Warrior Notes Constitutional Law

8/9/2019 Warrior Notes Constitutional Law

1/140

USERS’ GUIDE

• Most likely to come out in the exams:TN – Take note, BR – Ba! "uestion,##### $ Memo!i%e&

• '!om (e)innin) to *e)islati+e, it as a!!an)e-acco!-in) to the sylla(us, (ut the!ea.te!, it’s not&

• Blue .onts mean, the su(hea-in)s e!e c!eate- (y us&

• The italici%e- /o!tions came .!om the cases cite-&

• The Times Ne Roman Bol- .ont.ace a!e .!om/!o+isions o. the la&

•

Subject Head:

Luigine Chan

Members:

Johnbee Biton, Abegail Borres, Richard Caminade, Kaitlin Cañada, Riza Duran,

Bryce Fookson, Raane !allego, Ruby !an, Clyde !regorio, Rhea Judilla, Fiona

Lao, Jinky Lesigues, Albert Lulu, "iguel Luma#as, Da#hne $rtezuela, Angeli

$tero, Athena %alas, %hane &am#us, Ral#h%anchez, Camille 'bod, Judito &a#ia

Jr(, Rose )aglina*an, )rince Robles, Joahnna &an+u, Brendale Bayalas, Riza

&orres, -ico )eña, Jo.elle Reuso

Allied )olitical La* Re.ie* o/ Class 0123

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Notes and Cases from Judge Estela Alma A. Singco


2/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 2I. The Philippine Constitution

A. Constitution: definition, nature and concepts

We start with the Constitution’s definition, concept. You

have mastered that: what a Constitution is the different

!inds of Constitution accordin" to its ori"in, accordin" to

its form, accordin" to the manner of chan"in" it and

accordin" to the form of "overnment that is esta#lished.

$o for e%ample, let’s have the definition of a Constitution

as a "eneral concept. &t is the hi"hest fundamental law of

the land upon which all activities of the "overnment are

#ased on. 'nd so therefore in case of a conflict #etween a

statute and the Constitution alwas the Constitution

prevailin" over the statute, as a "eneral rule #ecause

sometimes it would depend on the sstem of the

"overnment. Where there is the supremac of the

parliament, in case of a conflict #etween a statute and the

Constitution, the statute is not necessaril declared

unconstitutional. *onetheless the parliament act ma still

#e e%istin" without #ein" declared as unconstitutional.

+hat "oes to show an implication of the principle that the

Constitution alwas prevails over an other law that ma#e passed # the "overnment it could #e the parliament

or it could #e an administrative #od in so far as rules and

re"ulations or even the president in some cases as

re"ards to his presidential decrees, proclamations or

e%ecutive orders.

Kinds of Constitution According to Origin

. Conventional or Enacted Constitution

-deli#eratel made at a definite period of time

. Cumulative or Evolutionary Constitution -

When it is a result of an evolution of histor of

the activities the people of the countr and of the

"overnment in particular/. iat or !ranted Constitution - it is a

Constitution made # one countr for another

usuall it’s # wa of a treat of peace, after one

territor0countr is defeated # another. $o a

soverei"n countr would prepare a Constitution

for a defeated territor

*ow, the more important part there is #ein" a#le to

distin"uish what !ind of constitution that ou have

accordin" to that form or !ind of constitution. Yours is

definitel a Conventional or 1nacted Constitution has

#een as such since we had the 2/3 Constitution, 24/

and the 254 Constitution. $o it was deli#eratel made,

for e%ample, in so far as the 2/3 Constitution # the

2/6 Con-Con ratified # the people on 6 7a 2/3.

'nd then ou have the 24/ Constitution that was made

# the 24 Con-Con and it was declared to have #een

validl ratified on 4 8anuar 24/ # Proclamation 9

# 7r. 7arcos. 'nd then ou have the freedom

Constitution of course, it was made # virtue of

Proclamation *o. / # Cor 'uino. 'nd then finall ou

have the 254 Constitution that was made # the 25;

Constitutional Commission, ratified and too! effect on


3/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 3/. Constitution o' Soverei#nty - that is "ivin" the

power to the people on how to ma!e

amendments to the Constitution.

TN: Pream#le does not form part of the Constitution, it is

not an essential part. You can have a Constitution without

a pream#le.

C. Amendments and revisions

+his has come out in the D'R e%ams several !inds.

1speciall in the 7C@.

@: )*AR+ What is first the difference #etween amendment

and revisionA

': 'mendment is when ou onl propose certain chan"es

to certain provisions or portions or parts of the

Constitution ou do not overhaul it. 1ven if ou onl

chan"e a certain portion however it chan"es the

philosoph or the foundation of the Constitution then it is

not ust an amendment #ut a revision.

Let’s have an e%ample. &f ou chan"e the term of office of

the president, it’s ust an amendment, #ut if ou chan"e

the sstem of the "overnment from presidential to

parliamentar definitel it is a revision #ecause ou

practicall chan"e the foundation of the "overnment the

sstem of the "overnment.

@: Wh is it important to !now the difference #etween an

amendment and a revisionA

': Decause the matter of proposal also differ. )TN+ &n so

far as proposal to amend or revise a Constitution, there

are onl certain individuals who are authoriEed to do the

proposal.

Outline of Steps in Amendments. Proposal

@: Who can propose an amendment to the ConstitutionA

':


4/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) ': H of the total re"istered voters of which, each

le"islative district is represented # at least /H of the

re"istered voters. =on’t ust simpl sa H. &t should #e

H and /H. +he must concur.

)TN+ 'dditional reuirements are discussed in the

Lam#ino case.

@: +hat it should #e the petition that is si"ned # the

re"istered voters, whA

': Decause after all, the are supposed to #e the authors

of the petition to propose an amendment to the

Constitution, and therefore the should si"n the petition

itself. +hat is the reuirement. $o, ou would have copies

accordin" to as man petitioners, if the are to #e the

authors of a petition to propose amendments or chan"es

to the Constitution.

@: 'nd what’s the reasonA

': &n #oth cases, an initiative failed. &n the $antia"o’s

case, the $C was sain" that R' ;4/3 (the law providin"

for the manner of initiative, the implementin" rulere"ardin" on people initiatin" amendments to the

Constitution), is insufficient to provide a procedure

#ecause if ou read the law, it does not provide for details

it does not even authoriEe the C?71L1C to promul"ate

the rules, unli!e in initiative on statute and on local

le"islation, which are ver specific. &nitiative on

amendments to the Constitution however was declared #

the $C to #e insufficient.

*onetheless, in the Lam#ino case, which was the

su#seuent case, the $C was sain" if people indeed

would want to propose chan"es, we cannot stop them. &t

is a political discretion in their soverei"n capacit, should

the decide. Dut the initiative that was initiated #

Lam#ino "roup on amendin" the Constitution durin" the

'rroo administration still failed #ecause the failed to

prove to the $C the num#er of petitioners si"nin"

#ecause the copies would not reflect to the num#er of

re"istered voters supposedl initiatin" the amendments to

the Constitution. You need H and the were sain" that

is euivalent to a num#er of voters, li!e million for

e%ample however the copies of the petition was much

lesser than the num#er of re"istered voters. 'nd so the

$C was sain", it has not proven that it has o#tained the

reuisite num#er of percenta"e of re"istered voters

si"nin" the petition as it is reuired # the law that would

initiate amendments to the Constitution.

. $u#mission to the people for stud

@: 'fter the proposal, what happens ne%tA

': You’ll have the su#mission of the proposal to the

people for further stud and investi"ation. +he onl

principle that ou must remem#er under this particular

sta"e of the chan"e of the Constitution is that there

cannot #e a piecemeal su#mission of a proposed

amendments to the Constitution.

Piecemeal su#mission is prohi#ited. &t should #e the

whole thin" so that the people can full understand the

proposed chan"es or amendments.

/. Ratification

@: 'fter the su#mission of the proposal to the people,

what will #e the ne%t step to followA

': +here is now the ratification.@: &n the ratification, ou will have a ple#iscite.


5/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) !E. General provisions

PREAMBLE (MEMORIZE)

We, the sovereign ilipino people, i!ploring the "i# o$

Al!ight% &o#, in or#er to 'uil# " ust "n# hu!"ne soiet%

"n# est"'lish " &overn!ent th"t sh"ll e!'o#% our i#e"ls

"n# "spir"tions, pro!ote the o!!on goo#, onserve "n#

#evelop our p"tri!on%, "n# seure to ourselves "n# ourposterit% the 'lessings o$ in#epen#ene "n# #e!or"%

un#er the rule o$ l"* "n# " regi!e o$ truth, ustie,

$ree#o!, love, e+u"lit%, "n# pe"e, #o or#"in "n#

pro!ulg"te this Constitution. (1987 Constitution [1987])

+he uestion is more on technicalities side of the

pream#le. 's i have said earlier, it is not an inter"ral part.

