THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION 606].

(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in

Political Law, 2004 ed., p.2)
CONSTITUTION:
DEFINITION, NATURE AND CONCEPTS Question: How is the Philippine
Constitution classified?
Political Law – That branch of public law Answer: It is classified as written,
which deals with the organization and enacted and rigid. (Art. XVII, 1987
operations of the governmental organs of Constitution)
the State and defines the relations of the
State with the inhabitants of its territory. Classification:
(People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887;
Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77) 1.) Written or Unwritten
- A written constitution is
Scope of Political Law one whose precepts are
1. Political Law embodied in one document or
2. Constitutional Law set of documents; while an
3. Administrative Law unwritten constitution consists
4. Law on municipal corporations of rules which have not been
5. Law on public officers integrated into a single,
6. Election Laws concrete form but are scattered
7. Public International Law in various sources, such as
statutes of fundamental
Nature of the Constitution character, judicial decisions,
commentaries of publicists,
Constitution defined: customs and traditions, and
- That body of rules and maxims in certain common law principles
accordance with which the powers of [Cruz, Constitutional Law, pp.
sovereignty are habitually exercised. 4-5].
(Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p.4)
2.) Enacted (Conventional) or
- The constitution is the basic and Evolved (Cumulative)
paramount law to which all other laws - A conventional
must conform and to which all persons, constitution is enacted, formally
including the highest officials, must defer. struck off at a definite time and
(Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1998 ed., p.4) place following a conscious or
deliberate effort taken by a
Purpose: constituent body or ruler; while
- To prescribe the permanent a cumulative constitution is a
framework of a system of government, to result of political evolution, not
assign to the several departments their inaugurated at any specific time
respective powers and duties, and to but changing by accretion
establish certain first principles on which rather than by any systematic
the government is founded [11 Am. Jur. method [Cruz, ibid., p.5].
 Constitution of Sovereignty:
3.) Rigid or Flexible These are provisions pointing out the
- A rigid constitution is one mode or procedure in accordance with
that can be amended only by a which formal changes in the fundamental
formal and usually difficult law may be brought about. (Art. XVII,
process; while a flexible Amendments and Revisions)
constitution is one that can be
changed by ordinary legislation Constitution of Liberty: The
[Cruz, ibid, p.5]. series of prescriptions setting fort the
fundamental civil and political rights of the
Question: What are the good qualities of citizens and imposing limitations on the
a good written constitution? powers of government as a means of
securing the enjoyment of those rights.
Answer: Broad, Brief and Definite. (Art. III, Bill of Rights)

Broad: Not just because it Constitution of Government:

provides for the organization of entire Provides for a structure and system of
government and covers all persons and government; refers to the provisions
things within the territory of the State, but outlining the organization of the
because it must be comprehensive enough government, enumerating its powers,
to provide for every contingency. laying down certain rules relative to its
administration and defining the electorate.
Brief: It must confine itself to (Art. VI, Legislative Department, Art. VII,
basic principles to be implemented with Executive Department, Art. VIII, Judicial
legislative details more adjustable to Department, Art. IX, Constitutional
change and easier to amend. Commissions)

Definite: To prevent ambiguity in Question: How should the Philippine

its provisions which could result in Constitution be interpreted?
confusion and divisiveness among the
people [Cruz, ibid, pp. 5-6] 1. Verba legis – whenever possible,
the words used in the Constitution
Question: What are the essential parts of must be given their ordinary
a good written constitution? meaning except where technical
terms are employed.
What are the three parts of a
written constitution? 2. Ratio legis et anima – where
there is ambiguity, the words of
Answer: Constitution of Sovereignty, the Constitution should be
Constitution of Liberty, Constitution of interpreted in accordance with the
Government. intent of the framers.
 3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat – modes or procedure in accordance with
the Constitution has to be which formal changes in the Constitution
interpreted as a whole. (Francisco may be made. (Art. XVII, Amendments or
v. HR, G.R. No, 160261, Nov. 10, Revisions)
2003)
2. Constitution of Liberty – The series of
Question: In case of doubt, how should prescriptions setting forth the
be the Constitution be construed? fundamental civil and political rights of the
citizens and imposing limitations on the
Answer: The provisions should be power of the government as a means of
considered self-executing; mandatory securing the enjoyment of those rights.
rather than directory; and prospective (Art. III, Bill of Rights)
rather than retroactive. (Nachura, Outline
Reviewer in Political Law, 2004 ed., p.4) 3. Constitution of Government – Provides
for a structure and system of government;
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy refers to the provisions outlining the
– if a law or contract violates any organization of the government,
norm of the Constitution, that law or enumerating its powers, laying down
contract, whether promulgated by the certain rules relative to its administration
legislative or the executive branch or and defining the electorate. (Art. VI,
entered into by private persons for private Legislative Dep’t, Art. VII, Exec. Dep’t,
purposes, is null and void and without any Art. VIII, Judicial Dep’t, Art. IX,
force and effect. Thus, since the Constitutional Commissions)
Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the AMENDMENT AND REVISION
nation, it is deemed written in every
statute and contract. (Manila Prince Hotel AMENDMENT AND REVISION
v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997) (ARTICLE XVII)

