Consti Bernas and Suarez
Consti Bernas and Suarez
Phoebe J. Palcullo
C. Separation of Powers
In essence, separation of powers means that legislation belongs to Congress, execution
to the executive, settlement of legal controversies to the judiciary.
Each is prevented from invading the domain of the others.
The separation is not total. The system allows for checks and balances.
E. State Immunity
Section 3, Article XVI, General Provisions. The State cannot be sued without its consent.
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
o Santos vs. Santos, based the principle on juridical and practical notion that the
state can do no wrong.
o Philippine jurisprudence also accepted Holmes’ formulation to the effect that a
sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete
theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as
against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
o Metran vs. Paredes. In a Republican State, like the Philippines, government
immunity from suit without its consent is derived from the will of the people
themselves in freely creating a government of the people, by the people, and for
the people – a representative government through which they have agreed to
exercise the powers and discharge the duties of their sovereignty for the
common good and general welfare.
o Providence Washington Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines. A continued
adherence to the doctrine of non-suability is not to be deplored for as against
the inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss of government
efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are
far greater if such a fundamental principle were abandoned and the availability
of judicial remedy were not restricted. With the well known propensity on the
part of our people to go to court, at the least provocation, the loss of time and
energy required to defend against law suits, in the absence of such basic
principle that constitutes such an effective obstacle, could be very well
imagined.
When a suit is against the state
o The rule in Section 3 which textually expresses established jurisprudence on the
subject is that the State may not be sued without its consent.
o Necessarily, therefore, cases on this subject must deal with the dual question of
whether the suit is one against the state and, if it is, whether the state has
consented to be sued.
o When the suit is one against the Republic of the Philippines eo nomine the suit is
one clearly against the state.
When the suit is against unincorporated agencies
o When the suit is directed against an unincorporated government agency which,
because unincorporated, possess no juridical personality, the suit of necessity is
against the person of the agency’s principal, and consent or absence of consent
of the principal must be determined.
o Metran vs. Paredes. Metran was not a corporation. The dismissal of the case
against Metran was predicated solely on the fact that, being a governmental
agency possessing no juridical personality of its own, a suit against Metran was
in fact a suit against the government whose consent had not been given.
o Subsequent cases made a distinction between unincorporated government
agencies performing governmental function and those performing proprietary
functions.
o Angat River Irrigation System vs. Angat River Worker’s Union. Its Immunity from
suit was upheld. The system was a division of the Bureau of Public Works and
had the governmental tasks of maintaining and operating the irrigation system
of the Province of Bulacan.
o National Airport Corporation vs. Teodoro, the SC had said that: not all
government entities, whether corporate or non-corporate, are immune from
suits. Immunity from suits is determined by the character of the objects for
which the entity was organized.
Here, the NAC was found to come under the category of private entity
whose function was not to maintain a necessary function of the
government, but to run what is essentially a business, even if revenues
be not its prime objective but rather the promotion of travel and
convenience of the traveling public. Hence, the plea of immunity was not
upheld.
o The fact, however that an unincorporated government entity performs a
proprietary function does not necessarily mean that it does not enjoy immunity
from suits. If the proprietary and non-governmental function is undertaken as
an incident to its governmental function, immunity is not lost.
o Sovereign immunity, granted as to the end, should not be denied as to the
necessary means to that end.
Suits against government officers
o Whether or not government immunity from suit can be pleaded in a suit against
government officers is made to turn on whether ultimate liability will fall on the
government.
o Where, however, the government no longer has an interest to protect in the
outcome of a suit, a suit against an officer will not be considered a suit against
the government.
Ruiz vs. Cabahug. Here, the government had already set aside the
amount needed to cover the bill for architectural and engineering
services rendered in the construction of the Veterans Hospital. The suit
against the government officer merely sought to determine how the
amount set aside by the government was to be partitioned among the
various collaborating architects and engineers.
Thus, it will be found, as illustrative of what has been above said, that
nearly all the cases wherein the rule of immunity from suit against the
state, or a subdivision thereof, has been applied and upheld, are those
which demanded a money judgment, and wherein the discharge of the
judgment, if obtained, would require the appropriation or an
expenditure therefrom, which being legislative in it character is a
province exclusively of the political departments of the state.
When, therefore, officers or agents of the state, although acting officially
and not as individuals, seize the private property of a citizen, the state
having no valid right or title thereto, or trespass upon the property or
damage it, the jurisdiction of the to eject the officers or agents, or to
enjoin them from further trespass or damage, in a suit by the owner
against the officers or agents, is a well-settled in the jurisprudence of
this country as is the general rule first above mentioned; for in such a
suit no relief is demanded which requires any affirmative action on the
part of the state.
o Similarly, where the liability of an officer is personal because it arises from a
tortious act in the performance of his duties, the officer cannot plead sovereign
immunity from suit.
o The rule on immunity of the state may be relaxed where its strict application
will result in an injustice.
