You are on page 1of 26

======================================================= = CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEWER FOR MIDTERM EXAMS -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constitution
a body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised. the supreme law of the land as ordained and established by the people which prescribes the permanent framework of government, which establishes the principles upon which the government is founded, and which defines and allocates to the various organs of government their respective powers and functions shield of protection to all classes of men, at all times, and under al circumstances, as it is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace (also referred to as the social contract doctrine) Constitution Vs Statute Constitution Primary being a command of the sovereign establishing the government machine and the most general rules for operation States general principles Legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity Intended not merely to meet existing conditions but also to govern the future May be abrogated, repealed or modified only by the power which created it, namely, the people Statute Secondary being a command of the sovereign having reference to the exigencies of the time and place resulting from the ordinary working of the machine Provides the details of which it treats Legislation from the peoples representatives subject to the limitations prescribed by the superior authority Intended to meet present conditions May be repealed or changed by the legislature Kinds of Constitution Written constitution one the provisions of which have been reduced to writing and embodied in one of more instruments at a particular time. Example: Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines; USA Unwritten constitution one which has not been committed to writing at any specific time but is the collective product of gradual political development, consisting of unwritten usages and customs, judicial decisions, dicta of statesmen, and legislative enactments of fundamental character written but scattered in various records without having any compact form in writing. Example: Constitution of England; Athens; Rome Supremacy of the Constitution The Constitution is said to be the supreme law of the land. It is considered as the god of all man-made laws. This is the Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy. Isagani A. Cruz captures the essence of this great doctrine in this wise: The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however nobly intentioned, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the sovereign people lest

its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty of the law by the pretenders to illegitimate power. The Constitution is the basis of the validity of all laws and governmental acts. It is the basis of the legitimacy of the very existence of government. It is the basis of the legitimacy of the exercise by government of powers that interfere with personal autonomy and liberty. It is the anchorage of all legitimacy. Legitimacy of the Constitution The Constitution does not become legitimate just because it is a constitution and while it cannot be unconstitutional, it can however be illegitimate. Constitutionality therefore is one thing and legitimacy is another. Constitutionality is an attribute of governmental acts and laws that do not contravene the Constitution; legitimacy is an attribute of governmental acts and laws, including the Constitution, that makes them at the least, juridically right, acceptable, and necessary. As the anchorage of all legitimacy, the Constitution must itself be legitimate. Its legitimacy cannot rests on mere conjectures or shaky theories. It cannot simply be assumed. It must rest on solid ground if it is to the basis of the legitimacy of all governmental acts and laws that depend on it for their own legitimacy. Richard H. Fallon, Jr. in his article Legitimacy and the Constitution argues that the term legitimacy invites appeal to three distinct kinds of criteria that in turn support three distinct but partly overlapping concepts of legitimacy legal, sociological, and moral. He writes: When legitimacy functions as a legal concept, legitimacy and illegitimacy are gauged by legal norms. As measured by sociological criteria, the Constitution or a claim of legal authority is legitimate insofar as it is accepted (as a matter of fact) as deserving of respect or obedience or, in a weaker usage that I shall explain below, insofar as it is otherwise acquiesced in. A final set of criteria is moral. Pursuant to a moral concept, legitimacy inheres in the moral justification, if any, for claims of authority asserted in the name of the law. Constitutional legitimacy involves consent. It is not a commitment which can be coerced however much people can be coerced into obedience to a particular regime. Consensual legitimacy is utterly necessary for a constitution to have real meaning and to last. The very fact that, while rule can be imposed by force, constitutions can only exist as meaningful instruments by consent, is another demonstration that constitution-making is the preeminent political act. Essential parts of a written constitution Constitution of Liberty contains the fundamental and political rights of the citizens as well as the limitations on the powers of the government to see to it that the said rights are safeguarded Constitution of Government outlines the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its administration, and defining the electorate Constitution of Sovereignty contains the provisions on how to amend or revise our constitution and when such amendment or revision is considered valid Self-Executing vs Non-Self Executing Provisions of the Constitution Non self-executing provisions of the Constitution are those provisions which lay down a general principle, such as those found in Article II of the 1987 Constitution. A self-executing provision is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed, or protected. When are acts of persons considered State Action covered by the Constitution? In constitutional jurisprudence, the act of persons distinct from the government are considered state action covered by the Constitution (1) when the activity it engages in is a public function; (2) when the government is so significantly involved with the private sector Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 2

as to make the government responsible for his action; and (3) when the government has approved or authorized the action.

Amendment/Revision to the Constitution


Steps in revising or amending the constitution The two steps required in the process of amending or revising the constitution are; 1. Proposal which is the motion of initiating suggestions or proposals on the amendment or revision, which may either be by congress, constitutional convention or peoples initiative; and Ratification which is the sovereign act vested in the Filipino people to either reject or approve the proposals to amend or revise the Constitution.

2.

In amending the constitution, there are three modes of proposal. These are 1. 2. 3. by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; by a Constitutional Convention; or by Peoples Initiative

In revising the Constitution, there are only two modes. 1. 2. by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or by Constitutional Convention.

Should the Congress choose to call a Constitutional Convention, it may call the Convention by two-thirds votes of all its Members, or submit to the electorate the question of calling such Convention by a majority vote of all its Members. Requirements for Peoples Initiative 1. 2. written petition which must have at least 12% of the total registered voters as signatories out of the 12% total registered voters, every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein

Contents of petition 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Contents or text of law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be; The proposition Reason/s therefore That it is not one of the exceptions provided therein Petitioners must be registered voters Abstract or summary proposition in not more than one hundred words shall be printed or legibly written at the top of every page of the petition

Limitations for the exercise of Peoples Initiative 1. 2. shall be exercised five years after the ratification of the 1987 constitution may be exercised only every five years thereafter

Comelecs Action on the Petition Within 30 days from receipt of the petition, the Comelec shall, upon determining the sufficiency of the petition, publish the same in Filipino and English at least twice in newspaper of general and local circulation and set the date of the initiative or referendum which shall not be earlier than 45 days but not later than 90 days from the determination of the sufficiency of the petition. Effectivity of Amendment through peoples initiative

Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 3

The proposition in an initiative on the Constitution will become effective if approved by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite as of the day of the plebiscite. Plebiscite is the electoral process by which an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected by the people. Submission of Amendment or Revision to the People in a Plebiscite The amendment or revision of the Constitution must be submitted to the people in a plebiscite called for the purpose not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

Is the power to amend or revise the Constitution included in the general grant of legislative power to Congress? The power to amend or revise the Constitution is not included in the general grant of legislative power to Congress. It is part of the inherent powers of the people as the repository of sovereignty in a Republican State. It cannot be exercised by Congress unless expressly granted to it by the Constitution. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the same expressly grants such powers. Thus, when exercising the same, the legislators act not as members of Congress, but as component elements of a constituent assembly. When acting as such, the Members of Congress derive their authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate from the Constitution they are the very source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself.

State
is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed territory, and possessed or an independent government organized for political ends to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience Two schools of thought on when a given entity begins to exist as a state 1. 2. Constitutive School of Thought: the recognizing states constitute the new state as a being in International Law through their willingness to deal with it as a state Declaratory School of Thought: a given entity becomes a State from the moment it possesses the essential attributes of an international person, and that is when it fulfills the conditions of statehood. According to its advocate, recognition is merely declaratory of an existing fact. It is a political act that is entirely a matter of policy and discretion on the part of the recognizing state.

Elements of State 1. 2. 3. 4. People Territory Government Sovereignty

People
How many people should constitute a state? There is no specific number of people who should constitute a state is required, nor is there a legal requirement as to their number. In fact, the number of inhabitants in different states differ greatly, with some having millions of billions of people, and some only a few hundred thousands of people. The only requirement is that the people must be numerous enough to be self-sufficient and to defend themselves, and small enough to be easily administered.

Government
Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 4

Government Vs State Government Is an agent and within the sphere of the agency, a perfect representative; but outside of that, a useless usurpation Refers to the person or group of persons in who hands the organization of the State places for the time being the function of political control. Institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes or carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them Prime duty of the government The prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the people. There are three ways by which the government may be able to comply with this duty, thus: 1. 2. 3. The government may call upon the people to defend the State. (Section 4, Art. II) The government may require all citizens under conditions provided by law to render personal military or civil service. (Section 4, Art. II) The government may use the Armed Forces of the Philippines to repel any threat to its security (Section 4, Art. XVI) State State is an ideal person, intangible, indivisible and immutable.

Functions of Government Constituent/Government Function which is the compulsory function of the government which constitute the very bonds of society. They are: OLP-4C-F

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

the keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence and robbery the fixing of the legal relations between man and wife and between parents and children the regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange of property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or crime the determination of contract rights between individuals the definition and punishment of crime the administration of justice in civil cases the determination of the political duties, privileges and relations of citizens dealings of the state with foreign powers, the preservation of the state from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interest

Ministrant/Proprietary functions are the optional functions of the government intended for achieving a better life for the community. The principles for determining whether or not a government shall exercise certain of these optional functions are: 1. 2. that a government should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would not naturally undertake; and that a government should do those things which by its very nature it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare that is any private individual or group

De Jure Government vs De Facto Government A de jure government is an organized government of the State that has the general support of the people. A de facto government, on the other hand, is characterized by the fact that it is not founded by the constitutional law of the state but merely exercising powers as if it was legally constituted. Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 5

Territory
is the fixed area or surface of the earth where the inhabitants of a State live and where they maintain a government of their own The National Territory of the Philippines Art. 1, 1987 Phil. Constitution The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. Words deleted from Art. 1, 1973 Constitution all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title Have we dropped our claim over Sabah on account of said deletion of said words? Fr. Joaquin Bernas: the words all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction do not include Sabah, but does not exclude it either because of our adherence to the generally accepted principles of international law which enables the nation to acquire a territory by cession, purchase, and so forth. If at some future time, the Philippine government exercises jurisdiction over Sabah, it will be part of our territory. Archipelago doctrine Archipelago doctrine -The Philippine archipelago is considered as one integrated unit instead of being divided into more than seven thousand islands. This assertion, including the straight base line method, where the outermost points of our archipelago are connected with straight baselines and all waters inside the baselines are considered as internal waters. On the strength of this assertion, the large bodies of water connecting islands of the archipelago such as the Mindanao Sea, the Sulu Sea and the Sibuyan Sea are considered by the Philippines as internal waters. Is there a prescribed size for the territory? There is no specific size for a territory before it can be considered an element of a state. There are states that have big territories such as Russia and China and there are those states like Taiwan and Singapore that have small territories. The only requirement is that the territory should be small enough to be easily administered and big enough to provide for the needs of the population. Jurisdiction of state A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The state has power and jurisdiction over persons and things within its territory, except the following: H-F-A-M-A-O Head of states of foreign countries, diplomatic representatives and consul of certain degree; Foreign state property such as embassies, consulates, and public vessels engaged in non-commercial activities; Act of states Foreign merchant vessels that exercised the right of innocent passage or involuntary entry such as arrival under stress Foreign armies passing through or stationed in the territory with permission

Other persons and things including organizations like the United Nations, over which, it may, by agreement, waive jurisdiction. Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 6

B. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

The state has power and jurisdiction outside of its territory:

E -L-E-V-N-C-C

When it asserts personal jurisdiction to its national or when an alien commits an offense which is against national security; When the local state waives its jurisdiction upon persons and properties within its territory; When a state establishes a colonial prolectorate; When it enjoys easements and servitudes; When it exercises its jurisdiction over its vessels in the high seas; When it exercises its limited jurisdiction on the contiguous zone; and When it exercises the principle of extraterritoriality.

