Political Law

That branch of public law which deals with the operations and organizations of the
governmental organs of the state and defines its relations with the inhabitants of the
territory.
Constitution, defined
The fundamental, basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and
to which all persons, including the highest official, down to the lowliest citizenry,
must defer and adhere. They should be aware of the provisions of the constitution.
Doctrine of constitutional supremacy
All statutes or local legislations must be consistent with the mandate of the
constitution.
Note:
Art 7 of NCC
When the courts declare a law inconsistent with the constitution, the former shall be
void and the latter shall govern.
In Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS and Macalintal vs Comelec, it was held that the
provisions of the constitution are deemed written in every statute and contract.
Meaning, even though the constitution is not expressly provided in every statute or
contract, it is deemed written. A contract, which is the law between the parties, and a
law should always be consistent with the constitution.
Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS
Facts:
Award of bidding of Manila Hotel shares of GSIS. The Filipino bidders lost against
the Malaysian Group. But considering the object of the bidding, the Manila Hotel,
which has been regarded by SC as having historical significance to the filipino people,
the Filipino bidders invoked the provision of the constitution regarding the so-called
Filipino-first Policy which provides that in the grant of rights, concessions, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. So even if they lost in the bidding, they
invoked the particular provision in nullifying the award.
Ruling:
SC sustained the argument of the Filipino group.
Macalintal vs Comelec
Facts:
Involves overseas absentee voting act (oava). Filipinos working abroad may still
exercise their right of suffrage by voting for President, VP, Senators and Party List
representative. In the Law, it was provided that the comelec shall have the power to
canvass the votes casted overseas for Pres, VP, Senators and PL reps. Macalintal
questioned the constitutionality of the particular provision of the law arguing that
under the constitution, the power to canvass the votes for President and VP is vested
in Congress. It is the exclusive domain of Congress to canvass the votes for Pres and
VP and to proclaim the winners.
Ruling:

SC sustained the argument of Macalintal. The congress could not have allowed the
comelec to encroach upon the powers which constitutionally belonging to it. As
provided for in the constitution, votes for President and VP shall be canvassed and the
winners thereof shall be proclaimed by congress. Congress has no power to delegate
its power to canvass the votes for president and vp.
The provisions of the constitution is self-executing and therefore, it is deemed
incorporated in and written as part of the absentee voting act.
Note:
The Constitution as the Fundamental Law of the land, all officials, down to the
lowliest citizenry, should understand it. For that matter, the Constitution provides that
The study of the Constitution should part of the curriculum of every educational
institution.
Interpretation of the constitution
1. Verba Legis (plain meaning rule)
The constitution should be understood in its plain and ordinary meaning. Every
words used in the constitution should be understood in their ordinary meaning.
Unless technical term is used/intended by the framers. Because the constitution is
not a lawyers document. It should not contain, as much as possible, highfalutin or
technical terms, or what Sen Biazon said Legal gobbledygook (legal
terminology). Because the constitution should be understood by an ordinary
individual and therefore every words used therein should be understood by an
ordinary person/layman. Thats the General Rule. Unless technical term is really
intended by the framers.
2. Ut magis valeat quam periat
The constitution should be interpreted as a whole. As one single document and not
in a fragmental-like approach (Not in pieces). You harmonize the provision of the
constitution to understand the meaning. Relevant provisions should be joined
together and should be construed together.
3. Ratio legis et anima
General Rule, The provisions of the constitution are generally regarded as selfexecuting provisions. There is no need for an enabling legislation to give or effect
to provision of the constitution because if the case is otherwise, then congress,
executive, or even the judiciary may easily ignore the mandate of the constitution.
They may easily defeat the provision of the constitution which may be
inconsistent with the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. If it not selfexecuting/self-implementable, the congress may not make a law to make the
provision of the constitution ineffective.
Exceptions:
Basco vs Pagcor
SC ruled that the provisions in Article II of the constitution, Declaration of
Principles and State Policies, are generally as a matter of rule, not self-executing
provisions. They are merely guidelines. They are merely principles to aid the
legislature in the enactment of laws and the judiciary in the interpretation of the
laws. But for them to be effective, there is a need for the congress to enact a law.