Question: When did the Philippine AMENDMENT REVISION

Constitution took effect? Refers to revamp
Refers to isolated or
or rewriting of the
piecemeal change.
Answer: February 2, 1987, which was the whole instrument.
(Cruz, 2014)
date of the plebiscite. (De leon v. (Cruz, 2014)
Esgeurra, G.R. No. L-78059, Aug. 31, Broadly implies a
1987) Broadly refers to a change that alters
change that adds, a basic principle in
PARTS reduces, or deletes the Constitution,
without altering the like altering the
Parts of a Written Constitution basic principle principle of
involved. (Lambino separation of
1. Constitution of Sovereignty – This v. COMELEC, 2006) powers or the
refers to the provisions pointing out the system of checks
 and balances. REVISIONS CANNOT BE
There is also DONE THROUGH
revision if the INITIATIVE.
change alters the LIMITATION ON
substantial entirety INITIATIVE: No amendment
of the Constitution, shall be authorized within 5
as when the years following the
change affects ratification of the 1987
substantial Constitution nor more often
provisions of the than once every 5 years.
Constitution. ENABLING LAW:
(Lambino v. Constitutional provision on
COMELEC, 2006) amendments via People’s
Generally affects Generally affects Initiative not self- executory
only the specific several provisions (Santiago v. COMELEC,
provision being of the Constitution. 1997)
amended. (Lambino (Lambino v.
v. COMELEC, 2006) COMELEC, 2006) Ratification
- The proposed amendment shall
be submitted to the people and shall be
2 STEPS INVOLVED IN AMENDMENT deemed ratified by the majority of the
OR REVISION votes cast in the plebiscite, held not
earlier than 60 days nor later than 90
Proposal days.
- Any amendment to, or revision DETERMINING WHETHER A
of, this Constitution may be proposed by: PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN
AMENDMENT OR REVISION
1. Congress- a vote of ¾ of all its
Members. 1. Quantitative Test- asks
whether the proposed change
2. Constitutional Convention- may is so extensive in its provisions
be called by a vote of 2/3 of all the as to the change directly the
members of the congress or substantial entirety of the
electorate, in a referendum called Constitution by the deletion or
for by a majority of all members of alteration of numerous existing
Congress provisions. One examines only
a. People through initiative- the number of provisions
upon petition of at least 12% of affected and does not consider
total number of registered the degree of the change
voters, of which every (Lambino v. COMELEC, 2006).
legislative district must be
represented by at least 3% of 2. Qualitative Test- whether the
the registered voters. proposed change will
 accomplish such far reaching the internal waters of the Philippines.(Art.
changes in the nature of our 1 1987 Constitution)
basic governmental plan as to
amount to a revision. (Lambino Archipelagic Doctrine
v. COMELEC, 2006). - The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago,
THE DOCTRINE OF PROPER regardless of their breadth and
SUBMISSION dimensions, form part of the internal
- Plebiscite may be held on the waters of the Philippines.(Art. 1, 1987
same day as regular election (Gonzales v. Constitution)
COMELEC, 1967), provided the people are
sufficiently informed of the amendments Under the archipelagic principle,
to be voted upon, to conscientiously the whole area inside the archipelagic
deliberate thereon, to express their will in base lines become a unified whole and the
genuine manner. The entire Constitution waters between the islands which formerly
must be submitted for ratification at one were regarded by international law as
plebiscite only. The people must have a open or international seas now become
proper frame of reference in arriving at waters under the complete sovereignty of
their decision. Submission of piecemeal the Filipino people. (MAGALLONA vs.
amendments is unconstitutional. ERMITA, G.R No. 187167, August 16,
(Tolentino v. COMELEC, 1971). The 2011)
process of revision is the same in all
respects except that it cannot be proposed Archipelagic State
by a People’s Initiative. - Means a State constituted wholly
by one or more archipelagos and may
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS include other islands (Art 46 UNCLOS).

