CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

File No. 1
I
. I
N T
R O D
U C T
I
O N
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino pe
o p l e , i m p l o r i n g t h e a i d o f Alm
ighty God, in order to build a just and
humane society,and establish a
Government that shall embody our
idealsand aspirations, promote the common
good, conserve anddevelop our
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and
ourposterity, the blessings of independe
nce and democracyu n d e r t h e r u l e o
f law and a regime of truth, jus
tice,f r e e d o m , l o v e , e q u a l i t y,
a n d p e a c e , d o o r d a i n a n d prom
ulgate this Constitution.
1.
POLITICAL LAW
Is that branch of public
law which deals with the
o rg a n i z a t i o n a n d o p e r a t i o n o f t h e
g o v e rn m e n t a l o r g a n s o f t h e S t a t e a n d
d e fi n e s t h e relations of the state with the
inhabitants of its territory
(Macariola vs.Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77)
.
Constitution
the document which serves as the fundamental
law of t h e s t a t e ; t h a t
w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t e n a c t e d b y d i re c t a c t

ion of thep e o p l e b y w h i c h t h e f u n d a m
ental powers of the government aree
s t a b l i s h e d , l i m i t e d a n d d e fi n e d , a n d
b y w h i c h t h o s e p o w e r s a r e distributed
among the several departments for their
safe and usefulexercise for the benefit of
the body politic.
Constitutional Law
d e s i g n a t e s t h e l a w e m b o d
i e d i n t h e Constitution and the legal
principles growing out of the
interpretationand application of its provisions by
the courts in specific cases.
2. STATEa. Definition, distinguished
from nation.
State
a community of persons, more or less numerous,
permanentlyo c c u p y i n g a d e fi n i t e p o r t i o n
of territory, independent of external
c o n t ro l , a n d p o s s e s s i n g a g o v e rn m e n t t i
w h i c h a g re a t b o d y o f
thei n h a b i t a n t s r e n d e r h a b i t u a l o b e
d i e n c e ; a p o l i t i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d sove
reign community independent of outside
control bound by ties
of n a t i o n h o o d , l e g a l l y s u p re m e w i t h i n i t s
t e rr i t o r y , a c t i n g t h ro u g h a government
functioning under a regime of law
(CIR v. Campos Rueda, 42SCRA 23)
.
State
is a political and geopolitical entity
; while

, Nation
is acultural and/ or ethnic entity.
While the distinction may be useful for purposes
of political sociology,it is of little consequence for
purpose of constitutional law (Bernas)
b. TerritoryARTICLE INATIONAL
TERRITORY The national territory compris
es the Philippine archipelago,with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and
all
othert e r r i t o r i e s o v e r w h i c h t h e P h i
l i p p i n e s h a s s o v e r e i g n t y o r jurisdi
ction, consisting of its terrestrial, f
u v i a l a n d a e r i a l domains, including its
territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil,t h e i n s u l a r s h e l v e s , a n d o t h e r
submarine areas. The watersa r o u n
d , b e t w e e n , a n d c o n n e c t i
n g t h e i s l a n d s o f t h e archipel
ago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, formpart of the internal waters
of the Philippines.The national territory
of the Philippines comprises:
1 ) t h e P h i l i p p i n e a rc h i p e l a g o 2)all other
territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction
Philippine Archipelago
that body of water studded with
i s l a n d s which is delineated in the Treaty of
Paris (1898), as amended by the Treaty of
Washington (1900) and the Treaty with Great
Britain (1930).
-

consists of itsa . T e r r e s t r i a l
b . F l u v i a l c.Aerial domains
including itsa . T e r r i t o r i a l
seab . T h e s e a b e d c . T h e s u b s o
i l d.The insular shelves; ande.The
other submarine areas
Internal Water
t h e w a t e r s a ro u n d , b e t w e e n a n d
c o n n e c t i n g t h e island of the archipelago,
regardless of their breath and dimensions.
All other Territories over which the
Philippines has sovereigntyor jurisdiction
includes any territory that presently belongs or
mighti n t h e f u t u re b e l o n g t o t h e
Philippines through any of the
a c c e p t e d international modes of acquiring
territory.
Archipelagic Principle
Two elements:1 . T h e d e fi n i t i o n o f i n t e rn a l
waters (supra)
2.
The
straight baseline method
of delineating the territorial sea
consists of drawing straight lines connecting
the outermost pointson the coast
without departing to any appreciable extent
from thegeneral direction of the coast.
Important distances with respect to the
waters around thePhilippines

