution.

Q. When was the 1987 Constitution adopted?A. 02 Feb. 1987- at the time of the plebiscite*Not 11 Feb. 1987=When Pres. Aquino declared its ratification.

2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.

* Note that the provision says OR- not and. This means that as long as 1of your parents is a Filipino, you are a Filipino.

*This is in accordance with our adherence to the principle of jus sanguinis.

*This results in complications when the country where you are born appliesthe principle of jus soli.

*Complications arise with respect to the matter of dual allegiance. (See Sec.5)

VALLES VS. COMELEC (337 SCRA 543, 09 Aug. 2000)

*Rosalind Lopez was born in 1934, in Australia to a Filipino-father, who wasborn in 1879, and an Australian-mother. When she came to the Philippines,she was holding an Australian passport and was registered as an alien in theBID. Then, Rosalind ran for governor.

SC: Rosalind is a Filipino citizen. (1) Her father is a Filipino- Her father is aSpanish subject. In 1898, when the Spanish ceded the Philippines to the US,under the Jones Law and the Philippine Bill of 01 July 1902, all inhabitants ofthe Philippines who were Spanish subjects are deemed to be Philippinecitizens. [This is the first time that there came to be Filipino citizens. It wasan en masse citizenship because of a change of sovereignty].

(2) Rosalind is a Filipino- Philippine law on citizenship adheres to theprinciple of jus sanguinis, where a child follows the nationality of the parentsregardless of the place of his/her birth. Hence, Rosalinds father is a Filipino,she is a Filipina. Her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losingher Philippine citizenship. Even if Australia follows jus soli, it only results toher possessing dual citizenship.

(3) Effect of holding an Australian passport- mere holding of an Australianpassport does not mean renunciation of Philippine citizenship. In order tolose Philippine citizenship by renunciation, such renunciation must beexpressthe person renouncing must perform a positive act. (See Mercadovs. Manzano and Aznar vs. Comelec)

3. Those born before 17 January 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect

Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority

3 Requisites for the application of this provision:

(1) They were born before 17 Jan. 1973.(2) Their mother is a Filipino.(3) They elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of

majority.History of the provision:

- Under the 1935 Constitution, legitimate minor children follow thecitizenship of their father. Thus one with an alien father and aFilipina, mother, would, during minority, be an alien. Hence, he isgiven, upon reaching the age of majority, the option to elect.

- Note that this is the reason why the provision applies only to thoseborn of Filipino mothers.

- One with a Filipino-father and an alien mother would still be aFilipino, since he follows his fathers citizenship.

*These are Natural-Born Citizens (See Sec. 2)

Q: When Should Election Be Made

A: Reasonable Time from Reaching Age of MajorityRE: Application forAdmission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching (Bar Matter No. 914, 01Oct.1999)


12/106


12

*Ching was born in 1964, of Chinese father and Filipina mother. Ching nowseeks to elect Philippine citizenship so he can be admitted to the PhilippineBar.

SC: The 1935 Constitution only states that Philippine citizenship should bechosen upon age of majority. CA 625 states the child should be given areasonable time to elect Philippine citizenship. This reasonable time hasbeen construed to be 3 years upon reaching the age of majority.

Here, Ching seeks to elect only 14 years after reaching the agemajority. This is way beyond the contemplated period for electing Philippinecitizenship. One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only aninchoate right to such citizenshipas such, he should avail of the right withfervor, enthusiasm and promptitude.

4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law

TECSON VS. COMELEC

*FPJ was born in 1939, of a Filipino father and an American mother. Hisparents got married only in 1940.

SC: FPJ is an illegitimate child because his parents got married only after hisbirth. However, the 1935 Constitution states that those whose fathers arecitizens of the Philippines acquire Philippine citizenship. Thus, it did notdistinguish whether the child is legitimate or illegitimate.

The rule is different when it is the mother who is a Filipino. Here, ifthe child is legitimatehe can elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching theage of majority. If he is illegitimate, he will follow the mothers citizenship.The reason for this rule is to ensure Filipino nationality of the child so as notto prejudice. Normally, since he is illegitimate, the mother would havecustody and have parental authority.

*Natural-Born Citizens (Sec. 2)

2 Kinds of Natural-Born Citizens:

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having toperform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.

2. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with par (3), Sec. 1

- In this case, the person has to perform an act to perfect his Philippinecitizenship.

-Thus, this constitutes an exception to the 1stkind of Natural-Born Citizens.