NATIONAL TERRITORY Archipelago

- means a group of islands,
National Territory including parts of islands, interconnecting
- The national territory comprises the waters and other natural features which
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands are so closely interrelated that such
and waters embraced therein, and all islands, waters and other natural features
other territories over which the Philippines form an intrinsic geographical, economic
has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting and political entity, or which historically
of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial have been regarded as such. (Art 46
domains, including its territorial sea, the UNCLOS)
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas. The waters Q: RA 9522 reduces Philippine
around, between, and connecting the maritime territory in violation of
islands of the archipelago, regardless of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution
their breadth and dimensions, form part of
A: UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the is a customary international law, thus
acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a automatically incorporated in the corpus
multilateral treaty regulating, among of Philippine law. No modern State can
others, sea-use rights over maritime validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely
zones and continental shelves that forbid innocent passage that is exercised
UNCLOS III delimits. Under traditional in accordance with customary
international law typology, States acquire international law without risking
(or conversely, lose) territory through retaliatory measures from the
occupation, accretion, cession and international community. (MAGALLONA
prescription, not by executing multilateral vs. ERMITA, G.R No. 187167, August 16,
treaties on the regulations of sea-use 2011)
rights or enacting statutes to comply with
the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime Q: RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as
zones and continental shelves. Territorial "regime of islands" not only results in
claims to land features are outside the loss of a large maritime area but
UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by also prejudices the livelihood of
the rules on general international law. subsistence fishermen:
(MAGALLONA vs. ERMITA, G.R No.
187167, August 16, 2011) A: RA 9522 merely followed the
basepoints mapped by RA 3046, save for
Q: RA 9522 opens the country’s at least nine basepoints that RA 9522.).
waters landward of the baselines to Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, the
maritime passage by all vessels and KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside
aircrafts, undermining Philippine of the baselines drawn around the
sovereignty and national security, Philippine archipelago. This undeniable
contravening the country’s nuclear- cartographic fact takes the wind out of
free policy, and damaging marine petitioners’ argument branding RA 9522
resources, in violation of relevant as a statutory renunciation of the
constitutional provisions: Philippines’ claim over the KIG, assuming
that baselines are relevant for this
A: The political branches of the Philippine purpose. (MAGALLONA vs. ERMITA, G.R
government, in the competent discharge No. 187167, August 16, 2011)
of their constitutional powers, may pass
legislation designating routes within the STATE IMMUNITY
archipelagic waters to regulate innocent
and sea lanes passage. In the absence of Doctrine of State Immunity
municipal legislation, international law
norms, now codified in UNCLOS III, The State cannot be sued without its
operate to grant innocent passage rights consent. (Sec. 3, Art. XVI, 1987
over the territorial sea or archipelagic Constitution)
waters, subject to the treaty’s limitations
and conditions for their exercise. Basis of the Doctrine of State
Significantly, the right of innocent passage Immunity
It reflects nothing less than the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction
recognition of the sovereign character of and not to special civil actions such as the
the State and an express affirmation of present petition. In any case, the
the unwritten rule effectively insulating it application or non-application of criminal
from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to
on the very essence of sovereignty. personnel who may be found responsible
(Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, G.R. for the grounding of USS Guardian would
No. 104269, November 11, 1993) be premature and beyond the province of
a petition for a writ of kalikasan.
NOTE: There can be no legal right against
the authority which makes the law on Remedy of a person who feels
which the right depends. (Republic v. aggrieved by the acts of a foreign
Villasor, G.R. No. L-30671, November 8, government
1973)
Under both Public International
Doctrine of Royal Prerogative of Law and Transnational Law, a person who
Dishonesty feels aggrieved by the acts of a foreign
sovereign can ask his own government to
- a state may be sued if it gives consent, espouse his cause through diplomatic
whether express or implied. channels. (Holy See v. Rosario, Jr., 238
SCRA 524, December 1, 1994)
- This doctrine also applies to foreign
governments because of the sovereign WHEN THE STATE CONSENTS TO BE
equality of all the states. Accordingly, SUED
immunity is enjoyed by other States,
consonant with the public international Forms of consent
law principle of par in parem non habet 1. Express consent
imperium. The head of State, who is a. General law
deemed the personification of the State, is i. Act No. 3083 and CA 327 as
inviolable, and thus, enjoys immunity amended by Secs. 49-50, PD 1445 –
from suit. (JUSMAG Philippines v. NLRC, money claims arising from contracts which
G.R. No. 108813, December 15, 1994). could serve as a basis of civil action
between private parties to be first filed
In Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No.206510, with COA before a suit may be filed in
September 16, 2014, in a suit filed court. The COA must act upon the claim
against the US naval officials to hold them within 60 days. Rejection of the claim
liable for the damage caused to Tubbataha authorizes the claimant to elevate the
reefs by USS Guardian, a US warship, the matter to the Supreme Court on certiorari.
petitioners argued that there is a waiver
of immunity from suit found in the visiting ii. Art. 2180, NCC – tort committed by
forces agreement (VFA). The Supreme special agent;
Court rejected this contention, stating that
the waiver of state immunity under the
iii. Art. 2189, NCC – LGUs liable for recommendation of the Commission
injuries or death caused by defective to indemnify the heirs and victims of
condition of roads or public works under the Mendiola incident by the
their control. (City of Manila v. Teotico, government and by the public
G.R. No. L-23052, January 29, 1968); addresses made by then President
Aquino in the aftermath of the
iv. Sec. 22(2), RA 7160, LGC of 1991 – killings. Is the argument meritorious?
LGUs have power to sue and be sued;
A: No. The actions of President Aquino

