BAR EXAM SYLLABUS (2020)

By Atty. Franklin Cueto

Part II - BASIC CONCEPTS

A. Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Ø PRINCIPLES

1– Democratic and Republican

2– Renunciation of war;
Doctrine of Incorporation;
Adherence to policy of peace, freedom, amity –
• Pharmaceutical & Health Care Assoc. of Phils vs.
Duque, GR 173034, Oct. 9, 2007;
• Razon vs. Tagitis, GR 182498, December 3, 2009;
• Mijares vs. Ranada, GR 139325, April 12, 2005;
• Poe-Llamanzares vs. Comelec, GR 221697, March
8, 2016 (focus on discussion about foundlings as
citizens under international law);

3– Civilian Supremacy -
• IBP vs. Zamora, GR 141284, Aug. 15, 2000 (in
relation to sec. 18, Article VII);

4– The Defense of the State - Posse Commitatus -

• People vs. Lagman and Zosa, GR No. L-45892, July
13, 1938;

5– Maintenance of Peace and Order

6– Separation of Church and State –

• Imbong vs. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014;

Ø STATE POLICIES

7– Independent Foreign Policy

8– Nuclear-Free Philippines
• Magallona vs. Ermita, GR 187167, Aug. 16, 2011

9– Just and Dynamic Social Order

• Espina vs. Zamora, GR 143855, Sept. 21, 2010;
• BFAR Employees vs. COA, GR 169815, Aug. 13,
2008;

10 – Promotion of Social Justice

• BFAR Employees vs. COA, GR 169815, Aug. 13,
2008;

11 – Human Dignity and Human Rights

• Simon vs. CHR, GR 100150, January 5, 1994;
12 – Family as basic autonomous social institution
Protect life of the unborn from conception
Primary right and duty of parents
• Imbong vs. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014;
§ The right to life;
§ The family and the right to privacy

13 – Youth

14 – Women

15 – Right to Health
• Imbong vs. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014;

16 – Right to Balance and Healthful Ecology

• Oposa vs. Factoran, GR 101083, July 30, 1993
• MMDA vs. Residents of Manila Bay, GR 171947,
Dec. 18, 2008;

17 – Priority to Education

18 – Labor
• JMM Promotion and Management vs. CA, GR
120095, Aug. 5, 1996 (in relation to sec. 3, Article
XIII);

19 – Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy

• Tanada vs. Angara, GR 118925, May 2, 1997;
• Espina vs. Zamora, GR 143855, Sept. 21, 2010;

20 – Private Sector
• Espina vs. Zamora, GR 143855, Sept. 21, 2010;

21 – Agrarian Reform
• Assoc. of Small Landowners vs. Sec. of Agrarian
Reform, GR 78742, July 14, 1989;

22 – Indigenous Cultural Communities

23 – Non-Governmental Organizations

24 – Communications

25 – Local Autonomy
• Basco vs. PAGCOR, GR 91649, May 14, 1991;
• Lina vs. Pano, GR 129093, Aug. 30, 2001;
• Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013;

26 – Equal Access to Public Service; Political Dynasties

• Pamatong vs. COMELEC, GR 161872, April 13,
2004;
• R.A. 10742 - Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act of
2015 (see Section10);

27 – Honesty and Integrity in Public Service

28 – Full Public Disclosure

• Antolin vs. Domondon, GR 165036, July 5, 2010;

2
B. Sovereignty

Ø Definition of State

Ø Four Elements of State (under Montevideo Convention)

i. People

ii. Territory

iii. Government
• Definition
• Doctrine of Parens Patriae - Cabañas vs. Pilapil, GR
L-25843, July 25, 1974
• De Jure and De Facto Government
o Cory government following EDSA 1
o Gloria government following EDSA 2
• Presidential vs. Federal (under Pres. Duterte’s
proposal)

iv. Sovereignty
• Legal sovereignty
• Political sovereignty

Ø “Fifth element”
i. Recognition by other States
• Constitutive theory
• Declaratory theory

C. Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit (also called Royal Prerogative

of Dishonesty)

Ø Constitutional Provision - Art. XVI, Sec. 9

Ø Justice Holmes: A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of

any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and
practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the
authority that makes the law on which the right depends.

Ø Applicability of the doctrine:

i. Suit against the Republic of the Philippines

ii. Suit against Foreign States under the principle of “Sovereign

Equality of States”

• Syquia vs. Almeda, GR L-1648, Aug. 17, 1949;

• Minucher vs. CA, GR 142396, Feb. 11, 2003;

iii. Suit against the UN and other specialized agencies – Lasco

vs. UNRFNRE, GR 109095-109107, Feb. 23, 1995;

iv. Suit against International Organizations – Callado vs. IRRI,

GR 106483, May 22, 1995;

3
Ø Suit against the Philippines as a State:

i. Suit against Government Officers (did the Government

officer act within or outside the scope of his authority?)

• Ultimate liability will fall on the government – Calub

and Valencia vs. CA, GR 115634, April 27, 2000;

• Ultimate liability will fall on the officer – Ruiz vs.

Cabahug, GR L-9990, Sept. 30, 1957;

ii. Suit against Government Agencies

• Incorporated – test of suability is found in its charter (it

is suable if its charter says so, regardless of the
functions it is performing) – Olizon vs. Central Bank of
the Philippines, GR L-16524, June 30, 1964;

• Unincorporated –

o If governmental function – no suit without

consent – Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of
Printing Employees Association, GR L-
15751, Jan. 28, 1961;

o If proprietary function – suit will lie

- Exception – no suit without consent

when the act was a necessary incident
to its governmental function – Mobil
Philippines Exploration Inc. vs. Customs
Arrastre Service, GR L-23139, Dec. 17,
1966;

Ø Waiver of Immunity (Legislature)

Ø Forms of Consent

i. Express - effected only by the will of the legislature through

the medium of a duly enacted statute.

• General Law –

o Act No. 3083 – Philippine government

"consents and submits to be sued upon any
moneyed claim involving liability arising from
contract, express or implied, which could
serve as a basis of civil action between
private parties."

o Procedure –

- Commonwealth Act 327, as amended

by PD 1445 (and Article IX-A, Section 7,
Constitution) - Sayson vs. Singzon, GR
L-30044, Dec. 19, 1973;

- Must not perpetrate an injustice - Amigable vs.

Cuenca, GR L-26400, Feb. 29, 1972;
4
 • Special Law (Merritt vs. Government)

ii. Implied

• When the State itself commences litigation (when

claiming affirmative relief); or

• When it enters into contract (under the RESTRICTIVE

APPLICATION OF STATE IMMUNITY) –

o U.S. vs. Ruiz, GR L-35645, May 22, 1985;

o U.S. vs. Guinto, GR 76607, Feb. 26, 1990;
o Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 129406,
March 6, 2006;

Ø Suability vs. Liability – Merritt vs. Government, GR L-11154, Mar.

21, 1916;

Ø Suability vs. Execution – Commissioner of Public Highways vs.

San Diego, GR L-30098, Feb. 18, 1970;

D. Separation of Powers

Ø Manifestations of Republicanism

i. OURS IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN

(Villavicencio vs. Lukban, GR L-14639, March 25, 1919);
ii. Rule of the majority (Plurality in elections)
iii. Accountability of public officials
iv. Bill of Rights
v. Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws
vi. SEPARATION OF POWERS
vii. NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

Ø Principle of Separation of Powers

i. Under 1987 Constitution

ii. Why is it observed in our Government?
iii. What is the purpose?
iv. Acc. to Justice Laurel –
• to secure action
• to forestall overaction
• to prevent despotism
• to obtain efficiency
v. To be understood not as INDEPENDENCE but
INTERDEPENDENCE
vi. Doctrine of Blending of Powers

Ø Which department ensures the constitutional distribution of

powers?

i. Does it mean such department is superior to the other

departments? Angara vs. Electoral Commission;

ii. Case Illustration of Separation of Powers: Congressional

Oversight Committees
• Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima, GR 166715,
Aug. 14, 2008;
• Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013
5
 Ø WHAT IS THE TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GIVEN
POWER HAS BEEN VALIDLY EXERCISED BY A
PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT?

i. FIRST, SC determines whether the power has been

constitutionally conferred upon the department. Conferment
of power is either: EXPRESS, IMPLIED, INHERENT OR
INCIDENTAL;

ii. SECOND, after sustaining the exercise of power (meaning,

there is determination of valid constitutional grant of power to
exercise), the SC’s official action does not stop there; it now
then determines whether the act in question had been
performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the
constitution.