BENGSON III VS. HRET (GR 142840, 07 May 2001)

Cruz lost his Philippine citizenship when he rendered service in the USArmed Forces, but re-acquired it through repatriation under RA 2630. Hethen ran, and won, as Congressman. His qualification was questioned on theground that he is not a natural-born citizen.

SC: He is a natural-born citizen. (1) Effect of RepatriationRepatriationresults in the recovery of the original nationality. Thus, a naturalized Filipinowho lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalizedFilipino. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen beforehe lost his citizenship, he will be restored to this former status as a natural-born Filipino.

(2) Kinds of Citizens under the ConstitutionThere are only 2 classes ofcitizens under the Constitution(a) natural-born and (b) naturalized inaccordance with law. A citizen who is not a naturalized Filipinoone whodid not undergo the process of naturalizationis a natural-born Filipino.Noteworthy is the absence in the enumeration of a separate category forpersons who, after losing Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquires it.This is because such whether such persons are natural-born or naturalized

depends on the reasons for the loss of their citizenship and the modeprescribed by the applicable law for the reacquisition thereof.

Marriage to foreignersArt. IV, Sec. 4

*Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship,unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to haverenounced it.

*History of the provision:

-This provision was carried over from the 1973 Constitution. In the 1935Constitution, there is no similar provision. Thus, women were prejudicedwhen they marry a foreigner, they lose their Filipino citizenship.

Ex. Biel vs. Director of Public Schools-A public School teacher was removed from her position because shemarried her Chinese lover.

-However, if the woman just maintains a live-in relationship with a foreigner,she does not lose her Philippine citizenshipthere is no marriage.

-Thus, they are better situated than those who contracted marriage withforeigners.--> Absurd!


13/106


13

*In relation to Sec. 1 (3)

-Under the 1935 Constitution, the children of a Filipina-mother and an alien-father who had a common law relationship are Philippine citizens.

-No need to elect.

Q. Why?A. Being illegitimate children, they follow the citizenship of their

mothers, who remain to be Filipinos since they are not married to aliens.

-This is another absurdity.

Thus:

1. In 1970, Filipina married a foreigner

-Filipina loses Philippine citizenship.

-The 1935 Constitution had no provision similar to Art. IV, Sec. 4

2. In 1975, Filipina married a foreigner

-Filipina retains Philippine citizenship.-The 1973 Constitution had a provision similar to Art. IV, Sec. 4.

Modes to Acquire Philippine Citizenship:

1. Birth

2. Naturalization

Loss and Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship

-Art. IV, Sec. 3Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in themanner provided by law.

Ways by which Philippine Citizenship may be Re-Acquired:Naturalization, Repatriation, and by Direct Act of Congress

1. Naturalization2. Repatriation

*Process is simplerequires only:

1. Take oath of allegiance2. Registration with the Civil Registry

*Available when the loss of citizenship is due to:

(1.) Desertion of the Armed Forces (CA 63)(2.) Service in the Armed Forces of Allied Forces during WW 2 (RA965)

(3.) Service in the US Armed Forces (RA 2630) *See Bengzon IIIvs. HRET

(4.) Marriage of Filipino woman to an alien, political or economic necessity(RA 8171)

Naturalization vs. Repatriation

Naturalization Repatriation

1. As to Nature

2. As to process

-A mode of acquisition andreacquisition of Philippinecitizenship.

*As a mode of acquisition-CA 473 governs

*As a mode of re-acquisition- CA 63 governs.

-Very cumbersome andtedious.

-A mode of re-acquisitionof Philippine citizenship.

-Simpler process

3. Direct Act of Congress

*Dual AllegianceArt. IV, Sec. 5

*Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall bedealt with in accordance with law.

Q. Is this provision self executing?

A. No. It says shall be dealt with by law. It means a future law.

Q. Is there now a law that prohibits dual allegiance?

A. Yes. RA 7160, Sec. 40 (d) (Local Government Code)

The following are disqualified from running for any elective local position:xxx

(d) Those with dual citizenship (See Mercado vs. Manzano)

MERCADO VS. MANZANO (307 SCRA 630, 26 May 1999)

*Edu Manzano was born in the US, of Filipino parents. In 1998 he ran forvice-mayor of Makati. His qualification was challenged. Note that RA 7160,Sec. 40 (d) disqualifies those with dual citizenship from running for localelective office.


