cruz- midterms reviewer

Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer 1E- Midterms 2009

PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAWBy: CRUZ, IsaganiCovered Chapters: 1- 11

CHAPTER 1GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Scope of the Study

POLITICAL LAW- is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I- is a study of the structure and powers of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. It also deals with certain basic concepts of Political Law, such as the nature of the State, the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of the majority.

Necessity for the Study- Inclusion of Political Law as a required subject in

the law course.- Every citizen, regardless of calling, should

understand the mechanics and motivations of his government. This must be so because “sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”

- It is upon active involvement in public affairs of every Filipino that the success of the Republic of the Philippines will depend.

- The fundamental law provides that “all educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula.”

Basis of the Study- The present Constitution of the Philippines

adopted on February 2, 1987 (principal basis)- Pertinent statutes, executive orders and decrees,

and judicial decisions- Political events in which the purposes of the law

are applied (or misapplied)- The 1935 Constitution- The 1973 Constitution- The Constitution of the United States along with

relevant rulings of its Supreme Court, in connecting with the parts of the document, like the Bill of Rights, that have been incorporated in our present Constitution.

Background of the Study

Tribes- The inhabitants of the Philippines originally

consisted of tribes scattered throughout the islands.

- These tribes were generally free and were each governed by a system of laws promulgated by the datu or council of leaders.

Spanish Period- The discovery of the Philippines by Magellan in

1521 brought the people of the territory under the common rule of Spain.

- This rule lasted for more than 300 years, during which the abuses of the government and the friars gradually developed a sense of unity among the natives.

Spirit of Nationalism- Rizal and other propagandist were later to ignite

the spirit of nationalism that was to fuel the Philippine Revolution.

Revolution- Started by the fiery Bonifacio and won under the

able generalship of Emilio Aguinaldo, the Philippine Revolution finally ended Spanish sovereignty in the Philippines.

Independence- June 12, 1898- Philippine Independence was

proclaimed.- January 21, 1899- The First Philippine Republic

was established with Aguinaldo as its President.

The Malolos Constitution- The Malolos Constitution was the first democratic

constitution ever to be promulgated in the whole Asia.

- Significantly, it established a parliamentary system, but with the President and not the Prime Minister as head of government.

US Imperialistic Designs- The 1st Republic was to be short-lived for even as

the Philippine State was being erected, the US was already planting the seeds of sovereignty in our country.

- The Filipinos were deluded into believing that the Americans, who were then at war with Spain, were their allies.

- But soon, it was revealed that the US had its own imperialistic designs on the Philippines.

Irene, Adhara, Nespher, Kayzer & Pinky 1

1


Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898)- This provided for the cession of the Philippine

Islands by Spain to the US.- The Filipinos, at first, resisted the new threat to

their freedom but the superior forces of the invader easily put an end to the Philippine-American War, paving the way for the new colonization of our country.

Schurman Commission (First Philippine Commission)- Created to make a fact-finding survey of the

Philippine Islands and submit appropriate recommendations to the US Congress.

Taft Commission (Second Philippine Commission)- Replaced the Schurman Commission.- Took over all the legislative powers and some of

the executive and judicial powers of the military governor.

Civil Government- July 4, 1901: Pursuant to Spooner Amendment,

civil government was established in the Philippine Islands.

- William Howard Taft was the first governor.

Philippine Bill 1902- By virtue of the Philippine Bill, the Philippine

Assembly was created in 1907 to sit with the Philippine Commission in a bicameral legislature.

- Sergio Osmeña- Speaker of the Phil. Assembly until its dissolution (1916).

Philippine Autonomy Act (1916) a.k.a. Jones Law- Established a Philippine Legislature consisting of a

Senate and a House of Representatives.- Manuel L. Quezon=President; Sergio Osmeña=

Speaker.- Continued until 1935

Tydings-McDuffie Act- Supplanted the Jones Law- Authorized the establishment of the

Commonwealth of the Philippines.- Constitutional Convention framed the 1935

Constitution (ratified: May 14, 1935). It led to the inauguration of the Commonwealth Government (Nov. 15, 1935).

- Quezon= first President; Osmeña=Vice President- Promised independence if Filipinos could prove

their capacity for democratic government during a 10-year transition period. Filipinos manifested their

competence in the councils of peace and in the barricades of World War II, and no less gallantly in the Second Republic of the Philippines (headed by Jose P. Laurel) during the Japanese occupation.

US Withdrawal (July 4, 1946)- US formally withdrew it sovereignty over the Phils.- Pres. Manuel A. Roxas asserted the freedom of

the Filipino people and proclaimed the Republic of the Philippines.

Republic of the Philippines- Was to pursue an erratic course/near anarchic

system corrupted by the “haves” and subverted by the “have-nots.”

- Conditions continued to deteriorate until people erupted in a number of massive demonstrations, some violent, and the so-called “parliament of the streets” organized by students.

- Height of unrest that the Constitutional Convention of 1971 convoked to revise the 1935 Constitution.

Ferdinand Marcos- PP1081: On Sept. 21, 1972, following

intensification of subversive movement by Communist-oriented groups, Pres. Marcos issued this proclamation placing the entire Philippines under martial law.

- Nov. 30, 1972, the draft of 1973 Constitution was formally approved by the Constitutional Convention.

- During a series of meetings on Jan.10-15, 1973, it was submitted to the Citizen’s Assemblies for ratification.

- Jan.17, 1973: Marcos issued PP 1102 announcing that the 1973 Constitution had been ratified by an overwhelming majority and had become effective.

CASE: Javellana vs. Executive Secretary (a.k.a. Ratification Cases) - The petitioners questioned the validity of the 1973 Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the case and concluded that there was no judicial obstacle for the Constitution to take effect; that the people had acquiesced in or accepted the 1973 Constitution.CASE: Aquino vs. Enrile (a.k.a. Habeas Corpus Cases)- The Supreme Court, by unanimous vote of its members then, sustained the proclamation of martial law by President Marcos, but no clear consensus was reached on the justification for the common conclusion.


2


- Jan. 17, 1981: Marcos issued PP2045 lifting martial law. However he retained what he called his “standby legislative powers” under several decrees he had promulgated earlier, principally the National Security Code and the Public Order Act.

- 1985: To seek a ‘fresh mandate’ from the people, Marcos submitted a questionable resignation to be effective on the 10th day following the proclamation of the winners in the “snap” election to be called by the legislature on the strength of such resignation.

- The election was challenged (Philippine Bar Association vs. Comelec) on the ground that the vacancy contemplated in Article VII, Section 9 of the Constitution which would justify the call of a special presidential election before the expiration of Marcos’ term in 1987 was supposed to occur and not after the said election. The Supreme Court denied the petition and sustained the resignation and the call.

Snap Election- It was held on Feb. 7, 1986.- Amid charges of wholesale irregularities

committed by the ruling party, Marcos and his running-mate Arturo Tolentino were proclaimed as President-elect and Vice-President-elect of the Philippines respectively.

- This was followed by massive outcry from the people who felt that the real winners were the Opposition candidates.

People Power- Feb. 22, 1986- It led to the ouster of Marcos and

his replacement by Pres. Corazon C. Aquino, who, with Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel, her running-mate, was inducted on Feb. 25, 1986.

Freedom Constitution- One of Aquino’s first acts. The Freedom

Constitution was to be in force pending the adoption of a new Constitution.

- Constitutional Commission (also created by Aquino): drafted the new charter which was submitted to the people at a plebiscite held on Feb. 2, 1987, and was ratified by a vote of 16,605,425 in favor and 4,949,901 against.

1987 Constitution- Pursuant to this Constitution, elections for the

revived Congress of the Philippines were held on

May 11, 1988, and those for local offices were scheduled later that year.

- The rest of the government underwent reorganization conformably to the changes prescribed in the new fundamental law.

- May 11, 1992: General elections were held for the President and Vice-President, 24 senators, all elective members of the House of Representative and local officials.

Fidel V. Ramos (1992)Joseph Estrade (1998)- Elected but impeached 2 years later and forced

out of office by a massive people power demonstration at Edsa on Jan. 20, 2001.

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

CHAPTER 2THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

The 1987 Constitution- Is the 4th fundamental law to govern the

Philippines.o 1st: Commonwealth (1935) Constitutiono 2nd: 1973 Constitutiono 3rd: Freedom Constitution

Aquino Administration- Proclamation 9: created a Constitutional

Commission.- Constitutional Commission:

o Composed of 50 members appointed by Aquino

o Charged to frame a new charter not later than Sept. 2, 1986

o Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma- president of the Constitutional Commission.

o Members came from various sectors and represented diverse persuasions, which is probably one reason why they could not meet their deadline and were able to approve the final draft of their work only on Oct. 15, 1986.

o The Commission recommended to the President that the plebiscite on the proposed Constitution be scheduled, not within 60 days as originally approved, but within 3 months, to give people the


3


opportunity to study it. The plebiscite was scheduled on Feb. 2, 1987.

- Aquino led the campaign for its ratification whose main argument was that it would restrict the powers of the Presidency as provided for in the Freedom Constitution.

- Opposition to the draft, while spirited, was largely disorganized and consequently ineffective. Many people, while doubtful about some of its provisions and especially of its length, which made it seem like a codification, nevertheless approved the Constitution in the end because they felt it would provide the stability the country sorely needed at the time.

- Votes tallied: 76.29% voted to ratify; 22.74 voted against.

CASE: Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. Aquino- The Supreme Court unanimously held that the “people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government.”

CASE: De Leon vs. Esguerra- The Court held that the Constitution took effect on the date of its ratification in the plebiscite held on February 2, 1987, that: (1) the Provisional Constitution promulgated on March 25, 1986 must be deemed to have been superseded by the 1987 Constitution on the same date February 2, 1987 and (2) by and after said date, February 2, 1987, absent any saying clause to the contrary in the Transitory Article of the Constitution, respondent OIC Governor could no longer exercise the power to replace petitioners in their positions as Barangay Captain and Councilmen. While the Provisional Constitution provided for a one-year period expiring on March 25, 1987 within which the power of replacement could be exercised, this period was shortened by the ratification and effectivity on February 2, 1987 of the Constitution.

Outstanding Features of the 1987 Constitution- Consist of 18 articles (longer than the 1935 &

1973 Constitutions)- Revival of the bicameral & presidential system of

1935- Judiciary independence was strengthened:

increase in the authority which now covers even political questions.

- Many provisions from the 1973 Constitution were retained (eg. Constitutional Commission & Local Governments)

- The Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth & Marcos Constitutions has been improved and even bolstered the creation of a Commission on Human Rihts.

Criticisms- What made it long? The inclusion of provisions

that should have been embodied only in implementing statutes to be enacted by the legislature pursuant to the basic constitutional principles.

- Most notable flaw: verbosity & consequent prolixity that have dampened popular interest in what should be the common concern of the nation. The sheer length of the document has deterred people from reading it, much less trying to understand its contents and motivations.

- It is believed that such policies could have been expressed briefly without loss of substance if the framers had more expertise in the art of constitution-making and less personal vainglory, let alone distrust of the legislature.

- What is more is the inclusion of certain topics that have no place in a Constitution:

o Sports, love drugs, and even advertising.o A mention of “the rhythm and harmony of

nature”o Tortuous language in some of its

provisions (eg. Art. XVI, Sec. 10)

The Supremacy of the Constitution- It is the basic and paramount law to which all other

laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.

- No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the Constitution.

- The Constitution must ever remain SUPREME.- Expediency or greed for power must not be

allowed if it is contrary to the fundamental law.- Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld.

Prospects of the Constitution- The Constitution must be quintessential rather

than superficial.- It must be the root not the blossom.- It must be the base & the framework.


4


- It is but the core of the dream that must take shape slowly in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts, where in time, it will develop its sinews and gradually gather its strength and finally achieve its substance.

- It must grow with the society it seeks to re-structure and march apace with the progress of the race, drawing from the vicissitudes of history and dynamism and vitality that will keep it a pulsing, living law attuned to the heartbeat of the nation.

