Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2. Suit against governmental agency -an agent is any person who binds himself to render some
service in representation of another, with the consent of the
-Why/When is it suit in reality against the state even if
latter; Shell doesnt represent; not an agent & can be sued
against governmental agency only? If it is against
without states consent
unincorporated government agency where such government
agency will have to go back to state for satisfaction of 3. Suit against a government official
judgment; so ultimately it is a suit against the state -When is it suit in reality against the state even if against
Steps in ascertaining if its suit against state: government official only? IF these allegations are made:
a) Check what kind of agency is involved in the suit (& not the a) Suing government official in his official capacity
function) b) The government official acted without bad faith, malice,
b) If the agency involved is unincorporated, determine if it is negligence & corruption
doing a governmental/proprietary function
c) Suing government official not in his personal capacity
c) If doing governmental function, it is a suit against the state
& one will need its consent If theres ANY of these allegations, NOT SUIT against the
state but against the official only:
Kinds of government agency:
a) Government officials actions were unlawful & injurious to
a) Unincorporated government agency- no charter of its own;
the rights of others
merged with whole governmental machinery; no personality
b) Suing government official in his personal capacity
of its own; derive personality from state itself
b) Incorporated government agency- has personality of its CASES:
own, so suit is against it, not against the state; has personality 1. Lansang vs CA- Lansang sought to evict GABI from selling in
separate & distinct from state; case you file is a case against it Rizal Park
only; can be sued even if doing governmental/proprietary
functions
-rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the SUABILITY not equal to LIABILITY
state if satisfaction of judgment against the public official -consent to be sued only extends to proceedings anterior to
concerned will require the state itself to perform a positive the stage of execution & power of courts ends when
act, such as appropriation of the necessary amount judgment is rendered; only to prove liability
-does not apply where official is charged in official capacity -to make state liable, one needs separate appropriation for
for acts that are unlawful & injurious to the rights of others; money claim
bad faith
GENERAL PROCESS IN SUING THE STATE:
-neither when sued in his personal capacity although he
a) Identify if its a suit against the state; obtain consent
committed acts complained of while he occupied a public
b) Prove state is liable
position
c) If liable, ask state to make separate appropriation through
2. Calub vs CA Forest Protection team confiscated legislature
motorcycles & owners want them back d) If no appropriation is made, compel legislature through
-immunity applies to officials performing activities within mandamus
their authority in good faith, without willfulness, -process is long, hence, there is no practical benefit in suing
malice/corruption the state
-performed by them in the discharge of their official duties
-here, cannot prosper without states consent GENERAL PROCESS FOR MONEY CLAIMS ARISING FROM
QUESTIONS: CONTRACTS:
-When is a suit against the state? 3 instances (above) -Under CA No. 327, as amended by PD No. 1445, a claim
-Given its a suit against the state, what will happen to the against the government must first be filed with the
suit? If there is no consent, case will be dismissed. If with Commission on Audit, which must act upon it within sixty
consent, case may proceed days. If the claim is rejected the claimant is authorized to
elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on certiorari and in
-If it is a suit against the state, what do you do next? Obtain
effect sue the State with its consent.
CONSENT of state:
-If case is won for money claim , there must be a separate
a) Express- only through law (not by president/sol gen, etc.)
appropriation to get the money claim or purpose.
A1. General law
STEPS FOR MONEY CLAIMS ARISING FROM CONTRACTS:
-Art. 2180, New Civil Code: (express) consent is given by state
1. File with the Commission on Audit to determine if the
if filed against a special agent of the state (here, consent to
complaint is tenable which must act upon it.
be sued is given to anyone who comes within this provision)
2. If rejected, the claimant is authorized to elevate the matter
-Money claims arising from contracts: one can lodge money
to the Supreme Court on Certiorari.
claim with Commission on Audit; if not acted upon within 60
days, one can file a case in court 3. In effect, the claimant can sue the State with its consent.
