Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitutional Law 1st Examination
Constitutional Law 1st Examination
Constitutional Law 1st Examination
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
1. Verba Legis- Wherever possible,
the words used in the Constitution
must be given their ordinary
meaning except where technical
terms are employed.
Therefore, what it says according
to the text of the text of the
provision to be construed compels
acceptance and negates the power
of the courts to alter it, based on
the postulate that the framers and
the people mean what they say.
2. Ratio Legis est anima- Where there
is ambiguity, the words of the
Constitution should be interpreted
in accordance with the intent of its
framers.
3. Ut Magis Valeat quam pereat- In
case of conflict between two
provisions of the Constitution, the
court must harmonize them, if
practicable, and must lean in favor
of a construction which will render
every word operative, rather than
one which may make the words
idle and nugatory.
Unless it is expressly provided that a
legislative act is necessary to enforce
a
constitutional
mandate,
the
presumption now is that all provisions
of the constitution are self-executing.
A provision which lays down a general
principle, such as those found in Art. II
of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not
self-executing.
A provision which is complete in itself
and becomes operative without the
aid of supplementary or enabling
legislation, or that which supplies
sufficient rule by means of which the
A. SEPARATION OF POWERS
The separation of powers is a
fundamental principle in our system of
government. It obtains not through
express provision but by actual
division in our Constitution. Each
department of the government has
exclusive cognizance of matters within
its jurisdiction, and is supreme within
its own sphere. But it does not follow
Garcia v. Drilon
It is settled that courts are not
concerned with the wisdom, justice,
policy, or expediency of a statute.
Hence, we dare not venture into the
real motivations and wisdom of the
members of Congress in limiting the
protection against violence and abuse
under R.A. 9262 to women and
children only. No proper challenge on
said grounds may be entertained in
this proceeding. Congress has made
its choice and it is not our prerogative
to supplant this judgment. The choice
may be perceived as erroneous but
even then, the remedy against it is to
seek its amendment or repeal by the
legislative. By the principle of
separation of powers, it is the
legislative that determines the
necessity, adequacy, wisdom and
expediency of any law. We only
step in when there is a violation of the
Constitution. However, none was
sufficiently shown in this case.
Perez v. People
Petitioner asserts that the law relied
upon in convicting him and the
sentence imposed is cruel and
therefore violates section 19 of article
iii (bill of rights) of the constitution.
He
who
attacks
the
constitutionality of a law has the
onus probandi to show why such
law
is
repugnant
to
the
Constitution. Failing to overcome its
presumption of constitutionality, a
claim that a law is cruel, unusual, or
inhuman, like the stance of petitioner,
must fail.
B.
PRESUMPTION
CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF
C.
POLITICAL
QUESTION
JUSTICIABLE QUESTION
V.
D.
REQUISITES
INQUIRY
OF
JUDICIAL
compensation
systems
for
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations and government financial
institutions was likewise dismissed by
the Supreme Court after it found that
the Congress, through RA 10149, had,
in the meantime, expressly conferred
said power upon the President. For
the Court to still rule upon its
supposed constitutionality will merely
be an academic exercise.
MOOTNESS
In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the
Court opposed the OSG stating that A
moot and academic case is one that
ceases 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 ground
of mootness.
The court held that President Arroyos
issuance of PP 1021 did not render the
petitions
questioning
the
constitutionality of PP1071 moot and
academic. There are vital issues
regarding the constitutional acts
which must not be afforded with
protection.
Further, it held that moot and
academic principle is not a
magical
formula
that
can
automatically dissuade the courts
in resolving a case. Courts will
decide cases, otherwise moot and
academic, if: GEFR
a grave violation of the
Constitution;
exceptional character of the
situation and the paramount
public interest is involved;
CITIZENS
1. Denial of some right or privilege
to which he is lawfully entitled;
or he is about to be subjected to
some burdens or penalties by
reason of the statute or act
complained of;
2. Issue concerns public right of a
citizen
CHAVEZ V. PCGG
Anchored on the right of the people
to information and access to
official records, documents, and
papers, and petitioner, a former
solicitor general, has a standing
as a citizen. Therefore, matters
involving agreements with the heirs of
Marcos and negotiations regarding his
ill-gotten wealth must be disclosed.
