Constitutional Law 1 - File No. 2
Constitutional Law 1 - File No. 2
Constitutional Law 1 - File No. 2
File No. 2
Gen. Rule : The State may not be sued without its consent.
Basis : Sec. 3, Art. XVI of the Constitution.
1. This rule applies not only in favor of the Philippines but also in
favor of the foreign states.
2. The rule likewise prohibits a person from filing for interpleader,
with the State as one of the defendants being compelled to
interplead.
CASES
• The Rice and Corn Administration (RCA) is part of the
government being in fact an office under the office of the President
and therefore, cannot be sued without the consent of the State.
The consent to be effective must come from the State, acting
through a duly enacted statute. Thus, whatever counsel for
defendant RCA agreed to had no binding force in the government.
That was clearly beyond the scope of his authority (Republic vs.
Purisima, 78 SCRA 470).
• Forms of Consent
1. Express consent
2. Implied consent
i) express consent
CASES
• Under its charter (RA 1161, Sec. 4K) the SSS can sue and be
sued. So, if assuming that the SSS enjoys immunity from suit as an
entity performing governmental functions by virtue of the explicit
provision of the enabling law, it can be sued. The government
must be deemed to have waived immunity in respect of the SSS,
although it does not thereby concede its liability (SSS vs. CA, 120 SCRA
707).
1. When the State enters into a private contract. The contract must be
entered into by the proper officer and within the scope of his
authority. UNLESS: the contract is merely incidental to the
performance of a governmental function.
4. When the State files suit against a private party UNLESS: the suit is
entered into only to resist a claim..
CASES
• The claim for damages for the use of property against the
intervenor dependant Republic of the Philippines to which it was
transferred cannot be maintained because of the immunity of the
State from suit. The claim obviously constitutes a charge against,
or financial liability to, the Government and consequently cannot
be entertained by the courts except with the consent of the
government (Lim vs. Brownell, 107 Phil 344).
• When the government takes any property for public use, which is
condition upon the payment of just compensation, to be judicially
ascertained, it makes manifest that it submits to the jurisdiction of
a court. The Court may proceed with the complaint and determine
the compensation to which the petitioner are entitle (Ministerio vs.
CFI, 40 SCRA 464).
Exceptions:
Exceptions:
1. eminent domain;
2. erroneous collection of taxes; or
3. where government aggress to pay interest pursuant to law.
CASES
• The rule is and has always been that all government funds
deposited in the PNB or any other official depositary of the
Philippine Government by any of its agencies or instrumentalities
remain government funds and may not be subject to garnishment
or levy, in the absence of a corresponding appropriation as
required by law. Even though the rule as to immunity of a state
from suit is relaxed, the power of the courts ends when the
judgment is rendered. The functions and public services rendered
by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the
diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects,
as appropriated by law. However, the rule is not absolute and
admits of a well-defined exception, that it, when there is a
corresponding appropriation is required by law. In such a case, the
monetary judgment may be legally enforced by judicial processes
(City of Caloocan vs. Allarde, GR 107271, Sept. 10, 2003).
CASES
• The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the
status of a foreign sovereign. The privilege of sovereign immunity
in this case was sufficiently established by the memorandum and
certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Where the plea
of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch, it
is the duty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass
the executive arm of the government in conducting the country’s
foreign relations. Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from
the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over
any real action relating to private immovable property situated in
the territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds on behalf
of the sending state for the purposes of the mission (Holy See vs.
Rosario, GR 101949, December 1, 1994).
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution;
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers,
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority; and
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
i) Concept,
distinguished from nationality, kinds
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption
of the 1987 Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
Natural-born citizens:
1. Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform
any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.
2. Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV, Sec. 1(3) of
1987 Constitution.
CASES
1. By birth
Effects of naturalization:
1. On the wife:
Vests citizenship on the wife who might herself be lawfully
naturalized. She need not prove her qualifications but only that she
is not disqualified (Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Comm. Of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292).
3. By marriage:
Marriage of Filipino with an alien:
General Rule: The Filipino retains Philippine
citizenship.
Exception: If, by their act or omission they are
deemed under the law to have renounce it.
CASES
2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation
• Art. IV, Sec. 1 (4) states that citizens are “those whose mothers
are citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching the age of
majority, elect the Philippine citizenship.” A minor who has not had
the opportunity to elect Philippine citizenship, therefore, is still an
alien, his father being an alien. It is illogical that Delfin follow the
repatriation of his Filipino mother since he was never a Filipino,
therefore he could not reacquire it. No rule or right (even right of
mother to retain custody of a minor child) should frustrate
government's action against violators of immigration laws
(Villahermosa vs. Commissioner, 80 Phil 541).
• There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2)
by naturalization. These ways of acquiring citizenship correspond to
the two kinds of citizens: the natural-born citizen, and the
naturalized citizen. A person who at the time of his birth is a citizen
of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof.
CASES
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter's country
the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission
they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
Qualifications:
CASES
• The right to abstain from voting for a position deserves the same
respect as the exercise of the right to vote. To compel the
COMELEC to conduct a special for the position of congressman as
demanded by petitioners would be to nullify the decisions of the
voters who cast their votes in the May 1992 elections (Caram vs.
Comelec, GR No. 1052 14, August 30, 1993).
This rule applies to those who have not lost their domicile in the
Philippines.
CASES