A2. Special law- pass law giving consent to be sued for a 4. If the claimant won the case, when final judgment of the
particular person, e.g. Meritt Supreme Court rendered, he will return to Commission on
Audit.
b)Implied consent
5. Commission on Audit will submit a letter to the President
b1. When there is a valid claim for compensation arising from
in which the latter will may recommend to the Congress to
the taking without just compensation & proper expropriation
make an appropriation law in the claimants favor.
proceedings
6. If the Congress doesnt make a law, the claimant may file a
b2. When state sues, it opens itself for counterclaims
petition for mandamus to compel the former to make a bill
b3. When the state engages in commercial/business for his claims enactment and approval of the necessary
transactions appropriation ordinance and the corresponding disbursement
b4. When injustice is done on a citizen of funds
CASE: Merritt vs Phil
-Merritt had accident with General Hospital ambulance III. GOVERNMENT
-government passed act authorizing Merritt to bring suit -is the agency of the state through which the will of the state
is formulated, expressed & carried out
-state only liable for acts of its agents, employees when they
act as special agents; in this case, chauffer of the ambulance -here, government is the agent and the state is the principal
was not a special agent -order of the state: to do that which is beneficial, State can
-whether state intends to make itself liable rests only with do no wrong
legislature & not with courts CASE: US vs Dorr
-defendants convicted of libel against state
- contains no attack upon the governmental system by which
the authority of the U.S. is enforced in these islands. The form
of Government by a Civil Commission and a Civil Governor is intraconstitutional & can be subject to judicial review; 1 is a
not assailed. It is the character of the men who are instructed political question & 2 is a justiciable question
with the administration of the government that the writer is Kinds of Government
seeking to bring into disrepute
1. based on number of persons holding power
-Administration means the aggregate of those persons in a) monarchy b) oligarchy
whose hands the reins of the govt are for the time being b) democracy- direct/pure democracy (people take part
-Government is the agency of the state through which the in passage of laws)
will of the state is formulated, expressed & carried out -indirect/republican (through reps)
if government no longer does will of the state/mandate of 2. based on relationship between legislative & executive
the principal/do acts which are beneficial, replace the a) presidental b) parliamentary
agent/government through the people & through the
3. based on power of central authority
Doctrine of Revolution/ Doctrine of Direct State Action
a) federal
-Rebellion is an unsuccessful revolution; did not succeed
hence it becomes a crime, vs. b) unitary Phils is unitary; what has been decentralized is
only function, not power
-Revolution/Direct State Action- able to unseat the
government since the state acted directly; successful 4. other class
revolution a) de jure- government that has a valid title but no actual
-Definition (Concurring Opinion Mendoza): an inherent right control
of people to cast out their rulers, change their policy or effect b) de facto- no valid title but with actual control
radical reforms in their system of government or institutions
-Is our present government de facto/de jure? Neither; this
by force or a general uprising when the legal and
class is only during the war when theres both de facto & de
constitutional methods of making such change have proved
jure existing; now, Phils has only one government & we are
inadequate or are so obstructed as to be unavailable. The
not at war
locus of positive law-making power lies with the people to
abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of CASES:
government without regard to the existing constitution 1. Co Kim Cham vs Tan Keh- wants to continue proceedings in
- Is revolution illegal? cannot be illegal since performed by civil case since war is now over & japs have left
the state -THREE Kinds of de facto government:
-Is it constitutional? revolution cannot be deemed A) that government that gets possession & control of, usurps,
unconstitutional/constitutional because it is not provided in by force/voice of majority, the rightful legal government &
the constitution; it is extraconstitutional since this orbits maintains itself against the will of the latter
outside the loop of the constitution; right to revolt cant be B) that which is established & maintained by military forces
placed in the constitution because state would then be who invade & occupy a territory of the enemy in the course
planting the seeds of its own destruction of war
-When is an act unconstitutional? when there is a provision -What is the effect of belligerent occupation?
in the constitution and the act violates it
There is no change in sovereignty (de jure sovereign is the
-Right to revolt cannot be recognized as a constitutional one not in control & de facto sovereign is the occupant).
principle; a constitution to provide for the right of the people Political laws, except the law on treason, are suspended;
to revolt will carry with it the seeds of its own destruction; it municipal laws remain in force unless repealed by the
orbits outside the loop of the constitution. Rather, the right belligerent occupant. However at the end of the belligerent
to revolt is affirmed as a natural right occupation, when the occupant is ousted from the territory,
-Can Direct State Action/Revolution emanate from Art 2, sec the political law which had been suspended during the
1 The Phils is a democratic & republican state. Sovereignty occupation shall automatically become effective again, under
resides in the peope & all government authority derives the principle of postliminy
from them? No because sovereignty of the people is only -On our Political Laws- immediately cease to have effect,
manifested through the ballot and nothing else except insofar as they are continued in force by the express
CASE: Estrada vs Arroyo consent of the ne sovereign
-Arroyo became president after Estrada was forced to leave -On our Municipal Laws- those which are not in conflict with
-government of Arroyo is not revolutionary in character; oath the laws of the new sovereign may continue in force with the
she took is under 1987 consti; she swore to preserve & express consent of the new sovereign or until changed by the
defend the 1987 consti; discharged powers of president sovereign through legislative acts; not changed merely by
under 1987 consti change of sovereignty
-distinction between EDSA 1 & 2: 1 involves the exercise of -On Judicial Decisions- good & valid during the occupation
people power of revolution which overthrew the whole and even beyond except those of a political complexion
government; 2 Is an exercise of people power of freedom of which are automatically annulled as soon as the legitimate
speech & assembly. 1 is extraconstitutional & 2 is authority is restored
Basis: Sec. III of the Hague Convention of 1907 - powers and democracy; also, people legislating thru initiative &
duties of de facto governments regulated referendum is purely democratic & not republican since they
-Belligerent occupant has the right and is burdened with duty can directly exercise powers of government
to insure public order and safety during military occupation. Ways by which people directly exercise sovereignty:
-He can suspend the old laws and promulgate new one and a)Election b)plebiscite c)initiative d)recall e)referendum
make such changes in the old as he may see fit.
