BOOK I: THE STATE AND ITS INHERENT POWERS Introduction know the elements of a STATE know the three inherent powers of the STATE correlate the elements of a STATE with its inherent powers the result of the correlation will be discussed into three chapters and these are as follows: A. PEOPLE POLICE POWER (chapter 1) - The thesis of this first chapter is what is the relationship of the people with the State? - The thesis will be answered by the following applicable laws: (1) PRINCIPLES and STATE POLICIES: (a) Amendment and Revision: article 17 of the 1987 Constitution the basic concept of the constitution and the process of amendment and revision. (b) Declaration of Principles and State Polices: Article 2 of the 1987 constitution. The principles and state policies

(c) Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports: Article 14 of the 1987 constitution. (d) The Family: Article 15 of the 1987 constitution. (e) General and Transitory Provisions: Article 16 and 18 of the 1987 constitution.

(2) BILL OF RIGHTS: Article 3 of the 1987 constitution. (3) CITIZENSHIP: Article 4 of the 1987 constitution. (4) SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS LABOR: Article 13 of the 1987 constitution and The Labor Law of the Philippines.

B. TERRITORY, SOVEREIGNTY EXPROPRIATION POWER, PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (chapter 2) The thesis of this second chapter is what are the two concepts of territory? The thesis will be answered by the following applicable laws: (1) Local/Domestic context: (a) National Territory: Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution. (b) National Economy and Patrimony: Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution. (c) Expropriation Proceedings: Rules of Court and Related Jurisprudence. (2) International context: (a) Principles and Rules on Public International Law: Public International Law.

C. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE POWER TO TAX (chapter 3) There are four thesis under the third chapter, these are as follows: o what are the two major structures of the Philippine Government? o who represents the people of the Philippine Government? o how does the Philippine Government administers the affairs of the State? o where does the Philippine Government gets its funds to protect the State? The thesis will be answered by the following applicable laws: (1) STRUCTURE OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT: (A) NATIONAL GOVERNMENT: (a) Legislative Department: Article 6 of the 1987 constitution. (b) Executive Department: Article 7 of the 1987 constitution. (c) Judicial Department: Article 8 of the 1987 constitution. (d) Constitutional Commissions and Other Governmental Bodies: Article 9 of the 1987 constitution.

(B) LOCAL GOVERNMENT:use beda reviwer (a) Barangay: Law on Municipal Corporations. (b) Municipality: Law on Municipal Corporations. (c) City: Law on Municipal Corporations. (d) Province: Law on Municipal Corporations.

(2) PUBLIC OFFICER: (A) ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: Article 11 of the 1987 constitution. (B) ELECTION: (a) General Provisions (use beda reviewer) (b) Jurisdiction of COMELEC: (use beda reviewer) Article 9 of the 1987 constitution. (c) Election Procedure: (use tipon and audio sandoval) Omnibus Election Code. (d) Election of Public Officers: (use tipon) (d1) National Elective Officers (d2) Local Elective Officers (3) ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES AND AGENCIES: Administrative Law of the Philippines. (Sandoval audio)

(4) POWER OF TAXATION: (A) NATIONAL TAXATION: NIRC CODE AND TARRIF AND CUSTOMS CODE. (B) LOCAL TAXATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

Atty. Sandovals lecture: D. PEOPLE POLICE POWER (chapter 1)

I. PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES: 1.) JUDICIAL POWER -

Judicial Power section 1 article 8 second paragraph: (1) duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversy involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable; (2) duty of the courts to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction of any part or instrumentality or agency of the government. (expanded power of judicial review: correlate with rule 65 special civil action for cetirorari. Political Law doctrine has been affected by this expanded power of the judiciary for the ground of grave abuse of discretion. This is also the extraordinary power of the judiciary.) Judicial Power Political Questions doctrine ( questions of policy ): As a rule, courts cannot intervene to policy questions/political questions. Tanada v. Cuenco speaking for political question, these are questions to be raised by the people in their sovereign capacity by which vested upon to their representatives in the government through the public officers. Two types of political questions: (1) those to be decided by people in their sovereign capacity; (2) those that are full discretional powers are given to the executive and legislative department. Note: political question arose from the doctrine of separation of powers. Under this doctrine, the three important functions of the government, executive, legislative, judicial branch thus, executive power vested to the executive branch, legislative power vested to congress, judicial power vested to courts. Legislative and executive branch are the political branch of the government because the law are created by congress and the executive branch enforce it. These functions are questions of policy and involves wisdom of the said branch. On the other hand, if there is question of unconstitutionality, it is only the judicial who has power to intervene it under the justiciable questions. It is only the court who can say that a law is unconstitutional or not.

Illustration: Political Question Cases: First Type those questions where through the sovereign capacity of the people. (1) evardone v. Comelec, loss of confidence is a political question, thus, courts cannot intervene/intruded. In a recall, there is a special election to determine if the people in their sovereign capacity still have confidence on the said local elective public official.

Provisions on Recall, mode of removing a local elective public officer on ground of loss of confidence. The term of a local elective public officer is 3 years for 3 consecutive terms. If he is a bad local elective official you can remove him even before the end of his term. Grounds for Recall: Loss of confidence. Case: (2)Lawyers League v. Corazon Aquino Lawyers League through Atty Lozano filed a petition in the SC questioning the legitimacy of the Cory Aquino government. According to them the people who made the revolution were not really making a revolution. The SC denied petition, since we cannot inquire into the people on their motives in going to the rally in EDSA. In addition, the international community has already recognize the cory government. Thus, the cory government is considered a de jure government. This is not anymore subject to judicial review. Note: in contrast, let us consider the Estrada v. Dissierto case, after Estrada vacated malacanang, GMA as vice president assumed the presidents office. Estrada question the legitimacy of the assumption of GMA of the presidency. According to GMAs lawyers, her assumption in the office is a political question by citing lawyers league case. The SC did not agree because the lawyers league case is not applicable because in the latter case, the cory government was a result of a revolution by direct exercise of the people it is clear that it is clearly outside of judicial scrutiny. Thus, any government that was defied by a successful revolution and therefore it goes beyond the constitutional law because the people through their sovereign capacity took away the 1973 constitution and give a new constitution which is the 1987 constitution. On the other hand, in EDSA 2, GMA only assumed office under 1987 constitution because the revolution affected only the presidency office. In EDSA 1, cory Aquino assumed office because the revolution affected the whole 1973 constitution by throwing it away and not recognizing it anymore. The constitutional government once destroyed by the people through successful revolution then the constitution becomes not existing and therefore a new government is born and the courts can never question it anymore. In the EDSA 2, there is no new constitution that is form and no new government

that is born and therefore, the court can still intervene. Thus, the invocation of political question doctrine cannot prevail. Second Type Those question where full discretionary authority and power is given to the legislative and the executive branches. (1) IBP v. Zamora Due to the insurgency problems in Mindanao, there is a fear that there may be bombings in metro manila. Thus, president Estrada issued letters of instruction ordering marines to join the PNP to defy the insurgency. This power that he actually exercised is calling out power as commander of chief of the armed forces of the philippines under section 18 article 7 of the 1987 constitution. Note: there are 3 distinct powers under section 18 of article 7 of 1987 constitution ( calling out power, martial law power, power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus ). The martial law power and power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are subject to judicial review, under section 18,3rd paragraph, article 7 of the 1987 constitution the SC may review in an appropriate proceeding filed by a citizen the martial power and the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Since these two powers are direct and actual curtailment and suppression of individual civil liberties. However, in this case of IBP v. Zamora, the calling out power of the president as commander chief of the armed forces of the Philippines, is a political question by virtue of the full discretionary power vested to the president by the constitution. Thus, the courts cannot intervene because this falls under the second type of political question. Courts therefore cannot issue a TRO to restrain the calling out power. However again! Hehe the court in this case, said that we can use our expanded judicial power if the calling out power was exercised in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on any part of the branch or instrumentality of the government. Thus, the general rule: calling out power is a political question. The exception rule: in the use of expanded power doctrine but must be proven by the petitioner that there is really a whimsicall and grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner must show burden of proof that there is whimsicall, unreasonable, despotic exercise of discretion.