• But you should qualify whether the question involved

is Justiciable or Political –

o JUSTICIABLE VS. POLITICAL

QUESTIONS?

o Sec. 1 par. 2 Art. VIII – IF POLITICAL

QUESTIONS – TRULY POLITICAL
QUESTIONS VS. NOT TRULY POLITICAL
QUESTIONS?

- Francisco vs. HR
- Tanada vs. Angara GR 118295, May 2,
1997
- Defensor vs. Guingona GR 134577,
Nov. 18, 1998
- Vinuya vs. Exec. Secretary, GR 162230,
April 28, 2010
- Arigo vs. Swift, GR 206510, Sept. 16,
2014
- Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov.
19, 2013

E. Checks and Balances

Ø Doctrine of Checks and Balances, Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR

208566, Nov. 19, 2013 on Presidential Veto Power;

F. Delegation of Powers

Ø General rule is non-delegation

i. Potestas Delegata Non Potest Delegare
ii. Jaworski vs. PAGCOR, GR 144463, Jan. 14, 2004;
iii. Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013

Ø Not absolute, because there are exceptions (PERMISSIBLE

DELEGATIONS) –
i. Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Sec. 28(2)
Art. VI of the Constitution;
ii. Delegation of emergency powers to the President under
Sec. 23(2) Art. VI of the Constitution;
6
 iii. Delegation to the people at large under initiative and
referendum;
iv. Delegation to local governments;
v. Delegation to administrative bodies.

Ø Tests of Valid Delegation

i. Again, general rule is, there is non-delegation of powers;
ii. But there are exceptions, where powers can be permissibly
delegated;
iii. Assuming it falls under the exception, you still have to
determine whether these exceptions (permissible
delegations) has been validly made;
iv. To be valid, delegation itself must be circumscribed by
legislative restrictions (otherwise, delegation is tantamount to
abdication of legislative authority, a total surrender by
legislature of its prerogatives in favor of the delegate);

• COMPLETENESS TEST, People vs. Dacuycuy, G.R.

L-45127, May 5, 1989;

• SUFFICIENCY STANDARD TEST

o Chiongbian vs. Orbos GR 96754, June 22, 1995;
o Gerochi vs. Dept. of Energy GR 159796, July
17, 2007;
o Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19,
2013 on Presidential Pork Barrel

Ø Principle of Sub-delegation of powers

i. Transmission of power from head of agency to his

subordinates for purposes of expediency and achieving
maximum efficiency in public service;

ii. Example is DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL

AGENCY

• President delegate certain powers to members of

cabinet, who are his alter egos;

• Villena vs. Secretary of Interior, GR L-46570, April 21,

1939;

G. Fundamental Powers of the State (inherent powers – exercised even

without need of express constitutional grant)

Ø POLICE POWER

i. Justification –

• Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex (the welfare of the

people is the supreme law);

• Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas (so use your

property as not to injure the property of others);

ii. Taxing power as an implement of Police power – Lutz vs,

Araneta, GR L-7859, Dec. 22, 1955;

7
 iii. Eminent domain as an implement to attain the police
objective – Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, GR 78742, July 14, 1989;

iv. Police power prevails over non-impairment of contracts -

Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, GR 126102, Dec. 4, 2000;

v. Police power prevails over right of every citizen to select a

profession – PRC vs. De Guzman, GR 144681, June 21,
2004;

vi. Police power prevails over right to bear arms – Chavez vs.
Romulo, GR 157036, June 9, 2004;

vii. Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003 is a legitimate

exercise of police power – Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs.
DSWD, GR 166494, June 29, 2007;

viii. The power is inherently vested in the Legislature;

ix. Local Government Units exercise the power under the

general welfare clause;

x. TESTS FOR VALID EXERCISE:

• Lawful subject – interest of the public in general as

distinguished from those of a particular class, require
the exercise of the power;

• Lawful means – the means employed are reasonably

necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose,
and not unduly oppressive on individuals;

o Lucena Grande Central Terminal vs. JAC

Liner, GR 148339, Feb. 23, 2005;

o Philippine Press Institute vs. Comelec, GR L-

119694, May 22, 1995;

o City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta;

o City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, GR 118127,

April 12, 2005;

o Pasong Bayabas Farmers Assoc. vs. CA, GR

142359 and 142980, May 25, 2004;

Ø EMINENT DOMAIN (Sec. 9, Art. III, Sec. 18, Art. XII, Sec. 4 & 9,
Art. XIII)

i. Distinguished from police power:

• Police power – is the power of the State to promote

public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of
liberty and property;

• Power of eminent domain – is the inherent right of the

State to condemn private property to public use upon
payment of just compensation.
8
ii. The power is inherently vested in the Legislature;

iii. Local Government Units have no inherent power of eminent

domain – they can exercise power only when expressly
authorized by the Legislature (Masikip vs. City of Pasig, GR
136349, Jan. 23, 2006);

• Power of LGUs to expropriate, Sec. 19, RA 7160 –

Moday vs. CA, GR 107916, Feb. 20, 1997;

• There should be ordinance, not mere resolution;

iv. The power is superior to the final and executory judgment

rendered by the court in an ejectment case (Filstream
International Inc. vs. CA, GR 125218, Jan. 23, 1998);

v. Eminent domain cases are construed against the

expropriator (San Roque Realty vs. Republic, GR 163130,
Sept. 7, 2007);

vi. REQUISITES:

• Necessity - Justiciable question – whether there is

genuine necessity for it – Bardillon vs. Barangay
Masili of Calamba, Laguna, GR 146886, April 30,
2003;

• Private property - Subjects of eminent domain;

o Taking in the constitutional sense - It can

either be the actual taking or appropriation of
title, or the imposition of a burden upon the
owner without loss of title or possession;

• Public use –

o Not confined to actual use by the public; now

synonymous to public interest, public benefit,
public welfare and public convenience –
Reyes vs. NHA, GR 147511, Jan. 20, 2003;

o Public use has been broadened to cover

uses which, while not directly available to the
public, redound to their indirect advantage or
benefit – Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes,
GR L-60549, Oct. 26, 1983;

• Just compensation –

o FMV – that sum of money which a person,

desirous but not compelled to buy, and an
owner, willing but not compelled to sell, would
agree on as a price to be given and received
therefor;

o Modification of the above-rule – where only a

part of a certain property is expropriated –
NPC vs. Spouses Chiong, GR 152436, June
20, 2003;
9
 o Tax credit as just compensation - CIR vs.
Central Luzon Drug Corp., GR 148512, June
26, 2006;

o Judicial prerogative – ascertainment of what

constitutes just compensation;

- Jurisdiction of Special Agrarian Court

(RTC) is Original and Exclusive; court’s
ruling in Veterans and Martinez should
be abandoned;

- Land Bank of the Philippines vs.

Dalautan, GR 190004, August 8, 2017;

o Form of compensation – cash or in Land

Bank bonds – Sta. Rosa Realty & Devt. Corp.
vs. CA, GR 112526, Oct. 12, 2001;

o Reckoning point of market value of the

property – Nepomuceno vs. City of Surigao,
GR 146091, July 28, 2008;

o Right of landowner in case of non-payment of

just compensation – Republic of the
Philippines vs. CA, GR 146587, July 2, 2002;

- Exception: Republic of the Philippines

vs. Vicente Lim, GR 161656, June 29,
2005;

o Due process o law – defendant must be

given an opportunity to be heard;

vii. Expropriation under Sec. 18, Art. XII – as distinguished from

Sec. 17, Art. XII – David vs. Arroyo, GR 171396, May 3,
2006;

viii. Expropriations under Sec. 4 and 9, Art. XIII –

• CARP – using eminent domain as an instrument to

accomplish the police objects - Association of Small
Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, GR
78742, July 14, 1989;

• RA 7279 or Urban Development and Housing Act of

1992 – Filstream International Inc. vs. CA, GR
125218, Jan. 23, 1998;

H. Power of Taxation

Ø Limitations
i. Due process of law
ii. Equal protection clause
iii. Public purpose

Ø Double taxation not allowed if the same will result in a violation of

the equal protection clause
10
Ø Tax exemptions
i. Sec. 28(4), Art. VI, Constitution
ii. Sec. 28(3), Art. VI, Constitution
iii. Sec. 4(3), Art. XIV, Constitution
iv. Sec. 4(4), Art. XIV, Constitution

Ø Police Power vs. Power of Taxation – Gerochi vs. Department of

Energy, GR 159796, July 17, 2007;

Ø License Fee vs. Tax – Physical Therapy Organization vs.

Municipal Board of Manila, GR L-10448, Aug. 30, 1957;

Ø Supremacy of the national government over local governments in

taxation – Basco vs. PAGCOR, GR 91649, May 14, 1991;

11