Territorial SeaContiguous ZoneExclusive

Economic Zone12 nautical miles
(n.m.)1 2 n . m . f r o m t h e e d g e o f
t h e territorial
sea2 0 0 n . m . f r o m t h e b a s e l i n
e (Includes T.S. and C.Z.)
Note:
There can be a Continental Shelf without an EEZ,
but not anEEZ without a Continental Shelf.
Territorial Sea

the belt of the sea located between the

coast andinternal waters of the coastal state on
the one hand, and the high seaso n t h e o t h e r ,
ex tending up to 12 nautical miles from
t h e l o w w a t e r mark. (LOS)
Contiguous Zone
extends up to 12 nautical mil
e s f r o m t h e territorial sea. Although not part
of the territory, the coastal State may
exercise jurisdiction to prevent infrin
g e m e n t o f c u s t o m s , fi s c a l , immigration
or sanitary laws.
Exclusive Economic Zone

b o d y o f w a t e r e x t e n d i n g u p t o 2 0 0 nau
tical miles, within which the state may exercise
sovereign rights toexplore, exploit, conserve and
manage the natural resources.

The State in the EEZ exercises jurisdiction

with regard to:
1.
the establishment and use of artifi cial
island,installation, and structures;
2.
marine scientific research;
3.
the protection and preservation of m
a r i n e environment
United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea
The Convention has substant
ial provision which help in th
e understanding of the
constitut ional text. Some imp ortant
c o n c e p t found are the following;
Archipelagic State
- means a State constituted wholly
b y o n e o r more archipelagos and may include
other island.
Archipelago

means a group of islands fo

r m a n i n t r i n s i c geographical
economic and political entity, or which
historically havebeen regarded as such.
Territorial Sea
- (supra)
Baselines
- is the law-water line along the coast as
m a r k o n l a rg e scale charts officially recognized

by the coastal State.A state exercises sovereignty

over its territorial sea subject to the rightof
innocent passage by other states.
Innocent passage
-is a passage not prejudicial to
t h e interests of the coastal State nor
contrary to recognizedprinciples of
international
law.A r t i c l e 5 3 o f t h e C o n v e n t i o n s a y s
that archipelagic State maydesigna
te sea lanes and air routes there abo
ve, suitable for thecontinuous and ex
peditious passage of foreign ships an
d a i r c r a f t t h r o u g h o r o v e r i t s a rc h i p e l a g i
c w a t e r s a n d t h e a d j a c e n t t e rr i t o r i a l sea.
c. Sovereignty and jurisdiction

Article II, Sec. 1-2,CONSTITUTIONS e c t i o n

1. The Philippines is a
democratic and republicanState
.
Sovereignty resides in the people
and all governmentauthority emanates
from them.Section 2. The Philippines
renounces war as an instrument
of n a t i o n a l p o l i c y, a d o p t s t h e g e n e r a
l l y a c c e p t e d p r i n c i p l e s o f international
law as part of the law of the land and
adheres
tothe policy of peace, equality, justice, f
reedom, cooperation,and amity with all
nations.i.Sovereignty defi nition,
aspects, situs,essential qualities

DefinitionSovereignty
- is the power of the State to regulate matters
within itsown
territory.S o v e r e i g n t y r e s i d e s i n t h e p e o
p l e a n d a l l g o v e r n m e n t a u t h o r i t y ema
nates from them. This power resides in the
people understooda s t h o s e w h o h a v e a
d i re c t h a n d i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n , a d o p t i o n ,
a n d amendment or alteration of the
Constitution.Po l i t i c a l w r i t e r d i s t i n g u i s h b e t
w e e n l e g a l s o v e re i g n t y a n d p o l i t i c a l sove
reignty. The former is described as the
supreme power to makel a w s a n d t h e l a t t e r
a s t h e s u m t o t a l o f a l l t h e i n fl u e n c e s i n
a s t a t e , legal and non-legal, which determine the
course of law.Sovereign authority, moreover, is
not always directly exercised by thepeople. It is
normally delegated by the people to
the government andt o t h e c o n c re t e p e r s o n s
in whose hands the powers of
g o v e rn m e n t temporarily reside. Such
authority continues with the consent of
thepeople.Finally, is recognition by other states a
constitutive element of a statesuch that even it
has all four elements of the Montevideo
Convention itis not a state if it has not been
recognized? In International
law, therea r e t w o v i e w s o n
this. One view, the constitutive
t h e o r y , i s t h a t recognition constitutes a
state. The other view, the

declaratorytheory, is that recognition is

merely declaratory of the existence of
the state. In practice, however, whether
recognize or not is largely apolitical decision.
Republican State
- It is one wherein all government
a u t h o r i t y emanates form the people and is
exercised by representatives chosenby the
people.
Democratic State
This merely emphasizes that the Philippines
hassome aspect of direct democracy such as
initiative and referendum.

