Constitutional Law 1: JL Cadiatan

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 JL CADIATAN
I. IN GENERAL Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and

supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every
POLITICAL LAW, DEFINED statute and contract.
Political Law has been defined as that branch of public
law which deals with the organization and operation of KINDS OF CONSTITUTION
the governmental organs of the State and define the a) written or unwritten
relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory b) rigid and flexible
(People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]). It may be c) cumulative or conventional
recalled that political law embraces constitutional law,
law of public corporations, administrative law including CONSTITUTION, HOW CONSTRUCTED
the law on public officers and elections. SELF-EXECUTING
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408.
MACARIOLA VS. JUDGE ASUNCION, 114 SCRA 77 Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations
The provision in the Code of Commerce which prohibits of policies and principles. Their provisions command the
judges, justices, etc., (public officers) from engaging in legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of
business within the territorial jurisdiction of their courts the framers who merely establish an outline of
is political in nature and therefore, said provision was government providing for the different departments of
deemed abrogated when there was a change of the governmental machinery and securing certain
sovereignty from Spain to the United States at the turn fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens. A
of the century. Political laws are deemed abrogated if provision which lays down a general principle, such as
there is a change of sovereignty and unless re-enacted those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually
under the new sovereign, the same is without force and not self-executing. But a provision, which is complete in
effect. itself and becomes operative without the aid of
supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1, DEFINED supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it
A study of the structure and powers of the Government grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.
of the Republic of the Philippines. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the
nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability
CONSTITUTION, DEFINED imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 can be determined by an examination and construction
A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the
governance and administration of a nation. It is subject is referred to the legislature for action.
supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except
by the authority from which it emanates. It has been NOT A PENAL STATUTE
defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the The ordinary concept of retroactive applicability does
nation. It prescribes the permanent framework of a not apply. So even if it is favourable to the accused,
system of government, assigns to the different since it is not a penal statute, it cannot be applied.
departments their respective powers and duties, and
establishes certain fixed principles on which ORDINARY MEANING
government is founded. The fundamental conception in CHAVEZ VS JBC 696 S 496
other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other  In the creation of JBC, what should “congress”
laws must conform and in accordance with which all mean?
private rights must be determined and all public
In the interpretation of the constitutional provisions,
authority administered.
the Court firmly relies on the basic postulate that the
Framers mean what they say. The language used in the
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law
Constitution must be taken to have been deliberately
or contract violates any norm of the constitution that
chosen for a definite purpose. Every word employed in
law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative
the Constitution must be interpreted to exude its
or by the executive branch or entered into by private
deliberate intent which must be maintained inviolate
persons for private purposes is null and void and
against disobedience and defiance. What the
without any force and effect. Thus, since the
Constitution clearly says, according to its text, compels
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 1 of 30
acceptance and bars modification even by the branch II. JUDICIAL ELABORATION ON THE
tasked to interpret it. CONSTITUTION
In checkered contrast, there is essentially no interaction JUDICIAL REVIEW

between the two Houses in their participation in the
JBC. No mechanism is required between the Senate and Atty Montejo: While the separation of powers are put
the House of Representatives in the screening and into our system to ensure that there is no over
nomination of judicial officers. Rather, in the creation of concentration of power in one branch, the principle
the JBC, the Framers arrived at a unique system by admits of the so called INTERDEPENDENCE, that for a
adding to the four (4) regular members, three (3) more harmonious exercise of government or state
representatives from the major branches of power, all the branches of government must work
government - the Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman INTERDEPENDENT with each other. Although the other
(representing the Judicial Department), the Secretary of rule there is the concept of check and balance also
Justice (representing the Executive Department), and a prevents them from getting into the bounds or the
representative of the Congress (representing the boundaries of such power and because the power to
Legislative Department). The total is seven (7), not interpret the Constitution and the law, with respect to
eight. In so providing, the Framers simply gave questions of exercise of power, as we have mentioned
recognition to the Legislature, not because it was in the last night, the Constitution being a limitation, rather
interest of a certain constituency, but in reverence to it than a grant, the JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, especially the
as a major branch of government. SC, is duty-bound, it’s not considered a prerogative but
a duty to ensure that the constitutional limitations of
DESIGNEED TO MEET FUTURE EVENTS AND power, the prohibitions of such exercised are not
CONTINGENCIES violated or are maintained and the court will have to
TANADA VS ANGARA May 2, 1997. Constitutions are exercise judicial review.
designed to meet not only the vagaries of
contemporary events. They should be interpreted to 2 CONSIDERATIONS:
cover even future and unknown circumstances. It is to
the credit of its drafters that a Constitution can 1. SEPARATION OF POWERS
withstand the assaults of bigots and infidels but at the CSC VS RAMONEDA 696 S 155. We have always
same time bend with the refreshing winds of change maintained that it is only the Supreme Court that can
necessitated by unfolding events. As one eminent oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s
political law writer and respected jurist explains: administrative compliance with all laws, rules and
regulations. No other branch of government may
“The Constitution must be quintessential rather than intrude into this power, without running afoul of the
superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base and doctrine of separation of powers. However, as aptly
framework only of the edifice that is yet to rise. It is but pointed out by the OCA, Ramoneda-Pita was afforded
the core of the dream that must take shape, not in a the full protection of the law, that is, afforded due
twinkling by mandate of our delegates, but slowly ‘in process. She was able to file several affidavits and
the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts,’ where it will pleadings before the CSC with counsel. It may also be
in time develop its sinews and gradually gather its noted that the case had been elevated to the Court of
strength and finally achieve its substance. In fine, the Appeals and this Court, where the Resolution of the CSC
Constitution cannot, like the goddess Athena, rise full- was upheld in both instances.
grown from the brow of the Constitutional Convention,
nor can it conjure by mere fiat an instant Utopia. It GARCIA VS DRILON 699 S 352. Petitioner contends that
must grow with the society it seeks to re-structure and protection orders involve the exercise of judicial power
march apace with the progress of the race, drawing which, under the Constitution, is placed upon the
from the vicissitudes of history the dynamism and “Supreme Court and such other lower courts as may be
vitality that will keep it, far from becoming a petrified established by law” and, thus, protests the delegation
rule, a pulsing, living law attuned to the heartbeat of of power to barangay officials to issue protection
the nation.” orders.
The parties may be accompanied by a non-lawyer

advocate in any proceeding before the Punong chances of acquittal are nil. As already stated,
Barangay. assistance by barangay officials and other law
enforcement agencies is consistent with their duty to
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice enforce the law and to maintain peace and order.
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine HEIRS OF MALABANAN VS REPUBLIC 704 S 561.
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of Whether or not land of the public domain is alienable
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on and disposable primarily rests on the classification of
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the public lands made under the Constitution. Under the
Government.112 On the other hand, executive power "is 1935 Constitution, lands of the public domain were
generally defined as the power to enforce and classified into three, namely, agricultural, timber and
administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws mineral. Section 10, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution
into practical operation and enforcing their due classified lands of the public domain into seven,
observance."113 specifically, agricultural, industrial or commercial,
residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest, and
As clearly delimited by the aforequoted provision, the grazing land, with the reservation that the law might
BPO issued by the Punong Barangay or, in his provide other classifications. The 1987 Constitution
unavailability, by any available Barangay Kagawad, adopted the classification under the 1935 Constitution
merely orders the perpetrator to desist from (a) causing into agricultural, forest or timber, and mineral, but
physical harm to the woman or her child; and (2) added national parks. Agricultural lands may be further
threatening to cause the woman or her child physical classified by law according to the uses to which they
harm. Such function of the Punong Barangay is, thus, may be devoted. The identification of lands according to
purely executive in nature, in pursuance of his duty their legal classification is done exclusively by and
under the Local Government Code to “enforce all laws through a positive act of the Executive Department.
and ordinances,” and to “maintain public order in the
barangay.”114 Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall into two
categories, to wit: (a) patrimonial lands of the State, or
We have held that “(t)he mere fact that an officer is those classified as lands of private ownership under
required by law to inquire into the existence of certain Article 425 of the Civil Code, without limitation; and (b)
facts and to apply the law thereto in order to determine lands of the public domain, or the public lands as
what his official conduct shall be and the fact that these provided by the Constitution, but with the limitation
acts may affect private rights do not constitute an that the lands must only be agricultural. Consequently,
exercise of judicial powers.”115 lands classified as forest or timber, mineral, or national
parks are not susceptible of alienation or disposition
In the same manner as the public prosecutor ascertains unless they are reclassified as agricultural. A positive act
through a preliminary inquiry or proceeding “whether of the Government is necessary to enable such
there is reasonable ground to believe that an offense reclassification, and the exclusive prerogative to classify
has been committed and the accused is probably guilty public lands under existing laws is vested in the
thereof,” the Punong Barangay must determine Executive Department, not in the courts. If, however,
reasonable ground to believe that an imminent danger public land will be classified as neither agricultural,
of violence against the woman and her children exists forest or timber, mineral or national park, or when
or is about to recur that would necessitate the issuance public land is no longer intended for public service or
of a BPO. The preliminary investigation conducted by for the development of the national wealth, thereby
the prosecutor is, concededly, an executive, not a effectively removing the land from the ambit of public
judicial, function. The same holds true with the issuance dominion, a declaration of such conversion must be
of a BPO. made in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or
by a Presidential proclamation in cases where the
We need not even belabor the issue raised by petitioner President is duly authorized by law to that effect.
that since barangay officials and other law enforcement
agencies are required to extend assistance to victims of
violence and abuse, it would be very unlikely that they
would remain objective and impartial, and that the
2. PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
PEREZ VS PEOPLE 544 S 532. There is strong  the concept of RIPENESS - In relation to that,
presumption of constitutionality accorded to statutes. the concept of ripeness states that there is
already a violation or an impending violation
It is established doctrine that a statute should be that if the acts sought to be declared
construed whenever possible in harmony with, rather unconstitutional, is not prevented or is not
than in violation of, the Constitution. The presumption declared unconstitutional, will most likely be
is that the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible ripe for violation
and just law and one which operates no further than
may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of  it must be raised at the EARLIEST
the law. It is presumed that the legislature has acted OPPORTUNITY
within its constitutional powers. So, it is the generally
accepted rule that every statute, or regularly accepted 3. It must be raised by the proper party.
act, is, or will be, or should be, presumed to be valid Ordinarily, legal standing is given:
and constitutional. a. when the person can’t show that he will
personally suffer actual or threatened injury
He who attacks the constitutionality of a law has the because of the questioned act.
onus probandi to show why such law is repugnant to b. The injury is clearly traceable to the challenged
the Constitution. Failing to overcome its presumption of action
constitutionality, a claim that a law is cruel, unusual, or c. The injury is likely to be redressed by a
inhuman, like the stance of petitioner, must fail. favourable action
EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, CONDITIONS: Atty Montejo: Those are the 3 conditions or
requirements to grant the party, legal standing and this
1. There must be an appropriate case or is in the concept of a CITIZEN SUIT, an ordinary citizen
controversy. would bring a constitutional question before the court
Atty. Montejo: two things come to mind: What is an and these three must have to be satisfied.
appropriate petition? What kind of petition of cases can
This has been related to the discussion in your civil
you raise a constitutional question?
procedure, that, legal standing or locus standi, to be
given to a party petitioner is likened to a real party in
 DECLARATORY RELIEF - If it were to be an
interest in a civil action. In a civil action, real party in
ordinary petition, declaratory relief before a
interest, as defined in your Rules of Civil Procedure, is
claim if the violation has been had, provided it
allowed to file a case because there is a VIOLATION OF
is not the SC because the SC does not have
HIS PRIVATE RIGHT. In the context of JUDICIAL REVIEW,
jurisdiction over declaratory reliefs but other
a citizen is given LEGAL STANDING, as a REAL PARTY IN
courts have.
INTEREST because of a VIOLATION OF A PUBLIC RIGHT.
 PETITION FOR CERTIORARI under Rule 65 - it is a
Through the decisions of the SC, this has been expanded
question of jurisdiction.
to include among others:
 PETITION FOR PROHIBITION - to prohibit an act
1. TAXPAYERS SUIT – if the questioned act involves
to be done and the reason is that, the act to be
expenditure of public funds. If it has nothing to
done is unconstitutional.
do with public funds, the person filing the case
as a taxpayer will not be given the legal
 DEFENSE IN A CRIMINAL CASE - so if you are
standing.
charged in a criminal case and you allege that
that law is unconstitutional if applied to you, 2. VOTERS’ SUIT – if there is a violation of a right,
then that may be a proper venue for bringing a of suffrage, meaning to run for public office, or
constitutional question. to be allowed to vote, on a constitutional
question, a voter may be given legal standing
2. It must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