14/106


15/106


15

STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT

3 Parts of a Written Constitution:

(1) Constitution of sovereignty This refers to thee provisions pointing outthe modes or procedure in accordance with which Formal changes in theconstitution may be made.

Ex: Article XVIII Amendments or Revisions

(2) Constitution of Liberty the series of prescriptions setting forth thefundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitationson the power of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment ofthose rights.

Ex: Article III Bill or Rights

(3) Constitution of Government provides for a structure and system ofgovernment; refers to the provisions outlining the organization of theGovernment, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to itsadministration and defining the electorate.

Ex: Article VI Legislative DepartmentArticle VII Executive DepartmentArticle VIII Judicial DepartmentArticle IX Constitutional Commissions

Doctrine of Separation of Powers in a presidential type of government

The 3 great powers are distributed among the 3 great branches ofgovernment:

Legislative power Legislative branch / Congress

Article VI, Sec 1 The legislative power shall be vested in thecongress of the Philippines

This is also called the POWER OF THE PURSE.Executive power Executive branch / President

Article VII, Sec 1 The executive power shall be vested in thePresident of the Philippines

This also called the POWER OF THE SWORD

Judicial power Judiciary / Supreme Court

Article VIII, Sec 1 The judicial power shall be vested in oneSupreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established bylaw.

This is also called the POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

The legislative and the executive branches are called thePOLITICAL BRANCHES.

Corollary to the principle of separation of powers:

Principles of checks and balances - Each branch of the government is acheck of the others so that power will not be concentrated which might leadto abuse and irreparable damage.

This allows 1 department to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives or torectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments.

Ex: veto power of the President.

Principle of non-delegation of Powers

GR Potesta delegata non potest delegari Power delegated may nolonger be delegated.

XPNs: Instances of permissible delegation PETAL

Delegation to the People under the systems of initiative and referendum(plebiscite, Art. VI, Sec 1)Delegation to the President of Emergency powers (Art VI, Sec 23)Delegation to the President of Tariff powers (Art VI, Sec 28[2])Delegation to Administrative BodiesDelegation to Local governments (Art. X)

NOTE: There must always be an EXPRESS delegation! (byLaw/Constitution)

Q. What are the requisites before emergency powers may be delegated tothe President?

A. Under Article VI. Section 23. there are four:

There must be a war orother national emergency.The delegation shall be for a limited period only

The delegation must be pursuant to a declared national policy

The delegation is subject to such restrictions and limitations as Congressmay prescribe.

!The power is delegated fromthe Congress to the President(David vsArroyo)

Q. What is meant by delegation to administrative bodies?


16/106


16

A. It is the delegation of quasi-legislative powers to administrativeagencies.

refers to the rule making power or power of subordinate legislation or powerto promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given law/legislative

policy.Operative word, or meant equivalent terms

The power to ENACT laws still belongs to Congress.

!Testsof valid delegationvs. abdication of power

Completeness Test - The law delegating the power must be complete initself in the sense that the body on whom the power is delegated must haveno discretion to exercise the power but to enforce it.

The law must be complete in all its terms and conditions, such thatthere is nothing more to be done by the body but to enforce it.

The law must set forth the policy to be executed, carried out orimplemented by the delegate.

The delegate must not be authorized to fill in the gaps.

Sufficiency of Standards Test - The law must provide for standards thatare determinate or at least determinate, which will define the limits of adelegates authority.

The standard will guide the delegate in the exercise of thedelegated power which standards must be determinate/determinable.

Q. What is a sufficient standard?

A. It is one that defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out itsboundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it.

Ex: (1) Power to organize agencies was delegated to the PresidentStandard: to streamline the bureaucracy for economy andsufficiency.(2) Power to issue franchises delegated to LTFRBStandard: For public convenience and security

The standards need not be found in the law delegating the power. Instead,standards may be found in other laws what is important is that thestandards are determinate or at least determinable (Chong Bian vs Ci-Bos)

If the delegation meets the tests, it is valid.

What is prohibited is undue delegation or a delegation running riot.

If there is undue delegation, it is no longer delegation of power butabdication of power in favor of the delegate, which violates the doctrine ofseparation of powers.

Ratio: You cannot expect the Congress to anticipate all.

Article VI LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Legislative Power

Article VI, Sec 1: The legislative power shall be vested in the congress ofthe Philippines, which shall consist of a Senate and a House ofRepresentatives , except to the extent reserved to the people by the

provisions on initia tive and referendum.

