Doctrines Summary

Art. 10 – Local Government

Case Doctrine
San Juan v. CSC The governor has recommendatory power (with regard to the position of Provincial Budget
Officer) pursuant to the concept of local autonomy, specifically Article 10, Sections 2 and 3. E.O
112 and LGC Section 216(1) supplement this. The 1935 Constitution does not explicitly state
anything about local autonomy, but it does state that the President has control over executive
departments and supervision over local governments. Note that there is distinction between
"control" and "supervision".

“We have to obey the clear mandate on local autonomy. Where a law is capable of two
interpretations, one in favor of centralized power in Malacanang and the other beneficial to
local autonomy, the scales must be weighed in favor of local autonomy.”

DBM appoint only from the list given by governor. None qualified, return and explain why and
ask for a list with qualified.

City of General Santos v. COS Implied power to reorganize and revise from LGU’s own “organizational and staffing pattern.”
Without this, the LGUs will lose its ability to adjust to the needs of the constituents.
Province of Negros Occidental v. COA The president’s power of general supervision is to see to it that subordinates perform their
functions according to law.

Control – modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done.

Film Development LGUs have the power to create their own sources of revenue and the same must accrue to them
exclusively. No deprivation.
Alternative Center v. Zamora Release of funds is automatic. Congress cannot enact a law limiting this or preventing this. Just
share is what is determined by law.
Villafuerte v. Robredo The MC is just a reiteration. There is no violation of local and fiscal autonomy. Just a reminder.
Supervisory ct.
Manadans v. Executive Sec. National taxes. Congress cannot restrict if what the Consti says is national taxes.

COMELEC Cases

Case Doctrine
Borja v. COMELEC Succession by law is not considred a full term. One must be elected to constitute serving a full
term.
Vice-Mayor assumed Mayor by operation of law then 2 subsequent mayor elections.
Adormeo v. COMELEC Yes. Not consecutive. Victory in recall is not for full term. It is not voluntary.

Won 1st and 2nd terms. 3rd term won by recall. 4th term valid?
Socrates v. COMELEC
3 valid mayor. Did not run. Recall. Won.
Latasa v. COMELEC
3 terms. Municipality became a city. Still g?
Ong v. Alegre
3 terms. (2nd term – proclamation nullified). Fully served already.
Recall (4th term) time between this and 3rd term is an interruption. It must be UNINTERRUPTED.
No. new corporate existence but it is not a different local government post. Same territorial
jurisdiction. Same inhabitants. Same group of voters. Same inhabitants had power over.
2 reqs
1. elected 3 consecutive – check
2. Must have fully served
 No legal use because it was proclaimed after his term.

Dizon v. COMELEC COC cancelled- as if you never took the position because never qualified. Does not count.
COC cancelled last term.
Bolos v. COMELEC Abandonment of post is voluntary. So even if not technically fully served, still counts. Not by
3rd term – abandoned position. operation of law.
Aldovino Jr. v. COMELEC Preventive suspension not an interruption. Interruption is involuntary loss of title. Suspension is
merely a temporary disability or disqualification to exercise the functions of an elective post
In the middle, preventively suspended. because no loss of title or break from office.
Kida Holdover capacity unconstitutional. Only the term of 3 years, not beyond.
Abundo v. COMELEC Not counted. Serving unserved position does not constitute a successful term.
Won. Lost. Won. Won. Seated remaining years in lost year.
Naval v. COMELEC Applies. Same electorate.
Reapportionment. 3rd district is the former 2nd district. Served in 2nd district.
Tan v. COMELEC Parent province not included in the plebiscite (part of the unit or units affected) substantial loss
of territory. + not followed the requirements
League of Cities v. COMELEC Congress exempted the 16 cities from RA 9009. Cityhood Laws amended RA 9009 as well. Vald
legislation.
Navarro 2 or more islands exempted from land area because of territorial contiguity.
Umali v. COMELEC Political units directly affected. Substantial alteration of boundaries includes the conversion of
component city to highly urbanized one.
MMDA v. Garin MMDA can only enforce ordinances and not enact. MMDA only has administrative power. No
police or legislative. There should be a valid legislation to be able to confiscate.
Abbas v. COMELEC Not on total majority vote but on the will of majority of each constituent units, alone. It is not
both.

Not double majority of the votes in all constituent units put together and each individual
constituent unit.
Odillo v. COMELEC One province cannot validly constitute an autonomous region.
Badua v. CBA CAR was rejected, CBA does not validly exist.

For the acts of multiple groups under an autonomous region to be valid, the creation of the
Autonomous region must first of course be valid.
Province of North Cotobato v. GRP Panel Bangsamore Juridical Entity powers exceeds those granted to local governments and beyond
the present ARMM.