Thus, where a petitioner sued the government for construction work
done in government’s low cost housing program, although the basis of
the suit was an implied contract which was found to be invalid, the
court nevertheless allowed the petitioner to collect on a quantum
meruit basis. EPG Construction vs. Vigilar (2001)
Suit against government-owned corporations
o Manila Hotel Employees Association vs. Manila Hotel. It was held in this case that
by engaging in a particular business through the instrumentality of a
corporation, the government divest itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character,
so as to tender the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private
corporations.
o The implication here seems to be that it is the business character of the
corporation and not its corporate character which divests it of the immunity
which its owner-sovereign enjoys.
o Even on the case of government-owned corporations performing governmental
functions, suability is made to depend not on the separate corporate personality
of the entity but on the express grant of authority “to sue and be sued”.
o Therefore, it may be said that if the government conducts business operation
through an entity, whether corporate or non-corporate, set up primarily for a
business purpose, such entity enjoys no immunity even if there’s no express
grant of authority to sue and be sued. When, however, the government
establishes a corporation for a government purpose, such corporation may be
sued if the law creating it makes it suable; if the law does not, then it partakes of
the immunity of its sovereign principal.
o While this is also true in the case of municipal corporations, which by their
charters are invariably empowered to sue and be sued, municipal corporations
nevertheless do share in the immunity of the sovereign.
This is manifested in the principle that a municipal corporation cannot
be made liable for the torts of its officers in the performance of
government functions except in those instances where the law expressly
makes them so liable.
Waiver of immunity
o Waiver must be controlled by the legislature.
o Waiver may be express or implied.
o Consent to be sued may be given by the legislature through a special law or by
general law.
o A special law waiving immunity may come in the form of a private bill
authorizing named individual to bring suit on a specified claim.
o A general law authorizes any person who meets the condition stated in the law
to sue the government in accordance with the procedure specified in the law.
o Aside from express waiver of immunity, either through a general or special law,
immunity may also be waived by an implied consent to be sued.
Santos vs. Santos. Held that when the state or its government enters into
a contract, through its officers or agents, in furtherance of a legitimate
aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority,
whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations
arise therefrom,… the state itself may be sued even without its express
consent, because by entering into a contract the sovereign state has
descended to the level of the citizen and its consent to be sued is implied
from the very act of entering into such contract.
o The doctrine of waiver through contract was again applied in Santiago vs.
Republic, where the Court held that, a donor, with the Republic or any of its
agencies as donee, is entitled to go to court in case of an alleged breach of the
conditions of such donation.
But the court has also clarified that for the contract to constitute waiver
of immunity, it must be entered into by the proper officer acting within
the scope of his authority.
o Consent to be sued is also impliedly given, according to National Airports
Corporation vs. Teodoro, when the state authorizes an agency “not to maintain a
necessary function of government, but to run what is essentially a business”.
By engaging in an enterprise normally undertaken by a private sector
the state descends to the level of a private citizen and to that extent
sheds a measure of its sovereignty.
However, as already noted in Mobil Oil, when the business operation is
merely incidental to the performance of governmental functions,
immunity is not waived.
o It has also been held that when the state through its duly authorized officers
take the initiative in a suit against a private party, it descends from its
privileged position to the level of a private individual and thereby opens itself to
whatever counterclaims or defenses the private individual may have against the
state.
However, there is no implied waiver of immunity when the state files a
complaint in intervention merely to resists a claim against private party
precisely on the ground, among others, of its privileged position which
exempts it from suit.
o Waiver of immunity, in fact, is not facilely inferred.
Suability, liability, execution
o Merritt vs. Government. When the state consents to be sued, it cannot be
inferred from such consent that the state concedes its liability. Consent simply
means waiver of immunity from suit and it does not deprive the state of the
right to interpose any lawful defense.
o It should also be noted that even when the government has been adjudged liable
in a suit to which it has consented, it does not necessary follow that the
judgment can be enforced by execution.
D. Process of law-making
E. Quorum and voting majorities
Sessions
o SECTION 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday
of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall
continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until
thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time.
o Two kinds of sessions:
Regular session. The congress shall convene once every year on the 4th
Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by
law.
Special session. A special session may be called by the president at any
time.
o What is sine die session?
It is one held without day, by staying the hands of the clock definitely at
a certain time and continuing the session indefinitely. US vs. Pons
o How long shall congress hold a session?
Congress shall, continue to hold session for such number of days it may
determine until 30 days before the opening of the next regular session,
excluding Sunday, Saturday’s and legal holidays.
o Is the mandatory period of recess fixed at 30 days before the opening of the next
regular session?
Not really. Congress may determine if this will be prolonged or not.
What it cannot control is the power of the president to call a special
session because the necessity of calling the same on the discretion of the
President.
o What are the instances when congress meets even without the president’s call?
1. When the congress meet to canvass the votes and returns of the election
of the president and the vice-president. Section 4, Article VII
2. When congress convenes in accordance with its rules to enact a law
calling for a special election to elect a president and a vice-president.
Section 10, Article VII
3. When the House of Representatives acts on a verified complaint for
impeachment, or indorse the same, and the senate subsequently tries
and decides on the articles of impeachment endorsed by the house or
representatives. Section 3, Article XI
4. Following the proclamation of martial law or suspension of a privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, and 24 hours following such proclamation
or suspension, Congress shall convene in accordance with its rules
without a need of call. Section 18, Article VII
o When are joint sessions called, and how shall the two houses of congress vote?