Q. What power is vested in Congress?

A. Legislative Power under Article VI, Sec. 1 (The Power of the Purse).

Q. Is legislative power exclusively vested in Congress?

A. NO. Unlike in the 1935 constitution where the legislative power isexclusively vested in Congress, under the 1987 constitution, there is areservation made to the people (initiative and referendum). (Art VI, Sec1).

The legislative power is not exclusively vested in Congress! It is vestedin:

Congress made up of 2 houses:SenateHouse of Representatives

(We have a Bicameral Congress)The houses are co-equal bodies; hence the terms upper house and lowerhouse are inaccurate!

Bicameral Conference Committee

See Phil. Judges Association vs. Hon. Prado, and

Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance.

Undue delegation to the delegate


17/106


17

to the extent reserved to the People by initiative and referendum

Article VI, Sec. 32 The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for asystem of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions there from.

This is not self-executing.

Q. Has the Congress enacted a Law?

A. YES. R.A. 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Law) is the implementingprovision of Sec 1 Art VI, 1987 Constitution.3 kinds of Initiative under RA6735:1. Initiative on the Constitution-

1. declared unconstitutional (Santiago vs.COMELEC)2. Initiative on Statutes

Implemented Article VI. Sec 1* - Refers to petitions proposing to enact a national legislation- Valid

3. Initiative on Local Legislationrefers to petitions proposing to enact, amend, or repeal local ordinances.Valid.

Bar Q: What is initiative? What is Referendum?A: Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments to theConstitution on to propose and enact legislations through an election for thepurpose (Sec 3(a), RA6735).Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or rejecta legislationthrough an election called for the purpose (Sec. 3, RA6735).

Q: May the President enact laws?

A: NO. Legislative power is vested in Congress. Legislative power includesthe power to ENACT, AMEND, or REPEAL. The power vested on thePresident is the EXECTIVE POWER or the power to IMPLEMENT laws.

PRESIDENTS PARTICIPATION IN THE LAW-MAKING PROCESS

Q: Does the President have any participation in the Law-making process?

A: Yes, in the following instances: [SBUVS]

(1) When he exercises his veto power

Article VI, Sec 27. Every bill passed by Congress shall before it becomesa law, be presented to the president. If he approves the same, he shall signit; otherwise, he shall veto it

(2) When the president vetoes a bill, that bill doesnt become a law.(3) Whenhe calls for a special session

Art VI. Sec 15 The president may call a special session at any time

In effect, he will initiate the process

When the president certifies as the urgency of the bill to meet a publiccalamity or emergency.

Art VI, sec 26 (2) No bill passed by either house shall become a law unlessit has passed three (3) readings on separate days x x x except when thepresident certifies as to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet apublic calamity or emergency.

The president hastens the process by dispensing with 3 separate readingson 3 separate days rule.

(4)

When the president signs a billthat becomes a law

Art VI, sec 27 Every bill passed by Congress shall before it becomes a

law, be presented to the president. If he approves the same, he shall signit

The president performs the last operative act for a bill to become a law.

When the president prepares a budgetwhich is the basis of the GENERALAPPROPRIATIONS ACT.

Art VII, Sec 22 The president shall submit to the congress x x x as basisof the general appropriations bill a budget for expenditures and sources offinancing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures .

NON-LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF CONGRESS (9): [IBAWI PA CE]

(1) Investigative power / power to conduct investigation (inquiries inaid of legislation)

Art VI, Sec 21 The senate or the house of representatives or any of itsrespective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation or inaccordance with its duly published rules of procedure

(2) Power to declare the existence of a state of War

Art VI, Sec 23 The congress by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in jointsession assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declarethe existence of a state of war. [*then based on such declaration, delegateemergency powers to the President](3) Power to confirm a presidentialappointments [through commission onAppointments]


18/106


18

Art VII, Sec 16 The president shall nominate and with the consent of theCommission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executivedepartments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls or officers ofthe armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officerswhose appointments are vested in him in this constitution.

(4) Power to punish for contempt

- Incidental to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislations.

(5) Power to impeach and to try cases of impeachment

As a prosecutorial body: Art XI, Sec 3(1) The House of Representativesshall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.

