Political Law-ARTICLE II

ARTICLE II2008 Political Law and Public International LawPersonal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-Rreview materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)Ma. Luisa Angeles RamosDECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIESSec. 1, Article IIThe Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in thepeople and all government authority emanates from them.(Relate this to Article XI)1. Essential features: Representation and Renovation.2. Manifestations: Ours is a government of law and not of men (Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39Phil 778). Rule of the majority. (Plurality in elections) Accountability of public officials Bill of rights Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws. Separation of powers.RepublicanismWhat is a republican form of government?It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, a representativegovernment wherein the powers and duties of government are exercised anddischarged for the common good and welfare.Characteristics of a republican form of government:1. The people do not govern themselves directly but through their representatives;2. It is founded upon popular suffrage;3. There is the tripartite system of the government, the mutual interdependence ofthe three departments of the government.STATE—a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying adefinite portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing agovernment to which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. (CIR vs.Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23)State Nation-is a legal or juristic concept -is an ethnic or racial conceptState Government-possesses a government to which a great -merely an instrumentality of the State

body of inhabitants render habitualobediencethrough which the will of the State isimplemented and realized.Republican state—one constructed on the principle that the supreme power resides inthe body of the people. Its purpose therefore is to guarantee against two (2) extremes:1. On the one hand, monarchy and oligarchy;2. On the other, pure democracy.Elements of State:1. P eople—the inhabitants of the State; the # of which is capable for selfsufficiencyand self-defense; of both sexes for perpetuity.a. Inhabitants;b. Citizens;c. Electors.2. T erritory—a fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people ofthe State.3. Government—the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State isformulated, expressed and realized. Government of the Philippines—refers to the corporate governmental entitythrough which the functions of the government are exercised throughout thePhilippines, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the variousarms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines,whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal orbarangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.De Jure vs. De FactoDe Jure De FactoHas a rightful title but no power orcontrol, either because the same hasbeen withdrawn from it or because ithas not yet actually entered into theexercise thereof.Actually exercises the power or controlbut without legal title.a. De facto proper—governmentthat gets possession and controlof, or usurps, by force or by thevoice of the majority, the rightfullegal government and maintainsitself against the will of the latter;b. Government of Paramount

Forces—established andmaintained by the military forceswho invade and occupy aterritory of the enemy in thecourse of war;c. Independent Government—established by the inhabitants ofthe country who rise ininsurrection against the parentState.Presidential vs. ParliamentaryPresidential ParliamentaryThere is separation of legislative andexecutive powers. The first is lodged inthe President and the second is vestedin Congress.It embodies interdependence byseparation and coordination.There is fusion of both executive andlegislative powers in Parliament,although the actual exercise of theexecutive powers is vested in a PrimeMinister who is chosen by, andaccountable to, Parliament.It embodies interdependence byintegration.Unitary vs. Federal GovernmentFunctions of the government:a. C onstituent—compulsory because constitutive of the society;b. M inistrant—undertaken to advance the general interest of the society; merelyoptional.Doctrine of Parens Patriae—the government as guardian of the rights of the peoplemay initiate legal actions for and in behalf of particular individual. (Government of thePhilippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 SCRA 738; Cabañas vs. Pilapil, 58SCRA 94)4. Sovereignty—the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by whichthat State is governed.It is the right to exercise the functions of a State to the exclusion of any otherState.While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassingon the domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily

1

agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family ofnations. In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution adopts thegenerally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, andadheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with allnations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally acceptedprinciples of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our ownlaws.“Government of Laws and Not of Men.”—sovereignty of the people alsoincludes the concept that government officials have only the authority given themby law and defined by law, and such authority continues only with the consent ofthe people.Kinds of Sovereignty: a. Legal—the power to issue final commands;b. Political—the sum total of all the influences which lie behind the law;c. Internal—the supreme power over everything within its territory;d. External—also known as independence—freedom from external control.Characteristics:a. Permanenceb. Exclusivenessc. Comprehensivenessd. Absolutenesse. Indivisibilityf. Inalienabilityg. ImprescriptibilitySovereignty, often referred to as Imperium—is the State’s authority to govern; itincludes passing laws governing a territory, maintaining peace and order over it, anddefending it against foreign invasion.It is the government authority possessed by the State expressed in the conceptof sovereignty.Dominium—is the capacity of the State to own or acquire property such as lands andnatural resources. (Lee Hong Hok vs. David, No. L-30389, December 27, 1972;Separate Opinion of Justice Kapunan in Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR, G.R. No.

135385, December 2000)It necessarily includes the power to alienate what is owned. It was the foundationfor the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia that all landswere held from the Crown.Effect of Belligerent Occupation—there is no change in sovereignty. However,political laws, except those of treason, are suspended; municipal laws remain in forceunless changed by the belligerent occupant.Principle of Jus Postliminium—at the end of the occupation, when the occupant isousted from the territory, the political laws which have been suspended shallautomatically become effective again. (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, No. L049,November 12, 1945)Effect of Change of Sovereignty—political laws of the former sovereign are abrogatedunless they are expressly reenacted by the affirmative act of the new sovereign.Municipal laws remain in force. (Macariola vs. Asuncion, Adm. Case No. 133-J, May31, 1982)Effect of Revolutionary Government—it is bound by no constitution. However, it didnot repudiate the Covenant or Declaration in the same way it repudiated theConstitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escaperesponsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with its treaty obligations underinternational law. During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed,directives and orders issued by government officers did not exceed the authoritygranted them by the revolutionary government. The directives or orders should not havealso violated the Covenant or the Declaration. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.No. 104768, July 21, 2003)Jurisdiction—is the manifestation of sovereignty.a. T erritorial—power of the State over persons and things within its territorysubject to its control and protection.b. P ersonal—power of the State over its nationals, which may be exercised bythe state even if the individual is outside the territory of the State.

c. E xtraterritorial—power of the State over persons, things or acts beyond itsterritorial limits by reason of their effects to its territory.Sec. 2, Article II(Incorporation Clause)The Philippine renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts thegenerally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the landand adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, andamity with all nations.Three (3) parts:1. Renunciation of war—the power to wage a defensive war is of the very essenceof sovereignty;2. Adoption of the principles of international law;3. Adherence to a policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation & amity.The second part is nothing more than a formal acceptance of a principle to which allcivilized nations must conform.The third part is called the “selfish policy”—the guiding principle of Philippine foreignpolicy is the national interest. However, this is tempered with concern for “equality,peace, freedom and justice.Section 23 (1), Article VI: The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses injoin session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare theexistence of a state of war.Doctrine of Incorporation—the doctrine where the generally accepted principles ofinternational law are made part of the law of the land either by express provision of theConstitution or by means of judicial declaration or fiat. The doctrine is applied whenevermunicipal tribunals or local courts are confronted with situations in which there appearsto be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the Constitutionor statute of a State.Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them so as to give effect to both. Incase of conflict between international law and municipal law, the latter shall prevail.However, the doctrine dictates that rules of international law are given equal

2

standing with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments.Lex posterior derogate priori—in States where the constitution is the highestlaw of the land, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict withthe Constitution. (Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, January 18,2000)Philip Morris, Inc. vs. CA, the fact that the international law has been made partof the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law overnational law in the municipal sphere.Doctrine of Autolimitation—It is the doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international lawas a limitation to the exercise of its sovereignty.What war does the Philippines renounce?The Philippines renounces an aggressive war because of its membership in theUnited Nations whose charter renounces war as an instrument of national policies of itsmember States.Sec. 3, Article II(Civilian Supremacy Clause)Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces ofthe Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to securethe sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.Civilian Supremacy ClauseSec. 18, Art. VII—installation of the President as the highest civilian authority, as thecommander-in-chief of the AFP—external manifestation that civilian authority issupreme over the military.Sec. 5(1), Art. XVI—members of the AFP swear to uphold and defend the Constitution,which is the fundamental law of the civil government.Civilian supremacy is not a guaranteed supremacy of civilian officers who are inpower but of supremacy of the sovereign people. The Armed Forces, in this sense, “isthe protector of the people and the State”.Sec. 6, Article XVI—The State shall establish and maintain one police force, whichshall be national in scope and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by

a national police commission. The authority of local executives over the police units intheir jurisdiction shall be provided by law.IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, the deployment of theMarines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of themarines in this case constitutes permissible use of military asset for civilian lawenforcement. x x x The limited participation of the Marines is evident in the provisions ofthe Letter of Instruction (LOI) itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds ofthe Marines’ authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones charge ofthe visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, theMetro Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols.Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrolprocedures. It is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of themarines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the Marinesand render logistic support to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot beproperly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian authority.It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities in variousforms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The Philippine experience reveals that it is notaverse to requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and executionof certain traditionally “civil” functions. x x x Some of the multifarious activities whereinmilitary aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities that bring both the civilian andthe military together in a relationship of cooperation are:1. Elections;2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross;3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and disasters;4. Amateur sports promotion and development;5. Development of the culture and the arts;6. Conservation of the natural resources;7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;8. Enforcement of customs laws;9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;

10. Conduct of licensure examinations;11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and high school students;12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;13. Sanitary inspections;14. Conduct of census work;15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board;16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices;17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government units.This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting from asystematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congressand, yet, never before questioned. What we have here is a mutual support andcooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not derogation of civiliansupremacy.Sec. 4, Article IIThe prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. TheGovernment may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillmentthereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to renderpersonal military or civil service.Does the Philippines renounce defensive war?No, because it is duty bound to defend its citizens. Under the Constitution, the primeduty of the government is to serve and protect the people.Posse Commitatus—it is the power of the state to require all able-bodied citizens toperform civic duty to maintain peace and order.In People vs. Lagman, 66 Phil. 13, the accused in this case, prosecuted forfailure to register for military service under the National Defense Act, assailed thevalidity of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld the law on the basis of the compulsorymilitary and civil service provision of then 1935 Constitution. It said that: “x x x. The dutyof the Government to defend the State cannot be performed except through an army.To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make thisduty to the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to