(2) Randolph david v. Gloria macapagal arroyo When president GMA promulgated an order declaring a State of Emergency. Note: section 23 article 6 of the 1987 constitution, in times of war or national emergency, may by a law give emergency powers to the president. This is a delegated power made by congress. Thus, the president cannot invoke emergency powers without any law. In this case, there was no law granting emergency powers, and therefore, the power that GMA invoke is not an emergency power, neither martial law power. The grounds for martial power or suspend privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it. Within 48 hrs after declaration, the president shall report to congress and if the latter is not in session, it may call a special session within 24 hrs after such declaration to determine the validity of it. In this case, there is no invasion nor rebellion. Therefore, it boils down to one power, she actually invoke calling out power in case of lawlessness, violence and invasion or rebellion in order to suppress. Thus, apply the IBP v. Zamora doctrine: where as a rule, calling out power is a political question unless there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction provided that the petitioner must show burden proof to rebut that there was really grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus, in this case, the SC sustain the constitutionality of the order made by the president. However, the acts committed by the authorities are unconstitutional such as arresting without any warrant of arrest, confiscating newspaper, prohibition mass demonstration and the like which are guaranteed by the bill of rights under the constitution. Take note that calling out power is not a restriction of civil rights and liberties. It does not involve the restriction of civil rights and liberties. Thus, while the order is constitutional, however, the acts of the authorities are unconstitutional in enforcing the said order of the president. Requisites for Judicial Review: There must be an Actual case or controversy; It must be raised by the proper party, locus/legal standing; The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity; The resolutioon must constitute the very lis mota very main issue of the entire controversy. There is no way that the court can dwell on other issues unless ruling the constitutionality of the case.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) Actual case or controversy existing case or controversy which ripe for judicial determination. Not hypotethical. Not mere antecepatory or conjectural. Note: Moot and Academic doctrine as held in the case of Randolph David v. GMA, the SC rule that if the case has been rendered moot and academic due to supervening events, the courts cannot anymore entertain the case, this is the general rule, the exceptions are as follows: a.1) there is a grave violation of the constitution; a.2) exceptional character of the situation, paramount public interest is involved; a.3) that the said constitutional question raised will give the court the opportunity to give principle that will guide the courts in future determination of cases; a.4) it is capable of repetition yet evading review. Reason: the courts are not supposed to make advisory opinion. In case of International Court of Justice, the latter can render advisory opinion which is expressly vested by its function through its charter. In contrast, Philippine courts are not supposed to render advisory opinion under the doctrine of actual case or controversy. (b) Must be raised by the proper party must have legal standing to question the act. Personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. As a rule, the court cannot decide if the party has no legal standing, however, in the case of IBP v. Zamora, the exception are as follows: b.1) paramount public interest is involved/issue of transcendental importance to the public the court can entertain the case. (c) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportune time The constitutional question must be raise it in your pleadings in court of competent jurisdiction before any appeal. Thus, if you failed to raise it, you cannot raise it for the first time on appeal. (d)the constitutional question must first resolve the constitutional question raised before going to solve the other issues.

Illustration: There is this act of this government whether local or national that you want to oppose. In this case you file the petition to the proper court and the defendant will be the solicitor general which is the counsel for the government. The defendant Solicitor General will say the petition is a political question; or he will raise that the requisites of the judicial review was not complied with. Thus, to sustain your petition you must overcome and prepare for these defenses. ( for practical consideration ) 2.) RULE MAKING POWER Section 5, paragraph 5 article 8 of the 1987 constitution (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning: for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights; pleadings, Practice and procedure in all courts; Admission to practice of law; IBP; legal assistance to the underprivileged

note: The Rules of Court was enacted through this constitutional provision of the Rule Making Power of the courts. Also, the writ of amparo and writ of habeas data were created by the supremecourt also through the rule making power. Because of the inadequacy of writ of habeas corpus since the authorities may by general denial say that they do not know of any disappearance. In writ of amparo and habeas corpus, it is protection of the life, to liberty and security that has been violated or threatened that is involved.

3.) AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS Charter Change under article 17 Amendment piecemeal change; Revision overhaul change of the whole constitution or the substantial change of it. Tests applied by the Supremecourt to know if there is amendment or revision: In lambino v. Comelec quantitative tests ( how many provision will be affected by the proposed change ) qualitative tests ( what kind of change that is proposed ). Thus, a change from a presidential form (separation of powers, the executive department was placed by the people) to parliamentary (union of the executive branch who is directly accountable to the legislative department, it is the legislative that placed him there) is a revision. While, the whole of the provision of the constitution will be affected then it is a revision. Two stages in amending and revising the constitution: (1) Proposal stage where one proposes for amendment or revisions there are three ways on how to propose : (a) Congress may directly propose amendment or revision through a of all its members. When congress meets in order to propose amendments they act as a constituent assembly ConAss; (b) Constitutional Convention ConCon by two ways: congress 2/3 votes of all of its members may call ConCon or by majority vote of all of its members by submitting the issue to the people on whether to call ConCon in a plebiscite; (c) Peoples Initiative PI done through a petition which must be signed by at least 12% of the registered voters provided that each legislative district there are at least 3% voters therein shall sign the petition. Not self executing provision (requires an implementing law). This is only limited only to proposal for amendment and not revision. Note: section 2, 2nd paragraph of article 17 of the 1987 constitution, the Congress shall provide for the implementing law that will implement the PI which is initiative and Referendum Act where in this law there is initiative on the constitution (declared unconstitutional by case of defensor Santiago v. Comelec thus has the effect of abrogating the right to propose amendment of constitution by the people), initiative on statutes, initiative on local legislation.

(2) Ratification stage with this the entire process is completed. This is submitted to a plebiscite to ratified by the majority of the people. 4.) ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS Oposa v. Factoran: petitioners were minors on behalf of the generation and generations that are yet to be born concept of intergenerational responsibility this is a class suit. They petition to stop issuing timber licenses to protect our economic and national resources. The right invoke by the minors was based on the right of the people to a balance and healthful ecology under article 2 section 16 of the 1987 constitution. This is a self executing provision as provided in the case of tano v. Sacrotes. Note: Bill of Rights: civil and political rights; while Rights of balance and healthful ecology: self preservation right. 5.) DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT article 16, section 3 of the 1987 constitution The state may not be sued without its consent. The state may not be sued without its consent. Case: U.S v. Guinto even though that we cannot find the said doctrine in the constitution, this is actually a generally accepted principle of international law. Thus, the Philippines adopt the laws of international are automatically part of our laws therefore we do not need any law to implement it doctrine of incorporation. Therefore, the doctrine of state immunity which is an accepted general principle of international law is automatically adopted to our country. Note: this doctrine that the state cannot be sued without its consent applies also to foreign government unless the latter waives his right. This is in accordance of the doctrine of sovereign equality of States. An equal state cannot assume jurisdiction over an equal state, otherwise you will vexed the peace of nations.

Exceptions: waiver by the State (a) Express a.1) general law or special law case: In this case of Republic v. Purisima, the Supreme Court ruled that a mere lawyer of the government can not waive the state immunity because it is only the congress can waive it through a general or special law. The waiver is always strictly construed against the people sovereignty. Example: General Law Act no 3083 money claims against the government regarding contracts entered with it. Correlate the abovementioned law with the commonwealth act no. 327 as amend P.D 1445 general auditing law. Under this law, any money claim against the government, you must first file a claim with the commission on audit, and if refused by the latter, you can then file a suit before the Supreme Court. Illustration: X is a private contractor and entered into a contract for 30 million with the department of construction on bridge. Assuming you have finished it but up to the present time you have not yet been paid by the said government. Thus, you filed a suit before the RTC. Will mr. X petition prosper? No, the petition lacks cause of action. This should be dismissed. The case is premature, because the law provides that you must first file a claim against commission on audit, and it is only when the latter has refused to entertain your petition that you can file a suit before the supreme court. Special Law Article 2180 of the New Civil Code the State can be held liable for damages when acting through a special agent. Example: government ambulance, as a rule, it cannot be sued unless the said municipality has a charter that allows it to be sued. Once, the government has a provision in its charter that it can be sued, the next question is whether or not it is liable for damages. Thus, we apply article 2180 which provides that, the government is liable if it is acting through a special agent or if it is acting through its non governmental function.

Article 2189 of the NCC provinces, cities and municipalities may be held liable for damages due to defective maintenance of bridge, roads, streets under their supervision. Case: kiotico v. City of Manila, where kiotico fell on the manhole, he filed a suit against the city of manila for damages under article 2189. Gilatco v. City of Dagupan, same case where he also fell on the manhole, he filed a case against city of dagupan, but the latter defended that the manhole was a national road and therefore you must file against the national government. But the Supreme court said that ownership is immaterial but what the law requires is supervision and control and in this case it was proven that there was indeed supervision and control through the engineer of the city of dagupan. Section 24 of the local government code, local government units may be held liable for damage to properties and to injuries to persons. Charters of the government owned and controlled corporation where it is provided that it may be sued. (b) Impliedly There are two ways: b.1) when the state commences the litigation against a private person. Illustration: A civil action for damages was filed by the Government against Mr. A. The latter answered with a counterclaim. The government filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of state immunity. Will the motion prosper? No, because once the government commences an action against a private party, it impliedly waived its right to be sued by exposing itself to a counterclaim by the private party.

b.2) when the state enters into a contract with a private party. In this case, the government has step down equally to the level of the private party. But we have to qualify, in the case of U.S.A v. Ruiz, our Supreme court, said that not every contract entered into by the State is considered a waiver. We still have to distinguish if it is an act jure imperi and act jure gestonis. Thus, if the act is entered into by the government

in its governmental function act jure imperi the government can invoke state immunity. But once it enters into under its proprietary or commercial capacity act jure gestonis the government can be sued since it step down to the level equally with a private party.

Case: U.S.A v. Ruiz, under the military bases agreement with the U.S between the Philippines, where there is a contract entered into by the private contractor with the U.S government in subic, the nature of the construction was to construct a wharf. The construction was completed but he was not yet paid. Thus, he filed a simple collection suit for payment of the construction price. The foreign government filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of state immunity. But the private contractor, but the government waived its immunity from suit by entering into a contract with a private contractor. But the Supremecourt, said that not every contract entered by the state is a waiver from suit since the government entered into acting under its governmental function. In this case, the contract was for the construction of the wharf in subic and therefore it is for the governments duty to the public. Note: can the private contractor use the law that a government can be sued for money claim? No, for the simple that the Philippine law on money claim can not be invoke against the foreign government, it can only be invoke against our Philippine government. Then, what will be the remedy in this case? (go to the Department of Foreign Affairs, this is already a matter of Public International Law! Since it is already a state v. State matters) U.S.A v. Guinto, camp john hay was under the U.S government. Guinto was terminated by the camp john hay authorities because he gives jingle urine and therefore guinto went to the labor arbiter and filed an illegal dismissal case but the camp john hay authorities filed a motion to dismiss since they cannot be sued by virtue of state immunity. The supreme court said that there is a waiver since this is an act jure gestonis meaning the government entered into a contract under its proprietary capacity or commercial capacity. Thus, the case was remanded back to the labor arbiter. Note: Suits against governmental agencies and instrumentalities: can we sue a government agency? This will depend if it is an incorporated agencies ( agencies created by special laws, these are government agencies like GSIS, SSS, thus, they have separate personality from the government. Thus, we must check their charter, if it has a provision that it can be sued then by all means you can sue it, otherwise you can not sue it.) unincorporated ( it has no separate personality from the government. Example: BIR, Bureau of Customs. They have no legal personality separate and distinct from the government and therefore they cannot be sued because you are deemed suing the government itself too. Thus, you cannot sue it unless it waives it right to immunity from suit. )

Illustration: U.P can be sued because it has a charter provision which says that it can sue and be sued. Bureau of Customs was maintaining an arrastre service, it cannot be sued although it is a proprietary function, it is only incidental. Thus, they cannot be sued since the proprietary capacity is only incidental. Suability v. Liability According to the SC, suability by the State is only a way of waiving its immunity from suit; while, liability is a matter of the applicable law and the circumstances of the case. So that when the state allows a party to be sued, it only acknowledge that it may be sued but still the state may invoke provisions of law to avoid liability. Case: Municipality of san Fernando la union v. Judge firme, in this case a dum truck own by the said municipality, the dum truck was hawling gravel and was driven by the official driver of the said municipality and therefore you can not invoke article 2180 of the new civil code, because the latter applies only if the State is acting on its special agent, but in this case he was an official driver. This dum truck figured a collision with a jeepney and one of the passenger died. The heirs of the victim filed a case for damages against the municipality. The latter invoke state immunity. The charter of the municipality, expressly provides that it may sue and be sued. The judge in this case, proceeded with the trial and rendered the decision holding the municipality liable for damages for its charter provision that it can be sued. The case went up to the supreme court. The latter said that suability is only a matter of whether it can be sued. When the state expressly provides that it can be sued, it merely acknowledges that it can be sued but it may invoke legal valid defense for avoiding liability. In this case a valid defense that may be invoke by the municipality is that it is acting in its governmental function by hawling gravel for the municipality of san Fernando la union, so this is a clear case of damnum absque injuria meaning damage without injury. Thus, although it is true that you can sue a government, it is not necessarily that it is liable. Illustration: If in case a dum truck was hawling a lumber for the public market. The dum truck hit an person and died. The government has charter that it can be sued. In this case, the government can be sued. Also, it can be held liable since this is a business enterprise meaning a nongovernmental function.

In the matter of execution to satisfy the judgment against the State: Let us assume that you can sue the government. And hence, you sued it. A judgment was ruled in your favour. Meaning the government became liable. The award of damages was for 50 million. You now execute the judgment. Issue: can you now garnish the government funds? Levy the government property to satisfy the judgment of 50 million. Anwer: No, to do so will paralyze the operation of the government. Thus, that will require another law to apportion a certain amount of money for the satisfaction of the judgment. What is now the remedy if in case there is no law that allows you to apportion government funds for the satisfaction of your judgment ruled in favour for you. The waiver of the immunity of suit extends only up to the rendition of judgment, but as to execute the judgment that will require another waiver which is an enactment of an appropriations bill. Thus, the remedy is to make a necessary representation in the legislative branch to appropriate funds for you. What if the legislative authority refuses to enact that appropriations measure. Will mandamus lie? Mandamus is to compel authorities acting under ministerial duty. In this case, the duty to enact appropriations measure is discretionary. So does this mean that mandamus cannot prosper? We need to qualify, in this case, there was already a judgment which has already attain finality and therefore this becomes a legal obligation on the part of the government and therefore must now obey and follow and respect the decision of this courts, thus, what has been a discretionary power ( power to enact appropriations ) it was converted to a ministerial duty by virtue of the judgment. Suit against public officials: Case: Lansang v. Court of appeals, the doctrine of state immunity applies only to the acts done by the acts of the public officials acting under the governmental capacity since the public official is an agent of the state and therefore you cannot sue the public official for acts done in the performance of its public duties. However, the public officials may be sued in their personal capacity for acts committed by them in bad faith in performing their public function. Meaning they exceeded their authority given to them.

Amigable v. Cuence and Ministerial v. Cebu: Doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as a tool for injustice against the citizens, but take note that there are requisites to invoke this doctrine, these are as follows: (a) Land owner he woke up one morning the government is bulldozering his land without any notice or any notice of expropriation or whatsoever. After several years, the land owner filed a case against the government for payment for damages. The government filed a motion to dismiss invoking state immunity from suit. The SC ruled in favour of the poor land owner, the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used to perpetuate injustice or injury to citizens of the government. Thus, had the government exercised the proper expropriation proceedings, then he could have been avoided any injury and avoided this suit. Thus, to rule in favour of the government will cause injustice.

6.) ACADEMIC FREEDOM section 5 paragraph 2 of article 14 of the 1987 constitution. E,S,T,A,C,S ( Education, Science, Trade, Arts, Culture and Sports ) The right to school or college to decide for itself its aims and objectives free from outside coercion or interference except if there is overriding public policy calls for its restraint. The essential freedoms to determine for itself for academic grounds: (a) (b) (c) (d) Who may teach; What may be taught and what courses offered; How shall it be taught ; Who may be admitted to study.