As an impeachment Court: Art XI, Sec 3(6) The senate shall have thesole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment x x x

(6) Power to judge election contests involving their members throughtheElectoral tribunal

Art VI, Sec 17 The senate and House of Representatives shall each haveelectoral tribunals which is the sole judge of all contests relating to theelection returns and qualifications of their respective members x x x

(7) Power to concur in Amnesty Proclamation

Art VIII, Sec 19(2) He shall have the power to grant amnesty with theconcurrence of a majority of all the members of the Congress

(8) Power to propose amendments to, or revisions of the constitution,whenacting as constituent assembly

Art XVII, Sec 1(2) Any amendment to, or revision of, this constitution maybe done by: (1) The congress, upon a vote of !of all its members; x x x(9)Power to act as board of canvassers in presidential and vice-

presidentialelections.Art VII, Sec 4(4) Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the presidentof the Philippines shall, not later than 30 days after the day of the election,

open al certificates in the presence of the Senate of the House ofRepresentatives in joint and public session, and the Congress, upondetermination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the mannerprovided by law, canvass the votes.

Composition of CONGRESS

(a) Senate 24 senators elected at large;Term: 6 years

Term limit: 2 Consecutive terms(b) House of Representatives

Term: 3 yearsTerm limit: 3 consecutive termsArt VI, Sec 5(1) The HOR shall be composed of not more than250 members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected

from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities,and the metropolitan manila area x x xThis provision is already Functus Officio!

Congress has the power to reapportion district every census, under

Art VI, Sec 5(4)

Within 3 years following the term of every census, the congress shall make are-apportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided inthis section.

Qualifications: (

MARCOS vs. COMELEC

In her application for candidacy, Imelda wrote 7 months requirement, thenamended it and wrote, Since birth. The SC decided in favor of Imelda. SC:in political law, residence is considered as domicile.

Senator Representative

(1) Citizenship Natural born

(2) LIteracy Able to read and write

(3) Voter Registered voter

(4) Age 35 years of ageon the day ofelection

25 years of age on the day ofelection

(5) Residence 2 years residence 1 year in the d istrict he isrepresenting.

(6) Term 6 years, 2consecutive term-limit

3 years; 3 consecutive term-limit.


19/106


19

Kinds of Congressmen:

Art VI, Sec 5(1) The HOR shall be composed of not more than 250members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected fromlegislative districts x x x and those who, as provided by law, shall be electedthrough a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral

parties or organizations.

(1) District representatives

(2) Party-list representatives

this absorbed the sectoral representatives

Art VI, Sec 5(2) x x x for 3 consecutive terms after the ratifications of thisconstitution, "of the seats allocated to the party-list representatives shall befilled as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant,urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such othersectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.

[other sectors: fisher folks, elderly, handicapped (Sec 5, RA7941)].

PUF LICE HWY O

Xpn: Religious sector

Party list system

Implemented by RA7941 (Party-list law)

Adopted the German model of the party list system

1998 elections: first time we had party list election

Borrowed concept from parliamentary system

See: Ang bagong-bayani-OFW labor party vs. COMELEC (June 26, 01En Banc)

Q: What is the nature of the party-list system?A: The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to

give more in life to the great masses of our people who have less in life, butalso to enable them to become veritable (genuine/real) law makersthemselves. It

intends to make the marginalized and underrepresented active participantsin the mainstream of representative democracy.

The party list system is one such tool intended to benefit those whohae less in life. It gives the great masses of our people the genuine hopeand genuine power. It is a message to the destitute and the prejudiced, and

even to those in the underground (e.g. rebels), that change is possible. It isan invitation for them to come our of their limbo and seize the opportunity.

Q: Is it open to all?

A: No. It is not open to all but only to the marginalized and theunderrepresented

Allowing all individuals and groups, including those which nowdominate district elections, to have the same opportunity to participate in theparty-list elections would desecrate this lofty. Objective and mongrelize thesocial justice mechanism into an atrocious veneer for traditional politics(nose bleed!)

To make it open to all, without qualifications would not only weakenthe electoral chances of the marginalized and the underrepresented it alsoprejudices them. To allow the non-marginalized and the overrepresented tovie under the party list system would not only dilute, but also prejudice thechance of the marginalized and underrepresented contrary to the lawsintention to enhance it. It would gut the substance of the party-list system.Instead of generating hope, it would create a mirage. Instead of enabling the

marginalized, it would further weaken them and aggravate theirmarginalization.

Uphold Social Justice principle to give those who have less life, more inlaw

Underground group Rebels (p.27 3A notes)

Guidelines for screening party list participants (8)

The political party, sector, organization, or coalition must represent themarginalized and underrepresented sectors identified in Sec 5, RA7941.