CHAPTER 3THE CONCEPT OF THE 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 (Cruz)

Nation – (nasci, to be born)- indicates a relation of birth or origin and implies a common race, usually characterized by community of language and customs (Hackworth)– used interchangeably with Statee.g. United Nations or family of nations (actually consists of states and not nations)

State, distinguished from NationState Nationlegal concept racial or ethnic conceptmay comprise several states(e.g. Arab Nation - Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Algeria & Libya)

Possible to be made up of more than one nation(e.g.1. United States – a “melting pot” of many nations that were eventually amalgamated into the “American Nation,”2. Malaysia – whose population consists of Malays & Chinese,3. United Kingdom – composed of England, Scotland, Wales, & Northern Ireland

need not be a state at all(e.g. 1. Poles after the dismemberment of their country in 1975 & then again in WWII2. by Jews before the creation of State of Israel in 1948

State, distinguished from the governmentState Governmentone of its elements is government

only an element of the State

principal agentabstraction externalizes the State and

articulates its will

ELEMENTS OF A STATE- people, territory, government and sovereignty2 additional elements:- recognition and possession of a sufficient degree of civilization- have not been generally accepted

(1) People- inhabitants of the State- no legal requirement as to their number- must be numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend themselves and small enough to be easily administered and sustained- the people must come from both sexes to be able to perpetuate themselves- are more comprehensive and less cohesive than the nationNation – a people bound together by common attraction and repulsions into a living organism possessed of a common pulse, a common intelligence and inspiration, and destined apparently to have a common history and a common fate (Malcom)

(2) Territory- the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the State- (practically) must be neither too big as to be difficult to administer and defend no too small as to be unable to provide for the needs of the population - (legally) can extend over a vast expanse, e.g. Russia and China, or cover only a small area, e.g. Abu Dhabi

Components:a. Terrestrial domain – the landmassb. Maritime and fluvial domain – the inland and

external watersc. Aerial domain – the air space above the land

and watersArticle I of the 1987 Constitution:

NATIONAL TERRITORY“The national territory comprises the Philippine

archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and


5


dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.”- a substantial reproduction of Article I of the 1973 Constitution with only a few minor changes- the present rule now physically lists the components of our territory and so de-emphasizes recollections of our colonial past (departing from the method employed in the 1935 Constitution, which described the national territory by reference to the pertinent treaties concluded by the United States during its regime in this country.- deleted reference to the territories we claim “by historic right or legal title,” but this does not mean an outright or formal abandonment of such claim, which was best “left to a judicial body capable of passing judgment over the issue.”Archipelago doctrine- affirmed by the 2nd sentence- we connect the outermost points of our archipelago with straight baselines and consider all the waters enclosed thereby as internal waters- regarded as one integrated unit instead of being fragmented into so many thousands islands- territorial seas are now defined according to the Jamaica Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified in 1994, of which the Philippine is a signatory*The Philippines, like most States now, includes in its territory the insular shelves which, strictly speaking, are under the jurisdiction only, and not the sovereignty, of the coastal state.

The Definition of Article I now covers the following territories:

1. Those ceded to the United States by virtue of the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898.

2. Those defined in the treaty concluded between the United States and Spain on November 7, 1900, which were not defined in the Treaty of Paris, specifically the islands of Cagayan, Sulu and Sibuto.

3. Those defined in the treaty concluded on January 2, 1930, between the United States and Great Britain, specifically the Turtle and Mangsee islands.

4. The islands of Batanes, which was covered under a general statement in the 1935 Constitution.

5. Those contemplated in the phrase “belonging to the Philippines by right or legal title” in the 1973 Constitution.

(3) Government- is the agency or instrumentality thru which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized- (international law) no particular form of government is prescribed, provided only that the government is able to represent the State in its dealings with other States- (Phil. Constitution), requires our government to be democratic and republican- “the State is an ideal person, invisible, intangible, immutable and existing only in contemplation of law;

the government is an agent and, within the sphere of its agency, it is a perfect representative, but outside of that it is a lawless usurpation.”Mandate of the government from the State: - to promote the welfare of the people- whatever good is done by the government is attributed to the State but every harm inflicted on the people is imputed not to the State but to the government alone- such injury may justify the replacement of the government by revolution, theoretically at the behest of the State, in a development known as direct State action

Functions:a. Constituent – constitute the very bonds of

society and are therefore compulsory:1. The keeping of order and providing for

the protection of persons and property from violence and robbery;

2. The fixing of the legal relations between husband and wife and between parents and children;

3. The regulation of the holding, transmission and interchange of property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime;

4. The determination of contractual rights between individuals;

5. the definition and punishment of crimes;

6. The administration of justice in civil cases;

7. The administration of political duties, privileges and relations of citizens; and

8. The dealings of the State with foreign powers; the preservation of the State from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interests.b. Ministrant – those undertaken to advance the general interests of society, such as public works, public charity, and regulation of trade and industry- optional- distinguishes the paternalistic government

from the merely individualistic government-concerned only with the basic function of maintaining peace and order

* The distinction between constituent and ministrant functions is not relevant in our jurisdiction (SC)

Case: 1. In PVTA v. CIR, such distinction has been blurred because of the repudiation of the laissez faire policy in the Constitution. Thus, it is now obligatory on the State itself to:- promote social justice - provide adequate social services to promote a rising standard of living- afford protection to labor


6


- formulate and implement urban agrarian reform programs- adopt other measures intended to ensure the dignity, welfare and security of its citizens.- establish and maintain a complete, adequate and fully integrated system of education- offer free elementary and secondary public education- promote scientific research and invention- patronize arts and letters and develop Filipino culture for national dignity*These functions, while traditionally regarded as merely ministrant and optional, have been made compulsory by the Constitution.

Doctrine of Parens Patriae- “guardian of the rights of the people”- one of the important tasks of the governmentCases:1. In Govt. of the Phil. Islands v. Monte de Piedad, contributions were collected during the Spanish regime for the relief of the victims of an earthquake but part of the money was never distributed and instead deposited with the defendant bank. In an action for its recovery filed later by the government, the defendant questioned the competence of the plaintiff, contending that the suit could be instituted only by the intended beneficiaries themselves or by their heirs. The SC rejected this view and upheld the right of the government to file the case for the State as parens patriae in representation of the legitimate claimants. 2. Also in Cabañas v. Pilapil, the government acting for the State as parens patriae chose the mother of an illegitimate child as against hi uncle to be the trustee of the insurance proceeds left him by his father, who had expressly designated the uncle.

De Jure and De Facto Governments- regardless of their formDe Jure government - has rightful title but no power or control, either because this has been withdrawn fro it or because it has not yet actually entered into the existence thereofDe Facto government - a government of fact, that is, actually exercises power or control but without legal title3 kinds of de facto government:1. The government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter. e.g. the government of England and under the Commonwealth, first by Parliament and later by Cromwell as Protector2. That established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state.

e.g. the government of the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Union during the war of secession in the United States3. That which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated as a government of paramount force.e.g. the cases of Castine, Maine, which was reduced to a British possession in the war of 1812, and of Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the war with Mexico by the troops of the United States. *It has been held in a number of cases that the Second Republic of the Philippines was a de facto government of paramount force, having been established by the Japanese belligerent during the occupation of the Philippines in WWII. Characteristics:“a. Its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government.b. During its existence, it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. - actual governments of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions - usually administered by military authority, supported more or less directly by military force”Case: 1. In Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon C. Aquino, however, the SC held that “the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of Pres. Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government.”

Government of the Philippines- defined as “the corporate governmental entity thru which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from context, the various arms thru which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other form of local government.”Government-owned or controlled corporation – engaged in proprietary functions - cannot be considered part of the Government for purposes of exemption form the application of the statute of limitations- private instrumentalities of the Government may be considered embraced in the Civil Service as provided for under Art. IX-B, Sec. 2(1) of the Constitution


7


Government, distinguished from AdministrationGovernment Administrationthe agency or instrumentality thru which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized

the group of persons in whose hands reins of government are for the time being

It is the government the administration runs, a machine

the administration runs the government, as a machinist operates his machine

permanent Transitionale.g. We speak of Arroyo administration as directing the affairs of the Government of the Philippines for a given time, after which another administration may be called upon by the people to take over.

(4) Sovereignty- is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is governed2 kinds of sovereignty:1. legal sovereignty – the authority which has the power to issue final commands2. political sovereignty – is the power behind the legal sovereign, or the sum of the influences that operate upon it.*In our country, the Congress is the legal sovereign, while the different sectors that mold public opinion make-up the political sovereign.Internal sovereignty – refers to the power of the State to control its domestic affairsExternal sovereignty – the power of the State to direct its relations with other States, is also known as independence*Sovereignty is P - ermanentE - xclusive C - omprehensiveA – bsoluteA3 – indivisible, inalienable, & imprescriptibleEffects when sovereignty is suspended:* Sovereignty is deemed suspended although acts of sovereignty cannot be exercised by the legitimate authoritye.g. Sovereignty over the Philippines remained with the US during the Japanese occupation of our country although the Americans could not exercise any control over the occupied territory at the time- What the belligerent occupant took over was only the exercise of acts of sovereigntyIn political laws - the political laws of the occupied territory are merely suspended, subject to revival under the jus postiliminium upon the end of the occupationWhy? There being no change of sovereignty during the belligerent occupation

In non-political laws - deemed continued unless changed by the belligerent occupant why? Because they are intended to govern the relations of individuals as among themselves and are not generally affected by changes in regimes or rulersCases:1. It has been held that the Constitution of the Commonwealth, being a political law, was not effective in the Phils. during the Japanese occupation. But non-political laws like the Civil Code and the Insurance Act remained in force during that period except only where they were amended or superseded by affirmative act of the belligerent occupant.2. In Ruffy v. Chief of Staff, however, members of the armed forces continued to be covered by the National Defense Act, the Articles of War and other laws relating to the armed forces even during the Japanese occupation- the rule suspending political laws affects only the civilian inhabitants of the occupied territory and is not intended to bind the enemies3. In Laurel v. Misa, the rule does not apply to the law on treason although decidedly political in natureJudicial decisions – valid during the occupation and even beyond Exception: those of a political complexion, which are automatically annulled upon the restoration of the legitimate authoritye.g. A person convicted of treason against the Japanese Imperial Forces was, after the occupation, entitled to be released on the ground that the sentence imposed on him for his political offense has ceased to be valid. But if the conviction was for a non-political offense like, say, defamation, the sentence would not be affected by the termination of the occupation. Effects when there is a change of sovereignty:In political laws – the political laws of the former sovereign are not merely suspended but abrogated.Why? as they regulate between the ruler and the ruled, these laws fall to the ground ipso facto unless they are retained or re-enacted by positive act of the new sovereign.In non-political laws – continue in operationWhy? Because they also regulate private relations only, unless they are changed by the new sovereign or are contrary to its institutionsCases:1. In People v. Perfecto, the accused had written an editorial against the Philippine Senate and was prosecuted under a provision of the Spanish Penal Code punishing insults to Ministers of the Crown. The SC acquitted him, holding that that particular article of the said Code had been automatically abrogated, being political in nature, upon the advent of American sovereignty.2. In Macariola v. Asuncion, it was held that Article 14 of the Code of Commerce prohibiting judges from engaging in commerce was political in nature and so


8


was automatically abrogated with the end of Spanish rule in the country.3. In Vilas v. City of Manila, however, it was held that a debt contracted by the defendant during the Spanish regime was enforceable against it even after the change to American sovereignty inasmuch as the obligation was assumed by the city in its private or proprietary character.

Act of State- is an act done by the sovereign power of a country, or by its delegate, within the limits of the power vested in him- cannot be questioned or made the subject of legal proceedings in a court of lawIn Political Law – an act of State is an act done by the political departments of the government and not subject to judicial review.Illustration: The decision of the President, in the exercise of his diplomatic power, to extend recognition to a newly-established foreign State or government.

