You are on page 1of 1

Doctrines in Constitutional Law 1 Preliminary Matters Must be dealt with with utmost caution.

Topic: CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES 1. De Leon vs. Esguerra- Effectivity date of 1987 constitution, Feb 2, 86 2. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS- some provisions and principles are deemed self-executing 3. Francisco vs. HREP- Interpretation may be- verbal egis, ration legis et anima, ut magis valeat quam pereat 4. Gonzales vs. COMELEC- election and plebiscite may be had on the same day (before 1987 constitution not applicable now) 5. Imbong vs. COMELEC- Congress may vote between CONCON (2/3) and CON ASS( ) as mode of proposing amendment or revision to the constitution. Congress may also provide details on its implementation using its ordinary legislative power. 6. Occena vs. COMELEC- Congress may simultaneously call a constituent assembly and likewise implement CONCON. Though, inconvenient and expensive it is not prohibited. 7. Tolentino vs. COMLEC- amending the constitution must not be made instantaneously with a regular election and a proper time frame of reference is needed. 8. Sanidad vs. COMELEC- During Marcos time, the president may propose amendments to the constitution when the interim batasang pambansa is not in session. (Such is not applicable in the present constitution) 9. Santiago vs. COMELEC- R.A. 6735 is not complete to provide a mechanism for amendments to the constitution by peoples INITIATIVE. 10. Lambino vs COMELEC- As regards the peoples INITIATIVE, The failure of the people to sign the petition for amending the constitution is fatal. The petition must be signed, and read on the same record. Topic: STATE AS A CONCEPT 1. CIR vs. Campos Rueda- Tangiere, Monaco is considered as state although under the control of another foreign power. (Think of Hong Kong under China) 2. Magallona vs. Ermita- Baselines Law is not a mode of acquiring territory. It may determine the limits and breadth of the archipelago but must respect the UNCLOS and its limitations. 3. Bacani vs. NACOCO- NACOCO, being a GOCC, is not a STATE. It is a corporation not entitled to be exempt from payment of stenographic fees. 4. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Adm. vs. CIR- The complexity of human activity has blurred the proprietary and governmental functions of the government. 5. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad- The state may act as parents of the people and promote their welfare under the doctrine of parens patriae. 6. Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh- De Facto Government: one ran by military forces operating against the lawful government with laws on civil matters obeyed by the people. Civil matters decided by its courts are valid if not tainted with POLITICAL COMPLEXION. 7. People vs. Gozo- The state may exercise its autolimitaion on its sovereignty by letting the portion of its territory be occupied by foreign state under a treaty, such as an embassy, or naval base. Such autolimitation is not a defense by a citizen to disobey ordinances imposed locally although under a U.S. base. 8. Laurel vs. Misa- Sovereignty is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute and imprescriptible. 9. Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff- allegiance to the Philippine Government was not suspended during WORLD WAR II and one is still liable for treason if he gives aid and comfort to the enemy.