CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

IST YEAR- 1
st
semester

PART- I.A General Principles

Law is a rule of conduct, just and obligatory, promulgated by a legitimate authority, and of common
observance and benefit.

Political Law branch of public law that deals with the organization and structure of the governmental
organ of the state and defines relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory.

Constitutional law - * A distinct branch of jurisprudence dealing w/ the legal principles affecting the nature, adoption, amendment, and
operation of the constitution. (Sinco 67.)

What are included in Political Law?
Constitutional Law;
Administrative Law
Law of Public Officers
Law on Public Corporation
Election Law

1. Brief History of Philippine Constitution

Datu Magellan Spanish- Aguinaldo generalship that ended the Spanish sovereignty over the Islands of
the phils Malolos constitution American colonization- Schurman Com Spooner Amendments Phil Bill of
1902 jones law Tydings Mcduffie Act 1946 US withdraw sov. Over the Phil Islands 1935 constitution-
1973 constitution- 1987 Constitution.

2. Constitution; Definition, Nature and Concepts
* Tanada and Fernando: "a written instrument organizing the government, distributing its powers and safeguarding the rights of the People."
Its is classified as written, enacted and rigid

a.-Characteristics of Philippine Constitution
-Essential parts of our Constitution

b. Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution February 2, 1987 the date of plebesite
- De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602
Art. 10 Sec. 8 ; Art

3. Amendments and Revision
1) Amendment: an alteration of one or a few specific provisions of the Constitution.
2) Revision: A revision implies substantive change, affecting the Constitution as a whole.

Amendments may be proposed by:
1. Constituent assembly congress 3/4 of all members
2. Constitutional Convention - Congress may call a ConCon by a 2/3 vote of all its members
3. Peoples Initiative Petition to propose such amendments must be signed be at least 12% of ALL
registered voters. Every legislative district represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.

An issue is a political question when it does not deal with the interpretation of a law and its application to a case, but with the very wisdom of the law itself.

Effect of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern art. 7 of the civil code.
Lambino vs. Comelec, October 25,2006
Quantitative test vs. qualitative test

Quantitative testasks whether the proposed change is so extensive in its
provisions as to change directly the substantial entirety of the constitution by
the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions.

Qualitative testinquires whether the change will accomplish such far reaching
changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.

Procedure
1. Proposal
a. By Congress
Imbong vs. Comelec

b. By a Constitutional Convention

c. By the People thru Initiative
RA 6735
- Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec, GR 127325, March 19, 1997

2. Ratification
Doctrine of Proper Submission

Doctrine of Proper Submission means all the proposed amendments to the Constitution
shall be presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at the same time, not
piecemeal. (TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702)

- Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702
- Gonzales vs. Comelec (reiterated in Occena vs. Comelec)
Judicial Review of Amendments


- Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30
- Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333
PART I-B

What is self executing and non-self executing provisions of the constitution?

A constitutional provision is self-executing when it can be given effect without the aid of legislation, and there is nothing
to indicate that legislation is intended to make it operative. For example, a constitutional provision that any municipality by
vote of four-sevenths of its qualified electors may issue and sell revenue bonds in order to pay for the cost of purchasing a
municipally owned public utility is self-executing and effective without a legislative enactment.
Constitutional provisions are not self-executing if they merely set forth a line of policy or principles without supplying the
means by which they are to be effectuated, or if the language of the constitution is directed to the legislature. As a result,
a constitutional provision that the legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what court suits may be brought
against the state is not self-executing.

- Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, Feb. 3, 1997
- Oposa vs. Factoran, July 30, 1993
- Pamatong vs. Comelec, April 13, 2004
Other exceptions:

National Territory

Art. 1 , 1987 Constitution- Territories which are included in the Philippines

-Archipelagic doctrine : Definition

It is the 2
nd
sentence of Section 1, Art. I of the Constitution which states that the waters around, between and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.

- Archipelago as defined by Article 46 of UNCLOS:
A group of islands, including parts of the islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are
closely interrelated that such islands, waters, and other natural resources form an intensive geographical,
economic, political entity or to have historically regarded as an archipelago.

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defines the following terms:
-Territorial Sea; Contiguous Zone; Economic Zone or Patrimonial Sea; Continental
Shelf
-Internal waters (see the case of Magallona vs. Ermita, July 16, 2011
-Open Seas; Outer Space

Can a state exist within a state? - The Province of North Cotabato vs. The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain- October 14, 2008


PART II- STATE
STATE
= a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed territory and possessed of an independent government organized for
political ends to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.