CHAPTER 4THE DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

Rule: “the State may not be sued without its consent” (Constitution)- recognition of the sovereign character of the State- an express affirmation of the unwritten rule insulating it from the jurisdiction of the courts of justiceBasis:- indiscriminate suits against the State will result in the impairment of its dignity, besides being a challenge to its supposed infallibility- is based not on “any formal conception or obsolete theory but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends” (Holmes)- the demands and inconveniences of litigation will divert the time and resources of the State from the more pressing matters demanding its attention, to the prejudice of the public welfare (practical consideration)- available to foreign States; one State cannot assert jurisdiction over another because it would “unduly vex the peace of nations” - par in parem not habet imperium (Sovereign equality of States)

ApplicationRule: Actions are rarely instituted directly against the RP- because such a step will provoke resort to the doctrine of State immunity and possible dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdictionUsual practice: to file such claims against the officer of the government who is supposed to discharge the responsibility or grant the redress demanded

Note: determine if the State is the real party in interest – if the claim is proved will be a direct liability of the State and not merely of the officer impleadedCases:1. In Garcia v. the Chief of Staff, it was held that a claim for damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while undergoing military training as required by law was actually a suit against the State since it would need the appropriation of public funds to satisfy the judgment if the claim were allowed. Although filed against the chief of staff of the AFP in his official capacity, it was dismissed because the State had not waived its immunity.2. In Sanders v. Veridiano, where two American employees of the Subic naval base sued its commanding general and the director of special services for damages for allegedly defamatory remarks made by the defendants, the SC held that the petitioners were being sued as officers of the US, acted on behalf of that government, and within the scope of their authority, thus, it is that government, and not the petitioners personally, that is responsible for their acts. 3. By contrast, the SC held against the State an action instituted against the Secretary of National Defense, also in his official capacity, for payment of an architect’s professional fees for which an appropriation had already been made by the government. The reason was that as far as the State itself was concerned, it had already discharged its obligation; clearly, what the complainant wanted only was the actual payment of the amount already set aside, which payment was now the sole responsibility of the defendant. The action was therefore properly filed against him only and not against the State and no waiver of its immunity was necessary.*A public officer may be sued in his official capacity without the necessary of first obtaining the consent of the State to be sued.- a public offices may be impleaded to require him to do a duty required by law, or to restrain him from doing an act alleged to be unconstitutional or illegal, or to recover from him taxes unlawfully assessed or collected.The test: assuming the decision is rendered against the public officer impleaded, whether enforcement thereof will require an affirmative act from the State, such as the appropriation of the needed amount to satisfy the judgment. Yes - the suit is one against the State and its inclusion as party defendant is necessaryNo- the officer impleaded all by himself alone comply with the decision of the court without the necessity of involving the State, then the suit can prosper against him and will not be considered a claim against the State


9


- where a public officer acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, any injury caused by him is his own personal liability an cannot be imputed to the State1. In Festejo v. Fernando, the Director of Public Works took over without authority property belonging to the plaintiff and constructed thereon a public irrigation canal. The SC held that the action for the recovery of the land or its value was properly filed against the defendant in his personal capacity and was therefore not covered by the doctrine of State immunity.2. In USA v. Guinto, the defendants were sought to be held answerable for the personal torts in which the United States itself is not involved. If found liable, they and they alone must satisfy the judgment.3. In the case of The Holy See v. Rosario, the SC dismissed a civil complaint against the petitioner after the Department of Foreign Affairs had “officially certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the RP exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission or embassy of this country.” It was further affirmed that “the determination of the executive arm of the government that a state or instrumentality is entitled to sovereign or diplomatic immunity is a political question that is conclusive upon the courts. Where the plea of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch, it is the duty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting the country’ foreign relations.”

Waiver of Immunity- the doctrine is sometimes called “the royal prerogative of dishonesty”Rule: The State does not often avail itself of this rule to take undue advantage of parties that may have legitimate claims against itBuilt-in qualification: The State may, if it so desires, divest itself of its sovereign immunity and thereby voluntarily open itself to suitException to the rule: the State may be sued if it gives consentForms of ConsentExpress or ImpliedExpress – may be manifested either thru a general law or a special lawGeneral Laws:a. Act No. 3083 – “the Government of the Philippine Islands hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract , express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties.”b. C.A. No. 327 (as amended by P.D. No. 1445) – a claim against the government must first be files with the Commission on Audit, which must act upon it within 60 days. Rejection of the claim will authorize the

claimant to elevate the matter to the SC on certiorari and in effect sue the State with its consent. Special Law: - the special law enacted by the Philippine Legislature authorizing a individual to sue the Phil. Govt. for injuries he had sustained when his motorcycle collided with the government ambulance1. In Republic v. Purisima, it was held that the express consent of the State must be embodied in a duly enacted statute and may not be given by a mere counsel of the government. The waiver made by the lawyer for the Rice and Corn Administration, an agency of the government was not binding upon the State.Implied – is given when the State itself commences litigation or when it enters into a contract2. In Amigable v. Cuenca, the question raised was the right of the plaintiff to sue the government for recovery of the value of her property which had been converted into public streets without payment to her of just compensation. The SC decided in her favor although it was shown that she had not previously filed her claim with the Auditor General as normally require pursuant to constitutional mandate that the owner be compensated for property taken for public use.3. In Santiago v. Republic, the plaintiff sued the govt. for revocation of a donation on the ground of failure of the defendant to comply with the stipulated conditions. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of its consent to be sued. The SC denied the motion, holding that the suit could prosper because it did not involve money claim against the State. As what the plaintiff was seeking the return only of the properties donated, he did not even need to file his claim first with the Commission on Audit under the provisions of C.A. No. 327.Rule: when the State itself files a complaint, the defendant is entitled to file a counterclaim against it.4. In Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., it was held that the government impliedly allowed itself to be sued when it filed a complaint in intervention for the purpose of asserting a claim for affirmative relief against the plaintiff, to wit, recovery of a vessel.5. In Lim v. Brownell, however, where the Phil. Govt., as successor in interest of the US to the properties being claimed from the latter, filed a complaint in intervention to join the defendant in invoking the doctrine of State immunity to secure the dismissal of the action. As the Phil. Govt. was not asking fro any affirmative relief form the plaintiff but had intervened only for the purpose of resisting his claim, the SC held that no implied waiver of immunity could be assumed.6. The same ruling was reiterated in Republic v. Sandiganbayan.Justification: when the government enters into a contract, the State is then deemed to have divested


10


itself of the mantle of sovereign immunity and descended to the level of the ordinary individual. - it becomes subject to judicial action and processes.7. In Santos v. Santos, and Lyons v. USA, immunity would be lost regardless of the nature of the contract.8. It was held in the case of USA v. Ruiz that suability would follow only if the contract is entered into by the government its proprietary capacity. Governmental contracts do not result in implied waiver of the immunity of the State from suit.8. On the other hand, it was held in the Guinto Case that the operation by the US govt. of restaurants in Camp John Hay in Baguio City and of barbershops in Clark Air Base, these establishments being open to the public for free, were proprietary in nature and so not covered by the doctrine of state immunity.Rule: When the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby also consent to the execution of the judgment against it. 9. In Republic v. Villasor, the rule is that such execution will require another waiver, lacking which the decidion cannot be enforced against the State. The Judge in this case had issued a writ of execution against the funds of the AFP to satisfy a judgment rendered against the Phil. Govt. 10. However, in PNB v. Pabalan, the writ of execution was issued against the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, pursuant to which its funds on deposit with the petitioner were garnished.

Suits Against Government AgenciesIncorporated Agency – has a charter of its own that invests it with a separate juridical personalitye.g. SSS, UP, City of Manila,etc.e.g. DOJ, Bureau of Mines, Government Printing Office, etc.Rule: If the agency is incorporated, it is suable if its charter says so, regardless of the functions it is performinge.g. Municipal corporations – provinces and cities- are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit- Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the performance of such functions because their charter provides that they can sue and be sued1. In Bermoy v. PNC, suits was filed by the personnel of the defendant corporation for recovery of salary differentials and overtime pay. The defendant moved to dismiss, contending that the action was against The State inasmuch as the college was a public agency engaged in a governmental function, to wit, the education of the youth. The SC did not consider this argument decisive. The important thing was that the charter of the college provided that it could sue and be sued, which meant that, even assuming that the function involved was public, the State had thereby waived its immunity.

Unincorporated Agency – has no separate juridical personality but is merged in the general machinery of the government- any suit filed against it is necessarily an action against the PG of which it is a part.- it is necessary to determine the nature of the functions in which the agency is engagedRule:Proprietary - suable Governmental – not suable(primary function)2. In National Airports Corporation v. Teodoro, the issue was whether the Civil Aeronautics Administration, an unincorporated agency of the govt. undertaking the operation of airports and authorized to charged fees for the use of its facilities, should be regarded as engaged in private functions and therefore subject to suit. The SC said that it was, describing its business as “an enterprise which, far from being the exclusive prerogative of the State, may, more often than the construction of public roads, be undertaken by private concerns.”3. In Bureau of Printing v. Bureau of Printing Employees Association, the SC ruled that the non-suability of the State is available to the agency if it is shown that it is engaged not only in governmental functions but also, as a sideline, or incidentally, in proprietary enterprises. 4. In Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service, it was argued by the plaintiff that by authorizing the Bureau of Customs to engage in arrastre service, the law had thereby allowed it to be sued inasmuch as the nature of this particular function was proprietary. The SC rejected this contention.5. The non-suability of the Bureau of Customs was affirmed in the recent case of Farolan v. CTA

Exemption from Legal RequirementsRule: When the State litigates, either directly or thru its authorized officers:- not required to put up a bond for damages, or an appeal bond, since it can be assumed that it is always solvent- cannot be asked to pay the legal fees prescribed in the Rules of Court of the costs of the suit- Interest is not chargeable against itException: - when it has expressly stipulated to pay it or - when interest is allowed by an act of the legislature or - in eminent domain cases where damages sustained by the owner take the form of interest at the legal rateRule: Statutes of limitation do not run against the State Exception: the contrary is expressly provided by law, although this rule is not observed where the State is engaged in private business


11


1. In Republic v. Garcia, it was held that the government could not be assessed one-half of the fees paid to the commissioner who determined the just compensation for the property under expropriation

Suability vs. LiabilityRule: Waiver of immunity by the State does not mean concession of its liabilitySuability – the result of the express or implied consent of the State to be suedLiability – determined after hearing on the basis of the relevant laws and the established facts- When the State allows itself to be sued, all it does in effect is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State is liable.- in many cases, the State may be suable but not liable1. In Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands, the plaintiff was allowed to sue by virtue of a special law but was unable to hold the defendant liable when it was shown at the trial that the injuries sustained by him were caused by a regular driver of the government. The law applied was what is now Article 2180 of the Civil Code is, which provides that the State shall be responsible for torts only when it acts thru s special agent and not when the damage has been caused by the official or employee to whom the task done properly pertains.2. In one case, a claim for recovery of damages against a provincial government failed when it was shown that the injury complained of occurred in connection with repair of streets then being undertaken by the defendant thru its regular agents. This was clearly a governmental function.3. By contrast, in another case, a municipality was held liable for forcibly and illegally ejecting a lessee from certain fishponds belonging to the former in its proprietary capacity.4. In the case of Torio v. Fontanilla, the SC held a municipality liable for a tort committed in connection with the celebration of a town fiesta, which was considered a proprietary function.

CHAPTER 5FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE

POLICIES

Intention of the Article: lay down the rules underlying our system of government and must therefore be adhered to in the conduct of public affairs and the resolution of public issues

Present Article an enlargement and modification of the original provisions (found in Art. II of 1973 Constitution)

o Main purpose: emphasize and articulate more unequivocally the objectives and limitations of government action in pursuit of the

general goals announced in the preamble.

‘Overkill’ modification: From 10 (in the 1973 Constitution) to 28 sections (present charter)

Preamble

The Preamble from the 1987 Constitution:

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

Note-worthy Comparison:+1987 Constitution: - Intimate first person would deepen the sense of involvement and participation of the individual citizens in the ordaining and promulgation of the Constitution

+1935 Constitution: - Third Person

o The use of “the Filipino people” viewed as a

Remote Impersonal abstract

…legal entity to which they did not belong.

Limitation of the Preamble:- Not considered as a source of substantive right- Function not merely rhetorical

5 Main uses/purposes of the Preamble:+To introduce (or “to walk before” the constitution)+Serves to indicate the authors of the Constitution (“we, the Filipino people”)+Enumerates the primary aims+Expresses the aspirations of the framers +Useful as an aid in the construction and interpretation of the text of the constitution

The NEW Preamble: a ‘talkative constitution’ - Wordy- Suggests at the outset what one might expect in

the text of the Constitution in terms of:o Style o Content

Republicanism

Art. II, sec. 1: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”


12


- Original principle from 1935 Constitution- Establishes the democratic and representative

nature of our government- Proclaims our hostility to autocratic or totalitarian

regimes- People declared Supreme- Affirmation that every citizen is an individual

repository of sovereignty- Justice Laurel: “an enfranchised citizen is a particle of

popular sovereignty and the ultimate source of established authority”

- Citizenry (not officialdom) is recognized as the:o Origino Restriction…of all government authorities

A Republican government? It is a representative government, a government run by and for the people.