Aspects
Effect of Belligerent Occupation No change in
sovereignty. However,political laws, except those
of treason, are suspended; municipal lawsremain
in force unless changed by the belligerent
occupant.Principle of Jus Postiminium At the
end of the occupation, politicallaws are
automatically
revived.E ff e c t o f C h a n g e o f S o v e r e i g
nty political laws of the formers
overeign, whether compatible or nor with those of
the new sovereign,are automatically
abrogated, unless they are expressly reenacted bythe affi rmative act of the new
sovereign. Municipals laws remain inforce
(Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77).

Situs

Essential qualities
CASES

The Court held: Section 21, Article VII

d e a l s w i t h t re a t i e s o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l a
greements in general, in which
c a s e , t h e concurrence of at least two-thirds
(2/3) of all the Members of theSenate is
required to make the subject treaty, or
internationalagreement, valid and binding on the
part of the Philippines. Thisprovision lays down
the general rule on treaties or
internationalagreements and applies to any form
of treaty with a wide varietyof subject matter,
such as, but not limited to, extradition or
taxtreaties or those economic in nature. All
treaties or internationalagreements entered into
by the Philippines, regardless of
subjectm a t t e r , c o v e r a g e , o r p a r t i c u l a r
d e s i g n a t i o n o r a p p e l l a t i o n , requires the
concurrence of the Senate to be valid and
effective.

In contrast, Section 25, Article XVIII is a

s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n t h a t applies to treaties
which involve the presence of foreign
militarybases, troops or facilities in the
Philippines. Under this provision,t h e
c o n c u r re n c e o f t h e S e n a t e i s o n l y o n e o f
t h e re q u i s i t e s t o render compliance with
the constitutional requirements and

toconsider the agreement binding on the

Philippines. Section 25,Article XVIII further
requires that "foreign military bases, troops,or
facilities" may be allowed in the Philippines only
by virtue of atreaty duly concurred in by the
Senate, ratifi ed by a majority of the votes
cast in a national referendum held for that
purpose if so required by Congress, and
recognized as such by the othercontracting
state.It is our considered view that both
constitutional provisions,
farf r o m c o n t r a d i c t i n g e a c h o t h e r , a c t u a l l
y s h a re s o m e c o m m o n g r o u n d . I n b o t h i
nstances, the concurrence of the Sen
a t e i s indispensable to render the treaty or i
nternational agreementvalid and effective.It is
a fi nely-imbedded principle in statutory
construction that aspecial provision or law
prevails over a general one. Lex specialisd e r o g a t
g e n e r a l i . T h u s , w h e re t h e re i s i n t h e
s a m e s t a t u t e a particular enactment and
also a general one which, in its
mostc o m p re h e n s i v e s e n s e , w o u l d i n c l u d e
w h a t i s e m b r a c e d i n t h e f o rm e r , t h e p a r t i
cular enactment must be operative, and
theg e n e r a l e n a c t m e n t m u s t b e t a ke n
t o a ff e c t o n l y s u c h c a s e s within its
general language which are not within the
provision of the particular enactment.Moreover, it
is inconsequential whether the United States
treatst h e V F A o n l y a s a n e x e c u t i v e
a g r e e m e n t b e c a u s e , u n d e r internati
o n a l l a w , a n e xe c u t i v e

