CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Political Law is that branch of public law
which deals with the organization and operations of
the governmental organs of the State and defines
the relation of the State with the inhabitants of its
territory.

As prescribed by the Supreme Court, Political Law

embraces:

Constitutional Law 1 & 2

Administrative Law
Law of Public Officers
Election Law
Law on Municipal Corporations

Constitutional Law 1 is the study of the structure and

powers of the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines.

NECESSITY FOR THE STUDY

Constitutional Law must be studied because
every citizen, regardless of calling, should
understand the mechanics and motivations of his
government. This must be so because "sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them."

BASIS OF THE STUDY

The bases of the study are the following:

Constitution of the Philippines as

adopted on February 2, 1987;
Pertinent statutes;
Executive orders and decrees ;
Judicial decisions ; and,
Current political events in which the
purpose of the law are applied or
misapplied should also be considered.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The inhabitants of the Philippines were

originally consisted of tribes generally free
and were each governed by a system of

laws promulgated by the datu of council of

elders. However, when they fell under the
sway of a foreign power, like Madjapahit
and Sri-Vishayan empires, these tribes were
bound mainly, if not, by commercial ties.
The discovery of Magellan in 1521 brought
the people of the territory under the
common rule of Spain, which lasted for 377
years, during which the abuses of the
government and the friars gradually
developed a sense of unity among the
natives. Rizal and the other propagandists
were later to ignite the spirit of nationalism
that was to fuel the Philippine Revolution.
Started by Bonifacio and won under the
generalship of Emilio Aguinaldo, the
Philippine revolution ended Spanish
sovereignty in the Philippines.
On June 12, 1898, Philippine Independence
was proclaimed.
On January 31, 1898, the First Philippine
Republic was established with Aguinaldo as
the president. The Malolos Constitution,
under which the new government was
established, was the first democratic
Constitution ever to be promulgated Asia. It
established a parliament system, but with
the President and not the Prime Minister as
head of the government.
The first Republic of the Philippines was
short-lived since even as the Philippine
State was being erected, the United States
was already planting the seeds of another
sovereignty in our country.
The Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898
provided the cession of the Philippine
Islands by Spain to the United States.
The Philippines lost in the PhilippineAmerican war, paving the way for the new
colonization of our Country.
The Americans first organized a military
government, but consolidation of executive,
legislative, and judicial authority in the
military governor provoked protests from
American libertarians concerned over the
non-observance of the doctrine of
separation of powers. As a result, steps
were taken for the transition from military
to civilian rule.
Schurman Commission (First Philippine
Commission) was organized to make a factfinding survey of the Philippine Islands and

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

submit appropriate recommendations to

the US Congress.
Taft Commission (Second Philippine
Commission) took over all the legislative
powers and some of the executive and
judicial powers of the military government.
On July 4, 1901, pursuant to the Spooner
Amendment,
civil
government
was
established in the Philippine Islands, with
William Howard Taft as the first governor.
By virtue of Philippine Bill of 1902, the
Philippine Assembly was created in 1907 to
sit with the Philippine Commission in a
bicameral legislature.
Sergio Osmea was initially and successively
elected Speaker of the Philippine Assembly
until its dissolution in 1916.
In 1916, the Philippine Autonomy Act
popularly known as the Jones Law was
promulgated. It established inter alia a
Philippine Legislature consisting of a Senate,
headed by Manuel L. Quezon, and a House
of Representatives, headed by Sergio
Osmea.
The Jones Law lasted until 1935 when it was
supplanted by Tydings-Mcduffie Act, which
authorized the establishment of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines.
A Constitutional Convention framed the
1935 Constitution, which was ratified on
May 14 of that year which led to the
inauguration of the Commonwealth
Government on November 15, 1935.
Quezon was the first president with
Osmea as the Vice President.
The Tydings-Mcduffie Act promised
independence to the Filipinos if they could
prove their capacity for democratic
government during a 10 year transition
period. They were able to demonstrate this
competence not only in the councils of
peace, but also in the barricades of World
War II, and in the Second Republic of the
Philippines headed by Jose P. Laurel during
the Japanese occupation.
On July 4, 1946, United States formally
withdrew its sovereignty over the
Philippines. President Manuel A. Roxas
asserted the freedom of the Filipino people
and proclaimed the Republic of the
Philippines.

On September 21, 1973, following an

intensification of the subversive movement
by the Communist-oriented groups,
President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 1081 placing the
Philippines under Martial Law.
On November 30, 1972 the draft of the
1973 Constitution was formally approved by
the Constitutional Convention and, during a
series of meetings held on January 10-15,
1973, was submitted to the to the Citizens
Assemblies for ratification.
On January 17, 1973, President Marcos
issued Proclamation No. 1102, in which he
announced that the Constitution of 1973
which was ratified by overwhelming
majority of the people and had thus
become effective.
In Javellana v. Executive Secretary (known
as the Ratification cases), the issue of the
validity of the 1973 Constitution were
dismissed by the Supreme Court.
In Aquino v. Enrile known as the Habeas
Corpus Case, the Supreme Court
unanimously upheld the proclamation of
Martial Law by the President of the
Philippines.
President Marcos issued Proclamation No.
2045 on January 17, 1981, lifting martial
law.
However, he retained what he called his
"standby legislative powers" under which
several decrees had been promulgated,
such as the National Security Code and the
Public Order Act.
In 1985, Marcos submitted a resignation to
seek a fresh mandate it was to be effective
on the 10th day following the proclamation
of the winners in the snap election called by
the legislature.
The election was challenged in the case of
Philippine Bar Association vs. Commission
on Elections on the ground that the vacancy
contemplated in Article VII, Section 9, of the
1973 Constitution which would justify the
call of a special presidential election before
the expiration of President Marcos's term in
1987 was supposed to occur before and not
after the said election. The Supreme Court
denied the petition and sustained the
resignation and the call.
The election was held on February 7, 1986