- not a pure democracy (where people govern themselves directly)

- Essence of republicanism: o Representationo Renovation the selection by the

citizenry of a corps of public functionaries who derive their mandate from the people and act on their behalf, serving for a limited time only, after which they are replaced or retained at the option of their principal.

- It is a responsible government whose officials hold and discharge their position as a public trust and shall, accdg. To the Constitution, “at all times be accountable to the people”

- Purpose: promotion of common welfare accdg. To ‘the will’ of the people themselves.

- ‘The Will’ is:o determined by rule of the majority

(greater # of the people) E.g. under the Constitution, the

Senate Pres. and Speaker are elected by majority vote (more than half of the total membership) by their respective houses.

o determined by mere plurality E.g. elections of members

themselves, the winners are those who received the highest # of votes in their respective constituencies (may not necessarily be a majority of total votes cast).

E.g. Three-cornered election (at times, smaller # to prevail over the majority)

E.g. Suspension or expulsion of a member of the Congress (requires concurrence of two-thirds of the house he/she belongs)

E.g. In Sandiganbayan, a dissent of one member will prevent a decision of the other two

members of the division as a unanimous vote is required for such decision.

E.g. The lone individual is in fact “a majority of one” (when protected by the bill of rights)

- “A government of laws and not of men”- The ascendancy of the law is axiomatic in a

republico Must be recognized by every public

official no matter how exalted- No person is above the law; all must bow to its

majesty- Every official act must be based upon and

conform to the authority of a valid law, lacking which the act must be rejected.

- Nobility of intention insufficient to validate an unauthorized act (E.g. Villavicencio vs. Lukban case)

o Where the Mayor of manila had been motivated by his desire to protect the morals and health of the people when he ‘deported’ 170 prostitutes/women of ill-repute from Manila to Davao. The SC had nevertheless no choice except to condemn his act, there being no showing that it had been authorized by any law or even an ordinance.

o Decision cited Yick Wo vs. Hopkins: “When we consider the nature and the theory of our constitutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty, itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must be always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and, in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of suffrage. But the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, the in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws and not of men’. For the very idea that one may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material rights essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be


13


intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. “

The Defense of the State

Art. II, Sec. 4: “The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.”

- Based upon the inherent right of every state to existence and self-preservation.

- State may take up all necessary action, including the use of Armed Force, to repel any threat to its security.

- Art. XVI, Sec. 4: “The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo military training and serve as may be provided by law. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the security of the State.”

o Pertinent law C.A. No. 1 (known as National Defense Act)

o E.g. People vs. Lagman & People vs. Zosa, where the accused were charged with and convicted of refusal to register for military training as required by the mentioned statute. They think that the statute is unconstitutional:

Lagman’s defense- father to support, no military leanings and does not wish to kill or be killed

Zosa’s defense- he’s fatherless and have a mother and 8 brothers to support

o SC affirmed conviction: “The national defense Law is compulsory military service and does not go against constitutional provision but is faithful compliance therewith. It is the duty of gov’t. to defend the state (cannot be performed without an army). To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the gov’t. excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein… The right of the gov’t. to require compulsory military service is a consequence of its duty to defend life, liberty, and property of the citizen. Without violating the constitution, a person may be compelled by force, if need be, against his will, against pecuniary interests and even against his religious or political convictions to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense… This is not a deprivation of property without due process of law, because, in its just sense, there is no right of property to an office or employment… What justifies compulsory military service is the defense of the State, whether actual or whether in preparation to make it more effective, in case of need. “

- Duty to defend the state: imposed upon all citizens (including women- military/civil service required of them by law must be personal.)

o Precludes hiring by the rich of ‘mercenaries’ or professional soldier to take their place in the defense of the state.

- For those with sincere conscientious or religious scruples about taking human life or no military inclinations or aptitudes may be assigned to non-combat or civil duties.

Peace and Order

Art. II, Sec. 5: “The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.”

- Inspired by the American Declaration of Independence… speaks for itself daw

- These are implicit in a welfare state (which the Constitution is establishing)

Incorporation Clause

Art. II, sec. 2: “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”

- Doctrine of Incorporation: ‘A State, in its Membership in the family of nations, is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of its own laws.’

- The SC has applied the rules of international law in the decision of a number of cases notwithstanding that such rules had not been previously converted to statutory enactments.

o E.g. Kuroda vs. Jalandoni: petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the military commission trying him contending that the Philippines was not covered by the Hague convention, since it was not a signatory to the agreement. SC rejected the argument because the country is bound by the convention because it embodied generally accepted principles of international law binding upon all states.

Conflict between municipal law and international law?- Efforts should be exerted to harmonize them, so

as to give effect to both. o It should be presumed that the

municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted rules of International law.


14


E.g. Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez tan Keh where it was argued that MacArthur’s Proclamation invalidates ‘all laws, regulations and processes” of the occupation gov’t. including judicial decisions. SC disagreed and justified using the well-known public international law: “all judgments and judicial proceedings which are not of political complexion of the de factor government during Japanese military occupation remained so after the occupied territory had come again into power of titular sovereign…“

Irreconcilable conflict?

- As given in the case of Ichong vs. Hernandez: o E.g. Where the petitioner asked for the

invalidation of Retail trade Nationalization Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by us which under the rule of ‘pacta sunt servanda’, a generally accepted principle of international law, should be observed in good faith. The SC said it was no conflict. Even if there was, the statute should be upheld because it represented the exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty.

- As given in the case of Gonzales vs. Hechenova: o When Municipal law was upheld against

international law on the basis of the separation of powers

- As given in the ‘In re Garcia’:o Same with the Gonzales vs. Hechenova but

under the rule-making powers of the supreme court

Renunciation of War- As an instrument of national policy is itself a

generally accepted principle now categorically expressed in the UN charter

- War eschewed as an offensive and not defensive war finds support in the provision of Art. VI, Section 23 (1), which empowers the congress to declare not war but “the existence of a state of war” presumably commenced or provoked by enemy State.

Last Clause of Sec. 2- An addition to original provision in the 1935

Constitution and is a mere embellishment of our commitment to the law of nations.

Sec. 2, tied with Sec. 7 and 8Sec. 7: “The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.”

Sec. 8: “The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.”

- Belief of the Author: the inclusion of the provision only serves to underline our fear of foreign domination and achieves not much more

o considering that the 1st provision goes without saying,

o and the 2nd is so ambiguously worded that it could be interpreted any which way.

Rearing the Youth

There are 2 sections in Art. II dealing with the proper rearing of the youth.

+1 st Provision: Sec. 12: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Notes:- Family as a fundamental and impt. Factor in the

enhancement of the nation. - Strength of the family ties in the correct

upbringing of its children. - The better the home, the better the nation- Recognition is given to the complementary roles

of the parents and the government in the rearing of the youth for the principal purposes mentioned civil efficiency and development of moral character.

- Policy against Abortion and equal protection to the mother: “…shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception…”

- Recognizing the sanctity of family life, the provision is not closing the door on divorce, which is left for the legislation to allow in its discretion.

- State cannot unreasonably interfere with the exercise of the parents of their natural right and duty to rear children, BUT it may regulate the same under police power.

o Power exercised Through School (child’s formative years)

State – in position to assist the parents in proper upbringing

Through educational policies

Nothing inhibits the gov’t. from prescribing or prohibiting certain courses in the various school curricula intended to improve education


15


E.g. Pierce vs. Society of Sisters: Children- not ‘mere creatures of the state’

E.g. People vs. Ritter: “to defend the right of children to assistance and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development.”

E.g. Cabañas case: mother vs. uncle for ‘trusteeship’, resolved in favor of the former basing from the idea in People vs. Ritter

+2 nd Provision: Sec. 13: “The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.”

Notes:- It, the 1973 provision, was a reaction to the

upsurge of youth activism that marked the days prior to the adoption of the 1973 Constitution.

- Elders finally realized the responsibility, maturity and competence of the youth in

o the discussion o and solution of public issues

- Youth Considered as the “vital force in nation-building”

- Youth development:o Civic efficiency and moral character;o Physical,o Moral,o Spiritual,o Intellectual,o And social …well-being (Purpose: to be fully prepared to assume their responsibility of leadership and direction of country’s destiny.)

- Art. XIV, Sec. 1: “The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.”

o Out-of-school youth Aside from providing free public elementary and secondary education, must also be given:

Citizenship and vocational training

Scholarships (created and maintained by deserving students)

Optional religious instruction (for the

improvement of morals)

o E.g. Department of Education vs. San Diego: issue on the Constitutionality (validity) of the NMAT’s 3-flunk rule (basing from the provision above) provision not absolute (“The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. The private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. While his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love... State took decisive steps to regulate and enrich our system of education by directing the student to the course for which he is best suited as determined by initial tests and evaluations. Otherwise, we may be "swamped with mediocrity," in the words of Justice Holmes, not because we are lacking in intelligence but because we are a nation of misfits.” )

- E.g. Virtuoso vs. Municipal Judge (17-year old accused of robbery was required to post bail in the amt. of Php 16,000) Held: released- Child entitled to and Youth Welfare Code which is in implementation of Art. II, Sec. 12 (recognition of parents and counsel)

- Most of prominent leaders in the past were young men whose youth belied their competence and responsibility in the discharge of the significant tasks that the history assigned to them during the more crucial periods of our national existence.

o Rizal – died 35 y.o.

o Bonifacio- 33 y.o. when revolution broke out

o Aguinaldo- became President at 30 y.o.

o S. Osmeña- 29 y.o. when chosen as the Speaker of Phil. Assembly

o Wenceslao Vinzons- 25 y.o. when elected in Con-Con 1934

Women

Art. II, Sec. 14: “The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.”

- Does not suggest social upheaval- Provision implemented by legislature (which is

male-dominated)


16


- Art. XIII Sec. 14 on another provision on women: “The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation.”

Social Justice

- Most serious problems: may lead to violent social upheaval

o Acute imbalance bet. Rich and the poor (plight very well illustrated by the ditch-digger story; for him, the life is an unending cycle of drudgery and toil- a ceaseless struggle for survival for the elemental right to just exist instead of truly living )

o & Resultant divisiveness and hostility bet. them

- To alleviate the plight of the forgotten men, late Pres. Ramon Magsaysay (“those with less privileges in life should have more privileges in law”) pursued the policy of social justice (as seen in old and new constitutions)

- E.g. One case held that, Social Justice is not necessarily equality but protection because the law has a reason to demand a stricter compliance from those who have the security of resources than those who don’t have the means.

- Justice Laurel’s definition of Social Justice:

o “Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to ensure economic stability of all the component elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est supremo lex”

…from the classic case of Calalang vs. Williams where a traffic regulation in Manila banned animal-drawn vehicles from some streets in Rizal during certain afternoon hours. A citizen challenged this regulation.

The SC upheld the regulation as a valid exercise of police power in the interest of public welfare.

New provisions on Social justice:

Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.

Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.

Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.

Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.

Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.

Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.

- Framers were not satisfied with the above-mentioned provisions that they have also provided a new and separate Art. XIII on Social justice and Human Rights with subtopics on:

o Labor

o Agrarian

o Urban Land reform

o Housing

o Healthy

o Women

o People’s Organizations

o & Human Rights

Separation of Church and State

Art. II, Sec. 6: “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”

- Reproduction of Art. XV, sec. 15 of the 1973 Constitution

- Originally expressed in the Bill of Rights (“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”)


17


- Strong Fences make good Neighbors

o The idea:

delineate boundaries between the 2 institutions

avoid encroachments because of misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions

- Doctrine cut both ways

o State prohibited from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs

o Church barred from meddling in purely secular matters

- Plain Reason: A Union of Church and State ‘tends to destroy government and to degrade religion’.