ELEMENTS:
People --- inhabitants of the State
Territory --- fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the State
Government --- agency/ instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed, and realized

De jure and de facto governments
a. De jure government
has rightful title
no power or control, either because this has been withdrawn
from it, or because it has not yet actually entered into the
exercise thereof.
b. De facto government
government of fact, that is, it actually exercises power or
control
without legal title.
Sovereignty --- supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is governed
1. Kinds
a) Legal sovereignty - power to issue final commands
b) Political sovereignty - power behind the legal sovereign,
or the sum total of the influences that operate upon it
c) Internal sovereignty - power to control domestic affairs
d) External sovereignty (also known as independence) -
power to direct relations with other states
Principle of State Immunity from Suit
Basis: Art XVI, Sec. 3 of 1987 Constitution - Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
Concept: Par in parem no habet imperium. - An equal has no power over an equal.
that all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.

Republic v.Sandiganbayan, 484 SCRA 119 (06)
Yujuico vs. Atienza, Jr., 472 SCRA 463 (05)
Begosa vs. Chairman, Phil. Veterans Administration, April 30, 1970

Waiver of State Immunity:

Suits Against the State and the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
The State may not be sued without its consent. (Sec 3, Art XVI)
There can be no legal right as against the authority that makes
the laws on which the right depends. [Kawananakoa v.
Polyblank 205 US 349] also called the doctrine of Royal
Prerogative of Dishonesty
If the State is amenable to suits, all its time would be spent
defending itself from suits and this would prevent it fro
performing it other functions. [Republic v. Villasor]
A. A suit is against the State regardless of who is named the
defendant if:
it produces adverse consequences to the public treasury
in terms of disbursement of public funds and loss of
government property.
cannot prosper unless the State has given its consent.
B. In the following cases, it was held that the suit is not against the
State:
a) when the purpose of the suit is to compel an officer charged
with the duty of making payments pursuant to an
appropriation made by law in favor of the plaintiff to make
such payment, since the suit is intended to compel
performance of a ministerial duty. (Begoso v. PVA)
b) when from the allegations in the complaint, it is clear that the
respondent is a public officer sued in a private capacity;
c) when the action is not in personam with the government as
the named defendant, but an action in rem that does not
name the government in particular.
C. How the States consent to be sued is given:
Consent to be sued:
Express Consent (See Cruz, Phil. Political Law)
1. Express consent
It is effected only by the will of the legislature through
the medium of a duly enacted statute.
special law
may come in the form of a private bill authorizing
a named individual to bring suit on a special claim
Act 2189: Provinces, cities and municipalities
shall be liable for damages for the death or
injuries suffered by any person by reason of the
defective conditions of roads, streets, public
buildings and other public works under their
2. Implied consent
when the State enters into a business contract or itself
commences litigation.
o State may only be liable for proprietary acts (jure
gestioni) and not for sovereign acts (jure imperii)
o When state files complaint, suability will result only
where the government is claiming affirmative relief
from the defendant
when it would be inequitable for the State to invoke its
immunity
in instances when the State takes private property for public
use or purpose.
- Republic v. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424 General

Law
- CA 327; PD 1445; Art. 2180; Act No. 3038
Special Law
- Meritt v. Gov't. of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil. 311

Implied Consent:
Cases: Santos vs. Santos, Nov. 26, 1952
US vs. Ruiz, May 22, 1985
Mobil Philippines vs. Customs Arrastre Services, Dec. 17, 1966
Lim vs. Brownell, March 24, 1960

Immunity of Foreign States & Diplomats
Applying the Principle of par in parem non habet imperium- under the maxim - par in parem, non
habet imperium - that all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another

Process of suggestion -
- The Holy See v. RTC, GR 101949, Dec. 1, 1994
Determination of Immunity by the Department of Foreign Affairs
- Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000
Immunity of International Organizations and Agencies
- Callado v. IRRI, 244 SCRA 210

Immunity of Government Agencies
Incorporated
Municipal Corporations
- Municipality of San Fernando v. Judge Firme, 195 SCRA 692
Unincorporated
If principal function is governmental
- Farolan v. CTA 217 SCRA 298
If proprietary, suable

Liability of Municipal Corporations for TORTS:
Palafox vs. Province of Ilocos Norte,
Torio vs. Fontanilla

Suits against Public Officers
- City of Angeles v. CA, Aug. 28,1996
- Veterans Manpower v. CA, 214 SCRA 286
- Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357

Suability not outright liability
- Meritt v. Gov't. of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil. 311
- Fontanilla v. Maliaman, 194 SCRA 486

Consent to be sued does not include consent to execution
- Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84
- Municipality of San Miguel v. Fernandez, 130 SCRA 56

Doctrine of Parens Patriae - Literally, parens patriae means father of the country. This doctrine has been defined
as the inherent power and authority of the state to provide protection to the persons and property of the
persons non-sui juris. Non-sui juris persons are those who lack the legal capacity to act on his own behalf like the
child or the insane persons.