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

where Marcos and his running-mate Arturo

Tolentino were proclaimed the Presidentelect and the Vice President-elect. This was
followed by a massive outcry from the
people who felt that the real winners were
the opposition candidates.
On February 22, 1986, Defense Minister
Juan Ponce Enrile and General Fidel V.
Ramos began the People Power Revolution
that led to the ouster of President Marcos
and his replacement by Corazon C. Aquino,
who with Vice President Salavador H. Laurel
were inducted on February 25, 1986.
The Freedom Constitution was put into
force, pending the adoption of a new
Constitution to be drafted by the
Constitutional Commission, which she also
created. The body approved the draft of
the new charter which was submitted to
the people at a plebiscite held on February
2, 1987 and was ratified by a vote of
16,605, 425 in favor and 4,949,901 against.
Elections for the revived Congress were
held on May 11, 1988 and those for the
local offices were scheduled later that year.
On May 11, 1982, general elections were
held for the President of the Philippines, 24
senators, all elective members of the House
of Representatives and local officials.
Ramos and Estrada were elected as
President and Vice President respectively.
In 1988, Joseph Estrada was elected
President of the Philippines but was
impeached two years later and forced out
of office by a massive people power
demonstration at EDSA on January 20,
2001. Vice President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo took the oath the same day as his
Constitutional successor.
Estrada challenged Arroyo's right to
succeed him before the Supreme Court and
claimed that he had neither resigned nor
abandoned his office, and that he left
Malacaang
only
to
pacify
the
demonstrators who clamored for his
resignation.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition,
ruling that his public statements and the
circumstances leading to his departure from
Malacaang clearly showed that he
resigned.
Estrada was arrested for plunder amidst the

noisy objections of thousands of

sympathizers who waged another People
Power protest. The attempt of the
protesters to storm Malacaang prompted
Arroyo to declare state of rebellion.
Estrada was eventually tried and convicted
by the Sandiganbayan, only to be pardoned
by Arroyo.
Arroyo during her first term faced but
quickly subdued the Oakwood Mutiny
mounted by military officers on corruption
issues.
Arroyo sought another term in 2004
wherein she was proclaimed the winner,
notwithstanding
the
allegations
of
widespread cheating or electoral fraud.
Streets protest particularly escalated after
the release of the Garci Tape, which
included
her
alleged
telephone
conversation with the former COMELEC
Commissioner, to whom she gave
instructions to fix the results of the 2004
presidential election in her favor.
In 2006, Arroyo declared a State of
Emergency under Proclamation No. 1017 as
she was besieged by another challenge
from the Military. Several persons were
arrested without warrants and at least one
newspaper establishment was raided.
These acts as well as the other substantial
portions of the proclamation were nullified
by the Supreme Court.
Prior to the expiration of her second term,
Arroyo ran and won a seat in the House of
Representatives in 2010 and was re-elected
to a second term by her constituents in her
home district in Pampanga despite pending
criminal charges against her for, among
other offenses, electoral sabotage and
plunder.
The cases were instituted shortly after
Benigno Simeon C. Aquino was elected
President in 2010, despite criticism as to his
perceived lack of executive experience and
abilities and notwithstanding what many
considered as his lackluster performance,
first as a Member of the House of the
Representatives and later, as a Senator of
the Republic.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
CHAPTER 2: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
PHILIPPINES

1987 CONSTITUTION
It is the fourth fundamental law to govern the
Philippines since it became independent on July 4,
1946.
1935
Constitution/Commonwealth
Constitution adopted in 1935, which
continued to be operative after the
proclamation of Republic of the Philippines.
1973 Constitution enforced during the
Marcos regime when the country was
already under martial law.
Freedom Constitution a revolutionary
Constitution proclaimed by President
Corazon Aquino on February 25, 1986 after
President Marcos has been deposed, to be
effective pending the adoption of a
permanent Constitution.

Rationale: Inclusions of provisions that

should have been embodied only in
implementing statutes to be enacted by the
legislature pursuant to the basic
Constitutional principles

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION

Created under Proclamation No. 9 issued by

President Aquino.
It is composed of fifty members headed by
Justice Cecilia Munoz-Palma, appointed by
President Aquino and was charged to frame
a new charter not later than September 2,
1986 but the members could not meet their
deadline and were able to approve the final
draft only on October 15, 1986.
The plebiscite was scheduled and held on
February 2, 1987 with the votes of 76.29%
of the electorate who had voted to ratify it,
and with 22.74% against it. Despite the
opposition to the draft because of its
length, which made it seem like a
codification, were nevertheless approved
because it would pave the way for stability
and normality of the country which is sorely
needed at that time.

OUTSTANDING FEATURES

It consists of eighteen (18) Articles.

Provisions on the Legislative and the
Executive
Departments
of
1935
Constitution have been restored because of

the revival of the bicameral Congress of the

Philippines.
The independence of the Judiciary has been
strengthened, with new provisions for
appointment and an increase in its
authority, which now covers even political
questions formerly beyond its jurisdiction.
The
provisions
on
Constitutional
Commission and Local Governments have
been retained.
The Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth and
Marcos Constitutions has been considerably
improved and even bolstered with the
creation in the document of Commission on
Human Rights.
It is excessively long compared to 1935 and
1972 Constitutions.

Flaws:

It is verbose and prolix which dampened

popular interest in what should be the
common concern of the whole nation the
sheer length of the document has deterred
people from reading and understanding its
contents.
Some portion sounds like a political speech
rather than a formal document stating only
its precepts.
It is full of platitudes, the policies on social
justice and the national economy could
have been worded with less loquacity to
give the legislature more leeway in their
implementation.
Inclusion of certain topics that have no
place in a Constitution: sports, love, drugs,
advertising and the mention of the rhythm
and harmony of nature under Article II,
Section 16.
Has a tortuous language in some of its
provisions:
Example: Article XVI, Section 10:
The State shall provide the policy
environment
for
the
full
development of Filipino capability
and
the
emergence
of

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
communication structures suitable to
the need and aspirations of the
nation and the balanced flow of
information into, out of, and across
the country, in accordance with a
policy that respects the freedom of
speech and of the press.

THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to
which all other laws must conform and to which all
persons, including highest officials of the land, must
defer.

No act shall be valid if it conflicts with the

Constitution it must remain supreme.
All must bow to the mandate of the
Constitution right or wrong, the
Constitution must be upheld as long as it
has not been changed by the sovereign
people.

PROSPECTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution must be quintessential
rather than superficial, the root and not the
blossom, the base and framework only of the edifice
that is yet to rise.