- But the wall between the two is NOT a wall of hostility

o State recognizes the beneficent influence of religion in enrichment of nation’s life

J. Laurel: “In so far as it instills into the mind the purest principles of morality, the influence of religion is deeply felt and highly appreciated by the state”

- On preamble: ‘aid of Divine providence…’ manifest intense religious nature and unfaltering reliance upon him.

o Support from the Constitution

tax exemption on properties for religious purposes

Sectarian aid Optional religious education

Observance of the holy days of obligation

Allows divorce (not polygamy/bigamy)

Crimes against religious worship are also considered as crimes against the fundamental law of the state.

Supremacy of Civilian Authority

Art. II, Sec. 3: “Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.”

- Although implicit in a republican government, it felt advisable to expressly affirm the principle avoid all fears of military take-over of the civilian gov’t.

- Military physically strongest single institution that have the capacity to wrest power from constituted authorities

- Art. VII, sec. 18 “The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines …”

Local Autonomy

Art. II, Sec. 25: “The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.”

- Not specifically in 1935 constitution, but was dignified in the 1973 version

- Provision ‘fleshed out’ from Art. X (local Government) and the Local Government Code

- Jeffersonian View (on strengthening the Local Government) “municipal corporations are the small republics from which the great one derives its strength”

o Will enable its inhabitants to develop resources and contribute to progress to the whole nation.

o Deepened sense of involvement will encourage them to participate more actively in the direction of public affairs as members of the body politic.

Economy

Art II, Section 19. “The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. “

Art II, Section 20. “The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. “


18


Art II, Section 21. “The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. “

- Serve to demonstrate the strange desire of the framers to clutter the constitution (accdg. to the book) limited only to general statements

Miscellaneous

- Art. II contains miscellaneous subjects o in order to accommodate particular

authors

o and gratify their desire for expression and perpetuation of ideas

o (provisions are self-explanatory)

Section 15. “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.”

Section 16. “The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”

Section 17. “The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development.”

Section 22. “The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development.”

Section 23. “The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.”

Section 28. “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”

CASES APPLIED!

Section 1 (Republicanism) Moya v. Del Fierro: Whether or not the CA

committed an error in assigning certain ballots in favor of the respondents --erroneously declaring the respondent as the elected mayor.

o Held: Republicanism, in so far as it implies the adoption of a representative type of government, necessarily points to the enfranchised citizen as a particle of popular sovereignty and as the ultimate source of the established authority. He

has a voice in his Government and whenever called upon to act in justifiable cases, to give it efficacy and not to stifle it. This, fundamentally, is the reason for the rule that ballots should be read and appreciated, if not with utmost, with reasonable, liberality. (See assignments of error presented in the case)

Villavicencio v. Lukban: Containment of women of Ill-repute by deportation

o Held: Mayor’s act unconstitutional. It was not authorized by any law or ordinance. “Our government is a government of laws and not men.” (against the principle of freedom of domicile)

Yick Wo v. Hopkins: Undemocratic Treatment -Whether the denial of consent of the board of supervisors to the Chinese to carry on their laundry business is an act of racial discrimination, making the ordinance empowering the board of supervisors invalid.

o Held: The motive was mere racial hostility. The decision was held pursuant to the equal protection clause and due process clause embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which is said to be not confined to the protection of citizens only but is of universal in application. The said provision specifically states that: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws” As such, the Court held that the ordinance is oppressive and thus ordered the imprisonment of said petitioners illegal and must thus be discharged.

Section 2 (Incorporation Clause) Kuroda v. Jalandoni: A Japanese Lieutenant-

General charged before the military commission. Contended that Philippines have no jurisdiction over such matter.

o Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down on the Hague and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding that it is not a signatory thereto. It embodied generally accepted principles of international law binding upon all states.


19


Ichong v. Hernandez: The Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is against the principle of Pacta sunt servanda ("agreements must be kept").

o Held: Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional because it was passed in the exercise of the police power which cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty.

Gonzales v. Hechanova: A rice importation Statute vs. Treaty.

o Held: Municipal law was upheld over international law on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers under the rule-making powers of the Supreme Court. In this case, the contracts adverted to are NOT treaties.

Section 6 (Separation of Church and State) Aglipay vs. Ruiz: Stamps for the International

Eucharistic Congress to be held in Manila was condemned as unconstitutional and charged as against public policies based from the principles of Art. II, Sec. 6

o Held: There is no violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The issuance and sale of the stamps in question may be said to be linked with an event of a religious character, but the resulting propaganda, if any, received by the Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose of the government. The idea behind the issuance of the postage stamps was to attract tourists to our country and not primarily the religious event.

Section 13 in relation to Art. XIV, Sec. 1 (Rearing of Youth)

DECS v. San Diego: Kindly refer to Chapter 5 Reviewer

Section 10 and its other related provisions (Social justice)

Calalang v. Williams: WON the rules and regulations promulgated by respondents infringe upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people.

o Held: Does not infringe. The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken sympathy towards any given group. “Social justice is the humanization of laws

and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the greatest good to the greatest number” (Kindly refer to Chapter 5 Reviewer for more details

CHAPTER 6SEPARATION OF POWERS

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers:- MODIFIED under the 1973 Constitution with

the establishment of a semi-parliamentary government that made the legislature subordinate in many respects to the President (vested with the ultimate power of dissolving IT)

- Traditional concept of DoctrineRESTORED with several significant MODIFICATIONS

- 3 Major Departments & so have the 3 Constitutional Commissions (established in the past charters) were MAINTAINED

- Created other Independent Bodies- Separation of Principal

PowersPRESERVED!- Judiciary (regarded as the weakest)

o CONSIDERABLY STRENGTHENED with the conferment on it of ADDITIONAL and IMPT. POWERS

- Political Departments (changes inspired by the Marcos Authoritarianism Experience)

o Executive powers lessened o Legislature increased in authority

- Commission on AppointmentsREVIVALo A check upon the appointing power in

general- Judicial and Bar CouncilCREATION

o Ensure better selection of the members of Judiciary

- Electoral TribunalsRESTORED with modification in membership

o Act as a “sole judge” of all contests to the elections, returns and qualifications of the members of the respective Houses.

This function was taken away from them in the 1973 Constitution and reappointed to the COMELEC


20


Why is the Doctrine Observed in our country? - Regarded as a characteristic of Republicanism- Major Powers of the government are actually

distributed by the CONSTITUTION among the several departments and the several constitutional commissions.

o Art. VI, Section 13NO member of congress may hold any other office or employment in the government during his term without forfeiting his seat.

Purposes

- Intended to prevent concentration of authority in one person or grp. Of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions.

- Justice Laurel:o Intended to secure action, to forestall

overaction, to prevent despotism and obtain efficiency

o Interdependence (not independence) Keynote for conduct of the

various agencies of the government

- Limitations: Legislature- enactment of

laws May not enforce/apply

them Executive- enforcement of

laws May not enact/apply

them Judiciary- application of laws

May not enforce/enact them

o Objectives does not call for the “Doctrinaire Application” of the theory or the observance “with pedantic rigor” -words of Justice Frankfurter

- Desirable Certain degree of Independence among constitutional agencies and NOT to deal with each other at arm’s length or with hostile jealousy of their respective rights

o If not followed, this might result in FRUSTRATION of the common objectives of the government.

- Frankin Roosevelto “The letter of the Constitution wisely declared

a separation, but the impulse of common purpose declares a union.”

Blending of PowersThere are instances under the constitution when powers are not confined exclusively within one

department but are in fact assigned to or shared by several departments.

- Difficulty: classifying whether it’s legislative, executive or judicial

- Justice Holmes: “the great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white. Even more specific of them are found to terminate in penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to another.

- Powers of the gov’t. Not at all times can be contained with mathematical precision in water-tight compartments because of ambiguous nature.

o E.g. Power of appointment (rightfully exercised by each department)

- Why is it Necessary for certain powers to be reposed in more than 1 dept.?

o So that they may better collaborate with and in process check, each other for the public good.

E.g. General Appropriations Law (preparation by the President, which becomes a basis of the bill adopted by the Congress ad subsequently passed to the President for approval), Grant of Amnesty (where the President need the concurrence of the majority of all the members of the Congress), Commission on Elections (does not solely deputize law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities, so as the President)

Checks and Balances

- Doctrine especially workable due to the corollary system of checks and balances

o One department is allowed to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives as to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments.

Not itself an arrogation Constitution provides for the

system of counteraction Theory: ends of gov’t. are

better achieved through the exercise by its agencies of only the powers assigned to them, subject to reversal in proper cases by those constitutionally authorized.

- Illustrations:o Lawmaking power of congress- checked by

the veto power of President, which may also be overridden by the legislature

o Congress may refuse to give its concurrence- amnesty given by President

o Senate may refuse to give its concurrence- treaties concluded by President


21


o President may nullify conviction through pardon

o Congress may limit the jurisdiction of the SC, inferior courts and even abolish latter tribunals

o Judiciary has the power to declare invalid an act done by the Congress, President and his subordinates or Constitutional commissions.

The Role of the Judiciary

- Sees to it that the constitutional distribution of powers among several departments of the gov’t. is respected and observed

o Does not mean that it is superior to the other depts.

o Correct View: SC mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries or invalidates the acts of a coordinate body, what it is upholding is not its supremacy BUT the supremacy of the Constitution

o Tests done not always necessarily on the nature of the power. CRITERIA:

WON the power in question, regardless of its nature has been constitutionally conferred upon the dept. claiming its exercise?

If Grant ascertained power sustained

- Conferment Power usually done expressly

o Vesture of:

Legislative Power- Congress

Executive power- President

Judicial- SC and lower courts

When the Constitution permits it, it should be followed:

- Expressly lodged in congresso Power to impeach (essentially

executive)

o Power to try and decide impeachment cases (essentially judicial)

o Power of Investigation (more executive or judicial than legislative)

- Supreme court – can exercise executive power over removal judges of inferior courts; appointed by the president too

- President - authorized by the Congress to exercise tariff and emergency powers (legislative in nature)

- Doctrine of implicationtheory that the grant of an express power carries with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

o CASE: Angara vs. Electoral Commission- certain rules of procedure promulgated by the respondent were challenged on the ground that they had not been expressly authorized by the 1935 Constitution. The SC declared that they were necessary to the proper exercise of the power granted to the body to hear and decide election contests involving members of the legislature.

o E.g. Power to punish contempt (judicial in nature) but can be exercised by the legislature

‘Express power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation’

- There also powers which are not expressly or impliedly granted by the Constitution but are justified as inherent or incidental

o E.g. President (as head of gov’t.) may independently of constitutional or statutory authority deport undesirable aliens as an “act of State” even as the Congress can punish any person who impugns its integrity without proof.

o For the court part, it may claim the contempt power inherent in the judiciary

Justiciable and Political Questions

- Power of the Judiciary to review official action to check whether the act in question had been performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the Constitution.

o Justiciable Courts have jurisdiction to intervene

Judiciary in such case would not be encroaching upon


22


exclusive functions of another dept.

As its role focused on ensuring proper observance of the norms of action prescribed in the Constitution

CASE: Casibang vs. Aquino “A purely justiciable questin implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.” (Justice Makasiar)

o Political Question Where matters fall under the discretion of other departments, and consequently may not be the subject of judicial review

Considerations affecting wisdom and efficacy or practicability of a law should come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress

Interpretations on certain provisions as well (e.g. “Other high crimes” for impeachment grounds)

- CASE: Tañada v. Cuenco involved the provision in the 1935 constitution that the Electoral Tribunal should constitute 3 members from the SC, 6 from each house– 3 from majority party and 3 from minority). The senate at that time included 1 representative from the minority and disregarded the procedural requisites just to fill the seats and satisfy the constitutional requisites of the said tribunal. The Court assumed jurisdiction over the matter and explained what ‘political question is’

o That it connotes a question of policy

o For executive/legislative to decide

o Concerned with the wisdom and not the legality of a particular measure.

- CASE (book): Sanidad v. COMELECOn whether the case is justiciable

o Political questions are associated with the wisdom, not of the legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. If the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed was valid or not. On whether the President may propose Constitutional amendments

If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but an adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative power. (Note that at the time Pres. Marcos had legislative powers and there was no legislative department at the time)

- CASE (book): Daza v. Singson Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and not the wisdom of the act, the Court may take jurisdiction and decide on the acts’ validity. Even in political questions the Court may take jurisdiction under the expanded judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

o “Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government.”

