Constitutional Law 1 Course Syllabus

This syllabus is taken from our consti teacher for the benefit of the whole class. 

INTRODUCTION

I.         Pre-1987 Constitution

CASES:

Planas v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-35925 January 22, 1973 (aka Plebiscite cases)

Javellana vs. Exec. Sec., 50 SCRA 33 (aka Ratification cases)

Aquino vs. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183

Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976 (affirming the validity of Javellana)

Occeña v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-56350 April 2, 1981 (affirming the validity of Javellana)

Phil. Bar Association vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 72915, December 20, 1985

II.       The 1987 Constitution

III.     The State as a Concept

A.      Elements of a state

1.        People

2.        Territory

3.        Government

a.        functions: constituent vs. ministrant

CASES:

ACCFA vs. FLU, 30 SCRA 649

PVTA vs. CIR, 65 SCRA 416

b.        types of government: de jure vs. de facto

CASES:

Lawyer’s League  vs. Aquino, GR 73748, 5/22/86

Estrada vs. Arroyo, GR146710, 3/2/01

c.     the Government of the Republic of the Phils.

d.     “government” vs. “administration”

4.        Sovereignty

a.        definition

b.        types: legal vs. political sovereignty

c.        doctrine of jus postliminium

d.        effect of suspension or change in sovereignty

CASES:

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez, 75 Phil 113

Peralta vs. Director, 75 Phil 285

Alcantara vs. Director, 75 Phil 749

Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil 856

People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887

Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77

Vilas vs. City of Manila, 42 Phil 953

B.      Concept of “Act of State”

C.      Doctrine of the state as parenspatriae

CASES:

Gov’t vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil 728

Cabanas vs. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94

STATE IMMUNITY FORM SUIT

I. Basis

CASE: Kawanakoa vs. Polybank, 205 US 349

II. Suits Against Public Officials as Suits Against the State

A.      Test: will require an affirmative act from the state

CASES:

Garcia vs. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120

Ruiz vs. Cabahug, 102 Phil 110 (1957)

B.      Effect when public officer acts without, or in excess of, jurisdiction

CASE: Festejo vs. Fernando, GR No. L-5156, March 11, 1954 (NOTE: text of main opinion is in Spanish; read dissent of Justice Concepcion and the discussion in the book of Cruz to get an idea what the case is all about)

III. Suits Against Government Agencies

A.      Test

1.        If incorporated: consult charter

CASES:

Bermoy vs. Philippine Normal College, GR No. L-8670, May 18, 1956

Arcega vs. CA, 66 SCRA 229

Rago vs. CFI, 110 SCRA 460

Phil. Nat’l Railways vs. IAC, 217 SCRA 401

2.        If unincorporated: determine nature of primary function

CASES:

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Ass’n, 1 SCRA 340

Mobil Phils. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120

IV. Suits vs. Foreign States

CASES:

Syquia vs. Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil 312 (read also the dissent of Justice Perfecto)

Sanders vs. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88

Holy See vs. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524

USA vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644

V. Waiver of Immunity: Consent to be Sued

        A. Forms of Consent

1.        Express

a.        Thru a general law (Read Act No. 3083 and Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by PD 1445)

CASE: Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360

b.        Thru a special law

CASE: Merrit vs. Government of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil 311

2.        Implied

a.        When state commences litigation

CASES:

Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., GR No. L-6060, Sept. 30, 1950

Lim vs. Brownell, 107 SCRA 345

b.        When state enters into a contract

CASES:

US vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487

USA vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644

B.      Suit allowed even without consent to be sued

CASE: Santiago vs. Republic, 87 SCRA 294

C.      Consent to be Sued not Consent to Execution of Judgment

CASE:  Rep. vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84

1.        Exception

CASE: PNB vs. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595

D.      Suability vs. Liability

                        1.     Read also The Local Government Code of 1991

                CASES:

Merrit vs. Government of the Phil. Islands, supra

Palafox vs. Ilocos Norte, GR No. L-10659, Jan. 31, 1958

E.       Exemptions From Legal Requirements of the State

F.       Restrictive State Immunity: adhered by the Philippines

 Separation and Delegation of Powers

I. SEPARATION OF POWERS

A. In the Constitution

1. The major departments (Art. VI, VII, and VIII)

2. The constitutional commissions (Art. IX)

3. The other independent bodies

o theElectoral Tribunals [Sec. 17, Art. VI and Sec. 4 (last par), Art. VII]

o the Commission on Appointments (Sec. 18, Art. VI)

o the Judicial and Bar Council (Sec. 8, Art. VIII)}

B. Manner of Conferment of Power

1. Express

 Legislative power to Congress (Sec. 1, Art. VI)

 Executive power to the President (Sec. Art. VII)

 Judicial power to SC, lower courts (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)

 Others (e.g. powers of the independent constitutional bodies)

2. Implied (Doctrine of Necessary Implication)

CASES:

1. Angara vs. EC, 63 Phil 139

2. Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil 29

3. Inherent or incidental

CASES:

1. In re Dick, 38 Phil 41

2. In re Sotto, 82 Phil 595

C. Purpose of separation of powers

II. COROLLARY CONCEPTS

D. Corollary Concepts

1. Blending (Overlap) of Powers

CASE: Springer vs. PI, 277 US 189

2. Checks and Balances

 Lawmaking by Congress, veto by the President, override of the veto by the Congress (Sec. 27, Art. VI)

 Grant of amnesty by the president, concurrence by the Congress (Sec. 19, Art. VI)

 Entry into treaty by the president, concurrence by the Senate (Sec. 20, Art. VII)

 Conviction by the judiciary, pardon by the President (Sec. 19, Art. VIII)

 Jurisdiction of courts may be reduced by the Congress (Sec. 2, Art. VIII)

 Congress may abolish lower courts (Sec. 1 and 2, Art. VIII)

CASES:

1. Ocampovs. Sec., GR L-7918, 1/18/55

2. De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294

3. Delegation of Powers

 General Rule: potestas delegata non delegari potest

 Basis

 Exception: instances of permissible delegation

 Tariff powers to the president [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI]

 Emergency powers to the president [Sec 23 (2), Art. VI]

CASES:

1. Araneta vs. Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368

2. Rodriguez vs. Gella, 92 Phil 603

 Legislative power to the people at large: System on initiative and referendum (Sec. 32, Art. VI)

 Legislative power to LGUs (See Sec. 16 and 19 of RA 7160)

 Legislative power to administrative bodies (power of subordinate legislation)

CASE: Cruz vs. Youngberg, 56 SCRA 234

i. Basis

ii. How effected

iii. Two tests of valid delegation

CASE: Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA, G.R. No. 76633 October 18, 1988

a. Completeness test

CASE: US vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1

b. Sufficient standards test

CASES:

1. Pp vs. Rosenthal, 68 Phil 328

2. Cervantes vs. Auditor, 91 Phil 359

3. Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726

4. Hirabayashi vs. US, 320 U.S. 81

5. Dela Llana vs. Alba, supra

6. PP vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56

7. Inot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659

iv. Application of the two tests: concurrent, not alternate

CASES:

Pelaez vs. Auditor, 15 SCRA 569

Add: Tatad v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 124360 November 5, 1997

 Delegation of ascertainment of facts, not delegation of legislative power

CASE: Abakada Guro vs. Ermita, GR 168056, 9/1/05 (Decision); 10/18/05 (Resolution)

E. Role of judiciary in separation of powers (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)

CASE: Angara vs. Electoral Commission, supra

1. Supremacy of the Constitution upheld by the judiciary

2. Justiciable and Political Questions

CASES:

1. Tanada vs. Cuenco, 100 Phil 1101

2. Sanidad vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333

3. Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496

4. Tanada vs. Angara, GR 118295, 5/2/97

5. Aytona vs. Castillo, 4 SCRA 1

6. Javellana vs. Executive Sec., supra

7. De la Llana vs. COMELEC, supra

8. Custodio vs. Senate, 42 O.G. 1243

9. Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil 83

10. Osmena vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863

11. Vera vs. Avelino, 77 SCRA 192

12. PBA vs. Comelec, GR 72915, 12/20/85

13. De Castro vs. Committee, GR 71688, 9/10/85

14. Romulo vs. Iniguez, 141 SCRA 263

15. Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17

16. Meralco vs. Pasay Trans., 57 Phil 825

17. Endencia vs. David, GR L-6455,8/31/53

3. Expanded jurisdiction under the 1987 Constitution [sec. 1 (2nd par.), Art. VIII]

 Also: Determination of the sufficiency of factual basis of Martial Law: Sec. 18, Art. VII

