Definitions and Doctrines in Political Law

POLITICAL LAW
It is that branch of Public Law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental
organs of the state and defines its relations with the inhabitants of its territory. (People v. Perfecto GR
L18463 October 4, 1922)

POLITICAL LAW IS A PUBLIC LAW

Hence, it is abrogated (abolished) by the change of sovereignty UNLESS it is expressly redeemed or
subsequently reenacted. People v. Perfecto 43 Phil. 887

It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the
ceded region are totally abrogated. "Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating the relations
sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. xxx Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise,
must hold it subject to the Constitution and laws of its own government, and not according to those of the
government ceding it. Macariola v. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77

Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and later to RP, the provisions of the Code of
Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is a change of sovereignty,
the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are
automatically abrogated, UNLESS they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

MUNICIPAL LAW
That which pertains solely to the citizens and inhabitants of a State. Deals with the CONDUCT or
STATUS of Individuals, Corporations, and other “PRIVATE” entities within a particular State.

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION
Implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and
a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said breach of right. (Casibang vs. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642)

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

A ‘political question’ is one the resolution of which has been vested by the Constitution exclusively in
either the people, in the exercise of their sovereign capacity, or in which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to a co-equal branch of the Government. Thus, while courts can determine questions of
legality with respect to governmental action, they cannot review government policy and the wisdom
thereof, for these questions have been vested by the Constitution in the Executive and Legislative
Departments.

CONSTITUTION
The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all
persons, including the highest officials, must defer. Three (3) parts of a written Constitution
1. Constitution of Sovereignty (Article XVII – Amendments and Revisions)
2. Constitution of Liberty (Article III – Bill of Rights)
3. Constitution of Government (Article VI, VII, VIII, IX)

It should be interpreted:
1. Verba Legis – ordinary meaning of the words used
2. Ratio legis et anima – intent of the framers
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat – as a whole (Francisco vs HR GR160261 11.10.03)

THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

It is classified as written, enacted and rigid.
Effectivity - The ConCom completed their task on 12 October 1986 and presented the draft constitution to
President Aquino on October 15, 1986. After a period of nationwide information campaign, a plebiscite for
its ratification was held on FEBRUARY 2, 1987. More than three-fourths of all votes cast, 76.37% (or
17,059,495 voters) favored ratification as against 22.65% (or 5,058,714 voters) who voted against
ratification. On February 11, 1987, the new constitution was proclaimed ratified and took effect. De Leon
v. Esguerra - The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date,
therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded.
POLITICAL QUESTION of Constitutionality: In Re: Puno June 29, 1992 - It was through the February
1986 revolution, a relatively peaceful one, and more popularly known as the “people power revolution”
that the Filipino people tore themselves away from an existing regime. This revolution also saw the
unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino government. It has been said that “the locus of positive law-
making power lies with the people of the state” and from there is derived “the right of the people to
abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of government without regard to the existing constitution.”
JUSTICIABLE QUESTION on EDSA I vs. EDSA II: Estrada v. Arroyo GR 146738 - The Court also
distinguished between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II. EDSA I involves the exercise
of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. EDSA II is an exercise of
people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of
grievances which only affected the office of the President. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the
legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review, but EDSA
II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the
Vice President as President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented political question; EDSA II
involves legal questions.

PEOPLE POWER IS RECOGNIZED IN THE CONSTITUTION

1. Article III Section 4 – guarantees the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances;
2. Article VI Section 32 – requires congress to pass a law allowing the people to directly propose of reject
any act or law or part of it passed by congress of a local legislative body
3. Article XIII Section 16 – provides that the right of the people and their organizations to participate in all
levels of social, political, and economic decisions making shall not be abridged and that the Senate shall,
by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms;
4. Article XVII, Section 2 – provides that subject to the enactment of an implementing law, the people my
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative.

CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY DOCTRINE

Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates ANY norm of the Constitution, that law or contract,
whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for
private purposes, is null and void and without any force or effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is DEEMED written in every statute and
contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS GR 122156 02.03.97)

LEX POSTERIOR DEROGATE PRIORI

In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and treaties may be
invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution. (Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465,
January 18, 2000)

THE PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane
society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common
good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of
independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality,
and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

Origin – or authorship is the Will of the “Sovereign Filipino People”

Scope and Purpose – To build a just and human society and to establish a government that shall embody
our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure
to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a
regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace. (Bernas)
TERRITORY
Is a fixed portion of the surface of the Earth inhabited by the people of the State. As an element of the
state, it is an area over which a state has Effective Control.