Application of the Doctrine (Case-to-case Basis)

Hey! The highlighted cases below are the particular cases assigned in the syllabus, for better understanding, kindly consider reading pages 84-89 of Cruz’s Philippine Political law. (Tons of examples there!)

- CASE: Abueva vs. Wood A writ of mandamus could not be issued against the chief executive to compel to produce certain vouchers relative to the expenses of an official mission.

- CASE: Arnualt vs. Balagtas the question raised by the petitioner was the legality of his detention by order of the Senate for his refusal to answer questions put him by one of its investigating committees. The SC refused to


23


order his release deferred to the discretionary authority of the legislative body to punish contumacious witness for contempt.

- CASE: Philippine Bar Association vs. COMELEC the calling of the “snap” presidential elections on Feb. 7, 1986 by the Batasang Pambansa was held by the SC to be a political question resoluble only by sovereign electorate.

- CASE: Avelino vs. Cuenco Where the incumbent Senate Pres. Was deposed and replaced; whereupon he questioned his successors title, arguing that the latter has been elected without a quorum. Petition was dismissed at first because the selection of presiding officer in the Senate is an internal matter and that it cannot be reviewed by the judiciary. But in a motion to reconsideration, the SC assumed jurisdiction ‘in the light of subsequent events which justified its intervention’ and among other reasons is that because there is a quorum.

- CASE: Lansang vs. Garcia Where the SC asserted the right to inquire into the factual basis of the suspension and to annul the same if it appeared from its own investigations that the grounds invoked by the President did not actually exist.

- CASE: Noblejas vs. Teehankee The Administrative investigation of an executive official should be undertaken by the President and not the SC even if it was provided by law that such official had the rank and privileges of a judge of the CFI. Neither may the SC be compelled by law to act as a mere board of arbitrators, an essentially executive body, particularly because whatever decisions it might make in the discharge of its administrative functions would ultimately have to be reviewed by the same members in the exercise of their judicial powers.

Political Questions under the New Constitution

- Political Question constricted to new constitution

- Judicial power (latest definition) “includes the duty …to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch of the Gov’t. “

o Duty and Power is available even against the executive and legislative depts.., including the President and Congress, in the exercise of discretionary powers.

- Art. VII, Sec. 18: “The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.”

o No doubt of the authority of SC

o Above provision would not do away entirely with political question doctrine

o Not clear on what discretionary acts are subject to judicial review, outside of those specifically mentioned in the constitution and what acts remains as prerogatives of political departments, even with the said enlargement of judicial power cannot be examined by the courts.

CHAPTER 7DELEGATION OF POWERS

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

-potestas delegate non delegari potest or what has been delegated cannot be delegated-ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through his own judgment and not the intervening mind of another-applicable to all the three major powers of the government-most important in the case of the legislative branch

DELEGATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE

Reasons:

1. Increasing complexity of the task of the government2. Growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with many problems demanding its attention3. Necessity for specialization

*Note: Congress may create an administrative body that shall empower and promulgate needed rules and regulations. Such shall have statutory limitations or broad policies pre-determined by the legislature itself.


24


DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS:

1. Delegation of Tariff Powers to the President2. Delegation of Emergency Powers to the President3. Delegation to the People at Large4. Delegation to Local Governments5. Delegation to administrative bodies

TARIFF POWERSSec. 28 (2)-The President is granted stand-by or flexible Tariff powers in the Tariff and Customs Code. It may impose tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the national development programs of the government.

-act immediately on certain matters affecting the national economy lest delay result in hardship to the people.

EMERGENCY POWERSSec. 23 (2)The conditions for the vesture of emergency powers in the president are the following:

1. There must be war of other national emergency.2. The delegation must be for a limited period only.3. The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the congress may prescribe.4. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by the congress.

*Note: There cannot be any delegation of emergency powers in the absence of an emergency. Such powers are also self-liquidating, unless sooner drawn, as such will cease upon the end of the emergency.

Emergency: Outbreak of Warmay include rebellion, economic crisis, pestilence or epidemic, typhoon, flood, or other similar catastrophe of nation-wide proportions or effect

*Conferment of emergency powers in the President is not mandatory on the Congress.

DELEGATION TO THE PEOPLEReferendum-a method of submitting an important legislative measure to a direct vote of the whole people. Plebiscite-is a device to obtain a direct popular vote on a matter of political importance, but chiefly in order to create some more or less permanent political condition.

In Sanidad vs Commission on Elections, the Supreme Court appears to have sustained the view that the referendum is merely advisory or consultative and does not have a binding force. It simply means

assessing public reactions to the given issues submitted to the people for their consideration.

A plebiscite on the other hand, involves the constituent act of those citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are eighteen years of age and over, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months preceding the election.

In Lopez vs. Commission on Elections, however, Chief Justice Fernando equated the referendum with plebiscite or apparently considered them identical.

DELEGATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

-Local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the national lawmaking body on matters of purely local concern an are therefore in a better position to enact the necessary and appropriate legislation thereon.-Such legislation is not regarded as transfer of general legislative power, but the authority to prescribe local regulations according to immemorial practices, and subject to the interposition of superior cases in necessity.

DELEGATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES-Proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems-power of subordinate legislation-filling in the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity of competence to provide

TESTS OF DELEGATION

-whether or not the delegation has been validly made-to be valid, the legislation itself must be circumscribed by legislative restrictions not a roving commission that will give the delegate unlimited legislative authority

THE COMPLETENESS TEST-Ideally, the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him except enforce it.-Gaps lead to the enforcement of legislative task by the delegate to repair the omissions, which is an invalid legislation.-In U.S. vs. Ang Tang Ho, the Supreme Court sustained the contention. It declared that the legislature does not define the specific conditions where the Governor-General shall issue the proclamation. It does not define as well, what is an extraordinary increase in the price of palay, rice, or other cereal. The task is left to the discretion of the Governor-General. The law is thus incomplete as legislation.


25


THE SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST

-Intended to map the boundaries of the delegate's authority be defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued or effected.-to prevent a total transference of legislative power from the lawmaking body to the delegate.

CHAPTER 8THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

-THE NEW CONSTITUTION has revived the Congress of the Philippines, which was replaced during the Batasang Pambansa during the Marcos regime.-The new Congress, however, represents a return to bicameralism, after years of unicameralism established by the 1973 Constitution and the 1935 Constitution before being amended in 1940.-Malolos Congress and Taft Commission during the early years of the American Regime were also unicameral.-Philippine Bill of 1902 provided for a legislature consisting of a Philippine Assembly and the Philippine Commission.-These were replaced by the House of Representatives and the Senate under the Jones Law.-Same division is being followed at present, except for some modifications like Section 1 of Article VI:"The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of Senate and House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision of initiative and referendum.-The congress also discharges powers of a non-legislative nature like the canvass of presidential elections, the declaration of a state of war, the confirmation of amnesties, and presidential appointments (through the Commission on Appointments).

SENATESec 2 states that "the Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law."

SENATE: Training ground for leaders even the Presidency.

: Broader outlook of the country rather than limited viewpoints.

QUALIFICATIONS

Section 3: "no person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day

of the elections, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election."

Natural-born citizens-Article VI, Section 2, of the Constitution-Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3); Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

Age Qualification: 35 on the day of the elections when the polls are opened

-not on the day of the proclamation of the winners

-nullifies the ruling in the case of Espinosa vs. Aquino, which upheld the late Senator Benigno Aquino, who was less than the required age on the day of the election but celebrated his thirty-fifth birth anniversary before his proclamation as one of the winners.

Residence: Place where one habitually resides and has the intention of returning

Expresio unius est exclusion alterius-with the result that it is not competent for the Congress to provide by mere legislation for additional requirements no matter how relevant they may be. e.g. Statutory requirement of a college degree for a membership in the congress would be unconstitutional.

Term is governed by Article VI and XVIII-Sec. 4-six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.-Sec. 2.-The twenty-four senators first elected under the 1987 constitution served only for five years, from May 1987 to June 30, 1992.-Senators serving for six years began after the 1992 elections.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Composed of District Representatives and Party-list Representatives-District Representatives-elected directly and personally from the territorial unit-Party-list Representative-chosen indirectly through the party he represents, which the one is voted for by the electorate.

District Representatives-shall not be more than two hundred members, directly elected from various legislative districts, unless otherwise provided by law.


26


Party-list Representatives-initially there are 50 seats allotted to party-list members, to be chosen from the various parties listed in the Commission on Elections which have presented candidates in the election.-The number of candidates to be elected from each party shall depend on the percentage or proportion of votes obtained by the party in the election.-The voter shall vote for the party itself And not for its individual candidates.

QUALIFICATIONSSec. 6-Natural-born citizen of the Philippines-at least 25 on the day of the election-able to read and write (except the party-list representatives)- A resident voter of a district and a resident (of the district) of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.

Term: Sec. 7. Three Years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon of the thirtieth day of June following their election.

-No Member of the House shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.

-Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service.

ELECTIONSec. 9.- Special election, as prescribed by law, may be done to fill a vacancy.

-The Senator or the Member of the House of Representative shall serve only for the unexpired term.

PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES

Sec. 11- "A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years of imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Sec. 12-"All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives hall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors."INCOMPATIBLE AND FORBIDDEN OFFICES-No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or

employment in the Government and Government-owned corporations.

INHIBITIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS-Appearance of the legislator is now barred before all courts of justice, regardless of rank, composition, or jurisdiction.-Also applies to the revived Electoral Tribunals and to all administrative bodies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission.-Court martial and military tribunals, being administrative agencies, are included.

OFFICERS-Sec. 16-Senate shall elect a President and the House shall elect a Speaker. Term is not fixed and may be replaced anytime at the pleasure of the majority of all the members.

QUORUM is defined as any number sufficient to transact business, which may be less than the majority of the membership. In our Constitution, it is required that the quorum be a majority of the members of each House.

DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERSArticle VI, Sec. 16 (3)-Any member with disorderly behavior may be suspended or expelled by concurrence of two-thirds of all its members.

JOURNALS(4) Each house shall keep journals and record of its proceedings, excepting some parts that may affect national security.

ADJOURNMENT(5) "Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting"

THE ELECTORAL TRIBUNALSSec. 17-Sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members.

-Composed of nine members: 3 justices of the Supreme Court, 6 Members of the Senate or House of Representatives (as the case may be, shall come from proportional representation from political parties and party-list system represented).

-Senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be the chairman.


27


COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTSSec. 18-Consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex-officio Chairman, twelve members of the Senate, and twelve members of the House of Representatives (as the case may be, shall come from proportional representation from political parties and party-list system represented).-The chairman shall not vote except in case of a tie.-The commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission.-The commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the members.

ORGANIZATIONSec. 19-The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker.-The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority call of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.-Based on the need to enable the president to exercise his/her appointing power with dispatch in coordination with the Commission on Appointments.-The Electoral Tribunals are supposed to continue functioning even during the recess.

CHAPTER 9POWERS OF THE CONGRESS

- may be classified generally to legislative and non-legislative

Legislative power- the power of the lawmaking body; the framing and

enactment of laws- it is effected through a bill (the proposed or

projected law), which once approved becomes a statute (the written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms necessary to constitute it the law of the state)

Procedure of how a bill becomes a law:

1. The bill is introduced by any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate (except for some measures that must originate only in the House of Representatives)

2. The First Reading- it involves only a reading of the number and title

of the measure and its referral by the Senate President or the Speaker of the House to the proper committee for study

- The bill may be “killed” in the committee or it may be recommended for approval, with or without amendments, sometimes after public hearings are first held thereon.

- If there are other bills of the same nature, these bills may be consolidated into one bill under common authorship or as a committee bill.

3. The Second Reading- The bill is read in its entirety, scrutinized, debated

upon and amended when desired. IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT STAGE IN THE PASSAGE OF A BILL.

4. The Third Reading- Members merely register their votes and explain

them if allowed by the rules- Once the bill passes the third reading, it is sent to

the other Chamber where it will undergo three readings. If there are differences between the versions approved by the two chambers, a conference committee representing both houses will draft a compromise measure.