&t is not even important and necessar #ecause it cannot

#e a source of ri"hts and o#li"ations. +he utilit of a

pream#le ma #e limited to "uidin" our "overnment,

particular Con"ress, in ma!in" laws that if the have to

ma!e laws it must #e in accordance of the purpose

forwhich the Constitution was adopted. $imilarl to the

President in the implementation of the laws if he doesn’tunderstand how to implement or of the purpose of

Con"ress then he ma alwas refer to the pream#le. 's

well as the $upreme Court in interpretin" the provisions of

the Constitution and laws passed # Con"ress. &n

applin" it to actual cases, it ma #e "uided of the

purposes enumerated in the pream#le. &f ou read the

pream#le, it states there KW1, +F1 $?B1R1&>*

od in our esta#lishin" of a "overnment or in our

implementin" the provisions of the Constitution. $o it ust

a mere declaration that we implore the aid of the

'lmi"ht >od. We are not o#li"ed to #elieve in >od. &f

ou are an atheist ou cannot use that to uestion the

validit of the Consitution.

'nd then ou have the enumeration of the purposes. 8ust

"o over with the purposes. You can sa that there isredundanc #ecause these principles are alread implied

in the su#seeunt provisions of the Consitution.

II. &ener"l Consi#er"tions

A. ational territor!

ARTICLE I- ATIOAL TERRITOR/. (T, 000)

The n"tion"l territor% o!prises the Philippine "rhipel"go,

*ith "ll the isl"n#s "n# *"ters e!'r"e# therein, "n# "ll

other territories over *hih the Philippines h"s sovereignt%

or uris#ition, onsisting o$ its terrestri"l, $luvi"l, "n#

"eri"l #o!"ins, inlu#ing its territori"l se", the se"'e#, the

su'soil, the insul"r shelves, "n# other su'!"rine "re"s. The

*"ters "roun#, 'et*een, "n# onneting the isl"n#s o$ the

"rhipel"go, reg"r#less o$ their 're"#th "n# #i!ensions,

$or! p"rt o$ the intern"l *"ters o$ the Philippines. (1987

Constitution [1987])

7aster it #ecause of the recent issues. &n $car#orou"h

shoal , what we are concerned of are the livin" and non-

livin" forces in the premises as part of our 1%clusive

1conomic Mone. &t is not part of out territor #ut part of

11M. +his is e%plained in our definition of *ational

+erritor. You should TN of this that the definiton of

*ational +erritor is not #indin" in the international

sphere. &t is not #indin" upon other countries #ecause it is

onl a municipal law. +his is important for the purposes of

implementin" our laws. &dentifin" our #oundaries or

territorial #oundaries, that is the most important part

#ecause how would we !now if our laws are applica#le.

We have to include in the definition of our nationalterritor for some reaons. &n the 2/3 Constiution, we had

the definition #ecause we were too afraid that the

american "overnment mi"ht ust retain some portions of

our territor. ?ur definition of national territor in 2/3

Constitution was #ased on the +reat of Paris. &t

enumerates all and specified the delineation and

#oundaries of our territor includin" 7arianas &slands in

>uam. +hen there was a different reason wh we

adopted a definition in the 24/ Constitution. +his is

#ecause if we will rel merel on the +reat of Paris as

our title of what comprises as the Philippine *ational

+erritor it would e%clude the Datanes &slands. Decause

the Datanes &sland were not included in the definition in

the +reat of Paris. $o to inlcude it, we have to define our national territor and also another reason for that is to

protect our natural resources that are found in the

archipela"ic waters. TN that our territor is an archipela"o

and therfore if ou follow the ordinar principle of

international law in determinin" territorial seas then ou

will #e creatin" poc!ets of international waters within our

territor.

. Arc"ipelagic doctrine

We cannot afford to have that situation so we adopted

another doctrine which is the Arc(i,ela#ic -octrine.

&t means waters around, #etween and connectin" the

islands re"ardless of #readth and dimensions are

considered as inland waters, internal waters treated li!e

canals, rivers or swamps. +here is no controvers there

on territorial sea to the e%tent of urisdiction #eacuse the

are treated as internal waters. &n the 254 constitution we

adopted the defintion of national territor with some

chan"es in some phrases. ?ur conflict with 7alasia over

$a##ah, inorder to erase that thou"ht of annoance or

irritation, we erased the phrase K#elon"in" to the

Philippines # historic0le"al title instead we have Kin all

other territories in which the Philippines has soverei"nt


6/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) "or urisdiction. $o whatever the reason is of the definiton

of the national territor that will #ind us and not

necassaril the nei"h#orin" countries.

+he national territor comprises the Philippine

archipela"o, with all the islands and waters em#raced

therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines

has soverei"nt or urisdiction, consistin" of its terrestrial,fluvial and aerial domains, includin" its territorial sea, the

sea#ed, the su#soil, the insular shelves, and other

su#marine areas. +he waters around, #etween, and

connectin" the islands of the archipela"o, re"ardless of

their #readth and dimensions, form part of the internal

waters of the Philippines

@: What is an archipela"oA

': ' "roup of islands surrounded # the sea waters or it

could #e a #od of water studed with islands. +he "eneral

concept of archipela"o is the latter defintion,#od of sea

water studed with several islands. ' territor ma consist

of several archipela"oes or ust one archipela"o. ?urs is

ust one consistin" of 4,9; when low tide and 4,99

when hi"h tide. TN of the definiton of an archipela"o in

the N*CL?$,

ART. 12. 34E O TERM4

(") 5"rhipel"gi 4t"te5 !e"ns " 4t"te onstitute# *holl% '%

one or !ore "rhipel"gos "n# !"% inlu#e other isl"n#s6

(') 5"rhipel"go5 !e"ns " group o$ isl"n#s, inlu#ing p"rts

o$ isl"n#s, interonneting *"ters "n# other n"tur"l

$e"tures *hih "re so losel% interrel"te# th"t suh isl"n#s,

*"ters "n# other n"tur"l $e"tures $or! "n intrinsi

geogr"phi"l, eono!i "n#

We have #i" islands LuEon, Bisaas and 7indanao. +hen

we have Palawan, the West Philipinnes $ea and ou can

also find the islands #ein" the su#ect of the controvers,

Oalaaan "roup of &sland and the $car#orou"h shoal.

@: Fow did we acuire these islands, not particluarl the

main archipela"oA

': We acuired the islands # virtue of transfer e%cept for

Datanes &slands. Datanes islands were acuired # lon"

occupation. +he rest # +reat of Paris. 'nd then there

were other islands that were added

@: What are other islands added to the Philippines

# virtue of +reat of Washin"ton and N$-Dritish +reatA

': 7a%i islands, +urtle islands, Ca"aan de $ulu,

$i#uto islands

TN/ &f ou are to determine the archipela"o, it loo!s

li!e a trian"le, until we have the two islands added the

$car#orou"h shoal and the O>&. O>& to some e%tent is

ha#ita#le, #ut $car#orou"h shoal is not. 't an rate, it is

not fit for human ha#itation or occupation. +his

information is si"nificant ta!in" into consideration the

present controvers with China.

@: What is the s tatus of these islands toda in

relation to R' 23 (7arch 9, 992)A

': +he used to #e part of the archipela"o until we

were pressured into redefinin", redrawin" our archipela"o

so that the will #e more or less consistent with the

provisions of the N*CL?$. D virtue of this law, these two

other territories that we are claimin" as part of our

archipela"o, such as the $car#orou"h shoal and the O>&

were 1ICLN=1= from the main archipela"o and are

?*LY +R1'+1= '$ R1>&71 ?< &$L'*=$. $o in the

W'+1R$ $1P'R'+&*> these two from the main

archipela"o W&LL *?+ D1 '*Y7?R1 &*CLN=1= &*

+F1 &*+1R*'L W'+1R$ =1&C W'+1R$. +he water around it, to

determine its claim over the seawaters, is #ased on

*ormal Dase Line, not 1%clusive 1conomic Mone.

+he si"nificance there, the waters separatin"

these islands from the main archipela"o will no lon"er #e

considered internal waters. +hat is the implication. 'nd

we’ve lost therefore a num#er of nautical miles of

seawaters #ecause of the e%clusion. &t used to #e

rectan"ular, now it is onl trian"le.

TN/ 'nthin" pertainin" to maritime urisdiction or

domain, it is "overned # the N*CL?$. 'lwas

remem#er that. Read it and ou will top the #ar. +hat’s not

onl applica#le in political law #ut as well as in pu#lic

international law.

@: +hese islands are mostl roc!s. Wh are we

interested in themA

': We’re interested over the seawaters surroundin"

these islands, as #ases for our claim over the maritime

domain. +he are ver rich in resources. +he are part of

the 7alampaa.

@: What is the #asis of China in assertin" claim over

these islandsA

': +heir #asis is 1%clusive 1conomic Mone. China

claims that there is overlappin" of 1%clusive 1conomic

Mone, and #ased from their 11M, that is still covered from

Fainan island.

TN/ &nsofar as our claim over the seawater which

used to #e ust internal waters, now we have to determinethe seawaters and the #ases of 1&+F1R the’re part of

the 11M or its territorial seas.

@: What is the purpose of R' 23A

': &n "ist R' 23 defines the "eneral confi"uration

of the archipela"o includin" the e%tended continental

shelf and the 11M to ma!e it more compliant to N*CL?$.

@: What is +1RR&+?R&'L $1'A


7/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) # ': Nnder ordinar circumstances, if ou have this

continent, it’s onl nautical miles from the normal #ase

line. You draw it from the normal #ase line of the coastline

of a territor.