3. LEGISLATOR’S SUIT – if a law is passed or a law raised has become MOOT AND ACADEMIC. Can the
is implemented and executed by the executive court still resolve the constitutional question? YES. The
and it violates the prerogative of a member of SC may still opt to decide the constitutional question
Congress, a member of Congress has a direct because or under any of the following circumstances:
interest over the outcome of the constitutional
question raised. He is given legal standing in the 1. there is a grave violation of the constitution
concept of a legislators’ suit.
2. the exceptional character of the situation,
4. EXEMPTION OR DISCRETION OF THE SC – we where there is paramount public interest
have come to know the DOCTRINE OF involved, meaning the question is NOVEL
TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE – this requires
that: 3. the constitutional issue is raised and it requires
formulation of foregoing principles, to guide the
a. there is a public character of the fund or bench, the bar and the public
asset involved
4. the case is capable of repetition
b. there is a clear case of constitutional
disregard Actually, most of these refer to the SYMBOLIC OR
TEACHING FUNCTION.
c. there is lack of any other direct party with
legal standing 3 THEORIES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. NEGATIVE OR CHECKING FUNCTION
Atty. Montejo: This must be a QUESTION OF
DISCRETION. The usual question in the bar exams with When a petition is granted and a constitutional
respect to judicial review, they will give you a set of question is resolved and the SC would declare the act in
facts, and they will ask you to decide the petition. The question as UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then in effect, the
first thing to ask yourselves is this; Is there a prior ruling court has exercised its checking or negative function. In
of the SC on the given set of facts? If there is NONE, DO negates the validity of the act in question.
NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION, DISMISS THE PETITION and YOU DISMISS 2. POSITIVE OR LEGITIMATING FUNCTION
THE PETITION BECAUSE OF LACK OF ONE OR ALL OF THE
In positive or legitimating function, the constitutional
ELEMENTS because again, you are just being asked of
question is resolved, and the court will declare that the
your knowledge of what judicial review is. Of course, if
law or act in question that the law or act in question is
there is a prior ruling of the SC, you must answer the
NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We remember the phrase
question based on that prior ruling.
NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the double negative to
4. It must be the very lis mota of the case. emphasize the presumption of CONSTITUTIONALITY.
The court, in the exercise of LEGITIMATING OR POSITIVE
It simply means that the SC cannot dispose of the case FUNCTION will never declare a law to be constitutional.
without resolving the constitutional question. Stated With or without the declaration, the law is presumed to
differently, the constitutional question must have to be be CONSTITUTIONAL. So that if the court will eventually
resolved because the court cannot go any way but to rule on the constitutional question and it will state that
meet the question head on. If one or some of the it is not violative of the constitution, it will resolve it in
elements or lacking and the constitutional question can the manner that it is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
be avoided, meaning it is not the very lis mota of the
3. SYMBOLIC OR TEACHING FUNCTION
case. But if the constitutional question cannot be
avoided, then the court must have to rule on the
When the question need no longer be resolved because
constitutional question.
the question has become moot or academic. A
SUPERVENING FACT HAS TRANSPIRED which no longer
Now, the other matter with respect to those conditions
require a decision on the case.
would be the concept of MOOTNESS when by reason of
a SUPERVENING EVENT, the petition or the question

ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH VS BANGKO SENTRAL 688 S

530. In the 1993 case of Joya v. Presidential Commission In the instant case, there is no allegation of misuse of
on Good Government,25Ïit was held that no question public funds in the implementation of CB Circular No.
involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or 905. Neither were borrowers who were actually
governmental act may be heard and decided by the affected by the suspension of the Usury Law joined in
court unless there is compliance with the legal this petition. Absent any showing of transcendental
requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: (a) that the importance, the petition must fail.
question must be raised by the proper party; (b) that
there must be an actual case or controversy; (c) that the
question must be raised at the earliest possible FUNA VS AGRA 691 S 196. In Funa v. Ermita, the Court
opportunity; and (d) that the decision on the recognized the locus standi of the petitioner as a
constitutional or legal question must be necessary to taxpayer, a concerned citizen and a lawyer because the
the determination of the case itself. issue raised therein involved a subject of transcendental
importance whose resolution was necessary to
In Prof. David v. Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo,26Ï‚rÎ½l1 the promulgate rules to guide the Bench, Bar, and the
Court summarized the requirements before taxpayers, public in similar cases.
voters, concerned citizens, and legislators can be
accorded a standing to sue, viz: But, it is next posed, did not the intervening
appointment of and assumption by Cadiz as the Solicitor
(1)the cases involve constitutional issues; General during the pendency of this suit render this suit
(2)for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal and the issue tendered herein moot and academic?
disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure
is unconstitutional; A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present
(3)for voters, there must be a showing of obvious a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening
interest in the validity of the election law in question; events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no
practical use or value. Although the controversy could
(4)for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that
have ceased due to the intervening appointment of and
the issues raised are of transcendental importance
assumption by Cadiz as the Solicitor General during the
which must be settled early; and
pendency of this suit, and such cessation of the
(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the
controversy seemingly rendered moot and academic
official action complained of infringes upon their
the resolution of the issue of the constitutionality of the
prerogatives as legislators.
concurrent holding of the two positions by Agra, the
Court should still go forward and resolve the issue and
While the Court may have shown in recent decisions a not abstain from exercising its power of judicial review
certain toughening in its attitude concerning the because this case comes under several of the well-
question of legal standing, it has nonetheless always recognized exceptions established in jurisprudence.
made an exception where the transcendental Verily, the Court did not desist from resolving an issue
importance of the issues has been established, that a supervening event meanwhile rendered moot
notwithstanding the petitioners' failure to show a direct and academic if any of the following recognized
injury.27Ï‚rÎ½l1 In CREBA v. ERC,28Ï‚rÎ½l1 the Court set out exceptions obtained, namely: (1) there was a grave
the following instructive guides as determinants on violation of the Constitution; (2) the case involved a
whether a matter is of transcendental importance, situation of exceptional character and was of
namely: (1) the character of the funds or other assets paramount public interest; (3) the constitutional issue
involved in the case; (2) the presence of a clear case of raised required the formulation of controlling principles
disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; and (4) the
the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the case was capable of repetition, yet evading review.
government; and (3) the lack of any other party with a
more direct and specific interest in the questions being It is the same here. The constitutionality of the
raised. Further, the Court stated in Anak Mindanao concurrent holding by Agra of the two positions in the
Party-List Group v. The Executive Secretary29Ï‚rÎ½l1 that Cabinet, albeit in acting capacities, was an issue that
the rule on standing will not be waived where these comes under all the recognized exceptions. The issue
determinants are not established.c
involves a probable violation of the Constitution, and provisions allowing for their utilization – such as the
relates to a situation of exceptional character and of 2013 GAA for the PDAF, PD 910 for the Malampaya
paramount public interest by reason of its Funds and PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, for the
transcendental importance to the people. The Presidential Social Fund – are currently existing and
resolution of the issue will also be of the greatest value operational; hence, there exists an immediate or
to the Bench and the Bar in view of the broad powers threatened injury to petitioners as a result of the
wielded through said positions. The situation further unconstitutional use of these public funds.
calls for the review because the situation is capable of
repetition, yet evading review. In other words, many As for the PDAF, the Court must dispel the notion that
important and practical benefits are still to be gained the issues related thereto had been rendered moot and
were the Court to proceed to the ultimate resolution of academic by the reforms undertaken by respondents. A
the constitutional issue posed. case becomes moot when there is no more actual
controversy between the parties or no useful purpose
BELGICA VS OCHOA 710 S 1. By constitutional fiat, can be served in passing upon the merits. Differing from
judicial power operates only when there is an actual this description, the Court observes that respondents‘
case or controversy. This is embodied in Section 1, proposed line-item budgeting scheme would not
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which pertinently terminate the controversy nor diminish the useful
states that "judicial power includes the duty of the purpose for its resolution since said reform is geared
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving towards the 2014 budget, and not the 2013 PDAF
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable x x Article which, being a distinct subject matter, remains
x." Jurisprudence provides that an actual case or legally effective and existing. Neither will the
controversy is one which "involves a conflict of legal President‘s declaration that he had already "abolished
rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible the PDAF" render the issues on PDAF moot precisely
of judicial resolution as distinguished from a because the Executive branch of government has no
hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. In other constitutional authority to nullify or annul its legal
words, "there must be a contrariety of legal rights that existence. By constitutional design, the annulment or
can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing nullification of a law may be done either by Congress,
law and jurisprudence." Related to the requirement of through the passage of a repealing law, or by the Court,
an actual case or controversy is the requirement of through a declaration of unconstitutionality.
"ripeness," meaning that the questions raised for
constitutional scrutiny are already ripe for adjudication. MANILA MEMORIAL VS DSWD 711 S 302. When the
"A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being constitutionality of a law is put in issue, judicial review
challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the may be availed of only if the following requisites
individual challenging it. It is a prerequisite that concur: “(1) the existence of an actual and appropriate
something had then been accomplished or performed case; (2) the existence of personal and substantial
by either branch before a court may come into the interest on the part of the party raising the [question of
picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of constitutionality]; (3) recourse to judicial review is made
an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the [question of
the challenged action." "Withal, courts will decline to constitutionality] is the lis mota of the case.”32
pass upon constitutional issues through advisory
opinions, bereft as they are of authority to resolve In this case, petitioners are challenging the
hypothetical or moot questions." constitutionality of the tax deduction scheme provided
in RA 9257 and the implementing rules and regulations
Based on these principles, the Court finds that there issued by the DSWD and the DOF. Respondents,
exists an actual and justiciable controversy in these however, oppose the Petition on the ground that there
cases. is no actual case or controversy. We do not agree with
respondents.
The requirement of contrariety of legal rights is clearly
satisfied by the antagonistic positions of the parties on An actual case or controversy exists when there is “a
the constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System." Also, conflict of legal rights” or “an assertion of opposite legal
the questions in these consolidated cases are ripe for claims susceptible of judicial resolution.”33 The Petition
adjudication since the challenged funds and the must therefore show that “the governmental act being
challenged has a direct adverse effect on the individual Paragraph 2(a) of Section 5, Article VIII of the
challenging it.”34 In this case, the tax deduction scheme Constitution, expressly establishes the appellate
challenged by petitioners has a direct adverse effect on jurisdiction of this Court, and impliedly recognizes the
them. Thus, it cannot be denied that there exists an original jurisdiction of lower courts over cases involving
actual case or controversy. the constitutionality or validity of an ordinance:
FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Section 5. The Supreme Court