3

enlist therein…x x x the right of the Government to require compulsory military serviceis a consequence of its duty to defend the State and is reciprocal with its duty to defendthe life, liberty, and property of the citizen. x x x.”Sec. 5, Article IIThe maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property,and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by allthe people of the blessings of democracy.Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The license to carry afirearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create a vested right.Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered absolute as to be placed beyondthe reach of police power. The maintenance of peace and order, and the protection ofthe people against violence are constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bearfirearm is to be construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties.(Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004)Sec. 6, Article IIThe separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.The State should not use its money and coercive power to establish religion. Itshould not support a particular religion. The State is prohibited from interfering withpurely ecclesiastical affairs. But it does not mean that there is total or absoluteseparation. The better rule is symbiotic relations between the church and State.Constitutional provisions evidencing the Separation of Church and State:1. Sec. 6, Art. II2. Sec. 5, Art. III—No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religiousprofession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights.3. Sec. 2 (5), Art. IX-C—religious sect cannot be registered as political party4. Sec. 5 (2), Art. VI—no sectoral representative from the religious sector

5. Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI—Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or conventsappurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, andimprovements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, oreducational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.6. Sec. 29 (2), Art. VI—No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid,or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher,minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest,preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penalinstitution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.7. Sec. 3 (3), Art. XIV—At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians,religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary andhigh schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by thereligious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, withoutadditional cost to the Government.8. Sec. 4 (2), Art. XIV—Filipino ownership requirement for educational institutions,except those established by religious groups and mission boards.Austria vs. NLRC and CPU Mission Corp. of the 7th Day Adventists, G.R. No.124382, August 16, 1999, an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between thechurch and its members and relates to matter of faith, religious doctrines, worship andgovernance of the congregation. Examples of these affairs in which the State cannotmeddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordination of religious ministers,administration of sacraments, and other activities to which is attached religioussignificance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship of the church as anemployer and the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has no relationwhatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the church.STATE POLICIES

Sec. 7, Article II(Independent Foreign Policy)The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with otherstates the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorialintegrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.The word “relations” covers the whole gamut of treaties and internationalagreements and other kinds of intercourse. This is the closest reference to militarybases.There is a marked antipathy in the Constitution towards foreign military presencein the country, or of foreign influence in general. (Lim vs. Executive Secretary, G.R.No. 151445, April 11, 2002)Sec. 8, Article II(Policy of Freedom from Nuclear Weapons)The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues apolicy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.Clearly, the ban is on nuclear arms—that is, the use and stockpiling of nuclearweapons, devices, and parts thereof. And this includes not only possessing, controllingand manufacturing nuclear weapons, but also nuclear test in our territory, as well as theuse of our territory as dumping ground for radioactive waste.The provision, however, is not a ban on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Noris it a ban on all “nuclear-capable vessels.” For a vessel to be banned, it is not enoughthat it is capable of carrying nuclear arms; it must actually carry nuclear arms.Nuclear weapons, if stored in our territory, may invite threats of foreign invasionand there is a danger to the life and limbs of the people because of the threat ofexplosion.Sec. 9, Article II(Just and Dynamic Social Order)The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure theprosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from povertythrough policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment,

4

a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.It reflects a preoccupation with poverty as resulting from structures that mire thepeople in a life of dependence.Sec. 10, Article II (Social Justice)The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.(Read Sections 1 and 2 of Article XIII)Sections 1&2 of Article XIII:Section 1—The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment ofmeasures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reducesocial, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitablydiffusing wealth and political power for the common good.To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, anddisposition of property and its increments.Section 2—The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment tocreate economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.The Constitution covers all phases of national development but with moreemphasis not only on economic inequities but also on political and cultural inequities.Sec. 11, Article II(Personal Dignity and Human Rights)The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respectfor human rights.(Read Sections 17-19 of Article XIII)Section 12, Article II(The Family as Basic Social Institution)The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthenthe family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the lifeof the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primaryright and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and thedevelopment of moral character shall receive the support of the government.(Read Article XV)The family here is to be understood as a stable heterosexual relationship

whether formalized by civilly recognized marriage or not. Calling the family “a basicsocial institution” is an assertion that the family is anterior to the State and is not acreature of the State. The categorization of the family as “autonomous” is meant toprotect the family against instrumentalization by the State.Protection of the Unborn—The unborn’s entitlement to protection begins “from conception”, i.e., from themoment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and theassumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place atfertilization.The provision is intended to prevent the State from adopting the doctrine in USSupreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113, which liberalized abortion lawsup to the 6th month of pregnancy by allowing abortion at the discretion of the mother anytime during the first 6 months when it can be done without danger to the mother.Natural Right and Duty of ParentsParents are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid them in the dischargeof their responsibility.The provision also highlights the inherent duty of the State to act as parenspatriae and to protect the right of persons and individuals who, because of age orinherent incapacity, are in an unfavorable position vis-à-vis other parties.People vs. Larin, G.R. No. 128777, October 7, 1998, RA 7610, which penalizes childprostitution and other sexual abuses, was enacted in consonance with the policy of theState to “provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse”, thus, the Courtgrants the victim full vindication and protection granted under the law.Section 13, Article IIVital Role of the Youth in Nation-BuildingThe State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shallpromote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social wellbeing.It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encouragetheir involvement in public and civic affairs.

Section 14, Article II(Equality of Women and Men)The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure thefundamental equality before the law of women and men.(Read Section 14, Article XIII)PT&T Co. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997, the SC held that the petitioner’spolicy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker whocontracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination, whichis guaranteed all women workers under the Constitution. While a requirement that awoman employee must remain unmarried may be justified as a “bona fide occupationalqualification” where the particular requirements of the job would demand the same,discrimination against married women cannot be adopted by the employer as a generalprinciple.Section 15, Article II(Right to Health)The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instillhealth consciousness among them.(Read Sections 11-13 of Article XIII as an aspect of Social Justice)Section 16, Article II(Right to A Balanced and Healthful Ecology)The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced andhealthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792, it was held that the 34 minors duly joined bytheir respective parents pleading the cause of “inter-generational responsibility” and“inter-generational justice”, had a valid cause of action in questioning the grant ofTimber Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging purposes. The minors filedthe action for themselves as representing “their generation as well as generations yetunborn”. The SC, on the basis of Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health,recognized a “right to a balanced and healthful ecology” and “the correlative duty torefrain from impairing the environment”.

5

C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala, G.R. No. 111088, June 13, 1997, on the issuethat the “total log ban” is a new policy which should be applied prospectively and notaffect the rights of petitioner vested under the Timber Licensing Agreement (TLA), theSc held that this is not a new policy but a mere reiteration of the policy of conservationand protection the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.Section 17, Article IIThe State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture,and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, andpromote total human liberation and development. (Read also Section 2, Article XIV)In PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004, while it is true thatthe SC has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession orcourse of study subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academicrequirements, the exercise of this right may be regulated pursuant to the police power ofthe State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety and generalwelfare. Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiringscientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as aprerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation assumes particularpertinence in the field of medicine, in order to protect the public from the potentiallydeadly effects of incompetence and ignorance.PMMS, Inc. vs. CA, 244 SCRA 770, the Court said that the requirement that aschool must first obtain government authorization before operating is based on theState policy that educational programs and/or operations shall be of good quality and,therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum standards with respect to curricula, teachingstaff, physical plant and facilities and administrative and management viability.Section 18, Article IIThe State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect theright of the workers and promote their welfare.

In the case of Bernardo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122917, July 12, 1999, the SCheld that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabledpersons be granted the same terms and conditions of employment as qualified ablebodiedemployees; thus, once hey have attained the status of regular workers, theyshould be accorded all the benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbalcontracts to the contrary. This treatment is rooted not merely in charity oraccommodation, but in justice for all.Section 19, Article IIThe State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economyeffectively controlled by Filipinos.The Constitution does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments,goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy inthe international community”.Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on “equality and reciprocity”, thefundamental law encourages industries that are “competitive in both domestic andforeign markets,” thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestictrade environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust industries thatcan compete with the best in the foreign markets. (Tañada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18)Section 20, Article IIThe State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encouragesprivate enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.(Read Article XII)Doctrine of Free Enterprise—Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA, G.R. No. 110526,February 10, 1998, the SC said that although the Constitution enshrines free enterpriseas a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervenewhenever necessary for the promotion of the general welfare as reflected in Sections 6& 19 of Article XII.Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide

Authority, G.R. No. 156041, February 21, 2007 and Pharmaceutical and HealthCare Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III, G.R. No. 173034, October9, 2007, it was held that despite the fact that “our present Constitution enshrines freeenterprise as a policy”, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power tointervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does notcall for removal of ‘protective regulations’. It must be clearly explained and proven bycompetent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in therestraint of trade.Section 21, Article IIThe State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.Rural development encompasses a broad spectrum of social, economic, human,cultural, political and even industrial development.(See the case of Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines vs. Secretaryof Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343)Section 22, Article IIThe state recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communitieswithin the framework of national unity and development.[Read Section 5(2), Article VI; Section 5, Article XII; Section 17, Article XIV]Section 23, Article IIThe State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoralorganizations that promote the welfare of the nation.(Read Sections 15-16 of Article XIII)Section 24, Article IIThe State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nationbuilding.(Read Sections 10-11, Art. XVI; Sec. 23, Art. XVIII)Section 25, Article IIThe State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.(Read Article X)Basco vs. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52, The SC held that the local autonomy under the1987 Constitution simply means “decentralization”, and does not make the localgovernments sovereign within the State or an imperium in imperio.Limbonas vs. Mangelin, 170 SCRA 786