The PHILIPPINE TERRITORY

The Philippine Archipelago consists of Terrestrial domain, Fluvial domain, Aerial domain (Sovereignty
over airspace extends only until where outer space begins. 50-100 miles from earth) including its
Territorial Sea, Seabed, Subsoil, Insular Shelves, other Submarine areas All other territories over which
the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
The waters, around between and connecting different islands of the Archipelago, regardless of their
breadth or dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Article I 2nd Sentence.)
Integration of a group of islands to the sea and their oneness so that together they can constitute one
unit, one country, and one state. An imaginary single baseline is drawn around the islands by joining
appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago with straight lines and all islands and
waters enclosed within the baseline form part of the territory. Purpose: [1] Territorial Integrity, [2] National
Security, [3] Economic Reasons.

DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION

Discovery alone is not enough. Mere discovery gives only an inchoate right to the discoverer. For title to
finally vest, discovery must be followed by effective occupation in a reasonable time and attestation of the
same.

GROTIUS DOCTRINE OF IMMEMORIAL PRESCRIPTION

Speaks of uninterrupted possession going beyond memory.

THALWEG DOCTRINE
For boundary rivers, in the absence of an agreement between the riparian states, the boundary line is laid
on the middle of the main navigable channel.

MIDDLE OF THE BRIDGE DOCTRINE

Where there is a bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the middle or center of the bridge.

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Function:
It is a statement of the basic ideological principles and policies that underlie the Constitution. As such, the
provisions shed light on the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution and they are the guide for all
departments of the government in the implementation of the Constitution. (Bernas Comprehensive
Reviewer 2011)
Note: As a general rule, these provisions are non-self-executing. But a provision that is complete in itself,
and provides sufficient rules for the exercise of rights is self-executing.

STATE
It is a community of persons more or less numerous (PEOPLE), permanently occupying a definite portion
of TERRITORY, independent of external control (SOVEREIGNTY), and possessing an organized
GOVERNMENT to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.
State v. Nation : State – is a legal concept ; Nation – is a ethnic concept.

PEOPLE
as an element of a state, simply means a community of persons sufficient in number and capable of
maintaining the continued existence of the community and held together by a common bond of law. It is of
no legal consequence if they possess diverse racial, cultural, or economic interest. (Bernas
Comprehensive Reviewer 2011). People as used in the Constitution: [1] as Inhabitants - Article II, Section
15, 16; Article III, Section 2; Article XIII, Section 1; [2] as Electors - Article VII, Section 4; Article XVI,
Section 2; Article XVIII, Section 25); [3] as Citizens - Article II, Section 4; Article III, Section 7.
SOVEREIGNTY – supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a Sate by which the state is governed.
Legal – is the supreme power to affect legal interests either by legislative, executive or judicial action.
Lodged in the people but normally exercised by state agencies.
Political – is the sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and non-legal, which determine the course
of law.
Internal Sovereignty – refers to the power of the State to control its domestic affairs. It is the supreme
power over everything within its territory.
External Sovereignty – Also known as INDEPENDECE, which is freedom from external control. It is the
power of the State to direct its relations with other States.
Characteristics – It is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and
imprescriptible. BUT, in the case of Tanada v. Angara, it was held that sovereignty of a state cannot be
absolute. It is subject to limitations imposed by membership in the family of nations and limitations
imposed by treaties. The Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest
of the world. (2000 Bar Question)

GOVERNMENT – is that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes

and 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. (US v. Dorr 2 Phil 332)
Functions: [1] Constituent – compulsory because it constitute the very bonds of society. [2] Ministrant –
undertaken to advance general interest of society
Classification: de jure – has rightful title but no power or control, either: a] because same has been
withdrawn from it; OR b] because same has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof. de facto –
actually exercises power or control but without legal title.

It was held in Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino that “the people have made the
judgment; they have accepted the government of President Corazon Aquino which is in effective control
of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure
government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present
government.

PARENS PATRIAE DOCTRINE

the government as guardian of the rights of the people may initiate legal actions for and in behalf of
particular individual. (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 SCRA 738)

DEMOCRATIC and REPUBLICAN STATE

Republican State is wherein all government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by
representatives chosen by the people. (Bernas Comprehensive Reviewer 2011). Democratic State - In
view of the new Constitution the Philippines is not only a representative or republican sate but also shares
some aspect of direct democracy such as “INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM” in Article VI Section 32 and
Article XVIII Section 2. (Bernas Comprehensive Reviewer 2011)

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
The rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no legislative action is required to make
them applicable to a country. The Philippines follows this doctrine, because Section 2. Article II of the
constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land. However, the doctrine dictates that rules of international law are given equal
standing with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments.