Origin of Bills- As mentioned earlier, there are some bills in

which ONLY the House of Representatives is allowed to legislate.

Bills that originates at the House of Representatives:

1. Appropriation Bill – its purpose is to authorize the release of funds from the public treasury

2. Revenue Bill – it levies taxes and raises funds for the government

- A TARIFF BILL, however, specifies the rates or duties to be imposed on imported articles.

3. A bill increasing the public debt – it is illustrated by one floating bonds for public subscription redeemable after a certain period

4. Private bills – it is illustrated by a bill granting honorary citizenship to a distinguished foreigner

5. Bill of Local application – it involves purely local or municipal matters, like city charters

Prohibited Measures:

1. Bills that impairs the doctrine of separation of powers or provides for the appointment of elective officers

2. Ex- post facto bills, bills of attainder, or laws that impairs the obligations of contracts


28


3. As provided by Sec. 31, Art. VI, bills that grants title of royalty or nobility

4. Art. VI, Sec. 30, bills that increases jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Title of Bills- “every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace

only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof”

Purpose of the rule:

1. To prevent hodgepodge or log- rolling legislation

- It is any act containing several subjects dealing with unrelated matters representing diverse interests

2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature

3. To fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation that is being considered

Approval of Bills(Art. VI, Sec. 27)

Methods in which a BILL becomes a LAW:- after the bill passed the third reading, it is

submitted to the President for signing, it becomes a law when:

1. The President signs it

2. When the President vetoes it but the veto is overridden by two- thirds of all members of each Houses

- In general, the President must approve or disapprove it entirely except on appropriation, revenue and tariff bills

3. When the President does not act upon the measure within thirty days after it having presented to him

Legislative Inquiries(Art. VI, Sec. 21)- the Congress (House of Representatives and

Senate) may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation - the conduct of investigation must be strictly in

conformity with the rules of procedure that must have been published in advance for the information and protection of the witnesses

- Reason for it is that in the past this power was much abused by some legislators usually for grandstanding purposes only and some subjects

were outside the scope of the powers of the Congress.

Legislative contempt – it is imposed when the witness failed or refused to attend a legitimate legislative investigation or contumacy of the witness- it includes imprisonment that may last until the

final adjournment of the body (Arnault vs Nazareno)

Appearance of Department Heads(Art. VI, Sec. 22)- this provision enables the Congress to obtain

information from the department secretaries on the manner they are implementing the enacted laws and also on matters related to pending or prospective legislation

The power of Appropriation(Art. VI, Sec. 29 (1))

Appropriation – a statute in which the primary and specific purpose id to authorize the release of public funds from the treasury- may be classified into general and special

appropriations

Limitations:1. It must be devoted to a public purpose2. Must be determinate or at least determinable 3. Must appropriate a fixed amount(Constitutional Limitations)4. Must originate from the House of

Representatives5. Article VI, sec. 25 (6) – discretionary funds

appropriated for particular officials6. Art. VI, Sec. 25 (4) – special appropriations bill

- The purpose is to discontinue the practice of fictitious appropriations even if no funds were available

7. Art. VI, Sec. 25 (1) – congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President

- based on the theory that the President knows more about the needed appropriations than the legislature.

8. Art. VI, Sec. 29 (1) – this is an exact reproduction of Art. VI, Sec. 19(2) of the 1935 Constitution

- Purpose is to prevent “riders” or irrelevant provisions that are included in the general appropriations bill to ensure approval

Appropriations for Sectarian Purposes: (Art. VIII, Sec. 29 (2))


29


- This provision must be read with Art. III, Sec. 5 on religious freedom and Art. II, Sec. 6, the separation of the church and the state

- Its purpose is to further bolster this principle and emphasize the neutrality of the State on ecclesiastical matters

Exceptions: 1. As provided by the SC in its decision on the

case of Aglipay Vs Ruiz, if the purpose is not purely for the promotion of any sect but for the promotion of the State, to attract more tourists, then it is not unconstitutional

2. In Garces vs Estenzo, the SC ruled that purchase of religious image by the barangay council by private funds raised from voluntary contributions is not unconstitutional

3. The provision does not inhibit the use of public property for religious purposes when it is merely incidental and a temporary use e.g. a public street may be used for religious processions

4. Public funds is prohibited to ecclesiastics only – it means if the clergy man are involved to non-religious activities by the government then he will be paid accordingly not as ecclesiastics

Automatic re-appropriation – if at the end of the fiscal year, the Congress fails to pass an appropriation bill, unlike the former tradition provided by the 1935 Constitution; the old appropriations act is deemed continued in operation notwithstanding the lapse of the fiscal year until the Congress enacts a new general appropriations law

Special Funds (Art. VI, Sec. 29 (3))- all money collected on any tax levied for special

purpose shall be treated as a special fund

The Power of Taxation- inherent in the State and is generally vested in the

Legislature

Restrictions: 1. Taxation shall be uniform and equitable.

Uniform in a way that persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. It should also be equitable, which means that the tax burden must be imposed according to the taxpayer’s capacity to pay.

2. Tax system should be progressive in a way that it should be suited to the social conditions of the people.

3. Tax exemption in favor of educational institutions, charitable institutions, only if they or their lands, improvements and buildings are actually, directly and exclusively devoted to their basic purposes, and to non- profit cemeteries.

The Power of Concurrence- bills are ordinarily with the support of the majority- but grant of amnesty and entering into treaties,

the concurrence of the members as a whole in terms of amnesty grants and concurrence of at least 2/3 for treaties

The War Powers(Sec. 23 (1)) - The Congress, by vote of two- thirds of both

Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war

- The provision suggests a war already begun; it means we are not the aggressor but merely reacting to an aggression.

Initiative- The power of the people to propose bills and

laws, and to enact or reject them at the polls, independent of the legislative assembly

Referendum- right reserved to the person to adopt or reject any

act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body and which in most cases would without action on the part of the electors become a law.

CHAPTER 10THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

- the main motivation of the framers was to prevent the recurrence of another despot like the discredited ex-dictator

The Executive Power (Art. VII, Sec, 1)- briefly described as the power to enforce and

administer the laws

Qualifications (Art. VII, Sec. 2)

1. Natural – born citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to perfect his citizenship

2. A registered voter3. Able to read and write


30


4. at least forty (40) years of age on the day of the election, however this was changed in the 1972 Constitution on the belief that at the age of fifty (50) will mean maturity of the candidate, only to return to the original age qualification by the year 1984

5. a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election to ensure close touch by the President with the country of which he is to be the highest official

Election and Proclamation- the President, as well as the Vice- President, are

elected by direct vote of the people- presidential elections shall be held at six year

intervals on the second Monday of May- Canvass of election returns and proclamation of

winners shall be conducted under Art. VII, Sec. 4Term(Definition not provided by the book)- it is the period provided by law of how long an

elected official will remain in position- the term of office of both the President and Vice

President is (6) years- it is however different with tenure, the latter is the

exact period of how long an elected official remained in his position e.g. the term of office of the president is six (6) years but due to impeachment, his tenure of office is only 2 years

- the president is not entitled to a re-election- NO PERSON who has succeeded as President

and has served as such for more than four (4) years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time, but in the case of Pres. Gloria Macapagal – Arroyo, at the time she succeeded then Pres. Estrada, her tenure of office as President was only until June 30, 2004 and was not more than four years, so she is eligible for election for President

The Vice President- elected directly for a term of six years- may be removed from office by impeachment - qualifications are the same as the President’s - eligible for a position in the Cabinet and such

appointment need not to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments (intended to prevent him from becoming a mere presidential standby)

- eligible for re-election

Presidential Succession- there are two sets of rules governing presidential

succession: vacancies before the President’s term (Art. VII, Sec. 7) and vacancies occurring after (Art. VII, Sec.8)

Vacancies before the President assumes to office:

1. death or permanent disability of the President- elect

2. failure to elect the President, as where the canvass of the Presidential elections has not yet been completed

3. the President- elect failed to qualify to assume his office by taking the oath and entering into the discharge of his duties

- in the first case, the Vice President shall become President

- the succeeding two cases, the Vice President shall merely act as President until such time the President shall have been chosen and qualified

Vacancies occurring in the Office of the President during his incumbency:

1. death2. permanent disability3. removal4. resignation

- in the even that both Offices of the President and Vice President are vacated, the Congress shall, at ten o’clock in the morning at the third day after the vacancy convene in accordance with its rules without the need of a call and within seven days enact a law calling for a special election, such bill will become law on approval at the third reading

- but if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the next election, no special election shall be held

Oath of Office(Art. VII, Sec. 5)- it is not a source of substantive power but is

merely intended to deepen the sense of responsibility of the President and ensure a more conscientious discharge of his office

Perquisites and inhibitions(Art. VII, Sec. 6)Perquisites:

1. the President shall have an official residence2. the salaries of the President and the VP shall

be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure

3. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent

4. they shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument from the government or any other source

Inhibitions:(Art. VII, Sec. 13)

1. The President, Vice- President, Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants


31


shall not, unless provided by the Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure

2. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

3. The spouse, relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commission, or Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices

- These inhibitions are in line with the principle that a public office is a public trust and should not be abused for personal advantage

Presidential Immunities- it covers only the incumbent President- the immunity of the President from suit covers

only official acts

Chapter IIPOWERS OF THE PRESIDENT

Profound influence as a Head of State and chief executive of the Republic of the Philippines.

This influence derives from the vast powers that the president has to assume leadership in the conduct of public and governmental affairs.

This leadership is displayed by him not only in the enforcement of laws but also in their enactment, as well as in the conduct of foreign affairs, the command of the armed forces, the administration of the government and even the crystallization of public opinion on vital issues.

Does the President enjoy the totality of executive powers? Is he authorized to exercise any power so long as it is by nature executive?

o In Villena v. Secretary of the Interior- The Supreme Court held that “the President of the Philippines is the Executive of the Government of the Philippines, and no other.”

o Stricter interpretation of executive power (Lacson v. Roque & Mondano v. Silvosa) - “the President’s power of general supervision over local governments could be exercised by him only “as may be provided by law” in accordance with the constitutional limitation.

o In Marcos v. Manglapus- “the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive

power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated.”

I. The Appointing Power Appointment, defined- the selection, by the

authority vested with power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. Although intrinsically executive, the appointing power may be exercised by the legislature and by the judiciary, as well as the Constitutional Commissions, over their own respective personnel.

An appointment may be made verbally but is usually done in writhing through what is called the commission.

The Commission- is the written evidence of an appointment.

“Art. VII, Sec. 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.“The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission of Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.”

This provision has not done away with the distinction between permanent and temporary or acting appointments:

o Permanent appointments- those extended to persons possessing the requisite eligibility and are thus protected by the constitutional provision on security of tenure.

o Temporary appointments- are given to persons without such eligibility; are revocable at will and without the necessity of just cause or a valid investigation. They are extended upon the understanding that the appointing power has not yet decided on a permanent appointee and that the


32


temporary appointee may be replaced at any time a final choice shall have been made by the President.

Appointment distinguished from designation:o Designation- simply the imposition of

additional duties, usually by law, on a person already in the public service.

Both the temporary appointment and designation are not subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

6 categories of officials who are subject to the appointing power of the President

1. The heads of the executive departments.

2. Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.3. Officers of the armed forces from the rank of

colonel or naval captain. (Under the 1935 Constitution- empowered to appoint “officers of the army from the rank of colonel and of the navy and air force from the rank of captain or commander; 1973 Constitution- the rank was raised to brigadier-general or commodore.

4. Those other officers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution. (e.g. Ombudsman)

5. All other officers of the government whose appointments are not provided for by law. (e.g. The Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights)

6. Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. (e.g. the members of the various statutory administrative agencies)

With respect to officers lower in rank, the Congress may allow their appointments to be made by the President alone, the courts, and the heads of departments, agencies, commissions and boards.

“Officers low in rank”- those below the rank of or subordinate to those in whom the power of appointment is vested.

Under 1935 Constitution: the President’s appointing power is subject to check by the Commission on Appointments; this was abolished by the 1973 Charter.

Regular Appointment Ad Interim Appointment Nomination- made

by the President; Confirmation-

prerogative of the Commission on Appointments;

Issuance of the commission- done by the President.