Other provisions which are regarded as not self-executing provisions are

provisions on Art XIII, Social Justice and Human Rights, those provisions which
deal with Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports (Art XIV)
and as provided for by the SC in several cases.
Exception to the exceptions:
Oposa vs Factoran
Sc held that Sec 16 Art II, which deals with the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature, is a selfexecutory provision. There is no need for an enabling legislation to give effect to
that particular provision. In the case the SC admitted the locus standi of the
minors. Take note that minors are not of legal age therefore they dont have the
capacity to sue. They don not possess the so called locus standi. But considering
the transcendental importance of the issue, which is the protection of the
environment and the so called inter-generational responsibility in protecting the
environment, SC admitted the legal standing of the minors. It relaxed the rule on
legal standing and admitted the petition of the minors. Because even if they are
minors, they have the responsibility to protect the environment under the principle
of intergenerational responsibility.
Wilson Gamboa vs Secretary of Finance
SC held that provisions of the constitution dealing on specific areas of investment
which has been reserved to Filipinos (i.e., in public utilities=60%, mass
media=100%, =60%, advertising=70%) are self-executing provisions. There is no
need for an enabling legislation to give effect to those provisions.
4. As a general rule, the provision of the constitution are regarded as mandatory
rather than merely directory for the same reason that if the provisions of the
constitution will be regarded only as directory, congress, the judiciary and even
the executive may easily defeat the same or easily ignore the same. Likewise, it
must be prospective rather than retroactive.
Unless, there is a clear intention that the framers would want to regard the
provisions as merely directory or to have a retroactive effect.
5. The provisions of the the constitution should be liberally construed, as a general
rule.
Tobias vs Abalos
Involves the conversion of the city of Mandaluyong from a municipality to a
highly urbanized city (HUB). A bill was passed in congress for the purpose of the
conversion. There are two issues in the bill. The conversion of Mandaluyong into
a HUB and the creation of a separate district for Mandaluyong, because prior to
the enactment of the Act, Mandaluyong and San Juan shared the same district,
they have one congressman. Tobias questioned the constitutionality of the bill for
having two subjects. The conversion and the creation of a separate congressional
district. It violates the constitutional requirement of one subject one title rule.
Every bill should only contain one subject to be embraced in the title. The
proposed law contains two subject matter.

SC ruled in resolving the issue adopted a liberal interpretation of that one subject
one title rule. The creation of a separate district for Mandaluyong city is a subject
which is germane and a reasonable consequence of the conversion a municipality
into a HUB. The provision of the constitution must be interpreted as a whole. All
relevant provisions should be construed, analyzed and understood together.
Likewise, there is a provision in the constitution that when a city reached a
population of at least 250,000, it becomes entitled to at least one legislative
district. And considering that Mandaluyong becomes a HUB and it satisfies the
population requirement, it becomes entitled to a legislative district. However, its
not automatic because congress still has to make a reapportionment law for the
creation of a separate legislative district.
Prohibitory Provisions (negative terms)
Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary
Prohibitory provisions (i.e., Prohibited office, incompatible office) must be given
strict interpretation.
Major parts of the constitution
1. Constitution of government
Provides for the establishment of the structures or departments of the government
2. Constitution of liberty
Litany of individual rights such as our Bill of Rights
3. Constitution of sovereignty
Provides for the manner by which the constitution may be amended or revised by
the people as the repository of sovereign powers.
Note:
The 1987 constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, when the people ratified the
same in a plebiscite called for the purpose. It was characterized or described as
written, rigid and enacted.
Purposes of the constitution
1. It prescribes the permanent framework of the government;
2. It allocates/assigns to different departments their respective powers and duties;
3. It establishes the principle upon which the government is founded.
Manners by which our present constitution may be changed
The constitution may be changed through an amendment or though revision. Take
note that whether or not it is a revision or amendment, you have to observe two steps.
There are two steps in the validity of any modification in the constitution, First step is
the Proposal and the second is the Plebiscite.
1. Proposal
3 ways to change the constitution through proposal:
a. Constituent Assembly (Con Ass)
Congress by vote of all its members may call a Constituent Assembly To
amend or revise the constitution.
b. Constitutional Convention (Con-Con)