- Govt of the Phil Islands vs. Monte de Piedad., 35 Phil. 728
- Cabanas v. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94

SOVEREIGNTY
Kinds of Sovereignty: Definition and Concept


Effects of Change in sovereignty
- People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887 a law repealed by Act. 277.
- Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77

Doctrine of Jus Postliminium: Effect of Belligerent Occupation
Peralta vs. Dir. Of Prisons
Alcantara vs. Dir of Prisons

CITIZENSHIP

Who are citizens: Section 1, Art IV
= citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
= those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
= those naturalized in accordance with law.
= those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority
The right of election permitted under ARTICLE IV, Section
1 (3), 1987 Constitution, is available only to those born to
Filipino mothers under the 1935 Constitution, who, had that charter not been changed, would have been able to elect Philippine citizenship upon attaining
majority age.

Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives
Having reacquired Philippine citizenship, Warlito is a natural born citizen. Ra 9225 Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of
2003, states that those natural born Filipino citizens, who became a citizen in the foreign country shall retain their citizenship upon
taking the oath of allegiance. In the case at bar, Warlito is a natural born Filipino citizen who later on became an American citizen and
decided to come home to the Philippines and took his oath of allegiance. So Warlito reacquired his original status as a natural-born
citizen

Distinguished from nationality
Modes of Acquiring citizenship
Citizens of the Philippines
- Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292
- Djumantan v. Domingo, Jan. 30, 1995
Election of Philippine citizenship
- In re: Vicente Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999
Doctrine of implied election
- Co v. HRET, G.R. No. 92191-92, July 30, 1991
Natural-born citizens
- Bengson v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
- Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004

deemed to have re-acquired or retained their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance.

Dual citizenship & dual allegiance

- Mercado v. Manzano, GR 135083, May 26, 1999
Loss of citizenship
- By naturalization in a foreign country
- Frivaldo v. Comelec, 174 SCRA 245
- Labo v. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1

Grounds for Loss of Citizenship:
Naturalization in a foreign country [Sec.1 (1), CA 63]
Express renunciation or expatriation [Sec.1 (2), CA 63]
Taking an oath of allegiance to another country upon
reaching the age of majority
Accepting a commission and serving in the armed forces of
another country, unless there is an offensive/ defensive
pact with the country, or it maintains armed forces in RP
with RPs consent
Denaturalization
Being found by final judgment to be a deserter of the AFP
Marriage by a Filipino woman to an alien, if by the laws of
her husbands country, he becomes a citizen thereof
- By express renunciation or expatriation
- Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364

Reacquisition of citizenship, RA 8171

How may citizenship be reacquired?
1. Naturalization (CA No. 63 and CA No. 473)
now an abbreviated process, with no need to wait for
3 years (1 year for declaration of intent, and 2 years
for the judgment to become executory)
requirements:
a.) be 21 years of age
b.) be a resident for 6 months
c.) have good moral character
d.) have no disqualification
Republic vs. Guy
Naturalization is never final and may be revoked if one
commits acts of moral turpitude.
2. Repatriation
woman who by her marriage lost her citizenship
those declared by authorities to be deserters of the
Armed Forces
Bengson III vs. HRET
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original
nationality. Therefore, if he is a natural-born citizen
before he lost his citizenship, he will be restored to his
former status as a natural-born Filipino.
Frivaldo v COMELEC
Mere filing of certificate of candidacy is not a sufficient
act of repatriation. Repatriation requires an express
and equivocal act.
Labo v COMELEC
In the absence of any official action or approval by
proper authorities, a mere application for repatriation
does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic
reacquisition of the applicants Philippine citizenship.
3. Legislative Act
both a mode of acquiring and reacquiring citizenship
Retroactivity of Repatriation
NATURAL BORN- Read Sections 2 and 4 of RA 9225, amending CA 63, otherwise
known as Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act (August 29, 2003)-
including citizens repatriated and unmarried children, whether legitimate or
illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age of those repatriated.
- Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, June 28, 1996
Bengson vs. HRET, May 7, 2001- Repatriation may be had under various statutes by
those who lost their citizenship due to: 1) desertion of the AFP; 2) served in the
armed forces of the allied forces in WWII; 3) service in the AF of the US at any other
time; 4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; 5) political and economic necessity.
Suffrage
- Akbayan Youth v. Comelec, G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001
- Makalintal v. Comelec, GR 157013, July 10, 2003
Makalintal vs. COMELEC, July 10, 2003- The interpretation of residence is
synonymous to domicile. An absentee remains attached to his residence in the
Philippines, as residence is considered synonymous with domicile. Domicile means
an individuals permanent home or a place to which, whenever absent for business or
for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the
sense that they disclose intent.