Powers granted:
1. Build, develop and maintain its own institutions
2. GRP and BJE relationship associative – shared authority and responsibility.
3. Amendments to existing legal framework – effective upon comprehensive compact

Art. 11 – Accountability of Public Officers

Case Doctrine
In Re: Gonzales A disbarment case will not prosper against a SC justice. It is a constitutional requirement for one
to be a member of the bar. In effect, if he/she is disbarred, he is disqualified and therefore must
be removed from position. This is a circumvention of the Constitution since SC justices may only
be removed by impeachment.
 Francisco vs. HOR
Gutierrez vs HOR (2010)
Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan
Almonte v. Vasquez
Gonzales III v OP (Luneta Siege)
Gonzales III v OP (2014)
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan
Cruz v. Sandiganbayan
Salvador v. Mapa
Hernandez v. Ombudsman
Carpio-Morals v. CA
Impeachment PROCEEDING is INITIATED by the time of filing of the impeachment complaint
before the HoR and its action on it (referral to committee)
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING is initiated= complaint + action by HoR (referral to committee)
Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction covers not only graft and corruption but also other crimes
committed in relation to public office (Test: was he/she able to do it by reason of his/her public
office?)
Any form or manner (so even an anonymous complaint)
President can subject a Deputy OMB to an administrative investigation and order his/her
removal. The intent of the Congress is to provide an external authority, through the President,
to exercise power of administrative discipline over the Deputy OMB and Special Prosecutor
without in the least diminishing constitutional and plenary authority of the OMB. A measure of
check and balance intended to address the lawmakers’ real and valid concern that the OMB and
his Deputy may try to protect one another from admin liabilities
Reversed the earlier Gonzales ruling. The OMB has disciplinary authority over cabinet members
and appointive elective officials. To properly fulfill these duties, the OMB must be independent
and insulated from political pressure. Commissioner Monsod also said that it is an absurd
situation wherein the Executive can discipline and remove key officials of the Office of the OMB
but the same office has the duty the adjudicate on the integrity of these same people.
The then-called Tanodbayan became the Special Prosecutor, they retain all powers except those
conferred to OMB. As such, Tanodbayan Gonzales has no authority to conduct preliminary
investigations and to direct the filing of the criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan (except OMB
orders).
What they lost: investigate any complaint, initiate prosecution of cases and issue subpoena. SP
is a subordinate to OMB.
SP cannot holdover OMB despite similar functions because he never held it. OMB is a new
position and was never vested upon him.
PCGG Prez has no power to conduct a preliminary investigation on cases of anti-graft and
corrupt practices act. This is exclusively for the OMB. Even if he amended the original
information charging the accused with the latter being a member of Marcos cabinet did not
cure this defect.
Ex post facto laws are only for penal laws. AO and MO released were not, hence they cannot be
ex post facto laws.
Estrija v. Ranada – OMB has no power to decide or entertain cases involving constitutionality of
laws
Reliance on Tapiador is misplaced. The Court held that the power of OMB powers does not end
in recommendation. In AO 14-A the decisions of the OMB are final and unappealable. Any
appeal will not stop the decision from being executory (public censure, reprimand, suspension
of not more than 1 month or a fine to 1 month salary) All other cases are appealable to CA.
(Hernandez dismissal). The fact that there is immediate execution goes against the claim that
the power is only to recommend.
Condonation doctrine has no statutory basis. Only from jurisprudence of Pascual. However,
Pascual was decided during the 1935 Constitution which was silent on accountability of public
officers. The concept of the 1987 Constitution that public office is a public trust is plainly
inconsistent with condonation doctrine. Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative
offense. No presumption in statutes or procedural rules that the electorate is assumed to have
 re-elected an official with knowledge of his life and character and disregarded his faults or
misconduct (if guilty of any).

Condonation doctrine:
1. Penalty of removal may not be extended beyond the term in which the public officer is
elected for each term is separate and distinct
2. Re-election serves as condonation to previous misconduct, cutting the right to remove
him
3. Courts may not deprive electorate of the right to elect officers (assumed to have
known the life and character of candidates)