CHAPTER 3: THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE

DEFINITION
The State is a community of persons, more or less
numerous, permanently occupying a fixed territory,
and possess an independent government organized
for political ends to which the great body of its
inhabitants render habitual obedience.
A nation, on the other hand are people bound
together by common attractions and repulsions into
a living organism possessed of a common pulse, a
common intelligence and inspiration, and destined
apparently to have a common history and a common
fate. (Malcolm)

State

A legal concept

May be made up of
more than one nation

Nation
A racial or ethnic conceptIt indicates a relation of
birth or origin and implies
a common race, usually
characterized
by
community of language
and customs.
May comprise several
states

ELEMENTS OF A STATE
In The Province of North Cotabato v. The
Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, the Supreme
Court cited the Montevideo Convention, which
specifies the accepted criteria for the establishment
of a State:
(a) A permanent population;
(b) A defined territory;
(c) A government; and
(d) A capacity to enter into relations with other
states.
The Supreme Court declared that the
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral
Domain between the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front is unconstitutional, because the associative
relationship envisioned between the GRP and the
Bangsamoro Juridical Entity presupposes that the
associated entity is a state and is on its way to
independence.
THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V. THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN
FACTS:
The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to
sign the Memorandum of Agreement on
the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD).
It included, among others, a stipulation that
creates the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity
(BJE), to which the GRP grants the authority
and jurisdiction over the ancestral domain
and ancestral lands of the Bangsamoro.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

c.

The BJE is then granted the power to build,

develop, and maintain its own institutions.
The MOA-AD also described the
relationship of the GRP and the BJE as
associative, characterized by shared
authority and responsibility.

d.

The territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,

the insular shelves, and other submarine
areas corresponding to a and b.
.
Those ceded to the United States by virtue
of the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898.

e.

Those defined in the treaty concluded

between the United States and Spain on
November 7, 1900, which were not defined
in the Treaty of Paris, specifically the islands
of Cagayan, Sulu, and Sibuto.

f.

Those defined in the treaty concluded on

January 2, 1930, between the US and Great
Britain, specifically the Turtle and Mangsee
Islands.

(a) PEOPLE

g.

The island of Batanes

People, refers simply to the inhabitants of the State.

They must:
1. Be numerous enough to be self-sufficient
and to defend themselves;
2. Be small enough to be easily administered
and sustained; and,
3. Must come from both sexes to be able to
perpetuate themselves.

h.

Those contemplated in the phrase

belonging to the Philippines by historic
right or legal title in the 1973 Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not the MOA-AD is constitutional

RULING: No. It cannot be reconciled with the
present Constitution and laws. Not only its specific
provisions, but the very concept underlying them,
namely, the associative relationship envisioned
between the GRP and the BJE, are unconstitutional,
for the concept presupposes that the associated
entity is a state and implies that the same is on its
way to independence.

Components of Territory
a.
b.
c.

(b) TERRITORY
Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the
earth inhabited by the people of the State. It must
be:
1. Neither too big as to be difficult to
administer and defend,
2. Nor too small as to be unable to provide for
the needs of the population.

Terrestrial domain- the land mass.

Maritime and fluvial domain- the
inland and external waters.
Aerial domain- the air space above the
land and waters.

Archipelagic Doctrine: The entire archipelago is

regarded as one integrated unit instead of being
fragmented into many thousand islands.
Connect the outermost points of the
archipelago with straight baselines and consider
all the waters enclosed thereby as internal
waters.

Scope of the National Territory (Art. I, Sec. 1)

MAGALLONA V. ERMITA
a.

b.

The Philippine archipelago.

Note: An archipelago is a body of water
studded with islands.
All other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Note: This includes any territory which
presently belongs, or might belong in the
future, to the Philippines through any of the
internationally accepted modes of acquiring
territory.

FACTS:
The
petitioners
challenged
the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522,
which was enacted in compliance with the
provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS
III).
UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio,
length, and contour of baselines of
archipelagic States like the Philippines.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized

the location of some basepoints around the
Philippine archipelago and classified
adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan
Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough
Shoal, as regimes of islands whose islands
generate their own applicable maritime
zones.

B Whether or not RA 9522 reduces Philippine

maritime territory and that it opens the countrys
waters to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and
national security, contravening the countrys
nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources
RULING: UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the
acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral
treaty regulating sea-use rights. It actually favors
States with a long coastline like the Philippines.
However, it preserves the traditional freedom of
navigation of other States. The right of innocent
passage is a customary international law, thus
automatically incorporated in the corpus of
Philippine law. No modern State can validly invoke
its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent
passage. Congress may pass legislation designating
routes with the archipelagic waters to regulate
innocent and sea lanes passage, and in the absence
of such, international law norms operate.

State
An
ideal
person,
invisible,
tangible,
immutable, and existing
only
in
the
contemplation of law.

The State mandates the government to promote the

welfare of the people.
Whatever good is done by the government is
attributed to the state, but any harm inflicted on the
people is imputed not to the State but to the
government alone. Such injury may justify the
replacement of the government by revolution,
theoretically at the behest of the State in a
development known as direct State action.
1.

The demarcation of the baselines enables

the Philippines to delimit its exclusive economic
zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the
exploitation of all living and non-living resources
within such zone.

Government is the agency or instrumentality

through which the will of the State is formulated,
expressed and realized.

Functions
a. Constituent functions constitute the
very bonds of society and are therefore
compulsory.
These functions refer to those relating
to:
1. The maintenance of peace and the
prevention of crime;
2. the regulation of property rights;
3. the administration of justice;
4. the determination of political
duties of citizens; and,
5. Those relating to national defense
and foreign relations.
b.

Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by

UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific
basepoints along their coasts from which baselines
are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as
geographic starting points to measure the breadth of
the maritime zones and continental shelf. This gives
notice to the rest of the international community of
the scope of the maritime space and submarine
areas within which States parties exercise treatybased rights.
(c) GOVERNMENT

Government
An agent of the state
and
the
perfect
representative
within
the sphere of its agency.

Ministrant functions are those

undertaken to advance the general
interests of society such as public
works, public charity, regulation of
trade and industry.
Note: Distinction of function is no
longer relevant because of the
repudiation of the laissez faire policy in
the Constitution (ACCFA v. Federation
of Labor Unions, 1969). These functions
are absorbed within activities that the
government must undertake.

2.

