Constitutional Law 1

Course Syllabus
May 08, 2014

INTRODUCTION

I. Pre-1987 Constitution

CASES:

Planas v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-35925

January 22, 1973 (aka Plebiscite
cases)

Javellana vs. Exec. Sec., 50 SCRA 33

(aka Ratification cases)

Aquino vs. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183

Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-

44640 October 12, 1976 (affirming the
validity of Javellana)

Occeña v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-56350

April 2, 1981 (affirming the validity of
Javellana)

Phil. Bar Association vs. Comelec, G.R.

No. 72915, December 20, 1985

II. The 1987 Constitution

III. The State as a Concept

A. Elements of a state

1. People

2. Territory

3. Government

a. functions: constituent vs. ministrant

CASES:

ACCFA vs. FLU, 30 SCRA 649

PVTA vs. CIR, 65 SCRA 416

b. types of government: de jure vs. de

facto

CASES:

Lawyerʼs League vs. Aquino, GR

73748, 5/22/86

Estrada vs. Arroyo, GR146710, 3/2/01

c. the Government of the Republic of

the Phils.

d. “government” vs. “administration”

4. Sovereignty

a. definition

b. types: legal vs. political sovereignty

c. doctrine of jus postliminium

d. effect of suspension or change in

sovereignty

CASES:

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez, 75 Phil 113

Peralta vs. Director, 75 Phil 285

Alcantara vs. Director, 75 Phil 749

Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil 856

People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887

Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77

Vilas vs. City of Manila, 42 Phil 953

B. Concept of “Act of State”

C. Doctrine of the state as

parenspatriae

CASES:

Govʼt vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil 728

Cabanas vs. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94

STATE IMMUNITY FORM SUIT

I. Basis

CASE: Kawanakoa vs. Polybank, 205

US 349

II. Suits Against Public Officials as Suits

Against the State

A. Test: will require an affirmative act

from the state

CASES:

Garcia vs. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120

Ruiz vs. Cabahug, 102 Phil 110 (1957)

B. Effect when public officer acts

without, or in excess of, jurisdiction

CASE: Festejo vs. Fernando, GR No. L-

5156, March 11, 1954 (NOTE: text of
main opinion is in Spanish; read dissent of
Justice Concepcion and the discussion in
the book of Cruz to get an idea what the
case is all about)

III. Suits Against Government Agencies

A. Test

1. If incorporated: consult charter

CASES:

Bermoy vs. Philippine Normal College,

GR No. L-8670, May 18, 1956

Arcega vs. CA, 66 SCRA 229

Rago vs. CFI, 110 SCRA 460

Phil. Natʼl Railways vs. IAC, 217 SCRA

401

2. If unincorporated: determine
nature of primary function

CASES:

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of

Printing Employees Assʼn, 1 SCRA 340

Mobil Phils. vs. Customs Arrastre

Service, 18 SCRA 1120

IV. Suits vs. Foreign States

CASES:

Syquia vs. Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil 312

(read also the dissent of Justice
Perfecto)

Sanders vs. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88

Holy See vs. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524

USA vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644

V. Waiver of Immunity: Consent to be

Sued

A. Forms of Consent

1. Express

a. Thru a general law (Read Act No.

3083 and Commonwealth Act No. 327, as
amended by PD 1445)

CASE: Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA

360

b. Thru a special law

CASE: Merrit vs. Government of the

Phil. Islands, 34 Phil 311

2. Implied

a. When state commences litigation

CASES:

Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co.,

GR No. L-6060, Sept. 30, 1950

Lim vs. Brownell, 107 SCRA 345

b. When state enters into a contract

CASES:

US vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487

USA vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644

B. Suit allowed even without consent

to be sued

CASE: Santiago vs. Republic, 87 SCRA

294

C. Consent to be Sued not Consent to

Execution of Judgment

CASE: Rep. vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84

1. Exception

CASE: PNB vs. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595

D. Suability vs. Liability

1. Read also The Local

Government Code of 1991

CASES:

Merrit vs. Government of the Phil.

Islands, supra

Palafox vs. Ilocos Norte, GR No. L-

10659, Jan. 31, 1958

E. Exemptions From Legal

Requirements of the State

F. Restrictive State Immunity: adhered

by the Philippines

Separation and Delegation of Powers

I. SEPARATION OF POWERS

A. In the Constitution

1. The major departments (Art. VI, VII, and

VIII)

2. The constitutional commissions (Art.

IX)

3. The other independent bodies

o theElectoral Tribunals [Sec. 17, Art. VI

and Sec. 4 (last par), Art. VII]

o the Commission on Appointments (Sec.

18, Art. VI)

o the Judicial and Bar Council (Sec. 8,

Art. VIII)}

B. Manner of Conferment of Power

1. Express

Legislative power to Congress (Sec. 1,

Art. VI)

Executive power to the President (Sec.