v. Sec. 24 of LGC – LGUs and their cannot be deemed as a waiver of State

officials are not exempt from liability for immunity. Whatever acts or utterances

death or injury or damage to property. that then President Aquino may have done
or said, the same are not tantamount to

NOTE: The express consent of the State the State having waived its immunity from

to be sued must be embodied in a duly- suit. The President's act of joining the

enacted statute and may not be given by marchers, days after the incident, does

a mere counsel of the government. not mean that there was an admission by

(Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No. L-36084, the State of any liability. In fact to borrow

August 31, 1977) the words of petitioners (Caylao group),

Q: The members of the Kilusang "it was an act of solidarity by the

Mambbukid sa Pilipinas (KMP) and government with the people". Moreover,

other members of sectoral petitioners rely on President Aquino's

organizations clashed with the anti- speech promising that the government

riot squad which resulted to 13 would address the grievances of the

deaths and several casualties. In the rallyists. By this alone, it cannot be

aftermath of the confrontation, inferred that the State has admitted any

President Corazon C. Aquino issued liability, much less can it be inferred that

AO 11 creating the Citizens’ Mendiola it has consented to the suit. (Republic v.

Commission to conduct the Sandoval, G.R. No. 84607, March 19,

investigation about the incident. The 1993)

commission recommended
compensating the victims. The b. Special law

petitioners (Caylao group) together By virtue of PD 1620, the grant of

with the military personnel involved immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal,

in the Mendiola incident instituted an and express waiver by its Director General

action against the Republic of the is the only way by which it may relinquish

Philippines before the trial court. or abandon this immunity. (Callado, v.

Respondent Judge Sandoval IRRI, G.R. No. 106483, May 22, 1995)

dismissed the complaint on the

ground that there was no waiver by 2. Implied consent

the State. Petitioners argued that the a. When the State commences litigation, it

State has impliedly waived its becomes vulnerable to counterclaim.