Sec 5, RA7941 x x x the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk,urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women,youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.

This enumeration is NOT exlusive

However, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that NOT all sectors canbe represented under the party-list system.

While political parties may participate in the party-list system, thenmust comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizensbelonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to beenelcted to the HOR.

They must show that they represent the interests of themarginalized and the underrepresented.


20/106


20

Sec 5, RA 7941 Any organized group of persons may regilster as a party,organization, or coalition for purposes of the party-list system x x x

Sec 7, Art IX-C, 1987 Const. No votes cast in favor of a political party,organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under theparty-list system as provided in this constitution.

Sec 8, Art IX-C, 1987 Const. Political parties or organizations or coalitionsregistered under the party list system shall not be represented in the votersregistration boards x x x

Sec 5(1), Art VI, 1987 Const. The HOR shall be composed of x x x andthose who x x x shall be elected through a party list system of registerednational, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

The religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system orregistered as a political party.

Art IX-C Sec 2(5) The COMELEC shall exercise the following powers andfunctions x x x (5) Register x x x political parties, organizations x x x religiousdenomination shall not be registered.

Art VI, Sec 5(2) x x x from the labor, peasant urban poor x x x and suchother sectors as may be provided by law, except religious sector

Sec 6(1), RA7941 The COMELEC may x x x refuse or cancel x x x theregistration of any national regional or sectoral party, organization orcoalition on any of the following grounds: (1) If it is a religious sect ordenomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes.

Ex: El Shaddai cannot register and participate in the party-list system

The prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a politicalparty. No prohibition against a priest running as a candidate. What isprohibited is the registration of a religious sect as a political party.

The party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized

by, or an entity funded or assisted by the government.It must be independent of the government

By the very nature of the party-list system, the party or organization must bea group of citizens, organized and operated by citizens.

The participation of the government or its officials in the affairs of a party-listcandidate is not only illegal and unfair to others, but also deleterious to theobjective of the law.

Ex: MAD Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga

The party or organization must not be disqualified under sec 6, RA7941:

Sec 6, RA 7941 Ground for refusal and/or cancellation of registration:

1. It is a religious sector denomination, organization or association,organized for religious purposes;

2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;

3. It is a foreign party or organization;

4. It is receiving support from any foreign govt, foreigh political party,foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers ormembers or indirectly through 3rdparties for partisan election purposes.

5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating toelections;

6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;

7. It has ceased to exist for at least 1 year;

8. It fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections, or fails to obtain atleast 2% of the votes cast under the party list system in the 2 precedingelections for the constituency in which it has registered.

The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; itsnominees must likewise do so x x x

The nominee must also be qualified.

Sec 9, RA 7941 Qualifications for party list nominees

(1) Natural-born citizen of the Philippines

(2) Registered voter

(3) Resident of the Philippines for a perioud of not less than 1 year

immediately preceding the day of the electon.(4) Able to read and write

(5) Bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks torepresent for at least 90 days preceding the day of the election.

(6) Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalizedand underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees.

(7)The nominee must also represent the marginalized and underrepresented

Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be fully represented by a retiree;neither can those of the urban poor or the working class by an individualist.


21/106


21

While lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee mustlikewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment ofappropriate legislation that will benefit the nature of the whole.

4 inviolable parameters to determine the winners in a Party-list election

(As mandated by the Constitution and RA7941) "Bar Question! "

See VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY vs. COMELEC (October 6, 2000 EnBanc)

a. The twenty (20%) percent allocation - The combined member of allparty list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of theHOR, including those elected under the party-list.

Art VI, Sec 5(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of thetotal number of representatives including those under the party-list.

b. The two (2%) percent threshold - Only those garnering a minimum of2% of the total valid votes cast for the party list system are qualified to havea seat in the HOR.

NOTE: The base is the total votes cast for the party-list and not the totalnumber of registered voters.

See RA 7941.

c. The three (3) seat limit - Each qualified part, regardless of the number ofvotes actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of 3 seats 1 qualifyingand 2 additional seats.

Rationale: To avoid domination/monopoly will go against the purpose ofthe party-list system.

Proportional Representation - The additional seats to which a qualifiedparty is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total number ofvotes.

Q: To determine the total votes cast for the party-list system, should thevotes tallied to the disqualified candidates be deducted/excluded incomputing the 2% threshold?

A: Yes. The votes for the disqualified parties should be excluded.