CENTRAL BANK VS BSP 446 S 229. It bears stressing that shall have the following powers:
the exemption from the SSL is a “privilege” fully within
the legislative prerogative to give or deny. However, its xxxx
subsequent grant to the rank-and-file of the seven
other GFIs and continued denial to the BSP rank-and-file (2) Review, revise, reverse,
employees breached the latter’s right to equal modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari,
protection. In other words, while the granting of a as the law or the Rules of Court may
privilege per se is a matter of policy exclusively within provide, final judgments and orders of
the domain and prerogative of Congress, the validity or lower courts in:
legality of the exercise of this prerogative is subject to
judicial review. So when the distinction made is (a) All cases in which the
superficial, and not based on substantial distinctions constitutionality or validity of any
that make real differences between those included and treaty, international or executive
excluded, it becomes a matter of arbitrariness that this agreement, law, presidential decree,
Court has the duty and the power to correct. proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
ALL COURTS CAN EXERCISE JUDICIAL REVIEW (Emphases ours.)
ONGSUCO VS MALONES 604 S 499. The rule on

the exhaustion of administrative remedies is intended In J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
to preclude a court from arrogating unto itself the Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, and Commissioner
authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over of Internal Revenue v. Santos, the Court has affirmed
which is initially lodged with an administrative body of the jurisdiction of the RTC to resolve questions of
special competence. Thus, a case where the issue constitutionality and validity of laws (deemed to include
raised is a purely legal question, well within the local ordinances) in the first instance, without deciding
competence; and the jurisdiction of the court and not questions which pertain to legislative policy.
the administrative agency, would clearly constitute an
exception. Resolving questions of law, which involve the EFFECTS OF DECLARATION OF
interpretation and application of laws, constitutes UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
essentially an exercise of judicial power that is
exclusively allocated to the Supreme Court and such GR: The decision now on appeal reflects the orthodox
lower courts the Legislature may establish. view that an unconstitutional act, for that matter an
executive order or a municipal ordinance likewise
In this case, the parties are not disputing any suffering from that infirmity, cannot be the source of
factual matter on which they still need to present any legal rights or duties. Nor can it justify any official
evidence. The sole issue petitioners raised before the act taken under it. Its repugnancy to the fundamental
RTC in Civil Case No. 25843 was whether Municipal law once judicially declared results in its being to all
Ordinance No. 98-01 was valid and enforceable despite intents and purposes a mere scrap of paper. As the new
the absence, prior to its enactment, of a public hearing Civil Code puts it: "When the courts declare a law to be
held in accordance with Article 276 of the Implementing inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be
Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code. void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or
This is undoubtedly a pure question of law, within the executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only
competence and jurisdiction of the RTC to resolve. when they are not contrary to the laws of the
Constitution.
FLORES VS DRILON 223 S 568. The constitutionality of their positions, was to inform the latter of the
Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227, 1 otherwise known as the nullification of their termination orders and to return to
"Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992," work and resume their functions. After all, many of
under which respondent Mayor Richard J. Gordon of them were supposed to be waiting for instructions from
Olongapo City was appointed Chairman and Chief the DOT because in their termination orders it promised
Executive Officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan to directly contact them by telephone, telegram or
Authority (SBMA), is challenged XXX As incumbent written notice as soon as funds for their separation
elective official, respondent Gordon is ineligible for would be available.
appointment to the position of Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive of SBMA; hence, his appointment XPN: OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE
thereto pursuant to a legislative act that contravenes
the Constitution cannot be sustained. He however Atty. Montejo: So it was the old case of SERRANO DE
remains Mayor of Olongapo City, and his acts as SBMA AGBAYANI vs. PNB on the moratorium law. The SC
official are not necessarily null and void; he may be applied what we know then, what is being repeated
considered a de facto officer, "one whose acts, though today as the OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE that for the
not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of period of the time that the law has been effect up to
policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the time that the law was declared unconstitutional,
the interest of the public and third persons, where the one cannot close his eyes to that time like it never
duties of the office were exercised . . . . under color of a happened, like that law never existed because in fact,
known election or appointment, void because the that law existed, acts and omissions were made or were
officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of not made pursuant to that law. So whatever was done
power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason or omitted to be done pursuant to that law for that
of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such period of efficacy of that law shall be operative.
ineligibility, want of power or defect being unknown to
the public . . . . [or] under color of an election, or One must remember that the OPERATIVE FACT
appointment, by or pursuant to a public DOCTRINE is a question or a matter of discretion. It is a
unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be RULE OF EQUITY AND NOT A RULE OF LAW. If there is a
such declaration of unconstitutionality, one cannot assume
that the SC can apply the operative fact doctrine in each
ALDOVINO VS ALUNAN 230 S 825. An unconstitutional and every case but only as a matter of EQUITY. The SC
act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no may only apply it based on their discretion.
duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is,
in legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not been Again, the question is asked on operative fact, whether
passed. It is therefore stricken from the statute books you give effect to those acts done or omitted to be
and considered never to have existed at all. Not only done based on a law which was subsequently declared
the parties but all persons are bound by the declaration unconstitutional, DO NOT APPLY THE OPERATIVE FACT
of unconstitutionality which means that no one may DOCTRINE UNLESS THERE IS A COURT RULING BY THE
thereafter invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to SUPREME COURT ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A
apply it in subsequent cases. It is, in other words, a total RULE BUT AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION.
nullity. 16 Plainly, it was as if petitioners and
intervenors were never served their termination orders Atty. Montejo: HACIENDA LUISITA VS PARC 660 S 525.
and, consequently, were never separated from the This has been a long running problem in hacienda luisita
service, The fact that they were not able to assume and the question there is whether or not the operative
office and exercise their duties is attributable to the fact doctrine applies. That case involves the Stock
continuing refusal of public respondents to take them in Distribution Option, SDO which SC declares
unless they first obtained court orders, perhaps, for unconstitutional because the Agrarian Reform Law,
government budgetary and accounting purposes. Under based on R.A. 6657, mandates that these beneficiaries
the circumstances, the more prudent thing that public must be given lands, the SDO is not allowed by the law
respondents could have done upon receipt of the because these are shares of stock in a corporation with
decision in Mandani, if they were earnest in making a land and these are not land. But in a span of 14 years,
amends and restoring petitioners and intervenors to some were already given shares so the question is,

should those already given out be returned? SC applied Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine
the operative fact doctrine, yung nabigyan na, wala na Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a
pero yung hindi pa nabigyan cannot be given anymore. distinguished member of this Court, says:
Now, in the DAP case of hacienda luisita, one of the The first part of the authority represents the
arguements raised was that, the operative fact doctrine traditional concept of judicial power, involving
SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED because that involves an the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred
executive order, not a statute enacted by congress. SC as law. The second part of the authority
said no, it applies to law, executive orders as well represents a broadening of judicial power to
because that was the ruling in SERRANO VS DE enable the courts of justice to review what was
AGBAYANI, they always go back to that old case. before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion
of the political departments of the government.
Atty Montejo: CIR vs SAN ROQUE, this was a claim for
tax refund, tax credit. And the subject of the erroneous As worded, the new provision vests in the
reliance of San Roque here was a BIR ruling declared judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court,
invalid because it was inconsistent with the law and the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the
prior issuances of the BIR were based on that so a decisions of the executive and the legislature
question was asked whether the OPERATIVE FACT and to declare their acts invalid for lack or
DOCTRINE may be applied and the SC said, NO IT excess of jurisdiction because tainted with
CANNOT BE APPLIED. It can be applied only when there grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course,
is a declaration of unconstitutionality of a LAW OR AN is the meaning of "grave abuse of discretion,"
EXECUTIVE ORDER. Not a BIR ruling. A BIR ruling is not a which is a very elastic phrase that can expand or
law. That is not part of the legal system. It is not a ruling contract according to the disposition of the
of an appealed case of the DOJ. It’s not an adversarial judiciary.
thing, it does not apply to anybody like a law or statute,
it only applies to that entity. It does not involve a LAW
VELARDE VS SJS 428 S 283.
OR AN EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 Issue on Judicial Controversy and

POLITICAL QUESTION VS JUSTICIABLE Transcendental Importance cannot be
QUESTION answered.
OPOSA VS FACTORAN 224 S 792. It must, nonetheless, The basic question posed in the SJS Petition --
be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no WHETHER ENDORSEMENTS OF CANDIDACIES BY
longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of RELIGIOUS LEADERS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL --
judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects undoubtedly deserves serious consideration. As stated
executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or earlier, the Court deems this constitutional issue to be
review. The second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of paramount interest to the Filipino citizenry, for it
of the Constitution states that: concerns the governance of our country and its people.
Thus, despite the obvious procedural transgressions by
both SJS and the trial court, this Court still called for
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
Oral Argument, so as not to leave any doubt that there
justice to settle actual controversies involving
might be room to entertain and dispose of the SJS
rights which are legally demandable and
Petition on the merits.
enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion
Counsel for SJS has utterly failed, however, to convince
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the Court that there are enough factual and legal bases
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
to resolve the paramount issue. On the other hand, the
Government.
Office of the Solicitor General has sided with petitioner
insofar as there are no facts supporting the SJS Petition
and the assailed Decision.