Democracy & Republicanism (Dissenting of Puno)
-He is enjoined to respect, unless absolutely prevented by the
circumstances, the municipal laws in force in the country - a) Plato- did not want democracy; those of low quality would
enforce public order and regulate social and commercial life dominate the state by mere numerical superiority
of the country. b) Aristotle- democracy could be done if upper class govern
-BUT, laws of political in nature are suspended for they represent people of greatest refinement & quality
PRINCIPLE OF POSTLIMINY (POSTLIMINIUM) c) Middle Ages- industrial revolution enabled Europe to rise
because of the efforts of individuals; theory of popular
-the fact that a territory which has been occupied by an
enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate sovereignty developed where all people were equal; social
government of sovereignty, does not except in a very few contract theory also came where it is the act of people
cases, wipe out the effects of acts done by an invader, which exercising their sovereignty & creating a govt to which they
for one reason or another it is within his competence to do. consent
-Judicial acts done under his control, when they are not of a d) John Locke- democracy should be limited to people with
political complexion, administrative acts so done, to the personal stake in society: land owners
extent that they take effect during the continuance of his e) Thomas Jefferson- people including ordinary folk should be
control, and the various acts done during the same time by
given chance to govern since they are the only competent
private persons under the sanction of municipal law, remain
guardians of their liberties
good.
C) that established as an independent government by the RIGHT OF REVOLUTION (Concurring Opinion Mendoza)-
inhabitants of the country who rise in insurrection against the inherent right of the people to cast out their rulers, change
parent state their policy or effect radical reforms by force
2. Lawyers League vs Aquino- issue is Aquinos govt -sovereign will of people expressed through ballot; any
exercise of the powers of sovereignty in any other way is
-legitimacy of Aquino govt is not justiciable but belongs to the
unconstitutional
realm of politics where only the peope are the judge
-right to revolt cannot be recognized as a consti principle; it is
-not merely de facto but a de jure govt; accepted by the
only affirmed as a natural right & must be exercised only for
people & community of nations
weighty & serious reasons
Functions of government
2. Sec 2, The Phils renounces war as an instrument of
1. Constituent function- those which constitute the bond of national policy, & adopts the generally accepted principles of
society & are therefore compulsory & not optional such as international law as part of the law of the land.
keeping of order & providing protection
-not renouncing defensive war, only aggressive war, so there
2. Ministrant- undertaken only to advance the general
is still need to maintain AFP
interest of society & are optional
-now, distinction between constituent & ministrant is -DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION vs DOCTRINE OF
already blurred TRANSFORMATION
3. Doctrine of Parens Patriae- parent of the people; the state Distinguish first:
has the sovereign power of guardianship over persons 1. Domestic/municipal law- national laws; statutes
under disability 2. Generally accepted principles of international law (GAPIL)-
CASE: Govt vs de Piedad never just international law; has to be GAPIL, e.g.
-money loaned to de piedad; state now has to get it back for prohibition on genocide
those damaged by earthquake DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION: GAPIL is adopted as part of
-duty of the government to exercise supervision & control the law of the land & accepted
over the money & devote it to the object for which it was DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION: Congress has to make
originally destined GAPIL into national legislation before anyone can invoke a
-in bringing this suit, government is exercising its sovereign GAPIL
functions or powers and its being the parent of the people -in Phils, we adhere to Incorporation as stated in Sec 2
Problem: What if domestic law in conflict with GAPIL? FIRST,
IV. Principles of Goverment try to harmonize both. Only in case of irreconcilable conflit
should one apply rules; cant directly uphold domestic law
ARTICLE 2:
since its equal in footing with GAPIL; except if GAPIl conflicts
1. Sec 1, The Phils is a democratic & republican state. with Consti; then Consti prevails
Sovereignty resides in the people & all government
CASES:
authority emanates from them.