(Ang Bagong Bayani OFW vs. COMELEC [June 25, 2003 En Banc])

In the case of Labo vs. COMELEC, reaffirmed in the case of Grego vs.COMELEC, the court declred that the votes case for an ineligible ordisqualified candidate cannot be considered stray, because this woulddisenfranchise the voters/majority; valid votes.

However, votes cast for a notoriously disqualified candidate may beconsidered stray and excluded from the canvass.

This does not apply to the party-list elections!

Because of the express rule in Sec 10, RA 7941 x x x that a vote cast fora party, sectoral organization or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not

be counted x x xThe LABO doctrine applies only to SINGLE ELECTIVE POST/ELECTIONS(e.g. Mayor); In the party-list system, even the 2nd, 3 rd, etc... candidate mayget seats.

Concept and Bases of Congressional Oversight Functions

See MAKALINTAL vs. COMELEC

Q: What is the power of oversight?

A: Broadly defined, the power of oversight embraces all activities undertakenby Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence over theimplementation of legislation it has enacted. Clearly, oversight concernspost-enactment measures undertaken by Congress:

to monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives;to determine whether agencies are properly administered;to eliminate executive waste and dishonesty;to prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority; andto assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of publicinterestQ: What is/are the basis of oversight power of Congress?A: The power of oversight has been held to be (1) intrinsic in the grant oflegislative power itself and (2) integral to the checks and balances (3)inherent in a democratic system of government.

Q: what are the categories of congressional oversight functions? [SIS]

A: Three categories:Scrutiny primary purpose is to determine economy and efficiency of theoperation of government activities.

Based primarily on the power of appropriation of congress as under theconstitution, the power of the purse belongs to the congress

Ex: Budget hearings usual means of renewing policy and auditing the useof previous appropriation to ascertain whether they have been disbursed forpurposes authorized in an appropriation act.


22/106


22

Power of confirmation [through COA,] provides congress an opportunity tofind out whether the nominee possesses the necessary qualifications,integrity and probity required for all public servants.

Congress may request information and report from the other branches ofgovernment. It can give recommendations / pass resolutions forconsideration of the agency involved.Congressional Investigation a moreintense digging of facts.

This is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative functions,even in the absence of an express provision in the Constitution.

Sec 21 Art VI (in aid of legislation)

Sec 22 Art VI (Question hour)

Legislative Supervision third and most encompassing form of oversightpower.

Supervision connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part ofcongressional committee regarding executive operations in a givenadministrative area.

Allows congress to the exercise of delegated law-making authority andpermits congress to retain that part of delegated authority.

Ex: veto power of Congress.

Power to create public office / administrative agency congress has anadditional power to supervise - properly implemented congress has reviewpowers over these public offices / administrative agencies.

Ex: GSIS.

Q: What is legislative veto?

A: It is the power of the congress to disapprove a subordinate law, rules andregulations promulgated/enacted by the executive branch pursuant to a

delegation of authority by Congress.Immunities and privileges of members of Congress

Sec 11, Article VI A senator of member of the HOR shall , in all offensespunishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment, be privileged from arrestwhile the congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be heldliable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in anycommittee thereof.

3 Privileges:

(1) Privilege from Arrest

(2) Freedom of speech and debate(3) Freedom from search (see Article 145, RPC)Privilege from Arrest

Not absolute!

Limitations: (1) Congress must be in session

(2) The offense must be one punishable by imprisonment notexceeding 6years.

In session

does not refer to the day to day session

refers to the session from the opening to the final/formal adjournment ofCongress

Art VI, Sec 15 the Congress shall convene once every year on the FourthMonday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed byLaw, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it maydetermine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session,exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays x x x

Q: After 15 days of continuous session, congress adjourned. Can this bedone?

A: YES. Congress has the discretion under Art VI, Sec 15. It is allowed toremain in session provided only that 30 days before the opening of the nextsession, it shall adjourn (compulsory adjournment).

The opening of the session is also the time the President delivers his STATEOF THE NATION ADDRESS (SONA) part of the informing power of thePresident (Art VII, Sec 23)

Art VII, Sec 23 The president shall address the Congress at the openingof its regular session x x x

This is a deviation from the 1935 constitution, under which the opening ofthe regular session is every 4thMonday of January and the duration of thesession is for a fixed period of 100 days. It was patterned after the AmericanConstitution.