Sovereignty
the supreme power in a State by which that State is governed. It is also defined as the union and exercise of all human powers possessed in a State. It is the power to do everything in a State without accountability to make laws, to execute and apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Four kinds of sovereignty 1. Legal sovereignty is that determinate authority which is able to express in legal form the highest commands of the State that power which can override the prescriptions of divine law, the principles of morality, and the mandates of public opinion. Political sovereignty is that power behind the legal sovereign which is legally unknown, unorganized and incapable of expressing the will of the State in the form of legal command, yet without power to whose mandates the legal sovereign will in practice bow and whose will must ultimately prevail in the State. Internal sovereignty implies the power of the State to make and alter its system of government, and to regulate its private affairs, as well as the rights and relations of its citizens, without any dictation, interference, or control on the part of any person or body of State outside the particular political community. External sovereignty implies that the State spoken of is not subject to the control, dictation, or government of any other power. It necessarily implies the right and power to receive recognition as an independent power from other powers, and to make treaties with them on equal terms, make war or peace with them, send diplomatic agents to them, acquire territories by conquest or occupation, and otherwise to manifest its freedom and autonomy.

2.

3.

4.

Sovereignty vs Dominium; Imperium Sovereignty is the right to exercise the functions of a State to the exclusion of any other state. It is often referred as the power of imperium, which is defined as the government authority possessed by the State. Dominion, or dominium, is the capacity of the State to own or acquire property such as lands and natural resources. Sovereignty vs Independence Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 7

Sovereignty Supreme power of the state by which that state is governed Internal aspect power inherent in the people or vested in its ruler by the Constitution to govern the State External aspect consists in the independence of one political society in respect to all other political societies. Effects of Japanese Occupation on Sovereignty

Independence External manifestation of recognition by other States in order to render a State perfect and complete.

Sovereignty remained with the US although the Americans could not exercise any control over the occupied territory. What the belligerent occupant took was merely the exercise of the acts of sovereignty. On Political Laws of Acquired Territory - political laws immediately cease to have effect, except insofar as they are continued in force by express consent of the new sovereign. On the Municipal Laws municipal laws of the conquered territory, however, not in conflict with the laws of the new sovereign continue in force without the express consent of the new sovereign Doctrines Doctrine of Jus Postliminii, Political laws which are suspended during the occupation is re-established under the doctrine of jus postliminii, which states that when a territory which has been occupied by the enemy comes again into the power of the State during the progress of a war through conquest or otherwise, the legal state of the things existing prior to the hostile occupation is re-established. Doctrine of Parens Patriae Latin for "father of his country," the term for the doctrine that the government is the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose care is only "entrusted" to their parents. Under this doctrine, in a divorce action or a guardianship application the court retains jurisdiction until the child is 18 years old, and a judge may change custody, child support or other rulings affecting the child's well-being, no matter what the parents may have agreed or the court previously decided. Parens Patriae means literally, "parent of the country." It refers traditionally to the role of the state as a sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. Parens Patriae originates from the English common law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants. The doctrine of parens patriae is a concept of standing utilized to protect . . . quasisovereign interests, such as health, comfort, and welfare of the people, when such interests are threatened and state government intervention may be needed. Gibbs v. Titelman, 369 F. Supp. 38, 54 (E.D. Pa. 1973), revd on other grounds, 502 F.2d 1107 (3d Cir. 1974). Only a sovereign (meaning, in the United States, a state government) can intervene as parens patriae, acting as the 'general guardian of all infants, lunatics, idiots. Fontain v. Ravenel, 58 U.S. 369 392-93 (1854) (Taney, J. concurring)(citing 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 48 (1769)). In loco parentis In loco parentis means in place of parent. The in loco parentis legal doctrine can be applied to both governmental and non-governmental entities, and is implicated when a person [or legal entity] undertakes the care and control of another [person of legal incapacity] in the absence of such supervision by the latters natural parents and in the Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 8

absence of formal legal approval. Blacks Law Dictionary 787 (6th Ed. 1990)(quoting Griego v. Hogan, 377 P.2d 953, 955-56 (N.M. 1963)). The doctrine most commonly applied to minors, but can apply in other contexts, such as adult-age persons who are suffering from permanent and severe medical incapacity. Application of the in loco parentis doctrine requires, at minimum, that 1) the minors parents are absent (either voluntarily by overt act or by forbearance, or because of an incident beyond the parents control), 2) the adult caretaker on the scene is not the minors legal guardian or custodian, and 3) the adult caretaker on the scene has, for the relevant time period, assumed control over the routine care and basic control of the child (e.g. shelter, safety, food, medical care, bathing, clothing, transportation, education, nurturing). The traditional in loco parentis doctrine entails a temporary delegation of parental power, not a permanent and involuntary derogation of parental liberty. The natural parent is free to A) limit the scope of the power delegated, B) direct the actions of the temporary caretaker of the child, C) demand accountability from the temporary caretaker of the child, and D) terminate the delegation of power. The doctrine has nothing to do with parental unfitness and does not entail any power to override direction from a fit natural parent. Regalian Doctrine of property ownership A principle in law which means that all natural wealth - agricultural, forest or timber, and mineral lands of the public domain and all other natural resources belong to the state. Thus, even if the private person owns the property where minerals are discovered, his ownership for such does not give him the right to extract or utilize said minerals without permission from the state to which such minerals belong. What are the limitations on right of property ownership? 1. CONSTITUTIONAL - such as police power, eminent domain or expropriation of private property for public use, taxation and escheat when revision of private property to state ownership in case of death of property owner without an heir; 2. LEGAL - zoning ordinances, regulations on subdivision projects, building code, and other special laws and regulations; and 3. CONCENSUAL/VOLUNTARY - easements and servitudes, usufructs, lease agreements, restrictions in subdivision and condominium deeds or restriction. Who can own land in the Philippines? Acquisition and ownership of private lands in the Philippines is limited and/or reserved to Filipinos or to Corporations or partnerships where at lease 60% of the authorized capital of which is owned by Filipino citizens, except: 1. When such property is acquired prior to the 1973 Constitution; 2. Acquisition by an alien or foreigner by hereditary succession; 3. Aliens/foreigners owning not more than 40% interest in a condominium project pursuant to RA 4726; 4. Where a former natural born Filipino who became a citizen of another country but is now returning to the Philippines to reside hereat permanently. Hence, hay acquire through sale, donation, or through a tax sale, foreclosure sale, or execution sale not more than 1,000 sq. m. for urban land or not more than 10,000 sq. m. for rural land to be used solely for residential purposes and subject to other limitations and requirements as provided under the law (Batas Pambansa No. 185); 5. A Filipina who marries an alien retains her Philippine citizenship (to avoid being stateless) unless by her own act or omission she is deemed to have renounced her Filipino citizenship, may acquire and own private lands in the Philippines. Doctrine of Separation of Powers Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 9