Right to discipline freedom on how shall it be taught Case: Miriam college doctrine, a school cannot function in a atmosphere of anarchy. Who may be admitted Illustration: You cannot file mandamus against a school who does not want you to admit to enter and study to their school. But once the school admitted you, it cannot just whimsically or arbitrarily expel a student or refuse to re admit the student because of the contract which is imbued with public interest. The removal must be for a just cause and due process to be considered valid.

Example: you have failing grades, and therefore, you cannot force the school to retain you. Or committed violation of school discipline. What if a student demonstrated for the schools tuition fee hike, in this case you cannot remove him for his is a right of the student freedom of expression. But what if during the demonstration violence was committed, and after investigation having been conducted by the school it found out that their student was responsible for the violation, the student can be removed. The duration of the contract: It is for the duration of the course. Note: U.P board of regents case v. Margaret Celine Margaret took up a course for a doctorate degree, during her defense in the thesis defense panel. There were questions regarding here dissertation materials. There were several investigation conducted. She was allowed to graduate and given the doctorate degree. Later on, based on the results, many of her dissertation materials was plagerized. U.P revoked her doctorate license. Issue: Can the U.P revoke her doctorate license. Answer: Yes, the Supreme court said that the school has the right who can determine who shall be its graduates provided it was done with investigation. The schools academic right of freedom does not end upon graduation but extends beyond it where it is shown that the conferment of such degree was obtain through fraud. 7.) ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES IS THE PROTECTOR OF THE PHILIPPINES This means that the AFP served for the interest of the people and not of the president. The doctrine does not apply to the Philippine National Police who are civilian in character wherein they are under the direct control and supervision of the president. 8.) DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION pacta sunt servanda The rules and laws of international law form part of the land and no legislative action is required to implement them. The philippines adopt the general accepted principles of international law as part of the land. thus, by being a family of nations they are required to adopt the international principles and laws and shall not create a law that will be contradicting to the general accepted principles of international law.

9.) TREATY MUST BE CONCURRED BY 2/3 VOTES OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE OTHERWISE THE TREATY IS NOT VALID AND BINDING. 10.) FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS. 11.) PHILIPPINE FLAG A law changing the design of the Philippine flag shall be unconstitutional since under the constitution the flag of the philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with three stars and the sun. Thus, it can only be changed through constitutional amendment. 12.) PRINCIPLE OF CIVILIAN SUPREMACY Under the constitution, civilian authority is at all time supreme over the military, by installing the president as the commander in chief means that civilian authority is supreme over the military. The military took oath that it will defend the constitution and the state of the philippines. insulation of the military from political influences and political parties. the 3 year term of the chief of staff. Also, the PNP is also civilian in character and it is also under the local executives. 13.) PRINCIPLE ON WOMEN, ECOLOGY, SYMBOLS OF STATEHOOD, CULTURAL COMMUNITIES, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Women constitution shall provide them healthy working conditions and for their safety. Ecology right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Symbols of Statehood the flag of the philippines shall be red, white and blue with three stars and a sun. The congress may by law, adopt a new name for the country, adopt a new national anthem or national seal that will truly be reflective of the symbolism of the people of the philippines. this shall only take effect upon ratification by the people in a national referendum. Indegenous cultural community the state shall recognize the rights and protection of indigenous cultural communites. Education, Science, Sports and Technology to foster patrionism and accelerate social progress and promote total human development. 14.) PRINCIPLE OF TRANSPARENCY ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST the 1987 Constitution provides for a policy of transparency in matters of public interest. Right of people to information and right of discolure of public records in case of public interest. Assets and liabilities of the public officers shall be disclosed before assumption of office.

II. BILL OF RIGHTS DOUBLE JEOPARDY: To raise a defense of double jeopardy three requisites must first be shown: (a) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (b) the first jeopardy must have terminated; (c) second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Jepardy attaches upon a good indictment; before a competent court; after arraignment; after plea. Note: after having pleaded guilty, is allowed to present evidence in mitigation. The evidence presents, however, amounts to complete self-defense and the courts aquits him. Prosecuted a second time for the same offense, he pleads double jeopardy. The defense of second jeopardy is not proper because the presentation of evidence of complete selfdefense amounted to a withdrawal of his original plea. And since no new plea was entered, there was no first jeopardy. Note: motion to quash the complaint. defective complaint did not put the accused in jeopardy. Suppose the complaint is valid, can it be refilled? Yes, the motion to quash on the ground alleged was a waiver of the right against double jeopardy. Also, if the court has no jurisdiction no jeopardy that can be attached. When is jeopardy terminated? (a) By acquittal; (b) by final conviction;(c) by dismissal without express consent of the accused; (d) by dismissal on the merits. As a general rule, the dismissal or termination of the case after arraignment and plea of the defendant to a valid information shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the complaint or information. However, an appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal (of the criminal case) by the trial court shall not constitute double jeopardy if (a) the dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent of the defendant accused; (b) the dismissal is not an acquittal or based on upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case; and (c) the question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have to be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings, to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Note: if the accused filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of denial of right to speedy trial and if granted creates jeopardy because dismissal is on the merits and amounts to an acquittal. The dismissal must be written and final and signed by the judge. Thus, the dismissal contemplated by the law is that

one which finally disposes of the main case. But if the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion then there is no final judgment to speak of. As long as the crime has not yet prescribed the city fiscal can always conduct a reinvestigation. As regards to the motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction the accused waives his right to double jeopardy. Same offense The same evidence test provides that the identity of offenses does not require one-to-one correspondence between the facts and law involved in the two charges. It is necessary that one offense is completely included in the other. Thus, while physical injury is not identical with attempted homicide, for purpose of double jeopardy physical injury is the same as attempted homicide (which alleges inflicted injury) because physical injury is necessarily included in such attempted homicide. Convicted physical injuries through reckless imprudence, accused was subsequently charged with damage to property through the same act of reckless imprudence, there is double jeopardy since the essence of criminal negligence is the imprudent or negligent act. Hence, the second jeopardy is for the same offense. Law and ordinance If an act is punished by a law and ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. The offense need not be the same provided they flow from the same act. Theft of electricity punished under RPC and unlawful installation of electrical wiring punished by ordinance ( flows from the same act, one law and one ordinance: double jeopardy ) If two laws ( one RPC and one special law ) there is no double jeopardy. Supervening events The second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, thus there is no possibility for the accused during the firs prosecution to be convicted for an offense that was not existing. Thus, where, after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and together with the facts existing at the time, constitute a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy. Illustration: A was charged with physical injuries (slight) but after 5-9 days a permanent scar was developed in the skin of the victim an amended return and a more serious charge was filed. In this case there is no double jeopardy since the scar and deformity were supervening facts not in existence at the time of the first charge and could not have been foreseen.

Appeal by prosecution an appeal by prosecution on a judgment of acquittal is not allowed. A judgment of acquittal is immediately final. As contra distinguished for a judgment for conviction where it only becomes final upon lapse of the period to appeal. Take note if the prosecution was not given opportunity to be heard then the acquittal is invalid. Appeal by accused this waives his right against double jeopardy. State witness the discharge of an accused in order to make him a state witness attaches jeopardy. Hence he cannot be prosecuted again, unless he refuse to take testimony. III. CITIZENSHIP article 4 of the 1987 constitution. Note: practice of all profession is resrved to Filipino citizens under article 12 section 14 2nd paragraph, save in cases prescribed by law. Public office is reserved only for citizens of the philippines. Structure There are only five sections: (a) Enumeration of who are citizens of the philippines; (b) Definition of natural born citizen; (c) That citizenship may be loss and reaquired as in the manner provided for by law; (d) The effect of marriage of a Filipino citizen to an alien ( will you lose your citizenship? No, you will not lose it unless by your act or omission you have to renounce your citizenship. ) (e) Dual allegiance is inimical to public interest Who are citizens? (section 1 of article 4 of the 1987 constitution ) a.1) Those who are citizens at the time of the ratification and adoption of this constitution ( after February 2, 1987 constitution );

a.2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. ( thus, for as long as your mother or father is a Filipino citizen you are a Filipino citizen under the doctrine of jus sanguinis which is citizenship by blood relationship.)