We reiterate that the said Petition failed to state agreements. However, the question whether the Philippine
directly the ultimate facts that it relied upon for its government should espouse claims of its nationals against a
claim. During the Oral Argument, counsel for SJS foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the
candidly admitted that there were no factual allegations authority for which is demonstrably committed by our
in its Petition for Declaratory Relief. Neither were there Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches. In
factual findings in the assailed Decision. At best, SJS this case, the Executive Department has already decided that
merely asked the trial court to answer a hypothetical it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its
question. In effect, it merely sought an advisory nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace
opinion, the rendition of which was beyond the court’s of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to
constitutional mandate and jurisdiction. question. Neither could petitioners herein assail the said
determination by the Executive Department via the instant
Regrettably, it is not legally possible for the Court to petition for certiorari.
take up, on the merits, the paramount question
involving a constitutional principle. It is a time-honored III. THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE
rule that “the constitutionality of a statute [or act] will
be passed upon only if, and to the extent that, it is TERRITORIAL WATERS
directly and necessarily involved in a justiciable
controversy and is essential to the protection of the Baseline (sea) - Normally, the baseline from which the
rights of the parties concerned.” territorial sea is measured is the low-water line along
the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially
VINUYA VS ROMULO 619 S 533. In Tañada v. recognized by the coastal state. This is either the low-
Cuenco, we held that political questions refer "to those water mark closest to the shore, or alternatively it may
questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by be an unlimited distance from permanently exposed
the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which land, provided that some portion of elevations exposed
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the at low tide but covered at high tide (like mud flats) is
legislative or executive branch of the government. It is within 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) of permanently
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not exposed land.
legality of a particular measure."
Internal waters - Waters landward of the baseline are
Certain types of cases often have been found to defined as internal waters, over which the state has
present political questions. One such category involves complete sovereignty: not even innocent passage is
questions of foreign relations. It is well-established that allowed. Lakes and rivers are considered internal
"[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our government is waters.
committed by the Constitution to the executive and
legislative--'the political'--departments of the government, Territorial sea- A state's territorial sea extends up to 12
and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from its baseline.
political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."
The US Supreme Court has further cautioned that decisions Contiguous zone - The contiguous zone is a band of
relating to foreign policy water extending from the outer edge of the territorial
sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44.4 km; 27.6 mi) from
are delicate, complex, and involve large the baseline, within which a state can exert limited
elements of prophecy. They are and should control for the purpose of preventing or punishing
be undertaken only by those directly "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or
responsible to the people whose welfare sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or
they advance or imperil. They are decisions territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nautical miles
of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither (22 km; 14 mi) wide, but could be more (if a state has
aptitude, facilities nor responsibility. chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical
miles), or less, if it would otherwise overlap another
state's contiguous zone.
To be sure, not all cases implicating foreign relations
present political questions, and courts certainly possess the
authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive
Exclusive Economic Zone - An exclusive economic zone Was there any time in the past where foreigners were
extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a considered as Filipino citizens without going through
maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km; 230.2 mi) naturalization proceedings? YES
from the territorial sea baseline, thus it includes the
contiguous zone. 1. Before then, there were no Filipino citizens. And
because of the sale of the Philippines to the US
CITIZENSHIP which included all the living creatures living
therein including indios, the Americans decided
2 KINDS OF CITIZENSHIP who its natural-born citizens are. And for that
short period of time, they followed the rule of
1. NATURAL BORN - The phrase from birth refers jus soli ALSO, not only, but also jus sanguinis.
to citizenship and not to the fact of performing Those who were born here even of foreign
an act to perfect or acquire citizenship because parents but after the sale or on 1899, because
under our laws on reacquisition even if a person the Treaty of Paris was in 1898, so those who
has performed an act to reacquire citizenship, were born here even if they were not native
his citizenship would still be reacquire to its inhabitants of the territory but who remained
former status. So if he was a former natural here after the Treaty of Paris were all deemed
born, lost his citizenship, by law he is allowed to to be Filipino citizens.
reacquire it in its former status which is natural
born. 2. The second special classification you would find
2. NATURALIZED CITIZEN – in the 35 Constitution because if they were
1. CA 473 which is the Judicial Naturalization; already elected to public office, even if they
and were foreigners, the 35 Constitution considers
2. RA 9139 which is the Administrative them Filipino citizens, of course, not natural-
Naturalization. born.
WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES? [2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
ART IV SECTION 1 1987 CONSTITUTION
So if a Filipino mother is married to a foreigner father,
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: the child follows the citizenship, during his minority,
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time that of the father. Is he a Filipino citizenship at birth? If
of the adoption of this Constitution; he subsequently elects Philippine citizenship upon
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the reaching the age of majority, then he is deemed to have
Philippines; perfected his inchoate right to become a Filipino citizen.
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino By then, he is considered a Filipino citizen from birth.
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching But if the cohabitation is not one of legal marriage, the
the age of majority; and Court has interestingly applied civil law provision. Since
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. the child is illegitimate, the citizenship follows that of
the mother. Then, he does not need to elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority because
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
since birth, he is deemed to be a Filipino. The
time of the adoption of this Constitution;
illegitimate child is given a right from birth to be a
Filipino citizen immediately unlike that of a legitimate
Time of the adoption of this Constitution - February 2,
child of mixed parents.
1987
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
Atty Montejo: Citizenship in our country follows the jus mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
sanguinis or blood relations rule. We do not follow the reaching the age of majority;
jus soli rule unless you fall under the category under the
Philippine Bill of 1902.
The matter on the 73 definition is again the correct
interpretation of the phrase “from birth.” Does it refer
to the fact of being a citizen or to the fact that the imposed on anyone found guilty of fraud or falsehood in
person does not perform any act to perfect or acquire making the statement herein prescribed.
citizenship from birth? In the 1935 Constitution, you
may see that there is a special class of Filipino Section 5. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
individuals born of a Filipino mother and married to a
foreigner father. Children under the 35 constitution will Approved, June 7, 1941.
have to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority. If they have chosen under 35 Constitution, MA VS FERNANDEZ 625 S 566.
cut of date being January 17, 1973, question asked is, is
that child a natural born? In the 87 Constitution, one of
 Should children born under the 1935
the, if not the only provision which has retroactive
Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien
effect, it being applied prospectively, is that it clarified
father, who executed an affidavit of election of
that natural-born citizens also covers those who elected
Philippine citizenship and took their oath of
Philippine citizenship under the conditions set under
allegiance to the government upon reaching the
the 35 but has elected upon reaching the age of
age of majority, but who failed to immediately
majority. So the meaning of “from birth” should not
file the documents of election with the nearest
refer to “performance of any act” but should refer to
civil registry, be considered foreign nationals
“the fact of citizenship”.
subject to deportation as undocumented aliens
for failure to obtain alien certificates of
COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 625 registration? NO.
AN ACT PROVIDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE
OPTION TO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE In 1941, Commonwealth Act No. 625 was enacted. It
DECLARED BY A PERSON WHOSE MOTHER IS A laid down the manner of electing Philippine citizenship,
FILIPINO CITIZEN to wit:
Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in
Philippines: accordance with subsection (4), Section 1, Article IV, of
the Constitution shall be expressed in a statement to be
Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any
accordance with subsection (4), section 1, Article IV, of officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed
the Constitution shall be expressed in a statement to be with the nearest civil registry. The said party shall
signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of
officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of
with the nearest civil registry. The said party shall the Philippines.
accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of
allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of The statutory formalities of electing Philippine
the Philippines. citizenship are: (1) a statement of election under oath;
(2) an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and
Section 2. If the party concerned is absent from the Government of the Philippines; and (3) registration of
Philippines, he may make the statement herein the statement of election and of the oath with the
authorized before any officer of the Government of the nearest civil registry.
United States2 authorized to administer oaths, and he
shall forward such statement together with his oath of In Re:Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar,
allegiance, to the Civil Registry of Manila. Vicente D. Ching, we determined the meaning of the
period of election described by phrase "upon reaching
Section 3. The civil registrar shall collect as filing fees of the age of majority." Our references were the Civil Code
the statement, the amount of ten pesos. of the Philippines, the opinions of the Secretary of
Justice, and the case of Cueco v. Secretary of Justice.
Section 4. The penalty of prision correccional, or a fine We pronounced:
not exceeding ten thousand pesos, or both, shall be

x x x [T]he 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 did not years before their filing with the proper office was not
prescribe a time period within which the election of satisfactorily explained."
Philippine citizenship should be made. The 1935 Charter
only provides that the election should be made "upon In both cases, we ruled against the petitioners because
reaching the age of majority." The age of majority then they belatedly complied with all the requirements. The
commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21) years. In acts of election and their registration with the nearest
the opinions of the Secretary of Justice on cases civil registry were all done beyond the reasonable
involving the validity of election of Philippine period of three years upon reaching the age of majority.
citizenship, this dilemma was resolved by basing the The instant case presents a different factual setting.
time period on the decisions of this Court prior to the Petitioners complied with the first and second
effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In these decisions, requirements upon reaching the age of majority. It was
the proper period for electing Philippine citizenship only the registration of the documents of election with
was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the the civil registry that was belatedly done.
Department of State of the United States Government
to the effect that the election should be made within a We rule that under the facts peculiar to the petitioners,
reasonable time after attaining the age of majority. The the right to elect Philippine citizenship has not been lost
phrase "reasonable time" has been interpreted to mean and they should be allowed to complete the statutory
that the elections should be made within three (3) years requirements for such election.
from reaching the age of majority. However, we held in
Cue[n]co vs. Secretary of Justice, that the three (3) year VILANDO VS HRET 656 S 17. Respondent
period is not an inflexible rule. We said: Limkaichong falls under the category of those persons
It is true that this clause has been construed to mean a whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. (Section
reasonable time after reaching the age of majority, and 1(3), Article IV, 1935 Constitution) It matters not
that the Secretary of Justice has ruled that three (3) whether the father acquired citizenship by birth or by
years is the reasonable time to elect Philippine naturalization. Therefore, following the line of
citizenship under the constitutional provision adverted transmission through the father under the 1935
to above, which period may be extended under certain Constitution, the respondent has satisfactorily complied
circumstances, as when the person concerned has with the requirement for candidacy and for holding
always considered himself a Filipino. office, as she is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
However, we cautioned in Cue[n]co that the extension Likewise, the citizenship of respondent Limkaichong
of the option to elect Philippine citizenship is not finds support in paragraph 4, Section 1, Article IV of the
indefinite. 1935 Constitution.
Regardless of the foregoing, petitioner was born on Having failed to prove that Anesia Sy lost her Philippine
February 16, 1923. He became of age on February 16, citizenship, respondent can be considered a natural born
1944. His election of citizenship was made on May 15, citizen of the Philippines, having been born to a mother
1951, when he was over twenty-eight (28) years of age, who was a natural-born Filipina at the time of marriage,
or over seven (7) years after he had reached the age of and because respondent was able to elect citizenship
majority. It is clear that said election has not been made informally when she reached majority age. Respondent
"upon reaching the age of majority. participated in the barangay elections as a young voter in
1976, accomplished voter’s affidavit as of 1984, and ran
We reiterated the above ruling in Go, Sr. v. Ramos, a as a candidate and was elected as Mayor of La Libertad,
case in which we adopted the findings of the appellate Negros Oriental in 2004. These are positive acts of
court that the father of the petitioner, whose election of Philippine citizenship. The case of In re:
citizenship was in question, failed to elect Philippine Florencio Mallare, elucidates how election of citizenship
citizenship within the reasonable period of three (3) is manifested in actions indubitably showing a definite
years upon reaching the age of majority; and that "the choice. We note that respondent had informally elected
belated submission to the local civil registry of the citizenship after January 17, 1973 during which time the
affidavit of election and oath of allegiance x x x was 1973 Constitution considered as citizens of the
defective because the affidavit of election was executed Philippines all those who elect citizenship in accordance
after the oath of allegiance, and the delay of several with the 1935 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution
provisions, i.e., Section 1(3), Article [IV] and Section 2, Section 6. Persons exempt from requirement to make a
Article [IV] were enacted to correct the anomalous declaration of intention. – Persons born in the
situation where one born of a Filipino father and an alien Philippines and have received their primary and
mother was automatically accorded the status of a secondary education in public schools or those
natural-born citizen, while one born of a Filipino mother recognized by the Government and not limited to any
and an alien father would still have to elect Philippine race or nationality, and those who have resided
citizenship yet if so elected, was not conferred natural- continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty
born status. It was the intention of the framers of the years or more before filing their application, may be
1987 Constitution to treat equally those born before the naturalized without having to make a declaration of
1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship intention upon complying with the other requirements
upon reaching the age of majority either before or after of this Act. To such requirements shall be added that
the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. Thus, those who which establishes that the applicant has given primary
would elect Philippine citizenship under par. 3, Section 1, and secondary education to all his children in the public
Article [IV] of the 1987 Constitution are now, under schools or in private schools recognized by the
Section 2, Article [IV] thereof also natural-born Filipinos. Government and not limited to any race or nationality.
The same shall be understood applicable with respect
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. to the widow and minor children of an alien who has
declared his intention to become a citizen of the
2 laws on naturalization: Philippines, and dies before he is actually naturalized.
(Emphases supplied)
1. CA 473 which is the Judicial Naturalization; and Unquestionably, respondent does not fall into the
category of such exempt individuals that would excuse
2. RA 9139 which is the Administrative Naturalization. him from filing a declaration of intention one year prior
to the filing of a petition for naturalization.
REPUBLIC VS LI CHING CHUNG 694 S 249. As held in Tan
v. Republic, "the period of one year required therein is The substantive requirements are also the same for
the time fixed for the State to make inquiries as to the administrative and judicial; the only difference is the
qualifications of the applicant. If this period of time is residency. Do you know the pneumonic there? ARCPEN
not given to it, the State will have no sufficient (Age, Residency, character, property, education, not
opportunity to investigate the qualifications of the otherwise disqualified by law) applied to both
applicants and gather evidence thereon. An applicant proceedings. The only difference is:
may then impose upon the courts, as the State would
1. In administrative naturalization, the residency
have no opportunity to gather evidence that it may
requirement is changed to “from birth” because this is
present to contradict whatever evidence that the
especially applicable to those who were born here but
applicant may adduce on behalf of his petition." The
have remained to be foreigners and has not become
period is designed to give the government ample time
Filipinos. So to make it easier for them, they are allowed
to screen and examine the qualifications of an applicant
to file for a decree of naturalization administratively. In
and to measure the latter’s good intention and sincerity
judicial its 10 years lowered to 5 years under special
of purpose. Stated otherwise, the waiting period will
circumstances.
unmask the true intentions of those who seek
Philippine citizenship for selfish reasons alone, such as, 2. The other difference is on education, property
but not limited to, those who are merely interested in requirement is also the same. The money value there is
protecting their wealth, as distinguished from those P5,000 but with respect to livelihood, it’s the same. But
who have truly come to love the Philippines and its for education, unlike in judicial naturalization wherein
culture and who wish to become genuine partners in education is only required for children, in administrative
nation building. naturalization it is required for the applicant to be xxx
meaning he has to be schooled here because he has
The only exception to the mandatory filing of a been a residence since birth. Philippine schools must
declaration of intention is specifically stated in Section 6 not be exclusive to foreigners, among the subjects
of CA No. 473, to wit: taught would be Philippine constitution, government

