Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE
POLICE POWER
In the exercise of police power, the State can regulate the rates imposed by a public utility such as
SURNECO. Hence, the ERC simply performed its mandate to protect the public interest imbued in
those rates. SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (SURNECO) v. ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION, G.R. No. 183626, October 04, 2010
A mayor cannot be compelled by mandamus to issue a business permit since the exercise of the
same is a delegated police power hence, discretionary in nature. ABRAHAM RIMANDO v.
NAGUILAN EMISSION TESTING CENTER, INC., et al., G.R. No. 198860, July 23, 2012
Traditional distinctions exist between police power and eminent domain. In the exercise of police
power, a property right is impaired by regulation, or the use of property is merely prohibited,
regulated or restricted to promote public welfare. In such cases, there is no compensable taking,
hence, payment of just compensation is not required. On the other hand, in the exercise of the
power of eminent domain, property interests are appropriated and applied to some public purpose
which necessitates the payment of just compensation therefor. MANILA MEMORIAL PARK, INC.
AND LA FUNERARIA PAZ-SUCAT, INC. v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT and THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, G.R.
No. 175356, December 3, 2013
STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
An immunity statute does not, and cannot, rule out a review by this Court of the Ombudsmans
exercise of discretion, however, the Courts intervention only occurs when a clear and grave abuse
of the exercise of discretion is shown. ERDITO QUARTO v. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN
SIMEON MARCELO, et al., G.R. No. 169042, October 5, 2011
The state may not be sued without its consent. Likewise, public officials may not be sued for acts
done in the performance of their official functions or within the scope of their authority.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al. v. PHIL PHARMAWEALTH, INC., G.R. No. 182358, February
20, 2013
The general rule is that a state may not be sued, but it may be the subject of a suit if it consents to be
sued, either expressly or impliedly. There is express consent when a law so provides, while there is
implied consent when the State enters into a contract or it itself commences litigation. This Court
explained that in order to determine implied waiver when the State or its agency entered into a
contract, there is a need to distinguish whether the contract was entered into in its governmental or
proprietary capacity. HEIRS OF DIOSDADO MENDOZA ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, G.R. No. 203834, July 9, 2014
The DPWH is an unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of
its own and it enjoys immunity from suit. HEIRS OF DIOSDADO MENDOZA ET AL. v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, G.R. No. 203834, July 9, 2014
Page 1 of 100
Page 3 of 100
Page 5 of 100
Page 11 of 100
Page 17 of 100
Page 22 of 100
Page 26 of 100
Page 35 of 100
Page 54 of 100
Page 66 of 100
Page 71 of 100
Page 80 of 100
Page 85 of 100
Page 86 of 100
Page 87 of 100
Page 94 of 100
The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State sovereignty (mare
clausum) and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare liberum). The freedom to use the
worlds marine waters is one of the oldest customary principles of international law.
The UNCLOS gives to the coastal State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones
of the sea which are: (1) internal waters; (2) territorial sea; (3) contiguous zone; (4) exclusive
economic zone; and (5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction over
foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is located.
Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the Coastal State exercises
sovereignty, subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of international law. Such sovereignty extends
Page 99 of 100