a g re e m e n t i s a s b i n d i n g a s a treaty. To be
sure, as long as the VFA possesses the elements
of an agreement under international law, the
said agreement is
tob e t a k e n e q u a l l y a s a t r e a t y : t
h e y a r e e q u a l l y b i n d i n g obligations
upon nations.Worth stressing too, is that the
ratifi cation, by the President, of the VFA and
the concurrence of the Senate should be taken as
aclear and unequivocal expression of our
nation's consent to bebound by said treaty,
with the concomitant duty to uphold
theobligations and responsibilities embodied
thereunder.In our jurisdiction, the power to
ratify is vested in the Presidentand not, as
commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of
the
Senate is limited only to giving or
w i t h h o l d i n g i t s c o n s e n t , o r concurrence, to
the ratification.Beyond this, Article 13 of the
Declaration of Rights and Duties
of S t a t e s a d o p t e d b y t h e I n t e rn a t i o n a l L a
w C o m m i s s i o n i n 1 9 4 9 provides: "Every State
has the duty to carry out in good faith
itso b l i g a t i o n s a r i s i n g f r o m t r e
a t i e s a n d o t h e r s o u r c e s o f int
ernational law, and it may not inv
o k e p r o v i s i o n s i n i t s constitution or its
laws as an excuse for failure to perform
thisduty."Equally important is Article 26 of the
Convention which providesthat "Every treaty in
force is binding upon the parties to it

andmust be performed by them in good

faith." This is known as theprinciple of pacta
sunt servanda which preserves the sanctity
of treaties and have been one of the most
fundamental principles
of p o s i t i v e i n t e rn a t i o n a l l a w , s u p p o r t e d b
y t h e j u r i s p r u d e n c e o f international tribunals
(Bayan vs. Zamora, GR 138570, Oct. 10, 2000)
.
ii) Jurisdiction concept, classes

Concept Jurisdiction
is the manifestation of sovereignty.

Classes
1.
Territorial
authority to have all persons and
t h i n g s w i t h i n i t s territorial limits be completely
subject to its control and protection.2.
Personal
authority over its nationals, their persons,
property, oracts, whether within or outside
its territory.3.
Extraterritorial
authority over persons, things or acts, outside
itsterritorial limits by reason of their effects to its
territory.
CASES

The jurisdiction of a nation within

i t s o w n t e r r i t o r y i s necessarily
exclusive and absolute

. It is susceptible of
n o l i m i t a t i o n i m p o s e d b y i t s e l f. A n y
re s t r i c t i o n u p o n i t , d e r i v i n g validity from
an external source, would imply
a diminution of itssovereignty
(Reagan vs. CIR, 30 SCRA 968)
Principle of auto limitation: an
y s t a t e m a y, b y i t s consent, express or
implied, submit to a restriction of
itss o v e r e i g n r i g h t s . A s t a t e t h e n , i
f i t c h o o s e s t o , m a y refrain from the
exercise of what otherwise is
illimitablecompetence
. Philippine government has not
a b d i c a t e d i t sovereignty over the American
bases in the Philippine as part of the
Philippine territory
(People vs. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476).
d. Prerogativesi) imperium

Article II, Secs. 3-8,CONSTITUTIONSection 3.

Civilian authority is, at all times,
supreme over themilitary. The Armed
Forces of the Philippines is the
protectoro f t h e p e o p l e a n d t h
e State. Its goal is to secu
r e t h e sovereignty of the State a
n d t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t h e n a t i o n a l ter
ritory.Section 4. The prime duty of the
Government is to serve andprotect the
people. The Government may call upon the
peopleto defend the State and, in the
fulfillment thereof, all citizensmay be

required, under conditions provided by

law, to renderpersonal, military or civil
service.Section 5. The maintenance of peace
and order, the
protectiono f l i f e , l i b e r t y, a n d p r o p e r t y
, a n d p r o m o t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l welfare
are essential for the enjoyment by all the
people of theblessings of democracy.Section
6. The separation of Church and State shall
beinviolable.
STATE POLICIES
Section 7. The State shall pursue
an independent foreign p o l i c y. I n
its relations with other states,
the paramountconsideration sh
a l l b e n a t i o n a l s o v e r e i g n t y, t e r
r i t o r i a l integrity, national interest, and
the right to self-determination.
was established to promote public welfare and
public safety. Infact, the LOI is based on the
constitutional provision of adoptingto the
generally accepted principles of
international law as partof the law of the land
(Agustin vs. Edu, 88 SCRA 195).

Issue: The validity of the Natio

n a l D e f e n s e L a w w h i c h establishes
compulsory military service is
unconstitutional. TheC o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e
National Defense Law does not go
againstthis constitutional provision but

i s , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , i n f a i t h f u l compliance
therewith. The duty of the Government to
defendt h e S t a t e c a n n o t b e p e r f o r m e d
e xc e p t t h r o u g h a n a rm y. To leave the
organization of an army to the will of the citizens
wouldbe to make this duty of the Government
excusable should therebe no suffi cient men
who volunteer to enlist therein
(People vs.Lagman, et al., 66 Phil 13).