May be formed by a 2/3 votes of all the members of congress OR if it merely

satisfies a majority, the same will suffice provided that the question of whether
calling for an amendment or revision will be brought to the electorate for
approval. This not yet a plebiscite. This is only a question whether the people
are amenable for the amendment or revision of the constitution.
Con Ass and ConCon, distinguished
In ConAss, the congressmen themselves will make the amendment or revision
in the constitution.
In ConCon, its not the congress who will enact or draft the proposed
amendment or revision. They will call somebody else. Not congress. OR if it
did not muster the 2/3 requirement, majority of all the members of congress
will suffice provided that they have to submit that particular question of
calling for a constitutional convention to the electorate. (Tatawag ba kami ng
concon? Aprubahan ninyo.)
c. Peoples Initiative
For it to be effective, the PI must satisfy the requirement of 12% of the total
number or registered voters of which every legislative district is represented
by at least 3% of the total registered voters therein.
2 kinds of initiative
i. Direct
People submits the proposition directly to COMELEC
ii.

Indirect
People submits the proposition to Congress

Modes of initiative (RA 6735, Initiative and Referendum Law)

i. Initiative on the constitution
Requirement:
12%,3%
ii. Initiative on statutes
iii.
Initiative on local legislation
Requirements:
a. Autonomous Regions = 2k Registered Voters (RV)
b. Provinces and Cities = 1k RV
c. Municipalities = not less than 100 RV
d. Barangays = not less tha 50 RV
2. Plebiscite/Ratification
A plebiscite should be held not earlier than 60 days but not more than 90 days
from the submission of the proposal.

Note:
Article 17 of the Constitution

In so far as Revision is concerned, only the congress can do it. Either through ConAss
or ConCon revising the constitution is not available through initiative.
Initiative can only be employed as a means to change the constitutiton if the proposed
change is merely an amendment and not a revision. Under the constitution, you can
only amend the constitutioN through Peoples initiative once every five years. but if
the amendment is done or is to be made by congress, whether through a ConAss or
through ConCon, every year, every month will do. (But every month may be
impossible because there must be a plebiscite). There is no limit for making an
amendment through ConAss or ConCon.
Santiago vs Comelec
Private respondents (PR) filed a petition with comelec (direct Initiative) proposing
amendment to the constitution. Wants to remove the term limit of elective officials
through initiative. It requested the the comelec to circulate or publicize the
petition for the people to read it and if they are amenable to the proposed change,
affix their signature. They complied with the 12%, 3% requirements. Prior to the
initiative, congress enacted RA 6735 which is the basis of PRs.
Santiago questioned the propriety of the petition because the provision of the
constitution is clearly inadequate to amend the constitution through peoples
initiative. She said that what PRs are asking is a revision and not an amendment in
the constitution. To revise the constitution, there must be an enabling law that
congress must enact. RA 6735 applies only to amendment through PI, not to
revision. Lifting the term limit is not considered as an amendment. It is considered
as a revision.
SC sustained the argument of Santiago there is no law yet which satisfies or which
provides for the mechanism in amending the constitution. SC denied the petition.
2 test to determine whether a proposed change is an amendment or revision
1. Qualitative Test
Refers to the effect of the change. It does not consider the number of changes but only
the substance of the proposed change. Even if one word is utilized, if that word would
affect the substance of the system of government, then that will be considered as a
revision and not merely an amendment.
Example:
In the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, it was stated that the Philippines
is a democratic and republican State. What if it is amended and it declares that the
proposed change is this the Philippines a totalitarian and socialist State, will that
affect the system or structure of government? Yes it would affect the system of
government from a democratic to socialist republic or country and therefore, that is a
revision And not merely an amendment.
2. Quantitative Test
Refers to the number of changes to be made which, in the process, will affect the
substantial entirety of the document. Because of the numerous changes, the substance
is affected or the structure of the government.