Doctrine of Parens Patriae:

It is an important task for the government
to act, for the State, as parens patriae or
guardian of the rights of the people. The

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in
the supreme power of every State.
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS V.
MONTE DE PIEDAD

had expressly designated the uncle since the mother

is the immediate relative of the child.
SORIANO V. LAGUARDIA
FACTS:

FACTS:
Contributions were collected during Spanish
Regime for the relief of victims of an
earthquake.
Part of the money was never distributed
and instead deposited with the defendant
bank.
An action for its recovery were filed later by
the government, the defendant questioned
the competence of the plaintiff, contending
that the suit could be instituted only by the
intended heirs.
ISSUE: Whether or not the government could
institute a suit against the defendants
RULING: The SC upheld the right if the government
to file the case since the Sate acted as parens patriae
in representation of the legitimate claimants.
CABANAS V. PILAPIL
FACTS:

The deceased Florentino Pilapil insured

himself and instituted as beneficiary, his
child, with his brother Francisco Pilapil to
act as trustee during her minority.
Upon his death, the proceeds were paid to
him.
A complaint was filed by the mother
Melchora Cabanas, with whom the child
was living, seeking the delivery of the sum,
and for her to be declared as the trustee of
the child instead.
Francisco however justified his claim to the
retention of the amount in question by
invoking the terms of the insurance policy.

ISSUE: Whether or not Melchora can be instituted

as the childs trustee
RULING: The government acting as parens patriae,
and for the best interest of the child, chose the
mother against the uncle, to be the trustee of the
insurance proceeds left to her by her father, who

The petitioner questioned the lawfulness of

the suspension of his religious television
program by the MTRCB.
He invoked, among other grounds, his
freedom of speech and religion, claiming
that
said
suspension
constituted
censorship.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners freedom of

speech and religion was violated upon the
suspension of his program by the MTRCB
RULING: The SC rejected his contention after finding
that the petitioner had uttered expletives in the
course of said program, which was regularly aired
during the primetime or at a time when children
could view the same.
DE LA CRUZ V. GRACIA
FACTS:
Then 21 year old petitioner Jenie San Juan
Dela Cruz and then 19 year old Christian
Dominique Sto. Tomas Aquino lived
together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage.
Almost two months after Dominique died,
Jenie who continued to live with
Dominiques parents, gave birth to her
herein co-petitioner minor child Christian
Dela Cruz Aquino.
Jenie applied for registration of the childs
birth, using Dominiques surname Aquino,
in support of which she submitted the
childs Certificate of Live Birth Affidavit to
Use the Surname of the Father (AUSF)
which she had executed and signed,
and Affidavit of Acknowledgment executed
by Dominiques father Domingo Butch
Aquino. Both affidavits attested, that during
the lifetime of Dominique, he had
continuously acknowledged his yet unborn
child, and that his paternity had never been
questioned.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
ISSUE: Whether or not the unsigned handwritten
instrument of the deceased father of minor Christian
can be considered as recognition of paternity
RULING: The SC allowed the registration of an
illegitimate child using the surname of his deceased
father, declaring that it is the policy of the Family
Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the
paternity and filiation of the children especially of
illegitimate children.
The State as parens patriae affords special
protection to children from abuse, exploitation and
other conditions prejudicial to their development.
3.

De jure and de facto Governments

a.

b.

De Jure Government: A government that

has rightful title but no power to control,
either because this has been withdrawn
from it or because it has not yet actually
entered into the exercise thereof.
De Facto Government: A government of
fact, which actually exercises power of
control but without legal title.

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES V.

CORAZON C. AQUINO
FACTS:
President
Corazon
Aquino
issued
Proclamation No. 1 announcing that she
and Vice President Laurel were taking
power.
She further issued proclamation No.3
providing the "new government was
installed through a direct exercise of the
power of the Filipino people assisted by
units of the New Armed Forces of the
Philippines."
ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon
Aquino is legitimate
RULING: The SC unanimously ruled that the people
had made the judgment of having accepted the
government of President Aquino, which was in
effective control of the entire country, so that it was
not merely a de facto government but in fact and
law, a de jure government. Moreover, it held that
the community of nations had recognized the
legitimacy of the government.

Kinds of De Facto Government

1.

2.

3.

De Facto Proper: The government that

holds possession and control, or
usurps, by force or by the voice of the
majority, the rightful legal government
and maintains itself against the will of
the latter.
Independent Government: Established
as an independent government by the
inhabitants of a country who rise in
insurrection against the parent state.
Note: It has been held in a number of
cases that the Second Republic of the
Philippines was a de facto government
of paramount force, having been
established by the Japanese belligerent
during the occupation of the
Philippines during WWII.
Government of Paramount Force: Is
established and maintained by military
forces that invade and occupy a
territory of the enemy in the course of
war.

4.

Government of the Philippines

The Government of the Philippines is defined as the

corporate governmental entity through which the
functions of government are exercised throughout
the Philippines including the various arms through
which political authority is made effective in the
Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous
regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay
subdivisions or other forms of local government.
Note: Under this definition, a government owned
and controlled corporation engaged in proprietary
functions cannot be considered part of the
Government for purposes of exemption from the
application of the statute of limitations.
Government Agency: Any of the various units of the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines
including
a
department,
bureau,
office,
instrumentality, or GOCC, or a local government or a
distinct unit therein.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
5.

Administration

Example: The sovereignty of the Philippines

remained with the US during Japanese
occupation even though the US could not
exercise any control over the occupied
territory. The political laws of the Philippines
were merely suspended, there being no
change in sovereignty, subject to revival
under jus postliminium upon the end of the
occupation. Non-political laws remained in
force unless amended or suspended by the
affirmative acts of the belligerent occupant.

Administration refers to the group of persons whose

hands the reins of government for the time being.
The administration runs the government, as a
machinist operates his machine.
Example: The Aquino administration directs the
affairs of the government for a given time, after
which, another administration may be called
upon by the people to take over.
Note: Administration is transitional whereas the
government is permanent.

Note: Jus postliminium refers to the right to

reclaim property after re-capture of the
occupied territory

(d) SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable
power inherent in a State by which that State is
governed. It is:

Permanent
Exclusive
Comprehensive
Absolute
Indivisible
Inalienable
Imprescriptible

RUFFY V. CHIEF OF STAFF

FACTS:

Kinds of Sovereignty
a.

b.

Legal sovereignty is the authority which has

the power to issue final commands.
Example: Congress.
Political sovereignty is the power behind
the legal sovereign, or the sum of the
influences that operate upon it.
Example: The different sectors that
mold public opinion.

Sovereignty may also be internal and external.

a.
b.

Internal sovereignty refers to the power of

the State to control its domestic affairs.
External sovereignty, or independence,
refers to the power of the State to direct its
relations with other States.