Note: you were born in California USA but your parents are Filipino citizen. Are you a Filipino citizen? Yes, by jus sanguinis principle. And at the same time, you are also an American citizen under the American law under jus solis citizenship by place. Thus, the effect therefore, you will possess dual citizenship. Section 5 of article 4: dual citizenship v. Dual allegiance

a.3) Section 1 paragraph 3: those born before January 17, 1973 (date of effectivity of the 1973 constitution) of Filipino mothers who after attaining the age of majority they obtain Filipino citizenship, then they are considered Filipino citizens. Note: (1) if born during 1935 constitution ( before January 17, 1973 constitution ) if you are born of mother who is a Filipino citizen, then you must first obtain Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Illustration: X was born here in manila on January 16, 1973, her mother was a Filipino and father is a Chinese. Is X a Filipino citizen? No, since he must first acquire Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. What if he was born January 17, 1973? Yes, because those whose mothers or father are Filipino citizens, the person is considered a Filipino citizen. Thus, no need for the election of citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. (2) If born during 1973 and 1987 constitution you are Filipino citizen provided your mother or father is a Filipino citizen. Note: thus, by virtue of citizenship by blood jus sanggunis if your mother is an alien and you are an illegitimate child of a Filipino, you are still a Filipino citizenship provided paternity and filiation is proven. Illegitimacy is not an issue in citizenship because what is necessary only is blood relationship. This is the case of Fernando poe jr. doctrine.

a.4) Those who were naturalized in accordance with law

Natural born citizens (section 2 of article 4 of the 1987 constitution) Bengzon III v. House of Representatives : in general there are only two kinds of citizens, its either natural born citizen or a naturalized. (b.1) Natural born a citizen from birth who did not undergone any naturalization procedure or those who were born of Filipino mothers who elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority born during 1935 constitution ( before January 17, 1973 ) (b.2) Naturalized one who undergone naturalization procedure.

Philippine citizenship may be lost or reaquired in the manner provided by law (section 3 of article 4 of the 1987 constitution) Philippine citizenship may be loss or reaquired as in manner provided by law. (1) What are the ways on how to reaquire Philippine citizenship? (a) By naturalization; (b) By repatriation; (c) By direct act of congress. Note: Bengzon III v. House of Electoral tribunal effect of repatriation In this case, congressman is originally a natural born citizen, served in the armed forced of America. He was repatriated and reacquired his Filipino citizenship. There are two requisite for repatriation: (a) Take oath of allegiance of the philippines; (b) And record such oath in the register of deeds of the place of where he resides. He ran again for congressman, his petition was questioned on ground of citizenship. the supremecourt ruled in favour of congressman dela cruz, and said that under the law on repatriation, once repatriated he will recover his original nationality. Thus, if he was naturalized and then loss it, if he repatriated then he acquires again his naturalized citizenship; on the other hand, if he is a natural born citizen and then loss it, if he repatriated then he acquires again his natural born citizen status. Note: if a natural born person lost and reacquired his lost citizenship by act of congress it will not restore his original citizenship status but he will acquire only a status of a naturalized Filipino citizen. Mercado v. Edu Manzano on dual citizenship v. Dual allegiance Edu manzano was born in the U.S.A but parents are Filipinos. Is he a Filipino citizen? Yes, since his parents are Filipino. We follow the jus sanggunis principle. And at the same time he is already an American citizen. He possess dual citizenship. he ran for mayor. Is he disqualified? No, possession of dual citizen is acquired involuntarily by a person through the concurrent application of laws of two states. What the constitution and the law prohibits as what disqualifies a person to run for public office under the local government code is dual allegiance which is voluntary acquiring a citizen of another country. Thus, thus by voluntarily acquiring citizen of another of a foreign country through a positive act will automatically renounce your Filipino citizenship.

Thus, if you are a dual citizen upon filing a petition for certification of candidacy it automatically terminates their status as dual citizen. But if you are a dual allegiance, you are under a strict requirement meaning you must first reacquire Filipino citizenship by the modes provided by law such as repatriation, he must take oath and record the fact in the registry of receipt where he is residing. Citizens of the philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. Note: Vicente ching doctrine Vicente ching was born during 1964 under the 1935 constitution of mother Filipino and father Chinese. He passed CPA exam, he ran public office and elected sanggunian and won and became public officer. He finished his LLB course and pass the bar exam. But he was not allowed to take the oath. The supreme court said that he only elected Philippine citizenship after 14 years from the attainment of majority. Under the law, they must elect Filipino citizenship within reasonable time upon reaching the age of majority. Reasonable time must be within 3 years from the time of reaching the age of majority. In this case, Vicente ching only elected Filipino citizenship after 14 years which is way beyond the reasonable time allowed by law. Note: will it make a difference if his parents are not legally married during the 1935 constitution ( before January 17, 1973 ) ? Meaning if he is an illegitimate child will it affect the case. Yes, because in that case he will inherit the citizenship of his mother who is a Filipino. Thus, he can now be allowed to take the oath. Vallez v. Comelec Governor was born 1934 ( no 1935 constitution yet ). Born in Australian of Australian mother, while father who was born in camarines norte but her father was born 1897 ( during the Spanish conlony ). But as a result of the treaty of paris, spain ceded the philippines to the united states, through then we were govern by organic acts of the philippines through the jones law and under these organic acts, all subjects of Spain during Spanish colony are deemed to be Filipino citizen. Thus, following the jus sanggunis principle, governor acquire Filipino citizenship by blood because here father is a Filipino citizen. What if she was carrying Australian passport? Will it affect her citizenship? No, in the case of manzano doctrine, mere possession of foreign passport will not automatically renounce your citizenship. You must expressly renounce it to lose your citizenship. Fernando poe jr. doctrine Petitioner opposed the petition of Fernando poe jr for presidency. There was no proof that the father of Fernando poe resided in the philippines and became inhabitant during the Spanish

colony and therefore he cannot benefit from en mass Filipino citizenship. But the supreme court said that the petitioner also do not have any proof to impugne the citizenship of the father of Fernando poe jr. thus, through the death certificate of father of Fernando poe jr. it was indicated that he was inhabitant of san carlos philippines. thus, Fernando poe jr. acquires Filipino citizenship? Consider the fact that Fernando poe jr was an illegitimate child. Will this affect the case? Will it be an issue? NO! We follow the jus sangguinis principle, we follow citizenship by blood. Illegitimacy is not an issue.

Born during 1935 constitution ( before January 17, 1973 ) : The only time that the requirement of election Filipino citizenship upon attainment of majority age who are born during 1935 constitution ( before January 17, 1973 constitution ) and born of Filipino mother and he is a legitimate child. But once the child is an illegitimate child born of Filipino mother, the child is automatically becomes a Filipino citizen. No need for election. But if born of Filipino father and an alien mother but are not married, once paternity and filiation is established the child may be considered Filipino but if paternity not established then he follows the citizenship of his mother. Reason: tecson v. Comelec, where an illegitimate child born of Filipino mother and alien father acquires automatically the mother citizenship, the purpose to ensure and help the child and not discriminate him. Otherwise, the child will become stateless which is more prejudicial to the illegitimate child of an alien father and a Filipino mother. The latter therefore, has the duty to protect her. Born during 1973 and 1987 constitution: If born of Filipino mother and alien father, the child is Filipino citizen whether or not he is an illegitimate child by virtue of jus sanggunis. If born of alien mother and Filipino father, the child is Filipino citizen provided that paternity filiation with his father is established, otherwise he acquires citizenship of his mother who is an alien. Aliens who marry Filipino citizens ipso facto acquires Filipino citizenship under the revised naturalization law provided that she possess none of the disqualifications set forth under section 4 of the same law. ( moya lim doctrine ) R.A 9225: citizenship retention or reaquisition act of the philippines dual citizenship law

There are two important concepts to remember, these are retention and reaquisition.