@: DN+ $?71+&71$, there are continents that are

su#mer"ed, and there ma #e an e%tension of the inland

which is su#mer"ed that "oes #eond the *7. &s thatpart of the territorA

': 'nswer is *?, onl up to *7. DN+, we have

soverei"n ri"hts over the water #eond that *7 up to

another *7 from the end of the *7 of territorial

seas so 6 *7 from the normal #ase line. +hat’s what

we call 1I+1*=1= C?*+&*1*+'L $F1L< PR&*C&PL1.

@: What is the purpose of 1%tended Continental

$elf PrincipleA

':


8/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) $allowed as part of the ri"ht of wa, the same with

1%clusive 1conomic Mone.

@:


9/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) %7alasia to su#mit to the urisdiction of the &C8. +he least

that the did was to hold a referendum, as!in" people if

the want to #ecome part of the Philippine territor which

o#viousl was refused #latantl and so this prompted

pro#a#l the "overnment to create a terrorist "roup in

order to infiltrate the territor. Fowever it was discovered

and all of these terrorists were massacred. +hat was the

8a#idah 7assacre that led to our droppin" of our claimover $a#ah. ?therwise, 7alasia was read to declare

war a"ainst us. +hat was the controvers involvin"

$a#ah.

's & have said, the provisions of the Constitution does not

#ar us from claimin" it in the future when we #ecome so

powerful #ecause we are so rich and ma#e we can ust

#u 7alasia or ust invade 7alasia and $a#ah and

esta#lish a "overnment there and sent all our prisoners to

$a#ah.

7arianas &slands and >uam, our claim is #ased on the

+reat of Paris. &t is not so potent, our #asis of our claim.

$o what happened, it ust fiEEled out. +here was areferendum there and the refused to #ecome part of our

territor and the rather #e under the trusteeship of N$.

Let’s tal! a#out Dan"samoro.

/ Fow does it affect our territorA

A/ &t does not at all affect our territor’s definition. &t’s ust

delineatin", definin" what is considered to #e the re"ion

to #e "overned # 7uslims in accordance with their

culture, their customs and their traditions. 's lon" as if

the are not a su#-$tate, there can #e no violation of the

definition of the national territor neither can there #e of

the provision of the Constitution re"ardin" havin" one

"overnment #ecause still the will #e under the national"overnment #ut the control of the national "overnment

over them is lesser as compared to local "overnments. &t

is some !ind of federal sstem of "overnment wherein

the are considered supreme in their own sphere and

their laws and mana"ement of affairs is #ased on their

customs and traditions.

Will see until we read the ?r"anic Law creatin" it and until

the $upreme Court will resolve the matter #ecause

definitel there will #e a challen"e #ecause & thin! it will

#e #ased on the same o#ections that were raised in the

Dan"samoro 8uridical 1ntit #efore durin" the 'rroo

administration. +hat case involvin" the *orth Cota#ato. &t

mi"ht #e raised a"ain and until the $upreme Courtdecides on the issue it is not et controversial that ou are

to worr a#out it for the #ar e%ams. We will wait and see.

Dut the "eneral principle is that there should #e no su#-

state. 't least it is ust an autonomous "overnment #ut

definitel not a su#-state #ecause that would #e contrar

to the Constitution, more particularl on havin" one

repu#lican state and the definition of the national territor.

*ow, let’s tal! a#out territorial seas referrin" to the sea

waters alon" its coastline up to *7. +he airspace

a#ove, no limits. Np to the universe. Dut the international

waters is for ever#od’s use. +he su#soil ou can "o as

if as ou can if ou have the capacit.

You have other soverei"n areas: the insular shelves, the

trench and etc ust "o over with that. +he more important

there is the e%tended continental shelf.

?n internal waters:

/ what do ou use as #asis or method in determinin"

archipela"ic watersA 3*AR

A/ You used the strai"ht-line method. Remem#er the

strai"ht-#aseline method wherein ou connect the

outermost islands and all the waters inside are

considered as internal waters. ?utside, considered as

part of the territorial seas up to *7 su#ect to

archipela"ic plates, in other words, ri"ht of wa.

Read the concept of Re"ime of &slands

(8ence" far from surrendering the 2hilippines@ claim o%er the K&4 and the Scarborough Shoal" Congress@ decision

to classif' the K&4 and the Scarborough Shoal as

>@Regime,s- of &slands@ under the Republic of the

2hilippines consistent $ith Article 505> of :NC+OS &&&

manifests the 2hilippine State@s responsible obser%ance

of its pacta sunt ser%anda obligation under :NC+OS &&&.

:nder Article 505 of :NC+OS &&&" an' >naturall' formed

area of land" surrounded b' $ater" $hich is abo%e $ater

at high tide"> such as portions of the K&4" #ualifies under

the categor' of >regime of islands"> $hose islands

generate their o$n applicable maritime ones.) ???

3Magallona %. *rmita" 4.R. No. 57567" August 56" 0155

/ What are re"ime of islandsA

A/ +he consist of islands or naturall formed areas of

lands surrounded # water that remains a#ove water

durin" hi"h tide.

Dahala na u" tumo ra li!e the $car#orou"h $hoal.

+he principal forces, claimant states over certain territor

to maintain peace in the area #ecause no countr can

claim, e%clusive ownership of an of these islands.

$o e%tended continental shelf ma also refer to the

conti"uous Eone.

B. State immunit!

Let’s "o to 'rticle &&.

/ What are the elements of the $tateA

A/ People, +erritor, >overnment, $overei"nt

People- what is si"nificant is the provisions on citiEenship.

+erritor- we have e%plained it alread.

>overnment- the discussion will involve all a#out

"overnment.


10/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) &'Let’s tal! a#out soverei"nt.

Decause the state is soverei"n then there can #e no

authorit hi"her or eual to that. +herefore, not su#ected

to the authorit of the courts. +he principle wh the state

is soverei"n, first of all #ecause there can #e no le"al

ri"ht a"ainst the authorit that ma!es the law on which

that ri"ht depends. 3case inaudible 'lso for practicalreason, if ou su#ect the state to suits, the "overnment

will ust #e #us entertainin" suits rather than doin" its

o#.

'nd #esides, under the rinci,le o' Royal -is(onesty5

how can one who is soverei"n li!e the !in" commit a

wron" a"ainst anoneA +he onl thin! the #est of the

"overnment for the #est interests of the people. &t can

never commit or do wron" to anone. +his is the principle

of roal dishonest on the part of the state #ecause even

if ou have claims a"ainst it, the state is not lia#le

#ecause it cannot do an wron" a"ainst anone.

+hus, as a "eneral rule: You cannot sue the $tate.

/ *ow who is the state that ou are referrin" to that can

#e su#ect to a suitA

A/ You have the Repu#lic of the Philippines,

unincorporated a"encies of the "overnment e%ercisin"

"overnmental functions, the "overnment officials and

emploees performin" "overnmental functions.

You cannot file a complaint if the defendant is the

Repu#lic of the Philippines. +hat’s the "eneral rule. Dut

sometimes there are cases filed a"ainst the Repu#lic and

et the action prospers. WhA Decause other than those

enumerated entities that could #e the su#ect to a suit that

is not allowed, there is a reuirement that onl those suita"ainst those / entities that would reuire the "overnment

to do an affirmative act such as involvin" appropriation of

pu#lic funds or loss of "overnment propert that is not

allowed to #e filed a"ainst the state.

You ma sue the state for as lon" as it will not entail

appropriation of funds or loss of "overnment propert.

1%ample:

/ &n an application for re"istration of title, who will #e the

respondent in that case if ou were the applicantA

A/ &t will #e the Repu#lic of the Philippines, the Dureau of

Lands or the =1*R.

WhA Decause if there is no claim over the land, the

presumption of the law is that it #elon"s to the state. Dut if

ou can esta#lish that it does not #elon" to the state, that

it is an aliena#le land of the state that can #e disposed of

and acuired, and then if it is awarded to ou then it does

not involve an loss of "overnment propert #ecause it

has never #een part of the pu#lic estate #ecause ou

owned it. You are the owner of the propert. You are onl

confirmin" our ownership # as!in" the court that the

propert #e re"istered in our name.

'nd that’s precisel even if the Repu#lic of the Philippines

is made part defendant, that action will prosper.

/ &f ou claim dama"es a"ainst the "overnment and ou

named the Repu#lic of the Philippines as defendant, this

is a personal claim for dama"es, will our action prosperA

A: 1ven if the claim is valid, under the principle of roal

prero"ative of dishonest, the case is dismissed #ecause

the state is immune from suit.

/ Fow a#out if ou claim for ust compensation a"ainst

the Repu#lic #ecause ou were not paid when the

"overnment too! our propert for the widenin" of the

road, can ou sue the "overnment throu"h the =PWFA

A/ Yes. &t will not entail appropriation of pu#lic funds.

Defore e%propriation, there is alread appropriation of

pu#lic funds. &f there was no appropriation in the first

place, then the ta!in" is ille"al. $econd reason for that,

accordin" to the $C in man decisions, e%propriation

must not #e used as a tool to oppress propert owners

whose propert was ta!en for the use of the pu#lic.

You remem#er that 7inisterio case vs Cha%e the right to enter in and upon the land socondemned> to appropriate the same to the public usedefined in the Budgment.> 5< &f there $ere an obser%anceof procedural regularit'" petitioners $ould not be in the

sad plaint the' are no$. &t is unthinable then that precisel' because there $as a failure to abide b' $hat the la$ re#uires" the go%ernment $ould stand to benefit.&t is Bust as important" if not more so" that there be fidelit' to legal norms on the part of officialdom if the rule of la$ $ere to be maintained. &t is not too much to sa' that $henthe go%ernment taes an' propert' for public use" $hichis conditioned upon the pa'ment of Bust compensation" tobe Budiciall' ascertained" it maes manifest that it submitsto the Burisdiction of a court. There is no thought then that the doctrine of immunit' from suit could still beappropriatel' in%oed.