immunity from suit with the

(Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, G.R. No.
L-6060, September 30, 1950)
Q: In a property dispute, the Attorney
General of the United States and the
defendant-intervenor Republic of the
Philippines each filed an
alleging by way of affirmative defense
that the lower court
jurisdiction over the claim since the
action in that regard constituted a
suit against the United Sates to which
it had not given its consent. Did the
Republic of the Philippines by its
intervention waive its right
immunity from suit?
A: No. The Republic of the Philippines did
not waive its immunity from suit. The
Republic of the Republic of the Philippine
intervened in the case merely to unite the
defendant Attorney General of the United
States in resisting plaintiff’s claims, and
for that reason asked no affirmative relief
against any party in the answer
intervention it filed, and in its answer to
the amended complaint, "reproduced and
incorporated by reference"
affirmative defenses contained
answer of the defendant Attorney General,
one of which is that the lower court had
no jurisdiction over the claim for rentals
because of lack of consent to be sued.
This is not a case where the state takes
the initiative against a private party by
filing a complaint in intervention, thereby
surrendering its privileged position and
coming down to the level
defendant, but one where the state, as
one of the defendants, merely resisted a
claim against it precisely on the ground
among others, of its privileged position,
which exempts it from suit. (Lim v.
Brownwell, 107 SCRA 345)
b. When State enters into a business
contract.
Capacities of the State in entering
answer into contracts
had no 1. In jure gestionis – By right of economic
or business relations; commercial, or
proprietary acts. MAY BE SUED. (US v.
Guinto, G.R. No. 76607, February 26,
1990)
of 2. In jure imperii – By right of sovereign
power and in the exercise of sovereign
functions. No implied consent. (US v.
Ruiz, No. L-35645, May 22, 1985)
NOTE: In exercising the power of eminent
domain, the State exercises a power jus
imperii, where property has been taken
without just compensation being paid, the
defense of immunity from suit cannot be
in set up in an action for payment by the
owner. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 90478, November 21, 1991)
all the
in the Q: Do all contracts entered into by the
government operate as a waiver of its
non-suability?
A: No. Distinction must still be made
between one which is executed in the
exercise of its sovereign function and
another which is done in its proprietary
capacity. A State may be said to have
of the descended to the level of an individual and
can be deemed to have actually 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. (Department of
Agriculture v. NLRC G.R. No. 104269,
November 11, 1993)
Restrictive Theory of State Immunity
from suit
The 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. However,
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. It does not apply
where the contract relates to the exercise
of its sovereign functions. (US v. Ruiz,
G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985)
A suit is considered as suit against
the State when
A: No. The correct rule is that not all
government entities, whether corporate or
non-corporate, are immune from suits.
Immunity from suit is determined by the
character of the objects for which the
entity is organized. When the government
enters into a commercial business, it
abandons its sovereign capacity and is to
be treated like any other corporation. In
this case, the State divested itself of its
the sovereign capacity when it organized the
PNR which is no different from its
predecessors, the Manila Railroad
Company. Thus, PNR is not immune from
suit. It did not remove itself from the
operation of Arts. 1732 to 1766 of the
Civil Code on common carriers. (Malang v.
PNRC, G.R. No. L-49930, August 7, 1985)
Unincorporarted government agency
performing governmental function v.
one performing proprietary functions

1. The Republic is sued by name; UNINCORPORATED UNINCORPORATED

2. The suit is against an unincorporated GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT
government agency; AGENCY AGENCY

3. The suit is on its face against a PERFORMING PERFORMING

government officer but the case is such GOVERNMENTAL PROPRIETARY

that ultimate liability will belong not to the FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS

officer but to the government. (Republic v. Immunity has been Immunity has not
Sandoval, G.R. No. 84607, March 19, upheld in its favor been upheld in its
1993) because its function is favor whose function
governmental or was not in pursuit of
Q: Spouses Bana sued the Philippine incidental to such a necessary function
National Railways for damages for the function. of government but
death of their son who fell from an was essentially a
overloaded train belonging to the business. (Air
PNR. The trial court dismissed the suit Transportation Office
on the ground that the charter of the v. Spouses David,
PNR, as amended by PD 741, has G.R. No. 159402,
made the same a government February 23, 2011)
instrumentality, and thus immune
from suit. Is the dismissal proper?
NOTE: The Doctrine of State Immunity mean a concession of liability” means that
from suit applies to complaints filed by consenting to be sued, the State does
against public officials for acts done in the not necessarily admit that it is liable.
performance of their duties within the In such a case, the State is merely giving
scope of their authority. In which case, the plaintiff a chance to prove that the
the suit filed against the public official is State is liable but the State retains the
deemed as a suit against the State. right to raise all lawful defenses.
(Philippine Rock Industries, Inc. v. Board
GR: The rule is that the suit must be of Liquidators, G.R. No. 84992, December
regarded as one against the state where 15, 1989)
the satisfaction of the judgment against
the public official concerned will require Suability v. Liability of the State
the state to perform a positive act, such
as appropriation of the amount necessary SUABILITY LIABILITY
to pay the damages awarded to the Depends on the Depends on the
plaintiff. consent of the applicable law and
State to be sued. the established
XPNs: The rule does not apply where: facts.
The circumstance The State can
1. The public official is charged in his that a State is never be held
official capacity for acts that are unlawful suable does not liable if it is not
and injurious to the rights of others. Public necessarily mean suable.
officials are not exempt, in their personal that it is liable.
capacity, from liability arising from acts
committed in bad faith; or

Rule on the liabilities of the following:

2. The public official is clearly being sued
1. Public officers – By their acts without or
not in his official capacity but in his
in excess of jurisdiction: any injury caused
personal capacity, although the acts
by him is his own personal liability and
complained of may have been committed
cannot be imputed to the State.
while he occupied a public position.
2. Government agencies – Establish
(Lansang v. CA, G.R. No. 102667,
whether or not the State, as principal
February 23, 2000)
which may ultimately be held liable, has
given its consent.
Implications of the phrase “waiver of
3. Government – Doctrine of State
immunity by the State does not mean
immunity is available.
a concession of its liability”

Determination of suability of
When the State gives its consent to be
government agencies
sued, all it does is to give the other party
an opportunity to show that the State is
GOVERNMENT SUABILITY
liable. Accordingly, the phrase that
AGENCIES
“waiver of immunity by the State does not
Incorporated Test of suability is remain government funds and are not
agencies stated in their subject to garnishment.
charters. If its
charter says so, it XPN: Where a law or ordinance has been
is suable enacted appropriating a specific amount to
Unincorporated Suable if the pay a valid government obligation, then
government nature of their the money can be garnished.
agencies acts is proprietary
NOTE: Funds belonging to government
Instances when a public officer may corporations, which can sue and be sued
be sued without the State’s consent and are deposited with a bank, can be
garnished. (PNB v. Pabalan, G.R. No. L-

1. To compel him to do an act required by 33112, June 15, 1978)

law
2. To restrain him from enforcing an act If the local legislative authority refuses to

claimed to be unconstitutional enact a law appropriating the money

3. To compel payment of damages from judgment rendered by the court, the

an already appropriated assurance fund or winning party may file a petition for

to refund tax over-payments from a fund mandamus to compel the legislative

already available for the purpose authority to enact a law. (Municipality of

4. To secure a judgment that the officer Makati v. CA, G.R. Nos. 89898-99,

impleaded may satisfy the judgment October 1, 1990)

himself without the State having to do a

positive act to assist him Q: Can the government be made to
pay interest in money judgments
5. Where the government itself has
against it?
violated its own laws because the doctrine
of State immunity cannot be used to
A: GR: No.
perpetrate an injustice

XPNs:
NOTE: The true test in determining
1. Eminent domain.
whether a suit against a public officer is a
suit against the State is that, if a public 2. Erroneous collection of taxes.

officer or agency is sued and made liable, 3. Where government agrees to pay

the State will have to perform an interest pursuant to law.