Buenaseda v. Flavier OMB has the power to suspend petitioners pursuant to RA 6770. Preventive suspension only for
public officials and employees facing administrative charges. This is procedural and not penal.
The suspension referred to in the Constitution is punitive suspension, which is just
recommendatory.
Ledesma v. CA OMB’s finding is not advisory. OMB and Deputies are mandated to act promptly on complaints
filed against officers and employees of the Government. Also, the OMB Act confers the OMB the
duty to enforce the administrative, civil and criminal liability of government officers and
employees. Does not divest congress to vest OMB powers beyond what the Constitution says.
OMB v. Apolonio OMB has the power to impose penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure or
prosecution of a public officer or employee in the exercise of its administrative and disciplinary
authority. “Recommend” + “ensure compliance therewith” Lawmakers intended to provide
OMB with sufficient muscle to ensure that it can effectively carry out its mandate as protector
of the people against corrupt government officers and employees.
Lastimosa v. Vasquez Sec. 31 of the OMB Act authorizes the OMB to call on prosecutors for assistance. The Office of
the OMB has the power to call on the Provincial prosecutor to assist in the prosecution of the
case
Presidential v. Desierto Generally, SC cannot interferfe with OMB’s decision. Exception: overcome when there is good
and compelling reason, such as GAD on the part of the OMB. OMB must exercise his/her
discretion to motu proprio dismiss a case with high regard to due process with no abuse of
discretion.
Caasi v. CA Green card in US – resident alien. Entitled to residen and permanently work in the US. When he
got this, he has abandoned his domicile and residence in the Philippines. Records show he has
not waived his immigrant status before running for mayoralty race in Bolinao, Pangasinan.

Art. 12 – National Patrimony

Case Doctrine
IID v. Psalm The exploitation, development and utilization of the “natural resources” should be limited to
Filipino citizens or corporations or associations with at least 60% of capital owned by Filipino
citizens. Utilization is open to foreign nationals AFTER the same have been extracted from the
source by qualified persons or entities.

Foreign companies cannot take ownership of non-power components (dam and reservoir). They
cannot appropriate any resource or water resource. Appropriating water necessitates grant of
water rights. Water rights are only for Filipinos or corporations with at least 60% of capital is
owned by Filipinos.

Sale of power plant is ok.

 La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos Regalian Doctrine – all lands of public domain and natural resources must be under the full
control of the State. State must maintain the rights of exploitation, utilization, and development
over said proponents.

Regalian doctrine – an important attribute of ownership is the right to receive the income from
any commercial exploitation of the natural resources.

Service contracts with foreign entities are prohibited. Exception: state enter into Financial and
Trade Assistance Agreements.

Subject law’s provisions are considered as a service contract with foreign countries. Therefore, it
is prohibited.

Interpretation of “involving financial and technical assistance:” not exclusive. There can be other
forms of assistance or activities
Narra Nickel Mining v. Redmont Granfather rule applied after control test is applied. If 60-40 is satisfied, it is deemed Filipino;
however, if there is any doubt on the beneficial ownership and control, then looking further into
the nationality of the personalities with the beneficial ownership and control of the corporate
shareholders both in investing and investee corporations is necessary.

Why is there a doubt? Both have common foreign corporation investor, MBMI. MBMI owned
majority of the common stocks and at least 60% equity interest of other majority stockholders.
Web corporate layering. The Filipino counterparts were also owned a part of MBMI.
Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes Service contracts valid:
1) Law – there is. PD 87.
2) President signatory – no. Only DOE secretary.
3) Notify congress of the execution– no.
Absence of the two other conditions, SC046 is null and void, therefore it is
unconstitutional.

Director of Lands v IAC Nothing in 1935 and 1973 constitutions prohibiting corporations to own lands.

Even though the registration only commenced in 1981, 1973 constitution will not apply since
the sale was done under the 1935 Constitution. The prohibition in 1973 constitution (only by
lease for private entities) is not present in 1935 constitution. The application for confirmation is
just formality and lack of it does not affect the sufficiency of the title. The proceedings will not
convert but rather confirm the conversion.

Alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or though his predecessors-in-interest,

openly and continuously and exclusively for the prescribed period (30 years) is CONVERTED into
private property by mere lapse of completion of said period, by operation of LAW.
Cruz v. DENR Sec. Ancestral domains – areas belonging to ICC/IPP under a claim of owenership since time
immemorial or as a consequence of government projects or other voluntary dealings with the
government

Ancestral lands – same conditions as domains but limited to those not merely occupied and
possessed but utilized under a claim of individual or traditional group ownership
 Private properties and community property of the indigenous groups.

Not an exclusive right. Exploration right insofar as to environmental protection.

Ramirez v. Vda. Ramizez Valid usufruct. The 1935 constitution involved both succession by operation of law and
testamentary succession as the exception. Usufruct does not vest the title of the land and it is
the vesting of the title of the land that is prohibited.
Halili v. CA No foreign citizen can acquire private lands except by legal succession. The sale may be
prohibited but this has been cured by the sale to a Filipino; hence, there is no public policy to
protect anymore. (Also in jurisprudence, if alien subsequently becomes a citizen, cures the
defect)
Osmena v Osmena Assuming that the litigated lots were properties by the mother (foreign citizen) and the same
were only put in the brother’s name (Filipino citizen), the Court will not consent to any violation
of the constitutional prohibition on foreign ownership of land.
Republic v CA` Purchased lands as NBC, ok.
Registered as foreigners, still ok, because former NBCs can be transferees. They can register the
land.
Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS Qualified foreigner v Qualifief Filipino, latter prevails. Notwithstanding higher bid by foreigner.
Army and Navy v CA National Historical Commission has no power to designate which is a historical alndmark.