(1) Reaquisition Under section 3 of RA 9225, any provision to the law notwithstanding, any former natural born citizen who have lost their citizenship by acquiring citizenship of

another foreign country through naturalization before the effectivity of this act, shall reaquire again Filipino citizenship upon taking oath of allegiance to the republic of the philippines before any authorize person to administer oath in the philippines. Note: the effects of reaquisition are as follows:

(a) this advantage will in effect make them again a Filipino citizen and therefore they are not anymore considered alien and therefore they can acquire lands again. While remaining to be a citizen of another country yet they are still Filipino citizen by reaquiring again his citizenship thus becomes dual citizen. (b) Also any of their unmarried children whether legitimate or illegitimate below 18 years old will acquire also the citizenship of their parents who reaquired Filipino citizenship thus derivative citizenship. (2) Retention Natural born citizen who shall acquire citizenship of another country after the effectivity of this act shall retain their Filipino citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance before any officer authorized to administer oath in the philippines. in such a case, the person shall possess dual citizen status. Note: will you be qualified to run to any public office under this law? Yes, those who want to run must make a personal renounciation of your foreign citizen at the time of the filing of certificate of candidacy by taking oath. Those appointed to a public office shall take oath of renunciation of oath of allegiance of their foreign citizenship before assumption of office. Reason: to terminate dual citizen status ( dual allegiance ) since it is prohibited by law. Those who want to practice profession in the philippines but apply first to the proper authority to get a license to practice profession. Case: Edison so v. Republic On naturalization. Among those natural born citizen are those who also acquire it through naturalization through an act of adopting our Filipino citizenship and clothing the person of Filipino citizenship. How many ways by which an alien may become a Filipino citizen by naturalization: (a) Administrative naturalization this is not available to aliens, it is only available to aliens who are native born aliens who live here in the Philippines from the moment they were born and had showed love and loyalty to the philippines and affinity to the customs and traditions of the Philippines. example: parents are both aliens but they were born here in the philippines meaning they are native

born. Thus, if you are native born alien but you want to practice profession here, then you can avail of this process which is not stringent and not encumbersome; (b) Judicial naturalization; (c) Legislative naturalization Note: on the disqualification for lack of good moral character of an alien who was naturalized as a Filipino. His certificate may be cancelled any time without any prescription for as long as he commits lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct such as tax evasion. Also, even if he is given tax amnesty it will not obliverate his lack of good moral character which is aground for cancelation of naturalization certificate. On citizenship requirements of repatriated Filipino citizens who wishes to run as elective officials: The citizenship requirement must be possessed at the time of the proclamation and at the start of the term of which he is elected. Under the local government code, It does not specify a time as to when a candidate must possess Filipino citizenship. ( frivaldo v. COMELEC ) Note: always correlate election law with citizenship requirement and residency requirement. Check if the requirement to qualify is natural born Filipino citizen or Filipino citizen only.

IV. SOCIAL JUSTICE ( LABOR LAW )

E. TERRITORY, SOVEREIGNTY EXPROPRIATION POWER, PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (chapter 2) I. Local Context National Territory 1.) Archipelagic doctrine we draw baseline to the outermost portion of the island thereby unifying each archipelago into one unit which shall composed of the State of the philippines. under article 1 of the 1987 constitution all waters, around, between and connecting all the ilands shall for part of the Philippines. 2.) Contiguous zone v. Economic zone Contingous zone is the 12 nautical miles from territorial waters where coastal state may exercise control and prevent infringement of outside force, while economic zone is 200 nautical miles from baseline of the island of the philppines from which the philippines may have sovereignty and exercise

exploration and exploitation of natural resources. This economic zone is reserved for Filipinos. 3.) Flag State v. Flag convenience flag state means the vessel has the nationality of the flag which it carries provided it must establish a link between the said ship and the state flag, while flag convenience is that the it refers to the state where the vessel is registered. 4.) Territorial sea v. Internal Waters territorial sea adjacent belt of the sea with 12 nautical miles from the baseline of coastal island. All state has a right of innocent passage within the territorial sea; while internal waters are the waters, around and connecting the islands of the Philippine archipelago regardless of their breadth and dimension, this includes bays, lakes and rivers. There is no right of innocent passage within the internal waters. Note: you cannot make each island of the philippines a separate state since it will be violative of the sovereignty of the philippines as a single state under the constitution.

F. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE POWER TO TAX (chapter 3) I. STRUCTURE OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT (A) NATIONAL GOVERNMENT 1.) DOCTRINES RELATED TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE GOVERNMENT doctrine of separation of powers - thus, legislative power is vested to the congress ( power of the purse since it enact laws to appropriate funds ) ; executive power is vested to the executive department ( power of the sword since it enforce the law ); while judicial power is vested to the supremecourt and to other courts as may be provided by law ( power to declare a law unconstitutional ). Note: the legislative and executive are political branches since this is where the policies and laws are made and with this the political question is created. Doctrine of checks and balance power cannot be concentrated only on one department and therefore, each of the three departments exercises checks and balance. Doctrine of non delegation of powers what has been delegated by the constitution to the three department can no longer be delegated anymore. However, as an exception: PETAL

P delegation to the People through plebiscite and referendum; E delegation to the president through the exercise of Emergency power; T delegation to the president Tarrif powers; A delegation to Administrative agencies; L - delegation to the Local government officials.

(a) Delegation to the president through exercise of emergency power In times of war or other national emergency the congress by Law, authorize the president for a limited period may exercise emergency powers. There must be a law first to exercise this power.

The requisites are as follows: (a1) there must be war; (a2) delegation for a limited period time only; (a3) subject to restriction of congress; (a4) under a declared national policy. Note: Randolph david v. GMA the power exercised was not emergency power since there was no law authorizing the president but actually what was exercised by the president is the calling out power. (b) Delegation to administrative agencies What is delegated here is delegation of quasi legislative powers to administrative agencies. Note: power of an administrative agencies to promulgate rules and regulation pursuant to a law delegating to them such power to promulgate rules and regulation. This is what we call as Power of subordinate legislation pursuant to a legislative policy. This administrative rules and regulation cannot prevail over the law enacted by congress. These administrative rules and regulation are subordinate to the law. Illustration: Implementing Rules and Regulation which was promulgated by the secretary of labor of the Department of Labor by authority of the Labor Law. In this case, the secretary of labor exercised its quasi-legislative power.

The secretary of finance upon recommendation of the NIRC shall have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations concerning the policy of the NIRC.

(c) Delegation to Local governments Note: do the local government have inherent powers? No, because they are mere creatures of the congress. Whatever power they exercise is delegated to them by the law. With regard to power taxation: the constitution expressly delegated the power of taxation to each local government subject to limitation and guidelines as congress may provide. With regard to police power and power of eminent domain: it is the congress that delegated these powers to local governments. The delegation is found on their charters as well as in the local government code. With respect of the power of eminent domain: the power delegated by law under section 19 of the local government code. Thus, there must first be an ordinancd before you can exercise this power. Municipality of Paranaque case: The supreme court said that if a local government wants to exercise power of eminent domain there must be a law/ordinance enacted by congress/sanggunian members. A mere resolution is not enough. Ordinance v. Resolution an ordinance is a law while a resolution is just an expression of opinion a law making body on a specific matter. An ordinance is permanent, whereas resolution is temporary in nature. An ordinance is enacted with three readings, while resolution is not enacted by three readings,unless decided by majority of all the members of the sanggunian. With regard to police power: the delegation of it is found in section 16 under the general welfare clause. The tests of a valid delegation of power to determine if what has been delegated is exercised within the scope of its delegation There are two tests, these are as follows: (a) Completeness test the law itself must be complete so that when it reaches the delegate there is nothing left for the delegate to do but to implement and enforce the law. Thus, the delegate must not fill in the gaps of the incomplete law. (b) Sufficient standard test more often the congress cannot be excpected precisely know the problems that will arise, thus, the law must at least have limitations and standards that will limit the delegate and guide him in implementing the law.