The basis of the doctrine of separation of powers is the Constitution itself which allocates powers to each of the departments of government precisely on account of the principle that the Philippines is a democratic and republican State. It operates to maintain the legislative powers to the legislative department, executive powers to the executive department, those which are judicial in character to the judiciary. Through this separation of powers, the persons entrusted with power in any of the departments of government shall not be permitted to encroach upon the power confided to the others, but that each shall, by the law of its creation, be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate its own department and no other. However, there is no absolute separation of the three branches of government. Each department is given certain powers by which each may restrain the others from exceeding their constitutional authority, under the system of checks and balances. Moreover, in actual practice, the branches of government blend their powers so that there is actual sharing of powers whereby one department helps and coordinates with the other in the exercise of a particular power, function or responsibility. It is in this process of sharing and collaborating with each other that one department not only helps but also checks the other if for any valid reason it is deemed necessary for the public good. How Courts Enforce Separation of Powers

Examples of blending of powers 1. 2. 3. 4. The President and Congress help one another in the making of laws. enacts the bill and the President approves the same. Congress

The President prepares a budget and Congress enacts an appropriation bill pursuant to that budget. The President enters into a treaty with foreign countries and the Senate ratifies the same. The Supreme Court may declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law as unconstitutional, and it has also the power to declare invalid any act done by the other departments of government.

Checks and balances Under the system of checks and balances, one department is given certain powers by which it may definitely restrain the others from exceeding constitutional authority. It may object or resist any encroachment upon its authority, or it may question, if necessary, any act or acts which unlawfully interfere with its sphere of jurisdiction and authority. Rule of Majority is the will of the greater number of people, whether referring to the citizens of the Philippines who choose their representatives, or to a number of people in a community or organization, who choose their officers. However, in the choice of President, Vice President, Senators, Congressmen, and other public officials, the winners are those who may have received the highest number of votes, but this may not necessarily be the a majority of the total votes cast. If at all, this vote is merely a plurality because the votes are divided among the many presidential contenders. There are different interpretations on the rule of majority. Some examples are the following 1. Revocation of proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus - majority vote (one half plus one) of all members of Congress in a regular or special session

Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 10

2. 3. 4.

Quorum of each House majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business Suspension or expulsion of a member two-thirds vote of all its members Constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement or law all cases which shall be heard en banc by the Supreme Court shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues and the case and voted thereon. A majority vote of one a dissenting vote of one Sandiganbayan Justice will prevent a decision of the two other members of the division as a unanimous vote is required for such decision. In that case, the lone dissenting vote is considered as a majority vote.

5.

Political vs Justiciable Question 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 authority, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government. Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not the legality of a particular measure. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. Examples of political questions 1. 2. 3. 4. The calling of snap elections on February 7, 1986; The calling of a referendum is within the exclusive discretion of President Ferdinand E. Marcos; The authority of the Senate to punish and detain a witness for contempt is a within its discretionary power and authority and therefore, it is a political question; Whether or not the country should honor its international debt

Examples of justiciable questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. the determination of whether or not an appointee has the prescribed qualifications the determination of the Presidents authority to propose amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted for submission of proposals to the people the determination of whether or not a constitutional provision has been followed or not the determination of whether or not a suspension for disorderly behavior is supported by the required 2/3 votes the determination of whether or not the voting requirement prescribed by the Constitution was complied with the determination of constitutionality or legality of an act

Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation In John T. Watkins vs. United States: ... The power of congress to conduct investigations in inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. it encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed, or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social,economic, or political system for the purpose of enabling Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste. But broad asis this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs ofindividuals without justification in terms of the functions of congress. This was Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 11

freely conceded by Solicitor General in his argument in this case. Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress. Investigations conducted soly for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to "punish" those investigated are indefensible. In Baremblatt vs. United States: Broad as it is, the power is not, however, without limitations. Since congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one of the other branches of the government. Lacking the judicial power given to the Judiciary, it cannot inquire into mattes that are exclusively the concern of the Judiciary. Neither can it suplant the Executive in what exclusively belongs to the Executive. ... Now to another matter. It has been held that "a congressional committee's right to inquire is 'subject to all relevant limitations placed by the Constitution on governmental action,' including "'the relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights'." In Bengson vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee We do not here modify these doctrines. If we presently rule that petitioners may not be compelled by the respondent Committee to appear, testify and produce evidence before it, it is only becuase we hold that the questioned inquiry is not in aid of legislation and, if pursued, would be violative of the principle of separation of powers between the legislative and the judicial departments of government, ordained by the Constitution. Doctrine of Separation of Church and State The separation of Church and State has been declared inviolable but this should not be viewed as absolute lack of concern for each other. His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, in his Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World explained that the church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet, both under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocations of the same man. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances f time and place, the more effective will their service exercised for the good of all.. The separation, therefore, merely serves to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions thereby, avoiding, as much as possible, any encroachment by one against the other. And the reason is plain: the union of Church and State tends to destroy the government and degrade the church. Thus, each is independent within the sphere of their respective missions and prerogatives, but still governed, both in theory and actual practice, by the principle of cooperation to attain the common good. After all, both institutions have common denominators, that of promoting peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of general welfare so that the people will enjoy the blessings of democracy. Doctrine of Incorporation Under the doctrine of incorporation, a State is, by reason of its membership in the family of nations, bound by the generally accepted principles of international law, the same being considered as part of its own laws. In consonance with this doctrine, the Philippines is bound by any resolution which is duly approved by the United Nations General Assembly, or by any treaty, commitment, or agreement, reached in an international convention, especially when the Philippines is a party or signatory to the said agreement or treaty. But even if it is not a signatory, the Philippines is bound by the Hague Convention because it embodied the generally accepted principles of international law binding upon all States. Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by the majority of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations. Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 12