and in addition that just like judicial proceedings must circumstance, SC granted the petition rather than
require minor children. dismiss it and saying the law is quite clear that she is
already considered a Filipino citizen, without having to
3. Procedurally, judicial naturalization requires prove anything except that she must have to prove that
declaration of intention, in administrative there’s none. she is not disqualified by law. In administrative
proceedings, it is allowable that a woman would file
4. In judicial, there is a 2 year waiting period. In
citizenship or naturalization under RA 9139 because she
administrative, there is no waiting period simply
is born in the Philippines of foreigner parents and has
because you were born here in the country. So if you
since birth resided here. So in judicial proceedings the
were able to prove substantive requirements before the
default is that it is the husband or father who will file
Special Committee on Naturalization, then you would
for the rights of the wife or the children. In the case of
be given a decree of naturalization administratively.
administrative naturalization the woman is the
5. In effect, in the Philippines we always follow the rule applicant, the grant to the woman will redound to her
that in naturalization proceedings that it is the husband- children but will not benefit the husband if he is a
father who would apply for naturalization. So in judicial foreigner.
proceedings, it is supposed to be the husband who
LOSS AND ACQUISITION
should file and the grant will redound to the benefit of
the wife assuming she is a foreigner, and of the
children. The reason for that is the wife must not be Republic Act No. 9225 August 29, 2003
disqualified. In our naturalization proceedings, if a
Filipino-man marries a foreigner-woman, the foreigner- AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE
woman will automatically become a Filipino citizen. If it CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP
is the other way around, if the man is foreigner and the PERMANENT.
woman is a Filipina, the residency requirement for the AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH
foreigner husband will be no longer from 10 years to 5 ACT. NO. 63, AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
years. There is no automatic grant to citizenship status
to the foreigner husband. That is the ruling in the case Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
of Republic vs Batuigas. This referred to a foreigner Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
woman married a Filipino male. In all cases of assembled:
citizenship where the declaration of citizenship has
been sought, the SC has maintained the view that there Section 1. Short Title – this act shall be known as the
is no proceeding in our system where a person files a "Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003."
case/petition to declare him a Filipino citizen. Cases
where Filipino citizenship issue is resolved is almost or Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared
always a product of an issue of his citizenship not that the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of
of voluntary petition for a declaration of citizenship is another country shall be deemed not to have lost their
filed because the SC said there is no proceeding in our Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
rules or in our jurisdiction. This case of Batuigas is an
exception because the wife here should have benefited Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any
from that Sec 15 of CA 473. That when a foreigner provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
woman marries a Filipino male, the woman natural-born citizenship by reason of their
automatically becomes a Filipino citizen. All that the naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby
woman will have to show by administrative proceedings deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon
only, is that she is not disqualified by law. She need not taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
prove that she is qualified but that she is not
disqualified. So Batuigas filed a petition in court wanting "I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim)
to claim the benefit under Sec 15 of CA 473. SC that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
reiterated the rule that there is no such proceeding, but Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal
because of the special circumstances this woman had to orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities
undergo that there is no proceeding. Reason being of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize
before she was declared Filipino citizen, her husband and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and
died. So now she has no any citizenship. The special will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that
I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily (a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion." in the country of which they are naturalized citizens;
and/or
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign (b) are in active service as commissioned or non-
country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon commissioned officers in the armed forces of the
taking the aforesaid oath. country which they are naturalized citizens.
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, Section 6. Separability Clause - If any section or
whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid,
eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire any other section or provision not affected thereby shall
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be remain valid and effective.
deemed citizenship of the Philippines.
Section 7. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders,
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - rules and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights
and be subject to all attendant liabilities and Section 8. Effectivity Clause – This Act shall take effect
responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the
and the following conditions: Official Gazette or two (2) newspaper of general
circulation.
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of surffrage
must Meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V SOBEJANA-CONDON VS COMELEC 678 S 267. R.A. No.
of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise 9225 categorically demands natural-born Filipinos who
known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" re-acquire their citizenship and seek elective office, to
and other existing laws; execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and
all foreign citizenships before an authorized public
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall officer prior to or simultaneous to the filing of their
meet the qualification for holding such public office as certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in
required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at Philippine elections. The rule applies to all those who
the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, have re-acquired their Filipino citizenship, like
make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all petitioner, without regard as to whether they are still
foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized dual citizens or not. It is a pre-requisite imposed for the
to administer an oath; exercise of the right to run for public office.
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe Stated differently, it is an additional qualification for
and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of elective office specific only to Filipino citizens who re-
the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior acquire their citizenship under Section 3 of R.A. No.
to their assumption of office: Provided, That they 9225. It is the operative act that restores their right to
renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where run for public office. The petitioner's failure to comply
they took that oath; therewith in accordance with the exact tenor of the law,
rendered ineffectual the Declaration of Renunciation of
(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Australian Citizenship she executed on September 18,
Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a 2006. As such, she is yet to regain her political right to
license or permit to engage in such practice; and seek elective office. Unless she executes a sworn
renunciation of her Australian citizenship, she is
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any ineligible to run for and hold any elective office in the
public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, Philippines.
or extended to, those who:
Atty. Montejo: Question, is a person with dual
citizenship under the Phil be allowed to hold public

office? Answer is, if it were elective no, but if it were So if you have reacquired your citizenship under RA
appointed, yes. 9225 and you failed to execute those sworn statements
either with respect to citizenships or with respect to
There are 2 specific provisions for subsections there: allegiances, or if you did but you made public
representations that you are such a foreign citizen or
1. Elected public official that you have other foreign allegiances, it does not
mean that you have lost your reacquired citizenship.
2. Appointed public official.
What you have lost or the effect of those acts would be
that there is an express renunciation of your sworn
You will notice that in elected position, the sworn
renunciation required to be qualified for an elective or
renunciation is on citizenship but if it were appointed
appointive office. So that is the decision of the court in
office, the sworn renunciation is on allegiance. So you
the case of Maquiling vs Comelec.
may have more than 1 citizenship but only 1 allegiance
if you were to be appointed in an office. But if it were
It is unquestioned that Arnado is a natural born Filipino
an elective office, only 1 citizenship.
citizen, or that he acquired American citizenship by
naturalization. There is no doubt that he reacquired his
Atty Montejo: Maquiling vs Comelec.The person
Filipino citizenship by taking his Oath of Allegiance to
involved is a Mayor in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. The
the Philippines and that he renounced his American
issue here was w/r the mayor was disqualified under
citizenship. It is also indubitable that after renouncing
Sec 40(d) Those with dual citizenship; of the Local
his American citizenship, Arnado used his U.S. passport
Government Code. If you have read the case the dissent
at least six times.
proceeded that it would lead him w/o any citizenship
because apparently the Mayor took advantage of RA
If there is any remaining doubt, it is regarding the
9225 and then executed a sworn renunciation of all
efficacy of Arnado’s renunciation of his American
foreign citizenship, including his American citizenship.
citizenship when he subsequently used his U.S.
But he travelled several times to the US using his
passport. The renunciation of foreign citizenship must
American passport. So that the question there was has
be complete and unequivocal. The requirement that the
he renounced his Philippine citizenship? Because in our
renunciation must be made through an oath
study of express renunciation as a ground for losing
emphasizes the solemn duty of the one making the oath
citizenship, I remember the case of Yu vs Santiago. A
of renunciation to remain true to what he has sworn to.
Portuguese national who was granted Filipino status, he
Allowing the subsequent use of a foreign passport
travelled to HK and made some business transactions,
because it is convenient for the person to do so is
stated publicly in the travel documents that he is a
rendering the oath a hollow act. It devalues the act of
Portuguese. So the SC sustained the decision, that the
taking of an oath, reducing it to a mere ceremonial
act of publicly representing himself as a Portuguese
formality.
national despite of the grant of Filipino status is an
express renunciation. A renunciation which is not left to
The dissent states that the Court has effectively left
interest but is voluntary and knowingly made.
Arnado "a man without a country".1âwphi1 On the
So in Maquiling vs Comelec, here was a Filipino citizen contrary, this Court has, in fact, found Arnado to have
formerly natural born who has lost it but reacquired it more than one. Nowhere in the decision does it say that
under RA 9225. But made public representations that Arnado is not a Filipino citizen. What the decision
he was an American in his travels when his Philippine merely points out is that he also possessed another
passport was not yet issued. Did that amount to express citizenship at the time he filed his certificate of
renunciation of his Filipino citizenship? SC said, it did candidacy.
not. What he expressly renounced is his sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships. So it is DUAL CITIZENSHIP
as if he has not executed that sworn renunciation which
made him a person with dual citizen, which makes him MERCADO VS MANZANO 307 S 630. To begin with, dual
disqualified under Sec 4(d) of the LGC. citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former
arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of
the different laws of two or more states, a person is
simultaneously considered a national by the said states.
For instance, such a situation may arise when a person enumeration: xxx corporate government entity is sued,
whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to when a public officer is sued in his official capacity. In all
the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which these 3 instances, the common denominator is that any
follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso adverse ruling must have to require the State to
facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is appropriate money from the public treasury to pay the
concurrently considered a citizen of both states. adverse decision. So if the suit regardless of the name
Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our of the defendant will not amount to appropriating funds
Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of from the public treasury that is not a suit against the
citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship: State. State Immunity does not apply. We don’t talk
about consent, waiver or anything.
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in
foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli; 3. When a construction supply is delivered to
government and government failed to pay the value,
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and can a case prosper? Again, the answer to the question
alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers’ country such should go directly to the question of w/r any adverse
children are citizens of that country; ruling would require the State to appropriate funds
from the public treasury. If it does not require even if
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s there is a money judgment, then you have to discuss
country the former are considered citizens, unless by immunity. But if there is no financial obligation despite
their act or omission they are deemed to have the named defendant, it is not a suit against the State.
renounced Philippine citizenship. Do not discuss Immunity Doctrine. So those are the first
things to remember when a question is asked.
There may be other situations in which a citizen of the
Philippines may, without performing any act, be also a 4. If a suit is filed against the State, it will only apply if it
citizen of another state; but the above cases are clearly does not involve an incorporated agency. We always
possible given the constitutional provisions on take the case of GOCCs. If the case involved a GOCC,
citizenship. GOCC even w/o original charter, much more with, are
not part of the State technically in its political or
sovereign functions. GOCCs are established for business
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the
or proprietary functions. So when a case is filed against
situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by
any of them, you don’t apply State Immunity not only
some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While
because there are separate and different entities but
dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the
because any monetary liability against them will not
result of an individual’s volition.
require disbursement from the public treasury.
Therefore all their assets any be levied, garnished,
With respect to dual allegiance, Article IV, §5 of the
whatever because it is not part of the funds of public
Constitution provides: “Dual allegiance of citizens is
treasury. Are they public funds? The answer is yes! But
inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with
they are not part of the State in the public treasury
by law.”
requiring legislative authorization in the form of an
appropriation.
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
 CONSENT
 BASIS:
ACT NO. 3083
1. The Immunity from Suit Doctrine provided under Art
16 Sec 3, is not a grant of Immunity from the State. It is AN ACT DEFINING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
a restatement that the State cannot be sued. The State THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MAY
can only be sued if it has consented. BE SUED
2. For this Immunity from Suit Doctrine to apply, one
SECTION 1. Complaint against Government. —
must have to determine w/r the case is a suit against
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Government of
the government or not. In old cases, there was an
the Philippine Islands hereby consents and submits to
be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability SECTION 9. This Act shall take effect on its approval.
arising from contract, expressed or implied, which could
serve as a basis of civil action between private parties. Approved, March 16, 1923.
SECTION 2. A person desiring to avail himself of the Atty Montejo: Consent w/r express or implied, simply
privilege herein conferred must show that he has grants the party claimant the right to file the case and
presented his claim to the Insular Auditor and that the prosecute his case. It does not mean automatic liability
latter did not decide the same within two months from on the part of the State much more in case of an
the date of its presentation. adverse ruling, execution in the ordinary course of
things. The plaintiff claimant must still prove his case
SECTION 3. Venue. — Original actions brought because consent only allows filing and prosecuting his
pursuant to the authority conferred in this Act shall be case. The basis for allowing the case to proceed is the
instituted in the Court of First Instance of the City of presence of consent. The basis for filing liability is the
Manila or of the province were the claimant resides, at fact or evidence as proven by the claimant and the
the option of the latter, upon which court exclusive applicable laws in the case at bar. This brings as to the
original jurisdiction is hereby conferred to hear and so called common form of implied consent which is
determine such actions. entering into a contract. If the State enters into a
contract, it means it has lowered its level into an
SECTION 4. Actions instituted as aforesaid shall be ordinary party. But while it is true, it is not actually
governed by the same rules of procedure, both original correct that any act of entering the contract would
and appellate, as if the litigants were private parties. mean an implied waiver because only those contracts
entered into not in sovereign or governmental capacity
SECTION 5. When the Government of the Philippine or entered in business or proprietary concept would
Island is plaintiff in an action instituted in any court of constitute as valid consent. It’s not the act or fact of
original jurisdiction, the defendant shall have the right entering the contract, it’s the nature of the contract
to assert therein, by way of set-off or counterclaim in a entered into.
similar action between private parties.
Example: The Phil Air Force ordered new helicopters.
SECTION 6. Process in actions brought against the They ordered to a foreign supplier, the government did
Government of the Philippine Islands pursuant to the not pay the value. Can it sue? You must have to answer
authority granted in this Act shall be served upon the that not on fact of entering the contract, it’s the nature
Attorney-General whose duty it shall be to appear and of the contract entered into. W/r the contract is
make defense, either himself or through delegates. entered in government capacity or in a proprietary
capacity. If that contract is entered into in
SECTION 7. Execution. — No execution shall issue governmental capacity, then there is no xxx You must
upon any judgment rendered by any court against the proceed to file under Act 3083. Do not commit the
Government of the Philippine Islands under the mistake of saying that yes because there is implied
provisions of this Act; but a copy thereof duly certified consent because the act of the state is governmental
by the clerk of the Court in which judgment is rendered function, not proprietary function.
shall be transmitted by such clerk to the Governor-
General, within five days after the same becomes final. Now, assuming that there is consent. The decision of
the court will not be executed based on your ordinary
SECTION 8. Transmittal of Decision. — The rules of execution under the rules of court. You must
Governor-General, at the commencement of each have to present it to the COA and COA will fund it and
regular session of the Legislature, shall transmit to that COA will submit to the president as part of the national
body for appropriate action all decisions so received by expenditure program. Congress may consider it and
him, and if said body determine that payment should be make appropriations to be taken for the next year
made, it shall appropriate the sum which the budget.
Government has been sentenced to pay, including the
same in the appropriations for the ensuing year. DOH VS PHILPHARMA 691 S 421.
The doctrine of non-suability.

