POLITYICAL LAW

SYLLABUS
1. Definition of political law
-Branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of governmental
organs of the state and defines the relation of the state with the inhabitants of its
territory.
2. Structure and powers of the Philippine Government
Executive Legislative Judiciary
President Congress (2) Supreme Court (15); (Head-Chief
Justice)
Vice President Senate (24); House of Court of Sandiganbaya
(Headed by Representativ Appeals(69); n
Senate e (270); (Head-Presiding
President) (Headed by Justice)
Head-Speaker)
Cabinet Regional Legislative Court of Tax Appeal (Head-
Assembly (24); (Head-Speaker) Presiding Judge
Regional Provincial Assembly (Head-Vice Regional Trial Court (12 Courts)
Governor Mayor)
Vice Governor Barangay Assembly (8); Sharia District Court (5 Courts)
(Head- Brgy Captain)
Mayor Youth Assembly (7); (Head-SK Metropolitan Trial Court
(Municipality) Chairperson)
Vice Mayor Municipal Trial Court in Cities
Brgy Captain Municipal Trial Courts
(Brgy)
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Sharia Circuit Courts

3. Nature of the Constitution

*Constitution Defined:
 Body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the power of sovereignty is
habitually exercised. (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations)
 Written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the
fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined, and
by which whose powers are distributed among the several departments for their
safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic. (Malcolm, Philippine
Constitutional Law, p 6)
*Purpose: To prescribe the framework of a system of government, to assign to several
departments their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain first
principles in which the government is founded. (1 Am Jur. 606)
*Classifications:
 a) Written or unwritten. A written constitution is one whose precepts are
embodied in one document or set of documents; while an unwritten
constitution consists of rules which have not been integrated into a single,
concrete form but are scattered in various sources, such as statutes of a

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 fundamental character, judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs
and traditions, and certain common law principles [Cruz, Constitutional Law,
pp. 4-5].
 b) Enacted (Conventional) or Evolved (Cumulative). A conventional
constitution is enacted, formally struck off at a definite time and place
following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler;
while a cumulative constitution is the result of political evolution, not
inaugurated at any specific time but changing by accretion rather than by any
systematic method [Cruz, ibid., p. 5].
 c) Rigid or Flexible. A rigid Constitution is one that can be amended only by a
formal and usually difficult process; while a flexible Constitution is one that
can be changed by ordinary legislation [Cruz, ibid., p. 5].
*Qualities of a good written Constitution:
a) Broad. Not just because it provides for the organization of the entire government
and covers all persons and things within the territory of the State but because it must
be comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency.
b) Brief. It must confine itself to basic principles to be implemented with legislative
details more adjustable to change and easier to amend.
c) Definite. To prevent ambiguity in its provisions which could result in confusion
and divisiveness among the people [Cruz, ibid,, pp. 5-6], 5.
*Essential parts of a good written Constitution:
a) Constitution of Liberty. The series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental
civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of
government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights, e.g., Art. III.
b) Constitution of Government. The series of provisions outlining the organization of
the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its
administration, and defining the electorate, e.g., Arts. VI, VII, VIII and IX. c)
Constitution of Sovereignty. The provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in
accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about,
e.g., Art. XVII.
4. The 1987 Constitution
1. Proclamation of the Freedom Constitution
a) Proclamation No. 1, February 25, 1986, announcing that she (Corazon Aquino)
and
Vice President Laurel were assuming power.
b) Executive Order No. 1 [February 28, 1986]
c) Proclamation No. 3, March 25,1986, announced the promulgation of the
Provisional
[Freedom] Constitution, pending the drafting and ratification of a new Constitution.

It adopted certain provisions of the 1973 Constitution, contained additional

articles on the executive department, on government reorganization, and on existing laws.
It also provided for the calling of a Constitutional Commission to be composed of 30-50
members, to draft a new Constitution.
i. As stated in Proclamation No. 3, the EDSA revolution was “done in
defiance of the 1973 Constitution”. The resulting government was

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal
limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as
the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed under international law
[Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 (2003)].
ii. During the interregnum, after the actual take-over of power by the
revolutionary government (on February 25, 1986) up to March 24, 1986
(immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution), the
directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme
law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives
and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful
revolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives and
orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during this interregnum, a
person could not invoke an exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights
because there was neither a Constitution nor a Bill of Rights [Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10].
2. Adoption of the Constitution
a) Proclamation No. 9, creating the Constitutional Commission of 50 members.
b) Approval of draft Constitution by the Constitutional Commission on October
15, 1986.
c) Plebiscite held on February 2, 1987. d) Proclamation No. 58, proclaiming the
ratification of the Constitution.
3. Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution: February 2, 1987, the date of the plebiscite when
the people ratified the Constitution
a) Lawyers League for a better Philippines vs. Corazon Aquino, G.R. 76180)
The legitimacy of the Aquino government was being contested. The court ruled that
the legitimacy of this government is a non-justiciable matter. “It is only the people of the
Philippines who may be judge of its legitimacy. Since such government is not only a de facto
government but a de jure government”. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized
its legitimacy.
For the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the
realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have
made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino which
is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in
fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the
legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members of this Court, as reorganized,
have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government.
b) De leon vs Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602, August 31, 1987
This case also raised a question of when the 1987 constitution actually took effect. So
as stated in both laws, Article 5 of the Provisional Constitution and 1987 constitution, the
1987 constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of all votes
cast in a plebiscite held, in this case February 2, 1987 and shall then supersede all previous
constitutions.
The main issue resolved in the judgment at bar is whether the 1987 Constitution
took effect on February 2, 1987, the date that the plebiscite for its ratification was held or
whether it took effect on February 11, 1987, the date its ratification was proclaimed per
Proclamation No. 58 of the President of the Philippines, Corazon C. Aquino. The thrust of

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 the dissent is that the Constitution should be deemed to "take effect on the date its
ratification shall have been ascertained and not at the time the people cast their votes to
approve or reject it." This view was actually proposed at the Constitutional Commission
deliberations, but was withdrawn by its proponent in the face of the "overwhelming"
contrary view that theConstitution "will be effective on the very day of the plebiscite." The
record of the proceedings and debates of the Constitutional Commission fully supports the
Court's judgment. It shows that the clear, unequivocal and express intent of the
Constitutional Commission in unanimously approving (by thirty-five votes in favor and none
against) the aforequoted Section 27 of Transitory Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution was
that "the act of ratification is the act of voting by the people. So that is the date of the
ratification" and that "the canvass thereafter [of the votes] is merely the mathematical
confirmation of what was done during the date of the plebiscite and the proclamation of the
President is merely the official confirmatory declaration of an act which was actually done
by the Filipino people in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of
the plebiscite.
5. Amendment vs Revision
Revision: is a change which alters a basic principle in the Constitution.
Amendment: is a change which adds, reduces, deletes, without altering the basic principle
involved.
a. Lambino vs Comelec
Lambino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006, enumerates the
distinctions between revision and amendment, as follows: Revision broadly implies a change
that alters a basic principle in the Constitution, like altering the principle of separation of
powers or the system of checks and balances. There is also revision if the change alters the
substantial entirety of the Constitution.
On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, deletes,
without altering the basic principle involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of
the Constitution; while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being
amended.
i) In determining whether the Lambino proposal involves an amendment or a
revision, the Court considered the two-part test. First, the quantitative test
asks whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provisions as to
change directly the “substance entirety” of the Constitution by the deletion or
alteration of numerous provisions. The court examines only the number of
provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change.
Second, the qualitative test, which inquiries into the qualitative effects
of the proposed change in the Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the
change will “accomplish such far-reaching changes in the nature of our basic
governmental plan as to amount to a revision”. ii) The Lambino proposal
constituted a revision, not simply an amendment, of the Constitution, because
it involved a change in the form of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and a shift from the present bicameral to a a unicameral
legislature.
ELEMENTS OF A VALID INITIATIVE:

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 1. It must be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition.
LAMBINO VS COMELEC the framers of the Constitution intended that the "draft
of the proposed constitutional amendment" should be "ready and shown" to the
people "before" they sign such proposal. The framers plainly stated that "before
they sign there is already a draft shown to them." The framers also "envisioned"
that the people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must
"prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature." The essence of
amendments "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition"
is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two
essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign
the entire proposal.
No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative
upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. These essential
elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first
shown to the people who express their assent by signing such complete proposal
in a petition.
Thus, an amendment is "directly proposed by the people through initiative
upon a petition" only if the people sign on a petition that contains the full text of
the proposed amendments. The full text of the proposed amendments may be
either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the
petition must state the fact of such attachment.
This is an assurance that every one of the several millions of signatories to
the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing.
Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the time constraint, to prove that
every one of the millions of signatories had seen the full text of the proposed
amendments before signing. 2. it must be proposed by at least 12% of the total
number of registered voters 3. every legislative district must be represented by at
least 3% of the registered voters therein 4. the change in the constitution must
be merely an amendment and not a revision.
Lambino vs Comelec A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies
only to an amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision.
In contrast, Congress or a constitutional convention can propose both
amendments and revisions to the Constitution. Article XVII of the Constitution
speaks of three modes of amending the Constitution. The first mode is through
Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. The second mode is through a
constitutional convention. The third mode is through a people's initiative. Section 1
of Article XVII, referring to the first and second modes, applies to "[A]ny amendment
to, or revision of, this Constitution." In contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII, referring to
the third mode, applies only to "[A]mendments to this Constitution." Lambino vs
COMELEC (Resolution on the motion for reconsideration) Majority of the justice had
voted to declared RA 6754 sufficient and adequate for people’s initiative. Effectively
abandoning the ruling in Defensor-Santiago vs Comelec where the Supreme Court
declared RA 6753 as inadequate to cover the system of initiative to amend the
Constitution Note/s: - there can be no piecemeal amendment to the constitution. It

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 must be submitted as a whole, otherwise, there would be no proper frame of
reference for the people to determine the soundness and merits of the proposed
amendments. - Limitation of People’s Initiative: no amendment in this manner shall
be authorized within 5 years following the ratification of this Constitution nor more
often than once every 5 years thereafter. RATIFICATION SECTION 4, Art. XVII- Any
amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such
amendment or revision. Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission
on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition
6. Steps in the Amendment Process
a. Proposal: Constitutional Assembly (Sec 1-3, Art XVII, 1987 Constitution)
Section 1: Any amendment to, or revision of, this constitution may be proposed
by:
(1) The congress, upon a vote of three-forths of its members;
or
(2) A constitutional Convention
Section 2:
ii. ¾ votes of all members, voting separately
- The adoption of the suggested change in the Constitution. A proposed
amendment may come from: i.) Congress, by a vote of % of all its members. Majority of
authorities opine that this is to be understood as ¾ of the Senate and ¾ of the House of
Representatives.
iii. Occena vs Comelec
This case discussed that the 1973 constitution of its Transitory Provisions vested
the Interim Batasang Pambansa the power to propose amendments (Occena v Comelec).
iv. Imbong vs Comelec
The congress acting as Constituent Assembly pursuant to Article XV (now Article
XVII) of the constitution has authority to propose constitutional amendments or call a
convention for the purpose by ¾ of each house in joint session assembled by voting
separately.
v. Planas vs Comelec
The 1973 constitutional convention has the authority to postulate amendments it
may deem fit to propose because they the sovereign powers delegated by the people and
those proposals have to be approved by the majority of votes cast on the election.

b. Constitutional convention (Sec 3, Art XVII, 1987 Constitution)

c. People’s initiative (Sec 2, Art XVII, 1987 Constitution)
i. Lambino vs Comelec
This case emphasized that people’s initiative applies only to an amendment, not a
revision of the constitution. The conduct of initiative or referendum is under the
supervision of the COMELEC. This case likewise discussed the systems of initiative,
such as: (1) Initiative on 1987 constitution (Section [a.1] RA 6735); (2) Initiative on
Statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation (Section [a.2]

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 RA 6735); (3) Initiative on Local Legislation, which refers to a petition proposing to
enact a regional, provincial, city, municipality, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance
(Section 3 [a.3] RA 6735).
Indirect initiative is the exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition
sent to congress or the local legislative for action (Section 3 [b] RA 6735).
Now, the problem on this, the supreme court in the case of Santiago v COMELEC
declared that Section 2 of Article XVII is Not Self-Executing. It needs legislation, a
statute, in order to enforce it. And so, RA 6735 was passed in order to provide supposedly
for the procedure.
However, according to the Supreme Court on the same case, this RA 6735 is
insufficient in providing for the procedure on how the people can initiate an amendment
to the constitution.
The requirement as provided in the constitution that needs to be enforced would
be provided through a statute. A petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered
voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein (Sec 2, Article XVII).
Clearly, the framers of the constitution intended that the “draft of the
constitutional amendment” should be “ready and shown” to the people “before” they sign
such proposal. The framers plainly stated that “before they sign there is already a draft
shown to them”. The framers also “envisioned” the people should sign in the proposal
itself because the proponents “must prepare the proposal and pass it around for
signature”.
The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative
upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This
means two essential elements must be present: First, the people must author and thus sign
the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an
initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.
ii. Defensor-Santiago vs Comelec
In this case, the validity of people’s initiative through PIRMA (People’s Initiative
for Reforms, Modernization and Action) is being contested. However, the court ruled that
despite of procedural irregularities in its conduct, the initiative was valid. This case
clarified the concept of “people’s initiative” as a legitimate means to amend the
constitution.
The court’s ruling highlighted that while procedural irregularities could occur in
the conduct of an initiative, the essential point is the exercise of people’s power and the
compliance with constitutional provisions. The case reaffirmed the viability of a “|
people’s initiative” as a mechanism for constitutional amendment, subject to proper
procedural and substantive requirements.
d. Ratification: Sec 4, Art XVII, 1987 Constitution)
e. Doctrine of proper submission
i. Tolentino vs Comelec, 41 SCRA 702)
This case was concerned about the 1987 Constitutional Convention of the country
which was tasked with proposing amendments to the 1935 constitution. It was argued that the
proposed amendments were too complex and extensive to be submitted to the people in
single plebiscite and should be presented in separate articles. However, the court ruled that
there was no specific provision in the constitution or existing laws that mandates the

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 presentation of amendments in separate articles. Thus, the authority to determine the manner
or method of submission was a matter of policy and wisdom within the discretion of the
convention provided that there was no violation of the existing laws of constitutional
provisions.
CONGRESS, AS CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY ALSO EMPOWERED TO PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS. — Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because
the same explicitly grants such power (Sec. 1, Art. XV. Constitution of the Philippines).
Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and members of the House of
Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as component elements of a
constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their authority
from the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function, (Of amending
the Constitution) for their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they are the
very source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself . b.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION - By a 2/3 of all the members of Congress decide whether
to act as a constitutional convention or constitutional assembly - By a majority vote of all the
members of Congress with a question of whether or not to call a Convention to be resolved
by the people in a plebiscite. - The Constitutional Convention is independent of and co-
equal with the other departments of the government.
TOLENTINO VS COMELEC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; AMENDMENTS TO
CONSTITUTION; REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER SUBMISSION THEREOF TO PEOPLE. —
Amendments must be fairly laid before the people for their blessing or spurning. The people
are not to be mere rubber stamps. They are not to vote blindly. They must be afforded
ample opportunity to mull over the original provisions, compare them with the proposed
amendments, and to reach a conclusion as the dictates of their conscience suggest, free
from the incubus of extraneous or possibly insidious influences. We believe the word
"submitted" can only mean that the government, within its maximum capabilities, should
strain every efforts to inform every citizen of the provisions to be amended, and the
proposed amendments and the meaning, nature and effects thereof. By this, we are not to
be understood as saying that, if one citizen or 100 citizens cannot be reached, then there is
no submission within the meaning of the word as intended by the framers of the
Constitution. What the Constitution in effect directs is that the government, in submitting an
amendment for ratification, should put every instrumentality or agency within its structural
framework to enlighten the people, educate them with respect to their act of ratification or
rejection. For as we have earlier stated, one thing is submission and another is ratification.
There must be fair submission, intelligent consent or rejection. The operative act that gives
validity to the proposed amendment is the ratification by the people in a plebiscite called for
that purpose.
c. PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE (SEC 2, ARTICLE XVII) THREE SYSTEMS OF INITIATIVE:
1. Initiative on the Constitution:
2. Initiative on statutes
3. Initiative on local legislation
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS: Is an amendment or revision and ratification
of the Constitution a Justiciable question? It depends. As to the amending process both as
to proposal and ratification- it raises a judicial question. As ruled in Sanidad vs Comelec, the