1. Philip Morris vs CA- Morris sued Fortune since latter used
-Is stating democratic & republic redundant? No; if you leave
similar trademark of MARK, MARK TEN and LARk
only republican, you leave out philosophical basis which is
-our municipal law on trademarks regarding requirement of improvements actually, directly & exclusively used for
actual use in Phils must subordinate an international religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be
agreement inasmuch as the apparent clash is being decided exempt from taxation
by a municipal tribunal -state has to exempt from tax in order to avoid establishment
-fact that intl law has been made part of the law of the land of religion
doesnt mean primacy of intl law over municipal law -avoid excessive entanglement with religion; avoid constant
-under doc of incorp, intl law is given equal standing to contact; if you tax them, they will keep on coming back to the
national law state & this will foster excessive entanglement
2. Sec of Justice vs Lantion- extradition case 5.3. Art 6, sec 29, par 2 No public money.. shall be
-pacta sunt servanda- parties to a treaty must keep their appropriated.. for any church.. except when such priest.. is
agreement in good faith assigned to the AFP.. leprosarium.
-under doc of incorp, no further legislative action is needed -allowed to be appropriated since people in said institutions
to make intl rules applicable in the domestic sphere have limited mobility ; so as not to curtail religion, allow
priests to go to these institutions
-if conflict is irreconcilable, municipal law should be upheld
since courts are organs of municipal law & accordingly bound CASE: Aglipay vs Ruiz
by it under all circumstances -government sold postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd
3. Sec 3, Civilian authority is at all times supreme over the intl eucharistic congress
military. The AFP is the protector of the people & the state. -union of church & state is prejudicial to both
Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the state & the -the act here does not contemplate a religious purpose;
integrity of the national territory. issuance by postage stamps not inspired by any
a)The principle of civilian supremacy denomination; not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic
-this is in line with the principle that sovereignty resides in Church
the people and all government authority emanates from -selling the stamps was to advertise the Phils & attract more
them, and this supremacy is at all times, supreme over the
tourists; officials merely took advantage of an event
military.
considered as national importance
b)The principle that the AFP is the protector of the people
and the State. -on the stamp, what is shown is not chalice but map of Phils;
whats emphasized is Manila as seat of that congress, not the
- if the President of the RP, or high government officials are
the ones committing abuses while in the performance of their congress; these are mere incidental results
duties, the AFP is obliged, under Sec. 3, to protect the people CASES/ OTHER Policies of government:
of the State, against their abuses. In other words, the interest
of the people is more supreme than officials interest 1. Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS- FILIPINO FIRST POLICY
-President is commander in chief; even in martial law, -Filipinos (qualified) should be given preference in the grant
President is highest civil authority of concessions, privileges & rights covering national
patrimony
4. Sec 4, The prime duty of the government is to serve &
protect the people. The government may call upon the This policy is product of Phil nationalism
people to defend the state; all citizens may be required by 2. Tanada vs Angara- ECONOMIC NATIONALISM
law to render personal, military or civil service.