Note: Political laws are abrogated when there is a

change of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is not deemed suspended although

acts of sovereignty cannot be exercised by the
legitimate authority.

During the Japanese insurrection Ramon

Ruffy was a Provincial Commander,
Prudente M. Francisco, a junior officer, and
Andres Fortus, a corporal, all of the
Philippine Constabulary garrison stationed
in Mindoro.
When the Japanese forces landed in
Mindoro, Major Ruffy retreated to the
mountains instead of surrendering to the
enemy, disbanded his company, and
organized and led a guerrilla outfit known
as Bolo Combat team of Bolo Area.
A change in the command of the Bolo Area
was effected by Colonel Jurado wherein
Major Ruffy was relieved of his assignment
as Commanding Officer, Bolo Battalion, and
Capt. Esteban P. Beloncio was put in Ruffy's
place.
Lieut. Col. Jurado was slain allegedly by the
petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are subject to

military law at the time of war and the Japanese
occupancy
RULING: Members of the Armed Forces continued to
be covered by the National Defense Act, the Articles
of War and other laws relating to the armed forces
even during the Japanese occupation because the
rule suspending laws affects only the civilian
inhabitants of the occupied territory although it is
not intended to bind the enemies in arms.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
Note: The rule suspending laws is not applicable on
treason although it is decidedly political in nature.
Judicial decisions are valid during the occupation and
even beyond those of a political complexion, which
are automatically annulled upon the restoration of
the legitimate authority.

PEOPLE V. PERFECTO
FACTS:
The Secretary of the Philippine Senate,
Fernando M. Guerrero, discovered that
certain documents which constituted the
records of testimony given by witnesses in
the investigation of oil companies, had
disappeared from his office.
He informed the Philippine Senate, having
been called into special session by the
Governor-General, of the loss of the
documents and of the steps taken by him to
discover the guilty party.
The day following the convening of the
Senate, the newspaper La Nacion, edited by
Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, published an article
against the Philippine Senate.
Mr. Perfecto was alleged to have violated
Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code,
which provides for a penalty to those guilty
of insulting the Ministers of the Crown.
ISSUE:Whether or not Mr. Perfecto violated Article
256 of the Spanish Penal Code
RULING: SC acquitted him, holding that that
particular article of the said Code had been
automatically abrogated, being political in nature,
upon the advent of American sovereignty. It is a
general principle of the public law that on
acquisition of territory the previous political
relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated.
The crime of libel under the Spanish Penal Code
disappeared in the Philippines with the ratification of
the Treaty of Paris.

MACARIOLA V. ASUNCION
FACTS:

Judge Elias Asuncion rendered a decision in

a civil case for partition concerning the

properties left by the deceased Francisco

Reyes, the common father of the plaintiff
and defendant.
A project of partition was submitted to
Judge Asuncion. Notwithstanding the fact
that the project of partition was not signed
by the parties themselves but only by the
respective counsel of plaintiffs and
defendant, Judge Asuncion approved it in
his Order.
One of the properties subject to partition
under the civil case was acquired by
purchase by respondent Macariola and his
wife, who were major stockholders of
Traders
Manufacturing
and
Fishing
Industries Inc. wherein Judge Asuncion was
the President and his wife Victoria was the
Secretary.
Bernardita Macariola thus charged Judge
Asuncion with acts unbecoming of a
judge. She alleged that Asuncion violated,
among others, Art. 1491, par. 5 of the New
Civil Code and Article 14 of the Code of
Commerce.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated the

Code of Commerce
RULING: Article 14 of the Code of Commerce
prohibiting judges from engaging in commerce as
political in nature and was thus abrogated with the
end of the Spanish rule in the Philippines. There
appears no enabling or affirmative act that
continued the effectivity of the provision of the Code
of Commerce after the change of sovereignty from
Spain to the United States and then to the Republic
of the Philippines. Consequently, Article 14 of the
Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect.
VILAS V. CITY OF MANILA
FACTS:

Petitioner Vilas brought an action to

recover a sum of money the City of Manila
owed to him prior to the citys
incorporation under the Republic Act No.
183.

Respondent contends that by virtue of RA

183, and with the change of sovereignty
after the cession of the Philippines to the

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
US by the Treaty of Paris, its liability had
been extinguished.
ISSUE: Whether or not the City of Manila is still liable
to the debts incurred before its incorporation
RULING: The SC held that a debt contracted by the
defendant during the Spanish Regime was
enforceable against it even after the change to
American sovereignty because municipal law which
regulates private and domestic rights continues in
force until abrogated or changed by the new ruler.
While there is a total abrogation of the former
political relations of inhabitants of ceded territory,
and an abrogation of laws in conflict with the
political character of the substituted sovereign, the
great body of municipal law regulating private and
domestic rights continues in force until abrogated or
changed by the new ruler. The legal entity of the City
of Manila survived both its military occupation by,
and its cession to, the United States, and, as in law,
the present city, as the successor of the former city,
is entitled to the property rights of its predecessor, it
is also subject to its liabilities.

ISSUES:
1.
2.

1.

An act of state cannot be questioned or

made the subject of legal proceedings in a court of
law. It is an act done by the political departments of
the government and not subject to judicial review.
NICOLAS V. ROMULO
FACTS:

The VFA is constitutional.

As held in Bayan v. Zamora, the VFA was
duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and
has been recognized as a treaty by the United
States, as attested and certified by the duly
authorized
representative
of
the
US
government.
The fact that the VFA was not submitted for
advice and consent of the US Senate does not
detract from its status as a binding international
agreement or treaty recognized by the said
State. For this is a matter of internal United
States law.
Notice can be taken of the
internationally known practice by the United
States of submitting to its Senate for advice and
consent agreements that are policymaking in
nature, whereas those that carry out or further
implement these policymaking agreements are
merely submitted to Congress, under the
provisions of the so-called CaseZablocki Act,
within sixty days from ratification.

An act of state is an act done by the

sovereign power of a country, or by its delegate,
within the limits of the power vested in him.

Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, a member of

the United States Armed Forces was
charged with the crime of rape against a
Filipina, Suzette S. Nicolas.
Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement
(VFA) between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States, the US
was granted custody of Smith. The RTC of
Makati convicted him of the said crime and
he was detained at the Makati jail.
However, Smith was brought to a facility for
detention under the control of the US
government, as provided under the new

Whether or not the VFA is constitutional

Whether or not the Romulo-Kenney
Agreement is in accordance with the VFA

RULING:

ACT OF STATE

agreements between the Philippines and

the United States, referred to as the
Romulo-Kenney Agreement.
Petitioners contend that the Philippines
should have custody of Smith because, first
of all, the VFA is void and unconstitutional.

The provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of the

1
Constitution , is complied with by virtue of the
fact that the presence of the US Armed Forces
through the VFA is a presence allowed under
the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. Since the RPUS Mutual Defense Treaty itself has been
ratified and concurred in by both the Philippine
Senate and the US Senate, there is no violation
of the Constitutional provision resulting from
such presence.

Sec. 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Philippines and the United States of
America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires,
ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
2.

NO.
2

Under the provisions of VFA , the moment

the accused has to be detained, e.g., after
conviction, he shall be placed under Philippine
authorities and shall be entitled to visitation
rights and assistance from the US.
It is clear that the parties to the VFA
recognized the difference between custody
during the trial and detention after conviction,
because they provided for a specific
arrangement to cover detention. And this
specific arrangement clearly states not only that
the detention shall be carried out in facilities
agreed on by authorities of both parties, but
also that the detention shall be by Philippine
authorities. Therefore, the Romulo-Kenney
Agreement which are agreements on the
detention of the accused in the United States
Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself
because such detention is not by Philippine
authorities.
SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED V. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
Original Certificate of Titles were issued in
favor of Rafael Galvez over four parcels of
land.
Lots 1 and 4 were conveyed by Galvez to
Mamaril et al.
Mamaril, et al. sold Lots No. 1 and 4 to
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company.
Unknown to Lepanto Consolidated Mining
Company, the Court of First Instance of La
Union, issued an Order declaring the OCT of
the Registry of Deeds issued in the name of
Rafael Galvez, null and void, and ordered
the cancellation thereof.
Galvez filed a Motion for Reconsideration
against the Order declaring his OCT null and
void, which was denied.
On appeal, the CA ruled in favor of the
Republic and issued a writ of execution,
which was not executed.
The judgment sought to be revived became
final and the action for revival of judgment
was instituted more than twenty-five (25)
2

Article V Criminal Jurisdiction Sec. 10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United
States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United States
authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and
material assistance.

years after the judgment had become final.

Hence, the action is barred by extinctive
prescription considering that such an action
can be instituted only within ten (10) years
from the time the cause of action accrues.
The Solicitor General, nonetheless, argues
that the States cause of action in the
cancellation of the land title issued to
petitioners
predecessor-in-interest
is
imprescriptible because it is included in
Camp Wallace, which belongs to the
government.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Republic may still file for

revival of judgment
RULING: NO. While it is true that prescription does
not run against the State, the same may not be
invoked by the government in this case since it is no
longer interested in the subject matter. While Camp
Wallace may have belonged to the government at
the time Galvez title was ordered cancelled, the
same no longer holds true today.
RA 7277 created Bases Conversion and
Development Authority (BCDA). With the transfer of
Camp Wallace to the BCDA, the government has no
longer a right or protect.
The rule that prescription does not run
against the State does not apply to corporations or
artificial bodies created by the State for special
purposes, it being said that when the title of the
Republic has been divested, its grantees, although
artificial bodies of its own creation, are in the same
category as ordinary persons.
Moreover, to recognize the Government as
a proper party to sue in this case would set a bad
precedent as it would allow the Republic to
prosecute, on behalf of government-owned or
controlled corporations, causes of action which have
already prescribed, on the pretext that the
Government is the real party in interest against
whom prescription does not run, said corporations
having been created merely as agents for the
realization of government programs.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
3

VFP V. REYES

2640 concern the well-being of war veterans,

our countrymen who risked their lives and lost
their limbs in fighting for and defending our
nation. It would be injustice of catastrophic
proportions to say that it is beyond
sovereigntys power to reward the people who
defended her.

FACTS:

Petitioner Veterans Federation of the

Philippines (VFP), is a corporate body
organized under Republic Act No. 2640, and
duly registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Department Circular No. 04 was issued,
placing the VFP under the supervision and
control of the Secretary of National
Defense.
VFPs President was informed that the
Management Audit Group headed by the
Undersecretary of the Department of
National Defense, Respondent Angelo T.
Reyes, would be paying petitioner a visit for
an update on VFPs different affiliates and
the financial statement of the Federation.
The Secretary General of the VFP sent an
undated letter to respondent DND
Secretary, complaining about the alleged
broadness of the scope of the management
audit and requesting the suspension
thereof until such time that specific areas of
the audit shall have been agreed upon.

The functions of the VFP are therefore

executive functions, designed to implement not
just the provisions of RA 2640, but also, and
more importantly, the Constitutional mandate
for the State to provide immediate and
adequate care, benefits and other forms of
assistance to war veterans and veterans of
military campaigns, their surviving spouses and
orphans.
2.

The fact that no budgetary appropriations

have been released to the VFP does not prove
that it is a private corporation.
The membership dues collected from the
individual members of VFPs affiliate
organizations do not become public funds while
they are still funds of the affiliate organizations.
What has been created as a body corporate is
not the individual membership of the affiliate
organizations, but merely the aggregation of the
heads of the affiliate organizations. Thus, only
the money remitted by the affiliate
organizations to the VFP partakes in the public
nature of the VFP funds.

ISSUES:
1.

2.

VFP funds are public funds.

Whether or not the VFP is a public

corporation, and thus under the control and
supervision of the DND
Whether or not VFP funds are public funds

HELD:
RAMISCAL V. SANDIGANBAYAN
1.

VFP is a public corporation.