Lambino vs Comelec
The case involves the issue of amendment and revision. The Lambino grp filed a
petition with the comelec, through direct initiative, to amend the constitution. They
wanted to abolish the senate. From a bicameral-presidential form of government, it
wants a unicameral-parliamentary form of government. In its petition with the
comelec, it attached signatures to sustain or to satisfy the requirement of 12%, 3%.
They argued that they satisfied the constitutional requirement. Comelec dismissed the
petition of the Lambino grp because it anchored on the ruling of the SC in Santiago
case, that there is no law yet that will support the PI to amend the constitution.
Lambino elevated the case to SC and ask the latter to revisit the Santiago vs Comelec
doctrine.
SC ruled that there is no need to revisit the Santiago vs Comelec doctrine. Santiago
ruling has not been abandoned. It is still a controlling principle. But according to SC,
even without revisiting the Santiago ruling, the petition must fail because Lambino
grp failed to satisfy the 12%, 3% requirement. Why? Because the petition should have
been presented to the people and for the to be aware of the proposed changes, the
petition must be shown to the people. As much as possible, the proposed change
should be, if not contained in the petition itself, at least annexed/appended to the
petition, which the Lambino group failed to do. In its petition, it only asked the people
if they are in favor of abolishing the senate, and that they approve to remove Secs 1 to
4 of Art VII of the constitution. SC said, that should not be the case. The proposed
change, the exact change or amendment should be shown to the people before they
sign the petition. They should sign the petition or at least their signature must be
appended with the petition itself with the proposed change or changes to be made. The
Lambino group failed to do this.
The second ground for the denial is because the proposed change or amendment is
not actually an amendment but a revision because it is practically changing the system
of government. It changes the substance of the system of government.
Third, the petition was not actually seen by the people. The question raised by in the
signature was not the actual petition but only a survey. A violation of doctrine of
proper submission.
Doctrine of Proper Submission
The proposed change should be presented to the people through a plebiscite for that
purpose. And that the plebiscite may be held on the same day as the regular election
provided all the proposed change(s) must be submitted to the people for ratification.
And not on a piecemeal basis. All the proposed changes should be approved by the
people at one plebiscite. (Hindi isa-isa).
Distinction between initiative and referendum
Initiative is a proposal while a referendum is the power of the people to approve or
reject a proposed law.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Definition of State
Elements of State
1. People

There is no particular number required. But they must be capable of pro-creation

for continued existence and sufficiently numerous to defend the state against
possible aggression.
Ang Ladlad vs Comelec
Was disqualified by Comelec to participate in Party-list election. SC held it cannot
go to an island and establish a government there na puro lang sila bading. Why?
They will not satisfy people as an element of the state. They are not capable of
pro-creation.
2. Territory
Must be fixed/permanent on the earths surface. Noahs ark cannot constitute a
territory. It is not fixed on the earths surface. After number of years, it will
deteriorate and eventually be destroyed. There is no particular area or land mass
required for as long as the territory is sufficient for the people for their existence.
3. Government
An organized government to which the people render habitual obedience.
4. Sovereignty
May be external or internal sovereignty.
Republican State, defined
Beltran vs Paredes
Republican State is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. The
functions of government are performed by chosen representatives of the people. That
is the essence of Republicanism.
Manifestations of a Republican Government
1. The existence of the Bill of Rights
2. The observance of the Rule of Majority
3. The observance of the Principle of separation of Powers and of Checks and
Balance
4. The observance of the Principle that ours is a government of laws and not of men
5. Observance of the Principle that Congress cannot pass irrepealable laws
6. Observance of the presence of an election or the Right of Suffrage
7. Existence of the Law on Public Officers
8. Existence of Public International Laws
9. Observance of the Principle that the State cannot be sued without its consent
NATIONAL TERRITORy
The National Territory comprises of the Philippine Archipelago and all territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or exercises jurisdiction.
Archipelagic Doctrine (ABC Doctrine)
A part of our public international law. Under the doctrine, the waters around, between
and connecting the islands belonging to the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of
their width or dimension, are necessary appurtenances of its land territory, forming an
integral part of the national or inland waters, subject to the exclusive sovereignty of
the Philippines.