There shall be joint session of the two houses of congress in the
following occasions:
1. When they choose the President of the Philippines under
Section 4, Article VII;
2. When they determine the disability of the president under
Section 11, Article VII;
3. When they confirm the nomination of the VP under Section 9,
Article VII;
4. When they propose constitutional amendments under Section 1,
Article XVII;
5. 2/3 votes of both houses in joint session assemble, voting
separately, is needed to declare the existence of a state of war.
In all said instances, both houses meet in joint session but they vote
separately.
o When do they meet in joint session and vote jointly?
1. When they revoke or extend the proclamation of martial law or a
proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
under Section 18, Article VII;
2. Both houses cannot, during sessions, adjourn for more than three days,
or transfer to a place other than that in which the two houses shall be
siting without the consent of the other.
Quorum
o SECTION 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of
Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.
o Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
o (2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a
smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of
absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may
provide.
o (3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members
for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its
Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed,
shall not exceed sixty day
o (4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time
publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national
security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth
of the Members present, be entered in the Journal.
o Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
o (5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent
of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that
in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
o What constitutes a quorum to do business in each house?
A majority of all the members of each house shall constitute a quorum to
do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and
may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner, and
under such penalties, as such House may provide. Section 16(2), Article
VI
o Define quorum.
The number of persons of the body which, when legally assembled in
their places, will enable the body to transact its proper business, or, in
other words, that number that makes a lawful body and give it power to
pass a law or ordinance or do any other valid corporate act. Javellana vs.
Tayo
Journals
o What, if any, is the difference between a legislative journal and an Enrolled Bill?
The Enrolled Bill is the official copy of an approved legislation which
bears the certification of the presiding officer of the legislative body.
In mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, the SC ruled that the Enrolled Bill
shall prevail over the journal. The Enrolled Bill is conclusive
upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by
congress and approved by the president.
A legislative journal is a book containing the records of the proceedings
of the legislature.
o What is the probative value of journals?
It is a conclusive evidenced the contents thereof.
o What is the importance of Journals?
1. They are the best source of information on what actually took place
during the proceeding in each house.
2. As such, they serve as reference to authors, researchers and historians,
especially in cases where there is a need to dig deeper into the intention
of the legislators who took part in the debates.
3. The publication of journals is in line with the right to information on
matters of public concern.
o What should be contained in a journal?
1. The yeas and nays on any question, at the request of 1/5 of the
members present. Article 6, Section 16(3).
2. The yeas and nays on the final passage of every bill. Section 26(2),
Article 6
3. The yeas and nays, the name of the members voting for or against any
bill. Section27(1), Article Vi
4. The objection of the president to any bill which he has disapproved.
Article VI, Section 27(1)
o When a co-equal department repudiates the Enrolled Bill like what happened in
Astorga vs. Villegas where the presiding officer repudiates his signature in the
Enrolled Bill, will the latter still prevail over the journal?
In such a case, the journal must be accepted as conclusive.
Adjournment
o What are the two prohibitions mentioned in Section 16(5), Article VI?
1. During sessions of the congress, neither house shall adjourn for more
than 3 days without the consent of the other;
2. During the sessions of congress, neither house shall adjourn to any
other place than that in which two houses shall be sitting.
F. Discipline of Members
o Who determines the rules of proceedings of each house?
Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. Section 16(3),
Article VI.
o Who punishes, suspends or expels the members of each house for disorderly
behavior?
Each house may punish, suspend or expel its members for disorderly
behavior, but subject to the following conditions:
1. Said punishment, suspension or expulsion must have the
concurrence of 2/3 of all its members;
2. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed 60 days.
Section 16(4), Article VI.
o What constitutes disorderly behavior and who determines if a disorderly behavior
was committed?
It depends on congress to determine what constitutes the disorderly
behavior being complained of, and if the same was indeed committed. Thus
matter is considered a political question and which is beyond the ambit of
judicial interference or review.
Any expulsion or suspension of a member, however, which violates the two
conditions aforementioned (2/3 concurrence, 60 day period) is considered
as a justiciable question.
G. Appropriation and re-alignment
SECTION 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July
for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in
session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening
of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The
President may call a special session at any time.
H. Legislative inquiries and oversight functions
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such
inquiries shall be respected.
The power of legislative investigation (investigation in aid of legislation) is
available to both houses of congress.
The power of legislative investigation includes the following:
1. The power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation in accordance with its
duly published rules of procedure;
2. The power to issue summons and notices in connection with matters
subject of its investigation or inquiry
3. The power to punish or declare a person in contempt during or in the
course of legislative investigation
4. The power to determine the rules of its proceedings
SECTION 22. The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent
of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall
provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their
departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled
appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover
matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires
and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive
session.
I. Power of Impeachment
J. Electoral Tribunals
SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of
nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by
the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered
under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral
Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
SECTION 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be
constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall
have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The
Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the
call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and
functions as are herein conferred upon it.
K. Commission on Appointments
SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President
of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the House
of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a
tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session
days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority
vote of all the Members.