6

Decentralization of Administration Decentralization of Power-delegation of administrative powers to thelocal government unit in order to broadenthe base of governmental powers.-abdication by the national government ofgovernmental powersLina vs. Pano, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001, the Sc said that the basicrelationship between the national legislature and the local government units has notbeen enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy oflocal autonomy. Without meaning to detract from that policy, Congress retains control ofthe LGUs although in a significantly reduced degree now under our previousConstitutions. The power to create still includes the power to destroy. The power togrant still includes the power to withhold or recall. True there are notable innovations inthe Constitution, like the direct conferment on the LGUs of the power to tax whichcannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By and large, however, the nationallegislature is still the principal of LGUs, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it.Ours is still a unitary form of government, not a federal state. Being so, any form ofautonomy granted to local governments will necessarily be limited and confined withinthe extent allowed by the central authority.Judge Dadole vs. COA, G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002, even as we recognizethat the Constitution guarantees autonomy to LGUs, the exercise of local autonomyremains subject to the power of control by Congress and the power of generalsupervision by the President. xxx The President can only interfere in the affairs andactivities of a LGU if he finds that the latter had acted contrary to law. The President orany of his alter egos, cannot interfere in local affairs as long as the concerned LGU actswithin the parameters of the law and the Constitution. Any directive, therefore, by thePresident or any of his alter egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conformingjudgment on local affairs of a LGU is a patent nullity, because it violates the principle of

local autonomy, as well as the doctrine of separation of powers of the executive andlegislative departments in governing municipal corporations.Section 26, Article IIThe State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, andprohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.Pamatong vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004, the SC said that thisprovision does not bestow a right to seek the Presidency; it does not contain a judiciallyenforceable constitutional right and merely specifies a guideline for legislative action.The provision is not intended to compel the State to enact positive measures that wouldaccommodate as many as possible into public office. The privilege may be subjected tolimitations. One such valid limitation is the provision of the Omnibus Election Code onnuisance candidates.Section 27, Article IIThe State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and takepositive and effective measures against graft and corruption.Section 28, Article IISubject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts andimplements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involvingpublic interest.----PRINCIPLE OF TRANSPARENCY—DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSThis principle operated as an implicit limitation on legislative powers as on thetwo other powers.In essence, separation of powers means the legislation belongs to Congress,execution to the executive, settlement of legal controversies to the judiciary. Each isprevented from invading the domain of the others. But the separation is not total. Thesystem allows for “checks and balances” the net effect of which being that, in general,no one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the otherdepartments.Purpose: To prevent concentration of powers in one department and thereby to avoid

tyranny. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable frictionincident to the distribution of governmental powers among the three departments, tosave the people from autocracy.1. To secure action2. To forestall overaction3. To prevent despotism4. To obtain efficiencyIn La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 127882,December 1, 2004, the court restrained itself from intruding into policy matters to allowthe President and Congress maximum discretion in using mineral resources of ourcountry and in securing the assistance of foreign groups to eradicate the grindingpoverty of our people and answer their cry for viable employment opportunities in thecountry. “The Judiciary is loath to interfere with the due exercise by co-equal branchesof government of their official functions.” Let the development of mining industry be theresponsibility of the political branches of the government. The questioned provisions ofRA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995) are not unconstitutional.In Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464, in the absence of any administrativeaction taken against the RTC Judge by the SC with regard to the former’s certificate ofservice, the investigation conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the SC’spower of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of thedoctrine of separation of powers.Principle of Blending of Powers: Instances when powers are not confined exclusivelywithin one department but are assigned to or shared by several departments.Principle of Checks and Balances: This allows one department to resistencroachments upon its prerogative or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by theother departments.The first and safest criterion to determine whether a given power has been validlyexercised by a particular department is whether or not the power has been

7

constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming its exercise—since theconferment is usually done expressly. However, even in the absence of expressconferment, the exercise of the power may be justified under the doctrine ofnecessary implication. The grant of express power carried with it all other powers thatmay be reasonably inferred from it.Justiciable question- implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an actor omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for saidbreach of right. (Casibang vs. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642)THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE1. Police Power2. Power of Eminent Domain3. Power of TaxationSimilarities:1. Inherent in the State, exercised even without need of express constitutionalgrant.2. Necessary and indispensable; State cannot be effective without them.3. Methods by which State interferes with private property.4. Presupposes equivalent compensation.5. Exercised primarily by the legislature.Distinctions:Police Power Eminent Domain TaxationRegulates both liberty andpropertymay be exercised only byAffects property rightsmay even be exercised byaffects property rightsmay be exercised only bygovernment; cannot bedelegated to administrativebodyproperty taken is usuallynoxious(unpleasant andharmful) or intended fornoxious purpose and maythus be destroyedcompensation is theintangible, altruistic feelingthat the individual hascontributed to the publicgoodprivate entities

the property is wholesomeand devoted to public useor purposecompensation is the fulland fair equivalent of theproperty takengovernment; cannot bedelegated to administrativebodythe property is wholesomeand devoted to public useor purposeit is the protection and/orpublic improvementsinstituted by government forthe taxes paidLimitations: Generally, the Bill of Rights, although in some cases the exercise of thepower prevails over specific constitutional guarantees. The courts may annul theimprovident exercise of police power.These powers must not be exercised arbitrarily, to the prejudice of Bill of Rights.In Ericta vs. City Government of Quezon City, 122 SCRA 759, the CityGovernment of QC was not exercising police power when they required privatecemetery owners to reserve 6% of the burial lots for pauper’s burial ground. The SCheld that in police power, the property to be taken is to be destroyed. The 6% areprivate property of the cemetery owners. This is a taking of private property. Sec. 9, Art.III: “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”Clearly, this is an invalid exercise of police power. The City was made to pay theowners just compensation.In Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Sec. 2 ofCOMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation inevery province or city to provide free print space of not less than ½ page as COMELECspace, was held to be an invalid exercise of police power there being no showing of theexistence of a national emergency or imperious public necessity for the taking of printspace, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable and calibrated response to such

necessity. This was held to be an exercise of the power of eminent domain, albeitinvalid, because the COMELEC would not pay for the space to be given to it by thenewspapers.Police power and power of taxation—cannot be delegated to administrative bodies.Police power and power of eminent domain both involved taking. They differ in purpose.Police power—to destroy; because the property is harmful, obnoxious, poses a risk to thepublic.Power of eminent domain—only private property is the subject of taking; the purpose is toconvert the private property to public use.POLICE POWER—It is the power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the useof liberty and property.It is the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, andestablish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances,either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge tobe for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same.The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifyingmeasures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare.It is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people (now common good).(Binay vs. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508)It has been described as “the most essential, insistent and the least limitable ofpowers, extending as it does to all the great public needs.” It is the power vested in thelegislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonablelaws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to theConstitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth,and for the subjects of the same. (Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD, G.R. No.166494, June 29, 2007)

8

Cabrera vs. Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, December 6, 2006, a careful reading of thequestioned Resolution reveals that the Ombudsman dismissed petitioner’s criminalcomplaint because respondents had validly resorted to the police power of the Statewhen they effected the demolition of the illegal fishpond in question following thedeclaration thereof as a nuisance per se. in the words of the Ombudsman, “those whoparticipated in the blasting of the subject fishpond were only impelled by their desire toserve the best interest of the general public; for the good and the highest good.Requisites (Limitations):1. Lawful subject—the interests of the public in general as distinguished fromthose of a particular class, require the exercise of this power.2. Lawful means—the means employed are reasonably for the accomplishment ofthe purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals.“Affected with public interest”—an industry is subject to control for the publicgood; it has been considered as the equivalent of “subject to the exercise of policepower”.Construction: construed strictly and any doubt must be resolved against the grant.Scope/Characteristics:It is the most pervasive, least limitable, and the most demanding of the threepowers. The justification is found in: salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of thepeople is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (use your propertyso as not to impair others).1. It cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract.2. The taxing power may be used as an implement of police power3. Eminent domain may be used as an implement to attain the police powerobjective (Association of Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,175 SCRA 343).4. In Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000, nonimpairmentof contracts or vested rights clauses will have to yield to the

superior and legitimate exercise by the State of the police power.5. In PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004, the exercise ofthe constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course ofstudy may be regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguardhealth, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of thepeople. This regulation assumes particular pertinence in the field of medicine,to protect the public from the potentially dead effects of incompetence andignorance.In Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534, the right to bear arms is merelystatutory privilege. The license to carry firearm is neither a property nor a property right.Neither does it create a vested right. A permit to carry outside one’s residence may berevoked at any time. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered as absoluteas to be beyond the reach of the police power.Who may exercise police power?The power is inherently vested in Congress. However, they may validly delegatethis power to the following:1. the President2. administrative bodies—public and quasi-public corporations3. the lawmaking bodies of local government unitsLocal government units exercise the power under the general welfare clause.CANORECO vs. Torres, G.R. no. 127249, February 27, 1998, while policepower may be delegated to the President by law, RA 6939 and PD 260, as amended,do not authorize the President or any other administrative body, to take over the internalmanagement of a cooperative. Accordingly, Memorandum Order No. 409, issued by thePresident, constituting an ad hoc committee to temporarily take over and manage theaffairs of CANORECO is invalid.In MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000,there is no provision in RA 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its council to “enact

ordinance, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare” of theinhabitants of Metro Manila. Thus, MMDA may not order the opening of Neptune St. inthe Bel-Air Subdivision to public traffic, as it does not possess delegated police power.Section 11, Article X—the Congress may, by law, create special metropolitanpolitical subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. Thecomponent cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall beentitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of themetropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic servicesrequiring coordination.MMDA is not a special metropolitan political subdivision.However, in MMDA vs. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005, although thelaw (RA 7924) does not grant the MMDA the power to confiscate and suspend orrevoke drivers’ licenses without need of any legislative enactment, the same law veststhe MMDA the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and regulations. Thus, where there isa traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the legislature or those agencies to whomlegislative power has been delegated, the MMDA is not precluded—and in fact is dutybound—to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers’ licenses in the exercise of itsmandate of transport and traffic management, as well as the administration andimplementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services andtraffic education programs.Additional Limitations (When exercised by delegate):a. express grant by lawb. within territorial limits (for local government units, except when exercised toprotect water supply)c. must not be contrary to lawFor municipal ordinance to be valid:1. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;2. it must not be unfair or oppressive;3. it must not be partial or discriminatory;4. it must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade;5. it must not be unreasonable; and

9

6. it must be general in application and consistent with public policy.In City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005, the SCdeclared as an invalid exercise of the police power the City of Manila Ordinance No.7783, which prohibited “the establishment or operation of businesses providing certainforms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities in the Ermita-Malate area”,for being contrary to the Constitution, infringing the guarantees of due process andequal protection of the laws.In Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197 (1994), solicitation forreligious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the State in the exercise ofpolice power.In Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs. CA, 329 SCRA 314 (2000), theissuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is essentiallyregulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units, toissue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police powerof the State within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the LGC.The implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) is anexercise of police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARLprescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for theregulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carryout such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of themaximum area allowed, there is also taking under the power of eminent domain. Thetaking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required isthe surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficialrights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of rights providesthat “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process oflaw.” The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law.