An imaginary baseline is drawn upon the outermost points or tips of the island so that
their oneness constitute a single unit. The purposes of the doctrine are:
1. Territorial integrity
2. National security
3. Economic reasons.
Note:
If we do not employ or adopt the doctrine, a deemed scenario that a portion of our
waters in between our islands will be considered as international waters and therefore
if that is the case, foreign vessels may dock or station in that area to the detriment and
to the prejudice of the Philippines national security.
Province of North Cotabato vs MOA-AD
Agreement with the MILF entered by the Philippine government, concluded in
Malaysia. The basic features of the MOA-AD
1. BJE will have its own People
2. BJE will have its own Territory
3. BJE will have its own government
4. BJE will have its own diplomatic relations
In so far as people is concerned, the BJE shall have jurisdiction over its people. They
will be subject to the control and jurisdiction of BJE. In so far as territory is
concerned, BJE will administer a definite portion of a territory. Several province in
Mindanao will be under its jurisdiction. In so far as the utilization of the natural
resources within its territorial jurisdiction, a sharing agreement has been agreed upon.
80% of the revenues will go to BJE and 20% to the National government. Likewise,
the BJE shall have the power to employ, administer and supervise its own police
forces, but in so far as national defense is concerned, the jurisdiction is on the national
government. Also, under the MOA-AD, the relationship between BJE and the central
government will be associative in character. The concept of association will now
come into effect. With respect to diplomatic relations, the BJE shall have the right to
have a diplomatic intercourse with foreign country without the approval of the central
government.
SC ruled that the MOA-AD is unconstitutional. From the discussion, BJE has the
feature of a state. There cannot be a state within a state. There is no imperium within
an imperio. The concept of association is not recognized in our constitution.
Magallona vs Ermita
Petitioner questions the enactment of the baseline law. The Philippines, in compliance
with the directive of UNCLOS requiring parties to submit a demarcation of their
baseline, enacted the Baseline Law which amended the previous Baseline Law of the
Philippines. In the amendment, it included some portion of our territory and removed
some.
Under the UNCLOS, as demarcation, an imaginary line should be drawn 12 nautical
miles from the baseline. However, in compliance thereof, some part of our territory
will be excluded (i.e., KGI) Being outside the 12-nautical mile. According to
Magallona, the new baseline law delimits the extent of our national territory and in

the process, we have surrendered our claim on some of our territories. The
government negated Magallonas argument. It said that the baseline law is in
compliance with UNCLOS to which the Philippines is a party signatory. We are not
not abandoning our claims to other territories because Bajo de masinloc and KGI will
have their own baseline under UNCLOS. Under the constitution, the Philippine
Archipelago consists of islands inside the archipelago and also those territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction. We are not abandoning our
claims over those areas.
SC sustained the argument of the Philippine Government. Baseline laws are nothing
but a demarcation or delimitation of our baseline. It is not a mode of acquiring and,
conversely, losing ones territory.
Modes of acquiring, vis--vis losing,
cession, accretion.

territories include discovery, prescription,

IMMUNITY FROM SUIT

As a GR, it is the basic postulate principle in our political law that a State is immune
from suit. The exception is when the State gives its consent to the suit, in which case,
the State is Suable. How do we determine now whether the State has given its
consent?
Consent may be given expressly or impliedly. Expressly, when the State so provides
that it is suable. For example, the Congress enacted a law creating a particular govt
entity, and that is what we call the charter of that particular govt entity, and it provides
that the govt entity is suable, i.e., SBMA. Congress enacted a law creating SBMA; or
Congress enacted a law on local legislation, meaning to say a creation of a particular
local govt unit and under that charter, it is suable; or a govt corporation that is enacted
congress where there is a provision that it is suable. Those are instances that the State
has given its consent to be suable. Or the consent may be given impliedly by the State
when it enters into a commercial contract. But not all contracts entered into by a state
will mean to say that it will become suable. You have to dissect whether or not that
contract was entered into by the state by virtue of its sovereign function or pursuant to
a commercial or proprietary activity. So you have to distinguish whether the object of
that contract is in the nature of jure imperil or jure gestionis. When the contract
entered into by the State is by virtue of its sovereign function, then it is not suable.
But when the contract entered into by the state/govt is by virtue of its
commercial/proprietary function, it becomes suable.
ATO vs Spouses Ramos
ATO supervises and manages the airport in Loakan. Part of the runway belongs to sps
Ramos. Spouses Ramos found out that part of their property was used by ATO as
runway. They negotiated with the management and decided to sell it to ATO. They
agreed on the price. But, despite demand of payment by the spouses, ATO failed to
comply with its commitment in paying sps Ramos. Collection case was filed. ATO
invoked, among others, the non-suability of the State. ATO argued that being a govt
entity, it cannot be sued.
SC ruled, upon analysis, that Management of the airport is not a sovereign function. It
can be managed and ran by an individual or private entity. The contract is by virtue of

