SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

De Leon v. ESGUERRAThe 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on

February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. (Effectivity is immediately upon ratification)

Gonzales v. COMELECNature of power to amend the Constitution or to

propose amendments thereto: not inherent power of Congress but of the people; constituent power of Congress

Tolentino v. COMELECThe condition and limitation that all the amendments to

be proposed by the same convention must be submitted in a “single election” or plebiscite.

Imbong v. COMELECCompetence of Congress acting as Constituent

Assembly: Authority to call constitutional convention as Constituent Assembly in enacting implementing details.

Sanidad v. COMELEC-Presidential exercise of legislative powers

(and proposing amendments) is valid in martial law.-Amending process is a sovereign act, although the

authority to institute the same and the procedure to be followed reside somehow in a particular body (Pres. Marcos).

Santiago v. COMELECThe right of the people to directly propose amendments

to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in a cold niche until Congress provides for its implementation. Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.

Lambino v. COMELECEssence of people's initiative: (1) people must author;

(2) they must sign the proposal; (3) proposal is embodied in petition

CONCEPT OF STATE

Bacani vs NACOCO•The mere fact that the Government happens to be a

major stockholder of a corporation does not make it a public corporation.

•Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.

PVTA vs CIR•Distinction between constituent and ministrant

functions – obsolete.•Government has to provide for general welfare.

Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad•Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the

people)•Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:- abrogation of laws in conflict with the political

character of the substituted sovereign(political law).-great body of municipal law regarding private and

domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or changed by new ruler.

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh•Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues

until changed by some competent legislative power (not changed by mere change of sovereignty)

•All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de facto government are good and valid.

•Kinds of De facto government:(1) de facto proper – government obtained by force or

voice of the majority(2) paramount force – by military forces who invade the

territory(3) independent government – established by

inhabitants through insurrection•Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese

occupation) was a de facto government.

People vs Gozo•Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine

sovereignty over American bases –Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory.

Laurel vs Misa•Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute

and permanent•Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the

government – not transferred to occupier 

Ruffy v Chief of Staff •The rule that laws of political nature or affecting

political relations are considered superseded or held in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory and not for the enemies in arms.

STATE IMMUNITY

Sanders v Veridiano•Mere allegation that a government functionary is

being sued in his personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine of state immunity

•Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states.

Republic v Sandoval•State cannot be held liable for the deaths that

followed the incident; liability should fall on the public officers who committed acts beyond their authority

•3 instances when suit is proper:1. when sued by its name2. when unincorporated government agency is sued3. when the suit is against a government employee but

liability belongs to the government

Festejo v Fernando•Officer or employee committing the tort is personally

liable and maybe sued as any other citizen and held answerable for whatever injury

USA vs Guinto-A state may be said to have descended to the level of

an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.

Veterans Manpower vs CA-The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to

be sued when it enters into a contract. However, it does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.

The Merritt vs Gov’t of the Phil-By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its

immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense.

Amigable vs. CuencaThe government, when it takes away a property from a

private land owner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetrating injustice to a citizen. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

-When the state files an action, it divests itself of the sovereign character and shed its immunity form suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant.

Republic vs. Feliciano-failure to allege in the complaint the existence of

consent by the State is a fatal defect (construction must be strict against conferment of waiver - Immunity may be invoked by the courts at any point/stage of the proceedings.

USA vs. RuizRestrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign

states: States may be sued when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign.

The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.•Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic

Relations, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which the

envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission

Republic vs. Villasor - Judgment against the State cannot be enforced by

execution. It may limit claimant’s action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the state of execution. Power of court send when judgment is rendered. [suability vs. liability]

- Functions and public services cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the disruption of public funds.

Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC-Not all contracts entered into by the government

operate as a waiver of its non-suability. Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in the proprietary capacity.

-State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from contract.

PNB vs. Pabalan-State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked

with regard to funds of public corporations.-[suable corporations] Public funds of corporations

which can sue and be sued are not exempt from garnishment.

Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan-The character of an incorporated agency allows it to

sue and be sued without qualification

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assoc.

-Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime compensation does not make work of Bureau of Printing propriety.

-Non-suability of the State is available to the agency even if it is shown that it is engaged not only in government functions but also, incidentally, in propriety enterprises (unincorporated agency).

Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. C.A.If an agency’s function is deemed proprietary, if such is

a necessary incident of the primary and gov. function is such agency, such agency is not suable (for an unincorporated agency only).

Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. C.A.-Not all government entities whether corporate or not

are immune from suits. Immunity from suits is determined by the charcter of the objects for which the entity was organized.

-Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which they have assumed to act in private or non-governmental capacity, and various suits against certain corporations created by the State to engage in matters partaking more of the nature of ordinary business are not regarded as suits against the State.

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vs. Judge Firme

The test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver acting in behalf of the municipality is performing governmental or propriety functions. It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the state merely gives the claimants the right to show the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was inflicted or that the case comes under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimants cannot recover.