The exercise of power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in thetaking of private property. [Roxas and Co., vs. CA, 321 SCRA 106 (1999)]Republic vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 141314, November 15,2002, the regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded upon the policepower of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the control and regulations of publicutilities are a valid exercise thereof. When a private property is used for a publicpurpose and is affected with public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only andbecomes subject to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good.Submission to regulation may be withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but aslong as the use of the property is continued, the same is subject to public regulation.In regulating rates charged by public utilities, the State protects the public againstarbitrary and excessive rates while maintaining the efficiency and quality of servicesrendered. However, the power to regulate rates does not give the State the right toprescribe rates which are so low as to deprive the public utility of a reasonable return oninvestment.Philippine Press Institute (PPI) vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Section 2 ofCOMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation inevery province or city to provide free print space of not less than ½ page as COMELECspace, was held to be invalid exercise of police power there being no showing of theexistence of national emergency or imperious public necessity for the taking of printspace, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable and calibrated response to suchnecessity.Public purpose and use has broader concept now. It now includes VICARIOUSBENEFITS that society may derive from a particular measure.e.g. CONCERN FOR THE POOR—SC recognized this as one for public purposeand use.

POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN— also known as the power of expropriationThe power of eminent domain is the power of the State to forcibly take privateproperty for public use upon payment of just compensation.It is the right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property toparticular uses to promote public welfare.It is government’s right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to theState, private property for public use or purpose. (Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 586)The ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public, buteven the private property of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, for publicpurpose.Power of Eminent Domain Destruction Due to Necessityinvolves public rightsthe property is converted to public usethere must be payment of justcompensationundertaken by the Stateinvolves private rights such as selfpreservationand self-defensethere is no need for the conversion topublic useno need for just compensationmay be validly undertaken even byprivate individualsObject of Expropriation:1. anything that comes under the dominion of man2. real, personal, tangible and intangible3. property right4. churches and other religious properties5. property already devoted to public useExcept: money- because compensation is also moneyWho may exercise?Generally, the legislature, but also upon valid delegation to:1. the President;2. lawmaking bodies of LGUs;3. administrative bodies—public and quasi-public corporations4. Private enterprises performing public services.In the case of Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, the power ofeminent domain must, by enabling law, be delegated to local governments by thenational legislature, and thus, can only be as broad as the real authority would want it to

10

be. The grant of the power to local government units under RA 7160 cannot beunderstood as equal to the pervasive and all encompassing power vested in thelegislative branch of government.JIL School Foundation vs. Municipality of Pasig, G. R. No. 152230, August9, 2005—Sec. 19, of the LGC requires the LGU to tender a prior written definite andvalid offer to acquire the property before the filing of the complaint for eminent domain.Filstream Int’l Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716—the exercise of the power ofeminent domain is clearly superior to the final and executor judgment rendered by thecourt in an ejectment case.RP vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620—services were considered embraced in theconcept of property subject to taking under the power of eminent domain. Republic, inthe exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, may require the telephonecompany to permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that of thePLDT, as the needs of government service may require, subject to the payment of justcompensation to be determined by the court.Where Expropriation Suit Is Filed:In the Regional Trial Court—because it is incapable of pecuniary estimationRequisites:1. Necessity—when exercised by:a. Congress—it is a political question; (Municipality of Meycauayan,Bulacan vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 640)b. Delegate—the determination of whether there is a genuine necessity forthe exercise is a justiceable question (Republic vs. La Orden de Po.Benedictinos, 1 SCRA 649).The RTC has the power to inquire to the legality of the exercise of the right ofeminent domain and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for it (Bardillonvs. Brgy. Masili of Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, April 30, 2003).Lagcao vs. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004—there was noshowing at all why petitioners’ property was singled out for expropriation by the city

ordinance or what necessity impelled the particular choice or selection. The ordinancestated no reason for the choice of petitioners’ property as the site of a socializedhousing project.2. Private property—all private property capable of ownership may beexpropriated except money and choses in action; may include services.(Republic vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620)In City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, 40 Phil. 349, a cemetery open tothe public was already in public use and no part of the ground could be taken for otherpublic uses under a general authority. The City of Manila was without authority toexpropriate the property. (The Congress itself should expropriate or there must bespecial grant.)3. Taking— there is taking when:a. The owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property;b. There is practical destruction or material impairment of the value of theproperty;c. The owner is deprived of the ordinary use of his property;d. The owner is deprived of jurisdiction, supervision and control of hisproperty.Requisites for a valid taking: (EMADO)a. The expropriator must enter a private property;b. Entry must be for more than a momentary period;c. Entry must be under warrant or color of authority;d. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriatedor injuriously affected;e. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner anddeprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.(Republic vs. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336)The taking of private property may include the impairment of the use of theproperty for which it was intended. In US vs. Causby, 328 US 256, the flight of planesfrom a nearby military airport over plaintiff’s property below the navigable airspaceresulting in the ruin of plaintiff’s chicken farm was considered compensable taking. So

also were low landing and take-off flights which made nearby residential area unlivable(Griggs vs. Allegheny County, 369 US 84). This is taking in the constitutional sense.Avenida, Rizal used to be the commercial center of Manila. However, whenthe Light Railway Transit (LRT) was built, the commercial value of Avenida was greatlydiminished. The shops and stores had to close. The owners of these establishmentssuffered losses because of the operation of the LRT along Avenida, Rizal. Are theyentitled to be paid just compensation?No. SC held that the kind of injury or loss that one must suffer that will justifythe payment of just compensation must be a special kind of injury or loss as in thecase of Causby. If the injury or loss that one suffered is one which he suffered togetherwith the rest of the community, his only compensation in such a case is the altruisticfeeling that somehow he is able to contribute to the common good.CANORECO vs. CA, G.R. No. 109338, November 20, 2000, The owner of theproperty cut the electric lines alleging that it impaired him of the use of his property. TheSC held that the property owner was not justified in cutting the electric lines. Hisproperty becomes the servient estate subject to the encumbrance, and the acquisitionof an easement of right of way filed by an electric power company for the construction oftransmission lines falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. However, since there was an impairment of the use of the property, he is entitled to the paymentof just compensation.The establishment of an easement is a form of compensable taking. InNAPOCOR vs. Sps. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 60077, January 18, 1991, the owner of theland was awarded full compensation against the NAPOCOR’s argument that the ownerswere not totally deprived of the use of the land and could still plant the same crops aslong as they did not come into contact with the wires. The Court said: “the right of wayeasement perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as manifested by

11

the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines noplant higher than 3 meters is allowed. Furthermore, because of the high-tension currentconveyed through the transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be causedbeneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all, plaintiff only paysthe fee to defendant once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on saidaffected portion of their property.In People vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 44, a municipal ordinance prohibiting a buildingwhich would impair the view of the plaza from the highway was considered taking. Theproperty owner was held to be entitled to payment of just compensation.In Velarma vs. CA, 252 SCRA 400, the owner of the property can recoverpossession of the property from squatters, even if he agreed to transfer the property tothe Government, until the transfer is consummated or the expropriation case is filed.Taking under Eminent DomainProceedingTaking under Police PowerOnly private properties may be takenThe private property is taken in order toconvert it to public useAll properties are subject to takingThe purpose of taking is to destroy theproperty because it is harmful orobnoxious to the public.Philippine Press Institute (PPI) vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Section 2 ofCOMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation inevery province or city to provide free print space of not less than ½ page as COMELECspace, was held to be an exercise of power of eminent domain, albeit invalid, becausethe COMELEC would not pay for the space to be given to it by the newspapers.TELEBAP, Inc. vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 1998, the constitutionality of Sec. 92of BP 881 (requiring radio and television station owners and operators to give to theCOMELEC radio and television time free of charge) was challenged on the ground that

it violated the due process clause and the eminent domain provision of the Constitutionby taking airtime from radio and television broadcasting stations without payment of justcompensation. The SC held that all broadcasting, whether by radio or by televisionstations, is licensed by the government. Airwaves frequencies have to be allocated asthere are more individuals who want to broadcast than there frequencies to assign. Afranchise is thus a privilege subject, among other things, to amendment by Congress inaccordance with the constitutional provision that “any such franchise or right granted x xx shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when thecommon good so requires” (Art. XII, Sec.11).In the granting of the privilege to operate broadcast stations and thereaftersupervising radio and television stations, the State spends considerable public funds inlicensing and supervising such stations. It would be strange if it cannot even require thelicensees to render public service by giving free airtime. x x x As radio and televisionbroadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private property is taken by therequirement that they provide airtime to the COMELEC.PPI vs. COMELEC TELEBAP vs. COMELECthere was taking of propertynewspaper space is the private propertyof the newspaper ownersprint media do not enjoy privilegethere was no taking of private propertyairwaves are scarce resources, the use isregulated by the Statefranchise (privilege) is issued by the State(Art. XII, Sec. 11)Shifting argument alleged in TELEBAP: both PPI and

TELEBAP are media of communicationand information. Equal protection clause was raised as an issue. The SC ruled that equalprotection clause does not guarantee absolute equality. There may be classification. Persons orthings ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be treated differently if there is a basis forvalid classification.4. Public use—“public interest”; “public benefit”; “public welfare”; “public

convenience” (Reyes vs. NHA, G.R. No. 147511, January 20, 2003).The general concept—meeting public need or public exigency; may includeindirect public benefit or advantage.In Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. PEZA, 349 SCRA 240, public use is whatevermay be beneficially employed for the general welfare.It has been broadened to include not only uses directly available to the public butalso those which redound to their indirect benefit; that only a few would actually benefitfrom the expropriation of the property does not necessarily diminish the essence andcharacter of public use. (Manosca vs. CA, 252 SCRA 412)In Filstream Int’l Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716, the fact that the property is lessthan ½ hectare and that only a few could actually benefit from the expropriation doesnot diminish its public use character, inasmuch as “public use” now includes the broadernotion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including, in particular, urban land reformand housing.By express legislative authority granted by Congress in Sec. 19, RA 7160, LGUsmay expropriate private property for public use, or purpose, or welfare, for the benefit ofthe poor and the landless. Thus, in Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 568, the SC held that theSangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur was without authority to disapproveBunawan Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 because, clearly, the Municipality of Bunawanhas authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and its Sanggguniang Bayan thecapacity to promulgate the assailed resolution.However, in the case of Municipacility of Parañaque vs. V.M. RealtyCorporation, 292 SCRA 676, the SC declared that there was lack of compliance withSec. 19 of RA 7160, where the Municipal Mayor filed a complaint for eminent domainover two (2) parcels of land on the strength of the resolution passed by theSangguniang Bayan, because what is required by law is an ordinance and not mereresolution.In Francia, Jr. vs. Municipality of Meycauayan, G.R. No. 170432, March 24,