The discussion of this Court in Department of the subject of a suit.34 There is express consent when a
Agriculture v. National Labor Relations Commission32 on law, either special or general, so provides. On the other
the doctrine of non-suability is enlightening. hand, there is implied consent when the state "enters
into a contract or it itself commences litigation."35
The basic postulate enshrined in the constitution that However, it must be clarified that when a state enters
(t)he State may not be sued without its consent, reflects into a contract, it does not automatically mean that it
nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign has waived its non-suability. 36 The State "will be
character of the State and an express affirmation of the deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability
unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the [only] if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary
jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very essence of or private capacity. [However,] when the contract
sovereignty. x x x [A] sovereign is exempt from suit, not involves its sovereign or governmental capacity[,] x x x
because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, no such waiver may be implied."37 "Statutory provisions
but on the logical and practical ground that there can be waiving [s]tate immunity are construed in strictissimi
no legal right as against the authority that makes the juris. For, waiver of immunity is in derogation of
law on which the right depends. True, the doctrine, not sovereignty."
too infrequently, is derisively called the royal
prerogative of dishonesty because it grants the state The DOH can validly invoke state immunity.
the prerogative to defeat any legitimate claim against it
by simply invoking its nonsuability. We have had a) DOH is an unincorporated agency which performs
occasion to explain in its defense, however, that a sovereign or governmental functions.
continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suability
cannot be deplored, for the loss of governmental In this case, the DOH, being an "unincorporated agency
efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of its of the government"39 can validly invoke the defense of
multifarious functions would be far greater in severity immunity from suit because it has not consented, either
than the inconvenience that may be caused private expressly or impliedly, to be sued. Significantly, the DOH
parties, if such fundamental principle is to be is an unincorporated agency which performs functions
abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy is not of governmental character.
to be accordingly restricted.
The ruling in Air Transportation Office v. Ramos40 is
The rule, in any case, is not really absolute for it does relevant, viz:
not say that the state may not be sued under any
circumstance. On the contrary, as correctly phrased, the An unincorporated government agency without any
doctrine only conveys, the state may not be sued separate juridical personality of its own enjoys
without its consent; its clear import then is that the immunity from suit because it is invested with an
State may at times be sued. The States consent may be inherent power of sovereignty. Accordingly, a claim for
given either expressly or impliedly. Express consent may damages against the agency cannot prosper; otherwise,
be made through a general law or a special law. x x x the doctrine of sovereign immunity is violated.
Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded when However, the need to distinguish between an
the State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself unincorporated government agency performing
to a counterclaim or when it enters into a contract. In governmental function and one performing proprietary
this situation, the government is deemed to have functions has arisen. The immunity has been upheld in
descended to the level of the other contracting party favor of the former because its function is
and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity. governmental or incidental to such function; it has not
This rule, x x x is not, however, without qualification. been upheld in favor of the latter whose function was
Not all contracts entered into by the government not in pursuit of a necessary function of government
operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must but was essentially a business.41
still be made between one which is executed in the
exercise of its sovereign function and another which is b) The Complaint seeks to hold the DOH solidarily and
done in its proprietary capacity.33?r?l1 jointly liable with the other defendants for damages
which constitutes a charge or financial liability against
As a general rule, a state may not be sued. However, if the state.
it consents, either expressly or impliedly, then it may be
Moreover, it is settled that if a Complaint seeks to were being charged with the issuance of the assailed
"impose a charge or financial liability against the orders. On the other hand, Undersecretary Galon was
state,"42 the defense of non-suability may be properly being charged with implementing the assailed
invoked. In this case, PPI specifically prayed, in its issuances. By no stretch of imagination could the same
Complaint and Amended and Supplemental Complaint, be categorized as ultra vires simply because the said
for the DOH, together with Secretaries Romualdez and acts are well within the scope of their authority. Section
Dayrit as well as Undersecretary Galon, to be held 4 of RA 3720 specifically provides that the BFAD is an
jointly and severally liable for moral damages, office under the Office of the Health Secretary. Also, the
exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs of suit.43 Health Secretary is authorized to issue rules and
Undoubtedly, in the event that PPI succeeds in its suit, regulations as may be necessary to effectively enforce
the government or the state through the DOH would the provisions of RA 3720.48 As regards Undersecretary
become vulnerable to an imposition or financial charge Galon, she is authorized by law to supervise the offices
in the form of damages. This would require an under the DOHs authority,49 such as the BFAD.
appropriation from the national treasury which is Moreover, there was also no showing of bad faith on
precisely the situation which the doctrine of state their part. The assailed issuances were not directed only
immunity aims to protect the state from. against PPI. The suspension of PPIs accreditation only
came about after it failed to submit its comment as
The mantle of non-suability extends to complaints filed directed by Undersecretary Galon. It is also beyond
against public officials for acts done in the dispute that if found wanting, a financial charge will be
performance of their official functions. imposed upon them which will require an appropriation
from the state of the needed amount. Thus, based on
As regards the other petitioners, to wit, Secretaries the foregoing considerations, the Complaint against
Romualdez and Dayrit, and Undersecretary Galon, it them should likewise be dismissed for being a suit
must be stressed that the doctrine of state immunity against the state which absolutely did not give its
extends its protective mantle also to complaints filed consent to be sued. Based on the foregoing
against state officials for acts done in the discharge and considerations, and regardless of the merits of PPIs
performance of their duties.44 "The suability of a case, this case deserves a dismissal. Evidently, the very
government official depends on whether the official foundation of Civil Case No. 68200 has crumbled at this
concerned was acting within his official or jurisdictional initial juncture.
capacity, and whether the acts done in the performance
of official functions will result in a charge or financial ROYAL PREROGATIVE DISHONESTY
liability against the government."45 Otherwise stated,
"public officials can be held personally accountable for The SC has applied it to a Foreign State claiming
acts claimed to have been performed in connection Immunity in the Philippines because of the concept of
with official duties where they have acted ultra vires or royalty. If the State is not immune then all of its
where there is showing of bad faith."46 Moreover, "[t]he resources may have to be spent to protect itself from
rule is that if the judgment against such officials will suit. This was first applied in the old case where US
require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to government was claiming immunity in this jurisdiction.
satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the We still follow the concept of immunity from suit, not
amount needed to pay the damages awarded against because of section 3 of art 16 but because of section 2
them, the suit must be regarded as against the state x x of art 2. Generally accepted principles of international
x. In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss the law are deemed part of the law of the land and
[C]omplaint on the ground that it has been filed without Immunity from suit among equals is part and parens
its consent." 47 habets imperio. So they say is the basis for co-equals
that a Sovereign cannot be subjected to the laws of
It is beyond doubt that the acts imputed against another Sovereign otherwise it will cause xxx among
Secretaries Romualdez and Dayrit, as well as nations.
Undersecretary Galon, were done while in the
performance and discharge of their official functions or IMMUNITY FROM SUITS OF STATES
in their official capacities, and not in their personal or
individual capacities. Secretaries Romualdez and Dayrit 1. HEADS OF STATE