I s s u e : D e p l o y m e n t o f U S t ro o p s i n
B a s i l a n and Mindanao as part of Balikatan
exercises for being illegaland in violation of
the Constitution. The Court held that in
theabsence of concrete proof , petitioners
allegation that the Arroyogovernment is engaged
in doublespeak in trying to pass off asa mere
training exercise an offensive effort by foreign
troops onnative soil. The petitions invite us to
speculate on what is
reallyh a p p e n i n g i n M i n d a n a o . W h e r e
f o r e , t h e p e t i t i o n a n d t h e petition-inintervention were dismissed
( L i m v s . E x e c . S e c y. , G R 151445, April
11, 2002)
.
i i ) D o m i n i u m Dominium
the capacity of the State to own and acquire
property.
Regalian Doctrine
all lands of the public domain belong to the
State the source of any asserted rights to
ownership of land. All lands notappearing to be

clearly of public dominium presumptively

belong tothe State.
Public Dominion
- a re t h o s e p r o p e r t y i n t e n d e d f o r p u b l i c
u s e f o r public service. They are outside the
commerce of men and thereforenot subject for
appropriation.
Note
:

Property of public dominion when

n o l o n g e r needed for public use or
public service, shall form part of
t h e patrimonial property of the state.

Public Land is equivalent to Public Domain.

Government Lands include public lan

d a n d a l l other lands of the government
already reserved or devoted topublic use or
subject to private rights.
Classification of Lands of the Public Domain:
1.Agricultural
L a n d s 2.Forest or Timber La nds 3 . M i n
eral Lands4.National Parks
CASES

Issue: The provision of the joint venture

agreement for transferof title to AMARI of
some of the submerged land which had
beenreclaimed were unconstitutional. The

Court held that such landsw e re a l i e n a b l e

or disposable lands of the public
d o m a i n w h i c h could be disposed of by PEA
under certain conditions (such as
publicbidding). However such lands could
only be disposed of by meansof an absolute
transfer to private individuals who were
Philippinecitizens, Under Sec.3, Art. XII of the
1987 Constitution a disposal
toa c o r p o r a t i o n c o u l d o n l y b e
by way of a lease, not a sale.
Accordingly the JVA was declared null and
void ab initio
(Chavez vs.PEA & AMARI, GR 133250, July
9, 2002)
.

Issue: Whether the agreement entere

d i n t o b y P a s a y C i t y Council and the
Republic Real Estate Corporation which involved
thetransfer of reclaimed foreshore lands is
constitutional. The
Courth e l d t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t c
annot operate to give title to
foreshores, the areas between the high
tide and low tide marks,rendering the
agreement null and void for being ultra vires
(Republicvs CA, GR No. 103882, Nov. 25, 1998)
.

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA)

was challengedas unconstitutional for
allegedly colliding with the principle of

juraregalia (Regalian Doctrine). Under IPRA,

indigenous peoples
mayo b t a i n t h e re c o g n i t i o n o f t h e i r r i g h t
of ownership over ancestrall a n d s a n d a
ncestral domains by virtue of native
t i t l e . S e v e n members of the Supreme Court
voted to dismiss the petition whileseven
others voted to grant the same. As the votes
were equallydivided, the petition was
dismissed pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the
Rules of Court with the result that the
constitutionality of theIPRA is deemed
upheld(Cruz vs DENR, GR No. 135385, Dec. 06,
2000).

Issue: R.A. 7942 otherwise known as the Philippine

MiningAct, along with DENR AO No. 96-04 and the
Financial and
TechnicalA s s i s t a n c e A g r e e m e n t ( F T A A ) i
s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f o r : a l l o w i n g f o re i g
n - o w n e d c o m p a n i e s t o e x t e n d m o re t h a n
m e re fi n a n c i a l o r technical assistance to the
State, and even permitting to
operatea n d m a n a g e m i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s ; a
n d a l l o w i n g b o t h t e c h n i c a l a n d fi n a n c i a l
assistance, instead of either tec
h n i c a l o r fi n a n c i a l assistance. The Court
held certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO No.9640, as well as of the entire FTAA as
unconstitutional, mainly
ont h e fi n d i n g t h a t F TA A s a re s e r v i c e c o

n t r a c t s p ro h i b i t e d b y t h e 1 9 8 7 C o n s t i
tution for being antithetical to
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f sovereignty over
our natural resources, because they
a l l o w e d foreign control over the exploitation of
our natural resources, to theprejudice of Filipino
nation( La Bugal-Blaan TA vs DENR, GR No.
127882, Jan.27, 2004).
iii)parens patriae