Freedom of Speech and Debate

Requisites:

(1) The speech or debate must be made in Congress or in anycommittee thereof.

(2) The congress must be in session.


23/106


23

Q: In a TV interview, a congressman maligns someone. Can he invoke hisfreedom of speech?

A. NO. It was not made in congress or any of its committee.

Q: In his privileged speech, a congressman made remarks against A. Can Asue him for defamation?

A: NO. It is covered by the immunity.

Q: What is As remedy?

A: Ask the house to punish the congressman.

In any other place means - this includes the courts!

Statement made in Congress is a form of privileged communication.

This is a valid defense of Slander or Libel!

Borjal vs. CA: There are 2 kinds of Privileged communication:

Absolutely privileged

absolutely not actionable even if the author is in bad faithEx: Freedom of speech and debate of members of Congress.

Qualifiedly privileged

Not actionable unless the author acted in bad faith.

This does NOT include Congress Itself!

Osme!a vs. Pendatun: The Senate expelled Senator Osme#a from theSenate when he maligned the President in his speech.

SC: The Senates act is valid. Congress can punish their members [Art VI,Secc 16(3)]. The freedom of speech and debate cannot be invoked inCongress itself. The constitution says, in any other place.

People vs. Jalosjos: To allow Jalosjos to attend congressional session willvirtually make him a free man; this would be a mockery of the correctionalsystem.

Immunity of Members of the Congressarises from a constitutional provisiongranted in a restrictive sensecannot be extended by Intendment

Implication

Equitable considerations

Q: During pendency of his appeal from conviction of RTC, should he beallowed to post bail?

A. NO. Evidence of guild is strong; should wait for decision on appeal insidethe penitentiary.

1987 Constitution says

Art III, Sec 13 All persons, except those charged with offenses punishableby reclusion perpetua, when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall, beforeconviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizanceas may be provided by law. x x x

Rules of Court says

Rule 114 Sec 4 Bail, a matter of right; exception:

All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, withsufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as prescribed by law or thisrule.

before / after conviction by the MTC; and

before conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, R.P, or lifeimprisonment.

Rule 114 Sec 5 Bail, when discretionary

Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable by death, RP, orLI, admission to bail is discretionary. x x

Therefore:

Matter or Right before conviction, punishable by penalty lower thanreclusion perpetua

Exception: charged with offense punishable by RP or death.Matterof Discretion before conviction punishable by penalty of reclusion perpetuaor higher when the evidence of guilt is strong, there will be a hearing todetermine whether evidence of guilt is strong.

"After conviction, go to Rule 114 sections 4 and 5.

Power to Conduct Investigations and Inquiries

Sec 21, Art VI The senate or the House of Representatives or any of itsrespective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation inaccordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of personsappearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.Nature of thepower to conduct investigations and inquiries

non-legislative but integral in the grant of Legislative power


24/106


24

It is investigative.Arnault vs. Nazareno: In the 1935 Constitution, there is noexpress provision regarding inquiries in aid of legislation. However, it isintrinsic to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Therefore, even withoutsuch provision, this power is present.Q: Is the power absolute?

A: NO! Section 21 provides for the following limitations:

It must be in aid of legislation.It must be made in accordance with duly published rules of procedures

The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by such inquiries shall berespected.

!The right against self incrimination (Art III sec 17) may be invoked.

In aid of legislation

Bengzon Jr vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

#Senator Enrile made a privileged speech on the alleged takeover of theSOLOIL Inc. by Ricardo Lopa, a relative of President Auino, and asked theSenate to look into the possible violation of the law, particularly with regard

to RA3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The matter wasreferred to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

#Not an inquiry for inquirys sake.

SC: This cannot be allowed. Enriles speech had no suggestion ofcontemplated legislation. The purpose of inquiry was to find out whetherRicardo Copa violated the law. Thus, there is not intended legislationinvolved.

Q: Is this subject to Judicial Review?

A: General Rule: NO! It is a political question.

Exception: When it is tainted with grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction. In view of the expanded power ofthe Courts, the SC can inquire whether the inquiry is in accordance with thelimitations under the constitution.

Q: What is the executive privilege?

A: It is the power of the government (the President or Executive Secretaryacting in behalf of the president) to withhold information from the public, thecouts and the Congress.

unless the question is asked, you cannot invoke this privilege

It must be invoked (not implied) expressly; must not be a blanke

Political Law Review - Sandoval Notes

Documents

Transcript of Political Law Review - Sandoval Notes