12

2008, the Supreme Court held that the determination of a public purpose for theexpropriated property is not a condition precedent before a court may issue a writ ofpossession. Once the requisite in Sec. 19 of the Local Government Code are satisfied,the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial matter for the court.5. Just Compensation—the full and fair market value of the property taken; it isthe fair market value of the property. It is settled that the market value of theproperty is “that sum of money which a person, desirous but not compelled tobuy, and an owner, willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on a price to begiven and received therefor.”Medium: money except: payment other than money (Association of SmallLandowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343), payment is allowedto be made partly in bonds, because under the CARP it deals with the revolutionary kindof expropriation.The determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicialfunction and factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and reviewable onlywhen the case falls within the recognized exceptions. (NAPOCOR vs. San Pedro, G.R.No. 170945, September 26, 2006)Land Bank vs. CA (and DAR vs. CA), 249 SCRA 149—Sec. 16(e), RA 6657—the deposit of compensation must be in “cash” or in “Land Bank bonds” not in any otherform, and certainly not in a “trust account”.Reckoning point of market value of the property:FMV at the date of: a) filing of the complaint; orb) the taking –whichever is earlier.Rules in Just Compensation-Rule 67, Sec. 6:1. Determine the actual or basic value of the property.2. If entire property not expropriated:Value of property - consequential benefits + consequentialdamages(basic or actual) (CB) (CD)If consequential benefits exceed consequential damages, CB and CD should bedisregarded because the BASIC VALUE of the property should be paid in every

case.Basic/market value—the price that may be agreed upon by the parties willing but notcompelled to enter into a contract of sale. F a ctors to be considered:Cost of acquisition Actual or potential usesCurrent value of like properties in particular case: size of lands, shape, locationand tax declarationConsequential damages—injuries directly caused on the residue of the privateproperty taken by reason of expropriationExample: the property left is in odd shape or with area virtually unusableConsequential Benefits—the remainder is, as a result of the expropriation, placed in abetter location, such as fronting a street where it used to be an interior lot.Association of Small Landowners vs. DAR, 175 SCRA 343 (1989)— the power ofeminent domain could be used as an implement of police power. The expressedobjective of the law was the promotion of the welfare of the farmers, which came clearlyunder the police power of the state. To achieve this purpose, the law provided for theexpropriation of agricultural lands (subject to minimum retention limits for thelandowners) to be distributed among the landless peasantry.DARAB determines just compensation (exception to the general rule that courts decidethe value)DAR may make initial valuation; owner goes to court if not satisfied.Expropriation may be initiated by court action or by legislation. In both instances,just compensation is determined by the courts.In Republic vs. Salem Investment Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 137569, June 23,2000, the Supreme Court held that it is only upon payment of just compensation thattitle over the property passes to the government. Therefore, until the action forexpropriation has been completed and terminated, ownership over the property beingexpropriated remains with the registered owner. Consequently, the latter can exerciseall rights pertaining to an owner, including the right to dispose of his property, subject to

the power of the State ultimately to acquire it through expropriation.The Dela Ramas make much of the fact that ownership of the land wastransferred to the government because the equitable and the beneficial title werealready acquired by it in 1983, leaving them with only the naked title. However, xxx therecognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass from theowner to the expropriator only upon full payment of just compensation.Legal interest for expropriation cases—6%-from the time of taking until just compensation is actually paid-interest must be claimed, otherwise, it is deemed waivedTitle to the property shall not be transferred until after actual payment of justcompensation is made to the owner.Genuine Necessity—National legislation—question of necessity is POLITICAL; judiciary has no powerto inquire.Delegate—liberally in favor of the private property owner; judiciary can inquireinto whether the authority conferred upon such delegate correctly and properlyexercised/ whether expropriation contemplated by the delegate necessary or wise.May eminent domain be barred by “res judicata” or “law of the case”?The principle of res judicata, which finds application in generally all cases andproceedings, cannot bar the right of the State or its agents to expropriate privateproperty. The very nature of eminent domain, as an inherent power of the State,dictates that the right to exercise the power be absolute and unfettered even by a priorjudgment or res judicata. The scope of eminent domain is plenary and, like policepower, can “reach every form of property which the State might need for public use”. Allseparate interests of individuals in property are held of the government under this tacitagreement or implied reservation. Notwithstanding the grant to individuals, the eminentdomain, the highest and most exact idea of property, remains in the government, or in

13

the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity; and they have the right toresume the possession of the property whenever the public interest requires it. Thus,the State or its authorized agents cannot be forever barred from exercising said right byreason alone of previous non-compliance with any legal requirement.While the principle of res judicata does not denigrate the right of the State toexercise eminent domain, it does not apply to specific issues decided in a previouscase. For example, a final judgment dismissing an expropriation suit on the ground thatthere was no prior offer precludes another suit raising the same issue; it cannot,however, bar the State or its agent, from thereafter complying with this requirement, asprescribed by law, and subsequently exercising its power of eminent domain over thesame property. [Municipality of Parañaque vs. V.M. Realty Corp., 292 SCRA 678(1998)]When may the property owner be entitled to the return of the expropriatedproperty in eminent domain cases? In Provincial Government of Sorsogon vs. Villaroya, the unpaid landowners wereallowed the alternative remedy of recovery of the property. The Court ruled that “underordinary circumstances, immediate return to the owners of the unpaid property is theobvious remedy.”However, in cases where land is taken for public use, public interest must beconsidered. (Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. PEZA, 349 SCRA 240)Right of landowner in case of non-payment of just compensation—as a rule, itdoes not entitle the landowners to recover possession of the expropriated lots, but onlyto demand payment of the fair market value of the property. (Republic vs. CA, G.R.No. 146587, July 2, 2002; Reyes vs. NHA, G.R. No. 147511, January 20, 2003).However, in RP vs. Vicente Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005, the SC saidthat the facts of the case do not justify the application of the rule. In this case, the

Republic was ordered to pay just compensation twice; the f irst was in the expropriationproceedings, and the second, in the action for recovery of possession. Fifty-seven (57)years have passed since then. The Court construed the Republic’s failure to pay justcompensation as a deliberate refusal on its part. Under such circumstances, recovery ofpossession is in order. It was then held that where the government failed to pay justcompensation within 5 years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriationproceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of theirproperty.Plaintiff’s right to dismiss the complaint in Eminent DomainIn expropriation cases, there is no such thing as the plaintiff’s “matter-of-right” todismiss the complaint, precisely because the landowner may have already suffereddamages at the start of the taking. The plaintiff’s right to dismiss the complaint hasalways been subject to court approval and to certain conditions. (NAPOCOR & Pobrevs. CA, G.R. No. 106804, August 12, 2004)Right to repurchase or re-acquire the propertyThe property owner’s right to repurchase the property depends upon thecharacter of the title acquired by the expropriator, e.g., if the land is expropriated for aparticular purpose with a condition that when the purpose is ended or abandoned, theproperty shall revert to the former owner, then the former owner can re-acquire theproperty. In this case, the terms of the judgment in the expropriation case were veryclear and unequivocal, granting title to the lot in fee simple to the Republic. No conditionon the right to repurchase was imposed. (Mactan-Cebu International AirportAuthority vs. CA, G.R. No. 139495, Novermber 27, 2000)Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, in arguing for the return oftheir property on the basis of non-payment, respondents ignored the fact that the right ofthe expropriatory authority is far from that of an unpaid seller in ordinary sales to whichthe remedy is rescission may perhaps apply. Expropriation is an in rem proceeding, and

after condemnation, the paramount title is in the public under a new and independenttitle.POWER OF TAXATION—is the power to demand from the members of society theirproportionate share/contribution in the maintenance of the government.It is the power by which the State raises revenue to defray the necessaryexpenses of the Government.Scope: covers persons, property or occupation to be taxed within the taxing jurisdiction.It is so pervasive; it reaches even the citizens abroad and their income outside thePhilippines; all the income earned in the Philippines by a citizen or alien.Basis: power emanating from necessity (lifeblood doctrine)Importance of Taxation:1. No constitutional government can exist without it;2. It is one great power upon which the whole national fabric is based;3. It is necessary for the existence and prosperity of the nation; and4. It is the lifeblood of the nation.Who may exercise? Generally, the legislature, but also upon valid delegation:1. Lawmaking bodies of LGUs (Sec. 5, Art. X);2. President (limited extent-delegated tariff powers), under Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI ofthe Constitution or as an incident of emergency powers that Congress maygrant to him under Sec. 23 (2), art. VI.Purpose: unavoidable obligation of the government to protect the people and extendthem benefits in the form of public projects and services.Public purpose—proceeds must be devoted to public use. It includes INDIRECTpublic advantage/benefits. The mere fact that the tax will be directly enjoyed by privateindividual does not make it INVALID so long as the same link to public welfare isestablished.Requisites:1. It must be for public purpose;2. It shall be uniform;3. Person or property taxed shall be within the jurisdiction of the taxing authority;4. In assessment & collection, notice and hearing shall be provided.Limitations on the Power of Taxation

14

Inherent limitations:1. Public purpose;2. Non-delegability of power;3. Territoriality or Situs of taxation;4. Exemption of government from taxation;5. International comity—generally accepted principles of international lawConstitutional limitations:1. Due process of law—tax should not be confiscatory.Due process does not require previous notice and hearing before a lawprescribing fixed/specific taxes on certain articles may be enacted.If the tax to be collected is to be based on the value of the taxable property—advalorem tax—the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the assessment proceedingand to be heard on the correct valuation.2. Equal protection of law—taxes should be uniform and equitable.3. Uniformity—persons/things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at thesame rateEquitability—taxes should be apportioned among the people according to theircapacity to payProgressivity—4. Non-impairment of contracts5. Non-imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax6. Revenue and tariff bills must originate in the HOR7. Non-infringement of religious freedom8. Delegation of legislative authority to the President to fix tariff rates, import andexport quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues9. Tax exemption of properties actually, directly and exclusively used for religious,charitable and educational purposes10.Majority vote of all the members of Congress required in case of legislativegrant of tax exemptions11.Non-impairment of the SC’s jurisdiction in tax cases12.Tax exemption of revenues and assets of, including grants, endowments,donations, or contributions to, educational institutions.Double taxation—additional taxes are laid:1. On the same subject;2. By the same taxing authority;3. During the same taxing period; and4. For the same purpose.