AKBAYAN V. AQUINO
In a petition anchored upon the right
of the people to information on
matters of public concern, which is a
public right by its very nature,
petitioners need not show that
they have any legal or special
interest in the result, it being
sufficient to show that they are
citizens and, therefore, part of the
general public which possesses the
right to information and thus have the
standing to demand copies of JPEPA.
CHAVEZ v. PEA and AMARI
the enforcement of the constitutional
right to information and the equitable
diffusion of natural resources are
matters of transcendental importance
which clothe the petitioner with locus
standi;
TATAD V. SECRETARY
There is not a dot of disagreement
between the petitioners and the
respondents on the far reaching
importance of the validity of RA No.
8180 deregulating our downstream oil
industry. Thus, there is no good sense
in being hypertechnical on the
standing of petitioners for they pose
issues which are significant to our
people and which deserve our
forthright resolution.
BAYAN V. EXECUTIVE
Notwithstanding, in view of the
paramount
importance
and
the
constitutional significance of the
issues regarding VFA raised in the
petitions, this Court, in the exercise of
its sound discretion, brushes aside
the procedural barrier and takes
cognizance of the petitions, as we
have done in the early Emergency
Powers Cases.
CAPALLA v. COMELEC
In order to achieve the modernization
program of the Philippine Electoral
System,
which
includes
the
automation
of
the
counting,
transmission and canvassing of votes
for the May 2010 national and local
elections with systems integration and
over-all project management in a
comprehensive and well-managed
manner, the Comelec entered into an
NO STANDING
PAGUIA
V.
OFFICE
OF
THE
PRESIDENT
Three factors are relevant in our
determination to allow third party
suits so we can reach and resolve the
merits of the crucial issues raised : CD-L
- the character of funds or assets
involved in the controversy,
-a clear disregard of constitutional or
statutory prohibition, and
- the lack of any other party with a
more direct and specific interest to
bring the suit
Implicit in a petition seeking a
judicial
interpretation
of
a
statutory
provision
on
the
retirement of government personnel
occasioned
by
its
seemingly
ambiguous crafting is the admission
that
a
"clear
disregard
of
constitutional or statutory prohibition"
is absent.
IBP V. ZAMORA
The mere invocation by the IBP of its
duty to preserve the rule of law and
nothing more, while undoubtedly true,
is not sufficient to clothe it with
standing in this case. What the IBP
projects as injurious is the supposed
militarization of law enforcement
which might threaten Philippine
democratic institutions and may
cause more harm than good in the
long run. Not only is the presumed
injury not personal in character, it is
likewise too vague, highly speculative
and
uncertain
to
satisfy
the
requirement of standing.
VELARDE V. SJS
There was no showing in the Petition
for Declaratory Relief that SJS as a
political party or its members as
registered voters would be adversely
affected by the alleged acts of the
respondents below, if the question at
issue was not resolved. There was no
allegation that SJS had suffered or
would be deprived of votes due to the
acts imputed to the said respondents.
Neither did it allege that any of its
members would be denied the right of
suffrage or the privilege to be voted
for a public office they are seeking.
AMIN V. EXECUTIVE
Petitioners Anak Mindanao Party-List
Group
(AMIN)
and
Mamalo
Descendants
Organization,
Inc.
(MDOI) assail the constitutionality of
Executive Order (E.O.) Nos. 364 and
379, both issued in 2004 by President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Transforming
The Department Of Agrarian Reform
Into The Department Of Land Reform
52.
53.
Art.
1
The
national
territory comprises the:
- Philippine archipelago
o with all the islands and
the waters embraced
therein, and
o All other territories over
which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction
54. Consisting of its
o Terrestrial,
fluvial,
and
aerial domains
55. Including its TS-S-S-IS-SAW
o Territorial sea, the seabed,
the subsoil, the insular
shelves,
and
other
submarine areas.
- The waters: Around, between,
and connecting the islands of
the archipelago,
o Regardless
of
their
breadth and dimensions,
form a part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
56.