Article II, Secs. 9-28,CONSTITUTIONSection

9. The State shall promote a just and
dynamic socialorder that will ensure the
prosperity and independence of thenation
and free the people from poverty through
policies thatprovide adequate social
services, promote full employment, arising
standard of living, and an improved quality
of life for all.Section 10. The State shall
promote social justice in all phasesof
national development.S e c t i o n 1 1 . T h e
State values the dignity of eve
r y h u m a n person and guarantees full
respect for human rights.

This freedom includes deciding who

m a u n i v e r s i t y w i l l c o n f e r d e g re e s
o n . I f t h e d e g re e i s p ro c u re d b y e r ro r o r
fraud then
theB o a rd o f Re g e n t s , s u b j e c t t o d u e
p r o c e s s b e i n g f o l l o w e d , m a y cancel

that degree. The CA decision was wrong and

was reversed
(UP Bd. Of Regents vs. CA, GR No. 134625, August
31, 1999)
.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in

upholding respondent'scontention that they
qualify as small property owners and
are thuse x e m p t f r o m e x p r o p r i a t i o n .
T h e q u e s t i o n n o w i s w h e t h e r respond
ents qualify as small property owners as defined
in Sec. 3( q ) o f R A 7 2 7 9 . S m a l l p r o p e r t y o w n e r s a r e d e fi n e d b y
t w o elements: (1) those owners of
re a l p r o p e r t y w h o s e
p ro p e r t y c o n s i s t s o f re s i d e n t i a l l a n d s
w i t h a n a re a o f n o t m o re t h a n 3 0 0 square
meters in highly urbanized cities and 800
square meters inother urban areas; and (2) that
they do not own real property otherthan the
same. The share of each respondents did not
exceed 300,and they also claim that the subject
lots are their only real property. Thus, the Court
denied the petition
(Mandaluyong vs. Francisco, GR No.137152,
January 29, 2001)
.

The deceased insured himself and instituted

as benefi ciary, hischild, with his brother to
act as trustee during her minority. Uponhis
death, the proceeds were paid to him. Hence filed

complaint bythe mother, with whom the child

is living, seeking the delivery of such
sum. The
lower court rendered a decision ordering the uncle
to deliver the proceeds of the policy in
question to the mother. Inan appeal from a
question of law, the Supreme Court affi rmed
thed e c i s i o n o f t h e l o w e r c o u r t , e m p h a
sizing that the State shallstrengthe
n the family as a basic social
i n s t i t u t i o n . I f , a s t h e Constitution so
wisely dictates, it is the family as a unit that
has tobe strengthened, it does not admit
of doubt that even if a strongercase were
presented for the uncle, still deference to a
constitutionalmandate would have led the lower
court to decide as it did
(Cabanasvs Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94)
.

A college, or any school for that matter, has a dual

responsibilityto its students. One is to provide
opportunities for learning and theother is to help
them grow and develop into mature,
responsible,effective and worthy citizens of the
community. Discipline is one of the means to
carry out the second responsibility. The
general ruleis that the authority of the school is
co-extensive with its territorial jurisdiction,
or its school grounds, so that
any action taken for actscommitted outside the
school premises should, in general, be left tothe
police authorities, the court of justice, and the

family
concerned.However, this rule is subject to followin
g exceptions: (1) violationso f s c h o o l p o l i c i e s a
n d re g u l a t i o n s o c c u r r i n g i n c o n n e c t i o n w
ith a
s c h o o l - s p o n s o r e d a c t i v i t y o ff c a m p u s ; a n d ( 2 ) m i s c o n d u c t o f student
involves his status as a student or affects the
good name orr e p u t a t i o n o f t h e
school. The true test of
a school's right toi n v e s t i g a t e , o r o t
herwise, suspend or expel a stude
n t f o r a misconduct committed outside
t h e s c h o o l p re m i s e s a n d b e y o n d school
hours is not the time or place of the
off ense, but its eff ectupon the morale and
efficiency of the school and whether it, in fact,is
adverse to the school's good order welfare
and advancement of its students
(Angeles vs Judge Sison, 112 SCRA 26)
.