-Consti mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, but it also
-government as protector of the people & people as recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of
defenders of the state the world; limits protection of Filipino enterprises only
5. Sec 6, The separation of church & state shall be against foreign competition & trade practices that are unfair
inviolable. -policy of SELF-RELIANT & INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
-this is a requirement to the state; as long as state doesnt ECONOMY- does not rule out foreign competition; not
breach the wall; let the church be even if they do something intended to be an isolationist policy
5.1 Art 3, sec 5, Freedom of Religion Clause, No law shall -animal drawn vehicles prohibited from passing in certain
be made respecting an establishment of religion, or street
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. -Social justice: insure the well-being & economic security of
2 fold concept: the people; humanization of laws & equalization of social &
economic forces by the state; bringing greatest good to the
a) non-establishment of religion- but there is operation of
greatest number; salus populi est supreme lex
sectarian schools, religious instruction in public schools,
tax exemption, aid to religion 4. Oposa vs Factoran- PROMOTION OF BALANCED &
b) free exercise of religion- state cant establish religion, but HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY
when one chooses religion, state should allow its exercise -twin concepts: intergenerational responsibility &
5.2 Art 6, sec 28, par 3, Charitable institutions, churches intergenerational justice
and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
-represent their (minors) generation & generations yet
mosques, non-profit cemeteries & all lands buildings,
unborn
-the judicious management & conservation of the countrys -by judiciary: judicial review
resources; duty to refrain from impairing the environment -by Congress: concurrence (in treaties), check on
5. Valmonte vs Belmonte- HONEST PUBLIC SERVICE & FULL appointments, impeachment, override veto
DISCLOSURE 3) check on judiciary:
-to furnish copy to media of those who obtained clean loan -by President: can grant pardon to convict to temper
-right of the people on matters of public concern shall be harshness of sentence
recognized; an informed citizenry is vital to the democratic -by Congress: can limit jurisdiction of courts
government
NOT A VALID CHECK- when Congress passes law that does
-right to information is premise of right to speech & not set forth policy but interprets the law interpretation
expression; goes hand in hand with full public disclosure & of the law is not the province of the legislature
honest public service
DIRECT CHECK ON JUDICIARY- when Congress passes a law
-2 reqs for right to information: limited to transactions that changes the conditions on which the law is based
involving public interest; no exact definition for public
-BLENDING OF POWERS- instances of sharing powers among
interest; court has to determine on case-to-case basis; &
the 3 branches
information sought not among those excluded by law
CASE: Separate Opinion, Justice Puno
-GSIS funds assume public character since GSIS is trustee of
- prevents the concentration of legislative, executive, and
govt & its employees
judicial powers to a single branch of government by deftly
6. Akbayan vs Aquino- HONEST PUBLIC SERVICE & FULL
allocating their exercise to the three branches
DISCLOSURE
-dates back from the time of Aristotle but the modern
-demand copy of JPEPA full text including negotiations
concept owes to Locke and Montesquieu
- diplomatic negotiations are covered by the doctrine of
-Locke: advocated the proper division of the legislative,
executive privilege, thus constituting an exception to the
executive and federative powers; that executive powers
right to information and the policy of full public disclosure should not be placed in one person or group of persons
-information on inter-government exchanges prior to exercising legislative power because it may be too great a
conclusion of treaties may be subject to reasonable temptation to human frailty
safeguards for the sake of national interest - Montesquieu: redefined concept; legislative and executive
- recognized exceptions: privileged information, military and powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of
diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions
security and public order may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact
-presumption that the public interest favors confidentiality tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner
can be defeated only by a strong showing that the -American Revolution: separation of powers requires a
responsibilities of that institution cannot responsibly be watertight compartmentalization of the executive, judicial,
fulfilled without access to records of the President's and legislative functions and permits no sharing of
deliberation government
-In our constitution, it obtains not through express provision
V. POWERS & STRUCTURE OF PHIL GOVERNMENT: in the Consi but by actual division in our consti
DOCTRING OF SEPARATION OF POWERS -principle of separation of powers (1) allows the blending
-Doc of Separation of Powers has 3 assumptions: of some of the executive, legislative, or judicial powers in one
body; (2) does not prevent one branch of government from
1) the powers of government are divided into 3, legislative,
inquiring into the affairs of the other branches to maintain
executive & judicial
the balance of power; (3) but ensures that there is no
2) these 3 powers are distributed to 3 branches encroachment on matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of
3)these 3 branches are separate & co-equal (exc. when there the other branches
is blending of powers)
Purpose? To prevent concentration of powers
Where in the Consti is Sep of Powers found? Art 6,7,8; VI. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT: STRUCTURE
legislative, executive & judicial powers are actually
Article 6
distributed in the constitution
Sec 1 The Legislative power shall be vested in the Congress
of the Phil which shall consist of a Senate & HOR, except to
CHECKS & BALANCES- to look into the action of one branch to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on
ensure that the other branch performs its power/duty initiative & referendum.
1) Check on Congress: -legislative power not exclusive to Congress; shared with the
-by Judiciary: judicial review people under system of initiative & referendum
-by President- veto power -initiative on Consti- no enabling law yet; only for national &
2) check on President local legislation
Sec 2 The Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators who Qualifications/disqualifications as a registered party list
shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Phils, as (Bagong Bayan):
may be provided by law 1. Represent the marginalized and the underrepresented-
Sec 5, 1 The HOR shall be composed of not more than 250 examples are labor, peasant
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected 2. Major political parties can be a party-list- show that they
from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, represent the marginalized and underrepresented
cities, & the Metropolitan Manila Area & those who, as Whats prohibited is registration of religious group; but if
provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list you didnt register your religious org, you can
system.. 3. must not be funded by the government