You are on page 1of 2

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES


De Leon v. ESGUERRA
T h e 1 9 8 7 C o n s t i t u t i o n w a s r a t i f i e d i n a p l e b i s c i t e o n F e b r u a r y 2 , 1 9 8 7 . B y t h a t d a t e , 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Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded.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.