FACTS:
In Laurel v. Desierto, public office was
defined as the right, authority and duty, created
and conferred by law, by which, for a given
period, is invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised for the benefit of the public.
The protection of the interests of war
veterans is not only meant to promote social
justice, but is also intended to reward
patriotism. All of the functions in Section 4 of RA

The Senate Committees on Accountability

of Public Officers and Investigation (Blue
Ribbon) and on National Defense and
Security (collectively, Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee) carried out an extensive joint
inquiry into the "coup rumours and the
alleged anomalies" in the Armed Forces of

Sec. 4. The purposes of the Federation shall be to uphold and defend the democratic way of life as
envisioned in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines; to represent and to defend the interests
of all Filipino veterans; to coordinate the efforts of all different veterans of the Philippines in behalf of the
interests of respective members; to promote mutual help among former comrades-in-arms; to
perpetuate their common experiences in war; to undertake acts of charity and relief work; to preserve
peace and order; to foster love of country and things Filipino and inculcate individual civic consciousness.
In general, the Federation shall exist solely for purposes of a benevolent character, and not for pecuniary
profit of its members.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

the
Philippines-Retirement
Benefits
Systems (AFP-RSBS).
In its Report, the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee outlined, among others, the
anomalies in the acquisition of lots in
Tanauan, Batangas, Calamba, Laguna and
Iloilo City by the AFP-RSBS.
The modus operandi in the buying of the
lots was to cover the same transactions
with two deeds of sale. One deed of sale
was signed only by the seller (unilateral
deed). Another deed of sale was signed by
the seller and the buyer, AFP-RSBS (bilateral
deed).
The Unilateral Deeds of Sale recorded a
lower consideration paid by the System to
the AFP-RSBS than those stated in the
Bilateral Deeds to evade payment of the
correct taxes to the government, the excess
of which went to certain officials of the
RSBS.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to
"prosecute and/or cause the prosecution of
Gen. Jose Ramiscal Jr. (Ret), past AFP-RSBS
President, who had signed the unregistered
deeds of sale covering the acquisition of
certain parcels of land," Ombudsman
Investigators conducted a fact-finding
investigation.
They executed a Joint Affidavit-Complaint,
stating that based on their findings, B/Gen.
Jose Ramiscal, Jr., among others, may be
charged with falsification of public
documents and violation of Section 3(e) and
(g) of RA 3019.
The law firm of Albano & Associates filed a
Notice of Appearance as private
prosecutors in all the aforementioned cases
for the Association of Generals and Flag
Officers, Inc. (AGFOI).

has been filed with the said court, it is the

Sandiganbayan who has jurisdiction and no longer
the Ombudsman. Ramiscal Jr., failed to establish that
the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion.
Moreover, with respect to the notice filed
by the AGFOI, the offended party may be the State
or any of its instrumentalities, including local
governments or government-owned or controlled
corporations, such as the AFP-RSBS, which, under
substantive laws, are entitled to restitution of their
properties or funds, reparation, or indemnification.
For violations of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019
any party, including the government, may be the
offended party if such party sustains undue injury
caused by the delictual acts of the accused. In such
cases, the government is to be represented by the
public prosecutor for the recovery of the civil liability
of the accused.
Hence, even if the members of AGFOI may
also be members or beneficiaries of the AFP-RSBS,
the respondent AGFOI does not have a legal right to
intervene in the criminal cases merely and solely to
enforce and/or protect the constitutional right of
such members to have access to the records of AFPRSBS. Neither are such members entitled to
intervene therein simply because the funds of the
AFP-RSBS are public or government funds. It must
be stressed that any interest of the members of the
AFP-RSBS over its funds or property is merely
inchoate and incidental. Such funds belong to the
AFP-RSBS which has a juridical personality separate
and independent of its members or beneficiaries.
ALZAGA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:

ISSUE: Whether or not there is probable cause to file

a case for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and falsification of public documents
RULING: The Ombudsman has the discretion to
determine whether or not a criminal case should be
filed in the Sandiganbayan. However, once the case

Four separate Informations for violation of

RA 3019 were filed against petitioners
Julian A. Alzaga, Meinrado Enrique A. Bello
and Manuel S. Satuito relative to alleged
irregularities which attended the purchase
of four lots in Tanauan, Batangas, by the
Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement
and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS).
Alzaga was the Head of the Legal
Department of AFP-RSBS when one of the
lots was purchased. Bello was a Police

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Superintendent and he succeeded Alzaga as

Head of the Legal Department. It was
during his tenure when the other three lots
were purchased. Both were Vice Presidents
of AFP-RSBS. On the other hand, Satuito
was the Chief of the Documentation and
Assistant Vice President of the AFP-RSBS.
Petitioners filed their respective Motions to
Quash and/or Dismiss the informations
alleging that the Sandiganbayan had no
jurisdiction over them and their alleged
offenses because the AFP-RSBS is a private
entity created for the benefit of its
members and that their positions and salary
grade levels do not fall within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the

Revised Penal Code, where one or more of
the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government
whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of
the offense:
Officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional director
and higher, otherwise classified as Grade
27 and higher, of the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic
Act No. 6758), specifically including:
Presidents, directors or trustees,
or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities
or educational institutions or foundations

ISSUES:
1.

Whether or not AFP-RSBS is a government

entity

2.

Whether or not the petitioners are under

the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

There is likewise no merit in petitioners

claim that the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over them since their positions
as Vice Presidents and Assistant Vice
President are not covered nor embraced by
the term "managers" under section 4 of RA.
No. 8249.

RULING:
1.

The AFP-RSBS is a government entity.

The AFP-RSBS was established by virtue of
P.D. No. 361 to guarantee continuous financial
support to the AFP military retirement system,
as provided for in R.A. No. 340. It is similar to
the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS) since
it serves as the system that manages the
retirement and pension funds of those in the
military service.
The AFP-RSBS is thus a government entity
because its character and operations are
imbued with public interest and its funds are in
the nature of a public fund.

2.

The petitioners are under the jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan.
Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as further
amended by R.A. No. 8249, grants jurisdiction to
the Sandiganbayan over:
Violations of the Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and

The SC held in Geduspan v. People, that

while the first part of section 4 covers only
officials of the executive branch with the salary
grade 27 and higher, the second part
"specifically includes" other executive officials
whose positions may not be of grade 27 and
higher but who are by express provision of law
placed under the jurisdiction of the said court.
In the latter category, it is the position held and
not the salary grade which determines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Thus, presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government owned and controlled
corporations are under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
JAVIER V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:

Petitioner was the private sector

representative in the National Book
Development Board (NBDB), which was

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

created by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8047,

otherwise known as the Book Publishing
Industry Development Act.
R.A. No. 8047 provided for the creation of
the NBDB, which was placed under the
administration and supervision of the Office
of the President.
Part of her functions was to attend book
fairs to establish linkages with book
publishing bodies.
She was issued a travel authority to attend
the Madrid International Book Fair in Spain
and was paid P139, 199.00 as her travelling
expenses.
Unfortunately, petitioner was not able to
attend the scheduled international book
fair. She failed to return/refund her cash
advance and was charged with malversation
of public funds.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is a public

officer
RULING: A public office is the right, authority and
duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a
given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
invested with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the government, to be exercised by him
for the benefit of the public. The individual so
invested is a public officer.
Notwithstanding that petitioner came from
the private sector to sit as a member of the NBDB,
the law invested her with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government, so that the
purpose of the government is achieved. In this case,
the government aimed to enhance the book
publishing industry as it has a significant role in the
national development.
Hence, the fact that she was appointed
from the public sector and not from the other
branches or agencies of the government does not
take her position outside the meaning of a public
office. The purpose of the law for appointing
members from the private sector is to ensure that
they are also properly represented in the
implementation of government objectives to
cultivate the book publishing industry.