't an rate, that’s the #ottomline, the common

denominator. &f it’s the Repu#lic of the Philippines, a"ainas & have said, onl when it entails appropriation of pu#lic

funds or loss of "overnment propert.

&n so far as a"encies of the "overnment, onl those

a"encies #ein" sued that are considered as

unincorporated. +he are considered unincorporated

#ecause the do not have a personalit independent that

of the Repu#lic of the Philippines. +he are part of the

"overnment of the Repu#lic of the Philippines. &f ou sue

an unincorporated a"enc, it is li!ened to suin" the


11/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) &&"overnment itself. 1%ample of unincorporated a"encies:

the different departments of "overnment, the

administrative #odies of the "overnment. &f ou sue, for

e%ample, the Dureau of .R. *o. 6/; 7a /, 99;

Lichauco was sued in her personal capacit #ecause of

the denial of a franchise. $he then invo!ed immunit fromsuit so that the case will #e dismissed outri"ht. $hould the

court dismiss the case outri"htA

': *o, #ecause it still has to #e esta#lished that she did

not act in e%cess of her authorit or with "ross ne"li"ence

or with "rave a#use of her authorit amountin" to lac! or

e%cess of urisdiction. Decause if that is esta#lished then

she will #e held lia#le personall, the case cannot #e

dismissed automaticall. 'lthou"h if it is in the

performance of a "overnmental function li!ewise where

ultimatel it will #e for the $tate to answer for the lia#ilit,

the case will not prosper.

The present action $as denominated against +ichauco

and the unno$n a$ardee" +ichauco $as identified in the

complaint as >acting Secretar' of the ,DOTC-.> The

hornboo rule is that a suit for acts done in the

performance of official functions against an officer of the

go%ernment b' a pri%ate citien $hich $ould result in a

charge against or financial liabilit' to the go%ernment

must be regarded as a suit against the State itself"

although it has not been formall' impleaded. 8o$e%er"

go%ernment immunit' from suit $ill not shield the public

official being sued if the go%ernment no longer has an

interest to protect in the outcome of a suitE or if the liabilit'

of the officer is personal because it arises from a tortious

act in the performance of hisFher duties??? 32hilippine Agila

Satellite &nc. %. TrinidadG+ichauco" 4.R. No. 5


12/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) &2mista!e, the should #e investi"ated for lia#ilit in relation

to the massacre of the farmers of Facienda Luisita at the

7endiola #rid"e durin" her administration. +he used the

declaration of the President to sue the militar, the 'high position inthe go%ernment does not confer a license to persecute or reclessl' inBure another.) 3Ca'lao case

@: ?ne time there was a contract entered into # a"overnment a"enc with a private individual. +he contract

itself provides that in case of #reach violation, the office is

sua#le. &t can #e sued. *ow, would that #e a valid waiver

of immunitA

': *o, #ecause if waiver of immunit is e%press, it must

onl #e # le"islation of Con"ress.

's & have said earlier, there are "eneral laws and special

laws. +he "eneral laws: li!e the provisions of the Civil

Code ('rticle 59, 5;) ou have the Local

>overnment Code. +hese are "eneral laws passed #

Con"ress where the "overnment is allowed to sue.

Nsuall this is a conseuence of the "overnment’s ri"ht to

acuire propert and as such, in relation to the acuisition

of propert, has the ri"ht to sue and #e sued in relation to

its ri"ht to acuire or to possess that propert. +hese are

"eneral provisions of laws: 59 refers to special a"ent. &

thin! 5; would refer to Local >overnment units who donot properl maintain their roads and draina"e nia

mahulo" !a sa manhole. &n the law on torts, the state has

"iven its consent to #e sued for this ne"li"ence that ma

have #een caused # improper maintenance or no

maintenance at all of "overnment #uildin"s and

infrastructures. D that, the state has waived immunit

from suit.

$pecial laws are laws specificall passed # Con"ress

authoriEin" a particular individual to sue the state, where

the state has waived its immunit from suit in a special

law allowin" an individual to prove his claim a"ainst the

state. ' "ood e%ample is the case of 7erritt vs. the

>overnment of the Philippine &slands where it wasCon"ress who passed a law allowin" the victim there to

sue, to prove his claim a"ainst the Beteran’s Fospital

owned # the "overnment.

&t’s actuall ver eas when there is an e%press law. 'n"

pro#lema an" implied "ivin" of consent.

&M2+&*D CONS*NT

Let’s tal! a#out implied "ivin" of consent. You have /

instances or rather 6 or 3.


13/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) &3consent there. 1ven if our mone claims is #ased on a

"overnmental contract, ou can still sue not in the implied

#ut in the e%press "ivin" of consent. Dut in the e%press

"ivin" of consent, there is a reuirement that ou must

first ma!e a claim with C?' #efore ou can sue C?' and

the "overnment a"enc that ou are claimin" a"ainst with

the $upreme Court.

'"ain, if it is a contract, the implied "ivin" of consent is

limited to purel proprietar or commercial contracts.

Fere, ou can sue the state directl.

$econd instance of implied "ivin" of consent: when

"overnment en"a"es in purel #usiness transactions,

commercial transactions - #usiness, ne"oso. &t has to #e

primaril commercial. Decause the sometimes the

"overnment ma also en"a"e in "overnmental function

and then part of the "overnmental function, to enhance it,

the ma also #e en"a"ed in proprietar function.

@: > initiated the filin" of the complaint a"ainst

the Denedictos for affirmative relief.

(Jut" as pri%ate respondent Jenedicto correctl' countered" the 2C44 fails to tae stoc of one of thee/ceptions to the state immunit' principle" i.e." $hen the

go%ernment itself is the suitor" as in Ci%il Case No. 11.R. *o. L-;9;9 $eptem#er /9, 236

+here was this transaction #etween the #an! and a

private individual. +his private individual failed to pa its

o#li"ation and so the ship that was used as collateral was

foreclosed # the #an!, the "overnment intervened to

stop the foreclosure #ecause the "overnment claims that

the ship used as collateral #elon"s to the state. Later, it

was declared # the $C that it #elon"ed to the individual

who owed mone. +he #an! has alread filed a case

a"ainst the "overnment to stop the foreclosure causin"

dama"e to the #an!.

@: Will the action prosperA

': *o, #ecause what the "overnment did in this case was

merel to repel or resist a claim a"ainst it which claims

that the ship was their propert and trin" to protect their

ri"hts over the propert.

(The other ground for dismissing the defendant@s

counterclaim is that the State is immune from suit. This is

untenable" because b' filing its complaint in inter%entionthe 4o%ernment in effect $ai%ed its right of nonsuabilit'.

The immunit' of the state from suits does not

depri%e it of the right to sue pri%ate parties in its

o$n courts. The state as plaintiff ma' a%ail itself

of the different forms of actions open to pri%ate

litigants. &n short" b' taing the initiati%e in an

action against a pri%ate part'" the state

surrenders its pri%ileged position and comes

do$n to the le%el of the defendant. The latter

automaticall' ac#uires" $ithin certain limits" the

right to set up $hate%er claims and other

defenses he might ha%e against the state. The

:nited States Supreme Court thus e/plainsL

>No direct suit can be maintained

against the :nited States. Jut $hen an

action is brought b' the :nited States

to reco%er mone' in the hands of a

part' $ho has a legal claim against

them" it $ould be a %er' rigid principle

to den' to him the right of setting up

such claim in a court of Bustice" and turn

him around to an application to


14/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) &Congress.> 3Sinco" 2hilippine 2olitical

+a$" Tenth *d." pp. 6G7" citing :.

S. %s. Ringgold" 2et. 5!1" +. ed.

99.

&t is ho$e%er" contended for the inter%enor that" if there

$as at all an' $ai%er" it $as in fa%or of the plaintiff against

$hom the complaint in inter%ention $as directed. This

contention is untenable. As alread' stated" the complaint

in inter%ention $as in a sense in derogation of the

defendant@s claim o%er the possession of the %essel in

#uestion)


15/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) &! Remem#er the World +rade '"reement (W+') where it

stipulates that Con"ress is prohi#ited from passin" a law

contrar to the provisions of the W+'. +hat was

uestioned # +anada and others, in effect, in our ma!in"

of forei"n policies, we are now controlled # forei"n

policies. Where is now soverei"nt or independence of

the Philippine state in the formulation of its forei"n policA

&?W, it will now violate the provisions relatin" toindependent forei"n polic and the states #ein"

soverei"n.

$C dismissed the case outri"ht sain" that ou cannot

use the provision of 'rticle && as #asis to uestion the

validit of that contract. Le"islation is needed to

implement the provisions in 'rticle. $C further discussed

that no man is an island and we cannot live # ourselves,

we need to relate with forei"n policies. 's lon" as there is

reciprocit and mutualit in the #enefit, it cannot #e a

violation.