 Grant of plenary power to other branches: not bar to judicial inquiry

CASE: Bondoc vs. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710 Sept. 26, 1991

A.      Preamble

B.      Art. I: National Territory

1.        Archipelagic state; archipelago

a)       Def’n. under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

Read the salient points of the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

b)       significance of definition

2.        Territorial sea

a)       Sovereignty: exercised by the coastal state

b)       Right of innocent passage: ships of other states

3.        Baselines

a)       Def’n. under the UNCLOS

b)       Ways of drawing baselines: normal baseline method vs. straight baseline method: See Art. 7 (1), UNCLOS

4.        Archipelagic (internal/inland) waters: par.1, Art. I

a)       Sovereignty by coastal state; no right of innocent passage

5.        Significant phrase:“all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction”

C.      Art. II: Fundamental Principles & State Policies

Art II provisions generally not self-executing

·     Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156.  February 3, 1997 (Read also the main dissent of Justice Puno, and the separate concurrences and dissents of the other magistrates)

1.        Republicanism (Sec. 1)

a)    Also: Supremacy of Civilian Authority (Sec. 3)

2.        The Incorporation clause (Sec. 2)

·     Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171

·     Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez, 75 Phil 113

·     Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155

·     Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230

·     In re Garcia, 2 SCRA 984

3.        Renunciation of War (Sec. 2)

a)       See also: Independent Foreign Policy (Sec. 7) and Nuclear-Free Policy (Sec. 8)

b)       See also Sec. 25, Art. XIII: Re former US Military Bases

4.        Defense of the State (Sec. 4)

·     Pp. vs. Lagman, GR 45892, 7/13/1938

·     Pp. vs. Soza, GR 45893, 7/13/1938

5.        Separation of Church and State (Sec. 6)

a)       See also Sec. 5, Art. III (The non-establishment clause and free-exercise clause)

·        Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201

6.        Social Justice and Human Rights (Sec. 9-11; 18; 21)

a)    See also Art. XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights)

·     Calalang vs. Williams, 70 SCRA 726

·     Ass’n of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian, 175 SCRA 343

7.        Family, Women and Youth (Sec. 12-14)

a)    See Sec. 14, Art. XIII (re working women)

b)    See also Art. XIV (The Family)

c)    Read the salient features of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

·     PT&T vs. NLRC, GR 118978, 5/23/97

8.       Right to Health (Sec. 15); Right to Healthful and Balanced Ecology (Sec. 16)

a)    See also the Rule on the Writ of Kalikasan

·  LLDA vs. CA, GR 120865-71, 12/7/95 [Wrong citation: Should have been G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994.]

·  Oposa vs. Factoran, GR 101083, 7/30/93

9.       Education, Science and Technology, etc. (Sec. 17)

a)    Read also Art. XIV (Education, Science and Technology, etc.)

10.     Labor as primary social economic force (Sec. 18)

a)    Relate with Sec. 13, Art. XIII

·  Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009 (See concurrence of Brion, J.)

11.     National Economy (Sec. 19-21)

a)    Read also Art. XII (National Economy and Patrimony)

·     Tanada vs. Angara, G.R. 118295, 5/2/97

·     Garcia vs. Corona, G.R. 132451, 12/17/99

12.    Indigenous Cultural Communities (Sec. 22)

·  Cruz vs. Sec., G.R. 135385, 12/6/00

13.    Local Autonomy (Sec. 25)

a)    Read Art. X (Local Government)

(NOTE: Separately covered by the study of the Local Government Code of 1991)

14.     Opportunities for Public Service and Anti-Political Dynasty (Sec. 26)

·     Pamatong vs. Comelec, G.R. 161872, 4/13/04

15.    Honesty and Integrity in Public Service (Sec. 27)

a)    Read Art. XI (Accountability of Public Officers)

16.     Full disclosure of Public Transactions (Sec. 27)

a)    Also read Sec. 7, Art. III, the right to information on matters of public concern

·  North Cotabato v. Government of RP, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008