The concern of the government is not

necessarily to maintainprofi ts of business
fi rms. In the ordinary sequence of events, it
isp r o fi t s t h a t s u ff e r
as a result of Government regulation
. T h e interest of the State is to provide a
decent living to its citizen. Thegovernment
has convinced the court that it is its intent. The

Courtdid not find the impugned Order to be

tainted with grave abuse of discretion
(PASEI vs Drilon, 163 SCRA 386)
.

The right of government employees to organize

does not includethe right to strike. But the
current ban on them against strikes
isstatutory and may be lifted by statute
(SSSEA vs. CA, 175 SCRA 686)
.

Every generation has a responsibility to the next

to preserve
thatr h y t h m a n d h a r m o n y f o r t h e f u l l e
n j o y m e n t o f a b a l a n c e d a n d healthful
ecology. The case at bar is the minors assertion of
theirr i g h t t o a s o u n d e n v i r o n m e
nt, and at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensur
e t h e p ro t e c t i o n o f t h a t right for the
generation to come
(Oposa vs Factoran, GR No. 101083, July30, 1993)
.

The United States Supreme Court liberalizes

abortion laws up
tot h e s i x t h m o n t h o f p r e g n a n c y a t t h e
d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e m o t h e r anytime during
the fi rst six months when it can be done
withoutdanger to the mother
(Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113)
.


The constitutional right to informati
o n o n m a t t e r s o f p u b l i c concern is selfexecuting without the need for any ancillary
act of legislation. When the question is one of
public right and the objectof mandamus is to
procure the enforcement of a public duty,
thepeople are regarded as the real party
interest, and the person atwhose instigation
the proceeding are instituted need not show
thathe is a citizen and as such interested in
the execution of the laws
(Legaspi vs CSC, 150 SCRA 530)
.

Issue: The General Agreement o

n T a r i ff s a n d T r a d e w a s c h a l l e n g e
d as an unconstitutional treaty fo
r p l a c i n g f o r e i g n investors on the same
level as Filipinos. The Court held that
whilet h e C o n s t i t u t i o n m a n d a t e s a b i
a s i n f a v o r o f F i l i p i n o g o o d s , service
s, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it
recognizes theneed for business exchange with
the rest of the world on the basesof equality and
reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino
interestso n l y a g a i n s t f o r e i g n c o m p e t i t i
o n a n d t r a d e p r a c t i c e s t h a t a r e unfair. T
he constitutional policy of a self-reliant and
independentn a t i o n a l e c o n o m y d o e s n o t
n e c e s s a r i l y r u l e o u t t h e e n t r y o f forei

gn investments, goods and services. It

contemplates
neither e c o n o m i c s e c l u s i o n n o r m
e n d i c a n c y i n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l com
munity
(Tanada vs Angara, GR No. 118295, May 02, 1997)
.

The interconnection which has been required of

PLDT is a form of intervention with property
rights dictated by the objective of thegovernment
to promote the rapid expansion of
telecommunicationsservices in all areas of the
Philippines at an acceptable standardof service
at reasonable cost. The decisive
considerations arepublic need, public
interest, and the common good. A
modernand dependable communications
network rendering effi cient andreasonably
priced services is also indispensable for acce
leratedeconomic recovery and development
to these public and
nationali n t e re s t s , p u b l i c u t i l i t y c o m p a n i e
s must bow and yield
( P L D T v s NTC,190 SCRA 717)
.

The applicable provision of law requ

i r i n g p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e O ffi c i a l
Gazette is found in Art, 2 of the New
C i v i l C o d e o f t h e Philippines. The
court succinctly construed that cited provision
of l a w i n p o i n t , h o l d i n g t h a t a l l s t a t u

t e s i n c l u d i n g t h o s e o f l o c a l application
and private laws, shall be published as a
condition fortheir effectively, which shall begin
15 days after publication unlessa diff erent
eff ectively date is fi xed by the
legislature. Covered
byt h i s r u l e a r e p r e s i d e n t i a l d
ecrees and executive orders.
Administrative rules and regulations must also be
published if theirpurpose is to enforce or

implement existing law pursuant to a

validdelegation. Interpretative regulations
and those merely internal innature, that is,
regulating only the personnel of the
administrativeagency and not the public, need
not be published
(De Jesus vs. COA,GR 1090023, August 12, 1998)
.