&n O,osa v actoran5 e%cept on the provision of the ri"ht

to a #alanced ecolo", $C held that it is the onl provision

that is self-e%ecutin". 'll the rest needs le"islation.&'osa v (ac)oran G.R. No. 1010!* +ly *0, 199*

Hhile the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog' is to

be found under the Declaration of 2rinciples and State

2olicies and not under the Jill of Rights" it does not follo$

that it is less important than an' of the ci%il and political

rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a

different categor' of rights altogether for it concerns

nothing less than selfGpreser%ation and selfGperpetuation

aptl' and fittingl' stressed b' the petitioners the

ad%ancement of $hich ma' e%en be said to predate all

go%ernments and constitutions. As a matter of fact" these

basic rights need not e%en be $ritten in the Constitutionfor the' are assumed to e/ist from the inception of

humanind. &f the' are no$ e/plicitl' mentioned in the

fundamental charter" it is because of the $ellGfounded

fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and

healthful ecolog' and to health are mandated as state

policies b' the Constitution itself" thereb' highlighting

their continuing importance and imposing upon the state

a solemn obligation to preser%e the first and protect and

ad%ance the second" the da' $ould not be too far $hen

all else $ould be lost not onl' for the present generation"

but also for those to come generations $hich stand to

inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining

life.

C. General principles and state policies

(?nl the important ones will #e discussed, the rest is up

to ou)

Sec. 1. R-/23AN2S$

4e. 7 The Philippines is " #e!or"ti "n# repu'li"n 4t"te.

4overeignt% resi#es in the people "n# "ll govern!ent

"uthorit% e!"n"tes $ro! the!.

Repu#lican representation and renovation !ind of

"overnment. 1lect representatives in representation. &n

renovation, when there are chan"es evertime a term of

office of a pu#lic official e%pires, ou have new

administration that would introduce chan"es to the

"overnment.

Decause it is repu#lican, it is understood that soverei"nt

resides in the people. Whatever authorit e%ercised #officials, the must not for"et that the power comes from

the people.

@: Fow do ou !now that the sstem is repu#licanA

': You "o into the manifestations of repu#licanism.

. the %arious

operational aspects of budgeting"> including >the

e%aluation of $or and financial plans for indi%idual

acti%ities> and the >regulation and release of funds> in

%iolation of the separation of po$ers principle. The

fundamental rule" as categoricall' articulated in Abaada"

cannot be o%erstated from the moment the la$

becomes effecti%e" an' pro%ision of la$ that empo$ersCongress or an' of its members to pla' an' role in the

implementation or enforcement of the la$ %iolates the

principle of separation of po$ers and is thus

unconstitutional.595 That the said authorit' is treated as

merel' recommendator' in nature does not alter its

unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition" to repeat"

co%ers an' role in the implementation or enforcement of

the la$. To$ards this end" the Court must therefore

abandon its ruling in 2hilconsa $hich sanctioned the

conduct of legislator identification on the guise that the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt191http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt191


16/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) &"same is merel' recommendator' and" as such"

respondentsQ reliance on the same falters altogether.

Jesides" it must be pointed out that respondents ha%e

nonetheless failed to substantiate their position that the

identification authorit' of legislators is onl' of

recommendator' import. uite the contrar'" respondents

through the statements of the Solicitor 4eneral during

the Oral Arguments ha%e admitted that the identification

of the legislator constitutes a mandator' re#uirement

before his 2DA; can be tapped as a funding source"

thereb' highlighting the indispensabilit' of the said act to

the entire budget e/ecution process

?ne of the issues raised is the constitutionalit of the por!

#arrel sstem, W?* it violates the separation of powers.

1%planation: there are three #ranches of the "overnment

supposedl independent from each other #ecause the

do not owe each other powers assi"ned # theconstitution. &t would #e e%press, implied or incidental

powers.


17/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law)

TN: the case ofTañada vs. Angarawith respect to the

WTO.

Sec. 1 is about republicanism.

TN:)*AR+/ the principles of repu#licanism particularl on

the principles of $eparation of powers, chec! and

#alances of the powers and the #lendin" of the powers,

non-dele"ation of powers, the power of udicial review on

the $C to implement on the separation and the non-

dele"ation of the powers, accounta#ilit of pu#lic officials,

rule of maorit, so on and so forth.

'rt && sec. , this is also important. +his has #een as!ed

several times #ecause of pu#lic international law, which is

still part of Political Law.

4etion 8. The Philippines renounes *"r "s "n instru!ent

o$ n"tion"l poli%, "#opts the gener"ll% "epte# priniples

o$ intern"tion"l l"* "s p"rt o$ the l"* o$ the l"n# "n#

"#heres to the poli% o$ pe"e, e+u"lit%, ustie, $ree#o!,

ooper"tion, "n# "!it% *ith "ll n"tions.

Principle of international law is "enerall accepted, it will

#e applied # our courts as thou"h it were local or

municipal statutes. $o there is no need for le"islation to

accept a "enerall accepted principle in international law

(>'P&L) in order to implement it in our urisdiction or appl

it in actual cases in our courts. $o let’s enumerate the

sources of the "enerall accepted principles of

international law that are automaticall adapted as part of

the le"al sstem.

Trea)ies.

You have the ratified treaties entered into # our countr

with other countries. D ratified, it means that it musthave #een concurred # at least 0/ of the mem#ers of

the $enate in order to #ind us. +here is no need of

le"islation in order to appl these a"reements.


18/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) &$+he second pro#lem there is, there is no a"reement

#etween the N$ and the Philippines that #oth will

reco"niEe the court ud"ments of the other state. Dut it

has #een the practice in the international communit that

forei"n ud"ments are reco"niEed for as lon" as ou

follow certain rules for its authentication, that indeed it

e%ists, that it’s in accordance with the rules, etc. then we

can reco"niEe the same and even enforce it. $o the $Csaid in the case of 7iares that there is no o#li"ator rule

derived from treaties or convention that reuires the

Philippines to reco"niEe forei"n ud"ments or allow the

procedure for the reco"nition thereof, however, >'P&L,

and # virtue of the incorporation clause, commands us to

reco"niEe these practices even if the do not emanate

from treat o#li"ations.

(Iet e%en if there is no unanimit' as to the applicabletheor' behind the recognition and enforcement of foreign

Budgments or a uni%ersal treat' rendering it obligator' force" there is consensus that the %iabilit' of suchrecognition and enforcement is essential.

Salonga" $hose treatise on pri%ate international la$ is of $orld$ide reno$n" points outLHhate%er be the theor' as to the basisfor recogniing foreign Budgments"there can be little dispute that the end is to protect the reasonablee/pectations and demands of the

parties. Hhere the parties ha%esubmitted a matter for adBudication inthe court of one state" and proceedingsthere are not tainted $ith irregularit'"the' ma' fairl' be e/pected to submit"$ithin the state or else$here" to theenforcement of the Budgment issued b' the court.

There is no obligator' rule deri%ed from treaties or con%entions that re#uires the 2hilippines to recognieforeign Budgments" or allo$ a procedure for theenforcement thereof. 8o$e%er" generall' accepted

principles of international la$" b' %irtue of theincorporation clause of the Constitution" form part of thela$s of the land e%en if the' do not deri%e from treat' obligations.)

$o the customary ,ractices are a com#ination of t"o

elements

TN:

. 1sta#lished, widespread and consistent

practices on the part of the states. +here is an opinion as to law or necessit.

$o if these two elements are esta#lished, then it #ecomes

customar international law and it also #ecomes a >'P&L,

and so under the incorporation clause, it #ecomes part of

the le"al sstem.

Let’s have a concrete e%ample and let’s tal! a#out the

immunit from suit of heads of state. $o for e%ample, if

the head of state commits rape in the Philippines pu#licl

and even if everone witnessed the act. +here is no

criminal prosecution #ecause it is >'P&L that a

representative of a soverei"n state cannot #e su#ected to

the authorit of another state’s court. 'P&L.

1%ample: =o ou remem#er the >eneva Conventions

where we were not si"natories to these treatiesA +hese

treaties, this was after WW, allowed for the

esta#lishment of militar commissions which had

urisdiction to prosecute war criminals.

TN of the case of Ouroda vs 8alandoni >.R. *o. L-;;

7arch ;, 262. ?ne of the captured 8apanese "enerals

uestioned the urisdiction of the Philippine militar

commission, sain" that it had no urisdiction since its

creation was invalid #ecause the Philippines was not asi"nator to the >eneva Convention.

@: What did the $C sa a#out thisA

': &t said that we mi"ht not #e a si"nator to it, #ut it has

to #e noted that that Convention or +reat has #ecome a

customar law, and as such, it has also #ecome >'P&L,

and is automaticall adapted as part of the le"al sstem

of the land, #ecause a"ain of the incorporation clause.

+hat principle was also applied in the case of the $tatute

of Rome, #ecause while we were not a si"nator to it, #ut

the $tatute of Rome was accepted # the international

communit and throu"h time it #ecame a customar

international law. 7eanin", even if there was no

concurrence or ratification, #ut # virtue of it #ein" a

customar law, we are su#ect to it under the

incorporation clause #ecause it has #ecome a >'P&L.

TN also of the case of Pharmaceutical and Fealth Care

'ssociation of the Philippines vs =uue >.R. *o. 4/9/6

?cto#er 2, 994. &’ve mentioned this #efore that this

pertains to the reuirement that if ou’re a manufacturer

of mil!, ou’re supposed to put in the can or carton that

#reast mil! is still the #est mil! in the universe. 't that

time, the #ill was still pendin" in Con"ress, and so the

manufacturers uestioned the reuirement of =uue.

