ARTICLE XVI

(First Slide)

General Provisions

SECTION 1. The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and three stars, as
consecrated and honored by the people and recognized by law.

Symbolism of the Flag

-The 1987 Constitution did not make any changes to the design of the Philippine national flag.

-The flag's design has been consecrated and honored by the people.

-The eight rays on the flag symbolize the eight provinces that were the first to rebel against
Spanish rule during the Philippine Revolution (Manila, Bulacan, Cavite, Pampanga, Morong
(modern-day province of Rizal), Laguna, Batangas, and Nueva Ecija).

(2nd Slide)

Attempts for Additional Symbolism:

-There were attempts at the Committee level to add a ray for the Cordilleras and another for
Muslim Mindanao. However, these proposals did not progress further and were not incorporated
into the flag.

Representation of Regions:

-The three stars on the flag represent the major island groups of the Philippines: Luzon, Visayas,
and Mindanao.

Amendment of the Flag's Design:

-Any changes to the design of the flag can only be made through a constitutional amendment.

(third slide)

SECTION 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem, or a
national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions
of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national
referendum.

1973 Constitution:

-In the original 1973 Constitution, Article XV, Section 2 authorized the interim National Assembly
to choose a new name for the country, a national anthem, and a national seal.

-The provision allowed a mere majority of the interim body to impose these changes, and the
Filipino people could not alter them except through constitutional amendment.

(Fourth Slide)

1981 Revision:

-The 1981 revision preserved the substance of the 1973 provision but transferred the authority to
the Batasang Pambansa (the national legislature at that time).

-Despite this authority, no changes were made.

1987 Constitution:

-The 1987 Constitution shifted the authority to Congress to change the name of the country, its
national anthem, and seal.
 -Importantly, any such changes would only take effect if ratified by the people in a national
referendum.

(5th Slide

Deliberations on New Names:

-During the deliberations of the commission responsible for drafting the 1987 Constitution, there
were discussions about possible new names for the nation.

-However, these discussions were characterized as being carried out half in jest, and no concrete
changes resulted from them.

(6th sLide)

SECTION 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.

Sovereign Immunity in Pre-1973 Philippine Constitution:

 Absence of a constitutional provision affirming sovereign immunity before the 1973 Constitution.
 Introduction of the doctrine by the Americans in the Philippines.
 Various justifications provided by Philippine decisions for accepting the doctrine.

Metran v. Paredes offered the following justification which one may take or leave:

 In a republican state, like the Philippines, government immunity from suit without its consent is
derived from the will of the people themselves in freely creating a government "of the people, by
the people, and for the people" — a representative government through which they have agreed to
exercise the powers and discharge the duties of their sovereignty for the common good and
general welfare. In so agreeing, the citizens have solemnly undertaken to surrender some of their
private rights and interest which were calculated to conflict with the higher rights and larger
interests of the people as a whole, represented by the government thus established by them all.
One of those "higher rights," based upon those "larger interests" is that government immunity.

In the end, perhaps, the most acceptable explanation of the principle is a practical one. As the Supreme
Court said in Providence Washington Insurance Co. v. Republic of the Philippines

“A continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suability is not to be deplored for as against the
inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss of governmental efficiency and the
obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are far greater if such a fundamental
principle were abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy were not thus restricted. With
the well known propensity on the part of our people to go to court, at the least provocation, the
loss of time and energy required to defend against law suits, in the absence of such a basic
principle that constitutes such an effective obstacle, could very well be imagined.”

When a suit is against the state.

-The rule in Section 3 which textually expresses established jurisprudence on the subject is that the State
may not be sued without its consent. Necessarily, therefore, cases on this subject must deal with the dual
question of whether the suit is one against the state and, if it is,whether the state has consented to be
sued.