Appointment comes before confirmation, which is made by the Commission when it reconvenes following the legislative recess.

Made during recess and becomes effective then, subject to the

confirmation or rejection later, during the next legislative session.

Made during the legislative session

Made during recess

Made only after the nomination is confirmed by the Commission on Appointments

Made before such confirmation

Once confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, continues until the end of the term of the appointee

Shall cease to be valid if disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or upon the next adjournment of the Congress.

The appointment is deemed “by-passed” through inaction of, and so disapproved impliedly by, the Commission on Appointments.

Intended to prevent a hiatus in the discharge of official duties. The public office would be immobilized to the prejudice of the people if the President had to wait for the Congress and the Commission on Appointments to reconvene before he could fill a vacancy occurring during the recess.

Limitations to President’s power of appointment: The Congress may limit it through its power to

prescribe qualifications for public office.

The judiciary for its part may annul an appointment if the appointee has not been validly confirmed or does not possess the required qualifications.

“Art. VII, Sec.14. Appointments extended by an acting President shall remain affective unless revoked by the elected President within 90 days from his assumption of office.” (This emphasized the caretaker capacity of the Acting President but at the same time allows the elected President to ratify his appointments by mere inaction during the specified 90 days.)

“Art. VII, Sec. 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President of Acting President shall not


33


make appointments except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.” (Purpose: to prevent the use, or abuse, of the appointing power for the purpose of enlisting political support in exchange for some appointive office in government; will also prevent “midnight appointments” that may be issued by an outgoing president.

II. The Removal Power

From the express power of appointment, the President derives the implied power of appointment.

However, not all officials appointed by him are also removable by him since the Constitution prescribes certain methods for the separation from the public service of some such officers. (e.g. Ombudsman, members of the Supreme Court, although appointed by the President, may be removed only by impeachment in accordance with Article XI.

o Exception: With respect to the Cabinet or to other executive officials whose term of office is determined at the pleasure of the President.

III. The Control Power

“Art. VII, Sec. 17. The President shall have the control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.” Control, defined- “the power of an officer to alter or

modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.”

Control- includes the authority:

o to order the doing of an act by a subordinate

o to undo such an act; oro to assume a power directly vested in him

by law. Control vs. Supervision

o Supervision- “overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties.

o In Drilon v. LimControl SupervisionAn officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. If they are no followed, he may order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself.

The supervisor merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them, though he can still or order the work done or re-done if the rules are not observed.

Theoretically, the President has full control of all the members of the Cabinet. He may appoint them as he sees fit, shuffle them at pleasure, and replace them in his discretion without any legal inhibition whatever.

o In Villena v. Secretary of Interior- “without minimizing the importance of the heads of various departments, their personality is in reality but the projection of that of the President.”

It should be noted, however, that the power of control is exercisable by the President over the acts of his subordinates and not necessarily over the subordinate himself.

IV. The “Take-Care” Clause The power to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed makes the President a dominant figure in the administration of the government.

The law he is supposed to enforce includes:

o The Constitutiono Statuteso Judicial decisionso Administrative ruleso Municipal ordinanceso Treaties entered into by the government.

It is not for the President to determine the validity of a law since this is a question exclusively addressed to the judiciary. Hence, until and unless a law is declared unconstitutional, the President has a duty to execute it regardless of his doubts on its validity.

V. The Military Power


34


“Art. VII, Sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus

arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.”

This section bolsters the principle announced in Article II, Section 3 that “civilian authority us, at all times, supreme over the military.”

By making the President the commander-in-chief- of all the armed forces, the Constitution lessens the danger of a military take-over of the government in violation of it republican nature.

It is important that the military be subordinated to the President so he can keep it in check whenever it is tempted to impose its will upon the government.

Hazard: There is some hazard in entrusting final military

decisions to a civilian President without much background in military matters.

The danger becomes especially marked in times of war or when the President happens to be opinionated or is unwilling to defer to the recommendations of his more knowledgeable military advisers.

Counter-argument Such a situation, although not impossible, would

be unlikely, given the sense of responsibility that can be expected from any person elevated to the position of President.

The military power enables the President to:

o Command all the armed forces of the Philippines;

o Suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus; and

o Declare martial law

1. Command of the Armed Forces

The “power of the sword” makes the President the most important figure in the country in times of war or other similar emergency.

It is because the sword must be wielded with courage and resolution that the President is given vast powers in the making and carrying out of military decisions.


35


Accordingly, it has been held that he can determine what degree of force a particular crisis demands.

2. Habeas Corpus

The power of the President to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not without limitations. It may be revoked by the Congress or the Supreme Court in proper cases.

Art. VII, Sec. 18 must be read with Art. III, Sec. 15: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.”

The writ of habeas corpus: “is a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf. (The object is the liberation of those who may be in prison without sufficient cause)

Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself, but only its privilege. This means that when the court receives an application for the writ, and it finds the petition in proper form, it will issue the writ as a matter of course.

The Supreme Court has the power to annul the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if the same is not based on either of the two grounds stated in the Constitution: “invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.”

Will the Supreme Court have the competence to ascertain the existence of the grounds for the purpose of determining the validity of the suspension:

o In Montenegro case- ‘the determination by the President of the Philippines of the existence of any grounds prescribed by the Constitution for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should be conclusive upon the courts. The President was in a better position than the Supreme Court to ascertain the real state of peace and order in the country.

o In Lansang v. Garcia- The Supreme Court declared that it had the power to inquire into the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by President Marcos in Aug. 1971 and to annul the same if no legal ground could be established.

It should also be noted that under Art. III, Sec. 13: “the right to bail shall not be impaired even if the

privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.”

3. Martial Law

Martial law in its strict sense refers to that law which has application when the military arm does not supersede civil authority but is called upon to aid it in the execution of its civil function. The declaration of martial law has no further legal effect than to warn the citizens “that the military powers have been called upon by the executive to assist him in the maintenance of law and order and that while the emergency lasts, they must upon pain of arrest and punishment, not commit any act which will in any way render difficult the restoration of order and the enforcement of law.

When martial law is declared, no new powers are give to the executive; no extension of arbitrary authority is recognized; no civil rights of the individual are suspended. Whatever interference there may be with their personal freedom or property rights must be justified, as in the case of the police power, by necessity actually existing or reasonably presumed.

Limitations of the President’s Military/Commander-in-Chief Powers1. He may call out the armed forces when it becomes

necessary to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion only.

2. The grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the proclamation of martial law are now limited only to invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.

3. The duration of such suspension or proclamation shall not exceed 60 days, following which it shall automatically lifted.

4. Within 48 hours after such suspension or proclamation, the President shall personally or in writing report his action to the Congress. If not in session, Congress must convene within 24 hours without need of a call.

5. The Congress may then, by a majority vote of all its members voting jointly, revoke his action.

6. The revocation may not be set aside by the President.

7. By the same vote and in the same manner, the Congress may, upon initiative of the President, extend his suspension or proclamation for a period to be determined by the Congress if the invasion or rebellion shall continue and the public safety requires the extension.

8. The action of the President and the Congress shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court which shall have the authority to determine the


36


sufficiency of the factual basis of such action. This matter is no longer considered a political question and may be raised in an appropriate proceeding by any citizen. Moreover, the Supreme Court must decide the challenge within 30 days from the time it is filed.

9. Martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the operation of the Constitution. The civil courts and the legislative bodies shall remain open. Military courts and agencies are not conferred jurisdiction over civilians where the civil courts are functioning.

10. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons facing charges of rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.

11. Any person arrested for such offenses must be judicially charged therewith within 30 days. Otherwise he shall be released.

VI. The Pardoning Power“Art. VII, Sec. 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.

He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. “

- Executive clemency is granted for the purpose of relieving the harshness of the law or correcting mistakes in the administration of justice.

- The exercise of the pardoning power is discretionary in the President and may not be controlled by the legislature or reversed by the courts, save only when it contravenes the limitations.

Definitions:- Pardon- is an act of grace which exempts the

individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment which the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.

- Commutation- is a reduction or mitigation of the penalty.

- Reprieve- is merely a postponement of a sentence to a date certain, or a stay of execution.

Limitations:1. Pardon cannot be granted in cases of

impeachment. An impeachment is not a judicial/criminal prosecution and therefore does not essentially come under the pardoning power. However, the party convicted in an impeachment proceeding is subject to prosecution, trial and punishment in an ordinary criminal action and in this case can be extended a pardon.

2. No pardon can be granted for the violation of any election law, rule or regulation without the favorable recommendation of the Commission on Elections.

3. Pardon can be granted only after conviction by final judgment.

Kinds of PardonAbsolute or Conditional Absolute pardon- is one extended without any

strings attached. The pardonee has no option at all and must accept it whether he likes it or not.

Conditional pardon- is one under which the convict is required to comply with certain requirements. The offender has the right to reject it since he may feel that the condition imposed is more onerous than the penalty sought to be remitted.

Plenary or Partial Plenary pardon- extinguishes all the penalties

imposed upon the offender, including accessory disabilities; while

Partial pardon- does not.

Effects of Pardon The legal effect of a pardon is to restore not only

the offender’s liberty but also his civil and political rights.

DistinctionsPardon vs. Parole Parole- involves only a release of the convict from

imprisonment but not a restoration of his liberty. The parolee is still in the custody of the law although no longer under confinement, unlike the pardonee whose sentence is condoned, subject only to reinstatement in case of violation of the condition that may have been attached to pardon.

Parole vs. Probation Parole is executive whereas probation is judicial.

Parole presupposes the prior service of part of the sentence, whereas probation may be granted before actual service of sentence.

Amnesty The Constitution provides that it can be granted by

the President only with the concurrence of the Congress. This concurrence must be given a majority of all the members of the Congress.

Distinctions between Amnesty and PardonAmnesty Pardon

1. Usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the State, to political offenses, forgiveness being deemed more expedient for the

Condones infractions of the peace of the State


37


public welfare than prosecution and punishment

2. Usually generally addressed to classes or even communities of persons

Usually addressed to an individual

3. There may or may not be distinct acts or acceptance, so that if other rights are dependent upon it and are asserted, there is affirmative evidence of acceptance.

There must be distinct acts of acceptance.

4. Requires concurrence Does not require the concurrence of the Congress

5. Is a public act of which the courts take judicial notice

Is a private act of the President which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned because the courts do not take judicial notice of it

6. Looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself; it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense.

Looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted

VII. The Borrowing PowerArt. VII. Sec. 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be provided by law.

This provision reverses the extraordinary authority granted by the 1973 charter to the President, who grossly abused it to the prejudice of the national economy.

VIII. The Diplomatic Power As a head of State, the President is supposed to

be the spokesman of the nation on external affairs. In this capacity, he may deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations.

It has already been noted that the President is empowered to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.

He is also vested with the power to conclude treaties, except that, conformably the usual rule:Art. VII, Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

Treaties and other international agreements concluded by the President are also subject to check by the Supreme Court, which has the power to declare them unconstitutional.

IX. The Budgetary PowerSection 22. The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty days from the opening of every regular session as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.

This power is properly entrusted to the executive department as it is the President who, as chief administrator and enforcer of the laws, is in the best position to determine the needs of the government and propose the corresponding appropriations therefore on the basis of existing or expected sources of revenue.

In this connection, it is reminded that “the Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget.

X. The Informing PowerArt. VII, Sec. 23. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at any other time.

In the discretion of the President, he may or may not give information to the legislature, although he will usually choose to do so for practical reasons.

For one thing, he will want to maintain the goodwill of the Congress and so will not deny its request for information if its release will not in his belief


38


prejudice the public interest. For another, the requested information may be

needed as the basis of the legislation he is recommending and he knows that lacking such basis the legislature would be justified in not acting on his proposals.

The president usually discharges the informing power through what is known as the state-of-the-nation address, which is delivered at the opening of the regular session of the legislature.

XI. Other PowersThe President is vested with the power

To call the Congress to special session; To approve or veto bills; To consent to the deputization of government

personnel by the Commission on Elections; To discipline its deputies; And by delegation, to exercise emergency and

tariff powers.

Resumé (of an ideal president)“The power of the Presidency moves as a mighty host only with the grain of morality and liberty”

-fin-God Bless and Good Luck!!


39

cruz- midterms reviewer

Documents