CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Layla-Tal Medina
2007-67099-1
Doctrine of State Immunity and Separation of Powers
“The State cannot be sued without its consent.”
Reasons:
a. impairment of its dignity
b. a challenge to its supposed infallibility
c. the demands and conveniences of the litigation will divert the time
and resources of the State from the pressing matters demanding
its attention, to the prejudice of public welfare
Justice Holmes: the doctrine is based not on “any formal conception or
obsolete theory but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no
legal right against the authority on which makes the law on which the right
depends.”
APPLICATION
Actions are rarely instituted directly against the State, presumably
because such a step will provoke resort to the doctrine of state
immunity and possible dismissal of the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.
The usual practice is to file such claims to the state itself but against
the officer of the government who is supposed to discharge the
responsibility or grant the redress demanded.
It is important to determine if the State is the real party in interest—
that the claim, if proved, will be a direct liability of the State and not
merely of the officer impleaded. If this is shown, the action can be
dismissed as a suit against the State unless its immunity has been
previously waived.
Consent may be…
1. Express- when it gives it by way of a general law
2. Implied-when it files a suit, or when it enters into a contract in the
exercise of its proprietary capacity
Note: The congress, by way of a law that gives the State’s consent to be
sued. It may be a general statute or a special law.
True or false: the rule that the State cannot be sued is absolute.
False. It does not say that the state may not be sued under any
circumstances. The state’s consent, as stated earlier, can be given
expressly—by a general law, or impliedly, when the state itself enters
litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim or when it enters into a
contract of a proprietary nature. In this situation, the government is
descended to the level of an ordinary individual.
RULE ON MONEY CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
Money claims against the government must be first filed with the
Commission on Audit, which must act upon it within sixty (60) days. If the
claim is rejected, it will authorise the claimant to elevate the matter to the
Supreme Court on certiorari and in effect, sue the State thereby. It is also
stated in Act No. 3083 that the Philippine government “consents and
submits to be sued upon any money claim involving liability arising from
contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action
between the private parties."1
BASIS OF THE STATE’S IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
The doctrine rests upon reasons of public policy and the inconvenience
and danger which would flow from a different rule. “It is obvious that
public service would be hindered and public safety endangered if the
supreme authority could be subjected to suits at the instance of every
citizen, and, consequently, controlled in the use and disposition of the
means required for the proper administration of the government.”
(Siren v. US Wall, 152, 19L, Ed. 129, cited in 78 SCRA 477)
Instances where a public officer is sued in his official capacity
1
A lbano , Po l i t i ca l Law Rev iewer , p , 17

A public officer may be impleaded to require him to do a duty required
by law, or to restrain him from doing an act alleged to be
unconstitutional or illegal, or to recover from him taxes unlawfully
assessed or collected.
When an action is filed against a public officer for recovery only of title
or repossession of property claimed to be held by him in his official
capacity, the said action is not a suit against the State for which prior
waiver of immunity is required. But it is different where there is in addition
a claim for recovery of damages, such as accrued rentals, inasmuch as its
allowance would require the government to appropriate the necessary
amount for the satisfaction of the judgment.
Festejo v. Fernando
The Director of Public Works took over without authority property
belonging to the plaintiff and constructed therein a public irrigation
canal. The Supreme Court held that the action for the recovery of
the land or its value was properly filed against the defendant in his
personal capacity and therefore was not covered by the doctrine of
State immunity.
Suits against government agencies
When a suit is filed not against the government itself or its officials but
against one of its entities, it must be ascertained whether or not the
State, as the principal that may ultimately be held liable, has given
its consent to be sued. This ascertainment will depend in the first
instance on whether the government agency impleaded is
incorporated or unincorporated.
What are incorporated agencies?
An incorporated agency has a charter of its own with a separate juridical
personality, like the SSS, UP, and the city of Manila. In contrast, the
unincorporated agency is so called because it has no separate juridical
personality, but is merged in the general machinery of the government, like
the DOJ, the Bureau of Mines, and the Government Printing Office.
TEST OF SUABILITY IN THE CASE OF INCORPORATED AGENCIES
• The test of its suability is found in its charter. The simple rule is
that it is suable if its charter says so, and it is true regardless of
the functions
that it performs. Municipal corporations, on the other hand, like provinces
and cities, are agencies of the State when they are engaged in the
governmental functions and therefore should enjoy sovereign immunity.
They are, however, subject to suit, even in the performance of such
functions because their charter provides that they can sue and be sued.
Exemption from legal requirements
When the State litigates (either directly or through its authorised officers),
it is not required to put up a bond for damages, or an appeal bond, since it
can be assumed that it is always solvent. Neither can it be asked to pay the
legal fees prescribed in the Rules of Court, or the costs of the suit.
In Republic v. Garcia, it was held that the government could not be
assessed one-half of the fees paid to the commissioner who determined the
just compensation for the property under expropriation.
SUABILITY VS. LIABILITY
The mere fact that the state is suable does not mean that it is liable, or put
in another way, a waiver of immunity by the State does not mean
concession of its liability.
Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands
The plaintiff was allowed to sue by virtue of a special law but was unable
to hold the defendant liable. It was shown at the trial that the injuries
suffered by him were caused by a regular driver of the government. The
law applied (now Article 2180 of the Civil Code) provides that the State
shall be responsible for torts only when it acts through a special agent
and not when the damage has been caused by the o f f i c i a l or emp loyee to
whom the task done proper l y per ta ins .
A chauffeur is an employee, not an agent.
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. The state merely gives the claimant the right to
show that the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when
the injury was committed, or when the case comes under the exceptions
recognised by law. Failing this, the claimant cannot recover.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
The branches of the government
1. Executive-enforcement of laws; laws may be applied or not
2. Legislative-enactment of laws
3. Judiciary-application of laws
Purposes of Separation of powers
1. Intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person or
group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse
in its exercise to its detriment of our republican institutions.
2. Intended to secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent
despotism, and to obtain efficiency.2
“The letter of the Constitution wisely declared a separation, but the
impulse of common purpose declares a union.”
--Franklin Roosevelt
The principle of separation of powers is NOT absolute.
• There is more truism in interdependence than total independence
among the three branches of the government. In Planas v. Gil (67
2
Ph i l i pp ine Po l i t i ca l Law, J u s t i ce I sagan i Cruz , p . 57
Phil 62), the classical separation of powers is a relative theory of
government.
The principle of blending of powers
• It is a situation where there is a sharing of two or more
departments in the performance of a given constitutional task.
One department acts in a manner complementary or
supplementary to another.
Instances of the principle of blending of powers
1. In an enactment of law, the Congress passes the bill, the President
signs it into law.
2. In the appointment of certain officers, the President recommends,
and the Commission of Appointments approves the same;
3. In the treaty-making powers of the government, the Senate ratifies
it.
How do the courts enforce the principle of separation of powers?
• Courts enforce the principle of separation of powers when they
exercise the power of judicial review and prudent refuse to assume
jurisdiction over cases involving political questions.
A political question is a question of policy. It refers to those questions
which, under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the Legislature or the Executive branch of the
government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom,
not legality of a particular measure.