Double taxation is allowed by law. However, it will not be allowed if the same willresult in violation of the equal protection clause. What is prohibited is direct doubletaxation.In Punzalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila, 95 Phil. 46, there is no doubletaxation if one tax is imposed by the LGU and the other by the National Government.Taxes—the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied by theState by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and for all publicneeds.TAX LICENSE1. AS TO BASISPower of taxation—to raise revenue Police power—to regulate2. AS TO LIMITATIONRate or amount to be collected is unlimitedprovided it is not confiscatoryAmount is limited to cost of: a)issuing thelicense; and b)necessary inspection ofpolice surveillance3. AS TO OBJECTImposed on persons or property Paid for privilege of doing something butprivilege is revocable4. AS TO EFFECT OF NON-PAYMENTBusiness or activity does not becomeillegalBusiness becomes illegalTax Debtdue to the government in its sovereigncapacitydue to the government in its corporatecapacityTaxes cannot be subject to off-setting or compensation for the simple reason that thegovernment and the taxpayers are not creditors and debtors of each other.(Philex Mining Corp. vs. CIR, 294 SCRA 687)Tax exemptions:-discretion of the legislature1. Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI2. Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI3. Sec. 4 (3), Art. XIV4. Sec. 4 (4), Art. XIV5. Where tax exemption is granted gratuitously, it may be revoked at will; but not if

granted for a valuable consideration—deemed to partake of the nature ofcontract and obligation thereof—protection against impairment.In Lladoc vs. CIR, 14 SCRA 292, a parish priest accepted a donation to be usedfor the construction of a church. The money was spent for the purpose. The CIRimposed tax. The objection was based on constitutional exemption of church propertiesfrom taxes. The SC rejected. Exemption referred only to property taxes imposed onlands, buildings and improvements used for religious purposes. The tax in this case isnot an ad valorem tax on the church itself but an excise tax imposed on the priest (noton the properties) for his exercise of the privilege to accept the donation.Territoriality in Taxation—the power to tax operates only within the territorialjurisdiction of the taxing authority. It cannot be exercised beyond the boundaries exceptunder certain circumstances.Taxable Situs of Real Properties—the place where they are situatedMobilia Sequntur Personam—the intangible personal property such as credits, bankdeposits, bonds, corporate stocks which do not admit of actual location and do not haveinherent value but mere evidence of debts or property are usually taxable in the state ofresidence of the owner.Uniformity in Taxation—all taxable articles, or kinds of property of the same class,shall be taxed at the same rate. There is uniformity when a tax operates in taxation withthe same force and effect on its subject wherever found.Equality of Taxation—taxes shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of thetaxable property.

SUGGESTED ANSWERSTO BAR EXAMINATIONINPOLITICAL LAWARRANGED BY TOPIC(1987 – 2006)Edited and Arranged by:Atty. Janette Laggui-Icao and

15

Atty. Alex Andrew P. Icao(Silliman University College of Law)July 26, 2005Updated by:Romualdo L. Señeris II, LLB.April 19, 2007From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONSin POLITICAL LAW by theUP LAW COMPLEX andPHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS

ARTICLE II Declaration ofPrinciples and State PoliciesArmed Forces; Servant of the People (2003)No I - Article II. Section 3, of the 1987Constitution expresses, in part, that the "ArmedForces of the Philippines is the protector of thepeople and (of) the State." Describe briefly whatthis provision means. Is the Philippine NationalPolice covered by the same mandate?FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitutionmeans that the Armed Forces of the Philippinesshould not serve the interest of the Presidentbut of the people and should not commitabuses against the people. (Record of theConstitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 133.) Thisprovision is specifically addressed to the ArmedForces of the Philippines and not to thePhilippine National Police, because the latter isseparate and distinct from the former. (Recordof the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 296;Manalo v. Sistoza. 312 SCR A 239 [1999].)SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution canbe interpreted to mean that the Armed Forcesof the Philippines can be a legitimate instrumentfor the overthrow of the civilian government if ithas ceased to be the servant of the people.(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines:A Commentary, 2003 ed., p. 66.) This provisiondoes not apply to the Philippine National Police,because it is separate and distinct from theArmed Forces of the Philippines. (Record of theConstitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 296, Manalo v.Sistoza. 312 SCRA 239 [1999].)Doctrine of Incorporation; ConstitutionalLaw (1997)No. 1; What do you understand by the "Doctrine

of Incorporation" in Constitutional Law?SUGGESTED ANSWER:The DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION meansthat the rules of International law form part ofthe law of the land and no legislative action isrequired to make them applicable to a country.The Philippines follows this doctrine, becauseSection 2. Article II of the Constitution statesthat the Philippines adopts the generallyaccepted principles of international law as partof the law of the land.Doctrine of Incorporation; Pacta SuntServanda (2000)No X. The Philippines has become a member ofthe World Trade Organization (WTO) andresultantly agreed that it "shall ensure theconformity of its laws, regulations andadministrative procedures with its obligations asprovided in the annexed Agreements." This isassailed as unconstitutional because thisundertaking unduly limits, restricts and impairsPhilippine sovereignty and means amongothers that Congress could not pass legislationthat will be good for our national interest andgeneral welfare if such legislation will notconform with the WTO Agreements. Refute thisargument. (5%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:According to Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18(1997), the sovereignty of the Philippines issubject to restriction by its membership in thefamily of nations and the limitations imposed oftreaty limitations. Section 2. Article II of theConstitution adopts the generally acceptedprinciples of international law as part of the lawof the land. One of such principles is pacta suntservanda. The Constitution did not envision ahermit-like isolation of the country from the restof the world.Freedom from Nuclear Weapons; ForeignMilitary Bases (1988)No. 22: The Secretary of Justice had recentlyruled that the President may negotiate for amodification or extension of military basesagreement with the United States regardless ofthe "no nukes" provisions in the 1987Constitution. The President forthwithannounced that she finds the same opinion"acceptable" and will adopt it. The Senators onthe other hand, led by the Senate President,

are skeptical, and had even warned that notreaty or international agreement may go intoeffect without the concurrence of two-thirds ofall members of the Senate.BAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006) 19A former senator had said, "it is completelywrong, if not erroneous," and "is an amendmentof the Constitution by misinterpretation." Somemembers of the Lower House agree withSecretary Ordonez, while others lament thelatter's opinion as "questionable, unfortunate,and without any basis at all."Do you or do you not agree with theaforementioned ruling of the Department ofJustice? Why?SUGGESTED ANSWER:No. The Constitution provides that if foreignmilitary bases, troops or facilities are to beallowed after the expiration of the presentPhilippine-American Military Bases Agreementin 1991, it must be "under a treaty dulyconcurred in by the Senate and, when theCongress so requires, ratified by a majority ofthe votes cast by the people in a nationalreferendum." (Art. XVIII, sec. 25) A mereagreement, therefore, not a treaty, without theconcurrence of at least 2/3 of all the membersof the Senate will not be valid (Art. VII, sec. 21,Art. XVIII, sec. 4). With respect to the provisionallowing nuclear weapons within the bases, theConstitution appears to ban such weapons fromthe Philippine territory. It declares as a statepolicy that "the Philippines, consistent with thenational interest, adopts and pursues a policy offreedom from nuclear weapons in its territory."(Art, II, sec. 8) However, the deliberations of theConstitutional Commission would seem toindicate that this provision of the Constitution is"not something absolute nor 100 percentwithout exception." It may therefore be thatcircumstances may justify a provision onnuclear weapons.Philippine Flag (Q4-2006)State whether or not the law is constitutional.Explain briefly.1. A law changing the design of thePhilippine flag. (2%)ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:The law is invalid considering that under Article

16

XVI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the flagof the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue,with a sun and three stars, as consecrated andhonored by the people and recognized by law.Since the Constitution itself prescribes thedesign, it can only be changed by constitutionalamendment.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:The law is valid, provided that the new designdoes not change the elements and colorscheme of the flag as stated in the Constitution,and the flag is consecrated and honored by thepeople. Since the Constitution itself states thatthe flag must be recognized by law, it impliesthat certain aspects of the flag are subject tochange through legislative action.Principle of Civilian Supremacy (Q6-2006)2. What Constitutional provisions institutionalizethe principle of civilian supremacy? (2.5%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:The following constitutional provisionsinstitutionalize the principle of civiliansupremacy:a. Civilian authority is at all times supremeover the military. [Article II, Section 3]b. The installation of the President, thehighest civilian authority, as theCommander-in-Chief of the military. [ArticleVII, Section 18]c. The requirement that members of theAFP swear to uphold and defend theConstitution, which is the fundamental lawof the civil government. [Article XVI,Section 5(1)]d. The requirement that members of theAFP shall have respect for people's rightsin the performance of their duty. [ArticleXVI, Section 5(2)]e. Professionalism in the armed forces.[Article XVI, Section 5(3)]f. Insulation of the AFP from partisanpolitics. [Article XVI, Section 5(3)]g. Prohibition against the appointment of anAFP member in the active service to acivilian position. [Article XVI, Section 5(4)]h. Compulsory retirement of officers withoutextension of service. [Article XVI, Section5(5)]i. Requirement of proportional recruitmentfrom all provinces and cities, so as to