UNCLOS- United Nations
Convention on the Law of the
Sea prescribes
1. Water-Land Ratio
2. Length- shall not exceed 100
nm except for the 3% of the
total number of baselines which
can reach to 125 nm.
3. Contour of the Baselinesdrawing of baselines shall not
depart to any appreciable extent
from the general configuration
of the archipelago.
57.
58.
RA 9522
- Shortened one baseline
- Optimized the location of some
base points around the Phil.
archipelago
III. GOVERNMENT
81.
the
agency
or
instrumentality through which
the will of the State is
formulated
expressed
and
realized
82.
83.
TYPE: democratic
and
republican
84.
85.
A.
FUNCTIONS:
Constituent and Ministrant
86. Constituent constitute
the very bonds of society and
are therefore compulsory.
87. Ministrant
those
undertaken to advance general
interests of the society, such as
public works, public charity, and
regulation of trade and industry.
These functions are optional.
88.
89.
B.
DOCTRINE
OF
PARENS
PATRIAE
the
important
tasks
of
the
government is to act as
guardians of the people.
90.
91.
C. De Jure and De Facto
Governments
92. De Jure- government that
has rightful title but no power or
control, either because
o this has been withdrawn
from it or because
o has
not
yet
actually
entered into the exercise
thereof
93. De facto- a government
of fact, that is, it actually
exercises power or control but
without legal title
94.
95.
Kinds of De facto:
1. through possession and control
by force or by the voice of
majority, de jure maintains itself
against the will of de facto.
2. Independent
govt
as
established by inhabitants who
rise in insurrection against
parent state
113.
Characteristics:
114. permanent,
exclusive,
comprehensive,
absolute,
indivisible,
inalienable,
imprescriptible
115.
116.
Act of the State
- Act done by the sovereign
power of the country, or by its
delegate, within the limits of the
power vested in him; cannot be
made
subject
to
legal
proceedings in a court of law.
117.
118.
119.
IV. SOVEREIGNTY
CHAPTER 4:
120.
121.
Classical Theory: The
State may not be sued without
its consent. (Article XVI, sec. 3)
122.
123.
General Rule: for a state
to be sued, it shall waive its
immunity.
124.
125.
Reason: I-P-SES
Indiscriminate suits against the
State will result in the impairment
of its dignity
No legal right against the authority
which makes the law on which the
right depends (Justice Holmes)
Prejudicial to Public Welfare
- Demands and inconveniences of
litigation will divert the time and
resources of the state from the
more pressing matters
Sovereign Equality of States
- One
State
cannot
assert
jurisdiction over another in
violation of the maxim par in
parem non habet imperium. To
Philippines entered
into
a
Technical
Cooperation
Agreement (TCA), pursuant to
which
both
signed
an
arrangement
promoting
the
Social
Health
Insurance
Networking and Empowerment
(SHINE)
project.
The
two
governments
named
their
respective
implementing
organizations: the Department
of Health (DOH) and the
Philippine
Health
Insurance
Corporation (PHIC) for
the
Philippines and GTZ for the
implementation
of Germanys
contributions
as
an
implementing agency of the
Federal Govt of Germany.
156.
157.
Issue: Whether GTZ was
not immune from suit
158.
159.
SC:
Being
an
implementing agency of a State
does not automatically vest GTZ
with the ability to invoke State
Immunity from suit.
160.
161.
GTZ has failed to establish
that under German law, it has
not consented to be sued
despite it being owned by the
Federal Republic of Germany.
We adhere to the rule that in the
absence of evidence to the
contrary, foreign laws on a
particular subject are presumed
to be the same as those of the
Philippines, and following the
most intelligent assumption we
can gather, GTZ is akin to a
governmental
owned
or
controlled
corporation
without
original
charter
which, by virtue of the
Corporation
Code,
has
expressly consented to be
sued.
162.
DFA function:
- Determination of persons and
institutions
covered
by
diplomatic immunities
- Issues
certification
of
respondents diplomatic status
and entitlement to diplomatic
privileges including immunity
from suits
- The issuance of certification by
DFA does not preclude the court
from ascertaining its intrinsic
validity
163.
164.
SUIT AGAINST PUBLIC
OFFICERS
165.