and in pursuant to a commercial activity, not a sovereign function. Even for a valid
exercise of eminent domain or expropriation, when a just compensation has to be
made, non-payment of just compensation will not excuse the State to claim/invoke the
so-called non-suability. ATO is suable.
The non-suability of the state is extended to unincorporated govt entity.
Unincorporated govt entity are created not pursuant to a charter. They do not have a
charter. They dont have a law, unlike LBP, DBP were govt entities but their origin
were created pursuant to a law enacted by congress. Example of unincorporated DND,
DBM.
The non-suability extends to a public official for acts done in the performance of his
official function. How do you know whether a case/suit is against the State, even if
the defendant or the one being sued is a public official? What is the rule of thumb to
know that it is a case against the state? As a general rule, where it will require the
state to appropriate a certain fund or a certain portion of govt money for payment to
the private person, it is a suit against the state. Exception: if the public official
exceeded his power. The state cannot be liable for acts done by a public official in
excess of his powers/jurisdiction. OR the public official is being sued in his private
capacity.
Republic of Indonesia vs Vinzon
Private respondent (PR) entered into a contract with the embassy of Indonesia for the
maintenance of the diplomatic premises and the Philippine residence of the
Ambassador, which is located/adjoining just beside the diplomatic premises.
However, during the middle of the validity of that contract, the PR make advancement
in the form of donation or gift during a certain event of the embassy, with the
expectation that this contract will be renewed. But when the new
diplomat/ambassador arrived, the contract was not renewed. PR now claims for
breach of contract. Republic of Indonesia through the Philippine Government invoked
the non-suability of the Rep of Indonesia. But according to PR, the non-immunity
from suit is not tenable because the contract it entered into with the RI is proprietary
in nature, the maintenance of its premises as well as the residence of the Ambassador.
SC ruled, it must be distinguished whether that contract/activity is proprietary in
nature or one entered into by virtue of sovereign function. Even if at first glance, the
contract seems to be proprietary in nature, you still has to distinguish or determine
whether that activity has something to do with the commercial activity of the
embassy. Is the embassy engaged in the purely commercial activity? The answer is
NO because maintenance of the diplomatic premises is part of the so-called
SOVEREIGN FUNCTION of each and every state and therefore even if the contract
extends to the residence of the ambassador, it is still CONNECTED/RELATED to the
performance of its sovereign function. The embassy is not engaged in a business. Pag
sinabing business, it earns something, it earns certain profit. The embassy is not
engaged with those kind of activities and therefore the SC upheld the non-suability of
the RI.
ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
See the concept of republicanism.
Renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy (Sec 2, Art II)

What is being contemplated here is the renunciation of aggressive war, and not a
defensive war. Defense war is still within the right of a state as a measure of selfpreservation. The defense of the state is an inherent right of each and every state. In
fact, in relation to the other provision of the Constitution, the congress even has the
authority and power to declare the existence of war. And the declaration of existence
war means to say that the war has already begun and therefore, it is on a defensive
position. The congress merely recognizes its existence. Defensive war is allowed, but
not aggressive war.
Posse Comitatus, defined
In times of war, the state can utilize able-bodied men to defend the country.
DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
The generally recognized principles of international law is being adopted as part of
the laws of the land. Under the doctrine, those generally recognized principles of intl
law are being adopted by the Philippines as part of its own domestic law. But take
note that we are only adopting those generally recognized principles of law. Not all
international law principles are adopted pursuant to the doctrine of incorporation.
Only those generally recognized principles of law such as Law of the Sea,
International Humanitarian Law, The Laws of War, International Human Rights
Those are generally recognized principle of law.
Can a particular international law principle still be adopted by the Philippines as part
of its domestic law? Yes, but not through the invocation of the doctrine of incooration,
but through some other process which is what we call the Doctrine of Transformation.
Doctrine of Transformation, defined
For an international law
To be part of our own domestic law, the congress has to make a formal and
conscious effort to adopt it to make it as our own internal or domestic law.
Unlike that of the doctrine of incorporation where congress does not need to
make a law to adopt the intl law, in the doctrine of transformation, congress
has to make a law to adopt the intl law as part of the domestic law.
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH AND THE STATE
The separation of church and state shall be inviolable.
Estrada vs Escritur
There are 3 concepts of the so-called separation of church and state:
1. The Strict Separationist Approach
The wall of separation between the church and the state is so huge/prevalent that
there cannot be any interaction between the two. Totally, there is no interaction.
(Pareho sila may tapaoho ng kabayo). There is totally no interaction.
2. The Strict Neutrality Approach
The state is not antagonistic (not hostile) with religion/church. However, in the
performance of its mandate, it cannot give any consideration or concession to the
church. For example in the declaration of holidays, it will not give any
consideration at all to the manifestation or celebration of religious activities. Only
national holiday is regarded. Religious events are disregarded and not considered.