avoid any regional clique from formingwithin the AFP. [Article XVI, Section 5(7)]j. A 3-year limitation on the tour of duty ofthe Chief of Staff, which althoughextendible in case of emergency by thePresident, depends on Congressionaldeclaration of emergency. [Article XVI,Section 5(6)]The establishment of a police force that is notonly civilian in character but also under the localexecutives. [Article XVI, Section 5(7)]State Immunity from Suit (1991)No. 13; In February 1990, the Ministry of theArmy. Republic of Indonesia, invited bids for thesupply of 500,000 pairs of combat boots for theuse of the Indonesian Army. The Marikina ShoeCorporation, a Philippine corporation, which hasno branch office and no assets in Indonesia,submitted a bid to supply 500,000 pairs ofBAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006) 20combat boots at U.S. $30 per pair delivered inJakarta on or before 30 October 1990. Thecontract was awarded by the Ministry of theArmy to Marikina Shoe Corporation and wassigned by the parties in Jakarta. Marikina ShoeCorporation was able to deliver only 200,000pairs of combat boots in Jakarta by 30 October1990 and it received payment for 100,000 pairsor a total of U.S. $3,000,000.00. The Ministry ofthe Army promised to pay for the other 100,000pairs already delivered as soon as theremaining 300,000 pairs of combat boots aredelivered, at which time the said 300,000 pairswill also be paid for. Marikina Shoe Corporationfailed to deliver any more combat boots.On 1 June 1991, the Republic of Indonesia filedan action before the Regional Trial Court ofPasig. Rizal, to compel Marikina ShoeCorporation to perform the balance of itsobligations under the contract and for damages.In its Answer, Marikina Shoe Corporation setsup a counterclaim for U.S. $3,000,000.00representing the payment for the 100,000 pairsof combat boots already delivered but unpaid.Indonesia moved to dismiss the counterclaim,asserting that it is entitled to sovereignImmunity from suit. The trial court denied themotion to dismiss and issued two writs ofgarnishment upon Indonesian Government

funds deposited in the Philippine National Bankand Far East Bank. Indonesia went to the Courtof Appeals on a petition for certiorari under Rule65 of the Rules of Court.How would the Court of Appeals decide thecase?SUGGESTED ANSWER:The Court of Appeals should dismiss thepetition insofar as it seeks to annul the orderdenying the motion of the Government ofIndonesia to dismiss the counterclaim. Thecounterclaim in this case is a compulsorycounterclaim since it arises from the samecontract involved in the complaint. As such itmust be set up otherwise it will be barred.Above all, as held in Froilan vs. Pan OrientalShipping Co., 95 Phil. 905, by filing a complaint,the state of Indonesia waived its immunity fromsuit. It is not right that it can sue in the courtsbut it cannot be sued. The defendant thereforeacquires the right to set up a compulsorycounterclaim against it.However, the Court of Appeals should grant thepetition of the Indonesian government insofaras it sought to annul the garnishment of thefunds of Indonesia which were deposited in thePhilippine National Bank and Far East Bank.Consent to the exercise of jurisdiction of aforeign court does not include waiver of theseparate immunity from execution. (Brownlie,Principles of Public International Law, 4th ed., p.344.) Thus, in Dexter vs. Carpenter vs. KungligJarnvagsstyrelsen, 43 Fed 705, it was held theconsent to be sued does not give consent to theattachment of the property of a sovereigngovernment.State Immunity from Suit (1996)No. 6; The Republic of the Balau (formerlyPalau Islands) opened and operated in Manilaan office engaged in trading Balau productswith Philippine products. In one transaction,the local buyer complained that the Balaugoods delivered to him were substandard andhe sued the Republic of Balau, before theRegional Trial Court of Pasig, for damages.a) How can the Republic of Balau invoke itssovereign immunity? Explain.b) Will such defense of sovereign immunityprosper? Explain.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

17

A) The Republic of Balau can invoke itssovereign Immunity by filing a motion to dismissin accordance with Section l(a), Rule 16 of theRules of Court on the ground that the court hasno jurisdiction over its person.According to the Holy See vs. Rosario, 238SCRA 524, in Public International Law, when aState wishes to plead sovereign immunity in aforeign court, it requests the Foreign Office ofthe State where it is being sued to convey tothe court that it is entitled to immunity. In thePhilippines, the practice is for the foreigngovernment to first secure an executiveendorsement of its claim of sovereign immunity.In some cases, the defense of sovereignimmunity is submitted directly to the local courtby the foreign government through counsel byfiling a motion to dismiss on the ground that thecourt has no Jurisdiction over its person.b) No, the defense of sovereign Immunity willnot prosper. The sale of Balau products is acontract involving a commercial activity. InUnited States vs. Ruiz, 136SCRA487 andUnited States vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644, it wasstated that a foreign State cannot invokeImmunity from suit if it enters into a commercialcontract. The Philippines adheres toRESTRICTIVE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.State Immunity from Suit (1989)No. 13: A property owner filed an action directlyin court against the Republic of the PhilippinesBAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006) 21seeking payment for a parcel of land which thenational government utilized for a road wideningproject.(1) Can the government invoke the doctrine ofnon-suitability of the state?(2) In connection with the preceding question,can the property owner garnish publicfunds to satisfy his claim for payment?Explain your answers.SUGGESTED ANSWER:(1) No, the government cannot invoke thedoctrine of state of immunity from suit. As heldin Ministerio vs. Court of First Instance of Cebu,40 SCRA 464, when the governmentexpropriates property for public use withoutpaying just compensation, it cannot invoke itsimmunity from the suit. Otherwise, the right

guaranteed in Section 9, Article III of the 1987Constitution that private property shall not betaken for public use without just compensationwill be rendered nugatory.(2) No, the owner cannot garnish public fundsto satisfy his claim for payment, Section 7 of ActNo. 3083 prohibits execution upon anyjudgment against the government. As held inRepublic vs. Palacio, 23 SCRA 899, even if thegovernment may be sued, it does not follow thatits properties may be seized under execution.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:(2) No, funds of the government on deposit inthe bank cannot be garnished for two reasons:1. Under Art. II, Sec. 29 (1) public fundscannot be spent except in pursuance of anappropriation made by law, and2. essential public services will be impaired iffunds of the government were subject toexecution, (Commissioner of PublicHighways vs. San Diego, 31 SCRA 616(1970)). The remedy of the prevailing partyis to have the judgment credit in his favorincluded in the general appropriations lawfor the next year.State Immunity from Suit (1994)No. 6; Johnny was employed as a driver by theMunicipality of Calumpit, Bulacan. While drivingrecklessly a municipal dump truck with its loadof sand for the repair of municipal streets,Johnny hit a jeepney. Two passengers of thejeepney were killed.The Sangguniang Bayan passed an ordinanceappropriating P300,000 as compensation forthe heirs of the victims.1) Is the municipality liable for the negligenceof Johnny?2) Is the municipal ordinance valid?SUGGESTED ANSWER:1) Yes, the Municipality of Calumpit is liable forthe negligence of its driver Johnny. UnderSection 24 of the Local Government Code, localgovernment units are not exempt from liabilityfor death or injury to persons or damage toproperty.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:No, the municipality is not liable for thenegligence of Johnny, the prevailing rule in thelaw of municipal corporations is that amunicipality is not liable for the torts committed

by its regular employees in the discharge ofgovernmental functions. The municipality isanswerable only when it is acting in aproprietary capacity.In the case at bar, Johnny was a regularemployee of the Municipality of Calumpit asdriver of its dump truck; he committed a tortiousact while discharging a governmental functionfor the municipality, ie., driving recklessly thesaid truck loaded with sand for the repair ofmunicipal streets. Undoubtedly then, Johnny asdriver of the dump truck was performing a dutyor task pertaining to his office. The constructionor maintenance of public streets are admittedlygovernmental activities. At the time of theaccident, Johnny was engaged in the dischargeof governmental functions.Hence, the death of the two passengers of thejeepney -tragic and deplorable though it may be- imposed on the municipality no duty to paymonetary compensation, as held in Municipalityof San. Fernando v. Firme, 195 SCRA 692.State Immunity from Suit (1992)No. 9: The Northern Luzon Irrigation Authority(NLIA) was established by a legislative charterto strengthen the irrigation systems that supplywater to farms and commercial growers in thearea. While the NLIA is able to generaterevenues through its operations, it receives anannual appropriation from Congress. The NLIAis authorized to "exercise all the powers of acorporation under the Corporation Code."Due to a miscalculation by some of itsemployees, there was a massive irrigationoverflow causing a flash flood in Barrio Zanjera.A child drowned in the incident and his parentsnow file suit against The NLIA for damages.May the NLIA validly invoke the immunity of theState from suit? Discuss thoroughly.SUGGESTED ANSWER:BAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006) 22No, the Northern Luzon Irrigation Authority maynot invoke the immunity of the State from suit,because, as held in Fontanilla vs. Maliaman,179 SCRA 685 and 194 SCRA 486, irrigation isa proprietary function. Besides, the NorthernLuzon Irrigation Authority has a juridicalpersonality separate and distinct from thegovernment, a suit against it is not a suit

18

against the State. Since the waiver of theimmunity from suit is without qualification, asheld in Rayo vs. Court of First Instance ofBulacan, 110 SCRA 456, the waiver includesan action based on a quasi-delict.State Immunity from Suit (1999)A. 1.) What do you understand by stateimmunity from suit? Explain. (2%)2.) How may consent of the state to besued be given? Explain. (2%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:1.) STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT meansthat the State cannot be sued without itsconsent. A corollary of such principle is thatproperties used by the State in the performanceof its governmental functions cannot be subjectto judicial execution.2.) Consent of the State to be sued may bemade expressly as in the case of a specific,express provision of law as waiver of Stateimmunity from suit is not inferred lightly (e.g. C.A.327 as amended by PD 1445} or impliedly as whenthe State engages in proprietary functions (U.S.v. Ruiz, U.S. v. Guinto) or when it files a suit inwhich case the adverse party may file acounterclaim (Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping) orwhen the doctrine would in effect be used toperpetuate an injustice (Amigable v. Cuenca, 43SCRA 360).State Immunity from Suit (1999)No VI - B. The employees of the PhilippineTobacco Administration (PTA) sued to recoverovertime pay. In resisting such claim, the PTAtheorized that it is performing governmentalfunctions. Decide and explain. (2%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:As held in Philippine Virginia TobaccoAdministration v. Court of Industrial Relations,65 SCRA 416, the Philippine TobaccoAdministration is not liable for overtime pay,since it is performing governmental functions.Among its purposes are to promote theeffective merchandising of tobacco so thatthose engaged in the tobacco industry will haveeconomic security, to stabilize the price oftobacco, and to improve the living andeconomic conditions of those engaged in thetobacco industry.State Immunity from Suit (1987)(a) "X" filed a case against the Republic of the