2.) THREE DEPARTMENTS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT The legislative power - is vested to the congress except to the extent reserved to the people through initiative and referendum ( to directly enact and propose laws ). This initiative and referendum are not self executing provisions. There must be an implementing law. Note: the people through initiative and referendum whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefore signed by at least 10 % of the total number of registered voters, of which every leglislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters. RA 6735: the initiative and referendum law which provides the system of initiative and referendum. (a) Initiative on constitution; (b) Initiative on statutes; (c) Initiative on local legislation. Bicameral Congress senate and house of representatives are co-equal bodies. No supremacy involved. Note: Bicameral Conference Committee Philippine judge association case: a bicameral conference committee which compromising the differences between the senate and the house of representatives. The version of a bill proposed by the senate which is difference with the proposed bill by the house of representatives. By the very nature of its function is capable of producing results which is a result which may exceed its mandate and duty. Thus, it may produce a new bill which is production of the two proposed bills. It may produce a totally new bill. Non legislative powers of congress (a) Congress acting as constituent assembly (b) Power to declare the existence of war

(c) In impeachment cases ( the house of representative shall act as a prosecutor body, while senate acts as impeachment court ) (d) Congress acts as national board of canvassers for canvassing president and vice president certificates of canvass (e) Inquiry in aid of legislation ( investigatory power of congress ) (f) Concurrence of the amnesty proclamation of the president (g) When acting as electoral tribunal (h) When senate concurs in treaties

Congressional oversight functions Macalintal v. Comelec: The concept and nature of congressional oversight and functions, the congress enactment of law does not end there, they are still interested on whether or not such law enacted by them is properly being administered and implemented. There are three categories congressional oversight functions: (a) Scrutiny there are two instances: first, budget hearing ( the president prepares budget and proposed the budget and transmit it to the house of representatives to make appropriation law to make the funds ) second, confirmation process by the commission on appointments ( the president submits his appointments for confirmation by the commission on appointment. Thus, in the case of matibag v. Benipayo, once the commission on appointment refuse to confirm your appointment it is a judgment on the merits and the president cannot appoint the said appointee, but this is not true if the appointment is by pass by commission on appointment. ) (b) Investigation two kinds: first, inquiry in aid of legislation ( arnault v. Nazareno the supreme court recognize that intrinsic under this power to enact good laws is the power to investigate in aid of legislation ) ; second, question hour ( this is a regular features of a parliamentary form of government, where the members of the parliamentary who elected the president is accountable to them and the latter is required therefore to answer question made by the parliamentary. However, under our law and constitution we have a presidential form of government where the president is elected by the people where he is accountable to them but the congress may question the president regarding the concerns of the policies of the state. ) (c) Supervision continuing awareness of the congress regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. The congressional screening committee may scrutinize the implementing rules and regulation promulgated by the administrative agencies.

Note: legislative veto the disapproval by congress by an administrative regulation promulgated by an administrative agency. SJS v. Secretary purisima: declared unconstitutional legislative veto, because the congress cannot encroach upon the implementing power of the executive department.

Composition of Congress Senate 24 senators House of Representatives 250 members coming from District Representatives and those Elected by Party List Representatives. Note: Ang Bagong Bayani OFW c. COMELEC case on the nature of party list system So that the marginilized and underrepresentative sectors of the society will have representative in the government. They come from the labor, peasent, urban poor, indigenous culture community, women, the youth sector and such sectors as may be provided by law. Social justice tool design not only to give more law on person who are less in life but gives them the active participation in the mainstream of representative democracy. Same opportunity in the party list elections. Because as we know the truth is that the marginalized and underrepresentative do not really have a voice in the congress since they do not have any economic and financial sources and therefore the ones who is dominant are those traditional political parties and traditional rich candidates who have resources to have voice in congress. Thus, we open up the political system to the underprivilege and marginalized and not to the traditional rich candidates and traditional political parties who are already part of the political system. Guidelines in screening the participants: (a) Must represent the marginalize and underrepresentative sectors; (b) Prohibition of Registration of a Religious sect or religious organization as a political party. They cannot be registered as a political party. ( thus, a priest can join in the party list election ); (c) It must not be an adjunct of the government or it must not be funded by it. Thus, must be outside from the support of the government; (d) The parties must comply with the requirements of the law and includes the nominees ; (e) The nominees themselves must be Filipino citizen who belong also to the marginalized or underprivilege sector.

Thus, party list participants are limited only to the marginalized and underprivileged sectors of the society. Since this is a social justice tool.

Immunities and privileges (1) Privilege from arrest of members of congress It applies only to crimes with imposable penalty of not more than 6 years and only when congress in session. in session refers not to the day to day but refers to the entire duration from its opening until its final adjournment. People v. Jalosjos: The immunity from arrest arises from a provision of the constitution the history of the provision shows that the privileges has been applied to a restrictive sense. It cannot be extended by equitable consideration. He can only invoke the immunity from arrest if the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years and only when congress is in session. Thus, since his case is rape, he can not invoke immunity from arrest. Jalosjos was convicted of rape by the RTC but he was able to appeal seasonably, can he be allowed to post bail? No, the fact that he has been convicted by the RTC that means it was proven already that the evidence guilt is wrong. Jalosjos raised the following issues: doctrine of the right to bail As to the issue of bail: When is the right to bail a matter of right? (1) MTC bail is always a matter of right before or after conviction. (2) RTC it depends. (a) Before conviction in the RTC Bail is a matters of right if: when charge for imposable penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. Example: homicide is reclusion temporal ( bail is a matter of right even if the evidence of guilt is strong. )

Bail is a matter of discretion if: reclusion perpetua to death ( bail is a matter of discretion. Thus, in this case you file a petition for bail and the court will now conduct hearing as to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. If the evidence of guilt is not strong, you can post bail. But if the evidence of guilt is strong, you cannot be allowed to post bail. ) (b) After conviction in the RTC but pending appeal Bail is discretionary if: after conviction of a crime with an imposable penalty for not less than 6 years but not more than 20 years. Example: Homicide convicted prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal medium 8 yrs to 10yrs. Thus, upon petition for bail, it is mandatory upon the court to conduct hearing to determine whether you are a recidivist, quasi recidivist, or if you might jump bail, or you might commit another crime, or if you may violate the conditional pardon. Bail is not allowed: after conviction of a crime in the RTC with an imposable penalty for more than 20 years. Example: convicted of murder in the RTC. Thus, petition of jalosjos is denied. disenfranchisement argument - As to the issue of can he be permitted to attend congressional meeting despite the fact that he was voted and won the election. Can he be allowed to attend congressional meetings outside the prison cell? The SC said that NO he cannot it will be a mockery to the correctionaly system. Also, he cannot invoke the defense that if he will not be able to attend congressional meeting, in effect you will be disenfranchising the voters that voted him. The SC said BULSSHIT KA JALOSJOS!!! =) tantado ka! Hehe you cannot blaim us for your people! Your voters! Has waived their rights because they voted you with full knowledge and awareness that you are criminal! And therefore they are stupid enough to vote you knowing that you are behind bars and cannot attend congressional meetings. Thus, petition of jalosjos is denied. doctrine of condonation the term of office of elective public officers is separate and distinct from each other so that when in his previous term he was charged administratively and thereafter he was reelected in his new term, his reelection serves as a condonation to whatever administrative offense so that in his new term he can not be penalized for administrative offense he had been punished in his previous term. The reason is that when the electorate voted him again with full knowledge that he had been charged administratively they condoned him with his past misconduct.

Note: this applies only to elective public officials who are charged administratively. Thus, his petition is denied.

(2)Privilege from freedom of speech and debate He cannot be held liable In any other place once the congressman delivered a speech during congressional meetings within congress. Congressman X while in the course of delivering his speech in congress he maligned a private person who was not in the congress. The private person filed a slander case. Will it prosper? No, a congressman while delivering a speech or debate in congress cannot be held liable for any libellous or slanderous speech in any other place which includes also any regular courts. Osmena v. Pendatun: Senator osmena during his speech in congress maligning the president of the philippines. can he be liable? Yes, although he cannot be held liable in any other place but in the congress he may be punished by his members by suspension or expulsion by 2/3 votes for his misconducts. Illustration: Peter cayetano during his speech during the deliberations in congress he maligned mr. FG. Thus, FG filed a case in the house ethics committee. During that hearing, peter cayetano was held liable by his members in the congress. Thus, for practical reasons, dont file in the regular courts but direct your cause of action in the congress itself to punish the erring member. ( obiter: Peter cayeetano was not punished since congress has adjourned in preparation for the next election, so what mr. FG did was to hire a person named peter cayetano and filed a certificate of candidacy so that congressman peter cayetano cannot invoke the equity of the incumbent rule which is regarding to the appreciation of ballots where two or more persons having the same name, only the first name or last name vote of which will be considered for the incumbent official. But if neither of them is incumbent they will not be voted and the votes will now be stray votes. In this case, congress man cayetanos term has ended and he was not an incumbent anymore and therefore his votes will now be considered stray votes. Congressman peter cayetano filed a disqualification for nuisance candidate and decision was granted but the decision was released three days before election hehe )