3. The Benevolent Neutrality Approach

An approach to protect the church against possible intrusion by the state. And in
the performance of its mandate, the state may give due consideration to the church
not to promote a favored religion, but to allow the individual to exercise his
religion without interference.
Note:
In the Philippines, SC said we are geared to the benevolent neutrality approach.
Note:
In so far as foreign policy in the exercise of or intercourse of the philippines with
other states the primordial or primary considerations shall be:
1. Economic Reasons
2. National Security
3. Territorial Integrity
4. Right to Self-Determination
Principle of Civilian Supremacy
Civilian authority shall at all times supreme over the military.
Doctrine of Parens Patria
Prerogative of the State to take adequate care of those with less than full
capacity to take care of themselves. The state protects the rights of the unborn
from conception; the rt of children to education, well-being, development,etc.,
the right of the youth; the right of cultural minorities to preserve their culture
as well as their environment; the protection of women, less-fortunate, underprivilege individuals vis--vis or in connection with the concept of social
justice.
Concept of Social Justice
In Calalang vs Williams, social justice is neither a communism, depotism nor
anarchy but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and
economic forces of the state so that justice in its objectively secular conception
may, at least, be approximated. It means equality in opportunity regardless of
sex, a persons standing, etc
Social justice does not mean championing the poor, simply because they are
poor. It does not mean that way. Social justice means trying to equalize or
balance the scales of justice by giving compassion to the poor. It doesnt mean
to favor the poor even if they are rascals claiming undeserved privilege. Take
note that management has also its own rights which need protection.
The Principle on Local Autonomy
Cannot amount to sovereignty as against the National Government.
Two kinds:
1. Decentralization of Powers
It is an abdication or surrender of power to LGUs declared to be
autonomous. It is a concept of self-emulation so that these LGUs or

autonomous LGUs will be directly responsible to their constituents and so

that LGUs can discharge its powers with minimum interference from the
central government.

2. Decentralization of Administration
The central govt delegates
some administrative powers to local
government units in order to broaden the base of governmental powers so
that these LGUs may effectively perform their mandate.
DIVISION AND ALLOCATION OF POWERS
1. Concept of Separation of Powers
2. Concept of Checks and Balance
3. Concept of Blending of Powers
4. Concept of Delegation of Powers
Discussion of the Concepts:
Under our present structure of government, we have the 3 major organs of the
government. The Legislative, which is the law-making body; the Executive, which
implements the law enacted by the legislative; and the Judiciary, which interprets and
applies the law. These 3 major organs of the govt are equally supreme within its own
sphere, at least theoretically. They are considered as co-equal bodies. No one is
allowed to encroach upon the domain or jurisdiction of the other.
Note:
There is no specific provision in the constitution that specify the concept of the
principle of separation of powers. But we can discern/analyze that the principle of
separation of powers is operating in our constitutional set-up through actual division
of powers (Art VI, VII, VII). No one is allowed to intrude to the exclusive jurisdiction
of the other. Any excess or unlawful intrusion by one against the other may be held to
be in violation of the principle of the separation of powers. However, for purposes of
perfection, some intrusions are allowed by the constitution and that is by means of the
exercise of Blending of Powers. However, take note that, although they have their
separate jurisdiction, they are still not working in isolation. That is never the intention
of the constitution. In fact there are several instances wherein for purposes of
perfection or validity, one dept initiates the performance an act and for it to validate
and complete the act, there is a need for the other dept to make a subsequent act. That
is what we call the PRINCIPLE OF BLENDING OF POWERS. Example of blending
of powers is when before a bill becomes a law, or a bill enacted by congress becomes
a law, there is a need for a presidential imprimatur or presidential signature. A duly
enrolled bill enacted by congress will still be submitted to the president before it
becomes a law. For the effectivity of a treaty, there is a need for the senate to concur
with the treaty.
The principle of CHECKS and BALANCES provides that any excess by one
department in the exercise of its power may be checked or may be corrected by the
other branch of the govt. example, a duly enrolled bill submitted to the president may
still be denied by the president if in his wisdom, interpretation or appreciation, that