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 last word in the construction not only of treaties and statutes, but also of the constitution
itself the amending, like all other powers organized in the constitution is in form a delegated
and hence a limited power, so that the Supreme Court is vested with the authorities to
determine whether the power has been discharged within its limits. As to the substance of
the proposals- not subject to judicial review. The subject of what to propose is left to the
wisdom of the constituent assembly.

f. Judicial Review of Amendments:

i. Sanidad vs Comelec
This presents two queries: (1) whether the inquiry of the constitutionality of the
Presidential Decrees 991(calling for National Referendum), P.D 1031 (amending PD
991), and PD 1033 (declaring that the question of the continuance of martial law be
submitted for referendum alongside the submission of the President’s amendments to the
constitution through a plebiscite) a political or judicial question, and; (2) whether the
president may call upon a referendum for amendment of the constitution.
On the first inquiry, the amending process as to proposal and ratification raises a
judicial question. The court ruled that at the instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the
disbursement of public funds may be enjoined upon the theory that the expenditure of
public funds by the State for executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a
misapplication of such funds. It is a judicial question.
On the second inquiry, there are two periods contemplated – the period of
normalcy and the period of transition. In times of normalcy, the amending process maybe
initiated by the proposals. In times of transition, amendments maybe proposed by a
majority vote of all the members of the Interim National Assembly upon special call by
the Interim Prime Minister.

7. Construction & Interpretation of the 1987 Constitution

a. Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS
This case clarifies whether or not Article XII Section 10 (Par. 2) of the Philippine
Constitution which provides that “rights, privileges, and concessions covering the
National economy and patrimony, the state shall give reference to qualified Filipinos”, is
a Self-Executing provision.
In the case at bar, GSIS, pursuant to the privatization program of the government,
decided to sell through public bidding the shares of Manila hotel and chose to grant the
bid of a Malaysian bidder (Renong Berhad). Such was petitioned by Manila Prince Hotel,
invoking Par. 2, Section 10 of Article XII of the Philippine Constitution.
Supreme Court ruled that Par. 2, Section 10 of Article XII is mandatory, positive
command, which is complete in itself and requires no further implementing laws for its
enforcement. Hence, directing GSIS, MHC. Committee on Privatization and the office of
the Government Corporate Counsel to cease and desist the selling of shares to the
Malaysian bidder and accept the matching offer of Manila Prince Hotel.
A. CONSTITUTION, SELF-EXECUTING Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS
In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather
than non-self-executing . . . Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the
Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary rule would give the
legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make
them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute.
Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command
which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws
or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any
legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When our Constitution
mandates that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national
economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means
just that — qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our Constitution declares
that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to
enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject;
consequently, if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional
right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance and from
which all legislations must take their bearings. Where there is a right there is a remedy.
Ubi jus ibi remedium.

Note/s: - A provision which merely lays down a general principle is usually not
self- executing. But when a provision is complete in itself and becomes operative
without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation or that which supplies sufficient
rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-
executing.. - Article II is mere legislative guides, which, absent of enabling legislation, do
not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights. - However, the presumption is all
provisions of the Constitution are self executing- which means that it can be a direct
source of a right.
B. DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS GSIS
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of
theconstitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the
executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void
and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract. Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the subject
constitutional provision is, as it should be, impliedly written in the bidding rules issued
by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be nullified for being violative of the
Constitution. It is a basic principle in constitutional law that all laws and contracts must
conform with the fundamental law of the land. Those which violate the Constitution lose
their reason for being
b. Oposa vs Factoran
This is a case filed by minors against the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural resources (DENR), Secretary Factoran, to mandate the latter to
cancel all existing timber license agreements and to stop their further issuance. Four
questions were posed on this case: (1) legal standing of the minors to sue by representing
their generation and the generation yet unborn. The SC said yes because this is based on
the concept of intergenerational responsibility in environmental law, the subset of this is
whether or not there is valid suit. The SC said Yes because they are so numerous that it is

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 impracticable to join all parties in the case; (2) Whether there is a cause of action. Was
there a right violated? It was argued that Article 2 of 1987 constitution is not self-
executing provision and thus needed to wait for enabling law. SC ruled that there is a
right violated- provisions on the right to a balanced and healthful ecology are self-
executing and can be basis of action in court. (3) Whether judicial review can be invoked.
SC said the matter is ripe for judicial review, invoking the court’s expanded power under
Article VIII of the constitution in which judicial branch can correct grave abuses of
discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction (4) Whether stopping timber license
agreements would impair the obligation of contracts and hence, violate the constitution.
SC said no, because such are not contracts but license which give mere privileges that are
subject to the state’s power of regulation.
PRINCIPLE OF INTERGENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Oposa v Factoran This
case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in
ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the
succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such
a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature."
Nature means the created world in its entirety. 9 Such rhythm and harmony
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration,
development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future
generations. 10 Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful
ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to
ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. PRECAUTIONARY
PRINCIPLE 1. There exist considerable scientific uncertainties; 2. There exist scenarios of
possible harm that are scientifically reasonable; 3. Uncertainties cannot be reduced in
the short term without at the same time increasing ignorance of other relevant factors
by higher levels of abstraction and idealization; 4. The potential harm is sufficiently
serious or even irreversible for present or future generations or otherwise morally
unacceptable. 5. There is a need to act now, since effective counteraction later will be
made significantly more difficult or costly at any time.
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF ENVIRONMENT CASES,
Sec 1. Applicability of precautionary principle: when there is a lack of full
scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and
environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the
case before it. The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
shall be given the benefit of the doubt;

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 Sec 2. Standards of application- in applying the precautionary principle, the
following factors shall be considered: a) threats to human life or health; b) inequity to
present or future generations; or
3) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the
environmental rights of those affected.
J5: The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty
in factual findings cannot be achieved. By applying the precautionary principle, the court
may construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction, with the goal
of preserving and protecting the environment. This in effect, shifts the burden of
evidence of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to
change the status quo.

c. Province of North Cotabato vs Government of the Republic of the Philippines

Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
The issue of territorial integrity was again raised in The Province of North Cotabato v.
GRP Peace Panel (G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008), following the crafting of the
Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domains (MOAAD) which was then to be signed by
the representatives of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
The MOA-AD was touted to be the culmination of a long process of negotiation between
government and the rebel group who were engaged in a protracted war since 1984. The MOA-
AD provided, among others, PANAO 23the creation and recognition of a Bangsamoro Juridical
Entity with an “associative” relationship with the national government. The concept of
association, however, is nowhere recognized in the constitution. According to the High Court,
the Bangsamoro juridical entity is a far more powerful entity than the autonomous region
contemplated in the Constitution. It is not a mere expansion of the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao but possesses all the criteria of a state. Moreover, even though the MOA-AD
would not necessarily sever any portion of Philippine territory, its spirit, as implied by the
concept of association, undermines the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
Philippine state. No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our
laws as having an “associative” relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept
implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or
regional government. It also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state. The
Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the
Philippine State, much less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part
of Philippine territory for independence. The BJE is a far more powerful entity than the
autonomous region recognized in the Constitution. It is not merely an expanded version of the
ARMM, the status of its relationship with the national government being fundamentally
different from that of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of
a state laid down in the Montevideo Convention, namely, a permanent population, a defined
territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states
d. Francisco vs House of Representation
To determine the merits of the issues raised in the instant petitions, this Court must
necessarily turn to the Constitution itself which employs the well-settled principles of

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
constitutional construction. First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the
Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed
Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers. Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat.
The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole. Thus, in Chiongbian v. De Leon, 42 this Court,
through Chief Justice Manuel Moran declared: . . . [T]he members of the Constitutional
Convention could not have dedicated a provision of our Constitution merely for the benefit of
one person without considering that it could also affect others. When they adopted subsection
2, they permitted, if not willed, that said provision should function to the full extent of its
substance and its terms, not by itself alone, but in conjunction with all other provisions of that
great document. 43 (Emphasis and italics supplied

2nd Batch for Class Reading

1. Interpretation and construction of the Constitution

a. Francisco vs HOR
From the records of the Constitutional Commission, to the amicus curiae briefs of
two former Constitutional Commissioners, it is without a doubt that the term "to
initiate" refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with Congress'
taking initial action on said complaint. Having concluded that the initiation takes
place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint
to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the
members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House,
the meaning of Section 3(5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment
complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed
against the same official within a one year period.
2. Political Question:
a. Tanada vs Cuenco

b. Barcelon vs Baker

c. Montenegro vs Castaneda

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 d. Lansang vs Garcia

3. Judicial Review
a. Biraogo vs Philippine Truth Commission

b. ABS CBN vs COMELEC

c. David vs Arroyo

d. Who may exercise Judicial Review

i. Garcia vs Drilon

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 ii. Spouses Mirasol vs PNB

e. Requisites of the exercise of judicial review

The following are requisites of Judicial Review:
1. Actual Case or Controversy
2. The constitutional question must be raised by the proper
party
3. The constitutional Question must be raised at the earliest
possible time
4. The decision on the constitutional question must be
determinative of the case itself or the question of
constitutionality is the “lis mota” of the case.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
I. JUDICIAL REVIEW The power of the courts to test the validity of executive and
legislative acts in light of their conformity with the Constitution. This involves in reviewing a law
or act of the President is in consonance with the Constitution. When the judiciary exercises its
power of judicial review, this is not an assertion of superiority by the courts over the other
departments, but merely an expression of the supremacy of the constitution.
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. THERE MUST BE AN ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY - It must involve a
conflicting of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution.
- The Courts have no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions but where the
purpose is to solicit a declaratory judgment involvement involving the interpretation of the
right and duties of a person under the provisions of a deed, will, contract, or other written
instrument, or a statute or ordinance, the case is deemed an actual controversy over which the
courts may validly assume jurisdiction.
Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. Nos. 225973, 225984, 226097, 226116, 226117, 226120 &
226294 An "actual case or controversy" is one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a
hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.
21 There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on
the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 22 Related to the requisite of an actual case or controversy is the requisite of "ripeness,"
which means that something had then been accomplished or performed by either branch
before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an
immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged action."
23 Moreover, the limitation on the power of judicial review to actual cases and
controversies carries the assurance that the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the
other branches of government.
24 Those areas pertain to questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by
the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.
25 As they are concerned with questions of policy and issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not legality of a particular measure, 26 political questions used to be beyond the ambit
of judicial review. However, the scope of the political question doctrine has been limited by
Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution when it vested in the judiciary the power to
determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
The Court agrees with the OSG that President Duterte's decision to have the remains of
Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy. In
the exercise of his powers under the Constitution and the Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292
(otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987) to allow the interment of Marcos at the
LNMB, which is a land of the public domain devoted for national military cemetery and military
shrine purposes, President Duterte decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it
shall promote national healing and forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse in the
exercise of such discretion, as discussed below, President Duterte's decision on that political
question is outside the ambit of judicial review.
MOOT AND ACADEMIC PRINCIPLE GR: When the issue becomes moot and academic, as
a rule the court will not rule on it. XPN: Even on the assumption of mootness, jurisprudence
dictates that moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can automatically
dissuade the court in resolving a case.
Requirements to invoke the exception are:
i. There is grave or patent violation of the constitution
ii.The exceptional character of the situation or paramount public interest or
transcendental importance
iii. When the constitutional issue requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar, and the public; iv. It is capable of repetition yet evading review.

2.THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY MUST BE RAISED BY THE PROPER PARTY - A proper

party is one who is injured or who is in danger of sustaining or will sustain an injury as a result
of the implementation. - To be a real party in interest- should appear to the present real owner
of the right sought to be enforced, that is, his interest must be present substantial interest, not
a mere expectancy, or a future contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. - Direct Injury
Test- a mere procedural technicality has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a
case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged.

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
People vs Vera
The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result. However,
being a mere procedural technicality the requirement of locus standi may be waived by the
Supreme Court in the exercise of its discretion.
AIVA vs Romulo
For a citizen to have a legal standing, he must establish that he has suffered some actual or
threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is
fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable
action. EXCEPTIONS WHERE ONE NEED NOT ESTABLISH DIRECT INJURY:
1.Sufficiency of factual basis in the declaration of martial law
2.Questions of constitutionality of the ratification, amendments or revision of the
constitution
3.Any issue pertaining to environmental cases.
WHO MAY BE A PROPER PARTY?
1. Tax payers- there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the taxes is
exorbitant or the tax law is confiscatory which amounts to taking without due process of
the law.
2. Voters- there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law
in question especially in his exercise of his right of suffrage
3. Concerned Citizens- there must a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental
inportance which must be settled early.
4. Legislators- there must be a claim that the official action complained of encroaches on
their prerogatives as legislators
5. Corporate entities- the party suing has substantial relation to the third party and that
the third party cannot assert his constitutional right.
TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE It must be established that:
1. That the character of funds or assets involved in the case;
2. The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by
the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government;
3. The lack of any party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions
being raised
David et al vs Arroyo
The application of the above principles to the present petitions. The locus standi of
petitioners in G.R. No. 171396, particularly David and Llamas, is beyond doubt. The same holds
true with petitioners in G.R. No. 171409, Cacho v Olivares and Tribune Publishing Co. Inc. They
alleged "direct injury" resulting from "illegal arrest" and "unlawful search" committed by police
operatives pursuant to PP 1017.
Rightly so, the Solicitor General does not question their legal standing. In G.R. No.
171485, the opposition Congressmen alleged there was usurpation of legislative powers. They
also raised the issue of whether or not the concurrence of Congress is necessary whenever the
alarming powers incident to Martial Law are used.

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 Moreover, it is in the interest of justice that those affected by PP 1017 can be
represented by their Congressmen in bringing to the attention of the Court the alleged
violations of their basic rights. In G.R. No. 171400, (ALGI), this Court applied the liberality rule in
Philconsa v. Enriquez, 60 Kapatiran Ng Mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v.
Tan, 61 Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, 62 Basco v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, 63 and Tañada v. Tuvera,
64 that when the issue concerns a public right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and
has an interest in the execution of the laws.
In G.R. No. 171483, KMU's assertion that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violated its right to
peaceful assembly may be deemed sufficient to give it legal standing. Organizations may be
granted standing to assert the rights of their members. 65 We take judicial notice of the
announcement by the Office of the President banning all rallies and canceling all permits for
public assemblies following the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. In G.R. No. 171489,
petitioners, Cadiz et al., who are national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
have no legal standing, having failed to allege any direct or potential injury which the IBP as an
institution or its members may suffer as a consequence of the issuance of PP No. 1017 and G.O.
No. 5.