DOCTRINE OF AUTOLIMITATION
The doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international law as a limitation to the exercise
of its sovereignty.

DOCTRINE OF SUABILITY / STATE IMMUNITY

Under this doctrine, the State cannot be sued without its consent.
The State may not be sued without its consent. (Sec 3, Art XVI) There can be no legal right as against the
authority that makes the laws on which the right depends. [Kawananakoa v. Polyblank 205 US 349]  also
called the doctrine of Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty. If the State is amenable to suits, all its time would
be spent defending itself from suits and this would prevent it from performing it other functions. [Republic
v. Villasor]

JUDICIAL POWER
Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are
enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violations of such
rights. Vested in the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. Since the
courts are given ‘judicial power’ and nothing more, courts may neither attempt to assume or be compelled
to perform non-judicial functions. They may not be charged with administrative functions except when
reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their duties.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
The power of the SC to declare a law, treaty, ordinance and other governmental act
unconstitutional.
Requisites: [1] Actual Case or Controversy; [2] Proper Party (Locus Standi); [3] Earliest Opportunity; [4]
Necessity of deciding constitutional questions

DOCTRINE OF PURPOSEFUL HESITATION

This is about the Symbolic function of the court. It means that the court would not decide on matters
which are considered political questions. This focus on the necessity of resolving Judicial Review.
Furthermore, in questions of constitutionality, Supreme Court will not rule right away because the
Supreme Court assumes that the Law passed the two departments already, thus, it went through process
of determining its constitutionality

INTER-GENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY DOCTRINE

The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the case
based on the concept of “intergenerational responsibility”. Their right to a healthy environment carried
with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the Court
recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-
impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of
public welfare.

NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS Clause

When does a law impair the obligation of contracts:
1) If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract either as to the time or mode of performance
2) If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed
3) If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms.
A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the substance of the contract, and
which still leaves an efficacious remedy for enforcement does NOT impair the obligation of contracts.
A valid exercise of police power is superior to obligation of contracts.

SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE

This principle operated as an implicit limitation on legislative powers as on the two other powers. In
essence, separation of powers means the legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive,
settlement of legal controversies to the judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the
others. But the separation is not total. The system allows for “checks and balances” the net effect of
which being that, in general, no one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of
the other departments.
Purpose: To prevent concentration of powers in one department and thereby to avoid tyranny. The
purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of
governmental powers among the three departments, to save the people from autocracy. [1] To secure
action; [2] To forestall overaction; [3] To prevent despotism; and [4] To obtain efficiency
PRINCIPLE OF BLENDING OF POWERS
Instances when powers are not confined exclusively within one department but are assigned to or shared
by several departments.

CHECKS AND BALANCES PRINCIPLE

This allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogative or to rectify mistakes or
excesses committed by the other departments. The first and safest criterion to determine whether a given
power has been validly exercised by a particular department is whether or not the power has been
constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming its exercise—since the conferment is usually
done expressly. However, even in the absence of express conferment, the exercise of the power may be
justified under the doctrine of necessary implication. The grant of express power carried with it all other
powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

ORIGIN OF THE REVENUE BILL

ART. VI Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt, bills
of local application, and private bills shall originate EXCLUSIVELY in the the HOR, but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
It is the power of the President to withhold certain types of information from the public, the
courts, and the Congress.
ART. VI Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent
of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall
provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their
departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled
appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover
matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires
and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive
session.

DOCTRINE IN MARBURY V. MADISON

The case of Marbury v. Madison established the doctrine of judicial review as a core legal principle in
American constitutional system: “So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; of both the law and the
constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the
law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must
determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the very essence of judicial duty.”

MONSANTO DOCTRINE
One who is given pardon has no demandable right to reinstatement. He may however be reappointed.

DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT

In Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management, the Operative Fact Doctrine was discussed in that:
As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords
no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. The general rule is
supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be
excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.
The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned general rule. In Planters
Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, we held:
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and
fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute
prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which
cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those
who have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of
unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a
municipality in reliance upon a law creating it.
In that case, this Court further held that the Operative Fact Doctrine will not be applied as an exception
when to rule otherwise would be iniquitous and would send a wrong signal that an act may be justified
when based on an unconstitutional provision of law.