: *ow, what was invo!ed # =uue who was then the

$ecretar of FealthA

A: +hat Convention where we’re a si"nator that has

#ecome a customar law that reuires that it should #e

stated in all mil! products that #reast mil! is still the #est.

'"ain, # virtue of the incorporation clause, this was

automaticall adapted in our local laws. You don’t need

local urisdiction to implement it.

: Dut what happens when there is a conflict #etween a

>'P&L and a statuteA


19/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) &% ': TN here "us of the case of &chon" vs FernandeE >.R.

*o. L-4223 7a /, 234, where the $C said that as

much as possi#le, #oth have to #e reconciled #ecause it

is not the intention of Con"ress or the President to pass a

law or enter into a treat with the purpose of intentionall

violatin" e%istin" laws or Con"ress violatin" what has

#een a"reed upon # the President in a treat. +hat’s

alwas the principle: ou harmoniEe it. &f it cannot #eharmoniEed, which of these two will prevailA You follow

&chon" vs FernandeE, that it should alwas #e the

municipal law, #ecause after all, the court that decides

whether or not the international law or the municipal law

which should #e sustained is an or"an of law, of

Con"ress, in which case, it must alwas sustain our own

laws. Dut if the international law conflicts with our

Constitution, the Constitution alwas prevails.

The Treat' of Amit' bet$een the Republic of the2hilippines and the Republic of China of April 5" 59R

49;3, 'pril 3, 99;

&n the &DP case, this is a#out the deploment of the

marines in the malls. +he $C said that there’s no violation

of the civilian supremac over the militar #ecause the

marines were still under the leadership of the local chief

police force, who is in char"e in the maintenance of

peace and order.

&n the >udani case, this is when >udani, notwithstandin"

the directions of his Chief of $taff not to appear in a

le"islative inuir, defied the order and appeared and

testified. $o he was court martial-ed’. Fe uestioned the

urisdiction of the court martial # sain" that all that he

did was to heed the order of Con"ress e%ercisin" its

power to conduct le"islative inuir. Dut the $upreme

Court said that no, our accounta#ilit is direct to the

Chief of $taff or to the President as the Commander in

Chief. You follow the chain of command in order to

maintain the supremac of the civilian authorit over the

militar. +he Chief of $taff, as directed # the Commander

in Chief (the President) told ou not to appear, in which

case, ou should follow that first, #ecause it would #e too

dan"erous if a person can ust def an order from theCommander in Chief. &f there is a sanction and >udani

cannot appear in a le"islative inuir, that’s alread

Con"ress’ pro#lem and not >udani’s pro#lem, #ecause

his primar concern is his accounta#ilit to the

Commander in Chief and not to Con"ress.

S-3T2&N # R2GHT T& -AR AR$S 2N &RD-R T&

R&T-3T 2(-, 2-RT8, R&-RT8

$ection 3 came out in the *AR e%am, and this is with

re"ard to the maintenance of peace and order if we are to

eno the #lessin"s of democrac. +here should #e

protection of life, li#ert and propert and ou need to do

this # #earin" arms. &n such a case, ou are armed with

a "un or an weapon in order to protect our propert or our life or our li#ert. $o the uestion is this: is carrin"

a firearm a ri"ht or a privile"e that is merel "ranted #

the stateA

TN/ Remem#er the case of ChaveE vs Romulo >.R. *o.

349/;, 8une 2, 996, #ecause in 'merica, this is

considered as a propert ri"ht, so therefore the permit

cannot ust #e revo!ed # the state without hearin". &n the

case of ChaveE, he uestioned the order of the >eneral

Chief of the P*P revo!in" all the permits of all those who


20/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 2'had firearms without hearin", or the revocation was

effected # that mere pronouncement.

$o, ChaveE was sain" that that can’t #e done #ecausethat’s an intrusion to the ri"ht of the person to protect hislife, li#ert and propert without due process. Dutaccordin" to the $C, the ri"ht to carr firearms is not apropert ri"ht and so it is not covered under the dueprocess clause. &t is a privile"e "ranted to a personsu#ect to revocation to #e e%ercised # the state under its police power.

S-3T2&N S-ARAT2&N &( 3H/R3H AND STAT-

What is important under the separation of church and thestate are the e%ceptions.

E%em,tions o' t(e ,rinci,le o' se,aration o' C(urc(and State/. Ta% e%em,tions 'or t(ose actually5 directly and

e%clusively used 'or reli#ious ,ur,oses. *um#er

one as an e%ception reco"niEin" the contri#ution of

the church to the state is ta% e%emptions to

properties that are actuall, directl and e%clusivel

used for reli"ious purpose, however limited onl to

propert ta%, re"ardless of ownership. Purpose has

to #e loo!ed into, not mere ownership.

. Teac(in# o' reli#ion in ,u&lic elementary and

(i#( sc(ools. You also have the teachin" of

reli"ion in pu#lic elementar and hi"h schools.

Remem#er that for as lon" as there is consent

from the parents or "uardians in writin" and that

it is not within school hours and without an

additional cost to the "overnment to #e

conducted # an accredited reli"ious teacher.

+hat is allowed in pu#lic schools.

/. Reli#ious ,eo,le in t(e military and in

or,(ana#es. 'nother e%ception is on the

appropriation of pu#lic funds. +hat is prohi#ited if

it is used for the support of an church or an

priest and minister, e%cept when the priest or

minister is wor!in" for the '

church> in its generic sense" $hich refers to a temple" a

mos#ue" an iglesia" or an' other house of 4od $hich

metaphoricall' s'mbolies a religious organiation. Thus"

the >Church> means the religious congregations

collecti%el'.

Jalancing the benefits that religion affords and the need

to pro%ide an ample barrier to protect the State from the

pursuit of its secular obBecti%es" the Constitution la's

do$n the follo$ing mandate in Article &&&" Section ! and

Article &" Section 09 30" of the 597 Constitution. ////

&n short" the constitutional assurance of religious freedom

pro%ides t$o guaranteesL the *stablishment Clause and

the ;ree */ercise Clause.

The es)ablishmen) clase >principall' prohibits the State

from sponsoring an' religion or fa%oring an' religion asagainst other religions. &t mandates a strict neutralit' in

affairs among religious groups.> *ssentiall'" it prohibits

the establishment of a state religion and the use of public

resources for the support or prohibition of a religion.

On the other hand" the basis of the :ree e;ercise

clase is the respect for the in%iolabilit' of the human

conscience. :nder this part of religious freedom


21/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 2&guarantee" the State is prohibited from undul' interfering

$ith the outside manifestations of one@s belief and faith.)

??? 3&mbong %. Ochoa" Pr." 4.R. No. 01


22/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 22TN/ 's a "eneral rule, the entr of forei"n militar troops

is prohi#ited # the Constitution.

1%cept here it was onl # wa of an e%ception rather

than as a "eneral rule, specificall #ecause of the

possi#ilit of nuclear weapons #ein" #rou"ht here into

countr. +hat is prohi#ited. Dut suppose in the future,

(alan"an man primi canon nalan" c"e aton" "amiton,una tanan nuclear weapons), it depends on national

interest, and it is Con"ress who will determine that.

Sec. 50 Sanctit' of the ;amil'

+his is the #ases on uestionin" the constitutionalit of

RF Law, otherwise !nown as R' 9/36.

TN/ +hat it ma violate or threat the life of an un#orn. +o

the controvers or issue on when does life start, #ecause

of the use of contraceptives. +he are sain" in effect it

promotes a#ortion, (unsaon man nimo pa" a#ort !un"

wala paman "ani) it prevents fertiliEation, #ecause the

are sain" precisel that should start from the contact. &t

cannot #e understood.

What must #e emphasiEed is that there is no violation of

the ri"hts of the un#orn accordin" to the $C #ecause

what is #ein" protected is the fertiliEed ovum from #ein"

e%pelled. &t does not allow a#ortion. +he are trin" to

"ive access to the poor women to protect their

reproductive health in havin" so man children as a !ind

of means of leisure so that the can eno without pain"

for it. $ince the have access to contraceptives, the will

have more children, and more mouths to feed. eneral Rule: +he provisions in the constitution are

mandator.

@: What are the e%ceptionsA What are the provisions in

the Constitution that is not mandatorA

': $ec. 4. &t is merel director in the sense that even if

its not followed, there canot #e no violation of the

Constitution.

'ccordin" to the $C, as it was emphasiEed in the

Cara"ue vs. >uin"ona (id) case, the "overnment is never

precluded or deprived from attendin" to other imperatives

of the "overnment. +here are other needs of "overnment

that needs attention, not ust education. Dut there is that

direction or instruction to "ive priorit. 'nd so with that

priorit, we have free education, in elementar and even

secondar li!e ni"ht school. Dut in colle"e, ou cannot

colle"e education #ecause this is not mandator. +he"overnment can onl provide for $tate Colle"es and

Nniversities with low cost tuition fees or otherwise "rant

scholarship to deservin" students in colle"e.

+his is on the indispensi#le role of the private sector. +his

is part of the *on >overnmental ?r"aniEations and to

implement this ou have li!e, allowin" them the chance to

participate in "overnance, such as the esta#lishment of

the part-list sstem. Wherein the can have the chance

or opportunit to #ecome mem#ers of the "overnment.


23/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 23Sec. 00 &ndigenous Cultural Communities

?n the promotion of indi"enous cultural communities

within the framewor! of national development, this was

alwas invo!ed in the case of Dan"samoro. Political

1ntit, and the concepts of 'ncestral =omain and

'ncestral Lands, this will #e discussed when we "o to the

topic on Re"alian =octrine.

Sec. 0! Autonom' of +ocal 4o%ts.

+o ensure local autonom. +here will #e a separate

discussion on this on 'rt. I. $uffice to sa what is now

relevant is the Dan"samoro in relation to the framewor!

a"reement. & suppose once it is passed there will #e a

uestion later in the future re"ardin" its validit. What is

emphasiEed is Local 'utonom. 7ocal -evolution o'

Services rather than =ecentraliEation of powers.

@: What do ou mean when ou sa =ecentraliEation of

PowersA

': &t is the transfer of powers from the *ational"overnment to the Local >overnment

+here is no such thin". ?ur local "overnments are not

independent from the *ational >overnment. +he are still

under the control and supervision of the *ational

>overnment.

@: Who has the control of Local >overnmentsA

': &t is Con"ress

@: Who has the supervisionA

': &t is the President

Sec. 06 *#ual Access to Opportunities for 2ublic OfficeF

2rohibition of 2olitical D'nasties

*AR @: &s Political =nast NnconstitutionalA

': Nntil there is a code that punishes political dnast for

penalties and activities defined as such, there is political

dnast to spea! of as of toda.

+he thin" is ou are "iven eual access and opportunit

to participate in "overnmental affairs. $o ust #ecause ou

have that ri"ht, ou can demand.

Li!e ou have the case of Pamaton" vs. C?71L1C, >.R.

*o. ;54 'pril /, 996 who wanted to #ecome the

President of the Repu#lic, however he was declared to #e

a *uisance Candidate. Fe invo!ed $ec. ; sain" that &

have the ri"ht to eual opportunit and access to pu#lic

service, wh are ou denin" me of this ri"ht.

$C said that this is not self-e%ecutin". +here are laws

providin" for limitations and ualifications. Fe was

runnin" a"ainst 1strada. *o#od !nows him, he does not

have the mone to campai"n, so *uisance candidate, ou

are disualified.

( The >e#ual access> pro%ision is a subsumed part of

Article && of the Constitution" entitled >Declaration of

2rinciples and State 2olicies.> The pro%isions under the

Article are generall' considered not selfGe/ecuting"0 and

there is no plausible reason for according a different

treatment to the >e#ual access> pro%ision. +ie the rest of

the policies enumerated in Article &&" the pro%ision does

not contain an' Budiciall' enforceable constitutional right but merel' specifies a guideline for legislati%e or

e/ecuti%e action. The disregard of the pro%ision does not

gi%e rise to an' cause of action before the courts.

Sec. 0 8onest' and &ntegrit' in 2ublic Ser%ice

+his is with re"ards to the mandate of the "overnment to

maintain honest and inte"rit.

You have now the reuirements of $'L* $tatement of

'ssets Lia#ilities and *et Worth, the are also a#usin"

this. What happenedA Decause of this, it too! no less

than the Chief 8ustice of the $upreme Court #ein"

impeached #ecause of his failure to state correctl his

statement of assets and lia#ilities. Wh is that that after

that, almost all the mem#ers of Con"ress corrected their

$'L*. Wh did the not "ive him the chance to correct itA

Decause under the law it provides for reservation that if it

is incorrect, ou are "iven a period of time within which to

ma!e the necessar corrections to state the actual assets

and lia#ilities that ou have.

@: 's part of accounta#ilit should it #e disclosed to the

pu#licA

': +here is alread a recent decision of the $upreme

Court on this matter. +here is this order of the $C

prohi#itin" the disclosure of the assets and lia#ilities. +he

8ustices and 8ud"es were sain", K'h we can #e!idnapped for ransom #ecause the pu#lic !nows our

assets and lia#ilities. Dut recentl in 9/, the $C was

sain" that these are pu#lic records, and should #e

disclosed to the pu#lic as part of pu#lic accounta#ilit

su#ect to rules that ma #e prescri#ed in the disclosure.

Q9/ case involvin" the $'L* of lieutenant focuses more

on '7LC freeEe order, this 9 case is more

appropriate

R- R-=/-ST (&R 3&8 &( "00! STAT-$-NT &(

ASS-TS, 2A22T2-S AND N-T>&RTH ?SAN@ AND

-RS&NA DATA SH--T &R 3/RR23//$ 72TA-

&( TH- +/ST23-S &( TH- S/R-$- 3&/RT AND

&((23-RS AND -$&8--S &( TH- +/D232AR8. A.$. No. 09

The Court notes the %alid concerns of the other

magistrates regarding the possible illicit moti%es of some

indi%iduals in their re#uests for access to such personal

information and their publication. 8o$e%er" custodians of

public documents must not concern themsel%es $ith the

moti%es" reasons and obBects of the persons seeing

access to the records. The moral or material inBur' $hich

their misuse might inflict on others is the re#uestors

responsibilit' and looout. An' publication is made


24/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 2subBect to the conse#uences of the la$. Hhile public

officers in the custod' or control of public records ha%e

the discretion to regulate the manner in $hich records

ma' be inspected" e/amined or copied b' interested

persons" such discretion does not carr' $ith it the

authorit' to prohibit access" inspection" e/amination" or

cop'ing of the records. After all" public office is a public

trust. 2ublic officers and emplo'ees must" at all times" beaccountable to the people" ser%e them $ith utmost

responsibilit'" integrit'" lo'alt'" and efficienc'" act $ith

patriotism and Bustice" and lead modest li%es.

E. C"ec$s and %alances

@: Fow was this violatedA

&n the e%ercise of the powers incum#ent, we have three

#ranches - e%ecutive, le"islative and udicial the powers

are "ranted # the constitution.


25/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 2!afraid to e%ercise their power or the don’t li!e to e%ercise

the power.

@: $o, in as much as the dele"ated power, wh

dele"atedA Who dele"ated the powerA

': the people throu"h the constitution. +he constitution

assi"ned the powers and the people elect the

representatives to e%ercise to rule the power to each

particular #ranch. $o what has #een dele"ated, is now

the principle, cannot #e dele"ated to another dele"ate.

+hat’s the "eneral rule.

@: Dut what happened in realit #ecause of the "rowin"

comple%ities of the needs of the people in the societA

': +here’s more on to the dele"ation on the power rather

than confinin" it to a #ranch on what could #e the #ranch

to e%ercise. 'nd thus, we have the e%ception called

permissi#le dele"ation of powers.

@: What would #e on the dele"ation of le"islative powerA

': +his power is primaril assi"ned to con"ress. +he

constitution sas this power ma also #e dele"ated to

another entities or individuals in the "overnment.

$o let’s have the e%ce,tions.

+he e%ceptions are:

. dele"ation to the president (sec / and 5 of art.

;). dele"ation of the power to the administrative

#odies under the e%ecutive department under

the principle of su#ordinate le"islation/. dele"ation of powers to local "overnment units

under R'4;96. dele"ation of the power to the people under art.

; sec / S R' ;4/3.

With re"ard to sec. / this is the emer"enc power that

ma #e dele"ated to the president.

@: $o if ou’re as! in the 7C@, where does this power

ori"inateA

': &t ori"inates from the con"ress then dele"ated to a law

in order for the president to e%ercise the power.

$o, in as much as this is a dele"ated power, it is a limited

power. *o less than the constitution sec / enumerates

the limitations on the e%ercise of the power. ) +here

should #e a law or statute authoriEin" the dele"ation in

cases of a war or a national emer"enc.

TN/ #ecause this has #ecome controversial when

president arroo issued Proclamation 94 declarin" a

state of national emer"enc. &f ou are to compare this to

a declaration the e%istence of the state of war, under the

constitution it is clear that it is for con"ress to do so

#ecause the purpose of which is to determine whether the

emer"enc power should #e dele"ated to the president in

case of war, under sec. /.

@: $o the uestion on the issue whether or not can

declare a state of national emer"encA $hould it #e

con"ress to do that, as a prelude to or a condition to a

dele"ation of emer"enc powerA &t is not then a

usurpation of le"islative function to declare a state of national emer"enc, so that con"ress will have a reason

to dele"ate the e%ercise of emer"enc power to the

presidentA What was the decision of the $C on this

matterA

': +he $C in the case of -avid et al vs. -rilon and

E%ec. Secretary !R 1B1=? ay 5 200?, $C was

sain" that there was no violation at all of the separation

of power neither the non-dele"ation of powers in this case

#ecause the president #ein" the chief e%ecutive is in the

#est position to !now the state of peace and order in the

countr as the P*P is directl under the supervision of the

president. 's to whether there is an threat to national

securit the president is in #etter position compared tocon"ress, as the national defense and the '


26/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 2"out the t'pes of businesses affected $ith public interest that should be taen o%er. &n short" the 2resident has noabsolute authorit' to e/ercise all the po$ers of the Stateunder Section 57" Article && in the absence of anemergenc' po$ers act passed b' Congress.

/ )*AR+ what if there is no declaration of the e%istence

of the state of warA Can she not declare war then #ein"

the commander in chiefA

': $he was never precluded from declarin" war even if

there is no declaration of a state of war or she can

e%ercise the emer"enc power such as dis#ursin" funds

in the prosecution of the war #ecause there cannot #e a

dele"ation without the con"ress declarin" the e%istence of

the state of war. $o ou ma!e a comparison, in the case

of a declaration of national emer"enc or state of

re#ellion.

While it is true that the president can declare a state of

national emer"enc without a law #ein" passed

authoriEin" her to do so, she cannot however, e%erciseemer"enc power in relation to it #ecause sec. 9 is clear

that there has to #e a statutor law "ivin" the e%ercise of

the power to the president this is part of the reason wh

partl the Proclamation 94 was declared

unconstitutional.

Nnli!e in a declaration of state of war, the president can

still declare war even without a declaration of the

e%istence of a state of war provided that she does not

e%ercise emer"enc powers. &t is onl temporar, the

purpose of which is onl to carr out the proper and

necessar defense polic of con"ress.

' declaration of state of war is not the same with adeclaration of a state of national emer"enc. ' declaration

of a state of national emer"enc can #e a prelude to a

declaration of martial law or suspension of the privile"e of

the writ of ha#eas corpus. &t is still within the power of the

president to declare #ein", not onl as the president, #ut

also as the commander in chief of the armed forces. &n

the matter of declaration of state of war, the constitution

has e%pressl provided that onl con"ress can ma!e such

a declaration. While the president as the commander in

chief ma declare war without a declaration of the

e%istence of a state of war, he cannot e%ercise

emer"enc powers nonetheless.

+he e%ercise of emer"enc power is onl temporar,meanin" as lon" as the war e%ists, he will continue to

e%ercise the power provided that it will not last until the

ne%t adournment of con"ress automaticall the e%ercise

of the power will #e withdrawn.

TN in an C: +here is no need of a statute or a law to

withdraw the power from the president # con"ress, # a

mere resolution it can #e withdrawn (a resolution does not

reuire the si"nature of the president) so that the

president will not have a chance to veto the withdrawal of

emer"enc powers from him.

'side from sec. / ou have sec. 5 on tariff powers of the president wherein the president also has the power to ta% such as: tariff rates, import0e%port uota, wharfa"edues, and other ta% impost and assessment.

+*: this has to #e e%pressl dele"ated to the president,the standard should #e within the framewor! of the

national development of the econom of the countr.

'lso, +*: the case of A&aada !uro arty 7ist vurisima !R No.1??B1@ Au#ust 145 200< recall theincrease of B'+ from 9H to H where there was anaccusation that the president usurped le"islative function# declarin" an increase of the B'+, #ut it was clarified# the $C that while the president has the power to ta%,that does not include domestic ta%ation #ecause suchpower is vested in con"ress. &n this case, there was nousurpation of le"islative function #ecause all that thepresident did here was to ascertain the facts whether thereuirements for an increase of the B'+ as provided inthe law were present #ecause these offices that providefor the information are under her, and when she learned

that all reuirements under the law have #een compliedwith, she had no choice #ut to implement the increase.$he ust ascertained the facts, and when found to #ee%istin", she ust implemented the law, she did not ma!ethe lawTthat function is e%clusive to con"ress in so far as ta%ation is concerned.

+hen ou have the e%ercise of the le"islative power #the administrative #odies. $o ou have the departments,a"encies and #ureaus of the "overnment authoriEed topromul"ate rules and re"ulations in order to implemente%istin" laws.


27/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 2#TN in relation to the completeness test: read the case of -e'ensor$Santia#o v Ramos (id) the resolution of theComelec implementin" R' ;4/3 on the initiative on theamendments to the constitution, was declaredunconstitutional #ecause in the first place, R' ;4/3 didnot provide for procedure on how to proposeamendments to the Constitution throu"h charter chan"e

# the people directl, there is nothin" in the law. $o howcan the Comelec then promul"ate rules that are a#sentof an authorit # an law #ecause the law is insufficientor not complete.

+hen ou also have to pass the sufficienc of standard:there has to #e a sufficient standard on the promul"ationof the rules and re"ulation.

+*: +he most recent decision re"ardin" that is the caseof !eroc(i v -e,artment o' Ener#y >R *o. 3242;8ul 4, 994, relatin" to the 1P&R' law that imposesuniversal char"e on electricit distri#ution. +here was anaccusation a"ainst the department of ener" (=o1) that itwas usurpin" le"islative function #ecause in effect it

imposes ta%es on the distri#ution of electricit. +he$upreme Court held that this was not ta%ation power thatwas e%ercised # =o1 #ecause it has no power to do so,that power is vested in con"ress. What the did was topromote the "eneral welfare. KPromotion of "eneralwelfare that was the sufficient standard, universal or national electrification, distri#ution of electricit all over the countr for the promotion of the "eneral welfare.When the =o1 imposed an amount in the "eneral fundfor universal char"e for the purpose of addin" funds to#e used in the distri#ution of electricit all throu"hout thecountr.

(As to the second test" this Court had" in the past"accepted as sufficient standards the follo$ingL >interest of

la$ and orderE>,!5- >ade#uate and efficient instructionE>,!0- >public interestE>,!- >Bustice and e#uit'E>,!public con%enience and $elfareE>,!!- >simplicit'" econom' and efficienc'E>,!6- >standardiationand regulation of medical educationE>,!7- and >fair and e#uitable emplo'ment practices.>,!- 2ro%isions of the*2&RA such as" among others" (to ensure the total electrification of the countr' and the #ualit'" reliabilit'"securit' and affordabilit' of the suppl' of electric

po$er),!9- and ($atershed rehabilitation and management),61- meet the re#uirements for %alid delegation" as the' pro%ide the limitations on the *RCs

po$er to formulate the &RR. These are sufficient standards.)

R *o.464 Ns.

T(is is im,ortantD

@: 'mon" the "overnment units, what are the political

su#divisionsA

': autonomous re"ionsT'R77 (which will soon #e

replaced # the Dan"samoro Political 1ntit (DP1) as

soon as the framewor! a"reement is passed into law),

provinces, cities, municipalities, #aran"as.

?ur sstem of "overnment is unitar, althou"h we are

trin" to esta#lish local autonom.

@: What is the e%tent of local autonomA

': +here is no decentraliEation of powers rather onl

decentraliEation of administration. +here cannot #e a

state within a state. &f ou consider the Dan"samoro as a

su#-state or a uridical entit, then it will #e contrar to the

provision of the constitution relatin" to the sstem of

"overnment that we have under the 254 Constitution. &t

can onl #e considered as an autonomous political

su#division.

@: With respect to the dele"ation of le"islative powers,

can it (DP1) form its own lawsA

': Yes it can, the same with other political su#divisions.

Fowever, DP1 ma #e special to a certain e%tent #ecause

the’re "iven more independence as compared to other

political su#divisions. +hese are em#odied in the

framewor! a"reement. 'nwa, the "eneral concept here

is that the will have their own laws that will #e in

conformit to the culture of the people of the different

provinces composin" the Dan"samoro.

TN in so far as the province and the others: can the pass

lawsA

Yes.

@: +his is dele"ated # what lawA

': R' 4;9 otherwise !nown as the Local >overnment

Code under the "eneral welfare clause.

TN/ the dele"ation of the power involves passin" laws

that are not contrar to the constitution. Li!ewise, it

should not #e in violation of an e%istin" laws passed #

con"ress #ecause L>Ns cannot rise a#ove the source of

their authorit. +herefore, the cannot pass a law in the

"uise of promotin" the "eneral welfare while prohi#itin"


28/140

USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional Law) 2$an activit that is allowed under e%istin" laws. +he ma

onl re"ulate the activit, #ut never prohi#it it. $imilarl,

the cannot in the "uise of promotin" the "eneral welfare,

allow an activit that is prohi#ited under e%istin" laws.

*either can the pass laws that will amend the national

laws. TN: Cru9 v aras !.R. No. 7$42@B1$B2 >uly 2@5

1=eneral 'ppropriations 'ct

(>''). 'pparentl, in the >'' what is onl mentioned are

those funds for proects for countr development, #ut as

to the identification of specific proects, the are not stated

in the >''. +hat supposedl, it is within the power of the

president to identif and implement, and not for con"ress.

D "ivin" that power to con"ress in effect, there is a

violation of the non-dele"ation of powers. &n this particular

case, e%ecutive power.

'ccordin" to $C in the case of (ilconsa v Enri8ue9,

what has #een done # the con"ress is onl to

recommend (#ut in realit the are actuall the ones who

determine the proects). $o this was uestioned a"ain in

9 in the Lamp case (7am, v Secretary o' *ud#etand ana#ement), #ut the $C said, case dismissed,

there is no evidence to show that the power is violated.

Nntil finall the Del"ica case (*el#ica v Oc(oa) wherein

the $C said that indeed there was a violation #ecause in

realit it is the con"ressmen who determine the proects

and determine the #eneficiaries (in fact the use to "et

9H until finall it #ecomes 99H #ecause the

#eneficiar does not e%ist at all).

When ou ta!e the #ar this will still #e a hot issue, so

compare the cases & mentioned: !uin#ona v. Cara#ue

!.R. No. =4@B1 A,ril 225 1==1 , Philconsa, L'7P,

Del"ica so ou would have a #etter understandin" of the

issues. *ot onl

Documents

Warrior Notes Constitutional Law