In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 66 the Court held that the mere
invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while
undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case. This is too general an
interest which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry. However, in view of the
transcendental importance of the issue, this Court declares that petitioner have locus standi.
In G.R. No. 171424, Loren Legarda has no personality as a taxpayer to file the instant
petition as there are no allegations of illegal disbursement of public funds. The fact that she is a
former Senator is of no consequence. She can no longer sue as a legislator on the allegation that
her prerogatives as a lawmaker have been impaired by PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. Her claim that
she is a media personality will not likewise aid her because there was no showing that the
enforcement of these issuances prevented her from pursuing her occupation. Her submission
that she has pending electoral protest before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is likewise of no
relevance. She has not sufficiently shown that PP 1017 will affect the proceedings or result of
her case. But considering once more the transcendental importance of the issue involved, this
Court may relax the standing rules.
Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 52 where the Court ruled that the enforcement of
the constitutional right to information and the equitable diffusion of natural resources are
matters of transcendental importance which clothe the petitioner with locus standi;
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, wherein the Court held that "given the
transcendental importance of the issues involved, the Court may relax the standing
requirements and allow the suit to prosper despite the lack of direct injury to the parties
seeking judicial review" of the Visiting Forces Agreement;
Lim v. Executive Secretary, while the Court noted that the petitioners may not file suit in
their capacity as taxpayers absent a showing that "Balikatan" involves the exercise of Congress'
taxing or spending powers, it reiterated its ruling in Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, 55

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
that in cases of transcendental importance, the cases must be settled promptly and definitely
and standing requirements may be relaxed.
Kilosbayan vs Ermita Petitioners have standing to file the suit simply as people’s
organizations and taxpayers since the matter involves an issue of utmost and far-reaching
Constitutional importance, namely, the qualification of a person to be appointed as a member
of this Court. This case is a matter of primordial importance involving compliance with a
constitutional mandate. As the body tasked with determination of the merits of conflicting
claims under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the proper forum for resolving the issue,
even as the JBS has the initial competence to do so.
3.THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MUST BE RAISED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
General Rule: the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity, so that if not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily, it may not be raised at the trial and
if not raised in the trial, it will not be considered on appeal.
XPN: 1. In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any time in the discretion
of the court;
2. In civil cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any stage if it is necessary to the
determination of the case itself; and
3. In every case, except where there is estoppel, the constitutional question may be raised at
any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.
4. THE DECISION MUST BE NECESSARY TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE CASE ITSELF (LIS
MOTA)
The decision must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. As a rule, the
courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law, if the controversy can be settled on other
grounds. The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume
that the acts of the political departments are valid, absent of a clear and unmistakable showing
of the contrary.
EFFECT OF A DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT:
General Rule: An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all.

XPN: Doctrine of Operative fact, as a matter of equity and fair play. Here, it nullifies the effects
of an unconstitutional law by recognizing the existence of a statute prior to its determination of
unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be
ignored.
Araullo vs Aquino We find the doctrine of operative fact applicable to the adoption and
implementation of DAP. Its application to the DAP proceeds from equity and fair play. The
consequences resulting from the DAP and its related issuances could not be ignored or could no
longer be undone. To declare the implementation of the DAP without recognizing that its prior
implementation constituted an operative fact that produces consequences in the real as well as
juristic worlds of the Government and the Nation is to be impractical and unfair.
FACIAL CHALLENGE
Imbong vs Ochoa et al
A facial challenge is on that is launched to assail the validity of statutes concerning not
only protected speech but also all other rights in the First Amendments. The include religious

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
freedom, freedom of press, and the right of the people to peaceably assembly, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances. Disini vs Secretary of Justice When a penal statute
encroaches upon the freedom of speech, a facial challenge grounded on the void-for-vagueness
doctrine is acceptable. The inapplicability of the doctrine must be delineated. As Justice Carpio
explained, we must view these statements of the Court on the inapplicability of the overbreadth
and vagueness doctrines to penal statutes as appropriate only insofar as these doctrines are
used to mount facial challenges to penal statutes not involving free speech. In an “as applied”
challenge, the petitioner who claims a violation of his constitutional right can raise any
constitutional ground- absence of due process lack of fair notice, lack of ascertainable
standards, overbreadth, or vagueness.
Here, one can only assail the validity of a statute if he asserts a violation of his own
rights. It prohibits one from assailing the constitutionality of the statute based solely on the
violation of the rights of third persons before the court. This rule is known as the prohibition
against third party standing.
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE Questions concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom not legally of a particular measure. Questions regarding administrative issuances will
not preclude the Supreme Court from exercising its power of judicial review to determine
whether or not there was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of issuing authority under its expanded jurisdiction. These are questions which are
to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legally of a particular measure.
i.Funa vs Executive Secretary

ii.Southern Hemisphere vs Anti-terrorism Council

Hierarchy of Courts
DOCTRINE OF HEIRARCHY OF COURTS

Case law:
1.Imbong vs Ochoa
SANCTITY OF FAMILY LIFE, LIFE OF THE MOTHER, LIFE OF THE UNBORN
SECTION 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the
family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and
the life of the unborn from conception.
Does RH Bill violate the Right to life? No. After study of the deliberation of the framers of
the law, it was established that life begins at fertilization, so that when there is no union yet of
the sperm and egg, there is no life to speak of and there is no right to be protected yet.
From deliberations, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution emphasized that
the States shall provide equal protection to both mother and the unborn from the earliest
opportunity of life- that is upon the union of male sperm and the female ovum.

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 The framers did not intend to ban all contraceptives that kill or destroyed the fertilized
ovum. Contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed abortive thus
prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives that actually prevent the union of the male sperm and
female ovum she be deemed non abortive-thus constitutionally permissible.

RIGHT OF THE PARENTS IN THE REARING OF THEIR CHILDREN

The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
The selection of means, methods, and institutions that parents might select in educating
the children cannot be interfered by with by the State so long as they are not directly or
indirectly condemnable as subversive or inimical to the interests of the State. - The state
recognizes the vital role of the youth in nationbuilding and shall promote and protect their
physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth,
patriotism, and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public affairs.

2.Belgica vs Ochoa

3.Araullo vs Aquino III

We find the doctrine of operative fact applicable to the adoption and implementation of
DAP. Its application to the DAP proceeds from equity and fair play. The consequences resulting
from the DAP and its related issuances could not be ignored or could no longer be undone. To
declare the implementation of the DAP without recognizing that its prior implementation
constituted an operative fact that produces consequences in the real as well as juristic worlds of
the Government and the Nation is to be impractical and unfair.
4.Pormento vs Estrada
5.Philconsa vs Enriquez
6.Tatad vs Lagman
7.Oposa vs Factoran (refer above)
8.Resident Marine Mammals vs Secretary of Dept of Energy
9.Arigo vs Swift
-A foreign warship’s unauthorized entry into our internal waters with resulting
damage to marine resources is one situation in which Articles 30 & 31 may apply. Even if
US a non-member of UNCLOS, it does not mean it will disregard the rights of the
Philippines as a coastal state over its internal waters and territorial sea.
1. The Philippine Archipelago
a. Treaty Limits 1. Art. III of the Treaty of Paris (12-10-1898)
2. Treaty of Washington between Spain and US (11-7- 1900)
3. Treaty between US and Great Britain (1-2-1930)
b. Methods of Determining Baselines • R.A. 3046 - June 17, 1961 (Sabbah) o
The waters around, between and connecting the various islands of the
Philippines archipelago, irrespective of their width or dimension, have always been

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 considered as necessary appurtenances of the land territory, forming part of the inland
or internal waters of the Philippines. • R.A. 5446 - Sept. 8, 1968 o The definition of the
baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided for in this Act is
without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the
territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines
has acquired dominion and sovereignty. • R.A. 9522 – March 10, 2000 o shortened one
baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago
and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the
Scarborough Shoal, as “regimes of islands” whose islands generate their own applicable
maritime zones.
Other Territories Over which the Philippines has Sovereignty or Jurisdiction. Law
– P.D. No. 1596 - June 11, 1978 (Kalayaan Islands)“ Scarborough Shoal” - Kalayaan Islands
- Part of Region IV-B, Province of Palawan but under the custody of DND. Found some
380 miles west of the southern end of Palawan. • - Spratly Archipelago- international
reference to the entire archipelago wherein the Kalayaan chain of islands is located. The
Philippines essentially claims only the western section of Spratlys, which is nearest to
Palawan (Article: Kalayaan Islands by: Amb. Pacifico Castro,Lawyer’s Review, Page 4,
December 31, 1999 ) Scarborough Shoal Also known as scarborough reef, Panatag Shoal
and Huangyan Dao. Found in the South China Sea or West Philippine Sea, part of the
province of Zambales. A shoal is a triangle shaped chain
12.Ocampo vs Enriquez

13.IBP vs Zamora
Civilian authority is not defeated in a joint task force between the PNP and the
Philippine Marines for the enforcement of law and order in Metro Manila as long as control is
left to the PNP.

14.Matibag vs Benipayo

15.Kalipunan nd Damayang Mahihirap vs Jessie Robredo

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 16. Zabal vs Rodrigo Duterte

17. Lagman vs Medialdea

18. Calleja vs Executive Secretary

19. Gios-Samar vs DTC

20. Diocese of Bacolod vs Comelec

21. Falcis vs Civil Registrar General

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 22. Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines vs DOLE

23. Parcon-Song vs Parcon

I. Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality

24. Republic vs CA, GR 79732

25. Agbayani vs PNB

II. Doctrine of Operative Fact

26. Belgica vs Ochoa

27. Araullo vs Aquino Revenue vs San Roque Power Corporation

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 28. Commissioner of Internal

3rd
Batch of Readings
For Constitutional Law

Philippines as a State
1. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES (ARTICLE II)
A. DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE SECTION
The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them.
2. Definition:
State - a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed
territory, possessing an organized government, independent of external control, to
which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience

o CIR vs Campos Rueda, G.R. No. L-13250, 29 Oct 1971

3. Elements of a state
o Art 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 The elements of a State:
1. People
A. Different meanings of word people
a. Inhabitants a. “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them.”(Sec 15. Art II) b. “The State
shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” (Sec 16, Art II) c. “The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable x x x” (Sec 2, Art III)
d. “The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social,
economic, and political inequalities, and cultural inequities by equitably diffusing
wealth and political power for the common good.”(Sec 1, Art XIII)
b. Citizens
a. Preamble, 1987 Constitution
b. “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority emanates from them.” (Sec 1,Art II)
c. “The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.
The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment
thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render
personal military, or civil service.” (Sec 4, Art II)
e. “The right of the people to information on matters 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 to government research data
used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law.” (Sec 7, Art III

c. Electors
a. “The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the
people” (Sec 4, Art VII)
b. “The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national
anthem, or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the
ideals, history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its
ratification by the people in a national referendum.” (Sec 2, Art XVI) c. “After the
expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the RP and USA concerning Military
Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall notbe allowed in the
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of thevotes cast by the people in a
national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty bythe other
contracting State.”(Sec 25, Art XVII)
2. Territory
A. Territory
Article I, 1987 Constitution. National Territory - The national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
3. Government
Government in general defined Institution or aggregate of institutions by which an
independent society makes and carries out those rules of action, which are necessary to
enable men to live in a social state.
Government of the Philippines defined Administrative Code, sec. 2: Government of the
Republic of the Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the
functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the
contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is
made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the
provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government
Government of the Rep. of the Philippines defined
4. Sovereignty

4. What is the territory of the Philippines?

o Archipelago Doctrine

o Straight Baseline Method

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 o Province of north Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel G.R. No.
183591
Association is referred to in paragraph 3 on TERRITORY, paragraph 11 on RESOURCES,
and paragraph 4 on GOVERNANCE. It is in the last mentioned provision, however, that the MOA-
AD most clearly uses it to describe the envisioned relationship between the BJE and the Central
Government. In international practice, the "associated state" arrangement has usually been
used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence.
No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as
having an "associative" relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept implies
powers that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional
government. It also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state. The Constitution,
however, does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State,
much less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine
territory for independence.
It is not merely an expanded version of the ARMM, the status of its relationship with the
national government being fundamentally different from that of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a
state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo Convention,
154 namely, a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter
into relations with other states.
The defining concept underlying the relationship between the national government and
the BJE being itself contrary to the present Constitution, it is not surprising that many of the
specific provisions of the MOA-AD on the formation and powers of the BJE are in conflict with
the Constitution and the laws. Article II, Section 22 of the Constitution must also be amended if
the scheme envisioned in the MOA-AD is to be effected.
That constitutional provision states: "The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development." An
associative arrangement does not uphold national unity. While there may be a semblance of
unity because of the associative ties between the BJE and the national government, the act of
placing a portion of Philippine territory in a status which, in international practice, has generally
been a preparation for independence, is certainly not conducive to national unity. L. FULL
PUBLIC DISCLOSUR
o Magallona vs Ermita
RA 9522 is not unconstitutional. It is a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s
maritime zones and continental shelf under UNCLOS III, not to delineate Philippine territory.
Neither the UNCLOS nor the law had anything to do with the acquisition, enlargement,
or diminution of the Philippine territory.
Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are not unconstitutional because they are merely
statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III states to delimit with precision the extent of their
maritime zones and continental shelves.
“In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive
economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living
resources within such zone,” noted the High Court.
The baselines law, according to the Supreme Court, is at its essence a notice to the
international community of the scope of the country’s maritime space and maritime areas

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
within which it exercises treaty-based rights. It redrew the country’s baseline to comply with the
UNCLOS requirements for archipelagic state, in the process excluding the disputed Kalayaan
Island Group and the Scarborough shoal from the main archipelago and classifying them instead
as “regime of islands”.
They were excluded from the baselines. The national territory constitutes a roughly
triangular delineation which excludes large areas of waters within 600 miles by 1,200 miles
rectangular enclosing the Philippine archipelago as defined in the Treaty of Paris.

Benham Rise/Philippine Rise- part of its continental shelf in a claim filed with the
United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on April 8, 2009, and which
was approved under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 2012.
The Philippine Rise, formerly called the Benham Rise, is a seismically active undersea region and
extinct volcanic ridge located in the Philippine Sea approximately 250 km (160 mi) east of the
northern coastline of Dinapigue, Isabela.
The Rise has been known to the people of Catanduanes as Kalipung awan since pre-
colonial times, which literally means 'loneliness from an isolated place'. The Philippines claimed
this feature as part of its continental shelf in a claim filed with the United Nations Commission
on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on April 8, 2009, and which was approved under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 2012. It is designated as a
"protected food supply exclusive zone" by the Philippine government in May 2017.
Mining and oil exploration is banned in the Benham Plateau as a protected area. On May
16, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order No. 25 renaming the feature to
“Philippine Rise”, and later allowed international vessels to conduct research on the Rise.
Despite its proximity to the archipelago, the plateau was previously not included in the territory
of the Philippines.
On April 8, 2009, the Republic of the Philippines lodged a partialterritorial-waters claim
with the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in relation to the
continental shelf in the region of Benham Rise. It was submitted as part of petition expanding
the archipelago's baselines and exclusive economic zone through a law that also included other
claims involving disputed territories of the Kalayaan Islands (Spratly Islands) and Scarborough
Shoal.
Although the landform, in itself, is not disputed, the petition still received some criticism
from China. According to the government's claim, based on a set of guidelines by the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the area satisfies the 350-mile constraint line
since the outer limits of the continental shelf are located landward of the constraint line, which
is located 350 miles from the baselines where the measurement of the breadth of the territorial
sea begins. The Philippines filed its claim for Benham Rise in 2008 in compliance with the
requirements of the [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas.
The UN officially approved the claim in April 2012, the first claim of the Philippines
approved by an international body since the colonial era. China released a statement saying that
they do not recognize the ruling and that China seeks to claim the Benham Rise in the near
future as it is part of a so-called 'Chinese second-chain islands'. However, there are no existing
islands within the Benham Rise.

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 o Republic vs Provincial Government of Palawan, G.R. Nos
170867 & 185941, Dec 4, 2018

o Permanent Court of Arbtration Case No. 2013-19: In the

Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration between the
Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of
China

5. What is Government?

o Constituent and Ministrant Functions

 Shipside vs CA, G.R. 143377, 20 February 2001
While public benefit and public welfare, particularly, the promotion of the economic and
social development of Central Luzon, may be attributable to the operation of the BCDA, yet it is
certain that the functions performed by the BCDA are basically proprietary in nature. The
promotion of economic and social development of Central Luzon, in particular, and the
country’s goal for enhancement, in general, do not make the BCDA equivalent to the
Government. Other corporations have been created by government to act as its agents for the
realization of its programs, the SSS, GSIS, NAWASA and the NIA, to count a few, and yet, the
Court has ruled that these entities, although performing functions aimed at promoting public
interest and public welfare, are not government-function corporations invested with
governmental attributes. It may thus be said that the BCDA is not a mere agency of the
Government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions.
o Suits against the State
 Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
 Doctrine of Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty
 When is the there a suit against the state?
 When is it a suit not against the state?

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
Begoso vs PVA
GR: Where a litigation may have adverse consequences on the public treasury, whether
in the disbursements of funds or loss of property, the public official proceeded against not being
liable in his personal capacity, then the doctrine of non-suability may appropriately be invoked.
XPN: It has no application, however, where the suit against such a functionary had to be
instituted because of his failure to comply with the duty imposed by statute appropriating
public funds for the benefit of plaintiff or petitioner
 How the State consented to be sued
 Express Consent
o General Law
o Special Law
 Implied Consent
o Proprietary Acts
Us vs Ruiz 136 SCRA 487
State immunity now extends only to governmental acts of the state. The restrictive
application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial
transactions of the foreign sovereign. In this case, the projects are an integral part of the naval
base which is devoted to the defense of the USA and Philippines which is, indisputably, a
function of the government. As such, by virtue of state immunity, the courts of the Philippines
have no jurisdiction over the case for the US government has not given consent to the filing of
this suit

JUSMAG Phil vs NLR, 239 SCRA 224

State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and thus can be
deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be used only when it enters into business contracts.
It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions

US vs Guinto, 182 SCRA 644

The barbershops, subject of the bidding awarded were commercial enterprises,
operated by private persons, therefore they are not agencies of the US Armed Forces nor part of
their facilities. Although the barbershops provide service to the military, they were for a fee.
State Immunity cannot be invoked by the petitioners for the fact that they entered into a
contract with a private party, commercial in nature

Malong vs PNR 138 SCRA 63

When the government enters into a commercial business it abandons its sovereign
capacity and is to be treated like any other private corporation.

Santos vs Santos 92 pHIL 281

The descent of the sovereign state to the level of the individual or citizen with whom it
entered into a contract and its consent to be sued implied from the act of entering into such
contract

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
Syquia vs Almeda-Lopez, 84 Phil 312
o When the state files complaint:
The U. S. Government has not given its consent to the filing of this suit which is
essentially against her, though not in name. This is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against
his own Government without the latter's consent but it is of citizen filing an action against a
foreign government without said government's consent, which renders more obvious the lack of
jurisdiction of the courts of his country

Froilan vs Pan Oriental Shipping

Lim vs Brownell, 107 Phil 345

Traders Royal Bank vs IAC, Dec 17, 1990

The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties
either by general or special law, it may limit claimant’s action `only up to the completion of
proceedings anterior to the stage of execution’ and that the power of the Courts ends when the
judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of
execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on considerations of public policy.
Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriations as
required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to
be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific
objects, as appropriated by law."
PCGG vs Sandiganbayan, GR 129406

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
When it would be inequitable to invoke state immunity

EPG Construction Co vs Vigilar, 354 SCRA 566

The rule, in any case, is not absolute for it does not say that the state may not be sued
under any circumstance. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen.

SUABILITY VS LIABILITY

Republic Vs Villasor
The provision of Sec 3 Article XVI declares that “the State may not be sued without its
consent”. This provision is merely a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and
express an affirmation of the unwritten rule insulating it from the jurisdiction of the courts of
justice. Another justification is the practical consideration that the demands and inconveniences
of litigation will divert time and resources of the State from the more pressing matters
demanding its attention, to the prejudice of the public welfare

UP V Dizon UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Et Al. V. HON. AGUSTIN S.

DIZON, Et Al.
Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable law
and the established facts. The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean
that it is liable; on the other hand, it can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be
sued. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to be sued.
When the state does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to
prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable. Indeed, an appropriation by Congress was required
before the judgment that rendered the UP liable for moral and actual damages (including
attorney’s fees) would be satisfied considering that such monetary liabilities were not covered
by the “appropriations earmarked for the said project.” The Constitution strictly mandated that
“(n)o money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by
law.”

MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI V CA
When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reason to effect payment of a
final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus
in order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds. In the case at bar, considering that
valuable property has been taken, the compensation to be paid is fixed, and the municipal has
had more than reasonable time to pay full compensation.

Shauf Vs Court Of Appeals

The doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the
public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. Here, the
respondents were found guilty of discriminating against Shauf on account of her sex, origin and
color. Hence, the respondents may be sued in their private and personal capacity.

Arigo Vs Swift
The waiver of immunity from suit of the US under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
applies only to waiver from criminal jurisdiction, so that if an American soldier commits an
offense in the Philippines, he shall be tried by Philippine courts under Philippine laws. The
waiver did not include the special civil action for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan.

6. Sovereignty

Laurel vs Misa, G.R. No L-409, 30 January

4th Batch for Class Reading

1. Parens Patriae
Government of the Philippine Islands v Ell Monte de Piedad
Does the government of the Philippines have authority to file a suit against the
respondent? HELD: The legislature or government of the State, as parens patriae, has the right
to enforce all charities of public nature. The court further asserted that said amount was not a
donation and that respondent is liable for the debt regardless of the cession of the Philippine
Islands to the United States. It is said that there is a total abrogation of the former political
relations of the inhabitants of the ceded region, however, the circumstances present in the case
are not political in nature. The great body of municipal law, which regulates private and
domestic rights, continues in force until they are abrogated or changed by the new ruler. As
such, the government has the authority to file a suit on behalf of its people by virtue of the
principle of parens patriae

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
SPARKS VS QC

2. Renunciation of war and adoption of generally accepted

principles of international law

a. Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association vs Health

Secretary Duque
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of
domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires
that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional
mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere
constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law.

Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation pursuant to Article
VII, Section 21 of the Constitution which provides that "[n]o treaty or international agreement
shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the
Senate."

Thus, treaties or conventional international law must go through a process prescribed by

the Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal law that can be applied to domestic
conflicts. On the other hand, Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, embodies the
incorporation method.

Note/s: - Customary International Law means a general and consistent practice of stated
followed by them from a sense of a legal obligation. - The initial factor for determining the
existence of custom is the actual behavior of States. This includes elements: duration,
consistency, and generality of the practice of states. Consistency and generality are the more
important elements that need to be present to establish state practice. By doctrine of
incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international accepted
principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws.

b. Mijares vs Ranada, G.R. 139325

In Mijares v. Ranada, the Court held thus: [G]enerally accepted principles of
international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws
of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations.

The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as
binding result from the combination [of] two elements: the established, widespread, and

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological element known as the opinion juris
sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that
the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. 16
(Emphasis supplied) "Generally accepted principles of international law" refers to norms of
general or customary international law which are binding on all states, i.e., renunciation of war
as an instrument of national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity, a person's right to life,
liberty and due process, and pacta sunt servanda, among others.

The concept of "generally accepted principles of law" has also been depicted in this
wise: ARE INTERNATIONAL RESOLUTIONS ALWAYS BINDING TO ALL STATES?

No, if the norm has not attained its CIL status.