Due process: classification of property into historical treasures or landmarks will involve the
imposition of limits on ownership, Bill of Rights demands substantive and procedural due
process.

In RA 4846 – National Museum can designate

Declaration 3 years after.

Such recognition does not grant possessory rights over the property.
NHC no authority to best such right of ownership or possession of a provate prop.
Francisco v TRB Congress may validly delegate the legislative authority to issue franchises of certain public
utilities to some administrative agencies (subordinate legislation)

1) favor of QUALIFIED Filipino citizens or corporations

2) Congress can impair the obligation of franchises, contracts
3) No such authorization is exclusive and beyond 50 years

Gamboa v Teves Capital – shares of stock entitled to vote. This is coupled with beneficial ownership -> effective
control.

60% capital stock coupled with 60% voting rights. Across all classes of shares. Guarantees that
the controlling interest is Filipino.
David v. Arroyo Take over pf public utility or businesses affected with public interest requires delegation from
congress.

Conditions:
1. There must be war or other emergency
2. Delegation limited time
3. Delegation subject to Congress restrictions
 4. Emergency powers carried out a national policy

Avon v. Luna It did not violate. Contracts requiring exclusivity are not void. Each contract must be viewed with
all the circumstances surrounding such agreement in deciding whether a restrictive practice
should be prohibited as imposing an unreasonable restraint on competition.
Nothing invalid or contrary to public policy.

Art. 16 – General Provisions

Case Doctrine
Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzons Submission of a foreign state must be clear and unequivocal.

Sivereign immunity is not absolute. It only applies to public acts or acts jure imperii not in cases
of acts jure gestionis. Even if commercial act, it is maintenance of foreign embassy and is still a
sovereign function. Covered by state immunity.
Mobil Philippines v Customs Arraste Use was governmental in nature. Under the department. Immune.

Government departments using an unincorpoated agency in performance of governmental

tasks are not suable, nor waive their immunity from suit.
Del Mar v. PVA Exception: no application where a claimant institutes an action against a functionary who fails to
comply with this statutory duty to release the amount claimed from the public funds already
appropriated by statute for the benefit of the said claimant.
Ministerio v. CFI An action against an official by one whose rights have been violated is not a suit against the
state. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for
perpetrating an injustice to a citizen.
Syquia v. Almeda-Lopez PH courts do not have jurisdiction over the case. The real defendant is US and has not given
consent.
The Holy See v. Rosario The purpose of the parcels of land was for the residence of the Papal Nuncio, hence immune
from suit.
Minucher v. CA Exception to diplomatic immunity is when the acts are outside the official functions.
Arigo v. Swift Official military duties. Cannot be sued. Satisfaction of judgment will use US funds.
Carabao v. Argicultural Product Com. Hjk
DOH v. Canchela Immunity from suit is not a defense here since it will sanction unjust enrichment.
EPG Construction v. Vigilar – Court cannot sanction an injustice so patent on its face and allow
itself to be an instrument in the perpetration thereof. Justice and equity sternly demand that
the State’s cloak of invincibility against suit be shred in this particular instance on the basis of
quantum meruit -
US v Guinto GR: instrumentalities, agencies and GOCCs are not immune from suit if they are not engaged in
government functions, as they would be engaged in proprietary functions. Proprietary or private
capacity is implied waiver of non-suitability.

Governmental in nature – they have to prove.

Republic v. Purisima Consent is effective is there is a duly enacted statute.

To render immunity as unjust would incapacitate the government, given that the populace has a
propensity to file for suits.

Philippine Agila v. Lichauco A public official may not be protected by the State’s immunity from suit:
 1. If the government loses interest in the outcome of the case, the public official cannot
be protected
2. If the public officials liability came from a tortious act in performance of his/her duties,
then he/she cannot be protected
3. If the state does not have any financial liabilities (petitioner did not file for damages),
the state is not being sued

To be covered by the immunity would mean that every government official may use this to
protect themselves

Art. 17 – Amendments or Revisions

Case Doctrine
Santiago Direct proposal needs a legislative enactment
Lambino Amendment:
1. Change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved
2. Generally affects only the provision being amendment

Revision:
1. Alters basic principle in the constitution
2. General affects several provisions