Upon its admission to such society, the state is automatically obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with other states. (US vs Guinto) Reference: Section 2, Article II. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations. Doctrine of State Immunity The doctrine of state immunity asserts that a State has the inherent right to exist and to protect itself and its citizens from any act or acts which will defeat the great interest of the people which it is obligated to serve. This includes the right to protect itself against indiscriminate suits which will necessarily require its attention, time, and resources. All these could otherwise be used for the benefit and interest of the general welfare. The doctrine is sometimes derisively called "the royal prerogative of dishonesty" because of the privilege it grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability. That is hardly fair, at least in democratic societies, for the state is not an unfeeling tyrant unmoved by the valid claims of its citizens. In fact, the doctrine is not absolute and does not say the state may not be sued under any circumstance. On the contrary, the rule says that the state may not be sued without its consent, which clearly imports that it may be sued if it consents. In the words of Justice Vicente Abad Santos: The traditional rule of immunity excepts a State from being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii. The restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the United Kingdom and other states in Western Europe. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, 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. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes.

Doctrines on Presidential Appointments


1. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is required only for presidential appointees mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII, including, those officers whose appointments are expressly vested by the Constitution itself in the president (like sectoral representatives to Congress and members of the constitutional commissions of Audit, Civil Service and Election). Confirmation is not required when the President appoints other government officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law or those officers whom he may be authorized by law to appoint (like the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights). When Congress creates inferior offices but omits to provide for appointment thereto, or provides in an unconstitutional manner for such appointments, the officers are considered as among those whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law.

2.

Pardon, parole, reprieve, amnesty


Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 13

Pardon

is an act of grace given by those charged with the power and authority to execute laws, which exempts the individuals subject of pardon from the punishment which the law inflicts for a crime he has committed a person subject of parole is released from imprisonment but his liberty is not fully restored because he is still considered in the custody of the law although he is not in confinement the execution of sentence of a person who is subject of a reprieve is stayed or postponed is an act of grace given by the President with the concurrence of congress. It is usually extended to groups of persons who committed political offenses and abolishes the offense itself. penalty is mitigated or reduced

Parole

Reprieve Amnesty

Commutation

Par in Parem, Non Habet Imperium In the case of United States of America v. Guinto (182 SCRA 644 [1990]): As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by Justice Holmes that "there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends." (Kawanakoa v. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349) There are other practical reasons for the enforcement of the doctrine. In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly vex the peace of nations." (Da Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 171) While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. (Garcia v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120) In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has been filed without its consent. In Wylie vs Rarang: The question, therefore, arises are American naval officers who commit a crime or tortious act while discharging official functions still covered by the principle of state immunity from suit? Pursuing the question further, does the grant of rights, power, and authority to the United States under the RP-US Bases Treaty cover immunity of its officers from crimes and torts? Our answer is No. Killing a person in cold blood while on patrol duty, running over a child while driving with reckless imprudence on an official trip, or slandering a person during office hours could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement. Our laws and, we presume, those of the United States do not allow the commission of crimes in the name of official duty. Jure Imperii vs Jure Gestionis In Holy See vs Rosario (RTC ,Makati) There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and firmly established. According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis (United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 [1987]; Coquia and Defensor-Santiago, Public International Law 194 [1984]). Some states passed legislation to serve as guidelines for the executive or judicial determination when an act may be considered as jure gestionis. The United States passed Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 14

the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, which defines a commercial activity as "either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act." Furthermore, the law declared that the "commercial character of the activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose." The Canadian Parliament enacted in 1982 an Act to Provide For State Immunity in Canadian Courts. The Act defines a "commercial activity" as any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that by reason of its nature, is of a "commercial character." The restrictive theory, which is intended to be a solution to the host of problems involving the issue of sovereign immunity, has created problems of its own. Legal treatises and the decisions in countries which follow the restrictive theory have difficulty in characterizing whether a contract of a sovereign state with a private party is an act jure gestionis or an act jure imperii. The restrictive theory came about because of commercial activities remotely connected with This is particularly true with respect to the nationalized business activities and international Acts Jure Imperii This Court has considered the following transactions by a foreign state with private parties as acts jure imperii: (1) the lease by a foreign government of apartment buildings for use of its military officers (Syquia v. Lopez, 84 Phil. 312 [1949]; (2) the conduct of public bidding for the repair of a wharf at a United States Naval Station (United States of America v. Ruiz, supra.); and (3) the change of employment status of base employees (Sanders v. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88 [1988]). Acts Jure Gestionis On the other hand, this Court has considered the following transactions by a foreign state with private parties as acts jure gestionis: (1) the hiring of a cook in the recreation center, consisting of three restaurants, a cafeteria, a bakery, a store, and a coffee and pastry shop at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City, to cater to American servicemen and the general public (United States of America v. Rodrigo, 182 SCRA 644 [1990]); and (2) the bidding for the operation of barber shops in Clark Air Base in Angeles City (United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990]). The operation of the restaurants and other facilities open to the general public is undoubtedly for profit as a commercial and not a governmental activity. By entering into the employment contract with the cook in the discharge of its proprietary function, the United States government impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit. In the absence of legislation defining what activities and transactions shall be considered "commercial" and as constituting acts jure gestionis, we have to come out with our own guidelines, tentative they may be. Certainly, the mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a private party cannot be the ultimate test. Such an act can only be the start of the inquiry. The logical question is whether the foreign state is engaged in the activity in the regular course of business. If the foreign state is not engaged regularly in a business or trade, the particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure imperii, especially when it is not undertaken for gain or profit. As held in United States of America v. Guinto, (supra): There is no question that the United States of America, like any other state, will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 15 the entry of sovereign states into purely the discharge of governmental functions. Communist states which took control of trading.