If it were a foreign state per se, there’s no other the same protections as the diplomats
employer or officer involved, supposedly the immunity themselves.
is absolute. You cannot sue the US government here. If
it were to be heads of State, we follow still the so-called They are not subject to the processes of the host
theory of absolute immunity. President is immune from country w/r its personal liability, official liability and in
the processes of host country. But what about all civil, criminal and administrative cases. The only
representatives of foreign country, then there’s recourse of the host country is to declare this person as
absolute or relative immunity is supposed to be persona non grata. If he refuses then that’s the time
discussed. that the person be subjected to all processes because
he is no longer covered by any immunity.
2. DIPLOMATS
3. CONSULS
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is
an international treaty that defines a framework for A consul normally operates out of an embassy in
diplomatic relations between independent countries. another country, and performs two functions: (1)
Following is a basic overview of its key provisions. protecting in the host country the interests of their
countrymen, and (2) furthering the commercial and
 Article 9. The host nation at any time and for economic relations between the two countries.
any reason can declare a particular member of
the diplomatic staff to be persona non grata. Consular officers are not accorded absolute immunity
The sending state must recall this person within from a host country’s criminal jurisdiction, they may be
a reasonable period of time, or otherwise this tried for certain local crimes upon action by a local
person may lose their diplomatic immunity. court, and are immune from local jurisdiction only in
 Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, cases directly relating to consular functions.
such as an embassy, are inviolate and must not
be entered by the host country except by The 1963 Convention on Consular Relations only cover
permission of the head of the mission. immunity on the official functions of consular officers
Furthermore, the host country must protect the and employees. For their personal and private liabilities,
mission from intrusion or damage. The host the convention does not apply.
country must never search the premises, nor
4. OFFICERS SUED IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY
seize its documents or property. Article 30
extends this provision to the private residence
If an American officer is sued here, the question is, can
of the diplomats.
he be subjected to immunity processes? If he is sued in
 Article 27. The host country must permit and
his official capacity where the ultimate liability rests on
protect free communication between the
the American government, then immunity shall be
diplomats of the mission and their home
claimable. But in case not, meaning he is not sued in his
country. A diplomatic bag must never be
official capacity because the liability is personal, then
opened even on suspicion of abuse. A
the suit may prosper.
diplomatic courier must never be arrested or
detained. 5. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
 Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any
form of arrest or detention. They are immune Only the UN and its agencies are covered by the
from civil or criminal prosecution, though the absolute immunity rule. All the rest w/r its inter-
sending country may waive this right under governmental or international non-governmental
Article 32. Under Article 34, they are exempt organizations, they are exempt from liability under the
from most taxes, and under Article 36 they are concept of relative immunity. One must have to
exempt from most customs duties. determine based on the host agreement, what is the
 Article 31.1c Actions not covered by diplomatic extent of their liabilities or immunities.
immunity: professional activity outside
diplomat's official functions. 6. IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS
 Article 37. The family members of a diplomat
that are living in the host country enjoy most of
If the result of the case filed against the so called judgment as final and make provisions for its full
impeachable officers, the President, Vice-President, satisfaction. Thus, where consent to be sued is given by
members of the Supreme Court, members of the general or special law, the implication thereof is limited
Constitutional Commission and the Ombudsman would only to the resultant verdict on the action before
effectively cause to remove them from office then these execution of the judgment.
cases cannot prosper unless and until they are
impeached. To that extent they are immune from such Traders Royal Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
cases. citing Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego, is
instructive on this point. In that case which involved a
Special mention must be made to the President because suit on a contract entered into by an entity supervised
we follow the Rule on Immutability. During the by the Office of the President, the Court held that while
incumbency the president he cannot be sued. And it is the said entity opened itself to suit by entering into the
not only involving cases which were effectively removed subject contract with a private entity; still, the trial
him from office. Any kind of cases to his or against his court was in error in ordering the garnishment of its
person whether it involves criminal, civil or funds, which were public in nature and, hence, beyond
administrative case, the President is immune. Do not the reach of garnishment and attachment proceedings.
however confuse that which you come across against Accordingly, the Court ordered that the writ of
the office of the president. It is not against the preliminary attachment issued in that case be lifted,
President but it is against the decisions of the Office of and that the parties be allowed to prove their
the President under the doctrine of qualified political respective claims at the trial on the merits. There, the
agency. Some decisions of the Secretary are elevated to Court highlighted the reason for the rule, to wit:
the Office of the President. And with regards to the
decision of the President that is questioned normally The universal rule that where the State
the case title would involve the Office of the President.
gives its consent to be sued by private
That is not one of the cases.
parties either by general or special law,
it may limit claimant’s action “only up
SUABILITY VS LIABILITY
to the completion of proceedings
anterior to the stage of execution” and
MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY VS DUMDUM 616 S 1. that the power of the Courts ends when
The general rule spelled out in Section 3, Article XVI of the judgment is rendered, since
the Constitution is that the state and its political government funds and properties may
subdivisions may not be sued without their consent. not be seized under writs of execution
Otherwise put, they are open to suit but only when they or garnishment to satisfy such
consent to it. Consent is implied when the government judgments, is based on obvious
enters into a business contract, as it then descends to considerations of public policy.
the level of the other contracting party; or it may be Disbursements of public funds must be
embodied in a general or special lawsuch as that found covered by the corresponding
in Book I, Title I, Chapter 2, Section 22 of the Local appropriations as required by law. The
Government Code of 1991, which vests local functions and public services rendered
government units with certain corporate powers —one by the State cannot be allowed to be
of them is the power to sue and be sued. paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion
of public funds from their legitimate
Be that as it may, a difference lies between suability and and specific objects. x x x
liability. As held in City of Caloocan v. Allarde, where
the suability of the state is conceded and by which
liability is ascertained judicially, the state is at liberty to With this in mind, the Court holds that the writ of
determine for itself whether to satisfy the judgment or preliminary attachment must be dissolved and, indeed,
not. Execution may not issue upon such judgment, it must not have been issued in the very first place.
because statutes waiving non-suability do not authorize While there is merit in private respondent’s position
the seizure of property to satisfy judgments recovered that she, by affidavit, was able to substantiate the
allegation of fraud in the same way that the fraud
from the action. These statutes only convey an
implication that the legislature will recognize such attributable to petitioners was sufficiently alleged in the
complaint and, hence, the issuance of the writ would 2) Wives under the NCC or the FC may maintain a
have been justified. Still, the writ of attachment in this residence other than their legal residence
case would only prove to be useless and unnecessary because spouses are required to maintain a
under the premises, since the property of the conjugal dwelling. The conjugal dwelling may
municipality may not, in the event that respondent’s not necessarily be the legal residency of the
claim is validated, be subjected to writs of execution spouse. Not because under the FC that the
and garnishment — unless, of course, there has been a conjugal abode shall be established by the
corresponding appropriation provided by law. husband, it has to be established by both. But
the law says that in case of disagreement the
husband‘s decision shall prevail otherwise they
IV. CONGRESS shall go to court. (Romualdes-Marcos vs.
Comelec)
TERM LIMITATION
While a person may have only one legal residence at
Section 10 prohibits the increase in salaries to take any given time, it does not mean that the same person
effect during the term of the Congress. The word term cannot acquire a new legal residence. What is only
is used in singular form to indicate that all the terms of required to acquire a new legal residence is that the
the members of that congress must have expired person must have:
already.Because of the interloping of 12 members in
any given time, the question is asked on the increase a) a bona fide intention to change his old
that must have to be considered whether the senators residence;
who are elected for a six year term every three years b) actual abandonment of the old to acquire a new
hereafter their terms office singularly have already been one;
expired. c) performance or commission of acts indicating
he is abandoning the old and acquiring a new
RESIDENCY one.
Constitution has used the word residence but the Butch Aquino vs. (?), he was a legal resident of Tarlac.
Supreme Court has consistently defined it or means it, He wanted to run in Makati that is why he rented a
as domicile. The reason for requiring residence as house in Makati, without doing anything. Just renting a
domicile in an old case is that: house without residing in it. So the SC said there were
no acts performed that would show that he abandoned
1) It entitles or it allows the person to know the needs the old and acquired a new one. All his businesses
of his constituents more so in terms of legislation; private or official were still in Tarlac, the only thing that
would indicate his actual residence is the lease in an
2) On the part of electors, if you are not really a apartment unit and nothing more. Which was further
domiciliary in the place how will the electors know you discussed in the case of Mitra vs Comelec, where the SC
reversed the finding of COMELEC en banc that Mitra
Now, it settled rule that it is your legal residence and was not able to change his residence. The SC said that
not your actual residence. Even if you are temporarily the Comelec is using non-legal standards referring to it
absent there is an intention of returning, animus as subjective non-legal standards. As you could
revertandi. And that intention of returning is remember, Mitra wanted to run as governor of the
continuous, animus maniendi. It does not require province, he wanted to change his residence from
physical presence all the time. But it requires you have Puerto Princesa to a municipality. He bought an old
the intention to return even you are absent on that fertilizer mill warehouse and in the mezzanine that is
place. And some other ruling on residency brought where he resided. And there are evidences to show
about the decision of the SC established: that the residence or feed mill was devoid of any luxury
which is consistent to his status as a Mitra. Walang
1) minors retain the residency of their parents but ayos, walang furnitures, walang appliances consistent of
they are not prohibited to choose their own his standing but the SC said those are non-legal
residency after attaining the age of majority; standard which are subjective the law only requires
three:
1) that there is a good faith intention to change his old (2) Population or land area – Population which shall not
residence, be less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000)
inhabitants, as certified by NSO; or land area which
2) the actual abandonment of the old to acquire a new must be contiguous with an area of at least two
one, thousand (2,000) square kilometers, as certified by
LMB. The territory need not be contiguous if it
3) performance of acts indicating he is abandoning the comprises two (2) or more islands or is separated by a
old. chartered city or cities which do not contribute to the
income of the province. The land area requirement shall
The SC took note of other evidences, that he bought the not apply where the proposed province is composed of
adjoining property and start building his house. There one (1) or more islands. The territorial jurisdiction of a
was a testimony from the barangay captain that he lives province sought to be created shall be properly
were the old mill was located and a new house is being identified by metes and bounds.
constructed. He was actually going there and residing
there. As compared to other barangay captains from The creation of a new province shall not reduce the land
the supposed town where (resides), he does not show area, population, and income of the original LGU or
himself to Palawan or in that municipality. So it is a LGUs at the time of said creation to less than the
matter of evidence but the thing is the SC said what the prescribed minimum requirements. All expenses
Comelec used were subjective. It does not require you incidental to the creation shall be borne by the
to build a house appropriate of your social standing, petitioners. (Emphasis supplied.)
what is important is you uprooted yourself from the old
one and planted yourself to a new domicile. It bears scrupulous notice that from the above cited
provisions, with respect to the creation of barangays,
Asistio vs. Aguire, a 2010 case, simply involved the land area is not a requisite indicator of viability.
question of if your certificate of candidacy indicated an However, with respect to the creation of municipalities,
address which is not legally existing does that mean you component cities, and provinces, the three (3)
already changed your domicile already. Asistio is from indicators of viability and projected capacity to provide
Caloocan. The family are well known to be from there. services, i.e., income, population, and land area, are
What is indicated in the COC is not an existing address provided for.
so what the primary respondent argued that he is not a
legal resident of Caloocan. And he is not a resident
But it must be pointed out that when the local
because of a non-existing address. SC said that does
government unit to be created consists of one (1) or
not indicate that the person change his domicile
more islands, it is exempt from the land area
because you can only change your domicile by
requirement as expressly provided in Section 442 and
compliance of the three requisites.
Section 450 of the LGC if the local government unit to
be created is a municipality or a component city,
APPORTIONMENT/DISTRICTS
respectively. This exemption is absent in the
enumeration of the requisites for the creation of a
NAVARRO VS ERMITA 612 S 131. LGC-IRR: ARTICLE 9.
province under Section 461 of the LGC, although it is
Provinces. – (a) Requisites for creation – A province
expressly stated under Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR.
shall not be created unless the following requisites on
income and either population or land area are present:
PARTY LIST SYSTEM ACT
(1) Income – An average annual income of not less than
ATONG PAGLAUM VS COMELEC 694 S 477. R.A. No.
Twenty Million pesos (P20,000,000.00) for the
7941 does not require national and regional parties or
immediately preceding two (2) consecutive years based
organizations to represent the "marginalized and
on 1991 constant prices, as certified by DOF. The
underrepresented" sectors. Under the party-list
average annual income shall include the income
system, an ideology-based or cause-oriented political
accruing to the general fund, exclusive of special funds,
party is clearly different from a sectoral party. A political
special accounts, transfers, and non-recurring income;
party need not be organized as a sectoral party and
and
need not represent any particular sector. There is no