affirmative act of appropriating the

needed amount to satisfy the judgment. If Q: Dexter Suyat filed an action

the State will have to do so, then, it is a directly in court against the

suit against the State. government seeking payment for a

parcel of land which the national

Garnishment of government funds government utilized for a road

GR: Whether the money is deposited by widening project. Can the

way of general or special deposit, they government invoke the doctrine of

non-suitability of the state?
A: No. When the government Division and Assignment. Its starting
expropriates property for public use point is the assumption of the division of
without paying just compensation, it the functions of the government into three
cannot invoke its immunity from suit. distinct classes—the executive, the
Otherwise, the right guaranteed in Sec. 9, legislative and the judicial. Its essence
Art. III of the 1987 Constitution that consists in the assignment of each class of
private property shall not be taken for functions to one of the three organs of
public use without just compensation will government. (Vicente Sinco, Philippine
be rendered nugatory. (Ministerio v. Court Political Law 131, 10th ed., 1954.)
of First Instance, L-31635, August 31,
Theory. The theory is that “a power
1971)
definitely assigned by the Constitution to
one department can neither be
SEPARATION OF POWERS
surrendered nor delegated by that
department, nor vested by statute in
Concept of Separation of Powers
another department or agency.” (Williams
v. US, 289 US 553 (1933))
Conceptually, Separation of Powers
combines a definite structure of
Reason. The underlying reason of this
government, with a set of relationships
principle is the assumption that arbitrary
among the component elements of such
rule and abuse of authority would
structure. Such structure of government
inevitably result from the concentration of
is· the Tripartite System. There is a
the three powers of government in the
tripartite system -in a particular
same person, body of persons or organ.
government, where the different powers
(Vicente Sinco, Philippine Political Law
of Legislation, Execution, and Adjudication
131, 10th ed., 1954)
are each lodged in a separate Branch of
government. Traditionally, a Tripartite
More specifically, according to Justice
System consists of the Legislative, the
Laurel, the doctrine of separation of
Executive, and the Judicial branches. Each
powers is intended to:
of these branches has a definite legal
1. Secure action
relationship to the others. Such
2. To forestall overaction
relationships are summed up in the
3. To prevent despotism
principles of equality and separation.
4. To obtain efficiency (Pangasinan
(Separation Of Powers As Juristic
Transportaion Co. v. PSC, 40 O.G., 8th
Imperative by Perfecto Fernandez)
Supp. 57. See also Tuason v. Register of
Deeds of Caloocan City, 157 SCRA 613; In
Essence. In essence, separation of
Re: Manzano, 166 SCRA 246)
powers means that legislation belongs to
Congress, execution to the executive,
History. Separation of powers became
settlement of legal controversies to the
the pith and core of the American system
judiciary. Each is prevented from invading
of government largely through the
the domain of others. (Bernas,
influence of the French political writer
Commentary 656, 2003 ed.)
Montesquieu. By the establishment of the
American sovereignty in the Philippines, 1. System of Checks and Balances
the principle was introduced as an 2. Existence of overlapping powers
inseparable feature of the governmental
system organized by the United States in CHECKS AND BALANCES
this country. (US v. Bull, 15 Phil 7, 27)
CHECKS AND BALANCES
Powers vested in the three branches Under the system of checks and
of government balances, one department is given certain
powers by which it may definitely restrain
 Legislative Branch, it has the the others from exceeding constitutional
primary task of framing and laying authority. It may object or resist any
down the General Law, binding on all encroachment upon its authority, or it
because it expresses the consensus or may question, if necessary any act or acts
the amalgam of dominant interests in which unlawfully interferes with its sphere
society, aggregating such interests of jurisdiction and authority. (Suarez,
through the method of broad electoral 2005).
representation, and refining it through
the processes of debate and The following are illustrations where
compromise. there are checks and balances:

 Executive Branch, it has the task of 1. Checks by the President –

Administration of the State, by
mobilizing through orders and  The President may veto or
directives, the vast machinery of the disapprove bills enacted by
bureaucracy towards a faithful Congress (Sec.27 [1])
implementation and enforcement of
the General Law, and acting decisively  Through the pardoning power,
and swiftly to deal with any peril, he may modify or set aside the
threat, catastrophe or other judgments of courts. (Art. VII,
emergency that may threaten the Sec. 19).
national safety and well-being.
2. Checks by the Congress-
 Judicial Branch, is tasked with the
Administration of Justice, which is  The Congress may override the
compulsion and enforcement of legal veto of the President (Sec. 27
duties allegedly violated in particular [1])
cases, on the basis of Truth
determined in accordance with  Reject certain appointments of
procedural Due Process and in the President (Art. VII, Sec. 16)
accordance with the mandates of the
General Law determined to be  Revoke the proclamation of
applicable to each particular case. martial law or suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas
Limitations on the Principle
 corpus by the President (Art. part of Congress or the
VII, Sec. 16) President. (De Leon, 2011)

 Amend or revoke decisions of

DELEGATION OF POWERS
the courts (by the enactment of
a new law or by an amendment
Delegation of Powers
of the old, giving it such
meaning and interpretation as
General Rule: “Potestas delegate
to wipe out the effect of such
non delegari potest” – what has been
decisions).
delegated cannot be delegated.

 The powers to define,

Exceptions:
prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various
1. by immemorial practice
courts (Art. 8, Sec. 2).
legislative power may be
delegated to local
 Prescribe the qualifications of
governments.
judges of lower courts.

2. The Constitution itself might in

 Determine the salaries of the
specific instances, allow
President and Vice President
delegation of legislative power,
(Art. VII, Sec. 6), the members
e.g., Art. VI, Sections 23(2)
of the Supreme Court and the
and 28(2).
judges of the lower courts (Art.
VIII, Sec. 10).
Question: Is the principle of
non-delegation of powers
 Impeach the President and the
applicable to all the three
members of the Supreme Court
major powers of the
(Art. XI, Sec.2)
government?

3. Checks by the Judiciary-

Answer: Yes, but is especially
important in the case of the
 The Judiciary, in turn, with
legislative power because of the
Supreme Court as the final
many instances when its delegation
arbiter may declare legislative
is permitted.
measures or executive acts
unconstitutional (Art. VIII,
Permissible Delegation (TEPLA)
Sec.4 [2]).