its proprietary or private capacity. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver may be implied. Can the Government of the Philippines be sued? As a rule, the Government of the Philippines cannot be sued without its consent. The consent of the State to be sued may be given expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be manifested either through a general law or a special law. Implied consent is given when the State itself commences litigation, or when it enters into a contract with another citizen. In the former, the defendant is entitled to file a counterclaim against the State. In the case of the latter, the State has divested itself of the mantle of sovereign immunity and descended to the level of the ordinary individual, hence, it becomes subject to a suit in the courts of justice and to the usual summons and processes of the court. The standing consent of the State to be sued is Act No. 3083, which declared that the Government of the Philippine Islands hereby 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 a civil action between private parties. We have held that not all contracts entered into by the government will operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must be made between its sovereign and proprietary acts. (United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487) Can agencies of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines be sued? It depends on whether the government agency to be sued is incorporated or unincorporated. It is incorporated, the rule is that it is suable if its charter says so and regardless of the functions it is performing. If it is unincorporated, the rule is that it is suable if it is performing proprietary functions, and not suable if it is performing governmental functions. In Farolan vs CTA: Otherwise, to permit private respondent's claim to prosper would violate the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Since it demands that the Commissioner of Customs be ordered to pay for actual damages it sustained, for which ultimately liability will fall on the government, it is obvious that this case has been converted technically into a suit against the state. 29 On this point, the political doctrine that "the state may not be sued without its consent," categorically applies. 30 As an unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its own, the Bureau of Customs enjoys immunity from suit. Along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty, namely, taxation. As an agency, the Bureau of Customs performs the governmental function of collecting revenues which is definitely not a proprietary function. Thus, private respondent's claim for damages against the Commissioner of Customs must fail.

When is a suit against public official deemed to be a suit against the State? The doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to complaints filed against public officials for acts done in the performance of their duties. The rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the State where the satisfaction of the judgment against the public official concerned will require the State itself to perform a positive act, such as the appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff. The rule does not apply where the public official is charged in his official capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights of others. Public officials are not exempt, in their personal capacity, from liability arising from acts committed in bad faith. Neither does it apply where the public official is clearly being sued not in his official capacity but in his personal capacity, although the acts complained of may have been committed while he occupied a public position. (Amado J. Lansang v CA, GR No. 102667, February 3, 2000) Tests to Determine if the Suit is Against the State

1.

When the Republic is sued by name Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 16

2. 3.

When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency; When the suit is on its face against a government official but the case is such that the ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government (Republic v Sandoval)

Rule on money Claims against the State This is covered by a general consent to be sued from in Commonwealth Act No. 327, which reads in part Section 1. In all cases involving the settlement of accounts of claims other than those of accountable officers, the Auditor General shall act and decide the same within 60 days, exlusive of Sundays and holidays after their presentation. [ if accountable officers, 100 days is the limit.]

What recourse is there for a private person whose property has been taken for the State by an unauthorized act of a public officer? If the property can still be restored, the suit for restoration and damages must be against the officer in his private capacity (Festejo v Fernando, 94 Phil 504) If the property can no longer be restored and is in fact being enjoyed by the State, then the State must be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court for purposes of fixing the just compensation. (Ministeri v CFI, 40 SCRA 464).

Consent to be sued, Scope of Consent

Process of Suggestion In the United States, the procedure followed is the process of "suggestion," where the foreign state or the international organization sued in an American court requests the Secretary of State to make a determination as to whether it is entitled to immunity. If the Secretary of State finds that the defendant is immune from suit, he, in turn, asks the Attorney General to submit to the court a "suggestion" that the defendant is entitled to immunity. In England, a similar procedure is followed, only the Foreign Office issues a certification to that effect instead of submitting a "suggestion" (O'Connell, I International Law 130 [1965]; Note: Immunity from Suit of Foreign Sovereign Instrumentalities and Obligations, 50 Yale Law Journal 1088 [1941]). In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the international organization to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. But how the Philippine Foreign Office conveys its endorsement to the courts varies. In International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 (1990), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs just sent a letter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, informing the latter that the respondent-employer could not be sued because it enjoyed diplomatic immunity. In World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 (1972), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs sent the trial court a telegram to that effect. In Baer v. Tizon, 57 SCRA 1 (1974), the U.S. Embassy asked the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to request the Solicitor General to make, in behalf of the Commander of the United States Naval Base at Olongapo City, Zambales, a "suggestion" to respondent Judge. The Solicitor General embodied the "suggestion" in a Manifestation and Memorandum as amicus curiae. In the case at bench, the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the Office of Legal Affairs moved with this Court to be allowed to intervene on the side of petitioner. The Court allowed the said Department to file its memorandum in support of petitioner's claim of sovereign immunity. In some cases, the defense of sovereign immunity was submitted directly to the local courts by the respondents through their private counsels (Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 [1945]; Miquiabas v. Philippine-Ryukyus Command, 80 Phil. 262 [1948]; United States of America v. Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 17

Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990] and companion cases). In cases where the foreign states bypass the Foreign Office, the courts can inquire into the facts and make their own determination as to the nature of the acts and transactions involved. What can a person do if aggrieved by acts of a foreign sovereign? Private respondent is not left without any legal remedy for the redress of its grievances. Under both Public International Law and Transnational Law, a person who feels aggrieved by the acts of a foreign sovereign can ask his own government to espouse his cause through diplomatic channels. Execution of Public Funds But, be that as it may, the claims of private respondents, i.e. for underpayment of wages, holiday pay, overtime pay and similar other items, arising from the Contract for Service, clearly constitute money claims. Act No. 3083, aforecited, gives the consent of the State to be "sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, . . . Pursuant, however, to Commonwealth Act ("C.A.") No. 327, as amended by Presidential Decree ("P.D.") No. 1145, the money claim first be brought to the Commission on Audit. Thus, in Carabao, Inc., vs. Agricultural Productivity Commission, 20 we ruled: (C)laimants have to prosecute their money claims against the Government under Commonwealth Act 327, stating that Act 3083 stands now merely as the general law waiving the State's immunity from suit, subject to the general limitation expressed in Section 7 thereof that "no execution shall issue upon any judgment rendered by any Court against the Government of the (Philippines), and that the conditions provided in Commonwealth Act 327 for filing money claims against the Government must be strictly observed." In Republic vs. Villasor 22 this Court, in nullifying the issuance of an alias writ of execution directed against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to satisfy a final and executory judgment, has explained, thus The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit the claimant's action "only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution" and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs or execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the correspondent appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law. 23 Principles Principle of Republicanism A republican government is a government which is run by the people through their chosen representatives who, in turn, are accountable to the sovereign will of the people. They derive their mandate from the people who elect them for a period or term that is fixed by law. They cannot, strictly speaking, go against the specific authority and the sovereign will of the people for they are precisely the source of all government authority and are merely the trustees who are expected to act for and in their behalf for their benefit. Manifestations of Republicanism