Art. VII)

Judicial power to SC, lower courts

(Sec. 1, Art. VIII)

Others (e.g. powers of the

independent constitutional bodies)

2. Implied (Doctrine of Necessary

Implication)

CASES:

1. Angara vs. EC, 63 Phil 139

2. Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil 29

3. Inherent or incidental

CASES:

1. In re Dick, 38 Phil 41

2. In re Sotto, 82 Phil 595

C. Purpose of separation of powers

II. COROLLARY CONCEPTS

D. Corollary Concepts

1. Blending (Overlap) of Powers

CASE: Springer vs. PI, 277 US 189

2. Checks and Balances

Lawmaking by Congress, veto by the

President, override of the veto by the
Congress (Sec. 27, Art. VI)

Grant of amnesty by the president,

concurrence by the Congress (Sec. 19,
Art. VI)

Entry into treaty by the president,

concurrence by the Senate (Sec. 20, Art.
VII)

Conviction by the judiciary, pardon by

the President (Sec. 19, Art. VIII)

Jurisdiction of courts may be reduced

by the Congress (Sec. 2, Art. VIII)

Congress may abolish lower courts

(Sec. 1 and 2, Art. VIII)

CASES:

1. Ocampovs. Sec., GR L-7918, 1/18/55

2. De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294

3. Delegation of Powers

General Rule: potestas delegata non

delegari potest

Basis

Exception: instances of permissible

delegation

Tariff powers to the president [Sec. 28

(2), Art. VI]

Emergency powers to the president

[Sec 23 (2), Art. VI]

CASES:

1. Araneta vs. Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368

2. Rodriguez vs. Gella, 92 Phil 603

Legislative power to the people at

large: System on initiative and
referendum (Sec. 32, Art. VI)

Legislative power to LGUs (See Sec. 16

and 19 of RA 7160)

Legislative power to administrative

bodies (power of subordinate legislation)

CASE: Cruz vs. Youngberg, 56 SCRA

234

i. Basis

ii. How effected

iii. Two tests of valid delegation

CASE: Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs.

POEA, G.R. No. 76633 October 18,
1988

a. Completeness test

CASE: US vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1

b. Sufficient standards test

CASES:

1. Pp vs. Rosenthal, 68 Phil 328

2. Cervantes vs. Auditor, 91 Phil 359

3. Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726

4. Hirabayashi vs. US, 320 U.S. 81

5. Dela Llana vs. Alba, supra

6. PP vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56

7. Inot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659

iv. Application of the two tests:

concurrent, not alternate

CASES:

Pelaez vs. Auditor, 15 SCRA 569

Add: Tatad v. Executive Secretary, G.R.

No. 124360 November 5, 1997

Delegation of ascertainment of facts,

not delegation of legislative power

CASE: Abakada Guro vs. Ermita, GR

168056, 9/1/05 (Decision); 10/18/05
(Resolution)

E. Role of judiciary in separation of

powers (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)

CASE: Angara vs. Electoral

Commission, supra

1. Supremacy of the Constitution upheld

by the judiciary

2. Justiciable and Political Questions

CASES:

1. Tanada vs. Cuenco, 100 Phil 1101

2. Sanidad vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333

3. Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496

4. Tanada vs. Angara, GR 118295,

5/2/97

5. Aytona vs. Castillo, 4 SCRA 1

6. Javellana vs. Executive Sec., supra

7. De la Llana vs. COMELEC, supra

8. Custodio vs. Senate, 42 O.G. 1243

9. Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil 83

10. Osmena vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863

11. Vera vs. Avelino, 77 SCRA 192

12. PBA vs. Comelec, GR 72915,

12/20/85

13. De Castro vs. Committee, GR

71688, 9/10/85

14. Romulo vs. Iniguez, 141 SCRA 263

15. Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17

16. Meralco vs. Pasay Trans., 57 Phil

825

17. Endencia vs. David, GR L-

6455,8/31/53

3. Expanded jurisdiction under the 1987

Constitution [sec. 1 (2nd par.), Art. VIII]

Also: Determination of the sufficiency

of factual basis of Martial Law: Sec. 18,
Art. VII

Grant of plenary power to other

branches: not bar to judicial inquiry

CASE: Bondoc vs. Pineda, G.R. No.

97710 Sept. 26, 1991

A. Preamble

B. Art. I: National Territory

1. Archipelagic state; archipelago

a) Defʼn. under the 1982 U.N.

Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS)

Read the salient points of the 1982

U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS)

b) significance of definition

2. Territorial sea

a) Sovereignty: exercised by the

coastal state

b) Right of innocent passage: ships of

other states

3. Baselines

a) Defʼn. under the UNCLOS

b) Ways of drawing baselines: normal

baseline method vs. straight baseline
method: See Art. 7 (1), UNCLOS

4. Archipelagic (internal/inland)
waters: par.1, Art. I

a) Sovereignty by coastal state; no

right of innocent passage

5. Significant phrase:“all other

territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction”

C. Art. II: Fundamental Principles &

State Policies

Art II provisions generally not self-

executing

· Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R.

No. 122156. February 3, 1997 (Read
also the main dissent of Justice Puno,
and the separate concurrences and
dissents of the other magistrates)

1. Republicanism (Sec. 1)

a) Also: Supremacy of Civilian Authority

(Sec. 3)

2. The Incorporation clause (Sec. 2)

· Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171

· Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez, 75 Phil 113

· Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155

· Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA

230

· In re Garcia, 2 SCRA 984

3. Renunciation of War (Sec. 2)

a) See also: Independent Foreign

Policy (Sec. 7) and Nuclear-Free Policy
(Sec. 8)

b) See also Sec. 25, Art. XIII: Re

former US Military Bases

4. Defense of the State (Sec. 4)

· Pp. vs. Lagman, GR 45892,

7/13/1938

· Pp. vs. Soza, GR 45893, 7/13/1938

5. Separation of Church and State

(Sec. 6)

a) See also Sec. 5, Art. III (The non-