requirement in R.A. No. 7941 that a national or regional followed the then prevailing formula in Ang Bagong
political party must represent a "marginalized and Bayani. In BANAT, however, the Court did not declare
underrepresented" sector. It is sufficient that the that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
political party consists of citizens who advocate the Similarly, even as we acknowledge here that the
same ideology or platform, or the same governance COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, we
principles and policies, regardless of their economic declare that it would not be in accord with the 1987
status as citizens. Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to apply the criteria in
Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT in determining who are
The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" qualified to participate in the coming 13 May 2013
should refer only to the sectors in Section 5 that are, party-list elections.
by their nature, economically "marginalized and
underrepresented." These sectors are: labor, peasant, Thus, we remand all the present petitions to the
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, COMELEC. In determining who may participate in the
handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list
similar sectors. For these sectors, a majority of the elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the following
members of the sectoral party must belong to the parameters:
"marginalized and underrepresented." The nominees
of the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, 1. Three different groups may participate in the party-
or must have a track record of advocacy for the sector list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2)
represented. regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral
parties or organizations.
To recall, Ang Bagong Bayani expressly declared, in its
second guideline for the accreditation of parties under 2. National parties or organizations and regional parties
the party-list system, that "while even major political or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral
parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the lines and do not need to represent any "marginalized
Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they and underrepresented" sector.
must comply with the declared statutory policy of
enabling ‘Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and 3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections
underrepresented sectors xxx to be elected to the provided they register under the party-list system and
House of Representatives.’ "However, the requirement do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
in Ang Bagong Bayani, in its second guideline, that "the political party, whether major or not, that fields
political party xxx must represent the marginalized and candidates in legislative district elections can participate
underrepresented," automatically disqualified major in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that
political parties from participating in the party-list can separately register under the party-list system. The
system. This inherent inconsistency in Ang Bagong sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party,
Bayani has been compounded by the COMELEC’s refusal and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
to register sectoral wings officially organized by major
political parties. BANAT merely formalized the
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be
prevailing practice when it expressly prohibited major
"marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in
political parties from participating in the party-list
"well-defined political constituencies." It is enough that
system, even through their sectoral wings.
their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest
and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are
We cannot, however, fault the COMELEC for following
"marginalized and underrepresented" include labor,
prevailing jurisprudence in disqualifying petitioners. In
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
following prevailing jurisprudence, the COMELEC could
communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
not have committed grave abuse of discretion.
workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined political
However, for the coming 13 May 2013 party-list
constituencies" include professionals, the elderly,
elections, we must now impose and mandate the party-
women, and the youth.
list system actually envisioned and authorized under
the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941. In BANAT, this
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or
Court devised a new formula in the allocation of party-
organizations that represent the "marginalized and
list seats, reversing the COMELEC's allocation which
underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized canceling Cocofed’s certificate of registration for failure
and underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, to submit names of at least five nominees.
a majority of the members of sectoral parties or
organizations that lack "well-defined political The SC said that such requirement is “mandatory” since
constituencies" must belong to the sector they the law uses the word “shall.”
represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the "marginalized and “Cocofed has shown that it is able to comply with the
underrepresented," or that represent those who lack five-nominee requirement after the elections; it should
"well-defined political constituencies," either must have explained its inability to comply prior to the
belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track elections,” the high court said through a summary
record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The released by its public information office.
nominees of national and regional parties or
organizations must be bona-fide members of such “A party is not allowed to simply refuse to submit a list
parties or organizations. containing ‘not less than five nominees’ and consider
the deficiency as waiver on their part,” it added.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their ABANG LINGKOD VS COMELEC 708 S133. The COMELEC
nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at En Banc cancelled ABANG LINGKOD's registration as a
least one nominee who remains qualified. party list group. The COMELEC En Banc pointed out that
ABANG LINGKOD failed to establish its track record in
The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 uplifting the cause of the marginalized and
May 2013 party-list elections those that did not satisfy underrepresented; that it merely offered photographs
these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral of some alleged activities it conducted after the May
groups or organizations must represent the 2010 elections. The COMELEC En Bane further opined
"marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and (2) that ABANG LINGKOD failed to show that its nominees
all nominees must belong to the "marginalized and are themselves marginalized and underrepresented or
underrepresented" sector they represent. Petitioners that they have been involved in activities aimed at
may have been disqualified by the COMELEC because as improving the plight of the marginalized and
political or regional parties they are not organized along underrepresented sectors it claims to represent.
sectoral lines and do not represent the "marginalized
and underrepresented." Also, petitioners' nominees The COMELEC affirmed the cancellation of ABANG
who do not belong to the sectors they represent may LINGKOD's registration on the ground that it declared
have been disqualified, although they may have a track untruthful statement in its bid for accreditation as a
record of advocacy for their sectors. Likewise, nominees party-list group in the May 2013 elections, pointing out
of non-sectoral parties may have been disqualified that it deliberately submitted digitally altered
because they do not belong to any sector. Moreover, a photographs of activities to make it appear that it had a
party may have been disqualified because one or more track record in representing the marginalized and
of its nominees failed to qualify, even if the party has at underrepresented. Essentially, ABANG LINGKOD's
least one remaining qualified nominee. As discussed registration was cancelled on the ground that it failed to
above, the disqualification of petitioners, and their adduce evidence showing its track record in
nominees, under such circumstances is contrary to the representing the marginalized and underrepresented.
1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
The flaw in the COMELEC's disposition lies in the fact
COCOFED VS COMELEC 703 S 165. The Supreme Court that it insists on requiring party-list groups to present
(SC) has affirmed the disqualification of Coconut evidence showing that they have a track record in
Producers Federation (Cocofed) in the party-list representing the marginalized and underrepresented.
elections last May by the Commission on Elections
(Comelec). Track record is a record of past performance often
taken as an indicator of likely future performance.13 As a
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Arturo Brion, requirement imposed by Ang Bagong Bayani for groups
the high court ruled that the Comelec was correct in intending to participate in the party-list elections, track

record pertains to the actual activities undertaken by underrepresented sector; that representation of the
groups to uplift the cause of the sector/s, which they marginalized and underrepresented is only required of
represent. sectoral organizations that represent the sectors stated
under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 that are, by their
R.A. No. 7941 did not require groups intending to nature, economically marginalized and
register under the party-list system to submit proof of underrepresented.
their track record as a group. The track record
requirement was only imposed in Ang Bagong Bayani There was no mention that sectoral organizations
where the Court held that national, regional, and intending to participate in the party-list elections are
sectoral parties or organizations seeking registration still required to present a track record, viz:
under the party-list system must prove through their,
inter alia track record that they truly represent the x x x In determining who may participate in the coming
marginalized and underrepresented, thus: 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list elections, the
COMELEC shall adhere to the following parameters:
xxx
xxxx
In this light, the Court finds it appropriate to lay down
the following guidelines, culled from the law and the 4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be
Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its work. marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in well-
defined political constituencies. It is enough that their
First, the political pat1y, sector, organization or principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and
coalition must represent the marginalized and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are
underrepresented groups identified in Secdon 5 of RA marginalized and underrepresented include labor,
7941. In other words, it must show -- through its peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
platform of government and track record -- that it workers. The sectors that lack well-defined political
represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and constituencies'' include professionals, the elderly,
underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its women, and the youth. (Emphasis ours)
membership should belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in a Contrary to the COMELEC's claim, sectoral parties or
conflict of interests, it has chosen or is likely to choose organizations, such as ABANG LINGKOD, are no longer
the interest of such sectors. (Emphasis ours) required to adduce evidence showing their track record,
i.e. proof of activities that they have undertaken to
Track record is not the same as the submission or further the cause of the sector they represent. Indeed,
presentation of "constitution, by-laws, platform of it is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the
government, list of officers, coalition agreement, and special interest and concerns of their sector. Otherwise
other relevant information as may be required by the stated, it is sufficient that the ideals represented by the
COMELEC," which are but mere pieces of documentary sectoral organizations are geared towards the cause of
evidence intended to establish that the group exists and the sector/s, which they represent.
is a going concern. The said documentary evidence
presents an abstract of the ideals that national, If at all, evidence showing a track record in
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations seek to representing the marginalized and underrepresented
achieve. sectors is only required from nominees of sectoral
parties or organizations that represent the
In Atong Paglaum the Court has modified to a great marginalized and underrepresented who do not
extent the jurisprudential doctrines on who may factually belong to the sector represented by their
register under the party-list system and the party or organization.
representation of the marginalized and
underrepresented. For purposes of registration under BANAT VS COMELEC 2009. We therefore strike
the party-list system, national or regional parties or down the two percent threshold only in relation to the
organizations need not represent any marginalized and distribution of the additional seats as found in the
second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The
two percent threshold presents an unwarranted

obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2),
Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the
attainment of “the broadest possible representation of
party, sectoral or group interests in the House of
Representatives.”
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list

representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the
following procedure shall be observed:
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be

ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the
number of votes they garnered during the elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving

at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the
party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed
seat each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes,

according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of votes until all the additional seats are
allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be

entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats

shall no longer be included because they have already
been allocated, at one seat each, to every two-
percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for
allocation as “additional seats” are the maximum seats
reserved under the Party List System less the
guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in
the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for
a rounding off of fractional seats.
SYNCHRONIZED TERMS OF OFFICE
ABUNDO VS COMELEC 688 S149.

Constitutional Law 1: JL Cadiatan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law 1: JL Cadiatan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 JL CADIATAN

I. IN GENERAL Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and

In checkered contrast, there is essentially no interaction JUDICIAL REVIEW

The parties may be accompanied by a non-lawyer

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 4 of 30

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 5 of 30

ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH VS BANGKO SENTRAL 688 S

FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Section 5. The Supreme Court

ONGSUCO VS MALONES 604 S 499. The rule on

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 9 of 30

 Issue on Judicial Controversy and

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 10 of 30

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 13 of 30

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 15 of 30

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 17 of 30

The doctrine of non-suability.

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 22 of 30

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 26 of 30

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 28 of 30

two percent threshold presents an unwarranted

In determining the allocation of seats for party-list

1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be

2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving

3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes,

4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be

In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats

SYNCHRONIZED TERMS OF OFFICE

ABUNDO VS COMELEC 688 S149.

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Paul Montejo Page 30 of 30

You might also like