Case: borjal v. CA on freedom expression and libel. The SC said that the freedom of speech and debate for congressman are absolute privilege communication and therefore they are absolute defenses against cases for libel. Privilege communication is a good defense in an action for libel, slander or defamation. Is truth a defense in a case for libel? No, in libel it is presumed that there is actual malice or intent to defame a person and this will be completed by proving that it was published or made public. However, once the communication is privilege, presumption of actual malice or intent cannot apply. There are two types of privilege communication: (a) Absolute privilege communication not actionable, even if the author acted in badfaith. Example. The freedom of speech and debate among congress. (b) Qualified privilege communication- notactionable, unless it shall be shown that it is made in badfaith. Bodies attached to the congress (a) Commission on Appointments to act on presidential appointments. This is a check on the appointing power of the president. Members are 12 senators and 12 congressmen and 1 ex officio chairman which is the senate president. They shall be chosen by proportional representation from the political parties having members in the senate or house as the case may be. All of them are members of congress. (b) Electoral Tribunals b.1) Senate ET 9 members. 3 justices of the Supreme court and the senior is the chairmen. 6 comes from the senate and house chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties having members in the senate or house as the case may be. Note that their difference with Commission on Appointments is that the latter is composed of congressmane while in an electoral tribunal it composes of judicial components and congress components. b.2) HRET same with Senate ET. Note: where do we appeal the decision from the Electoral Tribunals? No appeal. They are the sole judge. Take note that appeal is not a constitutional right. This right is merely statutory. Thus, if there is no law granting appeal, you cannot appeal. So what is the remedy if ever? File an original action with the SC under Rule 65 based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. You cannot use rule 45 because this is a mode of appeal which is not the remedy in this case. Case: Romualdez Marcos v. COMELEC She ran for election in leyte. Her residency qualification was question. So while the disqualification was pending. She won. But she was not immediately proclaimed during the pendency of the case in the COMELEC. So what she did is filed a motion to dismiss the case contending that since she won the COMELEC loses jurisdiction and the jurisdiction now is vested

with the HRET. Is her contention correct? No, comelec still has jurisdiction since it will only lose jurisdiction once a candidate is proclaim. In this case, Imelda marcos was not yet proclaimed so comelec still has jurisdiction. Thus, if you are not proclaim you are not yet a member in the said public office where you won. The HRET is the sole judge of their respective members. Thus, she is not yet a full pledge member of the congress hence she cannot be under the jurisdiction of the HRET. Note: effect of disqualification case that comelec or court as the case may be continues to have jurisdiction and continues to hear it despite the fact that the candidate won the election but it only continues up to his proclamation. Before proclamation, you may file a motion to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate. Case: guerero v. Comelec ( correlate with Imelda case ) The governor was no longer qualified to run again for having served for 3 consecutive terms, thus, he run for congressman in ilocos norte, a disqualification case was filed, but pending the case, he won and was proclaimed and took oath and assumed office. The comelec dismissed the disqualification case. Was the act of the comelec valid or not? Yes, once the candidate is proclaimed, the jurisdiction of the comelec ends and the jurisdiction of the HRET begins. Case: bondoc v. Pineda ( independence of the HRET and Senate ET ) Congressman bondoc belong to the minority party whereas congressman pineda belong to the majority party. Pineda was proclaimed in the election. Bondoc filed election protest in the HRET. Among the members of the latter is congressman camasura which belong to the majority party where pineda belong. During the hearing of the protest. Camasura was convinced that bondoc won and voted in favour of bondoc as against his partymate pineda. Before the promulgation, camasura confided with ramon mitra about the incident. So they removed camasura for somebody who was loyal. So before the decision was promulgated, he was removed. So how can the decision be promulgated? So what happen it reached to the SC, the latter said that once this members become members of HRET they must act impartial and act as judges and therefore they must be accorded security of tenure so that an act of disloyalty with their party list member will not be a just cause for removal. Also, HRET Senate ET are independent from the congress since they are sole judge in election protest and contest. Process in Law making: FIRST STAGE: Initiatory Stage bills that must originate in the house of congress General rule: if you want to file a bill. If you are a congressman file it with house. But if you are senator file it with senate.

Except: APRTIL ( appropriations bill, private bill, revenue or tariff bill, bill authorizing increase of public debts, bill of local application ) these are required to originate exclusively from the house of representatives. But the senate may concur and make an amendments by substitution or may make a totally new bill. The only rule is that it must originate first from the house of congress. Case: tolentino v. Secretary of finance The bill originated from house congress but when it was passed as a law it was totally amended by the Senate. So the EVAT law was more of the senate version rather than the bill originated in house congress. The SC said that there was substantial requirement since the bill originally came from the house. Thus, once the senate received the bill it made a separate version. So eventually two version and thus presented to a bicameral committee but the senate version prevailed. The rule only requires that the bill must originate from house. There is nothing wrong with amendment by substitution. What is only required is the initiative of the bill coming from the house. one subject one title rule every bill passed by congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. Purpose: to prevent hodgepodge or log rolling legislation, to prevent fraud or suprise upon legislature and to fairly apprise and notify people. To prevent rider provision which is totally unrelated to the subject matter which can be subjected to a separate piece of legislation. Note: the supreme court adopted a liberal rule by stating that there is substantial compliance for as long as the provisions of the law are germane to the title of the law. It must not be an indexed or catalogue thereof.

three readings on separate days no bill shall be come a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days and printed copies in its final form thereof given to its members three days before its passage. 1st reading: proposal of the bill by the author and the title shall be read and once approve it shall be calendared for second reading. 2nd reading: deliberation and interpellation and after which it will be calendared for third reading; 3rd reading: vote by yes or nays as to whether it shall be passed or not. The bill will undergo 6 readings ( 3 readings from senate; 3 readings from house ) Exception: if the president certify its necessity to its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Case: tolentino v. Secretary of finance

Once the president certify the necessity to the immediate enactment to meet a public calamity, there is no need to comply with the 3 reading on separate days. The question of what constitute public calamity is a political question which is the discretion of the president. Thus, courts cannot intrude therefrom. SECOND STAGE: Bicameral Committe and Enrolled Bill Stage Bicameral conference committe: if conflicting versions in both houses arise. It is capable of introducing unexpected result because of its nature. Once the bill has passed the bicameral conference committee, the bill will be sent back to both houses of congress. Both houses will vote through yes and nays and after voting the yes prevailed it will be certified and signed by senate president and speaker and certified by both secretaries of congress then it will now become an enrolled bill. But what if the votes prevailed are the nays vote, if this happens, then it is about time that another bicameral conference committee that will be convene, then the said bill will be sent back to another bicameral conference committe. Enrolled bill doctrine once become an enrolled bill, it will become conclusive upon the court as to its due enactment, so that the courts cannot determine whether it has undergone the three days requirement. It is deemed regularly enacted. This is because of separation of powers. Enrolled bill prevails over the journal. Except as to matters which are under the constitution are required to be put into journal so this matter are conclusive upon courts. They will prevail over enrolled bill. So what are matters required to be put into journal? These are as follows: (a) Yes and Nays of the third and final reading of the bill; (b) Yes and nays on any question upon request 1/5 members that are present; (c) The presidents objections that which he vetoed; (d) The yes and nays upon repassing a bill which a president has vetoed. These matters are required by constitution to be put into journal and therefore they are conclusive upon courts and therefore, the latter cannot question as to the regularity.

THIRD STAGE: Sending of Enrolled Bill to the President for approval.

From the congress the enrolled bill is sent to the president, the latter shall: (a) Sign the enrolled bill and the latter becomes a law; (b) She vetoes it, the bill does not become a law;

(c) If she does not act or sign upon it within 30 days from receipt, that automatically becomes a law by inaction. veto power of the president - in regard to the veto of president, the bill will be sent back to congress together with the veto and thereafter by 2/3 votes of both houses it will o