SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
De Leon v. ESGUERRA
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on
February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional
Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded.
(Effectivity is immediately upon ratification)
Gonzales v. COMELEC
Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to propose
amendments thereto: not inherent power of Congress but of
the people; constituent power of Congress
Tolentino v. COMELEC
The condition and limitation that all the amendments to
be proposed by the same convention must be submitted in a
single election or plebiscite.
Imbong v. COMELEC
Competence of Congress acting as Constituent Assembly:
Authority to call constitutional convention as Constituent
Assembly in enacting implementing details.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
-Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and proposing
amendments) is valid in martial law.
-Amending process is a sovereign act, although the
authority to institute the same and the procedure to be
followed reside somehow in a particular body (Pres. Marcos).
Santiago v. COMELEC
The right of the people to directly propose amendments to
the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain
entombed in a cold niche until Congress provides for its
implementation. Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.
Lambino v. COMELEC

Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must author; (2)

they must sign the proposal; (3) proposal is embodied in
petition

CONCEPT OF STATE
Bacani vs NACOCO
The mere fact that the Government happens to be a
major stockholder of a corporation does not make it a public
corporation.
Distinction between constituent and ministrant
functions.
PVTA vs CIR
Distinction between constituent and ministrant
functions obsolete.
Government has to provide for general welfare.
Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad
Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the
people)
Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:
- abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character
of the substituted sovereign(political law).
-great body of municipal law regarding private and
domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or
changed by new ruler.
Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh
Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues
until changed by some competent legislative power (not
changed by mere change of sovereignty)
All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de facto
government are good and valid.
Kinds of De facto government:
(1) de facto proper government obtained by force or
voice of the majority

(2) paramount force by military forces who invade the

territory
(3) independent government established by inhabitants
through insurrection
Republic of
the
Philippines (during
Japanese
occupation) was a de facto government.
People vs Gozo
Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine
sovereignty over American bases Philippine Government has
not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the
Philippine territory.

Laurel vs Misa
Nature
of
Allegiance
to
sovereign:
Absolute
and permanent
Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the
government not transferred to occupier
Ruffy v Chief of Staff
The rule that laws of political nature or affecting
political relations are considered superseded or held in
abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the
governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory
and not for the enemies in arms.
STATE IMMUNITY
Sanders v Veridiano
Mere allegation that a government functionary is being
sued in his personal capacity will not automatically remove
him from the protection of the laws of public officers and
doctrine of state immunity
Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other
states.
Republic v Sandoval

State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed

the incident; liability should fall on the public officers who
committed acts beyond their authority
3 instances when suit is proper:
1. when sued by its name
2. when unincorporated government agency is sued
3. when the suit is against a government employee but
liability belongs to the government
Festejo v Fernando
Officer or employee committing the tort is personally
liable and maybe sued as any other citizen and held
answerable for whatever injury
USA vs Guinto
-A state may be said to have descended to the level of an
individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its
consent to be sued only when it enters into business
contracts.

Veterans Manpower vs CA
-The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to
be sued when it enters into a contract. However, it does not
apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign
functions.
The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil
-By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its
immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to
the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or
extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It
merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and
submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right
to interpose any lawful defense.
Amigable vs. Cuenca

The government, when it takes away a property from a

private land owner for public use without going through the
legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved
party may properly maintain a suit against the government
without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental
immunity from suit. This doctrine cannot be used in
perpetrating injustice to a citizen.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
-When the state files an action, it divests itself of the
sovereign character and shed its immunity form suit,
descending to the level of an ordinary litigant.
Republic vs. Feliciano
-failure to allege in the complaint the existence of consent
by the State is a fatal defect (construction must be strict
against conferment of waiver - Immunity may be invoked
by the courts at any point/stage of the proceedings.
USA vs. Ruiz
Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign
states: States may be sued when the proceedings arise out of
commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign.
The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.
Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the
civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over
any real action relating to private immovable property situated
in the territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds on
behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission
Republic vs. Villasor
- Judgment against the State cannot be enforced by
execution. It may limit claimants action only up to the
completion of proceedings anterior to the state of execution.
Power of court send when judgment is rendered. [suability vs.
liability]
- Functions and public services cannot be allowed to be
paralyzed or disrupted by the disruption of public funds.

Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC

-Not all contracts entered into by the government operate
as a waiver of its non-suability. Distinction must still be made
between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign
function and another which is done in the proprietary
capacity.
-State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from
contract.
PNB vs. Pabalan
-State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked with
regard to funds of public corporations.
-[suable corporations] Public funds of corporations which
can sue and be sued are not exempt from garnishment.
Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan
-The character of an incorporated agency allows it to sue
and be sued without qualification
Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees
Assoc.
-Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime
compensation does not make work of Bureau of Printing
propriety.
-Non-suability of the State is available to the agency even
if it is shown that it is engaged not only in government
functions but also, incidentally, in propriety enterprises
(unincorporated agency).
Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. C.A.
If an agencys function is deemed proprietary, if such is a
necessary incident of the primary and gov. function is such
agency, such agency is not suable (for an unincorporated
agency only).
Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. C.A.
-Not all government entities whether corporate or not are
immune from suits. Immunity from suits is determined by the
charcter of the objects for which the entity was organized.
-Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in
which they have assumed to act in private or non-

governmental capacity, and various suits against certain

corporations created by the State to engage in matters
partaking more of the nature of ordinary business are not
regarded as suits against the State.
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vs. Judge Firme
The test of liability of the municipality depends on
whether or not the driver acting in behalf of the municipality is
performing governmental or propriety functions. It has already
been remarked that municipal corporations are suable
because their charters grant them the competence to sue and
be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts
committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions
and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they
were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting such
entities to be sued, the state merely gives the claimants the
right to show the defendant was not acting in its governmental
capacity when the injury was inflicted or that the case comes
under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the
claimants cannot recover.