1. Delegation of tariff powers to

 Determine whether or not there
the President. Art. VI, Section
has been a grave abuse of
28(2)
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the
2. Delegation of Emergency Question: What is the
powers to the President. Art. difference between referendum
VI, Section 23(2) and plebiscite?
3. Delegation to the People at
large. Art. VI, Section 32, RA Answer: Referendum differs from
6735, Art. XVII Section 2 plebiscite in that the question
4. Delegation to Local submitted in the latter are intended
Governments. to work more permanent changes
5. Delegation to Administrative in the political structure, like a
Bodies. proposal to amend the
Constitution.
Emergency Power: The
conditions for the vesture of
Tests of Delegation:
emergency powers in the President
are the following:
1. The Completeness Test – the
law must be complete in all its
1. There must be a war or other
essential terms and conditions
national emergency (rebellion,
that there will be nothing left
economic crisis, pestilence or
for the delegate to do when it
epidemic, typhoon, flood, or
reaches him except enforce it.
other similar catastrophe of
2. The Sufficient Standard Test –
nation-wide proportions or
a law lays down a sufficient
effect).
standard when it provides
2. The delegation must be for a
adequate guidelines or
limited period only.
limitations in the law to map
3. The delegation must be subject
out the boundaries of the
to such restrictions as the
delegate’s authority and
Congress may prescribe.
prevent the delegation from
4. The emergency powers must be
running riot e.g. C.A. No. 548
exercised to carry out a
empowered the Director of
national policy declared by the
Public Works to promulgate
Congress.
traffic rules in the light of the

Delegation of legislative “public welfare”. Other

powers to the people at large, accepted standards are:

how? “justice and equity” or “national

1. By referendum – a method of security”.

submitting an important
FORMS OF GOVERNMENTS
legislative measure to a direct
vote of the whole people.
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
2. By plebiscite – is the electoral
process by which an initiative
As to the number of persons
on the Constitution is approved
exercising sovereign powers:
or rejected by the people.
  Monarchy - the supreme authority  Presidential Government - the
is in the hands of a one person executive is constitutionally vested
only; how he got into power or with powers making it independent
how long his tenure would be does from legislative department.
not matter. Other forms:
 Absolute Monarchy - the power of
 Civil Government - the affairs of
the monarch is based on divine
the state are administered and
right.
directed by the citizens or their
 Limited Monarchy - the power of
representatives.
the monarch is based on the
 Military Government - established
constitution.
and administered by a belligerent
 Aristocracy - the ruling power is in
in the territory of an enemy
the hands of a few privileged class
occupied by him.
 Democracy - the power is in the
 Constitutional Government - the
hands of the people.
powers of those who rule are
 Direct or Pure Democracy - the
defined and limited by
power is directly exercised by the
the constitution.
people through assembly or mass
 Despotic Government - the powers
meeting.
of those who rule are vague and
 Indirect, representative or
may seem limitless because it is
republican - the power is exercised
not defined nor limited by the
by a group of persons chosen by
constitution.
the people to act as their
 Elective Government - the state
representatives.
confers powers upon a person or
As to extent of powers exercised by organization chosen by qualified
the central or national government: voters and the holding of powers is
 Unitary Government - the control for a limited term and under
of national and local affairs is certain conditions.
under the central or national  Hereditary Government - the state
government. confers the powers of government
 Federal Government - the powers upon a person or organization
of the government are standing in a certain family
divided between two sets of relations to his or their immediate
organs, one for national and the predecessors.
other for local affairs, each organ  Coordinate Government - the
being supreme within its own powers of the government is
sphere. distributed among separate

As to relationship between the departments equally independent

executive and the legislative branches of but coordinate with each other.

of the government:  Consolidated Government - the

state confides all governmental
 Parliamentary Government - the
powers to a single body.
executive is dependent on the
legislative.
  Revolutionary Government -
installed, whether by force or
otherwise, not in accordance with
the procedure prescribed in an
existing constitution.

De Jure and De Facto Governments

Regardless of their form,

governments are either de jure or de
facto.

 De Jure Government – Has rightful

title but no power or control, either
because this has been withdrawn
from it or because it has not yet
actually entered into exercise
thereof. Established according to
the constitution of the state and
has the general support of the
people.
 De Facto Government – A
government of fact, that is, it
actually exercises power or control
but without legal title. Established
against existing constitution of the
state and is maintained against the
rightful and lawful government.

The Philippines is a representative,

unitary, presidential, civil, constitutional,
elective, coordinate, and de jure
government. In a way, it also exercises
direct or pure democracy because of the
constitutional provision on initiative
referendum.