Principle of Civilian Supremacy

Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 18

This principle of civilian supremacy is emphatically declared in the Section 3, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. It is not found in the 1973 nor in the 1935 Constitutions. Section 3 of the new Constitution is entirely a new provision which provides, as follows: Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory. Other provisions in the Constitution that supports supremacy of civilian over military: Section 1, Article II. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Section 18, Article VII. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. .xxx Section 18, Article VII emphasizes that a civilian, the President, is the highest in the military chain of command. Can a person refuse to register for military training on account of religious or political convictions? There are several reasons to support the view that the government can require compulsory military service and they are as follows: 1. 2. What justifies compulsory military service is the defense of the State, whether actual or whether in preparation to make it more effective in case of need. The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be fulfilled except through the army. To leave the organization of the army to the will of the citizens would be make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer for enlistment. The right of the Government to require service is a consequence of its duty to defend the State and to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizens. In the UN, a more radical view has been expressed by the Supreme Court. In Jacobson vs Massachusetts, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the view that without violating the Constitution, a person may be compelled, by force, if need be against his will, against his pecuniary interests, and even against his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense.

3.

Principle of non-delegation of powers Potestas delegata non delegari potest. Power delegated cannot be further delegated. The delegate to whom a power is delegated has been chosen precisely because trust is reposed on him and if he delegates further to another the power delegated to him, that third person does not have the trust originally given to him. Moreover, the power delegated constitutes not only a right but also a duty to be performed by the delegate through the use of his own judgment and not through the judgment of another. To sum up then, we find that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken. For these reasons, we hereby declare Executive Order No. 626-A unconstitutional. (Ynot vs IAC) Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 19

Tests of Valid Delegation of Powers It is valid only if

1. 2.

The law is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his function. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries, and specifies the public agency to apply it. In idicates the circumstance under which the legislative command is to be effected (Santiago v Comelec 270 SCRA 106).

Tests to determine whether a given power has been validly exercised 1. 2. Is the power granted by the Constitution? If it is granted by the Constitution, the exercise of such power is sustained. If the power is not expressly implied by the Constitution, can the power sought to be exercised be reasonably inferred from, or is it necessary to the proper exercise of, the express power granted to the department seeking to exercise said power? If it is, the exercise of the said power may be justified under the doctrine of implication. The doctrine of implication means that even in the absence of an express conferment, the exercise of a given power may be justified or reasonable inferred from the express power already granted, or that it may be necessary to the proper exercise of the express power granted to the department seeking to exercise the said power. 3. 4. If the power sought to be exercised is not granted by the Constitution, either expressly or impliedly, can its exercise be justified as inherent or incidental? If they are, the exercise of said power may be sustained. Has the power in question been performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the Constitution? A good example is the compliance required under Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which provides that the power to conduct legislative investigation, although implied from the power of legislation, is now subject to the following restraints: a) b) the legislative inquiry must be in aid of legislation; the conduct of investigation must be strictly in accordance with the rules of procedure that must have been published in advance for the information and protection of the witnesses; the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected,

c)

Definition/Basis/Applicability

Standards to justify delegation of powers

Instances of Permissible Delegation

Can legislative power be delegated? Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 20

Legislative powers can be delegated in the following cases: 1. 2. When authorized by the Constitutions such as in granting emergency powers to the President, or when Congress grants law tariff powers to the President; Legislative powers may be delegated to local government:

2.1 police power has been expressly delegated by the legislature to the local lawmaking bodies 2.2 eminent domain

3. Legislative powers may be delegated to the people at large through referendum or plebiscite 4. Legislative powers may be delegated to administrative bodies ( POEA, LTFRB, CAB, OWWA, BOI, BMI, etc.)

State Policies Social Justice * Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces of the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of welfare of all the people, the adoption by the government of measures calculated to ensure the economic stability of all component elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of solus populi est suprema lex. *old meaning by Sen. Jose P. Laurel, Calalang vs Williams Expanded meaning of Social Justice The new meaning of social justice embraces all phase of development not only in terms of equitable diffusion not only of wealth but also of political power. However, social justice does not champion division of property or equality of economic status. What the 1987 Constitution guarantees are equality of opportunity, equality of political rights, equality before the law, equality between values given and received, equitable sharing of the social and material goods on the basis of efforts exerted in their production. It is a command to advise social measures; but it cannot be used to trample upon the rights of others. Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the interdependence among diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the State of promoting health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about the greatest good to the greatest number. Under the 1987 constitution, the provisions that promote social justice, in its new concept are as follows: Art. 2, Sec. 9 the State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all. Art. 2, Sec. 10 The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development Art. 2, Sec. 11 The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 21

Art. 2, Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. Art. 2, Sec. 21 The State shall promote a comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. Honesty and Integrity in Public Service Sections 27 and 28 of the 1987 Constitution put emphasis to three basic principles concerning public service, as follows: 1. Public office is a public trust. Under this principle, public officials in all ladders of our government should always remember that they were merely entrusted by the people to perform the duties and responsibilities of their offices for a fixed period of time. They were chosen to serve the people, not to cheat them. Their offices are not their own, nor can they be treated as private properties which they can manage or dispose of at their whim and caprice. Our government is a government of laws and not of men. The law should be applied equally without fear or favor. Transparency in public service. Because public officials are mere trustees of the people, they should observe loyalty and fidelity to the people who have entrusted to them specific duties for a specific tenure. The lessons that we have learned during the twenty years of martial rule teach us that graft and corruption, abuse of power, can bring about chaos and revolution.