It is understood, of
course, that where a public
officer acts without or in excess
of jurisdiction, any injury caused
by him is his own personal
liability and cannot be imputed
to the State.
1. WON the officer has acted
within the bounds of his official
capacity; or within the scope of
his authority
a. State acting through a
special agent; state holds
immunity.
2. WON there is a need of an
affirmative action by the State
to satisfy for the damages
(ultimate test)
166.
167.
NOT AGAINST THE STATE,
but solidary to the public officer
1. Duty is required by law
2. Restrained from doing an act
alleged to be unconstitutional
3. Recovering from him taxes
unlawfully assessed or collected
4. Recovery of title
5. Special Agent function foreign
to ones regular exercise of
office.
168.
169.
170.
SUITS
AGAINST
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
171.
Where suit is filed not
against the government itself or
its officials but against one of its
entities, it must be ascertained
whether or not the State, as the
principal that may ultimately be
held liable, has given its consent
to be sued.
172.
173.
SUABILITY the result of
the express or implied consent
of the State to be sued
174.
175.
Test of Suability
176.
KINDS OF AGENCY
1. INCORPORATED AGENCY
has a charter of its own that
invests it with a separate
juridical personality, like the SSS
and
University
of
the
Philippines.
- CHARTER TEST:
o It is suable if the charter
says so.
177.
2. UNINCORPORATED AGENCY
has
no
separate
juridical
personality but is merged in the
general
machinery
of
the
government,
like
the
Department of Justice, the
Bureau of Mines and the
Government of Printing Office.
Any suit filed against it is an
action against the Philippine
Government. Therefore, it is
now the primary function of the
acts which is subject to the
- NATURE test
o Jure Imperii (immuned)
o Jure Gestionis (suable)
178.
FORMS OF CONSENT
1. Expressed
210.
Test of Liability
211.
PURPOSE:
Supreme
Court held a municipality liable
for
a
tort
committed
in
connection with the celebration
of a town fiesta, which was
considered
a
proprietary
function.
1. PUBLIC USE- not subject to
levy
212. -ie. Funds or taxes due to
municipal corp.
2. QUASI-PRIVATE- maybe seized
and sold
3. TEMPORARILY PRIVATE- may
not be subject for execution,
unless abandoned.
213.
214.
Presumption
of
Solvency:
215.
Does not extend to GOCCs
where the state is a major
stockholder
216.
217.
SUABILITY v. LIABILITY
218.
Suability depends on the
consent of the state to be sued
219.
220.
Liability
depends
on
applicable law and established
facts
- State shall be responsible only
for torts when it acts through a
special agent and not when the
damage has been caused by the
official or employee to whom
task properly pertains
221.
222.
CHAPTER 5:
223.
FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES
224.
225.
Preamble
226.
227.
sovereign
Filipino
We, the
people,
4. Social
Justice
means
the
promotion of the welfare of all
the people, the adoption by the
Government
of
measures
calculated to insure economic
stability of all the component
elements of society, through the
maintenance
of
a
proper
economic and social equilibrium
in the interrelations of the
members of the community,
constitutionality, through the
adoption of measures legally
justifiable,
or
extraconstitutionally, through the
exercise of powers underlying
the existence of all governments
on the time-honored principle of
salus populi est suprema lex.
235.
236.
ARTICLE II
237.
DECLARATION
PRINCIPLES
AND
POLICIES PRINCIPLES
OF
STATE
275.
Section 22. The State
recognizes and promotes the
rights of indigenous cultural
communities
within
the
framework of national unity and
development.
276.
277.
Section 23. The State shall
encourage
non-governmental,
community-based, or sectoral
278.
organizations
that
promote the welfare of the
nation.
279.
Section 24. The State
recognizes the vital role of
communication and information
in nationbuilding.
280.
281.
Section 25. The State shall
ensure the autonomy of local
governments.
282.
283.
Section 26. The State shall
guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service
and prohibit political dynasties
as may be defined by law.
284.
285.
Section 27. The State shall
maintain honesty and integrity
in the public service and take
positive and effective measures
against graft and corruption.
286.
287.
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.
288.
289.
290.
291.
295.
296.
297.