Philippines for damages caused his yacht,which was rammed by a navy vessel.(b) "X" also sued in another case theSecretary of Public Works and theRepublic of the Philippines for payment ofthe compensation of the value of his land,which was used as part of the tarmac ofthe Cebu International Airport, without priorexpropriation proceedings.The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the twocases invoking state immunity from suit Decide.SUGGESTED ANSWER:(a) The government cannot be sued fordamages considering that the agency whichcaused the damages was the Philippine Navy.Under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, the stateconsents to be sued for a quasi-delict onlywhen the damage is caused by its specialagents. Hence, the Solicitor General's motionshould be granted and the suit brought by "X"be dismissed.(b) But the government CANNOT INVOKE thestate's immunity from suit. As held in Ministeriov. Court of First Instance. 40 SCRA 464 (1971),which also involved the taking of privateproperty without the benefit of expropriationproceeding, "The doctrine of governmentalimmunity from suit cannot serve as aninstrument for perpetrating an injustice on acitizen. . . . When the government takes anyproperty for public use, which is conditionalupon the payment of just compensation, to bejudicially ascertained, it makes manifest that itsubmits to the jurisdiction of the court." TheSolicitor General's motion to dismiss should,therefore, be denied.State Immunity vs. Waiver of Immunity(1997)No, 6: It is said that "waiver of immunity by theState does not mean a concession of itsliability". What are the implications of thisphrase?SUGGESTED ANSWER:The phrase that waiver of immunity by the Statedoes not mean a concession of liability meansthat by consenting to be sued, the State doesnot necessarily admit it is liable. As stated inPhilippine Rock Industries, Inc. vs. Board ofLiquidators, 180 SCRA 171, in such a case theState is merely giving the plaintiff a chance to

BAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006) 23prove that the State is liable but the Stateretains the right to raise all lawful defenses.State Immunity from Suit (1993)No 19: Devi is the owner of a piece of land.Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale,the national government used a portion thereoffor the widening of the national highway. Devifiled a money claim with the Commission onAudit which was denied. Left with no otherrecourse, Devi filed a complaint for recovery ofproperty and/or damages against the Secretaryof Public Works and Highways and theRepublic of the Philippines, The defendantmoved for dismissal of the complaintcontending that the government cannot be suedwithout its consent. The RTC dismissed thecomplaint. On appeal, how would you decidethe case.SUGGESTED ANSWER:The order dismissing the complaint should bereversed. In Ministerio v. Court of First Instanceof Cebu, 40 SCRA 464, it was held that whenthe government takes property from a privatelandowner without prior expropriation ornegotiated sale, the landowner may maintain asuit against the government without violatingthe doctrine of government Immunity from suit.The government should be deemed to havewaived impliedly its immunity from suit.Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee thatprivate property shall not be taken for publicuse without just compensation will be renderednugatory.State Principles & Policies (1994)No. 1; What is the state policy on:a) working women?b) ecology?c) the symbols of statehood?d) cultural minorities?e) science and technology?SUGGESTED ANSWER:a) Section 14, Article XIII of the Constitutionprovides: "The State shall protect WORKINGWOMEN by providing safe and healthfulworking conditions, taking into account theirmaternal functions, and such facilities andopportunities that will enhance their welfare andenable them to realize their full potential in the

19

service of the nation."b) Section 16, Article II of the Constitutionprovides: The State shall protect and advancethe right of the people and their posterity to abalanced and healthful ECOLOGY in accordwith the rhythm and harmony of nature."c) Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitutionprovides: "The FLAG OF THE PHILIPPINESshall be red, white, and blue, with a sun andthree stars, as consecrated and honored by thepeople and recognized by law."Section 2, Article XVI of the Constitution states:The Congress may by law, adopt a new namefor the country, a national anthem, or a nationalseal, which shall all be truly reflective andsymbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions ofthe people. Such law shall take effect only uponits ratification by the people in a nationalreferendum."d) Section 22, Article II of the Constitutionprovides: The State recognizes and promotesthe rights of INDIGENOUS CULTURALCOMMUNITIES within the framework ofnational unity and development."Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution reads:The State, subject to the provisions of thisConstitution and national development policiesand programs, shall protect the rights ofindigenous cultural communities to theirancestral lands to ensure their economic, socialand cultural well-being.The Congress may provide for the applicabilityof customary laws governing property rights orrelations in determining the ownership andextent of the ancestral domains."Section 6, Art. XIII of the Constitution provides:The State shall apply the principles ofAGRARIAN REFORM or stewardship,whenever applicable in accordance with law, inthe disposition or utilization of other naturalresources, including lands of the public domainunder lease or concession suitable toagriculture, subject to prior rights, homesteadrights of small settlers, and the rights ofindigenous communities to their ancestrallands.The State may resettle landless farmers andfarm workers in its own agricultural estateswhich shall be distributed to them in the mannerprovided by law."

Section 17. Article XIV of the Constitutionstates: "The State shall recognize, respect andprotect the rights of indigenous culturalcommunities to preserve and develop theircultures, traditions, and institutions. It shallBAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006) 24consider these rights in the formulation ofnational plans and policies."e) Section 17, Article II of the Constitutionprovides: "The State shall give priority toEDUCATION, SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY,ARTS, CULTURE, and SPORTS to fosterpatriotism and nationalism, accelerate socialprogress, and promote total human liberationand development."Section 14, Article XII of the Constitution readsin part: "The sustained development of areservoir of NATIONAL TALENTS consisting ofFilipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,managers, high-level technical manpower andskilled workers and craftsmen shall bepromoted by the State, The State shallencourage appropriate technology and regulateIts transfer for the national benefit.Sub-section 2, Section 3. Article XIV of theConstitution states: "They (EDUCATIONALINSTITUTIONS) shall inculcate patriotism andnationalism, foster love of humanity, respect forhuman rights, appreciation of the role ofnational heroes in the historical development ofthe country, teach the rights and duties ofcitizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritualvalues, develop moral character and personaldiscipline, encourage critical and creativethinking, broaden scientific and technologicalknowledge, and promote vocational efficiency."Section 10. Article XIV of the Constitutiondeclares: "SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY areessential for national development andprogress. The State shall give priority toresearch and development, invention,innovation, and their utilization; and to scienceand technology education, training, services. Itshall support indigenous, appropriate, and selfreliantscientific and cultural capabilities, andtheir application to the country's productivesystems and national life."Section 11, Article XIV of the Constitutionprovides: "The Congress may provide for

incentives, including TAX DEDUCTIONS, toencourage private participation in programs ofbasic and applied scientific research.Scholarships, grants-in-aid or other forms ofIncentives shall be provided to deservingscience students, researchers, scientists,investors, technologists, and specially giftedcitizens."Section 12, Article XIV of the Constitutionreads: The State shall regulate the transfer andpromote the adaptation of technology from allsources for the national benefit. It shallencourage widest participation of privategroups, local governments, and communitybasedorganizations in the generation andutilization of science and technology."NOTE: It is suggested that if an examinee gave a substantiveanswer without giving the exact provisions of the Constitution,then he should be given full credit. Further, one provisionquoted/discussed by the examinee should be sufficient for himto be given full credit.Transparency; Matters of Public Interest(1989)No. 3: Does the 1987 Constitution provide for apolicy of transparency in matters of publicinterest? Explain.SUGGESTED ANSWER:Yes, the 1987 Constitution provides for a policyof transparency in matters of public interest.Section 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitutionprovides:1. "Subject to reasonable conditionsprescribed by law, the State adopts andimplements a policy of full disclosure of allits transactions involving public interest,"2. Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitutionstates: "The right of the people toinformation on matters of public concernshall be recognized, Access to officialrecords, and to documents, and paperspertaining to official acts, transactions, ordecisions, as well as to governmentresearch data used as basis for policydevelopment, shall be afforded the citizen,subject to such limitations as may beprovided by law."3. Section 20, Article VI of the 1987

20

Constitution reads: "The records and booksof account of the Congress shall bepreserved and be open to the public inaccordance with law, and such books shallbe audited by the Commission on Auditwhich shall publish annually an itemized listof amounts paid to and expenses incurredfor each member."4. Under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987Constitution, the sworn statement of assets,liabilities and net worth of the President, theVice-President, the Members of theCabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court,the Constitutional Commission and otherconstitutional offices, and officers of theBAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006) 25armed forces with general or flag rank filedupon their assumption of office shall bedisclosed to the public in the mannerprovided by law.5. Section 21, Article XII of the Constitutiondeclares: "Information on foreign loansobtained or guaranteed by the governmentshall be made available to the public."6. As held in Valmonte vs. Belmonte, G.R. No.74930, Feb. 13, 1989, these provisions onpublic disclosures are intended to enhancethe role of the citizenry in governmentaldecision-making as well as in checkingabuse in government.Transparency; Matters of Public Interest(2000)No V. State at least three constitutionalprovisions reflecting the State policy ontransparency in matters of public interest. Whatis the purpose of said policy? (5%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:The following are the constitutional provisionsreflecting the State policy on transparency inmatters of public interest:1. "Subject to reasonable conditionsprescribed by law, the State adopts andImplements a policy of full public disclosure ofall its transactions involving public interest."(Section 28, Article II)2. The right of the people to information onmatters of public concern shall be recognized.Access to official records, and to documents,and papers pertaining to official acts,

transactions, or decisions, as well as togovernment research data used as basis forpolicy development, shall be afforded to citizen,subject to such limitations as may be providedby law." (Section 7, Article III)3. The records and books of accounts of theCongress shall be preserved and be open tothe public in accordance with law, and suchbooks shall be audited by the Commission onAudit which shall publish annually an itemizedlist of amounts paid to and expenses incurredfor each Member." (Section 20. Article VI)4. The Office of the Ombudsman shall havethe following powers, functions, and duties:XXX XXX(6) Publicize matters covered by itsinvestigation when circumstances sowarrant and with due prudence,"(Section 12, Article XI)5. "A public officer or employee shall, uponassumption of office, and as often as thereaftermay be required by law, submit a declarationunder oath of his assets, liabilities, and networth. In the case of the President, the VicePresident, the Members of the Cabinet, theCongress, the Supreme Court, theConstitutional Commissions and otherconstitutional offices, and officers of the armedforces with general or flag rank, the declarationshall be disclosed to the public in the mannerprovided by law." (Section 17, Article XI)6. "Information on foreign loans obtained orguaranteed by the Government shall be madeavailable to the public." (Section 21 Article XII)As explained In Valmonte v. Belmonte,170 SCRA 256 (1989), the purpose ofthe policy is to protect the people fromabuse of governmental power. If accessto information of public concern isdenied, the postulate "public office is apublic trust" would be mere emptywords.{Note: The examinee should be givenfull credit if he gives any three of theabove-mentioned provisions.}

21