bill will not promote the common good for the country. He may veto it. But it does
not stop the congress to reconsider the veto of the president. That is how the principle
of checks and balances operate in our constitutional set-up. In so far as the executive,
while the president may declare martial law, its continued operation may be checked
by the other dept. in so far as congress is concerned, the martial law may be voided by
the congress. The judiciary may check the Sufficiency and propriety of the declaration
of martial law upon petition filed by any citizen for that purpose.
The PRINCIPLE OF DELEGATION OF POWERS (potestas delegada non delegari,
what has been delegated cannot be further delegated)
While the non-delegation of powers is applicable to the 3 major branches of the govt,
it is usually attributed to the legislative branch, because of its frequent delegation of
power. Why?
Eastern Shipping Lines vs IAC
Because of the growing complexities of modern life coupled by the increasing
inability of the congress to address those issues demanding legislation, delegation has
now become the rule and the non-delegation has now become the exception. There are
now some allowable delegation/permissible delegation.
Permissible Delegation
1. Delegation permitted by the constitution
The constitution itself allows certain delegation
i. Delegation to president to exercise emergency powers
ii. Delegation to the president to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas
iii.
Delegation to the the SC to promulgate rules concerning pleadings,
practice and procedure in all courts and the enforcement and protection of
constitutional rights. (I.e., writ of Amparo, Habeas data which were
enacted by the SC)
2. Delegation to Administrative Bodies (the DOCTRINE OF
SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION). See Eastern Shipping Lines above.
Reasons:
Because of the growing complexities of modern life and inability
of to cope up with the needed legislation, it is deemed wise to
delegate subordinate legislation to administrative bodies who, in
the first place, are deemed to be more expert in their respective
fields.but for subordinate legislation, or rules and regulations to
be effective, it must pass the following certain tests:
i. Completeness test
The law must be complete before it leaves the legislature
so that there is nothing to do by the subordinate other than
to implement/enforce the law.
ii.

Sufficiency of standard test

There must be a sufficient boundaries, parameters to map
up the limits of the subordinate in performing his mandate.
Example:

The law enacted by congress providing for a certain

violation that in case of violation, the penalty would be fine
of 10k and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
Is there an undue delegation of legislative power?
Yes, while the fine has a minimum and maximum amount,
in so far as imprisonment is concerned, it gives unlimited
discretion on the part of the magistrate/judge to impose
imprisonment, because there is no minimum and maximum
period.
People vs Dacuycoy
Inot vs IAC
A law enacted by congress giving authority to the head of
Animal Industry or Animal Agency to confiscate meat products
transported in the area and that confiscated meat products
may be disposed by the head of the agency to charitable
institutions at his discretion.
Is that an example of undue delegation?
YES, there is no parameters given to the subordinate in the
exercise of its discretion. It may be given to any entity, to any
charitable entities. It may even appropriate it to himself.
3. Delegation to Local Government Units
The LGC enacted by congress has delegated to the LGUs the
power to exercise eminent domain and police power. Taxation
remains to be a power of LGUs which emanated from the
Constitution.
4. Delegation to the People at large
Pursuant to the provision of initiative and referendum
Belgica vs Executive Secretary
Refers to PDAF. It was declared unconstitutional because of
undue delegation of legislative power. Under pdaf, a senators or
congressman is given certain a lump sum appropriations and he
now determines where that appropriation goes, where that
budget goes.
There is a violation of undue delegation of
legislative power because the power to appropriate belongs to
congress AS A BODY. What are the elements for it to be
considered a power of appropriation?
a. There must be an appropriation of a certain public fund.
Meaning, a money coming from the national treasury;
b. It must be for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE. It should be the
congress, as a body, who will determine that purpose.

By delegating that or by giving that identification to a particular

member will not be in accord to the constitutional provision on
appropriation or appropriation law. Because the one who
identifies where that money goes is the individual member not
the congress as a body.