-It is a suit against the state when:

 The Republic is sued by name

 The suit is against an unincorporated government agency
o agency without any separate juridical personality of its own enjoys immunity from suit
because it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty.
  The suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that ultimate liability will
belong not to the officer but to the government

In Republic vs Sandoval, while it is true that nothing is better settled than the general rule that a
sovereign state and its political subdivisions cannot be sued in the courts except when it has
given its consent, it cannot be invoked by both the military officers to release them from any
liability, and by the heirs and victims to demand indemnification from the government. The
principle of state immunity from suit does not apply, as in this case, when the relief demanded by
the suit requires no affirmative official action on the part of the State nor the affirmative
discharge of any obligation which belongs to the State in its political capacity, even though the
officers or agents who are made defendants claim to hold or act only by virtue of a title of the
state and as its agents and servants. This Court has made it quite clear that even a "high position
in the government does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another." (G.R. No.
84607; March 19, 1993)

Suits against government officers.

 In Aberca v. Ver, Public officials may be sued if they acted oppressively or illegally in the
performance of their duties. A suit against a public officer who acted illegally is not a suit against
the state.
 Public officials may be sued if they acted oppressively or illegally in the performance of their
duties. A suit against a public officer who acted illegally is not a suit against the state. A public
official may be compelled to act through a writ of mandamus. The main objective of mandamus is
to compel the performance of a ministerial duty on the part of the respondent official; however,
the writ does not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion or to compel a course of
conduct. The writ of prohibition can also be availed of, as it is an extraordinary writ which can be
directed against a-public officer ordering said officer to desist from further proceedings when said
proceedings are without or in excess of said officer’sjurisdiction, or are accompanied with grave
abuse of discretion (Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court).
 Lastly, a public officer is by law not immune from damages in his/her personal capacity for acts
done in bad faith which, being outside the scope of his authority, are no longer protected by the
mantle of immunity for official actions (Vinzons-Chuto v. Fortune Tobacco Corp., G.R. No.
141309, June 19, 2007, 525 SCRA 11).

Suits against government-owned corporation.

 In Social Security Systems v. CA, A government-owned or controlled corporation may be sued.

suit against it is not a suit against the State, because it has a separate juridical personality.

Waiver of immunity.

 The State may be sued, with its consent, either expressly or impliedly. Only Congress can give
awritten waiver of immunity from suit in the form of a law (United States v. Guinto, G.R. Nos.
76607, 79470, 80018 & 80258, February 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 664); Republic v. Feliciano, G.R.
No. L-70853, March 12, 1987, 148 SCRA 424).
 Philippine Tourism Authority v. Philippine Golf Development and Equipment, Inc, If a government
agency undertakes a proprietary function, it waives its immunity from suit. When the Philippines
Tourism Authority entered into a contract for the construction of a golf course, it engaged in a
proprietary function

Suability, liability, execution.

-A distinction should first be made between suability and liability.

 "Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable law and the
established facts. The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is
liable; on the other hand, it can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued.
 Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to be sued. When the
state does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can,
that the defendant is liable.

 In UP vs DIZON, UP failed to pay in a contract it entered with Stern Builders Corporation. The
RTC ruled in favour of Stern Builders Corporation.

ISSUE: Whether UP’s funds may be validly garnished for failure to pay respondent for the
construction and renovation of the former’s buildings.

RULING: No. UP’s funds, being government funds, are not subject to garnishment. Despite its
establishment as a body corporate, the UP remains to be a “chartered institution” performing a
legitimate government function. Irrefragably, the UP is a government instrumentality, performing
the State’s constitutional mandate of promoting quality and accessible education. As a
government instrumentality, the UP administers special funds sourced from the fees and income
enumerated under Act No. 1870 and Section 1 of Executive Order No. 714, and from the yearly
appropriations, to achieve the purposes laid down by Section 2 of Act 1870, as expanded in
Republic Act No. 9500. All the funds going into the possession of the UP, including any interest
accruing from the deposit of such funds in any banking institution, constitute a “special trust
fund,” the disbursement of which should always be aligned with the UPs mission and purpose,
and should always be subject to auditing by the COA. The funds of the UP are government funds
that are public in character. They include the income accruing from the use of real property
ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the attainment of its institutional objectives.

 The Constitution strictly mandated that, “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” The execution of the monetary judgment against the
UP was within the primary jurisdiction of the COA, pursuant to PD 1445. It was of no moment
that a final and executory decision already validated the claim against the UP. The settlement of
the monetary claim is still subject to the primary jurisdiction of the COA; as such, claimants have
no alternative except to first seek the approval of their monetary claim by COA.