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY V.

COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:

The Manila International Airport Authority

(MIAA) operates the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport (NAIA) Complex in
Paraaque City under Executive Order No.
903 (MIAA Charter), as amended.

As such operator, it administers the land,

improvements and equipment within the
NAIA Complex.

The Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC)

withdrew the exemption from real estate
tax granted to MIAA under Section 21 of its
Charter.

ISSUE: Whether or not the airport lands and

buildings of MIAA are exempt from real estate tax
under existing laws
RULING: The airport lands and buildings of MIAA are
exempt from real estate tax imposed by local
governments. MIAA is a government instrumentality
vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently
its governmental functions.
When the law vests in a government
instrumentality
corporate
powers,
the
instrumentality does not become a corporation.
Unless the government instrumentality is organized
as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a
government instrumentality exercising not only
governmental but also corporate powers. Also, when
the law makes a government instrumentality
operationally autonomous, the instrumentality
remains part of the National Government
machinery.
Being a government instrumentality, MIAA
falls under Sec. 133(o) of the LGC. As such, it is not a
taxable person. The airport lands and buildings are
owned by the Republic of the Philippines, hence,
exempt from tax.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
PHILIPPINE SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
TO ANIMALS V. COA
FACTS:

PSPCA was incorporated as a juridical entity

by virtue of Act No. 1285 by the Philippine
Commission in order to enforce laws
relating to the cruelty inflicted upon
animals and for the protection of and to
perform all things which may tend to
alleviate the suffering of animals and
promote their welfare.
PSPCA was initially imbued with (1) power
to apprehend violators of animal welfare
laws and, (2) share 50% of the fines
imposed and collected through its efforts
pursuant to the violations of related laws,
however, Commonwealth Act No. 148
recalled the said powers.

An audit team from the Commission on

Audit visited petitioners office to conduct a
survey.

PSPCA demurred on the ground that it was

a private entity and not under the CoAs
jurisdiction, citing Sec. 2(1), Art. IX of the
Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not the PSPCA is subject to CoAs

audit authority
RULING: PSPCAs charter shows that it is not subject
to control or supervision by any agency of the State.
Like all private corporations, the successors of its
members are determined voluntarily and solely by
the petitioner, and may exercise powers generally
accorded to private corporations.
The fact that a private corporation is
impressed with public interest does not make the
entity a public corporation. They may be
considered quasi-public corporations which are
private corporations that render public service,
supply public wants and pursue other exemplary
objectives. The true criterion to determine whether
a corporation is public or private is found in the
totality of the relation of the corporate to the
State. It is public if it is created by the latters own
agency or instrumentality, otherwise, it is private.

SERANA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:

Serana was appointed by then President

Joseph Estrada as a student regent of UP, to
serve a one year term.

One of the projects of the OSFRI was the

renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex which
failed to materialize.

The Ombudsman found probable cause to

indict petitioner and her brother for estafa
and filed the case to the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is a public officer

with Salary Grade 27
RULING: Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, even if she does not have a salary
grade 27, as she is placed there by express provision
of law. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explicitly
vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over
presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or
foundations. Petitioner falls under this category. As
the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs
functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a
non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law,
petitioner is, indeed, a public.
REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:

The Presidential Commission on Good

Government (PCGG) investigated reports of
unexplained wealth involving Major General
Josephus Ramas, the Commanding General
of the Philippine Army during the time of
former President Ferdinand Marcos.

Pursuant to said investigation, the

Constabulary raiding team served a search
and seizure warrant on the premises of
Ramas alleged mistress Elizabeth
Dimaano.

Aside from the military equipment stated in

the warrant, items not included in the
warrant, particularly, communications

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
equipment, land titles, jewelry, and several
thousands of cash in pesos and US dollars,
were also seized. Solicitor General Francisco
Chavez, on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines, filed a complaint against Ramas
and Dimaano.

The Sandiganbayan dismissed the complaint

on the grounds that: (1) the PCGG has no
jurisdiction to investigate the private
respondents; and, (2) the search and
seizure conducted was illegal.

ISSUES:
1.

Whether or not the PCGG has jurisdiction to

investigate Ramas and Dimaano

2.

Whether or not the properties confiscated

in Dimaanos house were illegally seized
and therefore inadmissible in evidence

RULING:
1.

Petitioner has no jurisdiction over private

respondents.
The PCGG can only investigate the
unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP
personnel who fall under either of the 2
categories mentioned in Section 2 of E.O. No. 1.
Ramas position as Commanding General of the
Philippine Army with the rank of Major General
does not make him a subordinate of former
President Marcos for purposes of E.O. No. 1 and
its amendments.

2.

The properties confiscated in Dimaanos house

were illegally seized and therefore inadmissible
in evidence.
At the time the search and seizure was
conducted, the resulting government (from the
EDSA Revolution) was a revolutionary
government bound by no constitution or legal
limitations except treaty obligations that the
revolutionary government, as the de jure
government in the Philippines, assumed under
international law. The Bill of Rights under the
1973 Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum. Nevertheless, even during the
interregnum the Filipino people continued to

enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration,

almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights
of the 1973 Constitution. The revolutionary
government did not repudiate the Covenant or
the Declaration during the interregnum.
During the interregnum when no
constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives
and orders issued by government officers were
valid so long as these officers did not exceed the
authority granted them by the revolutionary
government. The warrant is thus valid with
respect to the items specifically described in the
warrant. However, the Constabulary raiding
team seized items not included in the warrant
the monies, communications equipment, and
jewellery and land titles confiscated. The raiding
team had no legal basis to seize these items
without showing that these items could be the
subject of warrantless search and seizure.
Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its authority
when it seized these items. The seizure of these
items was therefore void, and unless these
items are contraband per se, and they are not,
they must be returned to the person from
whom the raiding seized them.