University of Cebu COLLEGE OF LAW Banilad, Cebu City

COURSE SYLLABUS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

I. COURSE NUMBER : : : LLB 113 Constitutional Law I A study of the framework of the Philippine political system in relation to the 1987 Constitution, the relevant statutes, and the decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court. N/A 3 units At the end of the semester, the students should be able to: 1. Explain the operative principles of the Philippine political system; 2. Outline the framework of the 1987 Constitution; 3. Expound on the fundamental principles and state policies enumerated in the 1987 Constitution; 4. Elaborate on the composition, the qualifications of the members, and the powers and functions of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government and of the Philippine Constitutional Commissions; 5. Integrate the jurisprudential pronouncements of the Supreme Court to relevant Constitutional Law concepts; 6. Synthesize workable solutions to hypothetical Constitutional Law issues from the applicable Supreme Court decisions; 7. Analyze current events and propose resolutions to domestic issues in relation to Constitutional Law principles; 8. Evaluate and decide constitutional issues using the constitution, the applicable laws, and jurisprudence; 9. Familiarize with the different apporaches to the Bar Examinations by developing techniques in answering MCQs and by Memorandum-writing and/or traditional essay-type of questions.

II. COURSE TITLE III. COURSE DESCRIPTION

IV. COURSE PREREQUISITE V. COURSE CREDIT VI. GENERAL OBJECTIVES

: : :

VII. COURSE OUTLINE

1. Introduction: An overview of Constitutional Law I 2. The 1987 Constitution

Ratification of the 1973 Constitution 1. Javellana vs. Exec. Sec., 50 SCRA 33 Validity of Marcos ML proclamation 1. Aquino vs. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183 Validity of the 1986 Snap Election

1. Phil. Bar Association vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 72915, December 20, 1985 3. The State as a Concept 3.1. Elements of a state people territory government o functions: constituent vs. ministrant
Distinction: constituent vs. ministrant 1. ACCFA vs. FLU, 30 SCRA 649 2. PVTA vs. CIR, 65 SCRA 416

o types of government: de jure vs. de facto

De facto and de jure govts. 1. Lawyers League vs. Aquino, GR 73748, 5/22/86 2. Estrada vs. Arroyo, GR146710, 3/2/01

o the Government of the Republic of the Phils. o government vs. administration

sovereignty o definition o types: legal vs. political sovereignty o doctrine of jus postliminium o effect of suspension or change in sovereignty Sovereignty vs. actual exercise thereof 1. Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez, 75 Phil 113 Effect of belligerent occupation 1. Peralta vs. Director, 75 Phil 285 2. Alcantara vs. Director, 75 Phil 749 3. Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil 856 4. People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887 5. Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77 6. Vilas vs. City of Manila, 42 Phil 953

3.2. Concept of Act of State 3.3. Doctrine of the state as parens patriae
The state as parens patriae 1. Govt vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil 728 2. Cabanas vs. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94

4. Doctrine of State Immunity From Suits 4.1. Basis

Basis of DOSIFS 1. Kawanakoa vs. Polybank, 205 US 349

4.2. Application suits vs. public officials

Suits vs. public officials 1. Garcia vs. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120 2. Ruiz vs. Cabahug, 102 Phil 110 3. Festejo vs. Fernando, GR No. L-5156, March 11, 1954 (NOTE: text of main opinion is in Spanish; read dissent of J. Concepcion to gather the facts) 4. Sanders vs. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88

suits vs. govt agencies Suits against govt agencies 1. Bermoy vs. PNC, GR L-8670, 5/18/56 2. Arcega vs. CA, 66 SCRA 229 3. Rago vs. CFI, 110 SCRA 460 4. PNR vs. IAC, 217 SCRA 401 5. BOP vs. BPEA, 1 SCRA 340 6. Mobil Phils. vs. CAS, 18 SCRA 1120

suits vs. foreign states Suits against foreign states 1. Syquia vs. Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil 312 (read also the dissent of J. Perfecto) 2. Sanders vs. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88 3. Holy See vs. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524 4. USA vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644

4.3. Waiver of immunity (consent to be sued) forms o express: thru general law or special law o implied: when state commences litigation or when state enters into contract
Express waiver of immunity 1. Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360 2. Merrit vs. GPI, 34 Phil 311 Implied waiver of immunity 1. Froilan vs. POSC, GR L-6060, 9/30/50 2. Lim vs. Brownell, 107 SCRA 345 3. US vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 4. USA vs. Guinto, supra

4.4. Consent to be sued: not consent to execution of judgment Exception

Consent to be sued not consent to execution of judgment 1. Rep. vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 2. PNB vs. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595

4.5. Suit even without consent

Suit even without consent 1. Santiago vs. Republic, 87 SCRA 294

4.6. Suability vs. Liability

Suability vs. liability 1. Merrit vs. GPI, supra 2. Palafox vs. Ilocos Norte, GR No. L-10659, Jan. 31, 1958

4.7. Concept of restrictive state immunity

NOTE: Also read Sec. 24 of RA 7610, the Local Govt Code (re liability for damages by LGUs and their officials)