Consti Law 1

Merzy’s Notes Prelim Exam
Introduction:
1. General Principles II. The Philippine Constitution
A. Political Law - branch of the public law which deals with 1. Maloslos Constitution
2. The American Regime and organic acts
the organization and operation of the governmental organs
3. The 1935 Constitution
of the state and defines the relationship of the states with
4. The Japanese Occupation
the inhabitants of its territory. 5. The 1973 Constitution
Code:
Scope/ Division of Political law
1. Constitutional Law. B. The 1987 Constitution
The study of the maintenance of the proper balance 1. Freedom of Constitution

between authority as represented by the three inherent powers of 2. Adaptation of the Constitution
the State and 3. Effectivily of the 1987 Constitution
liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
code: Effectivity of statues
2. Administrative Law. Case in point : Tañada v. Tuvera G.R No: 1985

That branch of public law which fixes the organization
of government, determines the competence of the administrative
authorities who We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local
execute the law, and indicates to the individual remedies for the application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for
violation of his their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication
rights. unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
Code: Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders
promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers
3.Law on Municipal Corporations. whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at
present, directly conferred by the Constitution. administrative rules
4. Law of Public Officers. and regulations must a also be published if their purpose is to
enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid
5. Election Laws. delegation.
Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 1

2019
Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that G.R no: 202242, April 16, 2013
is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and
not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required
of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers
superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it
subordinates in the performance of their duties. creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at
all. This rule, however, is not absolute. Under the doctrine of
Accordingly, even the charter of a city must be published operative facts, actions previous to the declaration of
notwithstanding that it applies to only a portion of the national unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are not nullified.
territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of that place. All This is essential in the interest of fair play.
presidential decrees must be published, including even, say, those
naming a public place after a favored individual or exempting him The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general
from certain prohibitions or requirements. The circulars issued by the rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies
Monetary Board must be published if they are meant not merely to the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the
interpret but to "fill in the details" of the Central Bank Act which that existence of a statute prior to a determination of
body is supposed to enforce. unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot
However, no publication is required of the instructions issued by, always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The doctrine is
say, the Minister of Social Welfare on the case studies to be made in applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose
petitions for adoption or the rules laid down by the head of a an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
government agency on the assignments or workload of his personnel Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of
or the wearing of office uniforms. Parenthetically, municipal unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy or
ordinances are not covered by this rule but by the Local Government would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance
Code. upon a law creating it.
Under the circumstances, the Court finds the exception applicable in

We agree that publication must be in full or it is no publication at all
this case and holds that notwithstanding its finding of
since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws.
unconstitutionality in the current composition of the JBC, all its prior
official actions are nonetheless valid.
Presumption of Constitutionality
Code: C. Nature of the Constitution

Case: Chavez v. JBC, 1. Constitution defined

2019
Classification
That body of rules and maxims in accordance with
which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised
[Cooley, Constitutional Legislative Power
Limitations, p. 4].
ARTICLE VI
Code:
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
With particular reference to the Constitution of the Philippines: Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of
That written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
which the Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the
fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and provision on initiative and referendum.
defined, and
by which those powers are distributed among the several Code:
departments for their
safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic Executive Power
[Malcolm, Philippine
Constitutional Law
ARTICLE VII
2. Purpose
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
To prescribe the permanent framework of a system of Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of
government, to assign to the several departments their respective the Philippines.
powers and Code:
duties, and to establish certain first principles on which the
government is founded Judicial Power
code:
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DEFINITION OF TERMS:
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Powers of the government

2019
Classification: constitution is enacted, formally struck off at a definite time and

place following a
vis a vis Amendment Process conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler;
while a
1.Rigid Constitution:
A rigid Constitution is one that can be amended onlyby a formal and
usually difficult process. code:
4.Cumulative or evolved:
2.Flexible Constitution: while a flexible Constitution is one that
can be changed by ordinary legislation a cumulative constitution is the result of political evolution, not
vis a vis Adaption inaugurated at any
Written: specific time but changing by accretion rather than by any
systematic method
1. Written Constitution .
A written constitution is one whose precepts areembodied in one Code:
document or set of documents; while an
Code: Our Constitution:
2. Unwritten constitution 4. Qualities of a good written Constitution

consists of rules which have not been integrated into a single,
concrete form but Broad.
are scattered in various sources, such as statutes of a fundamental
character, Not just because it provides for the organization of the entire
judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs and government and covers all persons and things within the territory of
traditions, and certain the State but because it must be comprehensive enough to provide
common law principles
for every contingency.
Code:
code:
Brief:
3. Enacted or conventional:
It must confine itself to basic principles to be implemented with
A conventional legislative details more adjustable to change and easier to amend.

2019
IX.
Code:
Code:
c) Constitution of Sovereignty.
Definite. The provisions pointing out the mode or

procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the
To prevent ambiguity in its provisions which could result in fundamental law may
confusion and divisiveness among the people be brought about, e.g.,
Art. XVI
code:
Code:
4. Essential parts of a good written Constitution
a) Constitution of Liberty.
5. Interpretation/Construction of the Constitution
The series of prescriptions setting forth the
fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing
limitations on the 1. Supremacy of the Constitution:
powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of
those rights, e.g.,
Art. III.
CASE IN POINT: Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate
Code: G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011
b) Constitution of Government.
Several laws pertaining to the Autonomous Region in Muslim
The series of provisions outlining the Mindanao (ARMM) were enacted by Congress. Republic Act (RA)
organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying No. 6734 is the organic act that established the ARMM and
down certain rules scheduled the first regular elections for the ARMM regional
relative to its administration, and defining the electorate, e.g., officials. RA No. 9054 amended the ARMM Charter and reset the
Arts. VI, VII, VIII regular elections for the ARMM regional officials to the second
and Monday of September 2001. RA No. 9140 further reset the first

2019
regular elections to November 26, 2001. RA No. 9333 reset for the Independently of the Osmeña ruling, the primacy of the Constitution
third time the ARMM regional elections to the 2nd Monday of August as the supreme law of the land dictates that where the Constitution
2005 and on the same date every 3 years thereafter. has itself made a determination or given its mandate, then the
matters so determined or mandated should be respected until the
Pursuant to RA No. 9333, the next ARMM regional elections Constitution itself is changed by amendment or repeal through the
should have been held on August 8, 2011. COMELEC had begun applicable constitutional process. A necessary corollary is that none
preparations for these elections and had accepted certificates of of the three branches of government can deviate from the
candidacies for the various regional offices to be elected. But constitutional mandate except only as the Constitution itself may
on June 30, 2011, RA No. 10153 was enacted, resetting the next allow.53 If at all, Congress may only pass legislation filing in details to
ARMM regular elections to May 2013 to coincide with the regular fully operationalize the constitutional command or to implement it by
national and local elections of the country. legislation if it is non-self-executing; this Court, on the other hand,
may only interpret the mandate if an interpretation is appropriate
Issue: won R.A no. 10153 is unconstitutional and called for.54
In the case of the terms of local officials, their term has been fixed
Ruling: Since elective ARMM officials are local officials, they are clearly and unequivocally, allowing no room for any implementing
covered and bound by the three-year term limit prescribed by the legislation with respect to the fixed term itself and no vagueness that
Constitution; they cannot extend their term through a holdover. As would allow an interpretation from this Court. Thus, the term of
this Court put in Osmeña v. COMELEC:52 three years for local officials should stay at three (3) years as fixed
by the Constitution and cannot be extended by holdover by
It is not competent for the legislature to extend the term of officers Congress.
by providing that they shall hold over until their successors are
elected and qualified where the constitution has in effect or by clear
implication prescribed the term and when the Constitution fixes the
day on which the official term shall begin, there is no legislative
authority to continue the office beyond that period, even though the 2. Prospective in application:
successors fail to qualify within the time.
In American Jurisprudence it has been stated as follows: XPN:
"It has been broadly stated that the legislature cannot, by an act ARTICLE IV
postponing the election to fill an office the term of which is limited
by the Constitution, extend the term of the incumbent beyond the CITIZENSHIP
period as limited by the Constitution." [Emphasis ours.]

2019
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the which must be maintained inviolate against disobedience and
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire defiance. What the Constitution clearly says, according to its text,
or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine compels acceptance and bars modification even by the branch
citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall tasked to interpret it.
be deemed natural-born citizens.
For this reason, the Court cannot accede to the argument of plain
oversight in order to justify constitutional construction. As stated in
3. Verba Legis: the July 17, 2012 Decision, in opting to use the singular letter "a" to
describe "representative of Congress," the Filipino people through
the Framers intended that Congress be entitled to only one (1) seat
in the JBC. Had the intention been otherwise, the Constitution could
have, in no uncertain terms, so provided, as can be read in its other
provisions.
CASE IN POINT: Chavez v. JBC
G.R. No. 202242, April 16, 2013 . It is very clear that the Framers were not keen on adjusting the
provision on congressional representation in the JBC because it was
not in the exercise of its primary function – to legislate. JBC was
FACTS: created to support the executive power to appoint, and Congress, as
one whole body, was merely assigned a contributory non-legislative
In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an eighth member function.
was added to the JBC as two representatives from Congress began
sitting in the JBC – one from the House of Representatives and one Domino v. Comelec
from the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote. Then, G.R. No. 134015. July 19, 1999
the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings held in 2000 and 2001,
decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and the House
of Representatives one full vote each. Senator Francis Joseph G. Facts:
Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents)
simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of the legislature. It Petitioner Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of
is this practice that petitioner has questioned in this petition. Representative of the lone legislative district of the Province of
Sarangani indicating that he has resided in the constituency where
Ruling: he seeks to be elected for 1 year and 2 months. Private respondents
filed a petition seeking to cancel the certificate of candidacy of
The language used in the Constitution must be taken to have been Domino, alleging that Domino, contrary to his declaration in the
deliberately chosen for a definite purpose. Every word employed in certificate of candidacy, is not a resident, much less a registered
the Constitution must be interpreted to exude its deliberate intent voter, of the province of Sarangani where he seeks election.

2019
Thereafter, the COMELEC promulgated a resolution declaring G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
Domino disqualified as candidate for the position of representative of
the lone district of Sarangani in the May 11, 1998 polls for lack of
the one-year residency requirement and likewise ordered the Facts:
cancellation of his certificate of candidacy based on his own Voter’s
Registration Record and his address indicated as 24 Bonifacio St., former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint
Ayala Hts., Old Balara, Quezon City. (first impeachment complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide
Jr. and seven Associate Justices of the Supreme Court for “culpable
violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other
Issue: Whether or not petitioner has resided in Sarangani Province high crimes.” The complaint was endorsed by House
for at least 1 year immediately preceding the May 11, 1998 elections Representatives, and was referred to the House Committee on
Justice on 5 August 2003 in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article
XI of the Constitution
Held: The term “residence,” as used in the law prescribing the
qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means the same
Various petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed
thing as “domicile,” which imports not only an intention to reside in a
with the Supreme Court against the House of Representatives, et.
fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with
al., most of which petitions contend that the filing of the second
conduct indicative of such intention. “Domicile” denotes a fixed
impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the
permanent residence to which, whenever absent for business,
provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution that “[n]o
pleasure, or some other reasons, one intends to return.
impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of one year.”
A person’s domicile, once established, is considered to continue and
will not be deemed lost until a new one is established. To
Issues:
successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate an
actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention
of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new 1. Whether or not the offenses alleged in the Second
one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. impeachment complaint constitute valid impeachable
offenses under the Constitution.
4. Ratio legis et anima: Interpretation according to spirit. The Held.

words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with
the intent of the framers. (Relate to number 2) the Supreme Court made reference to the use of well- settled
principles of constitutional construction, namely: First, verba leais.
i. e., whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be
Francisco v. House of Representatives given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are

2019
employed. As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document,

it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be Republic of the Philippines Vs. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno
present in the people’s consciousness, its language as much G.R. No. 237428. May 11, 2018
as possible should be understood in the sense they have a common
use. Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio leqis et anima. The MAIN CASE:
words of the Constitution should
be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers.
On August 2010, Sereno was appointed as Associate Justice. On
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary 2012, the position of Chief Justice was declared vacant, and the JBC
194 SCRA 317 directed the applicants to submit documents, among which are “all
previous SALNs up to December 31, 2011” for those in the
FACTS: Consolidated petitions are being resolved jointly as both government and “SALN as of December 31, 2011” for those from the
seek for the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order private sector. The JBC announcement further provided that
No. 284 (EO No. 284) issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino “applicants with incomplete or out-of-date documentary
on July 25, 1987. requirements will not be interviewed or considered for nomination.”
EO No. 284 allows members of the Cabinet, their Undersecretaries Sereno expressed in a letter to JBC that since she resigned from UP
and Assistant Secretaries to hold other than their government Law on 2006 and became a private practitioner, she was treated as
positions in addition to their primary positions coming from the private sector and only submitted three (3) SALNs
or her SALNs from the time she became an Associate Justice. Sereno
ISSUE: Whether or not EO No. 284 is constitutional. likewise added that “considering that most of her government
records in the academe are more than 15 years old, it is reasonable
HELD: The Court ruled in the negative. to consider it infeasible to retrieve all of those files,” and that the
clearance issued by UP HRDO and CSC should be taken in her favor.
It has been held that in construing a Constitution should bear in There was no record that the letter was deliberated upon. Despite
mind the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the this, on a report to the JBC, Sereno was said to have “complete
evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful requirements.” On August 2012, Sereno was appointed Chief Justice.
provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times and
the condition and circumstances under which the Constitution was On February 2018, Atty. Eligio Mallari wrote to the OSG, requesting
framed. that the latter, in representation of the Republic, initiate a quo
warranto proceeding against Sereno. The OSG, invoking the Court’s
The legislative intent of both Constitutional provisions is to prevent original jurisdiction under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the
government officials from holding multiple positions in the Constitution in relation to the special civil action under Rule 66, the
government for self enrichment which is a betrayal of public trust. Republic, through the OSG filed the petition for the issuance of the
extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare as void Sereno’s

2019
appointment as CJ of the SC and to oust and altogether exclude The language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not
Sereno therefrom. foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable officers:
“Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
Issue: Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and
course to the instant petition for quo warranto. the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
Held: . Quo warranto proceedings are essentially judicial in bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public
character – it calls for the exercise of the Supreme Court’s trust.” The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote
constitutional duty and power to decide cases and settle actual discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect,
controversies. This constitutional duty cannot be abdicated or indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity, or an option. In
transferred in favor of, or in deference to, any other branch of the American jurisprudence, it has been held that “the express provision
government including the Congress, even as it acts as an for removal by impeachment ought not to be taken as a tacit
impeachment court through the Senate. prohibition of removal by other methods when there are other
adequate reasons to account for this express provision.
To differentiate from impeachment, quo warranto involves a judicial
determination of the eligibility or validity of the election or
appointment of a public official based on predetermined rules while Sereno’s ineligibility for lack of proven integrity cannot be cured by
impeachment is a political process to vindicate the violation of the her nomination and subsequent appointment as Chief Justice.
public’s trust. In quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled
by appointment, what is determined is the legality of the Well-settled is the rule that qualifications for public office must be
appointment. The title to a public office may not be contested possessed at the time of appointment and assumption of office and
collaterally but only directly, by quo warranto proceedings. also during the officer’s entire tenure as a continuing requirement.
usurpation of a public office is treated as a public wrong and carries The voidance of the JBC nomination as a necessary consequence of
with it public interest, and as such, it shall be commenced by a the Court’s finding that Sereno is ineligible, in the first place, to be a
verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the candidate for the position of Chief Justice and to be nominated for
Philippines through the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor. The said position follows as a matter of course. The Court has ample
SolGen is given permissible latitude within his legal authority in jurisdiction to do so without the necessity of impleading the JBC as
actions for quo warranto, circumscribed only by the national interest the Court can take judicial notice of the explanations from the JBC
and the government policy on the matter at hand. members and the OEO. he Court, in a quo warranto proceeding,
maintains the power to issue such further judgment determining the
Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly respective rights in and to the public office, position or franchise of
appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official may be removed all the parties to the action as justice requires.
from office.
Sereno is a de facto officer removable through quo warranto

2019
The effect of a finding that a person appointed to an office is is clear. We think it safer to construe the Constitution from what
ineligible therefor is that his presumably valid appointment will give “appears upon its
him color of title that confers on him the status of a de facto officer. face”. The proper interpretation, therefore, depends more on how it
For lack of a Constitutional qualification, Sereno is ineligible to hold was understood
the position of Chief Justice and is merely holding a colorable right by the people adopting it than in the framers’ understanding thereof.
or title thereto. As such, Sereno has never attained the status of an
impeachable official and her removal from the office, other than by Republic of the Philippines Vs. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno G.R. No.
impeachment, is justified. The remedy, therefore, of a quo warranto 237428. May 11, 2018
at the instance of the State is proper to oust Sereno from the
appointive position of Chief Justice.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen:
5. The constitution has to be interpreted as a whole. The Constitution should be read as a singular, whole unit.
A verba legis or plain reading of Article
XI, Section 2 of the Constitution is not proper. The words therein,
“may be removed,”should be in accordance with the Constitutional
CASES IN POINT: Civil Liberties Union v. Executive framework and the subsequent jurisprudence over the text under
Secretary consideration.
194 SCRA 317 To focus on the word “may” precludes the importance of the entire
document and provides a myopic and unhistorical view of the
The Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, shall reign framework on which legal order rests.
supreme over any other statute. When there is conflict, it shall be o
resolved in favor of the highest law of the land. Thus, the Court held The framers of the Constitution did not use “SHALL be removed” as
that EO No. 284 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. it communicates that
removal through impeachment and conviction was mandatory, as
opposed to “may”which
Again in Civil Liberties Union, supra., it was held should mean that it was an option to remove. Nor was “may ALSO
that while it is permissible to consult the debates and proceedings of be removed from office...” used, as it would clearly state the intent
the for processes other than impeachment and conviction to remove a
constitutional convention in order to arrive at the reason and sitting Chief Justice.
purpose of the resulting o
Constitution, resort thereto may be had only when other guides fail The phrase “may ONLYbe removed from office” was not also used.
as said But this should be interpreted within the context of the provision.
proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution Specifically, the following must be taken into consideration:
when the meaning

2019
(i) that the Constitution reserves the process of removal through This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, together with other
impeachment lawmakers, taxpayers, and various NGO’s to nullify the Philippine
and conviction to heads of Constitutional organs; ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.
(ii) that the process of removal is Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the growth of our
deliberately cumbersome, such as the one year time bar to avoid National Economy and against to the “Filipino First” policy. The WTO
harassment suits against opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading
impeachable officers and disruption of public service; partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly
agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new
(iii) that the grounds for impeachment opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated
are weighty and serious to shield impeachable officers with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the
from malicious or bothersome suits. predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by
the signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.
Constitutional heads are expected to make difficult decisions. In this
light, the Constitution Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of
should be read as to provide them incentive to do their duties. Thus, our constitution, since the said Agreement is an assault on the
“may be removed” sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant that Congress
should be read in light of the principle that impeachment and could not pass legislation that would be good for national interest
conviction should be read as the only process to remove them from and general welfare if such legislation would not conform to the
their respective office. WTO Agreement.
Issue: won the provision WTO agreement is unconstitutional
Held:
6. DYNAMIC [Doctrine of Relative Constitutionality]:
Constitution Designed to Meet
CASE IN POINT: Tañada vs Angara Future Events and Contingencies
G.R. No. 118295. May 2, 1997
No doubt, the WTO Agreement was not yet in existence when the
Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1987. That does not mean
Facts: however that the Charter is necessarily flawed in the sense that its
framers might not have anticipated the advent of a borderless world
of business. By the same token, the United Nations was not yet in
existence when the 1935 Constitution became effective. Did that

2019
necessarily mean that the then Constitution might not have multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of
contemplated a diminution of the absoluteness of sovereignty when international trade law. The alternative to WTO is isolation,
the Philippines signed the UN Charter, thereby effectively stagnation, if not economic self-destruction. Duly enriched with
surrendering part of its control over its foreign relations to the original membership, keenly aware of the advantages and
decisions of various UN organs like the Security Council? disadvantages of globalization with its on-line experience, and
endowed with a vision of the future, the Philippines now straddles
It is not difficult to answer this question. Constitutions are designed the crossroads of an international strategy for economic prosperity
to meet not only the vagaries of contemporary events. They should and stability in the new millennium. Let the people, through their
be interpreted to cover even future and unknown circumstances. It duly authorized elected officers, make their free choice.
is to the credit of its drafters that a Constitution can withstand the
assaults of bigots and infidels but at the same time bend with the WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
refreshing winds of change necessitated by unfolding events. As one
eminent political law writer and respected jurist 38 explains:
The Constitution must be quintessential rather than 7. GENERAL RULE: Provisions of the Constitution are deemed
superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base self-executing
and frame-work only of the edifice that is yet to rise.
It is but the core of the dream that must take shape,
not in a twinkling by mandate of our delegates, but
slowly "in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts," Self-executing/non-self-executing provisions
where it will in time develop its sinews and gradually
gather its strength and finally achieve its substance. EXCEPTION:
In fine, the Constitution cannot, like the goddess
Athena, rise full-grown from the brow of the Article 2 (DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE
Constitutional Convention, nor can it conjure by POLICIES PRINCIPLES).
mere fiat an instant Utopia. It must grow with the
society it seeks to re-structure and march apace In case of doubt, the provisions should be considered selfexecuting;
with the progress of the race, drawing from the mandatory rather than directory; and prospective rather than
vicissitudes of history the dynamism and vitality that retroactive
will keep it, far from becoming a petrified rule, a Self-executing provisions.
pulsing, living law attuned to the heartbeat of the
nation. A provision which lays down a general
principle is usually not self-executing. But a provision which is
Notwithstanding objections against possible limitations on national complete in itself and
sovereignty, the WTO remains as the only viable structure for
2019
becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling YES, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987
legislation, or that Constitution is a self-executing provision and does not need
which supplies a sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants implementing legislation to carry it into effect.
may be enjoyed
or protected, is self-executing
CASES IN POINT: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS Sec. 10, second par., of Art XII is couched in such a way as
G.R. No. 122156, February 03, 1997 not to make it appear that it is non-self-executing but simply for
purposes of style. But, certainly, the legislature is not precluded
THE FACTS
from enacting further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so
Pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine long as the contemplated statute squares with the
Government, the GSIS sold in public auction its stake in Manila Hotel Constitution. Minor details may be left to the legislature without
Corporation (MHC). Only 2 bidders participated: petitioner Manila impairing the self-executing nature of constitutional provisions.
Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy the second paragraph can only be self-executing as it does
51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and not by its language require any legislation in order to give preference
Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions
operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per covering the national economy and patrimony. A constitutional
share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. provision may be self-executing in one part and non-self-executing in
another.
Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court to
Thus, a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and
compel the GSIS to allow it to match the bid of Renong Berhad. It
extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by
invoked the Filipino First Policy enshrined in §10, paragraph 2, Article the Constitution
XII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that “in the grant of itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and
rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy construction of its
and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.” terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is
referred to the legislature for action.
Issue:
1. Whether §10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987

Constitution is a self-executing provision and does not need Pamatong v. Comelec
implementing legislation to carry it into effect G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004
Held:

2019
FACTS:
Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Facts:

President. Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others
as nuisance candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign The Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA) was launched by the
and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not supported by Department of Health (DOH) in 1999, which provided five areas of
a registered political party with a national constituency. general reform. One in particular was the provision of
fiscal autonomy to government hospitals that implements the
ISSUE: collection of socialized user fees and the corporate restructuring of
government hospitals. The petitioners alleged that the
implementation of the aforementioned reform had resulted in
Is there a constitutional right to run for or hold public office?
making free medicine and free medical services inaccessible to
economically disadvantage Filipinos. Thus, they alleged that the
RULING: HSRA is void for violating the following constitutional provisions:
Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18 of Article II, Section 1 of Article III,
No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is Sections 11 and 14 of Article XIII, and Sections 1 and 3(2) of Article
merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. It neither XV. On May 24, 1999, then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada issued
bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an Executive Order No. 102, entitled “Redirecting the functions and
enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the Operations of the Department of Health”, which provided for
provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation the changes in the roles, functions, and organizational processes of
of the sort. the DOH.
Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows a right nor Issues: . WON the HSRA is void for violating various provisions of
elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. Like the the Constitution
rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the provision does not
contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely
specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action. The disregard No. As a general rule, the provisions of the Constitution are
of this provision does not give rise to any cause of action before the considered self-executing, and do not require future legislation for
courts their enforcement. For if they are not treated as self-executing, the
mandate of the fundamental law can be easily nullified by the
What is the importance of knowing whether a provision in inaction of By its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a
the constitution is self-executing and not self-executing? "declaration of principles and state policies." x x x. These principles
in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for
Tondo Medical v. Court of Appeals enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as
527 SCRA 746 2007

2019
aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer
by the legislature in its enactment of laws. must be informed at the time of the signing of the nature and effect,
failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which renders the
initiative void.
B. Amendment Amendment vs Revision
In determining whether the Lambino proposal involves an
Lambino v. Comelec amendment or a revision, the Court considered the two-part test.
G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006 First, the
quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is so extensive
Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering in its
signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 constitution, provisions as to change directly the “substance entirety” of the
they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will Constitution by the
ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged deletion or alteration of numerous provisions. The court examines
that the petition had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what was only the number
provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the
1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 change. Second,
of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed changes will shift the the qualitative test, which inquires into the qualitative effects of the
present bicameral- presidential form of government to unicameral- proposed
parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling change in the Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change
law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. will
Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the “accomplish such far-reaching changes in the nature of our basic
initiative petitions. governmental
plan as to amount to a revision”.
Issue: ii) The Lambino proposal constituted a revision, not simply an
amendment, of the Constitution, because it involved a change in the
Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with form of
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the government, from presidential to parliamentary, and a shift from the
Constitution through a people’s initiative present
bicameral to a a unicameral legislature.
Held:
Let’s outline what we have learned from the case:
The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII
of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People Amendments Revisions
Purpose: Improved or change specific Examine entirely

2019
Provision which among others called for a Constitutional Convention to

Affected: Only specific provision Several Provisions propose constitutional amendments to be composed of two
Substance: reduces w/o altering affects the basic principle delegates from each representative district who shall have the same
Modes: Congress, Con-con, People Congress and Con-con qualifications as those of Congressmen, to be elected on the second
Examples Tuesday of November, 1970 in accordance with the Revised Election
1. Extending limit of term 1. Shift to federal Code. On June 17, 1969, Congress, also acting as a Constituent
2. Voting age 2. Separation of powers Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4 amending the aforesaid
3. Change of policy mass- media 3. Check and balance Resolution No. 2 of March 16, 1967 by providing that the convention
“shall be composed of 320 delegates apportioned among the existing
representative districts according to the number of their respective
Tests to determine if the proposed change is an amendment inhabitants: Provided, that a representative district shall be entitled
or a revision to at least two delegates, who shall have the same qualifications as
those required of members of the House of Representatives,” 1 “and
QUANTITATIVE TEST that any other details relating to the specific apportionment of
delegates, election of delegates to, and the holding of, the
QUALITATIVE TEST Constitutional Convention shall be embodied in an implementing
legislation: Provided, that it shall not be inconsistent with the
provisions of this Resolution
2. Constituent vs Legislative Power
Issue:
Imbong v. Comelec
35 SCRA 28 1. Whether the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional
Convention;
Facts: 2. Whether the parameters set by such a call is constitutional.
These two separate but related petitions for declaratory relief were Decision:
filed pursuant to Sec. 19 of R.A. No. 6132 by petitioners Manuel B.
Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales, both members of the Bar, taxpayers
The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional
and interested in running as candidates for delegates to the
Convention as a Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, specific
Constitutional Convention. Both impugn the constitutionality of R.A.
provisions assailed by the petitioners are deemed as constitutional.
No. 6132, claiming during the oral argument that it prejudices their
rights as such candidates.
1. Congress, when acting as a Constituent Assembly
pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, has full and
On March 16, 1967, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly
plenary authority to propose Constitutional
pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, passed Resolution No. 2

2019
amendments or to call a convention for the purpose, every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
by a three-fourths vote of each House in joint centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
session assembled but voting separately. section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification
Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 calling for a constitutional of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
convention were passed by the required three-
fourths vote. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
this right.
2. The grant to Congress as a Constituent Assembly Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its
of such plenary authority to call a constitutional Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all
convention includes, by virtue of the doctrine of its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a
necessary implication, all other powers essential to convention.
the effective exercise of the principal power granted,
such as the power to fix the qualifications, number, Occena v. Comelec, 104 SCRA 1, 1981
apportionment, and compensation of the delegates
as well as appropriation of funds to meet the FACTS:
expenses for the election of delegates and for the
operation of the Constitutional Convention itself, as Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales, both members
well as all other implementing details indispensable of the Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional
to a fruitful convention. Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 Convention that framed the present Constitution, are suing as
already embody the above-mentioned details, taxpayers assailed against the validity of three Batasang Pambansa
except the appropriation of funds. Resolutions (Resolution No. 1 proposing an amendment allowing a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines naturalized in a foreign country
to own a limited area of land for residential purposes was approved
3.Steps in Amendatory Process:
by the vote of 122 to 5; Resolution No. 2 dealing with the
a. Proposal (Secs. 1-3, Art. XVII) Presidency, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and the National
Assembly by a vote of 147 to 5 with 1 abstention; and Resolution
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may No. 3 on the amendment to the Article on the Commission on
be proposed by: Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with 1 abstention) 1proposing
1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
constitutional amendments. The petitioners asserted in rather
2. A constitutional convention.
unorthodox aspect that the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly law, the Javellana 2 ruling to the contrary notwithstanding.
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which ISSUES:

2019
1. Whether or not the 1973 Constitution is the fundamental WHEREFORE, it is the ruling of the court that the petitions be
law. dismissed for lack of merit.
2. Whether or not the resolutions issued by the Interim
Batasang Pambansa is unconstitional or not unconstitutional.
3. Whether or not the proposed amendments are so extensive
Lambino, supra
in character that goes far beyond the limits of the authority
conferred on the Interim Batasang Pambansa.
i. Congress
HELD
1. No. The proposed amendments do not go beyond the limits of

the authority conferred on the Interim Batasang Pambansa. ii. Constitutional Convention
In Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections, Justice Makasiar, Three Theories on the position of a Constitutional
dispose this contention: thus, "And whether the Constitutional Convention vis-à-vis the regular the departments of
government:
Convention will only propose amendments to the Constitution or
entirely overhaul the present Constitution and propose an entirely 1. Theory of Conventional Sovereignty
new Constitution based on an Ideology foreign to the democratic 2. Convention is inferior to the other department
system, is of no moment; because the same will be submitted to 3. Independent of and co-equal to the other departments
the people for ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people,
there can be no debate about the validity of the new
Constitution. The fact that the present Constitution may be
iii. People only for Amendments
revised and replaced with a new one ... is no argument against
the validity of the law because 'amendment' includes the 'revision'
or total overhaul of the entire Constitution. At any rate, whether Republic Act No. 6735 - An Act Providing for a System of Initiative
the Constitution is merely amended in part or revised or totally and Referendum
changed would become immaterial the moment the same is
ratified by the sovereign people." Therefore, Limitation: No amendment in this manner shall be authorized
within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
the Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent body,
more often than once every five years thereafter.
can propose amendments, whether extensive in character, is
inconsequential once ratified. Initiative: People, through the power of initiative [Sec. 2, Art.
XVI/].

2019
Requisite: A petition of at least 12% of the total number of the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country;
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be (2) Causing the necessary publications of said Order and the
represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. attached “Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in
newspapers of general and local circulation; and (3) Instructing
Three kinds of initiative: Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines, to
1. Constitution assist Petitioners and volunteers, in establishing signing stations at
2. Statute the time and on the dates designated for the purpose. Delfin
3. Local Legislation asserted that R.A. No. 6735 governs the conduct of initiative to
amend the Constitution and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is a valid
Section 2 (b), RA 6735 provides for: exercise of delegated powers. Petitioners contend that R.A. No. 6375
failed to be an enabling law because of its deficiency and
Indirect Initiative : inadequacy, and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is void.
which refers to a petition proposing
amendments to the Constitution; initiative on statutes which refers ISSUE:
to a petition
proposing to enact a national legislation; and initiative on local Whether or not (1) the absence of subtitle for such initiative is not
legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, fatal, (2) R.A. No. 6735 is adequate to cover the system of initiative
provincial, city, municipal or bararigay law, resolution or ordinance on amendment to the Constitution, and (3) COMELEC Resolution No.
[Sec. 2(a), R.A. 6735 2300 is valid. .
Direct Initiative
HELD:
Indirect Initiative is
exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to NO. Petition (for prohibition) was granted. The conspicuous silence
Congress or the local legislative body for action in subtitles simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative
and referendum on national and local laws. R.A. No. 6735 failed to
SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC 270 SCRA 106 (1997) provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation. Provisions
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 prescribing rules and regulations on
the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution are
declared void.
FACTS:
RATIO:
Private respondent filed with public respondent Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) a “Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift
Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People’s Initiative” (Delfin Subtitles are intrinsic aids for construction and interpretation. R.A.
Petition) wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order (1) Fixing No. 6735 failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the

2019
Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which are

specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. This deliberate (2) As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied
omission indicates that the matter of people’s initiative to amend the in the petition. The rationale for these requisites is that the signature
Constitution was left to some future law. requirement would be meaningless if the person supplying the
signature has not first seen what it is that he is signing, and more
The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only importantly, a loose interpretation
after its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing of the subscription requirement would pose a significant potential for
before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The fraud. In Lambino, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who
only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing signed the signature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed
of such petition are (1) to prescribe the form of the petition; (2) to
issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate changes before signing; they were not apprised of the nature and
on the total number of registered voters in each legislative effect of the proposed amendments. Failure to comply with these
district; (3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the requirements was fatal to the validity of the initiative petition
establishment of signature stations; and (4) to verify, through its [Lambino v. Comelec, supra.].
election registrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of
voters, voters’ affidavits, and voters’ identification cards used in the
immediately preceding election
NOTE: People’s initiative applies only to an amendment, not a
revision, of the Constitution. Apeople’s inititiative can only propose
amendments
Procedure. to the Constitution, inasmuch as the Constitution itself limits
initiatives to
The essence of amendments directly proposed amendments, as shown by the deliberations of the Constitutional
by the people through initiative upon a petition is that the entire Commission. The
proposal on its face is a petition of the people. Thus, two essential Lambino initiative constituted a revision because it proposed to
elements must be present: change the form
of government from presidential to parliamentary and the bicameral
to a
For a valid People’s initiative, there must be: unicameral legislature. Thus, the people’s initiative as a mode to
effect these
Thus, two essential elements must be present: proposed amendments was invalid [Lambino v. Comelec, supra.].
(1) The b. Ratification (Sec. 4, Art. XVII)

people must author and sign the entire proposal; no agent or
representative can sign in their behalf.
2019
Section 4.Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Issue: Whether or not a plebiscite may be held simultaneously with
Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the a general election
votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty
days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such II. Yes. There is no prohibition to the effect that a plebiscite must
amendment or revision. only be held on a special election. SC held that there is nothing in
this provision of the [1935] Constitution to indicate that the election
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified therein referred to is a special, not a general election. The
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not circumstance that the previous amendment to the Constitution had
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the been submitted to the people for ratification in special elections
certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the merely shows that Congress deemed it best to do so under the
petition. circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its authority to
submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections
How is ratification done?
Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702
Gonzales v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774 Facts:
The Constitutional Convention of 1971 approved on 28 September

In June 1967, Republic Act 4913 was passed. This law provided for 1971 Organic Resolution No 1, amending Section 1 Article V of the
the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite for the proposed amendments to Constitution so as to lower the voting age to 18 and that the
the Constitution. It was provided in the said law that the plebiscite plebiscite for partial amendment to take place with the local
shall be held on the same day that the general national elections elections on November 1971. President Diosdado Macapagal called
shall be held (November 14, 1967). This was questioned by Ramon
upon the COMELEC to help the Convention implement the said
Gonzales and other concerned groups as they argued that this was
unlawful as there would be no proper submission of the proposals to resolution. On 30 September 1971 COMELEC resolved to inform the
the people who would be more interested in the issues involved in Convention that it will hold the plebiscite. Succeeding resolutions on
the general election rather than in the issues involving the plebiscite. campaigning and confirming the authority of the President of the
Convention to implement the Organic Resolution were approved.
Gonzales also questioned the validity of the procedure adopted by Petitioner, Arturo Tolentino contended that under Section 1 Article
Congress when they came up with their proposals to amend the XV of the Constitution, the proposed amendment in question cannot
Constitution (RA 4913). In this regard, the COMELEC and other
be presented to the people for ratification separately from each and
respondents interposed the defense that said act of Congress cannot
be reviewed by the courts because it is a political question. all of the other amendments to be drafted and proposed by the
Convention.

2019
Issue: disallowed since the people had, at that time, no idea yet of what
the rest of the
Whether or not the Convention may call for a plebiscite on the sole revised Constitution would be
amendment contained in Organic Resolution 1 pursuant to Section 1
Article XV of the Constitution. Do the Courts have the power to decide on the validity or
invalidity of a proposed amendment?
Held: Petition is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 and the
implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention, insofar as they
provide for the holding of a plebiscite on 08 November 1971, as well
as the resolution of the respondent COMELEC complying therewith
are declared null and void.
Sanidad v. Comelec, 78 SCRA 333
The condition and limitation that all the amendments to be proposed
by the same Convention must be submitted to the people in a single Facts:
plebiscite pursuant to Section 1 Article XV of the Constitution. The
part that the people play in its amendment becomes harder, when a On 2 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 991 calling for a national
whole constitution is submitted to them, more or less they can referendum on 16 Oct 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies
assumed its harmony as an integrated whole, and they can either (“barangays”) to resolve, among other things, the issues of martial
accept or reject it in its entirety. When an amendment is submitted law, the interim assembly, its replacement, the powers of such
replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for
to them that is to form part of the existing constitution, in like
the exercise by the President of his present powers. Twenty days
fashion they can study with deliberation the proposed amendment in after, the President issued another related decree, PD No. 1031,
relation to the whole existing constitution and or any of its parts. amending the previous PD No. 991, by declaring the provisions of PD
No. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in
The use of the word “election" in the singular meant that “barangays” applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of Oct
the entire Constitution must be submitted for ratification at one 16, 1976. Quite relevantly, PD No. 1031 repealed inter alia, Sec 4, of
plebiscite only; PD No. 991. On the same date of 22 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD
furthermore, the people have to be given a “proper frame of No. 1033, stating the questions to he submitted to the people in the
reference” in arriving referendum-plebiscite on October 16, 1976. The Decree recites in its
at their decision. Thus, submission for ratification of piece-meal “whereas” clauses that the people’s continued opposition to the
amendments by convening of the interim National Assembly evinces their desire to
the Constitutional Convention (which is tasked to revise the have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional
Constitution) was amendment, providing for a new interim legislative body, which will

2019
be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of HELD: The SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at bar.
October 16. Majority of the SC justices expressed the view that they were
concluded by the ascertainment made by the president of the
ISSUE: Whether or not Marcos can validly propose amendments to Philippines, in the exercise of his political prerogatives. Further, there
the Constitution. being no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation
during the election, it is to be assumed that the people had
HELD: Yes. The amending process both as to proposal and acquiesced in or accepted the 1973 Constitution. The question of the
ratification raises a judicial question. This is especially true in cases validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political question which was left
where the power of the Presidency to initiate the amending process to the people in their sovereign capacity to answer. Their ratification
by proposals of amendments, a function normally exercised by the of the same had shown such acquiescence.
legislature, is seriously doubted. Under the terms of the 1973
Constitution, the power to propose amendments to the Constitution
resides in the interim National Assembly during the period of
transition (Sec. 15, Transitory Provisions). After that period, and the
regular National Assembly in its active session, the power to propose
amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular
National Assembly (Sec. 1, pars. 1 and 2 of Art. XVI, 1973 Issue: Whether the validity of Proclamation 1102 is a political or a
Constitution). justiciable question
Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 50
Facts: Judicial Review of Amendments. The question is now regarded

as subject
to judicial review, because invariably, the issue will boil down to
In 1973, Marcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new
whether or not the
1973 Constitution. Javellana, a Filipino and a registered voter sought
constitutional provisions had been followed
to enjoin the Exec Sec and other cabinet secretaries from
implementing the said constitution. Javellana averred that the said Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 50],
constitution is void because the same was initiated by the president.
He argued that the President is w/o power to proclaim the
ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed constitution.
Further, the election held to ratify such constitution is not a free Doctrine of proper submission.
election there being intimidation and fraud.
Because the Constitution itself prescribes the time frame within
ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must give due course to the petition. which the plebiscite is to be held, there can no longer be a question

2019
on whether the time given to the people to determine the merits and
demerits of the proposed amendment is adequate.
Can you amend the constitution once every 5 years?

Can you revise the constitution more than once every 5
years?
What are the limitations on the power of the people to
propose changes in the Constitution?
1.
2.
3.
E. The Power of Judicial Review
1. Judicial Review
Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139
FACTS: In the elections of Sept 17, 1935, Angara, and the

respondents, Pedro Ynsua et al. were candidates voted for the
position of member of the National Assembly for the first district of
the Province of Tayabas. On Oct 7, 1935, Angara was proclaimed as
member-elect of the NA for the said district. On November 15, 1935,
he took his oath of office. On Dec 3, 1935, the NA in session
assembled, passed Resolution No. 8 confirming the election of the
members of the National Assembly against whom no protest had

2019
thus far been filed. On Dec 8, 1935, Ynsua, filed before the Electoral 1081 (September 21, 1972) placing the entire country under martial
Commission a “Motion of Protest” against the election of Angara. law.
ISSUES: Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction over such matter. ISSUE: Whether or not the validity of Proclamation No. 1081 is
Whether or not EC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in taking subject to judicial inquiry
cognizance of the election protest.
HELD: The duty remains to assure that the supremacy of the
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Angara. The SC emphasized that in Constitution is upheld The power is inherent in the Judicial
Department, by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers
cases of conflict between the several departments and among the
agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the SC as the final arbiter, is the
Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792
only constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict
and allocate constitutional boundaries. That judicial supremacy is but Facts:
the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and
controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch Emigdio Bondoc and Marciano Pineda were rivals for a Congressional
or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is seat in the 4th District of Pampanga. Pineda was a member of the
the source of all authority. Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP). While Bondoc was a
member of the Nacionalista Party (NP). Pineda won in that election.
The power of the courts to test the validity of executive and However, Bondoc contested the result in the HRET (House of
legislative acts in light of their conformity with the Constitution. This Representatives Electoral Tribunal). Bondoc won in the protest and
is not an assertion of superiority by the courts over the other he was subsequently declared as the winner by the HRET.
departments, but merely an expression of the supremacy of the
Constitution Pineda contends that the issue is already outside the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court because Camasura’s removal is an official act of
Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183 Congress and by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers, the
judiciary may not interfere.
FACTS: The petitioners having been arrested and held pursuant to ISSUE: Whether or not the Supreme Court may inquire upon the
General Order No. 2 of the President (September 22, 1972), "for validity of the said act of the HRET without violating the doctrine of
being participants or for having given aid and comfort in the separation of powers.
conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to
take over the Government by force ...", filed the petitions for habeas HELD: Yes. The SC can settle the controversy in the case at bar
corpus. General Order No. 2 was issued by the President in the without encroaching upon the function of the legislature particularly
exercise of the powers he assumed by virtue of Proclamation No. a part thereof, HRET. The issue here is a judicial question. It must

2019
be noted that what is being complained of is the act of HRET not the 1984, Ynot was caught transporting 6 carabaos from Masbate to
act of Congress. In here, when Camasura was rescinded by the Iloilo. He was then charged in violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred
tribunal, a decision has already been made, members of the tribunal EO 626-A as unconstitutional for it violated his right to be heard or
have already voted regarding the electoral contest involving Pineda his right to due process. He said that the authority provided by EO
and Bondoc wherein Bondoc won. The LDP cannot withdraw their 626-A to outrightly confiscate carabaos even without being heard is
representative from the HRET after the tribunal has already reached unconstitutional. The lower court ruled against Ynot ruling that the
a decision. They cannot hold the same election since the issue has EO is a valid exercise of police power in order to promote general
already become moot and academic. LDP is merely changing their welfare so as to curb down the indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos.
representative to change the outcome of the election.
ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid. Who may exercise the
That duty is part of the judicial power vested in the courts by an power ?
express grant under Sec. 1, Art. VIII of the Constitution which
states: “Judicialpower includes the duty of the courts of justice to Held: yes. Sa EO is unconstitutional.
settle actual controversiesinvolving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there
The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of Police power
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is
Government. unduly oppressive. To justify the State in the imposition of its
authority in behalf of the public, it must be:
1) The interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of
2. Who may exercise the power? a particular class, require such interference;
Sec. 4(2), Art. VIII 2) that the means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon
Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA individuals.
659
This Court has declared that while lower courts should observe a
Facts: becoming modesty in examining constitutional questions, they are
nonetheless not prevented from resolving the same whenever
There had been an existing law which prohibited the slaughtering of warranted, subject only to review by the highest tribunal. 6 We have
carabaos (EO 626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A jurisdiction under the Constitution to "review, revise, reverse, modify
or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may
which not only banned the movement of carabaos from
provide," final judgments and orders of lower courts in, among
interprovinces but as well as the movement of carabeef. On 13 Jan
2019
others, all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures. 7 first and second floors of the municipal public market, respectively.
This simply means that the resolution of such cases may be made in The same Code authorizedrespondent to enter into lease contracts
the first instance by these lower courts. over the said market stalls, and incorporated a standard contract of
lease for the stall holders at themunicipal public market.Sangguniang
Judicial power authorizes this; and when the exercise is demanded,
Bayan of Maasin approved Resolution No. 68, series of 1998, moving
there should be no shirking of the task for fear of retaliation, or loss
to have the meeting declared inoperative as a publichearing,
of favor, or popular censure, or any other similar inhibition unworthy
of the bench, especially this Court. because majority of the persons affected by the imposition of the
goodwill fee failed to agree to the said measure.
Issues:
W/N there was a need for the exhaustion of administrative
remedies- NOW/N the imposition of the goodwill fees is valid- NO, it
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax is defective due to lack of public hearings
Appeals, 195 SCRA 444
it was held that the fact that the constitutional question was Held:
properly raised by a party is not alone sufficient for the respondent
court to pass upon the issue of constitutionality; every court should Thus, a case where theissue raised is a purely legal question, well
approach a constitutional question with grave care and considerable within the competence; and the jurisdiction of the court and not the
caution. administrative agency,would clearly constitute an exception.There is
no dispute herein that the notices sent to petitioners and other stall
holders at the municipal public market were sent out,informing th
them of the supposed "public hearing" to be held on 11 August
Ongsuco v. Malones, 604 SCRA 499 (2009) 1998. Even assuming that petitioners received their notice,
the"public hearing" was already scheduled, and actually conducted,
Facts: only five days later.
Petitioners are stall holders at the Maasin Public Market. After a 3. Functions of Judicial Review
a. Checking
meeting with the stall holders, Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin
b. Legitimating
approvedMunicipal Ordinance No. 98-01, entitled "The Municipal c. Symbolic
Revised Revenue Code."The Code contained a provision for Salonga v. Pano, 134 SCRA 438
increased rentals for the stalls and the imposition of goodwill fees in
the amount of P20,000.00 andP15,000.00 for stalls located on the 4. Requisites of Judicial Review

2019
REALS (Ripeness, Ealist opportunity, actual case or Issue: Whether or not a witness' testimony requires prior or
controversy, Lis Mota and Standing) simultaneous corroboration at the time he is admitted into
the witness protection, security and benefit program. 5
1. Actual Case or Controversy
2 Must be raise at the poper party Legal Standing/locus Held: No Actual Controversy
standi
3. Without going into the merits of the case, the Court finds the
4. petition fundamentally defective. The Constitution provides that
judicial power "includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
Guingona v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 125532, and enforceable." 6 According to Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a noted
July 10, 1998 constitutionalist, courts are mandated to settle disputes between real
conflicting parties through the application of the law. 7 Judicial
Facts: review, which is merely an aspect of judicial power, demands the
following: (1) there must be an actual case calling for the exercise of
Sometime in the last quarter of 1995, the National Bureau of judicial power; (2) the question must be ripe for adjudication; 8 and
Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation on the alleged (3) the person challenging must have "standing"; that is, he has
participation and involvement of national and local government personal and substantial interest in the case, such that he has
officials in "jueteng" and other forms of illegal gambling. sustained or will sustain direct injury. 9
The case was also the subject of a legislative inquiry/investigation by The first requisite is that there must be before a court an actual case
both the Senate and the House of Representatives. calling for the exercise of judicial power. Courts have no authority to
pass upon issues through advisory opinions or to resolve
In November 1995, one Potenciano Roque, claiming to be an hypothetical or feigned problems 10 or friendly suits collusively
eyewitness to the networking of . . . national and local politicians arranged between parties without real adverse interests. 11 Courts
and gambling lords, sought admission into the Government's do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly
"Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program." Allegedly, he interest, however intellectually challenging. 12 As a condition
gained first-hand information in his capacity as Chairman of the Task precedent to the exercise of judicial power, an actual controversy
Force Anti-Gambling (TFAG) during the term of former President between litigants must first exist. 13
Corazon C. Aquino until his resignation in 1989. He also revealed
that he and members of his family were in danger of being An actual case or controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal
liquidated, facing as he did the formidable world of corruption with a rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims, which can be resolved
well-entrenched hold on Philippine social, political and economic on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. A justiciable
systems. controversy is distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract

2019
difference or dispute, in that the former involves a definite and Held

concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having
adverse legal interests. A justiciable controversy admits of specific No. It is settled that when questions of constituional signifance are
relief through a decree that is conclusive in character, whereas an raised, the court can exercise its power of judicial review only if the
opinion only advises what the law would be upon a hypothetical following requisites are present: (1) existence of actual and
state of facts.A conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal
appropriate case; (2) person challenging the act must have the
claims which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and
standing to question or have personal/substantial interest in the
jurisprudence
case; (3) question of constitutionality must be raised at earliest
opportunit; (4) issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of
the case. There is none that have been mentioned in R.A 7227, a
John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition v. Lim, grant of tax exemption to SEZ yet to be established in base areas,
G.R. unlike the grant under Section 12 which provides for tax exemption
to the established Subic SEZ.
Facts:
it was held that the controversy must be definite and concrete,
During March 13, 1992, Republic Act 7227 were enacted. The R.A. bearing upon the legal relations of parties who are pitted against
7227 is also known as “ Bases Conversion and Development Act of each other due to their adverse legal interests. It is not enough that
1992” . This grants Subic SEZ incentives which provides tax and duty the controversy exists at the outset; to qualify for adjudication, it is
free importations, exemption of business therein from local and necessary that the actual controversy be extant at all stages of the
national taxes, to other hallmarks of liberated financial and bhsiness review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.
No. 119775, October 24, 2003
climate. This also gave authority to the President to create through
executive proclamation, subject to the concurrence of local Perez v. Provincial Board, 113 SCRA 187
government units directly affected, other Special Economic Zones in
the areas covered respectively by the Clark Military reservation, the On May 10, 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos nominated petitioner
Wallace Air Station in San Fernando, La Union and Camp John Hay. Honorato Perez for appointment to the position of Provincial Fiscal of
Nueva Ecija. 2 It appears, however, that the nomination which was
July 5, 1994, President Ramos issued proclamation no. 420 which
submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation was
established a SEZ on a portion of Camp John Hay.
by-passed upon adjournment sine die of Congress on May 18, 1972.
Issue: Whether Proclamation no. 420 is constitutional by providing On the following day, May 19, President Marcos designated
for national and local tax exemption within and granting other petitioner as acting provincial fiscal.
economic incentives to the John Hay SEZ?

2019
Hence, the instant petition, petitioner raising the following legal A petition instituted to establish petitioner's right to an appointive
questions: office is rendered moot and academic where his right to said office
has been forfeited by his filing of a certificate of candidacy to an
1) Whether or not respondent Provincial Board has the power to elective office.
pass and enact a resolution not recognizing herein petitioner as
acting provincial fiscal despite the fact that the latter has assumed ACCORDINGLY, this petition is hereby dismissed. No costs
such office pursuant to a designation lawfully extended to him by the
President of the Philippines.
2) Whether or not respondent Provincial Board has the power to Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001
defy and/or pass judgment on the validity of the said designation
and assumption. FACTS:
President Macapagal-Arroyo declared a State of Rebellion
(Proclamation No. 38) on May 1, 2001 as well as General Order No.
We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the issues raised, this petition 1 ordering the AFP and the PNP to suppress the rebellion in the NCR.
having become moot and academic. We take cognizance of the fact Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the
that petitioner Perez filed his certificate of candidacy for the office of “rebellion” were thereafter effected. Petitioner filed for prohibition,
mayor of Cabanatuan City in the local elections of January 30, 1980. injunction, mandamus and habeas corpus with an application for the
12
The mere filing of a certificate of candidacy constitutes forfeiture issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
of his right to the controverted office under Section 29 of the injunction. Petitioners assail the declaration of Proc. No. 38 and the
warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof. Petitioners
Election Code of 1978 which provides:
furthermore pray that the appropriate court, wherein the information
against them were filed, would desist arraignment and trial until this
SEC. 29. Candidates holding appointive office or position.— Every instant petition is resolved. They also contend that they are allegedly
person holding a public appointive office or position, including active faced with impending warrantless arrests and unlawful restraint
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and being that hold departure orders were issued against them.
employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall
ISSUES: Whether or not Proclamation No. 38 is valid, along with
ipso facto cease in his office or position on the date he files his
the warrantless arrests and hold departure orders allegedly effected
certificate of candidacy. Members of the Cabinet shall continue in the
by the same.
offices they presently hold notwithstanding the filing of certificate of
candidacy, subject to the pleasure of the President of the Philippines. RULING:
(Emphasis supplied). President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of Proc. No. 38 on
May 6, 2006, accordingly the instant petition has been rendered
2019
moot and academic. Respondents have declared that the Justice RULING:
Department and the police authorities intend to obtain regular
warrants of arrests from the courts for all acts committed prior to The Court holds that President Arroyo’s issuance of PP 1021 did not
and until May 1, 2001. Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of render the present petitions moot and academic. During the eight
(8) days that PP 1017 was operative, the police officers, according to
Court, authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons
petitioners, committed illegal acts in implementing it. Are PP 1017
suspected of rebellion in suppressing the rebellion if the and G.O. No. 5 constitutional or valid? Do they justify these
circumstances so warrant, thus the warrantless arrests are not based alleged illegal acts? These are the vital issues that must be
on Proc. No. 38. Petitioner’s prayer for mandamus and prohibition is resolved in the present petitions. It must be stressed that "an
improper at this time because an individual warrantlessly arrested unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it
has adequate remedies in law: imposes no duties, it affords no protection; it is in legal
contemplation, inoperative."30
The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will
3, 2006 decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave
violation of the Constitution; 31 second, the exceptional character of
David, et al. assailed PP 1017 on the grounds that (1) it encroaches the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; 32 third,
on the emergency powers of Congress; (2) it is a subterfuge to avoid when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling
the constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial law; and principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; 33 and fourth,
(3) it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review
of speech and of assembly. They alleged “direct injury” resulting
from “illegal arrest” and “unlawful search” committed by police All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this Court’s
operatives pursuant to PP 1017. assumption of jurisdiction over the instant petitions. Petitioners
alleged that the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violates the
During the hearing, the Solicitor General argued that the issuance of Constitution. There is no question that the issues being raised affect
PP 1017 and GO 5 have factual basis, and contended that the intent the public’s interest, involving as they do the people’s basic rights to
of the Constitution is to give full discretionary powers to the freedom of expression, of assembly and of the press. Moreover, the
President in determining the necessity of calling out the armed Court has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional
forces. The petitioners did not contend the facts stated b the precepts, doctrines or rules. It has the symbolic function of
Solicitor General. educating the bench and the bar, and in the present petitions, the
military and the police, on the extent of the protection given by
ISSUE: constitutional guarantees.35 And lastly, respondents’ contested
Whether or not the PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 is constitutional. actions are capable of repetition. Certainly, the petitions are subject
to judicial review.
2019
Note:
Saniakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, iii) However, the moot and academic principle is not a magical
February 3, 2004 formula that can automatically dissuade the courts from resolving a
case. In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra., it was held that courts
Facts: During the wee hours of July 27, 2003, some three-hundred will still decide cases otherwise moot and academic if: (a) there is a
junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP, acting upon instigation, grave violation of the Constitution [Province of Batangas v. Romulo,
command and direction of known and unknown leaders have seized supra.]; (b) there is an exceptional character of the situation and
the Oakwood Building in Makati. Publicly, they complained of the paramount public interest is involved [Lacson v. Perez, supra.]
corruption in the AFP and declared their withdrawal of support for (c) the constitutional issues raised require formulation of controlling
the government, demanding the resignation of the President, principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public [Salonga v.
Secretary of Defense and the PNP Chief. These acts constitute a Pano, supra.]; and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet evasive
violation of Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, and by virtue of of review [Saniakas v. Executive Secretary,
Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4, the Philippines was .
declared under the State of Rebellion. Negotiations took place and
the officers went back to their barracks in the evening of the same
day. On August 1, 2003, both the Proclamation and General Orders
were lifted, and Proclamation No. 435, declaring the Cessation of the Salonga v. Pano, 134 SCRA 438
State of Rebellion was issued.
Issue: Facts:
Whether or Not Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 are The petitioner invokes the constitutionally protected right to life and
constitutional? liberty guaranteed by the due process clause, alleging that no prima
facie case has been established to warrant the filing of an
Whether or Not the petitioners have a legal standing or locus standi information for subversion against him. Petitioner asks the Court to
to bring suit? prohibit and prevent the respondents from using the iron arm of the
law to harass, oppress, and persecute him, a member of the
democratic opposition in the Philippines.
Held: The Court rendered that the both the Proclamation No. 427 The case roots backs to the rash of bombings which occurred in the
and General Order No. 4 are constitutional. Section 18, Article VII Metro Manila area in the months of August, September and October
does not expressly prohibit declaring state or rebellion. The of 1980. Victor Burns Lovely, Jr, one of the victims of the bombing,
President in addition to its Commander-in-Chief Powers is conferred implicated petitioner Salonga as one of those responsible.
by the Constitution executive powers. It is not disputed that the
President has full discretionary power to call out the armed forces Held: 1. No. The Court had already deliberated on this case, a
and to determine the necessity for the exercise of such power. consensus on the Court’s judgment had been arrived at, and a
2019
draft ponencia was circulating for concurrences and separate predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by
opinions, if any, when on January 18, 1985, respondent Judge the signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.
Rodolfo Ortiz granted the motion of respondent City Fiscal Sergio
Apostol to drop the subversion case against the petitioner. Pursuant Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one
to instructions of the Minister of Justice, the prosecution restudied its that limits, restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and
evidence and decided to seek the exclusion of petitioner Jovito
legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution
Salonga as one of the accused in the information filed under the
was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.
questioned resolution.
moot and academic nature, it has on several occasions rendered
Held: on the challenge posed by the
elaborate decisions in similar cases where mootness was clearly
petitioners that the concurrence of the Senate in the WTO
apparent.
Agreement violated the Constitution, particularly Sec. 19, Art. II
(which mandates the development of a self-reliant and independent
The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling national economy), the Supreme Court held that this was a
constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the justiciable controversy, because where an action of the Legislature is
symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the
protection given by constitutional guarantees. right but the duty of the Judiciary to settle the dispute.
In dela Camara vs Enage (41 SCRA 1), the court ruled that:
People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56
“The fact that the case is moot and academic should not preclude
this Tribunal from setting forth in language clear and unmistakable,
Facts: Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in
the obligation of fidelity on the part of lower court judges to the
unequivocal command of the Constitution that excessive bail shall Manila. He filed for reconsideration and four motions for new trial
not be required.” but all were denied. He then elevated to the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court remanded the appeal to the lower court for a new
trial. While awaiting new trial, he appealed for probation alleging
Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 that the he is innocent of the crime he was convicted of. The Judge
of the Manila CFI directed the appeal to the Insular Probation Office.
The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major
The IPO denied the application. However, Judge Vera upon another
trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports,
request by petitioner allowed the petition to be set for hearing. The
particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new
City Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to place
opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated
Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation of Sec. 11 Act
with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the
No. 4221 which provides that the act of Legislature granting

2019
provincial boards the power to provide a system of probation to immediately, which, among others, mandated that “all heads of
convicted person. departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure
the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House
Held of Congress.” Pursuant to this Order, Executive Sec. Ermita
communicated to the Senate that the executive and AFP officials
which states that a person who impugns the would not be able to attend the meeting since the President has not
validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in yet given her consent. Despite the lack of consent, Col. Balutan and
the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a Brig. Gen. Gudani, among all the AFP officials invited, attended the
result. investigation. Both faced court marshal for such attendance.
To this enumeration may be added the ruling in People v.
Vera, supra., where the Supreme Court declared that the Hence, these petitions.
Government of the Philippines is a proper party to question the
validity of its own laws, because more than any one, it should be ISSUES:
concerned with the constitutionality of its acts. In that case, it was
held that the government has substantial interest in having the  Whether or not EO 464 contravenes the power of inquiry
Probation Law declared as unconstitutional, because more than the vested in Congress
damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the  Whether or not EO 464 violates the right of the people to
mortal would inflicted upon information on matters of public concern
the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.  Whether or not respondents have committed grave abuse of
discretion when they implemented EO 464 prior to its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation
Senate v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 169777, RULING:

April 20, 2006
ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
The Senate Committees sent invitations to various officials of the
Executive Department and AFP officials for them to appear before 1. there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the
Senate on Sept. 29, 2005. Before said date arrived, Executive Sec. exercise of judicial power;
Ermita sent a letter to Senate President Drilon, requesting for a 2. the person challenging the act must have standing to
postponement of the hearing on Sept. 29 in order to “afford said challenge the validity of the subject act or issuance;
officials ample time and opportunity to study and prepare for the otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial
various issues so that they may better enlighten the Senate interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
Committee on its investigation.” Senate refused the request. sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
3. the question of constitutionality must be raised as the
On Sept. 28, 2005, the President issued EO 464, effective earliest opportunity; and
2019
4. the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being
case. raised.
ACTUAL CASE/CONTROVERSY
LEGAL STANDING
The Court finds respondents’ assertion that the President
Standing of the Senate has not withheld her consent or prohibited the
appearance of the officials concerned immaterial in
That the Senate of the Philippines has a fundamental right essential
determining the existence of an actual case or
not only for intelligent public decision-making in a democratic
controversy insofar as EO 464 is concerned. For EO 464
system, but more especially for sound legislation is not disputed. EO
464, however, allegedly stifles the ability of the members of does not require either a deliberative withholding of
Congress to access information that is crucial to law-making. Verily, consent or an express prohibition issuing from the
the Senate, including its individual members, has a substantial and President in order to bar officials from appearing before
direct interest over the outcome of the controversy and is the proper Congress.
party to assail the constitutionality of EO 464. Indeed, legislators
have standing to maintain inviolate the prerogative, powers and
As the implementation of the challenged order has
privileges vested by the Constitution in their office and are allowed
to sue to question the validity of any official action which they claim already resulted in the absence of officials invited to the
infringes their prerogatives as legislators. hearings of petitioner Senate of the Philippines, it would
make no sense to wait for any further event before
Standing of an ordinary citizen considering the present case ripe for adjudication.
Indeed, it would be sheer abandonment of duty if this
It is well-settled that when suing as a citizen, the interest of the Court would now refrain from passing on the
petitioner in assailing the constitutionality of laws, presidential
constitutionality of EO 464.
decrees, orders and other regulations must be direct and personal.
In Francisco v. House of Representatives, this Court held that when
the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact
that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. The power of inquiry
Requisites for transcendental importance: Establish (1) the character The Congress power of inquiry is expressly recognized in
of the funds (that it is public) or other assets involved in the case, Sec. 21, Art. VI. But as early as 1950 (the 1935
(2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or Constitution did not contain a similar provision) in
statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or
Arnault v. Nazareno, the Court already recognized that
instrumentality of the government, and (3) the lack of any party with

2019
the power of inquiry is inherent in the power to legislate. functions. Parenthetically, one possible way for Congress
xxx to avoid such a result...is to indicate in its invitations to
the public officials concerned, or to any person for that
That this power of inquiry is broad enough to cover matter, the possible needed statute which prompted the
officials of the executive branch may be deduced from need for the inquiry. Given such statement in its
the same case. The power of inquiry...is co-extensive investigations, along with the usual indication of the
with the power to legislate. The matters which may be a subject of inquiry and the questions relative to and in
proper subject of legislation and those which may be a furtherance thereof, there would be less room for
proper subject of investigation are one. It follows that speculation on the part of the person invited on whether
the operation of government, being a legitimate subject the inquiry is in aid of legislation.
for legislation, is a proper subject for investigation.
Sec. 21, Art. VI likewise establishes crucial safeguards
xxx the power of inquiry, “with process to enforce it,” is that proscribe the legislative power of inquiry. The
grounded on the necessity of the information in the provision requires that the inquiry be done in accordance
legislative process. If the information possessed by with the Senate or House’s duly published rules of
executive officials on the operation of their offices is procedure, necessarily implying the constitutional
necessary for wise legislation on that subject, by parity infirmity of an inquiry conducted without duly published
of reasoning, Congress has the right to that information rules of procedure. Sec. 21 also mandates that the rights
and the power to compel the disclosure thereof. of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries be
respected, an imposition that obligates Congress to
The power of inquiry is subject to judicial review adhere to the guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
xxx the right of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of

legislation is, in theory, no less susceptible to abuse than Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v. Romulo,
executive or judicial power. It may thus be subjected to G.R. No. 157509, January 18,2005
judicial review pursuant to the Court’s certiorari powers
under Sec. 1, Art. VIII.
During the time of President Corazon C. Aquino, and while she was
For one...the inquiry itself might not properly be in aid of
endowed with legislative functions after EDSA I, Executive Order 292
legislation, and thus beyond the constitutional power of
was issued whereby the NLRC became an agency attached to the
Congress. Such inquiry could not usurp judicial
2019
DOLE for policy and program coordination and for administrative Kilosbayan v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110
supervision. On 2 March 1989, Article 213 of the Labor Code was
expressly amended by Republic Act 6715 declaring that the NLRC Facts: This is a special civil action for prohibition and injunction,
was to be attached to the DOLE for program and policy coordination with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
only while the administrative supervision over the NLRC, its regional injunction which seeks to prohibit and restrain the implementation of
branches and personnel, was turned over to the NLRC Chairman. the Contract of Lease executed by the PCSO and the Philippine
The subject EO 185, in authorizing the Secretary of Labor to exercise Gaming Management Corporation in connection with the on-line
administrative supervision over the NLRC, its regional branches and lottery system, also know as lotto.
personnel, allegedly reverted to the pre-RA 6715 set-up, amending
the latter law which only Congress can do. Alberto Romulo (in his Petitioners strongly opposed the setting up of the on-line lottery
capacity as Executive Secretary) and Patricia Sto. Tomas (in her system on the basis of serious moral and ethical considerations. It
capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment), as represented by submitted that said contract of lease violated Section 1 of R. A. No.
the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the petition on 1169, as amended by B. P. Blg. 42.
procedural and substantive grounds.
Respondents contended, among others, that, the contract does not
ISSUE: Whether the Unions -- which contend that they are suing for violate the Foreign Investment Act of 1991; that the issues of
and in behalf of their members (more or less 50,000 workers) –-- wisdom, morality and propriety of acts of the executive department
has the requisite standing. are beyond the ambit of judicial reviews; and that the petitioners
have no standing to maintain the instant suit.
HELD: NO. Legal standing or locus standi is defined as a “personal
and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained ISSUES:
or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is 1. Whether or not petitioners have the legal standing to file the
being challenged.” For a citizen to have standing, he must establish instant petition.
that he has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of 2. Whether or not the contract of lease is legal and valid.
the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be RULING: As to the preliminary issue, the Court resolved to set aside
redressed by a favorable action. Herein, the Unions have not shown the procedural technicality in view of the importance of the issues
that they have sustained or are in danger of sustaining any personal raised. The Court adopted the liberal policy on locus standi to allow
injury attributable to the enactment of EO 185. the ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association
of planters, and non-profit civic organizations to initiate and
prosecute actions to question the validity or constitutionality of laws,

2019
acts, decisions, or rulings of various government agencies or million nine hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four
instrumentalities. (1,915,894) square meters." Subsequently, on April 9, 1988, the
Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Parañaque issued Transfer
As to the substantive issue, the Court agrees with the petitioners Certificates of Title Nos. 7309, 7311, and 7312, in the name of PEA,
whether the contract in question is one of lease or whether the covering the three reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands"
PGMC is merely an independent contractor should not be decided on located at the southern portion of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road,
the basis of the title or designation of the contract but by the intent Parañaque City.
of the parties, which may be gathered from the provisions of the
contract itself. Animus homini est anima scripti. The intention of the PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without
party is the soul of the instrument. public bidding. On April 28, 1995, the Board of Directors of PEA, in
its Resolution No. 1245, confirmed the JVA. On June 8, 1995, then
Therefore the instant petition is granted and the challenged Contract President Fidel V. Ramos, through then Executive Secretary Ruben
of Lease is hereby declared contrary to law and invalid. Torres, approved the JVA.
Issue: Won petitioner has a locus standi

Chavez v. Public Estates Authority and Amari,
G.R. No. 133250, July 09, 2002 Held: 1. We rule that the signing and of the Amended JVA by PEA
and AMARI and its approval by the President cannot operate to moot
Facts: On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos the petition and divest the Court of its jurisdiction.
issued Presidential Decree No. 1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084
tasked PEA "to reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged PEA and AMARI have still to implement the Amended JVA. The
areas," and "to develop, improve, acquire, lease and sell any and all prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended JVA on constitutional
kinds of lands." On the same date, then President Marcos issued grounds necessarily includes preventing its implementation if in the
Presidential Decree No. 1085 transferring to PEA the "lands meantime PEA and AMARI have signed one in violation of the
reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay" under the Constitution. Petitioner's principal basis in assailing the renegotiation
Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP). of the JVA is its violation of the Section 3, Article XII of the
Constitution, which prohibits the government from alienating lands
On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued of the public domain to private corporations. The Amended JVA is
Special Patent No. 3517, granting and transferring to PEA "the not an ordinary commercial contract but one which seeks to transfer
parcels of land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road title and ownership to 367.5 hectares of reclaimed lands and
and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a total area of one submerged areas of Manila Bay to a single private corporation.

2019
Ordinary taxpayers have a right to initiate and prosecute actions Petitioner claims that the ad interim appointments of Benipayo,
questioning the validity of acts or orders of government agencies or Borra and Tuason violate the constitutional provisions on the
instrumentalities, if the issues raised are of 'paramount public independence of the COMELEC.
interest,' and if they 'immediately affect the social, economic and
moral well being of the people.' ISSUES: Whether or not the assumption of office by Benipayo,
Borra and Tuason on the basis of the ad interim appointments issued
We rule that since the instant petition, brought by a citizen, by the President amounts to a temporary appointment prohibited by
involves the enforcement of constitutional rights — to information Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources — matters of
transcendental public importance, the petitioner has the requisite RULING: We find petitioner’s argument without merit. An ad
locus standi. interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes
effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President
Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, once the appointee has qualified into office. The fact that it is
2002 subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does
not alter its permanent character. The Constitution itself makes an
ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it
In his capacity as COMELEC Chairman, Benipayo issued a effective until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or
Memorandum dated April 11, 2001 addressed to petitioner as until the next adjournment of Congress.
Director IV of the EID and to Cinco as Director III also of the EID,
designating Cinco Officer-in-Charge of the EID and reassigning It was held that the earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional
petitioner to the Law Department. COMELEC EID Commissioner-in- issue is to raise it In the pleadings before a
competent court that can resolve the same, such that, If not raised
Charge Mehol K. Sadain objected to petitioner’s reassignment in a
in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial and, if not
Memorandum dated April 14, 2001 addressed to the COMELEC en considered in the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal
banc. Specifically, Commissioner Sadain questioned Benipayo’s
failure to consult the Commissioner-in-Charge of the EID in the
reassignment of petitioner.
During the pendency of her complaint before the Law Department, Estarija v. Ranada, G.R. No. 159314, June 26,
petitioner filed the instant petition questioning the appointment and 2006
the right to remain in office of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason, as
Facts:
Chairman and Commissioners of the COMELEC, respectively.

2019
On August 31, 2000, the Ombudsman rendered a decision in the FPA remits its collection to Far East Bank and Trust Company who
administrative case, finding Estarija guilty of dishonesty and grave applies to the payment of corporate debts of Planters Products Inc.
misconduct. Estarija seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration. (PPI)
Estarija claimed that dismissal was unconstitutional since the
Ombudsman did not have direct and immediate power to remove After the Edsa Revolution, FPA voluntarily stopped the imposition of
government officials, whether elective or appointive, who are not the P10 levy. Upon return of democracy, Fertiphil demanded a
removable by impeachment. He maintains that under the 1987 refund but PPI refused. Fertiphil filed a complaint for collection and
Constitution, the Ombudsman’s administrative authority is merely damages against FPA and PPI with the RTC on the ground that LOI
recommendatory, and that Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known No. 1465 is unjust, unreaonable oppressive, invalid and unlawful
as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989", is unconstitutional because it resulting to denial of due process of law.
gives the Office of the Ombudsman additional powers that are not FPA answered that it is a valid exercise of the police power of the
provided for in the Constitution state in ensuring the stability of the fertilizing industry in the country
and that Fertiphil did NOT sustain damages since the burden
Held: imposed fell on the ultimate consumers.
where it upheld the constitutionality of Sections 15, 21 and 25 of
RTC and CA favored Fertiphil holding that it is an exercise of the
R.A. 6770, and ruled that the Ombudsman has the constitutional
power to directly remove from governmentservice an erring public power of taxation ad is as such because it is NOT for public purpose
official, other than a Member of Congress or of the Judiciary. as PPI is a private corporation
Held:
Planters Products v. Fertiphll Corporation, G.R.
No. 166006, March 14, 2008 We shall first tackle the procedural issues of locus standi and the
jurisdiction of the RTC to resolve constitutional issues.
FACTS:
Fertiphil has locus standi because it suffered direct injury; doctrine of
President Ferdinand Marcos, exercising his legislative powers, issued standing is a mere procedural technicality which may be waived.
LOI No. 1465 which provided, among others, for the imposition of a
capital recovery component (CRC) on the domestic sale of all grades PPI argues that Fertiphil has no locus standi to question the
constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 because it does not have a
of fertilizers which resulted in having Fertiphil paying P 10/bag sold
"personal and substantial interest in the case or will sustain direct
to the Fertilizer and Perticide Authority (FPA). injury as a result of its enforcement."21 It asserts that Fertiphil did
not suffer any damage from the CRC imposition because "incidence

2019
of the levy fell on the ultimate consumer or the farmers themselves, Commission on Appointments as required by the provisions of
not on the seller fertilizer company."22 Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653, which established the Bangko Sentral as
the Central Monetary Authority of the Philippines. The Secretary of
We cannot agree. The doctrine of locus standi or the right of Budget and Management was impleaded for disbursing public funds
appearance in a court of justice has been adequately discussed by in payment of the salaries and emoluments of respondent
this Court in a catena of cases. Succinctly put, the doctrine requires Singson. In their comment, respondents claim that Congress
a litigant to have a material interest in the outcome of a case. In exceeded its legislative powers in requiring the confirmation by the
private suits, locus standi requires a litigant to be a "real party in CA of the appointment of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral. They
interest," which is defined as "the party who stands to be benefited contend that an appointment to the said position is not among the
or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the appointments which have to be confirmed by the CA, citing Section
avails of the suit." 16 of Article VI of the Constitution.
Judicial review of official acts on the ground of unconstitutionality

ISSUE: Whether or not the Governor of the BSP is subject to COA’s
may be sought or availed of through any of the actions cognizable
confirmation.
by courts of justice, not necessarily in a suit for declaratory relief.
Such review may be had in criminal actions, as in People v. Ferrer 35
HELD: No. Congress exceeded its legislative powers in requiring the
involving the constitutionality of the now defunct Anti-Subversion
confirmation by the COA of the appointment of the Governor of the
law, or in ordinary actions, as in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds 36
BSP. An appointment to the said position is not among the
involving the constitutionality of laws prohibiting aliens from
appointments which have to be confirmed by the COA under Section
acquiring public lands. The constitutional issue, however, (a) must
16 of Article 7 of the Constitution. Congress cannot by law expand
be properly raised and presented in the case, and (b) its resolution is
the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments and
necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of
require confirmation of appointment of other government officials
constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented
not expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 of Article
7 of the Constitution.
Tarrosa v. Singson, 232 SCRA 553 the Courtrefrained from passing upon the constitutionality of the
assailed provision in R.A,7653 (which provided that the appointment
FACTS: Gabriel C. Singson was appointed Governor of the Bangko of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral
Sentral by President Fidel V. Ramos in 1993. Jesus Armando Tarrosa, ng Pilipinas should be confirmed by the Commission on
as a "taxpayer", filed a petition for prohibition questioning the Appointments) because of the principle that bars judicial inquiry into
appointment of Singson for not having been confirmed by the

2019
a constitutional question unless the resolution thereof is plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on
indispensable to the determination of the case. which the party pleading relies for his claim.
The SJS Petition fell short of the requirements to constitutue a

jusiciable controversy. Why?
a. It stated no ultimate facts. The petition simply theorized that
5. Political Questions / Justiciable Questions the people elected who were endorsed by these religious leaders
might become beholden to the latter.
b. It did not sufficiently state a declaration of its
rights and duties, what specific legal right of the petitioner was
Velarde v. SJS, 428 SCRA 283 (2004) violated by the respondents therein, and what particular act or acts
of the latter were in breach of its rights, the law or the constitution,
Facts: c. The petition did not pray for a stoppage of violated
rights (duh, wala ngang rights na sinabi eh). It merely sought an
On January 28, 2003, SJS filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief opinion of the trial court. However, courts are proscribed from
before the RTC-Manila against Velarde and his co-respondents rendering an advisory opinion. (tantamount to making laws,
Eminence, Jaime Cardinal Sin, Executive Minister Eraño Manalo, remember the questionability of justice panganiban’s guidelines for
Brother Eddie Villanueva and Brother Eliseo F. Soriano. article 36 of the family code)
SJS, a registered political party, sought the interpretation of several
constitutional provisions, specifically on the separation of church and Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (1993)
state; and a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts
of religious leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office, or Facts:
urging or requiring the members of their flock to vote for a specified
candidate.
-The petitioner filed a Motion to dismiss before the trial court
owing to the fact that alleged that the questioned SJS Petition did The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined
not state a cause of action and that there was no justiciable by their parents. The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class
controversy. suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the Regional Trial
Court, National capital Judicial Region against defendant
Held: (respondent) Secretary of the Department of Environment and
. NO. A justiciable controversy to an existing case Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled
or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource
determination, not one that is conjectural or merely treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. They further
anticipatory. A petition filed with the trial court should contain a asseverate that they represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn and asserted that continued deforestation

2019
have caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance which will serve as the bases for policy formation, and have defined
and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies. the powers and functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the petitioners
(and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is
Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the as clear as DENR's duty to protect and advance the said right.
respondent, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in
his behalf to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect or respect the
processing, renewing or approving new TLAs. same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the
granting of the TLA, which they claim was done with grave abuse of
ISSUES: discretion, violated their right to a balance and healthful ecology.
Hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action. should be renewed or granted.
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court
impairment of contracts. finds it to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed
violation of their rights.
RULING:
First Issue: Cause of Action. Second Issue: Political Issue.
Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution
complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary provides for the expanded jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme
for which any relief is provided by law. The Court did not agree with Court. It allows the Court to rule upon even on the wisdom of the
this. The complaint focuses on one fundamental legal right -- the decision of the Executive and Legislature and to declare their acts as
right to a balanced and healthful ecology which is incorporated in invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because it is tainted with
Section 16 Article II of the Constitution. The said right carries with it grave abuse of discretion.
the duty to refrain from impairing the environment and implies,
among many other things, the judicious management and
conservation of the country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192 expressly Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.
mandates the DENR to be the primary government agency
responsible for the governing and supervising the exploration, The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument
utilization, development and conservation of the country's natural by which the state regulates the utilization and disposition of forest
resources. The policy declaration of E.O. 192 is also substantially re- resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. It is not a
stated in Title XIV Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987. Both contract within the purview of the due process clause thus, the non-
E.O. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives impairment clause cannot be invoked. It can be validly withdraw

2019
whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. Issue: (2) Whether or not there is an actual violation of the
The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is Constitution
it property or property rights.
Held: where Senator Defensor-Santiago questioned the
election of Senator Guingona as Minority Floor Leader, the Supreme
Court said that it “has no authority to interfere and unilaterally
Vinuya v. Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010) intrude into that exclusive realm, without running afoul of
constitutional principles that it is bound to protect and uphold --- the
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, G.R. No. 134577, very duty that justifies the Court’s being. Constitutional respect
and a becoming regard for the sovereign acts of a co-equal branch
November 18, 1998
prevent this Court from prying into the internal workings of the
Senate. To repeat, this Court will be neither a tyrant nor a wimp;
Facts: During the first regular session of the eleventh Congress,
rather, it will remain steadfast and judicious in upholding the rule
Senator Fernan was declared the duly elected President of the and the majesty of the law.”
Senate by a vote of 20 to 2. Senator Tatad manifested that, with the
agreement of Senator Santiago, allegedly the only other member of
the minority, he was assuming the position of minority leader. He 6. Presumption of Constitutionality
explained that those who had voted for Senator Fernan comprised
the majority, while only those who had voted for him, the losing Perez v. People, 544 SCRA 532 (2008)
nominee, belonged to the minority. Senator Flavier manifested that
the senators belonging to the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP Party numbering 7
and, thus, also a minority had chosen Senator Guingona as the
minority leader. Thereafter, the majority leader informed the body 7. Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
a. Orthodox view
that he was in receipt of a letter signed by the 7 Lakas-NUCD-UMDP
Art. 7, Civil Code of the Philippines
senators, stating that they had elected Senator Guingona as the
minority leader. By virtue thereof, the Senate President formally Orthodox view: An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no
recognized Senator Guingona as the minority leader of the Senate. rights; it
Senators Santiago and Tatad filed a petition for quo warranto, imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is
alleging that Senator Guingona had been usurping, unlawfully inoperative, as if it had not been passed at all. See Art. 7, Civil Code
of the Philippines.
holding and exercising the position of Senate minority leader, a
position that, according to them, rightfully belonged to Senator
b. Modern view
Tatad

2019
Courts simply refuse to recognize the law and determine the rights The now prevailing principle is that the existence of a statute or
of the parties as if the statute had no existence executive order prior to its being adjudged void is an operative fact
to which legal consequences are attached. Precisely because of the
Serrano de Agbayani v. PNB, 35 SCRA 429 judicial recognition that moratorium was a valid governmental
response to the plight of the debtors who were war sufferers, this
Court has made clear its view in a series of cases impressive in their
FACTS: Plaintiff obtained a loan from PNB dated July 19, 1939,
number and unanimity that during the eight-year period that
maturing on July 19, 1944, secured by real estate mortgage. On July
Executive Order No. 32 and Republic Act No. 342 were in force,
13 1959 or 15 years after maturity of the loan, defendant instituted
prescription did not run.
extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings for the recovery of the balance
of the loan remaining unpaid. Plaintiff countered with his suit against
both alleging that the mortgage sought to be foreclosed had long
prescribed, fifteen years having elapsed from the date of maturity.
PNB on the other hand claims that the defense of prescription would Belgica v. Ochoa, 710 SCRA 1 (2013)
not be available if the period from March 10, 1945, when Executive
Order No. 32 1 was issued, to July 26, 1948, when the subsequent FACTS:
legislative act 2 extending the period of moratorium was declared The NBI Investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of six (6)
invalid, were to be deducted from the computation of the time whistle-blowers who declared that JLN Corporation (Janet Lim
during which the bank took no legal steps for the recovery of the Napoles) had swindled billions of pesos from the public coffers for
loan. The lower court did not find such contention persuasive and "ghost projects" using dummy NGOs. Thus, Criminal complaints were
decided the suit in favor of plaintiff. filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, charging five (5)
lawmakers for Plunder, and three (3) other lawmakers for
Malversation, Direct Bribery, and Violation of the Anti-Graft and
ISSUE: W/N the period of the effectivity of EO 32 and the Act
Corrupt Practices Act. Also recommended to be charged in the
extending the Moratorium Law before the same were declared
complaints are some of the lawmakers’ chiefs -of-staff or
invalid tolled the period of prescription (Effect of the declaration of
representatives, the heads and other officials of three (3)
Unconstitutionality of a law)
implementing agencies, and the several presidents of the NGOs set
up by Napoles.
HELD: YES. In the language of an American Supreme Court Whistle-blowers alleged that" at least P900 Million from royalties in
decision: “The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a the operation of the Malampaya gas project off Palawan province
determination [of unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may intended for agrarian reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy
have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot NGO. Several petitions were lodged before the Court similarly
always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the seeking that the "Pork Barrel System" be declared unconstitutional
subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in UDK-14951 – A Petition filed seeking that the PDAF be declared
various aspects, with respect to particular relations, individual and unconstitutional, and a cease and desist order be issued restraining
corporate, and particular conduct, private and official.” 4

2019
President Benigno Simeon S. Aquino III (President Aquino) and from slow moving projects to priority projects instead of waiting for
Secretary Abad from releasing such funds to Members of Congress next year’s appropriation. So what happens under the DAP was that
if a certain government project is being undertaken slowly by a
certain executive agency, the funds allotted therefor will be
HELD: withdrawn by the Executive. Once withdrawn, these funds are
Yes, the PDAF article is unconstitutional. The post-enactment declared as “savings” by the Executive and said funds will then be
measures which govern the areas of project identification, fund reallotted to other priority projects. The DAP program did work to
release and fund realignment are not related to functions of stimulate the economy as economic growth was in fact reported and
congressional oversight and, hence, allow legislators to intervene portion of such growth was attributed to the DAP (as noted by the
and/or assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget Supreme Court).
execution. This violates the principle of separation of powers.
Congress‘role must be confined to mere oversight that must be Issue: Whether or not the Doctrine of Operative Fact is applicable.
confined to: (1) scrutiny and (2) investigation and monitoring of the
implementation of laws. Any action or step beyond that will HELD:
undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the constitution.
I. , the DAP did not violate Section 29(1), Art. VI of the Constitution.
Thus, the court declares the 2013 pdaf article as well as all other
DAP was merely a program by the Executive and is not a fund nor is
provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form
it an appropriation. It is a program for prioritizing government
of post-enactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of
spending. As such, it did not violate the Constitutional provision cited
the budget, unrelated to congressional oversight, as violative of the
in Section 29(1), Art. VI of the Constitution. In DAP no additional
separation of powers principle and thus unconstitutional.
funds were withdrawn from the Treasury otherwise, an appropriation
made by law would have been required. Funds, which were already
appropriated for by the GAA, were merely being realigned via the
Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, DAP.
2014
Yes. The Doctrine of Operative Fact, which recognizes the legal
When President Benigno Aquino III took office, his administration effects of an act prior to it being declared as unconstitutional by the
noticed the sluggish growth of the economy. The World Bank Supreme Court, is applicable. The DAP has definitely helped
advised that the economy needed a stimulus plan. Budget Secretary stimulate the economy. It has funded numerous projects. If the
Florencio “Butch” Abad then came up with a program called the Executive is ordered to reverse all actions under the DAP, then it
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). may cause more harm than good. The DAP effects can no longer be
undone. The beneficiaries of the DAP cannot be asked to return
The DAP was seen as a remedy to speed up the funding of what they received especially so that they relied on the validity of
government projects. DAP enables the Executive to realign funds the DAP. However, the Doctrine of Operative Fact may not be

2019
applicable to the authors, implementers, and proponents of the DAP Held:

if it is so found in the appropriate tribunals (civil, criminal, or
administrative) that they have not acted in good faith. In rendering the assailed PSJs and thereafter refusing to proceed to
trial on the merits, on the mere say-so of the respondent Republic,
the Sandiganbayan committed gross and irreversible error, gravely
abused its judicial discretion and flagrantly exceeded its jurisdiction
Cocofed v. Republic, 663 SCRA 514 (2012)
as it effectively sanctioned the taking of COCOFED, et al.’s property
by the respondent Republic without due process of law and through
Facts: retroactive application of the declaration of unconstitutionality of the
In 1971, RA 6260 created the Coconut Investment Company (CIC) to coconut levy laws, an act that is not only illegal and violative of the
administer the Coconut Investment Fund, a fund to be sourced from settled Operative Fact Doctrine but, more importantly, inequitable to
levy on the sale of copra. The copra seller was, or ought to be, the coconut farmers whose only possible mistake, offense or
issued COCOFUND receipts. The fund was placed at the disposition misfortune was to follow the law.
of COCOFED, the national association of coconut producers having
the largest membership.
When martial law started in 1972, several presidential decrees were Sameer Overseas v. Cabilles, G.R. No.170139,
issued to improve the coconut industry through the collection and August 5, 2014
use of the coconut levy fund. Then came P.D. No. 755 in July 1975,
providing under its Section 1 the policy to provide readily available
credit facilities to the coconut farmers at preferential rates. Towards FACTS:
achieving this, Section 2 of PD 755 authorized PCA to utilize the
CCSF and the CIDF collections to acquire a commercial bank and Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a
deposit the CCSF levy collections in said bank, interest free, the recruitment and placement agency.
deposit withdrawable only when the bank has attained a certain level
of sufficiency in its equity capital. It also decreed that all levies PCA Respondent Joy Cabiles was hired thus signed a one-year
is authorized to collect shall not be considered as special and/or employment contract for a monthly salary of NT$15,360.00. Joy was
fiduciary funds or form part of the general funds of the government. deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26,
1997. She alleged that in her employment contract, she agreed to
Both P.D. Nos. 961 and 1468 also provide that the CCSF shall not be
work as quality control for one year. In Taiwan, she was asked to
construed by any law as a special and/or trust fund, the stated work as a cutter.
intention being that actual ownership of the said fund shall pertain to
coconut farmers in their private capacities.

2019
Sameer claims that on July 14, 1997, a certain Mr. Huwang from 8. Partial unconstitutionality
Wacoal informed Joy, without prior notice, that she was terminated
and that “she should immediately report to their office to get her Partial Unconstitutionality. Requisites:
salary and passport.” She was asked to “prepare for immediate a) The Legislature must be willing to retain the valid portion(s),
repatriation.” Joy claims that she was told that from June 26 to July usually
14, 1997, she only earned a total of NT$9,000.15 According to her, shown by the presence of a separability clause in the law; and
Wacoal deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila. b) The valid portion can stand independently as law. See: In Re:
ISSUE: Whether or not Cabiles was entitled to the unexpired portion In Re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534
of her salary due to illegal dismissal.
HELD: Facts: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known
as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” In accordance with the said law,
YES. The Court held that the award of the three-month equivalent the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those
of respondent’s salary should be increased to the amount equivalent candidates who had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it
to the unexpired term of the employment contract to 75 percent.
A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a

After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed
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 petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while other
passed at all.” motions for the revision of their examination papers were still
pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for
The Court said that they are aware that the clause “or for three (3) admission. There are also others who have sought simply the
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” was reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in
reinstated in Republic Act No. 8042 upon promulgation of Republic question. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first
Act No. 10022 in 2010. Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null
reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or
because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity cannot be
not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972.
cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law
or provision. A law or provision of law that was already declared
unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances have so
changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion. Issue: Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.
Held: RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit

2019
to the Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
reading materials and inadequate preparation. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized”. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue
In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure and Seizure Order was
admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held, “We
law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no
indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must
in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the go through the judicial process.
admission, suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at
law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
I. THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE

Salazar v. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145
Facts: Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with A. Definition of a State
the POEA, charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. Public
A community of persons, more or less numerous,
respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of
directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the complaint against external control, and possessing a government to which a great
him. On the same day, after knowing that petitioner had no license body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.
to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator
Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to Collector v. Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23 (1971)
petitioner.
Facts:
Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) can validly issue warrants Antonio Campos Rueda is the administrator of the estate of the
of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code deceased Maria Cerdeira. Cerdeira is a Spanish national, by reason
of her marriage to a Spanish citizen and was a resident of Tangier,
Morocco up to her death. At the time of her demise she left, among
Held: Under the new Constitution, “. . . no search warrant or others, intangible personal properties in the Philippines. The CIR
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be then issued an assessment for state and inheritance taxes of
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or P369,383.96. Rueda filed an amended return stating that intangible

2019
personal properties worth P396,308.90 should be exempted from

taxes. The CIR denied the request on the ground that the law of It does not admit of doubt that if a foreign country is to be identified
Tangier is not reciprocal to Section 122 (now Section 104) of the with a state, it is required in line with Pound's formulation that it be
National Internal Revenue Code. a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside
control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally supreme within its
The case was elevated to the CTA which sided with Rueda. The CTA territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime
stated that the foreign country mentioned in Section 122 "refers to a of law. A foreign country is thus a sovereign person with the people
government of that foreign power which, although not an composing it viewed as an organized corporate society under a
international person in the sense of international law, does not government with the legal competence to exact obedience to its
impose transfer or death upon intangible person properties of our commands.
citizens not residing therein, or whose law allows a similar exemption
from such taxes. It is, therefore, not necessary that Tangier should Distinguished from Nation. State is a legal or juristic concept, while
nation is an ethnic or racial concept.
have been recognized by our Government order to entitle the
petitioner to the exemption benefits of the proviso of Section 122 of Distinguished from Government. Government is merely an
our Tax. Code." instrumentality of the State through which the will of the State is
implemented and realized.
ISSUE: Whether the exemption is valid.
B. Elements of a State
RULING:
YES. The controlling legal provision as noted is a proviso in Section 1. People
122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. It reads thus: "That no
a) Different meanings as used in the Constitution: (i) Inhabitants
tax shall be collected under this Title in respect of intangible [Sec.
personal property (a) if the decedent at the time of his death was a 2, Art. Ill; Sec. 1, Art. XIII]; (ii) Citizens [Preamble; Secs. 1 & 4, Art.
resident of a foreign country which at the time of his death did not II; Sec. 7, Art.
impose a transfer tax or death tax of any character in respect of Ill]; (iii) Electors [Sec. 4, Art. VII].
intangible person property of the Philippines not residing in that
foreign country, or (b) if the laws of the foreign country of which the b) As requisite for Statehood: Adequate number for self-sufficiency
and defense; of both sexes for perpetuity.
decedent was a resident at the time of his death allow a similar
exemption from transfer taxes or death taxes of every character in
1. Territory - Art. I; R.A. 3046; R.A. 5446
respect of intangible personal property owned by citizens of the a. The National Territory
Philippines not residing in that foreign country."
2019
b. Components d) Other territories over which the Philippines exercises jurisdiction.

c. The Philippine Archipelago
d. Other territories over which the Philippines exercises (i)Batanes [1935 Constitution]; (ii) Those contemplated in Art. I,
jurisdiction 1973 Constitution
e. Archipelagic Doctrine – Sec. 1, Article II [belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title]; (iii) PD
i. Straight baseline method 1596, June 11,
ii. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1978.
f. The National Territory e) Archipelago Doctrine: “The waters around, between and
g. Components connecting
h. The Philippine Archipelago the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
i. Other territories over which the Philippines exercises dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines” [2nd
jurisdiction sentence, Sec. 1, Art II
j. Archipelagic Doctrine – Sec. 1, Article II
iii. Straight baseline method i) This articulates the archipelagic doctrine of national territory,
iv. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea based on the principle that an archipelago, which consists of a
number of islands separated by bodies of water, should be treated
a) The National Territory: “The national territory comprises the as one integral unit.
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has ii) Straight baseline method: Imaginary straight lines are drawn
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and joining the outermost points of outermost islands of the archipelago,
aerial domains, including its territorial sea, enclosing an area the ratio of which should not be more than 9:1
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine (water to land); provided that the drawing of baselines shall not
areas” [Sec. 1, Art. !]. depart, to any appreciable extent, from the general configuration of
the archipelago. The waters within the baselines shall be
b) Components: Terrestrial, Fluvial, Maritime and Aerial domains. considered internal waters; while the breadth of the territorial sea
shall then be measured from the baselines.
c) The Philippine Archipelago: (i) Treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898
(Cession of the Philippine Islands by Spain to the United States); (ii) iii) UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [April 30,1982; ratified by
Treatybetween Spain and US at Washington, November 7, 1900 the Philippines in August, 1983] provides (i) Contiguous Zone of 12
(Cagayan, Sulu & miles; (ii) Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles. Although the
Sibuto); (iii) Treaty between US and Great Britain, January 2, 1930 contiguous zone and most of
(Turtle & the exclusive economic zone may not, technically, be part of the
Mangsee Islands). territory of the

2019
.State, nonetheless, the coastal State enjoys preferential rights over Romualdez-Yap v. Civil Service Commission,
the marine 225 SCRA 285
resources found within these zones. See also P.D. 1599, June 11,
1978
FACTS:
2. Government
Petitioner Conchita Romualdez-Yap started working with the
a. Definition Philippine National Bank (PNB) on September 20, 1972. After several
promotions, she was appointed in 1983 as a Senior Vice President
The agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is assigned to the Fund Transfer Department. The case at bar is a
formulated, expressed and realized. special civil action for certiorari assailing Res. No. 92-201 of the
Government of the Philippines is “the corporate governmental respondent which upheld the petitioner’s separation from PNB in
entity through which the functions of government are exercised light of EO 80 or the Revised Charter of PNB. Petitioner contends
throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears that there is an existence of bad faith in its reorganization and that
from there is an erroneous application of the one year prescriptive period
the context, the various arms through which political authority is for quo warranto proceedings in her case.
made
effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous ISSUE:
regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or
other Is the reorganization of PNB, a government-owned or controlled
forms of local government" [Sec. 2 (1), Administrative Code of corporation performing ministrant functions, valid?
1987].
HELD:
b. Functions
Ministrant functions are those undertaken by way of advancing the
Traditionally, the functions of government have been classified general interests of society and are merely optional. Commercial or
into constituent, which are mandatory for the Government to universal banking is, ideally, not a governmental but a private sector
perform because they endeavor, an optional function of the government. There are
constitute the very bonds of society, such as the maintenance of functions of the government which it may exercise to promote
peace and order, merely the welfare, progress, and prosperity of the people. Thus,
regulation of property and property rights, the administration of reorganization of such corporations like PNB is valid so long as they
justice, etc; and ministrant, those intended to promote the welfare, are done in good faith as prescribed in the Dario v. Mison doctrine.
progress and prosperity of the people, and which are merely optional Accordingly, the reorganization of PNB is found to be done in good
for Government to perform. faith by the Court.

2019
ISSUE: Certificate No. T-4304 was issued in favor of the buyers covering
Whether there was an existence of bad faith in the reorganization of Lots No. 1 and 4.
the Philippine NationalBank resulting in the separation from the
service of petitioner? n August 16, 1960, Mamaril, et al. sold Lots No. 1 and 4 to Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company. The deed of sale covering the
HELD: aforesaid property was inscribed as Entry No. 9173 on TCT No. T-
The Court made a distinction in this ruling on the validity of 4304. Subsequently, Transfer Certificate No. T-4314 was issued in
reorganization between agovernment bureau or office performing the name of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company as owner of Lots
constituent functions (like the Customs) and a government-owned or No. 1 and 4.
controlled corporation performing ministrant functions (like the PNB).
Constituent Held:
it was held that the Bases Conversion Development Authority

But a reorganization whether in a government bureau performing (BCDA),
constituent functions or in agovernment-owned or controlled created under R.A. 7227, performs functions which are basically
corporation performing ministrant functions must meet a proprietary in nature. The promotion of economic and social
commontest, the test of good faith. development of Central Luzon, in particular, and the country’s goal
for enhancement, in general, do not make BCDA
The decision to abolish the Fund Transfer Department (FTD) was a equivalent to Government. Other corporations, such as SSS, GSIS,
business judgment made ingood faith. Due to the restructuring, PNB NIA, although performing functions aimed at promoting public
became once more a viable banking institution. After fouryears, FTD interest and public welfare, are not invested with government
was restored and its functions were transferred to the International attributes. [Thus, with the transfer to BCDA of Camp Wallace, the
Department. Thesecan be attributed to the bank's growth after government no longer had a right or interest to protect; the real
party in interest to recover the property is, thus, the BCDA, not the
reorganizations, thereby negating bad faith in that organization.
Republic of the
Philippines.
Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

c. Doctrine of Parens Patriae
143377, February 20,2001
Literally, parent of the people. As such, the Government may act as
On April 11, 1960, Lots No. 1 and 4 were conveyed by Rafael Galvez guardian of the rights of people who may be disadvantaged or
in favor of Filipina Mamaril, Cleopatra Llana, Regina Bustos, and suffering from some disability or misfortune
Erlinda Balatbat in a deed of sale which was inscribed as Entry No.
9115 OCT No.0-381 on August 10, 1960. Consequently, Transfer d. Classification
2019
3. Sovereignty
i. De jure vs de facto
ii. Presidential vs parliamentary a. Definition
iii. Unitary vs federal government The supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a
State by which that State is governed
De jure vs. De facto. See: Co Kim Chan v. Tan Keh, 75 Phil.
113; Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Aquino, supra b. Kinds
ia) Kinds of de facto government: That which takes i) Legal, which is the power to issue final commands; or Political,
possession or control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the which is the sum total of all the influences which lie behind the law.
majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against
the will of the latter; that which is established by the inhabitants of a ii) Internal, or the supreme power over everything within its
territory who rise in insurrection against the parent state; and that territory; or External, also known as independence, which is freedom
which is established by the invading forces of an enemy who occupy from external control.
a territory in the course of war. The last is denominated a de facto
government of paramount force. c. Characteristics
ii) Presidential vs. parliamentary government. The principal permanence, exclusiveness, comprehensiveness,
distinction is that in a presidential government, there is separation of absoluteness, indivisibility, inalienability, imprescriptibility
executive and legislative powers (the first is lodged in the President,
while the second is vested in Congress); while in a parliamentary d. Effects of change in sovereignty
government, there is fusion of both executive and legislative powers
in Parliament, although the actual exercise of the executive powers Political laws are abrogated People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887;
is vested in a Prime Minister who is chosen by, and accountable Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77]; municipal
to, Parliament. laws remain in force [Vilas v. City of Manila, 229 US 345].
iii) Unitary vs. federal government. A unitary government is a e. Effects of belligerent occupation
single, centralized government, exercising powers over both the
internal and No change in sovereignty. See: Peralta v. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil.
external affairs of the State; while a federal government consists of 285; Alcantara v. Director of Prisons, 75
autonomous state (local) government units merged into a single Phil. 749;Ruffyv. Chief of Staff, 75 Phil. 875.
State, with the national government exercising a limited degree of i) However, political laws, except the law on treason, are
power over the domestic affairs but generally full direction of the suspended [Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil. 856]; municipal laws remain in
external affairs of the State. force unless repealed by the belligerent occupant. At the end of the
belligerent occupation, when the occupant is ousted from the

2019
territory, the political laws which had been suspended during the in the following cases: (a) Assertion of its personal jurisdiction over
occupation shall automatically become effective again, under the its nationals abroad; or the exercise of its rights to punish certain
doctrine of jus postliminium offenses committed outside
its territory against its national interests even if the offenders are
f. Dominium vs imperium non-resident aliens;
(b) By virtue of its relations with other states or territories, as when
Dominium refers to the capacity to own it establishes a colonial protectorate, or a condominium, or
or acquire property, including lands held by the State in its administers a trust territory, or occupies enemy territory in the
proprietary capacity; while Imperium is the authority possessed by course of war;
the State embraced in the concept of sovereignty. (c) When the local state waives its jurisdiction over persons and
things within its territory, as when a foreign army stationed therein
remains under the jurisdiction of the sending state;
g. Jurisdiction (d) By the principle of exterritoriality, as illustrated by the
immunities of the head of state in a foreign country;
i) Territorial: power of the State over persons and things within (e) Through enjoyment of easements or servitudes, such as
its territory. Exempt are: the easement of innocent passage or arrival under stress;
(a) Foreign states, heads of state, diplomatic (f) The exercise of jurisdiction by the state in the high seas over its
representatives, and consuls to a certain degree; vessels; over pirates; in the exercise of the right to visit and search;
(b) Foreign state property, including embassies, consulates, and and under the doctrine of hot pursuit;
public vessels engaged in non-commercial activities; (g) The exercise of limited jurisdiction over the contiguous zone and
(c) Acts of state; the patrimonial
(d) Foreign merchant vessels exercising the rights of innocent sea, to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or
passage or involuntary entry, such as arrival under stress; sanitary regulations..
(e) Foreign armies passing through or stationed in its territory with
its permission; and C. State Immunity from Suit
(f) Such other persons or property, including organizations like the
United Nations, over which it may, by agreement, waive jurisdiction 1. Basis
ii) Personal: power of the State over its nationals, which may be There can be no legal right against the authority which makes the
exercised by the State even if the individual is outside the territory of law on which the right depends [Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83],
the State. However, it may be sued if it gives consent, whether express or
implied. The doctrine is also known as the Royal Prerogative of
iii) Extraterritorial: power exercised by the State beyond its territory Dishonesty.
2. Par in parem non habet imperium

2019
Minucher filed Civil Case before the RTC for damages on account of
Immunity is enjoyed by other States, consonant with the public what he claimed to have been trumped-up charges of drug
international law principle of par in parem non habet imperium. The trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo.
Head of State, who is deemed the personification of the State, is
inviolable, and thus, enjoys immunity from suit.
ISSUES
a) The State’s diplomatic agents, including consuls to a
certain extent, are also exempt from the jurisdiction of 1. Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is entitled to diplomatic immunity
local courts and admiinistraive tribunals. [See PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL LAW, infra 2. Whether the Doctrine of State Immunity from suit is applicable
herein
a. State’s diplomatic agents
A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with RULING

immunity from suit but only as long as it can be established that he
is acting within the directives of the sending State. The cloak of 1. Scalzo contends that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
protection is removed the moment the foreign agent is sued in his Relations, to which the Philippines is a signatory, grants him
individual capacity, as when he is sought to be made liable for absolute immunity from suit being an agent of the US Drugs
whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice Enforcement Agency. However, the main yardstick in ascertaining
or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity is the
determination of whether or not he performs duties of diplomatic
Minucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. nature. The Vienna Convention lists the classes of heads of
142396, February 11, 2003 diplomatic missions to include (a) ambassadors or nuncios accredited
to the heads of state, (b) envoys, ministers or inter nuncios
FACTS accredited to the head of states, and (c) charges d' affairs accredited
to the ministers of foreign affairs. The Convention defines
Sometime in May 1986, an information for violation of the "diplomatic agents" as the heads of missions or members of the
Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against petitioner Khosrow Minucher diplomatic staff, thus impliedly withholding the same privileges from
with the RTC. The criminal charge followed a "buy-bust operation" all others. Scalzo asserted that he was an Assistant Attache of the
concluded by the Philippine police narcotic agent in the house if US diplomatic mission. Attaches assist a chief of mission in his duties
Minucher where a quantity of heroin, a prohibited drug, was said to and are administratively under him. These officials are not generally
have been seized. The narcotic agents were accompanied by private regarded as members of the diplomatic mission, nor they normally
respondent Arthur Scalzo who would, in due time, become one of designated as having diplomatic rank.
the principal witnesses for the prosecution. On January 1988,
Presiding Judge Migrino rendered a decision acquitting the accused.

2019
2. While the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo might thus remain FACTS: SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international
contentions, it was sufficiently established that, indeed, he worked organization, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center,
for the USDEA. If it should be ascertained that Scalzo was acting organized through an agreement in 1967 by the governments of
well within his assigned functions when he committed the acts Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and the
allegedly complained of, the present controversy could then be Philippines with Japan as the sponsoring country.
resolved under the related doctrine of State Immunity from Suit.
While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against against the Juvenal Lazaga was employed as a Research Associate on a
State without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed probationary basis by SEAFDEC-AQD. Lacanilao in his capacity as
against officials of the State for acts allegedly performed by them in Chief of SEAFDEC-AQD sent a notice of termination
the discharge of their duties. The official exchanges of to Lazaga informing him that due to the financial constraints being
communication, certifications from officials, as well as participation experienced by the department, his services shall be terminated.
of members of the Philippine Narcotics Command may be inadequate SEAFDEC-AQD's failure to pay Lazaga his separation pay forced him
to support to support the diplomatic status of Scalzo but they give to file a case with the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in
enough indication that the Philippine government has given its favor of Lazaga. Thus SEAFDEC-AQD appealed, claiming that the
imprimatur to the activities of Scalzo. It can hardly be said that he NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case since it is immune from suit
acted beyond the scope of his official function or duties. All told, owing to its international character and the complaint is in effect a
Scalzo is entitled to the defense os state immunity from suit. suit against the State which cannot be maintained without its
consent.
ISSUES:
b. The United Nations
1. Does the NLRC have jurisdiction over SEAFDEC-AQD?
The United Nations, as well as its organs and specialized agencies,
are likewise beyond the jurisdiction of local courts [Convention on 2. Is SEAFDEC-AQD estopped for its failure to raise the issue of
Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations; Convention on jurisdiction at the first instance?
Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies of the United
Nations; World Health Organization v. Aquino, supra. HELD:
c. Other international organizations/agencies 1. SEAFDEC-AQD is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction

of public respondent NLRC. Being an intergovernmental organization,
SEAFDEC including its Departments (AQD), enjoys functional
SEAFDEC-Aquaculture v. NLRC, 206 SCRA 283 independence and freedom from control of the state in whose
territory its office is located.

2019
Permanent international commissions and administrative bodies have Facts: Ernesto Callado, petitioner, was employed as a driver at the
been created by the agreement of a considerable number of States IRRI. One day while driving an IRRI vehicle on an official trip to the
for a variety of international purposes, economic or social and mainly NAIA and back to the IRRI, petitioner figured in an accident.
non-political. In so far as they are autonomous and beyond the
Petitioner was informed of the findings of a preliminary investigation
control of any one State, they have a distinct juridical personality conducted by the IRRI's Human Resource Development Department
independent of the municipal law of the State where they are Manager. In view of the findings, he was charged with:
situated. As such, according to one leading authority "they must be (1) Driving an institute vehicle while on official duty under the
deemed to possess a species of international personality of their influence of liquor; (2) Serious misconduct consisting of failure to
own." report to supervisors the failure of the vehicle to start because of a
problem with the car battery, and(3) Gross and habitual neglect of
duties
One of the basic immunities of an international organization is
immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal Issue: Did the (IRRI) waive its immunity from suit in this dispute
writs and processes issued by the tribunals of the country where it is which arose from an employer-employee relationship?
found. The obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an
organization to the authority of the local courts would afford a Held: No.
convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in
there operations or even influence or control its policies and P.D. No. 1620, Article 3 provides:
Art. 3. Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute shall enjoy
decisions of the organization; besides, such subjection to local
immunity from any penal, civil and administrative proceedings,
jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its except insofar as that immunity has been expressly waived by the
responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states Director-General of the Institute or his authorized representatives.
it was held that SEAFDEC, as an international agency, enjoys The SC upholds the constitutionality of the aforequoted law. There is
diplomatic immunity. It was established through an international in this case "a categorical recognition by the Executive Branch of the
agreement to which the Philippines became a signatory on January Government that IRRI enjoys immunities accorded to international
16, 1968. The purpose of the Center is to contribute to the organizations, which determination has been held to be a political
promotion of fisheries development in Southeast Asia by mutual question conclusive upon the Courts in order not to embarass a
cooperation among the member governments of the Center. political department of Government.
The invocation by private respondents of the doctrine of estoppel is It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system
unavailing, because estoppel does not confer jurisdiction of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a
political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of the government, and
Callado v. IRRI, 244 SCRA 210 where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by

2019
the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is hectares. This was subsequently revoked by General Memorandum
then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon No. 60.
appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the
government or other officer acting under his direction. ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the doctrine of State immunity applies in this case.
The raison d'etre for these immunities is the assurance of
unimpeded performance of their functions by the agencies HELD:
concerned. YES. Petitioners not only failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies, but also failed to note that his action is a suit against the
The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal and an State which cannot prosper unless the State give its consent.
express waiver by its Director-General is the only way by which it
may relinquish or abandon this immunity.
the Supreme Court said that State immunity from suit may be
invoked as long as the suit really affects the property, rights or
In cases involving dismissed employees, the Institute may waive its
interests of the State and not merely those of the officers nominally
immunity, signifying that such waiver is discretionary on its part
made party defendants. In this case, the Court said that the
promotion of public welfare and the protection of the inhabitants
near the public forest areproperty rights and interests of the State.
3. Test to determine if the suit is against the State
On the assumption that decision is rendered against the public

officer or agency impleaded, will the enforcement thereof require an Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc.
affirmative act from the State, such as the appropriation of the v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 286
needed amount to satisfy the judgment? If so, then it is a suit
against the State
FACTS:
Tan v. Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. (VMPSI) alleges
The Bureau of Forestry issued Notice 2087 advertising for public that the provisions under Section 4 and 17 of Republic Act No. 5487
hearing a certain tract of public forest land. Petitioner submitted his or the Private Security Agency Law violate the 1987 Constitution
application in due form after paying the necessary fees and posting against monopolies, unfair competition and combinations in restraint
the required bond. Later that year, President Carlos Garcia issued a of trade, and tend to favor and institutionalize the Philippine
directive to the Director of the Bureau of Forestry to convert the land Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc.
into a forest reserve for watershed purposes. The Agriculture and (PADPAO) which is monopolistic because it has an interest in more
Natural Resources issued General Memorandum No. 46 granting than one security agency.
ordinary timber license where the area is not more than 3,000
2019
Respondent VMPSI likewise questions the validity of paragraph 3, 4. Suits against Government Agencies
subparagraph (g) of the Modifying Regulations on the Issuance of
License to Operate and Private Security Licenses and Specifying a. Incorporated
Regulations for the Operation of PADPAO issued by then PC Chief Lt.
Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, through Col. Sabas V. Edades, requiring that If the charter provides that the agency can sue and be
“all private security agencies/company security forces must register sued, then suit will lie, including one for tort. The provision in the
as members of any PADPAO Chapter organized within the Region charter constitutes express consent on the part of the State to be
where their main offices are located...”. As such membership sued.
requirement in PADPAO is compulsory in nature, it allegedly violates
legal and constitutional provisions against monopolies, unfair SSS v. Court of Appeals, 120 SCRA 707
competition and combinations in restraint of trade.
ISSUE: Facts:
Whether or not VMPSI’s complaint against the PC Chief and PC- Spouses David and Socorro Cruz, applied and granted a real estate
SUSIA is a suit against the State without its consent. loan by the SSS withresidential lot located at Pateros, Rizal as
collateral. The spouses Cruz complied with their monthlypayments.
HELD: When delayed were incurred in their monthly payments SSS filed a
petition for foreclosure of their real estate mortgage executed by the
Yes. A public official may sometimes be held liable in his personal or
private capacity if he acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his spouses Cruz on the ground that the spouses Cruz defaultedin
authority or jurisdiction, however, since the acts for which the PC payment, Pursuant for these application for foreclosure notices were
Chief and PC-SUSIA are being called to account in this case, were published on the second noticethe counsel for spouses Cruz sent a
performed as part of their official duties, without malice, gross letter to SSS informing the latter that his clients are up to date
negligence, or bad faith, no recovery may be had against them in intheir payment of the monthly amortization and the SSS should
their private capacities. Furthermore, the Supreme Court agrees with
discontinued the publication of thenotices of foreclosure. This
the Court of Appeals that the Memorandum of Agreement dated May
12, 1986 does not constitute an implied consent by the State to be request remain unheaded, this spouses Cruz filed an action for
sued. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from damagesagainst SSS before RTC in Rizal. SSS invoking its immunity
statutory authority, hence, a legislative act, not from a mere from suit being an agency of the government performing
memorandum. Without such consent, the trial court did not acquired government function
jurisdiction over the public respondents. Petition for review is denied
and the judgment appealed from is affirmed in toto. ISSUE: Whether or not SSS is immune from suit.
HELD:

2019
ISSUES:
Negative.. The SSS has a distinct legal personality and it can be sued
for damages. The SSS doesnot enjoy immunity from suit by express 1. Are municipal corporations suable?
statutory consent.It has corporated power separate and distinct from
the government. SSS own organic act 2. Is the Municipality liable for the torts committed by its employee
specifically provides that it can sue and be sued in court. These who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions?
words “sue and be sued” embrace all
civil process incident to a legal action. So that even assuming that HELD:
the SSS, as it claims, enjoys immunityfrom suit as an entity
performing governmental function, by virtue of the explicit provision 1. Municipal corporations, like provinces and cities, are agencies of
of theaforecited enabling law, the government must be deemed to the State when they are engaged in governmental functions and
have waived immunity in respect of theSSS, although it does not therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit.
thereby concede its liability that statutory law has given to the Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the performance of
private citizen aremedy for the enforcement and protection of his such functions because their charter provided that they can sue and
rights. The SSS thereby has been required to submitto the be sued.
jurisdiction of the court; subject to its right to interpose any lawful
defense 2. Municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant
them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of
Judge Firme, 195 SCRA 692 governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be
shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting
such entities to be sued, the State merely gives the claimant the
FACTS: A passenger jeepney, a sand truck and a dump truck of the
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union collided. Due to the impact, right to show that the defendant was not acting in its governmental
several passengers of the jeepney including Laureano Baniña Sr. capacity when the injury was committed or that the case comes
died. The heirs of Baniña filed a complaint for damages against the under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimant
owner and driver of the jeepney, who, in turn, filed a Third Party cannot recover.
Complaint against the Municipality and its dump truck driver, Alfredo
Bislig. Municipality filed its answer and raised the defense of non- In this case, the driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists
suability of the State. After trial, the court ruled in favor of the
that "he was on his way to the Naguilian river to get a load of sand
plaintiffs and ordered Municipality and Bislig to pay jointly and
severally the heirs of Baniña. and gravel for the repair of San Fernando's municipal streets." In the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, the regularity of the
performance of official duty is presumed. Hence, the driver of the
2019
dump truck was performing duties or tasks pertaining to his office. latter to the said governmental entity. Pursuant to their
arrangements, guards were deployed by Sultan Security Agency in
the various premises of the DA. Thereafter, several guards filed a
complaint for underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month
pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay, and
National Irrigation Administration v. Court of
overtime pay, as well as for damages against the DA and the
Appeals, 214 SCRA 35
security agency.
the Supreme Court reiterated that NIAis a corporate body
performing The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the DA jointly and
proprietary functions, whose charter, P.D. 552, provides that it may severally liable with the security agency for the payment of money
sue and be claims of the complainant security guards. The DA and the security
sued. agency did not appeal the decision. Thus, the decision became final
and executory. The Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution to
enforce and execute the judgment against the property of the DA
and the security agency. Thereafter, the City Sheriff levied on
execution the motor vehicles of the DA.
Philippine National Railways v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 217 SCRA 401 The private respondents, on the other hand, argue that the
petitioner has impliedly waived its immunity from suit by concluding
a service contract with Sultan Security Agency.
it was held that although the charter of PNR is silent on whether it
may sue or be sued, it had already been ruled in Malong v. PNR, 185 Issues: Whether or not the doctrine of non-suability of the State
SCRA 63, that the PNR “is not performing any governmental applies in the case.
function” and may, therefore, be sued.
Discussions:
b. Unincorporated
Act No. 3083, aforecited, gives the consent of the State to be “sued
Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract,
693 express or implied. However, the money claim should first be
brought to the Commission on Audit. Act 3083 stands as the general
Facts: law waiving the State’s immunity from suit, subject to its general
limitation expressed in Section 7 thereof that ‘no execution shall
Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Sultan Security Agency issue upon any judgment rendered by any Court against the
entered into a contract for security services to be provided by the Government of the (Philippines), and that the conditions provided in

2019
Commonwealth Act 327 for filing money claims against the Sanders v. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88
Government must be strictly observed.
Rulings: FACTS:
Petitioner Dale Sanders was the special services director of the US
No. The rule does not say that the State may not be sued under any Naval Station (NAVSTA) in Olongapo City. Private respondents,
circumstances. The State may at times be sued. The general law Anthony Rossi and Ralph Wyers, are American citizens permanently
waiving the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act No. 3083, residing in the Philippines and were employed as game room
where the Philippine government “consents and submits to be sued attendants in the special services department of NAVSTA. On
upon any money claims involving liability arising from contract, October 3, 1975, the respondents were advised that their
express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action employment had been converted from permanent full-time to
between private parties.” permanent part-time. In a letter addressed to petitioner Moreau,
Sanders disagreed with the hearing officer’s report of the
In this case, The DA has not pretended to have assumed a capacity reinstatement of private respondents to permanent part-time plus
apart from its being a governmental entity when it entered into the back wages. Respondents allege that the letters contained libelous
questioned contract; nor that it could have, in fact, performed any imputations which caused them to be ridiculed and, thus, filed for
act proprietary in character. But the claims of the complainant damages against petitioners.
security guards clearly constitute money claims.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioners were performing their official duties when
they did the acts for which they have been sued for damages.
Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of HELD:

Appeals, 167 SCRA 28 It is abundantly clear in the present case that the acts for which the
petitioners are being called to account were performed by them in
the discharge of their official duties. Sanders, as director of the
special services department of NAVSTA, undoubtedly had supervision
If proprietary: suit will lie^ because when the State engages in
over its personnel and had a hand in their employment, work
principally proprietary functions, then it descends to the level of a
assignments, discipline, dismissal and other related matters. The
private individual, and may, therefore, be vulnerable to suit
same can be said for Moreau. Given the official character of the
above-described letters, it can be concluded that the petitioners
5. Suit against Public Officers were being sued as officers of the United States government. There
should be no question by now that such complaint cannot prosper
unless the government sought to be held ultimately liable has given

2019
its consent to be sued. The private respondents must pursue their was a joint decision of the management & it was in
claim against the petitioners in accordance with the laws of the accordance of with the applicable regulation.
Unites States of which they are all citizens and under whose
jurisdiction the alleged offenses were committed for the Philippine Issue: WON private respondents are immune from suit being officers
courts have no jurisdiction over the case of the US Armed Forces
Held:
Shauf v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713 No they are not immune.
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision and resolution of respondent
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 17932 are hereby ANNULLED
Facts: and SET ASIDE. Private respondents are hereby ORDERED, jointly
and severally, to pay petitioners the sum of P100,000.00 as moral
damages, P20,000.00 as and for attorney's fees, and the costs of
 Loida Shauf, a Filipino by origin and married to an American
suit.
who is a member of the US Air Force, was rejected for a
position of Guidance Counselor in the Base Education Office
Ratio:
at Clark Air Base, for which she is eminently qualified.
 By reason of her non-selection, she filed a complaint for
damages and an equal employment opportunity complaint  They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not
against private respondents, Don Detwiler (civillian apply and may not be invoked where the public official is
personnel officer) and Anthony Persi (Education Director), being sued in his private and personal capacity as an
for alleged discrimination by reason of her nationality and ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the
sex. officers and agents of the government is removed the
 Shauf was offered a temporary position as a temporary moment they are sued in their individual capacity. This
Assistant Education Adviser for a 180-day period with the situation usually arises where the public official acts without
condition that if a vacancy occurs, she will be automatically authority or in excess of the powers vested in him.
selected to fill the vacancy. But if no vacancy occurs after o It is a well-settled principle of law that a public
180 days, she will be released but will be selected to fill a official may be liable in his personal private capacity
future vacancy if she’s available. Shauf accepted the offer. for whatever damage he may have caused by his act
During that time, Mrs. Mary Abalateo’s was about to vacate done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the
her position. But Mrs. Abalateo’s appointment was extended scope of his authority or jurisdiction
thus, Shauf was never appointed to said position. She claims
that the Abalateo’s stay was extended indefinitely to deny The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state
her the appointment as retaliation for the complaint that she immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating
filed against Persi. Persi denies this allegation. He claims it an injustice

2019
of the disorders that took place and

t h e recommendation it makes cannot in any way bind the State.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 142476, The acts and utterances of President Aquino doesnot mean
admission of the State of its liability. Moreover, the case does
March 20, 2001
not qualify as suit against the State.While the Republic in
this case is sued by name, the ultimate liability does
Thus, the PCGG or any of its members, may be held civilly liable (for
not pertain to the government. The military officials are held
the sale of an aircraft to Fuller Aircraft,which was void) if they did
liable for the damages for their official functions ceased the
not act with good faith and within the scope of their authority in the
moment they haveexceeded to their authority. They were
performance of official duties
deployed to ensure that the rally would be peaceful and orderly
andshould guarantee the safety of the people. The court has
Republic v. Hon. Edilberto Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124
made it quite clear that even a “high position in thegovernment
 The petitioner (CaylaoGroup) filed a suit against the does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure
State that for them the State has waived its another.” The court rules that there isn o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r
immunity when the Mendiola Commission recommended and no grave abuse of dicretion commited by the
the government to indemnify the victims of the Mendiola r e s p o n d e n t J u d g e i n i s s u i n g t h e questioned orderS.
incident and the acts andutterances of President Aquino
which is sympathetic to the cause is indicative of State's
waiver of immunityand therefore, the government
should also be liable and should be compensated by Lansang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102667,
the government . Thecase has been dismissed that State
February 23, 2000
has not waived its immunity. On the other hand, the Military
Officer filed apetition for certiorari to review the orders of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9.
Facts: Private respondents General Assembly of the Blind, Inc.
 ISSUE: (GABI) and Jose Iglesias were allegedly awarded a verbal contract of
 Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from suit lease in 1970 to occupy a portion of Rizal Park by the National Parks
and therefore should the State be liablefor the incident? Development Committee (NPDC), a government initiated civic body
engaged in the development of national parks. Private respondents
 HELD: were allegedly given office and library space as well as kiosks area
No. The recommendation made by the Mendiola
selling food and drinks. Private respondent GABI was to remit to
Commission regarding the indemnification of theheirs of
the deceased and the victims of the incident does not NPDC 40% of the profits derived from operating the kiosks. After the
in any way mean liability authomatically a t t a c h e s t o EDSA Revolution, petitioner Lansang, the new Chairman of the
the State. The purpose of which is to investigate NPDC, sought to clean up Rizal Park. Petitioner terminated the so-

2019
called verbal agreement with GABI and demanded that the latter
vacate the premises and the kiosks it ran privately within the public
park. On the day of the supposed eviction, GABI filed an action for
damages and injunction against petitioner. 6. Need for consent
In order that suit may lie against the state, there must be consent,
either express or implied. Where no consent is shown, state
Issue: Whether or not the complaint filed against the petitioner is in immunity
reality a complaint against the State, which could not prosper from suit may be invoked as a defense by the courts sua sponte at
without the State’s consent any stage of the proceedings, because waiver of immunity, being in
derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly and must be
construed in strictissimi juris. Accordingly, the complaint (or
Held: The doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to complaints counterclaim) against the State must allege the existence of such
consent (and where the same is found), otherwise, the complaint
filed against public officials for acts done in the performance of their
may be
duties. The rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the dismissed
state where satisfaction of the judgment against the public official a. Express consent
concerned will require the state itself to perform a positive act, such
as appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the damages Express consent. Express consent can be given only by an act of the
awarded to the plaintiff. legislative body [Republic v. Feliciano, supra.], in a general or a
special law.
General Law. An example of a general law granting
The rule does not apply where the public official is charged in his
consent is CA327, as amended by PD 1445, which requires that all
official capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights money claims against the government must first be filed with the
of others. Public officials are not exempt, in their personal capacity, Commission on Audit before suit is instituted in court. See: Sayson v.
from liability arising from acts committed in bad faith. Neither does Singzon, 54 SCRA 282. of Agriculture may be sued for money claims
its apply where the public official is clearly being sued not in his based on a contract entered into in its governmental capacity,
official capacity but in his personal capacity, although the acts because of the express consent contained in Act No. 3038,provided
that the claim be first brought to the Commission on Audit in
complained of may have been committed while he occupied a public
accordance
position. In the case, the petitioner is being sued not in his capacity with CA 327, as amended [Department of Agriculture v. NLRC
as NPDC chairman but in his personal capacity. It is also evident the
petitioner is sued allegedly for having personal motives in ordering
the ejectment of GABI from Rizal Park. Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA
693
2019
Facts: Petitioner Department of Agriculture (DA) and Sultan Security makes the law on which the right depends.
Agency entered into a contract for security services to be provided
by the latter to the said governmental entity. Pursuant to their The rule is not really absolute for it does not say that the State may
arrangements, guards were deployed by Sultan Security Agency in not be sued under any circumstances. The State may at times be
the various premises of the DA. Thereafter, several guards filed a sued. The State’s consent may be given expressly or impliedly.
complaint for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of 13th month Express consent may be made through a general law or a special
pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay, and law. Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded when the State
overtime pay, as well as for damages against the DA and the itself commences litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim, or
security agency. when it enters into a contract. In this situation, the government is
deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the DA jointly and party and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity.
severally liable with the security agency for the payment of money
claims of the complainant security guards. The DA and the security In the case, the DA has not pretended to have assumed a capacity
agency did not appeal the decision. Thus, the decision became final apart from its being a governmental entity when it entered into the
and executory. The Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution to questioned contract; nor that it could have, in fact, performed any
enforce and execute the judgment against the property of the DA act proprietary in character.
and the security agency. Thereafter, the City Sheriff levied on
execution the motor vehicles of the DA. But, be that as it may, the claims of the complainant security guards
clearly constitute money claims. Act No. 3083 gives the consent of
the State to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability
Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of non-suability of the State arising from contract, express or implied. Pursuant, however, to
applies in the case Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by PD 1145, the money claim
must first be brought to the Commission on Audit.
Held: The basic postulate enshrined in the Constitution that “the

State may not be sued without its consent” reflects nothing less than Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360
a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the FACTS: Victoria Amigable rightfully owned a lot in Cebu City which
jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very essence of sovereignty. was used by the government for Mango and Gorordo Avenues
without her permission and without proper negotiation of sales.
A sovereign is exempt from suit based on the logical and practical
Because of this, she filed a case in CFI Cebu.
ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that
2019
EPG Construction v. Secretary Vigilar, G.R. No.

Defendants argue that 1) Action was premature; 2) Right of action 131544, March 16, 2001
has already been prescribed; 3) Government cannot be sued without
its consent and; 4) Cebu already agreed to use the land as such. 1983) The herein petitioners-contractors,
under contracts with D P W H , constructed 145
CFI rendered a decision which states that Amigable cannot restore
housing units but coverage of construction and funding
and recover her ownership and possession of the said land and thus
under the saidc o n t r a c t s w a s o n l y f o r 2 / 3 o f e a c h
dismissed the complaint on grounds that state may not be sued
without its consent. housing unit. Through the verb al request
a n d assurance of then DPWH Undersecretary Canlas, they undertook
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Amigable may rightfully sue the additional constructionsf o r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t ,
government without its consent. but said additional constructions were not
i s s u e d payment by DPWH.W i t h a favorable
HELD: In the case of Ministerio vs Court of First Instance of Cebu, it
recommendation from the DPWH Asst. Secretary for
was held that when the government takes away property from a
private landowner for public use without going through the legal L e g a l Affairs, the petitioners sent a demend letter to the DPWH
process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may Secretary. The DPWH Auditor did not object to the payment subject
properly maintain a suit against the government without violating to whatever action COA may adopt.(1992) Through the request of
the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. then DPWH Secretary De Jesus, the DBM releasedt h e a m o u n t
for payment but (1996) respondent DPWH Secreatry
In the case at bar, since no annotation in favor of the government V i g i l a r d e n i e d t h e money claims prompting petitioners to
appears at the back of the certificate of title and plaintiff has not
file a petition for mandamus before the RTC which said trial
executed any deed of conveyance of any portion of the lot to the
government, then she remains as the rightful owner of the lot. court denied. Hence, this petition.A m o n g others,
respondent-secretary argues that the state may not
She could then bring an action to recover possession of the land b e s u e d invoking the constitutional doctrine of Non-suability of the
anytime, because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. State also known as the RoyalPrerogative of Dishonesty.
However, since such action is not feasible at this time since the lot
has been used for other purposes, the only relief left is for the ISSUE: Whether or not the Principle of State Immunity is applicable in
government to make due compensation of the exact amount, price the case at bar.
or value of the lot at the time of the taking.
HELD:
Petition is partly GRANTED
The principle of state immunity finds no appl ication
i n t h i s c a s e . U n d e r t h e circumstances, respondent may

2019
not validly invoke the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty a n d Facts:

hide under the state’s cloak of invincibility against
s u i t . C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h i s principle yields to certain settled Plaintiff, Fernando Froilan filed a complaint against the defendant-
exceptions. The rule is not absolute for it does not saythat the appellant, Pan Oriental Shipping Co., alleging that he purchased
from the Shipping Commission the vessel for P200,000, paying
state may not be sued under any circumstance. The
P50,000 down and agreeing to pay the balance in instalments. To
doctrine of governmental i m m u n i t y f r o m s u i t c a n n o t secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price, he
serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice executed a chattel mortgage of said vessel in favor of the Shipping
on acitizen. It is just as important that there be Commission. For various reasons, among them the non-payment of
f i d e l i t y t o l e g a l n o r m s o n t h e p a r t o f officialdom if the the installments, the Shipping Commission tool possession of said
rule of law is to be maintained. The ends of justice would be vessel and considered the contract of sale cancelled. The Shipping
subvertedif we were to uphold, in this instance, the state’s immunity Commission chartered and delivered said vessel to the defendant-
appellant Pan Oriental Shipping Co. subject to the approval of the
from suit.This court - as the staunch guardian of the
President of the Philippines. Plaintiff appealed the action of the
citizen’s rights and welfare- cannot s a n c t i o n a n i n j u s t i c e Shipping Commission to the President of the Philippines and, in its
so patent on its face, and allow itself to be an meeting the Cabinet restored him to all his rights under his original
instrument of perpetration thereof. Justice and contract with the Shipping Commission. Plaintiff had repeatedly
equity sternly demand that the state’s cloak demanded from the Pan Oriental Shipping Co. the possession of the
of invincibility against suit be shred in this vessel in question but the latter refused to do so.
p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e a n d t h a t p e t i t i o n e r s - contractors be
duly compensated , on the basis of quantum meruit, for construction Pan Oriental protested to this restoration of Plaintiff ‘s rights under
doneon the public works housing projectPetition GRANTted. the contract of sale, for the reason that when the vessel was
delivered to it, the Shipping Administration had authority to dispose
of said authority to the property, Plaintiff having already relinquished
whatever rights he may have thereon. Plaintiff paid the required
b. Implied consent cash of P10,000.00 and as Pan Oriental refused to surrender
possession of the vessel, he filed an action to recover possession
When the State commences litigation, it becomes vulnerable to
thereof and have him declared the rightful owner of said property.
a counterclaim. When the State enters into a business contract
The Republic of the Philippines was allowed to intervene in said civil
case praying for the possession of the in order that the chattel
mortgage constituted thereon may be foreclosed.
Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, G.R. No. L-
6060, Sept. 30, 1950 Issues:

2019
Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the intervenor with unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair contract for
regard to the counterclaim. the sea wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in
Subic Bay.
Discussions:  The company sued the United States of America and Messrs.
James E. Galloway, William I. Collins and Robert Gohier all
When the government enters into a contract, for the State is then members of the Engineering Command of the U.S. Navy.
deem to have divested itself of the mantle of sovereign immunity The complaint is to order the defendants to allow the
and descended to the level of the ordinary individual. Having done plaintiff to perform the work on the projects and, in the
so, it becomes subject to judicial action and processes. event that specific performance was no longer possible, to
order the defendants to pay damages. The company also
asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to
Rulings:
restrain the defendants from entering into contracts with
third parties for work on the projects.
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the government impliedly allowed  Hence the instant petition which seeks to restrain
itself to be sued when it filed a complaint in intervention for the perpetually the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M for lack
purpose of asserting claim for affirmative relief against the plaintiff of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.
to the recovery of the vessel. The immunity of the state from suits
does not deprive it of the right to sue private parties in its own
Issue/s:
courts. The state as plaintiff may avail itself of the different forms of
actions open to private litigants. In short, by taking the initiative in
an action against a private party, the state surrenders its privileged
position and comes down to the level of the defendant. The latter  WON the US naval base in bidding for said contracts exercise
automatically acquires, within certain limits, the right to set up governmental functions to be able to invoke state immunity
whatever claims and other defenses he might have against the state
Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the questioned orders of the
U.S. v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
respondent judge are set aside and Civil Case No. is dismissed. Costs
against the private respondent.
 US invited the submission of bids for Repair offender system
and Repair typhoon damages. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. Ratio:
responded to the invitation, submitted bids and complied
with the requests based on the letters received from the US.  The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from
 In June 1972, a letter was received by the Eligio De Guzman
being sued in the courts of another State without its consent
& Co indicating that the company did not qualify to receive or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the
an award for the projects because of its previous

2019
principles of independence and equality of States. However, imperii. The fact that the contract contains a provision that any legal
the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are action arising out of the agreement shall be settled according to the
constantly developing and evolving. And because the laws of the Philippines and by a specified court of the Philippines
activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to does not necessarily mean
distinguish them-between sovereign and governmental acts a waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity from suit.
(jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts
(jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
extends only to acts jure imperil (sovereign & governmental 129406, March 6, 2006
acts)
 The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only
when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions
On November 3, 1990, petitioner Republic and private respondent
of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or
Benedicto entered into a Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No.
economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to
0034. The agreement contained a general release clause 5
have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be
whereunder petitioner Republic agreed and bound itself to lift the
deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only
sequestration on the 227 NOGCCI shares, among other Benedicto’s
when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply
properties, petitioner Republic acknowledging that it was within
where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign
private respondent Benedicto’s capacity to acquire the same shares
functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of the
out of his income from business and the exercise of his profession. 6
naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the
Implied in this undertaking is the recognition by petitioner Republic
United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of
that the subject shares of stock could not have been ill-gotten.
the government of the highest order; they are not utilized
for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes.
 correct test for the application of State immunity is not the In a decision dated October 2, 1992, the Sandiganbayan approved
conclusion of a contract by a State but the legal nature of the Compromise Agreement and accordingly rendered judgment in
the act. accordance with its terms.
In the process of implementing the Compromise Agreement, either

of the parties would, from time to time, move for a ruling by the
In Republic Sandiganbayan on the proper manner of implementing or
of Indonesia v. Vinzon, G.R. No. 154705, June 26, 2003, it was held interpreting a specific provision therein.
that contracts entered into by a sovereign state in connection with
the establishment of a diplomatic mission, including contracts for the ISSUE: whether or not the public respondent Sandiganbayan,
upkeep or maintenance of air conditioning units, generator sets, Second Division, gravely abused its discretion in holding that the
electrical facilities, water heaters and water motor pumps of the PCGG is at fault for not paying the membership dues on the 227
embassy and the Ambassador’s residence, are contracts in jure

2019
sequestered NOGCCI shares of stock, a failing which eventually led

to the foreclosure sale thereof. 7. Scope of Consent
HELD: Consent to be sued does not include consent to the execution of

judgment against it.
To begin with, PCGG itself does not dispute its being considered as a
receiver insofar as the sequestered 227 NOGCCI shares of stock are
concerned.12 PCGG also acknowledges that as such receiver, one of National Housing Authority v. Heirs of
its functions is to pay outstanding debts pertaining to the Quivelondo, G.R. No. 154411, June 19, 2003
sequestered entity or property,13 in this case the 227 NOGCCI shares
in question. It contends, however, that membership dues owing to a Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez,
golf club cannot be considered as an outstanding debt for which 130 SCRA 56
PCGG, as receiver, must pay. It also claims to have exercised due
diligence to prevent the loss through delinquency sale of the subject
NOGCCI shares, specifically inviting attention to the injunctive suit, Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals, 190
i.e., Civil Case No. 5348, it filed before the RTC of Bacolod City to SCRA 206
enjoin the foreclosure sale of the shares.
In fact, by entering into a Compromise Agreement with private a) Such execution will require another waiver, because the power of
respondent Benedicto, petitioner Republic thereby stripped itself of the court ends when the judgment is rendered, since government
its immunity from suit and placed itself in the same level of its funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or
adversary. When the State enters into contract, through its officers garnishment, unless such disbursement is covered by the
or agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and corresponding appropriation as required by law [Republic v. Villasor,
pursuant to constitutional legislative authority, whereby mutual or 54 SCRA 84; Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA
reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom, 693]. Thus, in Larkins v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 598, considering that the
the State may be sued even without its express consent, precisely employer of private respondents was not Lt. Col. Frankhauser or the
because by entering into a contract the sovereign descends to the petitioner but the U.S. Government which, by right of sovereign
level of the citizen. Its consent to be sued is implied from the very power, operated and maintained the dormitories at the Clark Air
act of entering into such contract,26 breach of which on its part gives Base for USAF members, the awards (of monetary
the corresponding right to the other party to the agreement. claims to the private respondents) will have to be satisfied by the
U.S. Government. Without its consent the properties of the U.S.
Government may not be subject to execution.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED
b) But funds belonging to government corporations (whose charters

2019
provide that they can sue and be sued) that are deposited with a Appeals, 190 SCRA 206, it was held that where the municipality fails
bank are not exempt from garnishment [Philippine National Bank v. or refuses, without justifiable reason, to effect payment of a final
Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595; money judgment rendered
Rizal Commercial Bank v. De Castro, 168 SCRA 49]. In National against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in
Housing Authority v. Heirs of Quivelondo, G.R. No. 154411, June 19, order to compel
2003, it was held that if the funds belong to a public corporation or a the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation
government- owned or controlled ordinance and the
corporation which is clothed with a personality of its own, then the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds to satisfy the money
funds are not exempt from garnishment. This is so because when judgment.
the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its
sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. c) In Pacific Products v. Ong, 181 SCRA 536, the Supreme Court said
NHA is one such corporation; thus, its funds are not exempt that by the process of garnishment, the plaintiff virtually sues the
from garnishment or execution. garnishee for a debt due from the defendant. The debtor-stranger
becomes a forced intervenor; when served with the writ of
i) However, in Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez, attachment, he becomes a party to the action. Money in the hands
130 SCRA 56, it was held that funds of a municipality (although it is of government agency (engaged in governmental functions), even if
an due to a third party, is not liable to creditors of the third party
incorporated agency whose charter provides that it can sue and be through garnishment.
sued) are public in character and may not be garnished unless there To allow this would be to allow a suit against the State without the
is a corresponding appropriation ordinance duly passed by the latter’s consent
Sangguniang Bayan. Thus, in City of Caloocan v. Allarde, G.R. No.
107271, September 10, 2003, the rule was reiterated that all
government funds deposited with any official depositary bank of the
Philippine Government by any of its agencies or instrumentalities,
8. Suability not equated with outright liability
whether by
general or special deposit, remain government funds and may not be
Liability will have to be determined by the Court on the basis of the
subject to garnishment or levy in the absence of a corresponding
evidence and the applicable law
appropriation as required by law. In this case, the City of Caloocan
had already approved and passed Ordinance No. 0134, Series of
Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands,
1992, allocating the amount of P439.377.14 for respondent
Santiago’s back salaries plus interest. Thus, this case fell squarely 34 Phil 311 (1916)
within the exception, and the amount may therefore be garnished.
While consent to be sued was granted through a special law, the
ia) Be that as it may, in Municipality of Makati v. Court of
government was held not liable for damages, because under the
attendant circumstances the government was not acting through a
special agent
2019
c) By marriage
Fontanilla v. Maliaman, 194 SCRA 486
3. Modes applied in the Philippines

the Supreme Court said that the National Irrigation Administration is
a government agency with a juridical personality separate and a. Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution
distinct from the government; it is a corporate
body performing proprietary functions. Thus, the NIA may be held i) Jus sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish
liable for subjects on April 11,1899, and residing in the islands who did not
damages caused by the negligent act of its driver who was not a declare their intention of preserving Spanish nationality between said
special agent date and October 11, 1900, were declared citizens of the Philippines
[Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec.
2, Jones Law of 1916], and their children born after April 11, 1899.
II. CITIZENSHIP
. ii) Jus soli. As held in Roa v. Collector of Customs, 25 Phil 315,
which
was uniformly followed until abandoned in Tan Chong v. Secretary of
A. General Principles
Labor, 79 Phil 249; but applied again in Talaroc v. Uy, 92 Phil 52,
until abandoned with finality in Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam v.
1. Defined
Republic, 101 Phil. 195. Those declared as Filipino citizens by the
courts are recognized as such today, not because of the
Membership in a political community which is personal and more
application of the jus soli doctrine, but principally because of the
or less permanent in character
doctrine of res judicata.
CASES:
Distinguished from nationality. Nationality is membership in any class
or form of political community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if
Roa v. Collector of Customs, 25 Phil 315
members of a democratic community] or subjects [if members of a
monarchical community]. Nationality does not necessarily include the Facts:
right or privilege of exercising civil or political rights.
Tranquilino Roa, was born in the town of Luculan, Mindanao,
2. Usual modes of acquiring citizenship
Philippine Islands, on July 6, 1889. His father was Basilio Roa Uy
a) By birth Tiong Co, a native of China, and his mother was Basilia Rodriguez, a
i) jus sanguinis native of this country. His parents were legally married in the
ii) jus soli Philippine Islands at the time of his birth. The father of the appellant
b) By naturalization
2019
went to China about the year 1895, and died there about 1900. and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and
Subsequent to the death of his father, in May, 1901, the appellant held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to
was sent to China by his mother for the sole purpose of studying the protection of the United States, except such as shall have
(and always with the intention of returning) and returned to the elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in
Philippine Islands on the steamship Kaifong, arriving at the port of accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the
Cebu October 1, 1910, from Amoy, China, and sought admission to United States and Spain signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen
the Philippine Islands. At this time the appellant was a few days hundred and ninety-eight.”
under 21 years and 3 months of age.
The cession of the Philippine Islands definitely transferred
Issue: the allegiance of the native inhabitants from Spain to the United
States (articles 3 and 9 of Treaty of Paris). Filipinos remaining in this
Whether or not Tranquilino Roa was a citizen of the Philippine country who were not natives of the Peninsula could not, according
Islands by birth? to the terms of the treaty, elect to retain their allegiance to Spain. By
the cession their allegiance became due to the United States and
Ruling:
they became entitled to its protection. The nationality of the Islands
The nationality of the appellant having followed that of his mother, American instead of Spanish
he was therefore a citizen of the Philippine Islands on July 1, 1902,
Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam v. Republic, 101
and never having expatriated himself, he still remains a citizen of
Phil. 195
this country. The United States follow the principle of Jus Soli or
citizenship by place of birth. Those declared as
Filipino citizens by the courts are recognized as such today, not
Basis: because of the application of the jus soli doctrine, but principally
because of the doctrine of res judicata
Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the
United States reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United b. After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the c.
United States and of the State wherein they reside Section 4 of the Only the jus sanguinis doctrine.
Philippine Bill provides:
4. Natural-born citizens – Sec. 2, Art. IV
“That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside
therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, Those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands,
2019
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Makati City
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship shall be on August 31, 1998.
deemed natural- born citizens
Thus the present petition.
5. Marriage by Filipino to an alien – Sec. 4, Art. IV
ISSUE:
“Citizens of the Philippines who marry
aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission Whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold public elective
they are office in the philippines.
deemed, under the law, to have renounced it
RULING:
6. Policy against dual allegiance – Sec. 5, Art. IV
The court ruled that the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec.
”Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to 40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be understood as referring to
the national interest and shall be dealt with by law
dual allegiance. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The
Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 former arises when, as a result of the application of the different
laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a
national by the said states. Dual allegiance on the other hand, refers
Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano were both to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some
candidates for Vice-Mayor of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is
involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of an individual's volition.
Based on the results of the election, Manzano garnered the highest Article IV Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of
number of votes. However, his proclamation was suspended due to citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by
the pending petition for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado on law."
the ground that he was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the
United States. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under
this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must,
From the facts presented, it appears that Manzano is both a Filipino therefore, be subject to strict process with respect to the termination
and a US citizen. of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice
if, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they elect
The Commission on Elections declared Manzano disqualified as
Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual
candidate for said elective position.

2019
citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable

consequence of conflicting laws of different states. Valles v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137000, August 9,
2000
When a person applying for citizenship by naturalization takes an
oath that he renounces his loyalty to any other country or
government and solemnly declares that he owes his allegiance to the FACTS:
Republic of the Philippines, the condition imposed by law is satisfied
and complied with. The determination whether such renunciation is Petitioner filed a disqualification case against private respondent in
valid or fully complies with the provisions of our Naturalization Law 1998 elections for governor of Davao Oriental. Rosalind Ybasco
lies within the province and is an exclusive prerogative of our courts. Lopez (private respondent) was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia,
The latter should apply the law duly enacted by the legislative to the spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of
department of the Republic. No foreign law may or should interfere Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. In
with its operation and application. 1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in
the Philippines. Petitioner contends that in her application for alien
The court ruled that the filing of certificate of candidacy of certificate of registration and immigrant certificate of residence,
respondent sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively private respondent expressly declared under oath that she was a
removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen. By citizen or subject of Australia; and said declaration forfeited her
declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; Philippine citizenship, therefore it operated to disqualify her to run
that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; for elective office. He also argued that Comelec’s finding of
that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines renouncing her Australian citizenship and had her Australian
and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so passport cancelled did not automatically restore the status of private
without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the respondent as a Filipino citizen.
laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his
American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as ISSUE:
a dual citizen.
Whether or not private respondent is an Australian citizen
On the other hand, private respondent’s oath of allegiance to the
RULING:
Philippines, when considered with the fact that he has spent his
youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession No. The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus
as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this country, leaves sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of
no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship. the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to

2019
the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot assails the Resolution dated 28 September
the basis of place of birth. Private respondent was born a year 2007 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc in SPA
before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at that time, what No. 07-361, affirming the Resolution dated 12 June 2007 of the
served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal COMELEC Second Division disqualifying him from running for the
organic acts by which the United States governed the country and position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, in the 14 May
these were the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Jones Law. Under both 2007National and Local Elections, on the ground that he failed to
organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish make a personal renouncement of his United States(US) citizenship.
subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their Petitioner was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became
children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Her father was born on a naturalized citizen of the US on 13 December1989.Petitioner
1879 in Daet, Camarines Sur. Therefore by virtue of the said laws, sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No.
Telesforo’s daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-
Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines. Also, the principle of Acquisition Act. He filed a request for the administration of his Oath
jus sanguinis, which confers citizenship by virtue of blood of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines with the Philippine
relationship, was subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 Consulate General (PCG) of Los Angeles, California. The Los Angeles
Constitutions. Thus, the herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco PCG issued on 19 June 2006 an Order of Approval of petitioner’s
Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. request, and on the same day, petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance
Secondly, as ruled in Aznar vs Comelec and Mercado vs Manzano to the Republic of the Philippines before Vice Consul Edward C. Yulo.
and Comelec, the mere fact that private respondent was a holder of
an Australian passport and had an alien certificate of registration are ISSUE:
not acts constituting an effective renunciation of citizenship and do
whether petitioner is disqualified from running as a candidate in the
not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation
14 May 2007 local elections for his failure to make a personal and
to effectively result in the loss of citizenship, the same must be
sworn renunciation of his US citizenship.
express.
HELD:
Petition is DISMISSED. COMELEC resolutions AFFIRMED
Contrary to the assertions made by petitioner, his oath of allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines made before the Los Angeles PCG
Jacot v. Dal and Comeiec, G.R. No. 179848,
and his Certificate of Candidacy do not substantially comply with the
November 27, 2008
requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign
citizenship because these are distinct requirements to be complied
with for different purposes. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225

2019
requires that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who are already Calilung v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 160869,
naturalized citizens of a foreign country, must take the following May 11, 2007
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines to reacquire or
retain their Philippine citizenship. Facts:
By the oath dictated in the afore-quoted provision, the Filipino Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition to prevent Justice Secretary
Datumanong from implementing R. A. 9225 entitled " An Act Making
swears allegiance to the Philippines, but there is nothing therein on
the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire
his renunciation of foreign citizenship. Precisely, a situation might Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose
arise under Republic Act No.9225 wherein said Filipino has dual Commonwealth Act No. 63, As Amended, and for Other Purposes. "
citizenship by also reacquiring or retaining his Philippine citizenship, which was signed into law by President Gloria M. Arroyo on August
despite his foreign citizenship. The afore-quoted oath of allegiance is 29, 2003. Petitionerargued that R.A. 9225 is unconstitutional as it
substantially similar to the one contained in the Certificate of violates Sec. 5, Article VI of the Constitution which states that “dual
Candidacy which must be executed by any person who wishes to run allegiance of citizens is inimical to national interest and shall be dealt
with by law.” Petitioner contends that RA 9225 cheapens
for public office in Philippine elections. The law categorically requires
Philippine citizenship
persons seeking elective public office, who either retained their
Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired it, to make a personal Issues:
and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before a
public officer authorized to administer an oath simultaneous with or 1. Whether R.A. 9225 is unconstitutional
before the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Hence, Section 5(2) 2. Whether the court jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual
of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who have allegiance
been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired
or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of Held:
allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for
those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally 1. No. It is clear that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act
execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign No. 9225 is to do away with the provision in Commonwealth Act No.
citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous 635 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born
Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. What
to the filing of their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates
Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-
in Philippine elections
born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason
of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it
does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme
authority of the Republic, the personimplicitly renounces his

2019
foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed his foreign citizenship. Plainly, Sec. 3 stays clear out of the problem
clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of of dual allegiance and shifts the burden of confronting the issue of
confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign
the concerned foreign country. What happens to the country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a
other citizenship was not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225. concern of
RA 9225.
2. Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy 7. Attack on one’s citizenship may be made only through a
and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to direct, not a collateral proceeding
enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No.
9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se,
but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their Co v. HRET, 199 SCRA 692
allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization.
Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific
parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is Facts:
done, it would be premature for the judicial department, including
this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance. The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born
Filipino citizen and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting
purposes. The congressional election for the second district of
the constitutionality of R.A. 9225 (An Act Making the Citizenship of
Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, NorthernSamar was held. Among the candidates who vied for the
amending for the purpose, position of representative in the second legislativedistrict are the
Com. Act No. 63) was challenged, allegedly for violating Sec. 5, Art. petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co and the private
IV of the Constitution. It was claimed that Sec. 2 allows all Filipinos, respondent, Jose Ong, Jr. RespondentOng was proclaimed the duly
whether natural-born or naturalized, who become foreign citizens, to elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar. The
retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign
petitioners filed election protests on the grounds that Jose Ong, Jr. is
citizenship; while Sec. 3 allows former natural-bom
not a natural born citizen of thePhilippines and not a resident of the
citizens to regain their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath
of allegiance without forfeiting their foreign allegiance. In upholding second district of Northern Samar.
the validity of RA 9225, the Court said that the intent of the
legislature is to do away with the provision in CA63 which takes Issue:
away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become
naturalized citizens of other countries. It allows dual citizenship; but Whether or not Jose Ong, Jr. is a citizen of the Philippines.
on its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the
supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces Whether the decision of HRET is appealable;

2019
Held: denial of due process on the part of the HRET which will necessitate
the exercise of the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court.
Yes. In the year 1895, the private respondent’s grandfather, Ong
Te, arrived in the Philippines from China and established his
residence in the municipality of Laoang, Samar. The father of the 8. Res judicata in cases involving citizenship
private respondent, Jose Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905 but
was brought by Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915, he filed withthe The doctrine of res judicata does not ordinarily apply to questions of
citizenship. It does so only A person’s citizenship is resolved by a
court an application for naturalization and was declared a Filipino
court or an administrative body as a material
citizen.In 1984, the private respondent married a Filipina named issue in the controversy, after a full-blown hearing; (b) With the
Desiree Lim. For the elections of 1984 and1986, Jose Ong, Jr. active participation of the Solicitor General or his representative; and
registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar, and voted there (c) The finding of his citizenship is affirmed by the Supreme Court.
during those elections.Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Then the decision on the matter shall constitute
Filipino fathers and those born of Filipino mothers with analien father conclusive proof of such party’s citizenship in any other case or
were placed on equal footing. They were both considered as natural proceeding [Board of Commissioners, CID v. de la Rosa
born citizens. Besides, privaterespondent did more than merely
exercise his right of suffrage. He has established his life here in the
Board of Commissioners, CID v. de la Rosa, 197
Philippines.On the issue of residence, it is not required that a person
SCRA 853
should have a house in order to establish hisresidence and domicile.
It is enough that he should live in the municipality or in a rented
house or in that of afriend or relative. To require him to own Facts:
property in order to be eligible to run for Congress would be
tantamountto a property qualification. The Constitution only requires On July 12, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William
that the candidate meet the age, citizenship, voting and residence Gatchalian, was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a native
requirements.. born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of natural mother
Mariana Gatchalian. On June 27, 1961, Willian, then twelve years
Yes. The Constitution explicitly provides that the House of old, arrives in Manila from Hongkong together with a daughter and a
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the Senate Electoral son of Santiago. They had with them certificate of registration and
Tribunal (SET) shall be the sole judges of all contests relating to the identity issued by the Philippine consulate in Hongkong based on a
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. In cablegram bearing the signature of the secretary of foreign affairs,
the case at bar, the Court finds no improvident use of power, no Felixberto Serrano, and sought admission as Filipino citizens.

2019
ISSUE: Whether or not William Gatchalian is to be declared as a

Filipino citizen jb) A similar conclusion was reached in Maria Jeanette Tecson
v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004, on the controversy
Held: surrounding the citizenship of Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), presidential
candidate. The issue of whether or not FPJ is a natural-born citizen
William Gatchalian is declared as a Filipino Citizen. Having declared would depend on whether his father, Allan F. Poe, was himself a
the assailed marriage as valid, respondent William Gatchalian follows Filipino citizen, and if in the affirmative, whether or not
the citizenship of his father, a Filipino as legitimate child. Respondent the alleged illegitimacy of FPJ prevents him from taking after the
Filipino
belongs to a class of Filipinos who are citizens of the Philippines at
citizenship of his putative father. The Court took note of the fact that
the time of the adoption of the constitution. Lorenzo Pou (father of Allan F. Poe), who died in 1954 at 84 years
old, would have been born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines
was under Spanish rule, and that San
Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in
B. Citizens of the Philippines the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited
the adoption of this (1987) Constitution from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill of 1902
effected. That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if acquired, would
a) Re: 1935 Constitution thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ), The 1935
i) Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916 [including Constitution, during which
children born after April 11, 1899], regime FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons
whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such
ia) In Valles v. Comelec, supra., the Supreme Court made children are legitimate or illegitimate.
reference to these organic acts and declared that private respondent
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez who was born in Australia to parents ii) Act No. 2927 [March 26,1920], then CA473, on naturalization
Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian, on [including children below 21 and residing in the Philippines at the
May 16, 1934, before the 1935 Constitution took effect, was a time of
Filipino citizen. Under these organic acts, inhabitants of the islands naturalization, as well as children born subsequent to naturalization],
who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, who did not opt in
writing to retain Spanish nationality between April 11, 1899 to iii) Foreign women married to Filipino citizens before or after
October 11, 1900 — including their children — were deemed citizens November 30, 1938 [effectivity of CA 473] who might themselves be
of the Philippines. lawfully naturalized [in view of the Supreme Court interpretation of
Rosalind’s father was, therefore, a Filipino citizen, and under the Sec. 15, CA473, in Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration,
principle of jus sanguinis, Rosalind followed the citizenship of her 41 SCRA 292].
father.

2019
iv) Those benefited by the Roa doctrine applying the jus soli thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of
principle. candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in
truth, according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners; his mother,
v) Caram provision: Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents
Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a
who, before the adoption of this [1935] Constitution, had been
elected to public Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.
office in the Islands. In Chiongbian v. de Leon, the Supreme Court Granting, Fornier asseverated, that Allan F. Poe was a Filipino
held that the citizen, he could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ,
right acquired by virtue of this provision is transmissible. the latter being an illegitimate child of an alien mother. Fornier
based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of FPJ on two
vi) Those who elected Philippine citizenship. assertions: (1) Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain
b) Re: 1973 Constitution. Those whose mothers are citizens of the
Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and, (2) even if
Philippines. Provision is prospective in application; to benefit only
those born on or after January 17, 1973 no such prior marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie
Kelly only a year after the birth of FPJ. On 23 January 2004, the
COMELEC dismissed SPA 04-003 for lack of merit.
Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3,
2004 Issue:
Whether FPJ was a natural born citizen, so as to be allowed to run

Facts: for the offcie of the President of the Philippines.
On 31 December 2003, Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Held:

Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), filed his certificate of candidacy for the
Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution expresses that "No
position of President of the Republic of the Philippines under the
person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen
Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party, in the 2004 national
of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least
elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to
forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the
be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be
Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such
"Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20
election." The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to include
August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Victorino X. Fornier,
"those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
(GR 161824) initiated, on 9 January 2004, a petition (SPA 04-003)
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship."
before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify FPJ and
Herein, the date, month and year of birth of FPJ appeared to be 20
to deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the
August 1939 during the regime of the 1935 Constitution. Through its

2019
history, four modes of acquiring citizenship - naturalization, jus soli,

res judicata and jus sanguinis – had been in vogue. Only two, i.e., a. Procedure for election
jus soli and jus sanguinis, could qualify a person to being a “natural-
Election is expressed in a statement to be
born” citizen of the Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs. Collector of
signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any official
Customs (1912), did not last long. With the adoption of the 1935 authorized to administer oaths. Statement to be filed with the
Constitution and the reversal of Roa in Tan Chong vs. Secretary of nearest Civil Registry. The statement is to be accompanied with the
Labor (1947), jus sanguinis or blood relationship would now become Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the
the primary basis of citizenship by birth. Considering the reservations Philippines
made by the parties on the veracity of some of the entries on the b. When to elect
birth certificate of FPJ and the marriage certificate of his parents, the
Within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority
only conclusions that could be drawn with some degree of certainty
[Opinion, Secretary of Justice, s. 1948]; except when there is a
from the documents would be that (1) The parents of FPJ were Allan justifiable reason for the delay.
F. Poe and Bessie Kelley; (2) FPJ was born to them on 20 August
1939; (3) Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married to each other Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice, 5 SCRA 110
on 16 September, 1940; (4) The father of Allan F. Poe was Lorenzo
Poe; and (5) At the time of his death on 11 September 1954,
Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old. The marriage certificate of Allan F. FACTS:
Poe and Bessie Kelley, the birth certificate of FPJ, and the death
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
certificate of Lorenzo Pou are documents of public record in the
custody of a public officer counsel for petitioner Alfonso Dy Cuenco wrote to the Commissioner
of Immigration a letter requesting the cancellation of his alien
Valles v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137000, August 9,
certificate of registration, upon the ground that he had exercised the
2000
right to elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to Article IV, section I(4)
of the Constitution and Commonwealth Act No. 625. Said election
appears in an affidavit dated May 15, 1951, stating that petitioner
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
was born in Dapa, Surigao, on February 16, 1923; that his parents
Philippines
are "Benito Dy Cuenco, Chinese (now deceased)" and "Julita
Duyapit, Filipina, a native of Surigao, Philippines"; that he is "married
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, to Rosalinda Villanueva, a Filipino," by whom he has four (4)
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of legitimate children; that he renounces all allegiance to the Republic
majority
2019
of China; that he recognizes and accepts the supreme authority of In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint Louis
the Republic of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and University in Baguio City. He eventually passed the bar but he was
allegiance thereto; and that he will obey, support and defend the advised that he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen
Constitution and laws of the Philippines. On the same date, before he be allowed to take his oath. Apparently, Ching’s father was
petitioner, likewise, took the corresponding oath of allegiance to the a Chinese citizen but his mother was a Filipino citizen. His parents
Republic of the Philippines. were married before he was born in 1963. Under the 1935
Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent is a foreigner,
ISSUE: Whether or not the election of Philippine Citizenship of the acquires the foreign citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching
petitioner is valid. maintained that he has always considered himself as a Filipino; that
he is a certified public accountant – a profession reserved for
HELD:
Filipinos; that he even served as a councilor in a municipality in La
No. Election must be made within a reasonable period after reaching Union.
the age of majority. 3 years is a reasonable period, however, may be
The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a
extended under certain circumstances as when the person
legitimate child of a Chinese and a Filipino, Ching should have
concerned has always considered himself a Filipino citizen. In the
elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; that
case at bar the petitioner reached the aged of majority 1944, he
under prevailing jurisprudence, “upon reaching the age of majority”
made his election of citizenship 1951 when he was 28 years old, 7
is construed as within 7 years after reaching the age of majority (in
years after he reached the age of majority. Petitioner cited his
his case 21 years old because he was born in 1964 while the 1935
reasons for the delayed election but the court stated that it was
Constitution was in place).
insufficient excuse for the delay of the said election.
Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so when he was
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and
preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching the age of
another one shall be entered dismissing the petition, with costs
majority. Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General recommended that the
against petitioner.
rule be relaxed due to the special circumstance of Ching.
ISSUE:
In Re: Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1,
1999 Whether or not he has elected Philippine citizenship within "a
reasonable time".
Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

2019
RULING: unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot

be simply glossed over.
1. No. Ching, despite the special circumstances, failed to elect
Philippine citizenship within a reasonable time. The reasonable time
means that the election should be made within 3 years from "upon Republic v. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883,
reaching the age of majority", which is 21 years old. Instead, he January 13, 2004
elected Philippine citizenship 14 years after reaching the age of
majority which the court considered not within the reasonable time.
Ching offered no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine In 1999, Chuley Lim filed a petition for correction of entries in her
citizenship, as procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is not a birth certificate with the regional trial court of Lanao del Norte. Her
tedious and painstaking process. All that is required is an affidavit of maiden name was Chuley Yu and that’s how it appears in all her
election of Philippine citizenship and file the same with the nearest official records except that in her birth certificate where it appears as
civil registry. “Chuley Yo”. She said that it was misspelled. The Republic of the
Philippines through the local city prosecutor raised the issue of
2. No. Unfortunately, he belatedly elected Filipino citizenship. The citizenship because it appears that Lim’s birth certificate shows that
Supreme Court cannot agree with the recommendation of the she is a Filipino. The prosecutor contends that Lim’s father was a
Solicitor-General. Fourteen years had lapsed and it’s way beyond the Chinese; that she acquired her father’s citizenship pursuant to the
allowable 7 year period. The Supreme Court even noted that the 1935 Constitution in place when she was born; that she never
period is originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It seems elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority
it can’t be extended any further). Ching’s special circumstances can’t (she is already 47 years old at that time); that since she is a
be considered. It is not enough that he considered all his life that he Chinese, her birth certificate should be amended to reflect that she
is a Filipino; that he is a professional and a public officer (was) is a Chinese citizen. Lim contends that she is an illegitimate child
serving this country. The rules for citizenship are in place. Further, hence she is a Filipino.
Ching didn’t give any explanation why he belatedly chose to elect
Filipino citizenship (but I guess it’s simply because he never thought ISSUES:
he’s Chinese not until he applied to take the bar). The prescribed
1. Whether or not Lim complied with the legal requirement in
procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious electing her citizenship
and painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to 2. Whether the CA erred in allowing Lim to to use her father’s
execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, surname despite its finding that she is illegitimate.
thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Ching’s

2019
HELD:
1. The Republic avers that respondent did not comply with the
constitutional requirement of electing Filipino citizenship when she 4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
reached the age of majority. It cites Article IV, Section 1(3) of the
1935 Constitution, which provides that the citizenship of a legitimate
child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the
citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, C. Naturalization
the child elected Philippine citizenship. Likewise, the Republic
invokes the provision in Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, The act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body
that legitimate children born of Filipinomothers may elect Philippine of a nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen.
citizenship by expressing such intention “in a statement to be signed
and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to 1. Modes of naturalization
administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry.
The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the Direct: Citizenship is acquired by: (i) Individual, through judicial or
oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the administrative proceedings; (ii) Special act of legislature; (iii)
Philippines.” Collective change of nationality, as a result of cession or
subjugation; or (iv) In some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as
Plainly, the above constitutional and statutory requirements of nationals of the State where they are born.
electing Filipinocitizenship apply only to legitimate children. These do
not apply in the case of respondent who was concededly an b) Derivative: Citizenship conferred on: (i) Wife of naturalized
illegitimate child, considering that her Chinese father husband; (ii) Minor children of naturalized person; or on the (iii)
and Filipino mother were never married. As such, she was not Alien woman upon marriage to a national.
required to comply with said constitutional and
statutory requirements to become a Filipinocitizen. By being an 2. Doctrine of indelible allegiance
illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondentautomatically
became a Filipino upon birth. Stated differently, she is An individual may be compelled to retain
a Filipinosince birth without having to elect Filipino citizenship when his original nationality even if he has already renounced or forfeited
she reached the age of majority. it under the laws of the second State whose nationality he has
acquired
This notwithstanding, the records show that respondent
elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. 3. Direct naturalization under Philippine laws
She registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years
old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in Under current and existing
election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine laws, there are three (3) ways by which an alien may become a
citizenship. citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:

2019
[e] Speak and write English or Spanish and any of the principal
a) judicial naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473, as Philippine languages;
amended;
[f] Enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the
b) administrativ e naturalization under Rep. Act No. 9139; and public or private schools recognized by the Government where
Philippine history, government and civics are taught as part of the
c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress, school curriculum, during the entire
bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien period of residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the
hearing of his petition for naturalization.
4. Naturalization under C.A. 473
a. Qualifications b. Disqualifications
[a] Not less than 21 years of age on the date of the Those [a] Opposed to organized government or
hearing of the petition; affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and
teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
[b] Resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less
than 10 years; may be reduced to 5 years if he honorably held office [b] Defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence,
in Government, established a new industry or introduced a useful personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of
invention in the Philippines, married to a Filipino woman, been their ideas;
engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in a public or private school
not established for the exclusive [c] Polygamists or believers in polygamy;
instruction of persons of a particular nationality or race) or in any of
the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than [d] Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; [e] Suffering
two years, or bom in the Philippines; from mental alienation
[c] Good moral character; believes in the principles underlying the or incurable contagious disease; [f] Who, during the period of their
Philippine Constitution; must have conducted himself in a proper and residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially with the
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and
the embrace the customs, traditions and ideals
Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well of the Filipinos;
as the community in which he is living;
[g] Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at
[d] Own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00, war, during the period of such war; [h] Citizens or subjects of a
or must have some known lucrative trade, profession or foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to
lawful occupation; become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

2019
c. Procedure petition and notice of hearing must be posted in the office of the
Clek of Court or in the building where the office is located [Republic
i) Filing of declaration of intention one year prior to the filing of the v. Hamilton Tan Keh, G.R. No. 144742, November 11, 2004],
petition with the Office of the Solicitor General. The following are
exempt from filing declaration of intention: The same notice must also indicate, among others, the names of the
witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce at the trial
ia) Born in the Philippines and have received their primary and [Republic v. Michael Hong, G.R. No. 168877 March 23 2006], ’
secondary education in public or private schools recognized by the
Government and not limited to any race or nationality. iiia) Publication is a jurisdictional requirement. Noncompliance
is fatal for it impairs the very root or foundation of the authority to
ib) Resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the decide the case, regardless of whether the one to blame is the clerk
filing of the petition, and enrolled his children in elementary and high of court or the petitioner or his counsel [Gan Tsitung v. Republic,
schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or 122 Phil. 805; Po Yo Bi v. Republic, 205 SCRA 400].
nationality.
iiib) This rule applies equally to the determination of the
ic) Widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his sufficiency of the contents of the notice of hearing and of the
intention to become a citizen of the Philippines and dies before he is petition itself, because an incomplete notice or petition, even if
actually naturalized. published, is no publication at all. Thus, in Sy v. Republic, 154 Phil.
673, it was held that the copy of the petition to be posted and
ii) Filing of the petition, accompanied by the affidavit of two credible published should be a textual or verbatim restatement of the petition
persons, citizens of the Philippines, who personally know the filed.
petitioner, as character witnesses.
iiic) In the same vein, the failure to state all the required details
in the notice of hearing, like the names of applicant’s witnesses,
iii) Publication of the petition. Under Sec. 9, Revised Naturalization constitutes a fatal defect. The publication of the affidavit of such
Law, in order that there be a valid publication, the following witnesses did not cure the omission of their names in the notice of
requisites must concur: hearing. It is a settled rule that naturalization laws
(a) the petition and notice of hearing must be published; should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favour of the
government and against the applicant [Ong Chua v. Republic G R No
(b) the publication must 127240, March 27, 2000].
be made once a week for three consecutive weeks; and
iv) Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire proceedings.
(c) the publication must
be in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation in v) Hearing of the petition.
the province where the applicant resides. In addition, copies of the

2019
vi) Promulgation of the decision. Commissioner of Immigration, supra.).
vii) Hearing after two years. At this hearing, the applicant shall show ia) In Moy Ya Lim Yao, the Court said that the alien wife of the
that during the two-year probation period, applicant has (i) not left naturalized Filipino need not go through the formal process of
the naturalization in order to acquire Philippine citizenship. All she has to
do is to file before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation a
petition for the cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration
Philippines; (ii) dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or (ACR). At the hearing on the petition, she does not have to prove
profession; (iii) not been convicted of any offense or violation of that she possesses all the qualifications for naturalization; she only
rules; and (iv) not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the has to show that she does not labor under any of the
nation or contrary to any Government announced policies. disqualifications. Upon the grant
of the petition for cancellation of the ACR, she may then take the
viii) Oath taking and issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization. oath of the allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and thus,
[In Republic v. de la Rosa, 232 SCRA 785], and companion cases, become a citizen of the Philippines.
the Supreme Court noted several irregularities which punctuated the
petition and the proceedings in the application for naturalization of ii) Minor children born in the Philippines before the naturalization
Juan C. Frivaldo, viz: the petition lacked several allegations required shall be considered citizens of the Philippines.
by Secs. 2 and 6 of the Naturalization Law; the petition and the iii) Minor child born outside the Philippines who was residing in the
order for hearing were not published once a week for three Philippines at the time of naturalization shall be considered a Filipino
consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of citizen.
general circulation; the petition was not supported by affidavits of
two credible witnesses vouching for the good moral character of the iv) Minor child born outside the Philippines before parent’s
petitioner; the actual hearing of the naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens only during
petition was held earlier than the scheduled date of hearing; the minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the Philippines.
petition was heard within 6 months from the last publication; the
petitioner was allowed to take the oath of allegiance before finality v) Child born outside the Philippines after parent’s naturalization
of the judgment, and without observing the twoyear probationary shall be considered a Filipino, provided that he registers as such
period.] before any Philippine consulate within one year after attaining
majority age, and takes his oath of allegiance.
d. Effects of naturalization e. Denaturalization
i) Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully i} Grounds:

naturalized (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Moy Ya Lim Yao
v. ia) Naturalization certificate is obtained fraudulently or illegally. In

2019
Republic v. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748, the Supreme Court declared that The “Administrative
a certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently Naturalization Law of 2000” would grant Philippine citizenship by
discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court administrative
upon any material fact. Availment of a tax amnesty does not have proceedings to aliens born and residing in the Philippines. In So v.
the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral character. Republic, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007, the Supreme Court
declared that CA 473 and RA 9139 are separate and distinct laws.
ib) If, within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to some The former covers aliens regardless of class, while the latter covers
foreign country and establishes residence there; provided, that 1- native-born aliens who lived in the Philippines all their lives,
year stay in native country, or 2-year stay in a foreign country shall who never saw any other country and all along thought that they
be prima facie evidence of intent to take up residence in the same. were Filipinos, who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the
Philippines and affinity to Filipino customs and traditions. The
ic) Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention. intention of the legislature in enacting RA 9139 was to make the
id) Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical,
either by neglecting to support them or by transferring them to and more encouraging. There is nothing in the law from which it can
another school. be inferred that CA473 is intended to be annexed to or repealed by
RA 9139. What the legislature had in mind was merely to prescribe
ie) Allowed himself to be used as a dummy. another mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship which may be
[In Republic v. Guy, 115 SCRA 244, although the misconduct was availed of by native-born aliens. The only
committed after implication is that a native- born alien has the choice to apply for
the two-year probationary period, conviction of perjury and rape was judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the prescribed
held to be valid ground for denaturalization.] qualifications and disqualifications.
ii) Effects of denaturalization: If the ground for denaturalization a) Special Committee on Naturalization. Composed of the Solicitor
affects the intrinsic validity of the proceedings, the denaturalization General, as chairman, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or his
shall divest the wife and children of their derivative naturalization. representative, and the National Security Adviser, as members, this
But if the ground was personal to the denaturalized Filipino, his wife Committee has the power toapprove, deny or reject applications for
and children shall retain their Philippine citizenship. naturalization under this Act
5. Naturalization by direct legislative action b) Qualifications: Applicant must
This is discretionary on Congress; usually conferred on an alien who [1] be born in the Philippines and
has made outstanding contributions to the country. residing therein since birth
6. Administrative Naturalization – R.A. 9139 [2] not be less than 18 years of age, at the time of filingof his/her
petition;

2019
furnished the Department of Foreign Affairs, Bureau of Immigration

[3] be of good moral character and believes in the underlying and Deportation, the civil registrar of petitioner’s place of residence
principles of the Constitutioin and must have conducted himself/ and the National Bureau of Investigation which shall post copies of
herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his/her entire the petition in
period of residence in the Philippines in his relatioins with the duly any public or conspicuous areas in their buildings offices and
constituted government as well as withthe community in which premises, and within 30 days submit to the Committee a report
he/she is living; stating whether or not petitioner has any derogatory record on file or
any such relevant and material information which might be adverse
[4] have received his/her primary and secondary education in any to petitioner’s application for citizenship; Committee shall, within 60
public school or private educational institution duly recognized by the days from receipt of the report of the agencies, consider and review
Department of Education, where Philippine history, government and all information received pertaining to the petition (if Committee
civics are taught and prescribed as part of the school curriculum and receives any information adverse to the petition, the Committee shall
where enrolment is not limited to any race or nationality, provided allow the petitioner to answer, explain or refute the information);
that should he/she have minor children of school age, he/she must Committee shall then approve or deny the petition. Within 30 days
have enrolled them in similar schools; from approval of the petition, applicant shall pay to the Committee a
fee of P100,000, then take the oath of allegiance and a certificate of
[5] have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation, naturalization shall issue. Within 5 days after the applicant has taken
from his oath of allegiance, the Bureau of Immigration shall forward a
which he/she derives income sufficient for his/her support and that copy of the oath to the proper local civil registrar, and thereafter,
of his/her family; provided that this shall not apply to applicants who cancel petitioner’s alien certificate of registration.
are college degree holders but are unable to practice their profession
because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their e) Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children. After the approval of the
citizenship; [6] be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the petition for administrative naturalization and cancellation of the
dialects of the Philippines; and [7] have mingled with the Filipinos applicant’s alien certificate of registration, applicant’s alien lawful
and evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs and wife and minor children may file
traditions and ideals of the Filipino people. a petition for cancellation of their alien certificates of registration
with the
c) Disqualifications: The same as those provided in C.A. 473. Committee, subject to the payment of the required fees. But, if the
applicant is a married woman, the approval of her petition for
d) Procedure: Filing with the Special Committee on Naturalization of administrative naturalization shall
a not benefit her alien husband, although her minor children may still
petition (see Sec. 5, RA 9139, for contents of the petition); avail of the right to seek the cancellation of their alien certificate of
publication of pertinent portions of the petition once a week for registration.
three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, with
copies thereof posted in any public or conspicuous area; copies also f) Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization. The Special

2019
Committee on Naturalization may cancel certificates of naturalization

issued under Issue:
this act in the following cases W/N Edison So did meet all the qualification needed to be a
naturalized Filipino citizen.
: [1] if the naturalized person or his duly authorized representative
made any false statement or misrepresentation or committed any Ruling:
violation of law, rules and regulations in connection with the The petition is denied for lack of merit.
petition, or if he obtains Philippine citizenship fraudulently or Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into
illegally; the political body of a nation by clothing him or her with the
privileges of a citizen.44 Under current and existing laws, there are
[2] if, within five years, he shall establish permanent residence in a three ways by which an alien may become a citizen by
foreign country, provided that remaining for more than one year in naturalization: (a) administrative naturalization pursuant to R.A. No.
his country of origin or two years in any foreign country shall be 9139; (b) judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A. No. 473, as
prima facie evidence of intent to permanently reside amended; and (c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law
therein; enacted by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.
First. C.A. No. 473 and R.A. No. 9139 are separate and distinct laws
[3] if allowed himself or his wife or child with acquired citizenship to – the former covers all aliens regardless of class while the latter
be used as a dummy; covers native-born aliens who lived here in the Philippines all their
lives, who never saw any other country and all along thought that
[4] if he, his wife or child with acquired citizenship commits any act
inimical to national security they were Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the
Philippines and affinity to the customs and traditions. 52 To reiterate,
So v. Republic, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, the intention of the legislature in enacting R.A. No. 9139 was to
2007 make the process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less
technical and more encouraging which is administrative rather than
Facts: judicial in nature.
He was born on February 17, 1982, in Manila; he is a Chinese citizen A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding,
who has lived in No. 528 Lavezares St., Binondo, Manila, since birth; and the decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A
as an employee, he derives an average annual income of certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently
around P100,000.00 with free board and lodging and other benefits; discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court
he is single, able to speak and write English, Chinese and Tagalog; upon any material fact. Law and jurisprudence even authorize the
he is exempt from the filing of Declaration of Intention to become a cancellation of a certificate of naturalization upon grounds or
citizen of the Philippines pursuant to Section 6 of Commonwealth Act conditions arising subsequent to the granting of the certificate. 59 If
(C.A.) No. 473. the government can challenge a final grant of citizenship, with more

2019
reason can it appeal the decision of the RTC within the reglementary below 18 years of age, of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship
period despite its failure to oppose the petition before the lower upon the effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizens of the
court. Philippines
v) Those who retain or reacquire Phiilippine citizenship under this
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all
of merit. attendant liabilities
and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the
following conditions:
D. Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship – C.A.
63 va) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet
the requirements under Sec. 1, Art. V of the Constitution, R.A. 9189,
otherwise known as “The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003”
1. Loss of citizenship and other existing laws;
a. By naturalization in a foreign country vb) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall
meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by
i) However, this is modified by R.A. 9225, entitled An Act Making the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of
Cititzenship Permanent (which took effect September 17, 2003), any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who administer an oath;
become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost
their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act. vb1) In Eusebio Eugenio Lopez v. Comelec, G.R. No.
182701, July 23, 2008, reiterated in Jacotv. Dal and Comelec, G.R.
ii) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their No. 179848,
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a November 27, 2008, it was held that a Filipino-American, or any dual
foreign country are deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship citizen cannot
upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republilc: 7 run for elective public office in the Philippines unless he personally
swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the time of filing
iii) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of the certificate of candidacy. The mere filing of a certificate of
of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their candidacy is not sufficient; Sec. 5 (2) of R.A. 9225 categorically
Philippine requires the individual to state in clear and unequivocal
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath [Sec. 3, R.A. 9225]. terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship, failing which, he is
iv) The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, disqualified from running for an elective position. The fact that he
may have won the elections, took his oath and began discharging

2019
the functions of the office cannot cure the defect of his candidacy. against the unrelenting prosecution by the Martial Law Dictator’s
The doctrine laid down in Valles v. Comelec, supra., and agent abroad.
Mercado v. Manzano, supra., does not apply.
Issue: Whether or not Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at
vc) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and the time of his election.
swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office; Held: No. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a
Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country qualified voter must be, among other qualifications, a citizen of the
where they took that oath; Philippines, this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage
under Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution.
Even if he did lose his naturalized American citizenship, such

vd) Those intending to practice their profession in the forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automatically
Philippines shall aplly with the proper authority for a license or restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had earlier
permit to engage in such practice; renounced.
ve) The right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must
office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or
those who: (1) are candidates for or are occupying any public office assumption of office but during the officer’s entire tenure.
in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or (2) are
in active service as commissionedor non-commissioned officers in Frivaldo declared not a citizen of the Philippines and therefore
the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens disqualified from serving as a Governor of the Province of Sorsogon.
modified by R.A. 9225

Frivaldo v. Comelec, 174 SCRA 245
Eusebio Eugenio Lopez v. Comelec, G.R. No.
182701, July 23, 2008
Facts: Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect
and assume office in due time. The League of Municipalities filed
with the COMELEC a petition for annulment of Frivaldo’s election and FACTS:
proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having
been naturalized in the United States. Frivaldo admitted the Petitioner Lopez, a dual citizen, was a candidate for the position of
allegation but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that his
Chairman of Barangay Bagacay, San Dionisio, Iloilo City held on
naturalization was merely forced upon himself as a means of survival
October 29, 2007. He was eventually declared the

2019
winner.respondent Villanueva filed a petition before the Provincial Section 5 of the said law states:
Election Supervisor of the Province of Iloilo, praying for the
disqualification of Lopez because he was ineligible from running for Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. – Those who retain
any public office. or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil
and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
Lopez argued that he is a Filipino-American, by virtue of the responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the
Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003. He said, he following conditions:
possessed all the qualifications to run for Barangay Chairman.
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet
On February 6, 2008, COMELEC issued the Resolution granting the the qualification for holding such public office as required by the
petition for disqualification of Lopez from running as Barangay Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
Chairman. COMELEC said, to be able to qualify as a candidate in the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of
elections, Lopez should have made a personal and sworn any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship. administer an oath.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion on the Lopez was able to regain his Filipino Citizenship by virtue of the Dual
part of the COMELEC for disqualifying petitioner. Citizenship Law when he took his oath of allegiance before the Vice
Consul of the Philippine Consulate General’s Office in Los Angeles,
RULING: California; the same is not enough to allow him to run for a public
office.
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The COMELEC
committed no grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner as
candidate for Chairman in the Barangay elections of 2007.
b. By express renunciation of citizenship
In Board of Immigration Commissioners v. Go Callano, 25 SCRA 890,

Lopez was born a Filipino but he deliberately sought American
it was held that express renunciation means a renunciation that is
citizenship and renounced his Filipino citizenship. He later on became made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to
a dual citizen by re-acquiring Filipino citizenship. inference or implication. Thus, in Labo v. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1, it
was held that
R.A. No. 9225 expressly provides for the conditions before those Labo lost Filipino citizenship because he expressly renounced
who re-acquired Filipino citizenship may run for a public office in the allegiance to the Philippines when he applied for Australian
Philippines. citizenship.

2019
automatically ceased to be a Filipino because of that marriage. He

i) In Valles v. Comelec, supra., it was held that the fact that private became a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized as such
respondent was born in Australia does not mean that she is not a through a formal and positive process, simplified in his case because
Filipino. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most she
he was married to an Australian citizen. As a condition for such
can also claim Australian citizenship, resulting in her having dual
citizenship. That she was a holder of an Australian passport and had naturalization, he formally took the Oath of Allegiance and/or made
an alien certificate of registration do not constitute effective the Affirmation of Allegiance, renouncing all other allegiance. It does
renunciation, and do not militate against her claim, of Filipino not appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has
citizenship. reacquired Philippine citizenship.
For renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citizenship, it must
be express.
ii) But see Willie Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364, where c. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support
obtention of a Portuguese passport and signing of commercial the Constitution or laws of a foreign country
documents as a Portuguese were construed as renunciation of
Philippine citizenship to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon
attaining 21 years of age; Provided, however, that a Filipino may not
Labo v. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1 divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the
Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country.
Facts: i) This should likewise be considered modified by R.A. 9225.
Petitioner Ramon Labo, elected mayor of Baguio City was ii) The proviso that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine
questioned on his citizenship. He was married in the Philippines to an citizenship in this manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at
Australian citizen. The marriage was declared void in the Australian war with any country may be considered as an application of the
Federal Court in Sydney on the ground that the marriage had been principle of indelible allegiance
bigamous. According to Australian records, Labo is still an Australian
citizen.
d. By rendering service to or accepting commission in
the armed forces of a foreign country
Issue: Whether or not Petitioner Labo is a citizen of the Philippines.
Provided, that the rendering of service to, or acceptance of
Held: The petitioner’s contention that his marriage to an Australian
such commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country and the
national in 1976 did not automatically divest him of Philippine taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto, with consent of the
citizenship is irrelevant. There is no claim or finding that he

2019
Republic of the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine i) See P.D. 725, which allows repatriation of former natural-born
citizenship if either of the following circumstances is present: Filipino citizens who lost Filipino citizenship.
ia) In Frivaldo v. Comelec and Lee v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727,
(i) The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive the Supreme Court held that P.D. 725 was not repealed by President
and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; Aquino’s Memorandum of March 27, 1986, and, thus, was a valid
or (ii) The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine mode for the reacquisition of Filipino citizenship by Sorsogon
territory with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines. Governor Juan Frivaldo.
ib) The Special Committee on Naturalization created by PD 725,
e. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization chaired by the Solicitor General with the Undersecretary of Foreign
f. By having been declared by competent authority a Affairs and the
deserted of the Philippine armed forces in time of Director of the NICA as members, was reactivated on June 8, 1995,
war and it is before this Committee that a petition for repatriation is filed
[Angat v. Republic, G.R. No. 132244, September 14, 1999].
ii) When repatriation takes effect. In Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257
2. Reacquisition of citizenship SCRA 727, it was held that repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the
date of
a) Under R.A. 9225, bv taking the oath of allegiance required of filing of his application on August 17, 1994. In Altarejos v. Comelec,
former G.R. No. 163256, November 10, 2004, the same principle was
natural-born Philippine citizens who may have lost their Philippine applied. Petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance on December 17,1997,
citizenship by reason of their acquisition of the citizenship of a but his Certificate of Repatriation was registered with the Civil
foreign country. Registry of Makati only after six years, or on February 18,
2004, and with the Bureau of Immigration on March 1, 2004. He
b) By naturalization, provided that the applicant possesses none of completed all the requirements for repatriation only after he filed his
the certificate of candidacy for a mayoralty position, but before the
disqualifications prescribed for naturalization. elections. But because his repatriation
i) In Republic v. Judge de la Rosa, supra., the naturalization retroacted to December 17-, 1997, he was deemed qualified to run
proceeding was so full of procedural flaws that the decision granting for mayor in the May 10, 2004 elections.
Filipino citizenship to Governor Juan Frivaldo was deemed a nullity.
iii) Effectofrepatriation. In Bengzon lllv. House of Representatives
c) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corps, Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, the Supreme
provided Court ruled that the act of repatriation allows the person to recover,
that a woman who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine
an alien may be repatriated in accordance with the provisions of this citizenship. Thus, respondent Cruz, a former naturalborn Filipino
Act after the termination of the marital status. citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the

2019
United States Marine Corps, was deemed to have recovered his passport and was the subject of an outstanding federal warrant of
natural- born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship through arrest for possession of firearms and one count of sexual battery.
repatriation.
Finding him an undocumented and undesirable alien, the BID
iv) Repatriation under R. A. 8171 (lapsed into law on October 23, ordered his deportation. After learning of the BID order, he then
1995). The law governs the repatriation of Filipino women who may immediately executed an Affidavit of Repatriation and took an oath
have lost Filipino citizenship by reason of marriage to aliens, as well of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. On the issue of
as the repatriation of former natural-born Filipino citizens who lost whether he validly reacquired Philippine citizenship, the Supreme
Filipino citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, Court ruled in the negative. The privilege of RA 8171 is available
including their minor children, provided the applicant is not a person only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of
political or economic necessity and to their minor children. This
[a] opposed to organized government or affiliated with means that if a parent who had renounced his Philippine citizenship
any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines due to political or economic reasons later decides to repatriate under
opposing organized government; RA8171, his
repatriatioin will also benefit his minor children. Thus, to claim the
[b] defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, benefit of RA 8171, the children must be of minor age at the time
personal assault or assassination for the predominance of his ideas; the petition for repatriation is filed by the parent. This is so because
a child does not have the legal capacity to undertake a political act
[c] convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; or [d] suffering like the election of citizenship. On their own, the minor children
from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease. Repatriation cannot apply for repatriation or naturalization separately from the
is effected by taking the parents. Tabasa is not qualified to avail himself of repatriation under
necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and RA8171.
registration in
the proper Civil Registry and in the Bureau of Immigration and Cases:
Deportation.
Lee v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727
iva) In Tabasa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125793, August 29,
2006, Joevanie Tabasa, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines,
acquired American citizenship through derivative naturalization
when, still a minor, his father became a naturalized citizen of the Angat v. Republic, G.R. No. 132244,
United States. On October 3,1995, he was admitted to the September 14, 1999
Philippines as a “balikbayan”, but within a year, he was charged by
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), because it FACTS:
appeared that the US Department of Justice had revoked his

2019
Gerardo Angat, a natural born Filipino citizen, asked to regain his the Republic of the Philippines and to register the said oath with the
status as a Philippine citizen before the RTC Marikina. RTC allowed proper civil registry.
him to take his Oath of Allegiance on October 3, 1996 and the
following day, the RTC declared him as citizen of the Philippines
pursuant to R.A. No. 8171.OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion in Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727
March 1997, asserting that the petition should have been dismissed
FACTS:
by the court for lack of jurisdiction.
Juan G. Frivaldo ran for Governor of Sorsogon again and won. Raul
ISSUE:Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction in deciding over
R. Lee questioned his citizenship. He then petitioned for repatriation
repatriation case.
under Presidential Decree No. 725 and was able to take his oath of
RULING: allegiance as a Philippine citizen.
No. A petition for repatriation should be filed with the Special However, on the day that he got his citizenship, the Court had
Committee on Naturalization and not with the RTC which has no already ruled based on his previous attempts to run as governor and
jurisdiction.Therefore, the court's order was null and void. acquire citizenship, and had proclaimed Lee, who got the second
highest number of votes, as the newly elect Governor of Sorsogon.
RA No. 8171, which has lapsed into law on October 23 1995, is an
act providing for repatriation of Filipino women who have lost their ISSUE:Whether or not Frivaldo’s repatriation was valid.
Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and of natural-born
HELD:
Filipinos who have lost the Philippine citizenship on account of
political or economic necessity. The Court ruled his repatriation was valid and legal and because of
the curative nature of Presidential Decree No. 725, his repatriation
Moreover, petitioner was incorrect when he initially invoked RA 965
retroacted to the date of the filing of his application to run for
and RA 2630, since these laws could only apply to persons who had
governor. The steps to reacquire Philippine Citizenship by
lost their Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725 are:
commission in, the armed forces of an allied country or the armed
forces of the US, a factual matter not alleged in his petition. (1) filing the application;
Parenthetically, under these statutes, the person desiring to
reacquire his Philippine citizenship would not even required to file a (2) action by the committee; and
petition in court; all he had to do is to take an Oath of Allegiance to
(3) taking of the oath of allegiance if the application is approved.

2019
It is only upon taking the oath of allegiance that the applicant is Commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States.” He ran for
deemed ipso jure to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. If the and was elected as the Representative of the Second District of
decree had intended the oath taking to retroact to the date of the Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections. He won by a convincing
filing of the application, then it should not have explicitly provided margin of 26,671 votes over petitioner Antonio Bengson III, who
otherwise. He is therefore qualified to be proclaimed governor of was then running for reelection.
Sorsogon.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Cruz can still be considered a
G.R. No. 132244, 14 September 1999 natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
[Naturalization; Reacquisition; RA No. 8171
HELD:
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This

Bengzon lll v. House of Representatives Electoral
means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be
FACTS: restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the
other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost
Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a
was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, of Filipino natural-born Filipino.
parents. The fundamental law then applicable was the 1935
Constitution. Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic
and having registered the same in the Civil Registry of Magantarem,
However, respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, respondent
and without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, took an Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-
oath of allegiance to the United States. As a consequence, he lost his born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a
Filipino citizenship for under Commonwealth Act No. 63, section Filipino father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows
1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among other, him to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his
"rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of Philippine citizenship.
a foreign country."
Therefore, Cruz has all the qualifications to be elected as a member
Respondent Cruz then reacquired his Philippine citizenship through of the House of Representatives. The HRET did not commit any
repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630 entitled as “An Act grave abuse of discretion, thus the petition was dismissed.
Providing For Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship By Persons Who
Lost Such Citizenship by Rendering Service To, or Accepting

2019
Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001 children who lost Philippine citizenship on account of political or
economic necessity.
Tabasa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125793, Petitioner was already 35 years old when he filed for repatriation.
August 29, 2006 The act cannot be applied in his case because he is no longer a
minor at the time of his repatriation in 1996. The privilege under RA
8171 only belongs to children who are of minor age at the time of
FACTS: filing of the petition for repatriation.
When he was 7 years old, Joevanie A. Tabasa acquired American

citizenship when his father became a naturalized citizen of the US. In a. By direct act of Congress
1995, he arrived in the Philippines and was admitted as
"balikbayan"; thereafter, he was arrested and detained by the agent
of BIR. Th Consul General of the US embassy of Manila filed a
request with the BID that his passport has been revoked and that
Tabasa had a standing warrant for several federal charges against
him.
Petitioner alleged that he acquired Filipino citizenship by repatriation

in accordance with the RA No. 8171, and that because he is now a
Filipino citizen, he cannot be deported or detained by the BID.
ISSUE: Whether or not he has validly reacquired Philippine

citizenship under RA 8171 and therefore, is not an undocumented
alien subject to deportation.
RULING:
No. Petitioner is not qualified to avail himself of repatriation under

RA 8171. The only person entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 is
either a Filipino woman who lost her Philippine citizenship by
marriage to an alien, or a natural-born Filipino, including his minor

2019

Consti Law 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti Law 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti Law 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Merzy’s Notes Prelim Exam

The study of the maintenance of the proper balance 1. Freedom of Constitution

code: Effectivity of statues

2. Administrative Law. Case in point : Tañada v. Tuvera G.R No: 1985

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 1

Under the circumstances, the Court finds the exception applicable in

Code: C. Nature of the Constitution

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 2

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 3

Classification: constitution is enacted, formally struck off at a definite time and

Code: Our Constitution:

2. Unwritten constitution 4. Qualities of a good written Constitution

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 4

Definite. The provisions pointing out the mode or

4. Essential parts of a good written Constitution

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 5

In American Jurisprudence it has been stated as follows: XPN:

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 6

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 7

4. Ratio legis et anima: Interpretation according to spirit. The Held.

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 8

employed. As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document,

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 9

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 10

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 11

Issue: won the provision WTO agreement is unconstitutional

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 12

1. Whether §10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 14

Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Facts:

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 15

Purpose: Improved or change specific Examine entirely

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 16

Provision which among others called for a Constitutional Convention to

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 17

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 18

1. No. The proposed amendments do not go beyond the limits of

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 19

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 20

Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which are

(1) The b. Ratification (Sec. 4, Art. XVII)

Gonzales v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774 Facts:

The Constitutional Convention of 1971 approved on 28 September

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 22

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 23

Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 50

Facts: Judicial Review of Amendments. The question is now regarded

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 24

Can you amend the constitution once every 5 years?

E. The Power of Judicial Review

Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139

FACTS: In the elections of Sept 17, 1935, Angara, and the

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 25

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 26

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 28

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 29

difference or dispute, in that the former involves a definite and Held

Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 30