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY / ALTER EGO DOCTRINE

Acts of the Secretaries of Executive departments when performed and promulgated in the regular course
of business or unless disapproved or presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v. Secretary
of the Interior). The President can assume a Cabinet post, (because the departments are mere
extensions of his personality, according to the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency, so no objection can
be validly raised based on Sec. 13, Art VII.)

QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY DOCTRINE (ALSO ALTER EGO PRINCIPLE)

“all the different executive and administrative organizations are mere adjuncts of the Executive
Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief
Executive, and, except in cases wherein the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or by the law
to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious
executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive
departments., performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively acts of the Chief Executive.” (Free Telephone Workers
Union vs. Minister of Labor and Employment)

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made
until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a claim is cognizable in the first
instance by an administrative agency alone. Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative
process has been completed. As stated in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA
426.

PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE DOCTRINE / DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESORT

Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon administrative body to act upon a matter, no resort
to courts may be made before such administrative body shall have acted upon the matter

DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

No resort to courts will be allowed unless administrative action has been completed and there is nothing
left to be done in the administrative structure.

BRANDEIS DOCTRINE OF ASSIMILATION OF FACTS

Where what purports to be a finding upon a question of fact is so involved with and dependent upon a
question of law as to be in substance and effect a decision on the latter, the court will, in order to decide
the legal question, examine the entire record including the evidence if necessary.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court
and an administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the
administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must
yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative case.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE
Regarded as an elementary principle of higher importance in the administration of justice that the
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified, or vacated by any court of
concurrent jurisdiction (30-A Am Jur 605).
DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED MUNICIPAL LIABILITY
A municipality may become obligated upon an implied contract to pay
the reasonable value of the benefits accepted or appropriated by it as to which it has the general power
to contract (Province of Cebu vs. IAC, 147 SCRA 447).
The doctrine applies to all cases where money or property of a party is received under such
circumstances that the general law, independent of an express contract, implies an obligation to do
justice with respect to the same.
Thus, in this case, the Province of Cebu cannot set up the plea that the contract was ultra vires and still
retain benefits thereunder. Having regarded the contract as valid for purposes of reaping benefits, the
Province of Cebu is estopped to question its validity for the purpose of denying answerability.

DOCTRINE OF RATIFICATION
Although
the
 act
 of
 a

 public
 officer
 may
 not
 be

 binding
 on
the

 State
 because
 he
 has
 exercised
 his

powers
 defectively,
 his
 acts
may
 be
ratified.


Exceptions:

[1] Where
 there
is
a 
 want
 of
power
in
 the
 public
 officer
to
 perform
the
 original
 act

[2] The
 act
 was
 absolutely
 void
 at
the
time.
 However
if
 the
 act
is
merely
 voidable,
it
can
 be
 rendered
 valid
[3]
If
 the principal
 himself
 could
 not
lawfully
 have
 done
 the
 act,
 or if
it
 could
 not
 have
 been
lawfully
 done

by
 anyone.


DOCTRINE OF OFFICIAL IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITIES

In re: Gonzales – A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a member of the Philippine
Bar as a qualification for the office held by him cannot be charged with disbarment during his
incumbency. He cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan, or are other court, with any
offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office. Members of the Supreme Court are
removed only by impeachment. They are not entitled to immunity from liability. They must first be
removed, via the constitutional route of impeachment, and then only may he be held liable either
criminally or administratively (including disbarment), for any wrong.

DOCTRINE OF REJECTION OF 2ND PLACER

Geronimo
 v 
 Ramos
 - Sound
 policy
 dictates
that
 public
 elective
 offices
 are 
 filled
 by
 those
 who

have
 received
the
 highest
 number
 of
votes
 cast
 in 
 the election
 for
 that
 office,
 and
i
t is

 a fundamental
idea

in

 all
republican
forms
 of
 government
 that
 no
one
can
be
 declared
 elected
 and 
 no
 measure
 can
 be

declared
 carried
 unless
 he
 or
it
receives
 a

 majority
 or
 plurality
 of
 the
legal
 votes
 cast
in 
 the
 election.

COMELEC
 cannot
 name
the
 2nd 
 placer
 as
 the
 winner.
 Follow the hierarchy of positions instead.

DOCTRINE OF PROPER SUBMISSION

Plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election (Gonzales v. COMELEC GR L28196 Nov.
1967), provided the people are sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to
conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-meal
amendments is unconstitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite
only. The people have to be given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision. They have no
idea yet of what the rest of the amended constitution would be. (Tolentino v. Comelec GR L34150 Oct. 16
1971)

DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION

Grant of an express power carries with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

DOCTRINE OF SHIFTING MAJORITY

For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the session,
there being a quorum, is required.