PHARMACEUTICAL & HEALTH CARE ASSN VS SEC OF HEALTH DUQUE It is propounded

that WHA Resolutions may constitute "soft law" or non-binding norms, principles and practices
that influence state behavior. "Soft law" does not fall into any of the categories of international
law set forth in Article 38, Chapter III of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice. It
is, however, an expression of non-binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state
behavior. Certain declarations and resolutions of the UN General Assembly fall under this
category. The most notable is the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which this Court has
enforced in various cases, specifically, Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v.
Olalia, Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, Mijares v. Rañada 37 and Shangri-la International Hotel
Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc. It must be emphasized that even
under such an international emergency, the duty of a state to implement the IHR Resolution
was still considered not binding or enforceable, although said resolutions had great political
influence. Respondents failed to establish that the provisions of pertinent WHA Resolutions are
customary international law that may be deemed part of the law of the land

c. Pimentel vs Ermita
The President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments,
extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise
transact the business of foreign relations.

In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with
other states. Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into
treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3
of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him.

Petitioners' arguments equate the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative
with ratification. It should be underscored that the signing of the treaty and the ratification are
two separate and distinct steps in the treaty-making process.

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 As earlier discussed, the signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the
instrument and as a symbol of the good faith of the parties. It is usually performed by the
state's authorized representative in the diplomatic mission. Ratification, on the other hand, is
the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its
representative. It is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or
of the government.

The signature does not signify the final consent of the state to the treaty. It is the
ratification that binds the state to the provisions thereof. In fact, the Rome Statute itself
requires that the signature of the representatives of the states be subject to ratification,
acceptance or approval of the signatory states.

Ratification is the act by which the provisions of a treaty are formally confirmed and
approved by a State. By ratifying a treaty signed in its behalf, a state expresses its willingness to
be bound by the provisions of such treaty. After the treaty is signed by the state's
representative, the President, being accountable to the people, is burdened with the
responsibility and the duty to carefully study the contents of the treaty and ensure that they are
not inimical to the interest of the state and its people.

Thus, the President has the discretion even after the signing of the treaty by the
Philippine representative whether or not to ratify the same It should be emphasized that under
our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of
the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent,
or concurrence, to the ratification

Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the
Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. 21 Although the
refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been signed in its behalf is a serious step that
should not be taken lightly, 22 such decision is within the competence of the President alone,
which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus.

Bayan Muna represented by Ocampo vs Romulo, G.R. 159618, Feb

1, 2011.

d. Pangilinan vs Cayetano, G.R. 238875, March 16, 2021.

The Court laid down the following guidelines concerning the president’s withdrawal
from international agreements: First, the president enjoys some leeway in withdrawing from
agreement which he or she determines to be contrary to the Constitution or statutes. Within
the hierarchy of the Philippine legal system — that is, as instruments akin to statutes — treaties
cannot contravene the Constitution. Moreover, when repugnant to statues enacted by

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
Congress, treaties and international agreements must give way. Statutes enjoy preeminence
over international agreements. In case of conflict between a law and a treaty, it is the statute
that must prevail. These premises give the president leeway in withdrawing from treaties that
he or she determines to be contrary to the Constitution or statutes. In the event that courts
determine the unconstitutionality of a treaty, the president may unilaterally withdraw from it.
Owing to the preeminence of statutes enacted by elected representatives and hurdling the
rigorous legislative process, the subsequent enactment of a law that is inconsistent with a treaty
likewise allows the president to withdraw from that treaty.

Second, the president cannot unilaterally withdraw from agreement which were entered
into pursuant to congressional imprimatur. Considering that effecting treaties is a shared
function between the executive and the legislative branches, Congress may expressly authorize
the president to enter into a treaty with conditions or limitations as to negotiating prerogatives.
While this distinction is immaterial in international law, jurisprudence has treated this as a class
of executive agreements.

To recall, an executive agreement implements an existing policy, and is entered "to

adjust the details of a treaty . . . pursuant to or upon confirmation by an act of the Legislature;
executive agreements [hinge] on prior constitutional or legislative authorizations." Executive
agreements "inconsistent with either a law or a treaty are considered ineffective." Consistent
with the mirror principle, any withdrawal from an international agreement must reflect how it
was entered into. As the agreement was entered pursuant to congressional imprimatur,
withdrawal from it must likewise be authorized by a law

e. Llamanzares vs Comelec G.R.221697

In sum, all of the international law conventions and instruments on the matter of
nationality of foundlings were designed to address the plight of a defenseless class which suffers
from a misfortune not of their making. We cannot be restrictive as to their application if we are
a country which calls itself civilized and a member of the community of nations.

Who must be Natural-born Citizens?

1) President: Section 2, Art VII
2) Vice-President: Section 3, Art VII
3) Members of Congress : Sections 3 and 6, Art VI
4) Justices of SC and lower collegiate courts: Section 7(1), Art VIII
5) Ombudsman and his deputies: Section 8, Art XI

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
 6) Members of Constitutional Commissions
7) Members of the Central Monetary Authority, Section 20, Art XII
8) Members of the Commission on Human Rights: Section 17 (2), Art XIII*
d. Ang Ladlad vs Comelec
That Ang Ladlad, an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves
as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs), has satisfied the exacting
standards that the “marginalized and underrepresented sector must demonstrate (1) past
subordination or discrimination suffered by the group; (2) an immutable or distinguishing
characteristic, attribute, or experience that define them as a discrete group; and (3) present
political and/or economic powerlessness.” The Court said that Ang Ladlad has shown “that the
LGBT sector has been historically disadvantaged and discriminated against because of negative
public perception, and has even alleged acts of violence perpetrated against members of the
LGBT community by reason of their sexual orientation and gender identity.” It added that the
magnitude of opposition against petitioner’s participation in the party list system is, by itself,
demonstrative of the sector’s lack of political power; so, too, is the fact that proposed
legislations seeking to prohibit discriminatory treatment against LGBTs have been languishing in
Congress

e. Ichong vs Hernandez
WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN TREATY AND STATUTE? Whenever municipal tribunals
or local courts are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a
rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution. Efforts should first be exerted to
harmonize them, so as to give effect to both.

Ichong vs Hernandez

Where conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law
and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by, the municipal
courts for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are bound by it in all
circumstances. The doctrine of incorporation are given equal standing with, but are not superior
to, national legislative enactments.

f. Sec Justice vs Lantion

Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogate priori takes effect- a treaty may repeal a
statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the constitution is the highest law of
the land, such as the Republic, both statutes and treated may be invalidated if they are in
conflict with the constitution. J5: The reckoning point to determine the effectivity of treaty is at
the time of ratification.

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
Separation of Powers:

Angara vs Electoral Commission

Estipona vs Lobrigo

Republic vs Gingoyon, G.R. 16429

Pimetel vs Executive Secretary , GR 158088

Pangilinan vs Cayetano

ABS-CBN vs NTC

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
Araullo vs Aquino

Belgica vs Ochoa

Separation of the church and state:

Estrada vs Escritor
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the
Hall of Justice Building in QC

Islamic Da’Wah Concil of PH vs. Office of the Exec.

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
Peralta vs Philpost (G.R. No. 223395, December 4, 2018),

Civil Supremacy over Military

People vs Lagman, GR L-45893

Independent Foreign Policy

Bayan vs Zamora
Social Justice and Human Rights

Calalang vs Williams

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
Sanctity of Family Life

Spouses Imbong vs Ochoa

Natural Duty of Parents in Rearing for their Children

Nery vs. Lorenzo,

SPARKS vs QC
Civic Efficiency

Right to balanced and healthful ecology

Opposa vs Factoran

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
Mosqueda v PBEA Davao and City Government of Davao v CA,
PBEA Davao

AGHAM vs. Japan Tobacco InternationalGR 235771, June 15, 2021

International Service For The Acquisition Of Agri-Biotech

Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Phils.) GR 209271
etc, December 8, 2015

Resident Marine Mammals Of The Protected Seascape Tañon Strait

vs. Reyes GR 180771 etc, April 21, 2015

Right to full public disclosure

Valmonte vs Belmonte

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
Akbayan vs Aquino

Filipinization of Public Utilities

Gamboa vs Teves

Local Autonomy

Mandanas vs Ochoa

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.
Province of Camarines vs COA

Villafuerte vs Robredo

Pimentel vs Ochoa

Compiled by: Leziel B. Santos 

Disclaimer: The compiler is not an expert; this is a mere product of self-review. Use @ your own risk.