2. 3.

Free Competition Free competition in the industry may also provide the answer to a much-desired improvement in the quality and delivery of this type of public utility, to improved technology, fast and handy mobile service, and reduced user dissatisfaction. After all, neither PLDT nor any other public utility has a constitutional right to a monopoly position in view of the Constitutional proscription that no franchise certificate or authorization shall be exclusive in character or shall last longer than fifty (50) years (ibid., Section 11; Article XIV, Section 5, 1973 Constitution; Article XIV, Section 8, 1935 Constitution). Additionally, the State is empowered to decide whether public interest demands that monopolies be regulated or prohibited (1987 Constitution, Article XII, Section 19).

Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers


What is vested in Congress? The legislative power is vested in Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by provision on initiative and referendum. However, the Congress also performs powers of non-legislative nature such as the following: 1. 2. Power to confirm presidential appointments; Power of impeachment; a) in case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment;

b) the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. 3. 4. Power to declare the existence of a state of war. Power to concur or confirm an amnesty granted by the President.

Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 22

5. 6. 7.

Power to canvass the votes based on the return of election for President and Vice President Power to propose amendment or revision of the Constitution upon a vote of threefourths of all the members of Congress. Power to ratify treaties granted to Senate.

Other examples of powers of Congress Specific legislative powers 1. 2. 3. Power of appropriation Power of taxation Power of expropriation

Implied Powers 1. Power to punish or declare a person in contempt during or in the course of legislative investigation 2. Power to issue summons and notices in connection with matters subject of its investigation or inquiry Inherent powers 1. Power to determine the rules of its proceedings.

Immunities of the members of Congress In all offenses punishable by not more than six years of imprisonment, Members of the Congress have the following immunities 1. 2. They shall be privileged from arrest while Congress is in session. This is to ensure their attendance of the session so that the constituents will enjoy representation. They shall not be questioned nor held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. This is to enable them to express his views on matters of public interest without fear of accountability.

Prohibitions and restrictions on the power of Congress Prohibitions (imposed by Constitution) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. No ex post facto law shall be passed No bill of attainder shall be passed No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be passed No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence No law granting tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress

Restrictions (imposed by Constitution, law and jurisprudence) 1. 2. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed directly or indirectly for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,

Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 23

denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary except when they are assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium 3. 4. 5. All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such special purpose only. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. All appropriate, revenue or tariff bills authorizing the increase of public debt, bills of local application and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of budget shall be prescribed by law. No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operations to the appropriation to which it relates. The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein. Two-thirds vote of both Houses in joint session is needed to declare existence of a state of war. Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix and impose tariff rules, etc. Charitable institutions shall be exempt from taxation. Tax exemption needs concurrence of a majority of the members of Congress.

6.

7.

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

Inhibitions and Disqualifications There are three inhibitions and disqualifications for a Member of Congress: 1. During their term of office, they cannot personally appear as counsel in a) any court of justice; b) or before the Electoral Tribunal; or before quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. During their term of office, they cannot, directly or indirectly, be interested financially a) in any contract with, b) or in any franchise or special privilege granted by, the government, or in any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation. During their term of office, they shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for their pecuniary benefit or where they may be called upon to act on account of their office.

2.

3.

Instances when Congress meets even without the Presidents call 1. 2. 3. when Congress meets to canvass votes and the returns of election of the President and Vice President When Congress convenes in accordance with its rules to enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice President When the House of Representatives acts on a verified complaint for impeachment, or indorses the same, and the Senate subsequently tries and decides on the Articles of Impeachment indorsed by the House of Representatives

Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 24

4.

Following a proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, Congress shall convene in accordance with its rules without a need of a call.

Enrolled bill theory The enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. If a mistake is in fact made in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the Chief Executive, the remedy is by amendment or corrective legislation, not by judicial decree. In case of conflict between an enrolled bill and a journal, an enrolled bill shall prevail over the journal. The reason for the rule is to avoid a situation where the courts will be inquiring into the conduct of the legislature which is a co-equal department, or to go behind the enrolled bills, instead of giving it due respect. When does a bill become a law? A bill becomes a law in any of the following manner: 1. 2. 3. When, after the same is presented to the President, the latter signs it; When the President vetoes the said bill but the said veto is overridden by two-thirds vote of all the members of the House; When the President does not act upon the bill within thirty days after it is presented to him.

Can a bill be partially vetoed by the President? As a rule, the President must either approve or disapprove a bill except in the case of appropriation, revenue or tariff bills. By express Constitutional provision, the veto of any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill shall not affect the item or items to which the President does not object. New Definition of Judicial Power Section 1, Article VIII. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. The first part of judicial power (to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable) is what is known as the traditional concept of judicial power. The second part of judicial power (to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government) is what is now known and referred to as the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Powers of the Supreme Court


The Supreme Court, under Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, has the following powers 1. Jurisdiction of the SC over cases Original Jurisdiction The SC shall have the power to exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. Appellate Jurisdiction The SC shall have to power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 25

a) b) c) d) e) 2.

all cases in which the constitutionality of a treaty, international agreement, executive agreement or law is in question all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher all cases in which only an error or question of law is involved

Auxillary Administrative Powers of the Supreme Court a) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the IBP, and legal assistance to the underprivileged Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

b) c)

d)

Requisites of judicial review or inquiry


The courts are without jurisdiction on matters, cases, or questions not brought to their determination. Even if such matters, cases or questions are brought to their determination but such questions are political in nature, 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 legislative or branch of the government, the courts will not assume jurisdiction on said cases. For a constitutional question to be heard and decided by our courts, the following requisites must be complied with: 1. 2. 3. 4. There must be actual case or controversy The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible time The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.

Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer, page 26