DOCTRINE OF INAPPRORIATE PROVISION

A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even
if it is not an appropriation or revenue “item”. (Gonzales v. Macaraig)
Reason for the Doctrine
: The intent behind the doctrine is to prevent the legislature from forcing the government to veto an entire
appropriation law thereby paralyzing government.
Inappropriate Provisions
- Repeal of laws. Repeal of laws should not be done in appropriation act but in a separate law
(PHILCONSA v. Enriquez) (use this doctrine carefully)

DOCTRINE OF AUGMENTATION
Prohibition against transfer of appropriations, however the following may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from
savings in other items of their respective appropriations:
1. President
2. Senate President
3. Speaker of the HoR
4. Chief Justice
5. Heads of Constitutional Commissions.

THEORY OF RELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALITY

The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by a mere comparison of its
provisions with applicable provisions of the Constitution, since the statute may be constitutionally valid as
applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to another. A statute valid at one time may become
void at another time because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical operation
becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to
inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions (Central Bank Employee Assn, Inc. vs. BSP,
GR 148208, Dec. 15, 2004).

OVER-BREADTH DOCTRINE
Decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE

A criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated
conduct is forbidden by the statute, or is so indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and
convictions is void for vagueness. The constitutional vice in a vague or indefinite statute is the injustice to
the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is given no fair warning.

A law is “vague” as not to satisfy the due process need for notice when it lacks comprehensible standards
that “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its
application” or is so indefinite that “it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions.”

It is injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is given no fair
warning.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

The objects within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject
to seizure and may be presented as evidence (open to the eye and hand). Finds application only when
the incriminating nature of the object
is in the “plain view” of the police officer.
~ It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises
when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the
object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package
proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are
obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. In other words, if the
package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the
prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police
that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
(People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668)

Requisites:
1. Valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit
of their official duties;
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are;
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent; and
4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT / BORJAL DOCTRINE

Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action
for libel or slander. It means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed
false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false
imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a
public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable
imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment
based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, it is
immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably inferred from the facts.
(Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1)

BALANCING OF INTEREST DOCTRINE

Privilege Not Absolute
: Claim of executive privilege is subject to balancing against other interest. In other words, confidentiality
in executive privilege is not absolutely protected by the Constitution. Neither the doctrine of separation of
powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an
absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. A
claim of executive privilege does not guard against a possible disclosure of a crime or wrongdoing (Neri v.
Senate).

MIRANDA DOCTRINE
The Miranda Doctrine or the Miranda Warning provides that:
1. A person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right
to remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
2. He or she has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during the interrogation;
3. If he cannot afford a lawyer, like if he is an indigent, a lawyer shall be appointed by the State to
represent him;
4. His right to counsel is available at any stage of the interrogation, hence, even if he consents to answer
questions without the assistance of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point of the
investigation, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. If the above are not observed, the
evidence obtained therefrom shall not be admissible in court.

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES DOCTRINE

[This doctrine though is commonly used in warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure cases]
The ECD basically provides that the normal procedures and rules of court in the admissibility of evidence
may be disregarded in exigent circumstances like when there is a coup d’etat. The rationale is the same
as with PSC, that is to protect public safety or national security. This doctrine was used in the 1994 case
of People vs Rolando De Gracia (GR Nos. 102009-10). The accused therein was subjected to a
warrantless search and seizure sometime in 1989 during the height of the coup attempts against then
President Cory Aquino. Confiscated from him were various explosives and ammunition. De Gracia
contested the warrantless search and seizure but the Supreme Court ruled that the search warrant can
be dispensed with due to the exigent circumstances attendant to the case.

POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE

Exclusionary Rule
- Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him (the accused). Therefore, any evidence obtained by virtue of an illegally obtained confession
is also inadmissible, being the fruit of a poisonous tree.

DOCTRINE OF SUPEREVENING EVENT

Prosecution for another offense if subsequent development changes the character of the first indictment
under which he may have already been charged or convicted. Conviction of accused shall not bar another
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense originally charged when:
1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission;
2. Facts constituting graver offense arose or discovered only after filing of former complaint or
information; and
3. Plea of guilty to lesser offense was made without the consent of prosecutor or offended party.
Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006, for double jeopardy to attach, the case
against the accused must have been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a
court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid information sufficient in form and substance and the accused
pleaded to the said charge.
MELO DOCTRINE The rule of identity does not apply when the second offense was not in existence at
the time of the first prosecution, for the simple reason that in such case, there is no possibility for the
accused, during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where
the accused was charged with physical injuries and after conviction, the injured person dies, the charged
for homicide against the same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy.

DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

Superior officer is liable for acts of subordinate when:
1. he negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or incompetent subordinates
2. he negligently or willfully fails to require subordinate to conform to prescribed regulations
3. he negligently or carelessly oversees business of office as to furnish subordinate an opportunity for
default
4. he directed or authorized or cooperated in the wrong
5. law makes himself expressly liable

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION DOCTRINE

Power of administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations on matters of their own
specialization.

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of
purely administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious and summary in nature;
hence, res judicata does not apply. [Nasipit Lumber Co. v NLRC (1989)]. The essential requisites of res
judicata are:
1. The former judgment must be final;
2. It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
3. It must be a judgment on the merits; and
4. There must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. [Ipekdijan Merchandising v CTA
(1963)]

VARIANCE DOCTRINE
Is that a crime charged includes crime proved, convict of crime proved. Also applies when crime proved
includes crime charged, convict of crime charged.

RIPENESS FOR REVIEW DOCTRINE

1. This determines the point at which courts may review administrative action.
2. Application:
[a] when the interest of the plaintiff is subjected to or imminently threatened with substantial injury
[b] if the statute is self-executory
[c] when a party is immediately confronted with the problem of complying or violating a statute and there
is a risk of criminal penalties
[d] when plaintiff is harmed by the vagueness of the statute.

REGALIAN DOCTRINE
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other minerals oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife, flora, and fauna and natural resources belong to the
State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. (Sec. 2
Art XII)

STEWARDSHIP DOCTRINE
Private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for the people in general, who
are its real owners.

DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION
The generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon the State but must first be
embodied in legislation enacted by the lawmaking body and so transformed into municipal law. Only
when so transformed will they become binding upon the State as part of its municipal law.

PACTA SUN SERVANDA

Treaties must be observed in good faith. If necessary, the State concerned must even modify its national
legislation and constitution to make them conform to the treaty to avoid international embarrassment.

REBUS SIC STANTIBUS

A contracting state’s obligations under a treaty terminates when a vital or fundamental change or
circumstance occurs, thus allowing a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, because of the
disappearance of the foundation upon which it rests

WILSON DOCTRINE
recognition shall not be extended to any government established by revolution or internal violence until
the freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional government.

ESTRADA DOCTRINE
the Mexican government declared that it would, as it saw fit, continue or terminate its diplomatic relations
with any country in which a political upheaval had taken place and in so doing it would not pronounce
judgment on the right of the foreign state to accept, maintain or replace its government. (Cruz,
International Law, 2003 ed.) (In view of recent developments, the Wilson doctrine and the Estrada
doctrine are no longer in the mainstream of public international law.)

INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE DOCTRINE

an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding that he has already
renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second state whose nationality he has acquired.

HOT PURSUIT DOCTRINE

Requisites:
a. Pursuit commences from internal waters,territorial sea or contiguous zone ofpursuing state
b. Continuous and unabated
c. Conducted by warship, military aircraft orgovernment ships, authorized for the purpose
d. Ceases as soon as the ship being pursued enters the territorial sea of its own, or of a third state

DOCTRINE OF FREE ENTERPRISE

Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, G.R. No. 156041,
February 21, 2007 and Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III,
G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007, it was held that despite the fact that “our present Constitution
enshrines free enterprise as a policy”, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene
whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of
‘protective regulations’. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how
such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade.

WILSON/TOBAR DOCTRINE
Precludes recognition of government established by revolution, civil war, coup d’etat or other forms of
internal violence until freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional
government (US President Woodrow Wilson and Ecuadorian FM) [2004 Bar]

STIMSON DOCTRINE
Precludes recognition of any government established as a result of external aggression (US Sec. Of State
Henry Stimson)

ESTRADA DOCTRINE
Dealing or not dealing with the government established through a political upheaval is not a judgment on
the legitimacy of the said government (Mexican Minister Genaro Estrada) [2004 Bar]

DOCTRINE OF INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE

an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality although he has already renounced it
under the laws of another state whose nationality he has acquired

DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY

(Art. 5, Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws) – a person having more than one
nationality shall be treated as if he had only one—either the nationality of the country in which he is
habitually and principally resident or the nationality of the country with which, in the circumstances, he
appears to be most closely connected (Frivaldo vs. Comelec)
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest