SESSION

06
Outline


Cont. of EMINENT DOMAIN & POWER OF TAXATION

Article II - DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

PRINCIPLES

1– Democratic and Republican

- Republicanism

o Manifestations of Republicanism

§ OURS IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN
(Villavicencio vs. Lukban, GR L-14639, March 25, 1919)
§ Rule of the majority (Plurality in elections)
§ Accountability of public officials
§ Bill of Rights
§ Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws
§ SEPARATION OF POWERS
§ NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

Ø Under 1987 Constitution
Ø Why is it observed in our Government?
Ø What is the purpose?
Ø Acc. to Justice Laurel,
- to secure action
- to forestall overaction
- to prevent despotism
- to obtain efficiency
Ø To be understood not as INDEPENDENCE but INTERDEPENDENCE
Ø Doctrine of Blending of Powers
Ø Doctrine of Checks and Balances, Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov.
19, 2013 (note: case involves various issues, but focus only on issue
about “checks and balances”)

Ø Which department ensures the constitutional distribution of powers?
- Does it mean such department is superior to the other
departments?
• Angara vs. Electoral Commission (see session 2);
• Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, GR 89914,
Nov. 20, 1991;
• Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima, GR 166715, Aug.
14, 2008;
• Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013 (note: case
involves various issues, but focus only on issue about
“separation of powers”);
• Estipona vs. Lobrigo, GR 226679, August 15, 2017;


v WHAT IS THE TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GIVEN POWER HAS
BEEN VALIDLY EXERCISED BY A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT?

 Ø FIRST, SC determines whether the power has been
constitutionally conferred upon the department. Conferment of
power is either:

1. EXPRESS – Art. VI, VII, VIII of the 1987 Constitution

2. IMPLIED - DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION
§ Angara vs. Electoral Commission (see session 2)

3. INHERENT OR INCIDENTAL
§ Harvey vs. Defensor-Santiago GR 82544, June 28, 1988
(DOCTRINE OF ACT OF STATE)

Ø SECOND, after sustaining the exercise of power (meaning, there is
determination of valid constitutional grant of power to exercise),
the SC’s official action does not stop there; it now then determines
whether the act in question had been performed in accordance
with the rules laid down by the constitution.

- But you should qualify whether the question involved is
Justiciable or Political –
o Justiciable vs. Political Questions?
o Truly political questions vs. Not truly political
questions? (See cases on outline – session 02)


PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

Ø General rule is non-delegation
• Potestas Delegata Non Potest Delegare
• Jaworski vs. PAGCOR, GR 144463, Jan. 14, 2004;
• Garcia vs. Drilon, GR 179267, June 25, 2013;
• Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013 (note:
case involves various issues, but focus only on issue
about “non-delegability of legislative power”)

Ø Not absolute, because there are exceptions (PERMISSIBLE
DELEGATIONS) – take note of the permissible delegations!
1. Tariff powers to the President (Sec. 28(2) Art. VI);
2. Emergency powers to the President (Sec. 23(2) Art. VI);
3. Delegation to the People (Sec. 32, Art. VI);
4. Delegation to local government units (RA 7160);
5. Delegation to administrative bodies (power of subordinate
legislation);

Ø Tests of Delegation
1. Again, general rule is, there is non-delegation of powers;
2. But there are exceptions, where powers can be permissibly
delegated;
3. Assuming it falls under the exception, you still have to
determine whether these exceptions (permissible
delegations) has been validly made;
4. To be valid, delegation itself must be circumscribed by
legislative restrictions (otherwise, delegation is tantamount
to abdication of legislative authority, a total surrender by
legislature of its prerogatives in favor of the delegate);
- COMPLETENESS TEST
 o People vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. L-45127, May 5,
1989

- SUFFICIENCY STANDARD TEST
o Chiongbian vs. Orbos GR 96754, June 22,
1995
o Gerochi vs. Department of Energy GR
159796, July 17, 2007
o Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013
(note: case involves various issues, but focus
only on issue about “undue delegation” with
regard to presidential pork barrel);

Ø Principle of Sub-delegation of power –

1. Transmission of power from head of agency to his
subordinates for purposes of expediency and achieving
maximum efficiency in public service

2. Example is DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL
AGENCY -
• President delegate certain powers to members of
cabinet, who are his alter egos;
• Villena vs. Secretary of the Interior, GR L-46570,
April 21, 1939

2– Renunciation of war;
Doctrine of Incorporation;
Adherence to policy of peace, freedom, amity -
• Pharmaceutical & Health Care Assoc. of Phils vs. Duque, GR 173034, Oct.
9, 2007;
• Razon vs. Tagitis, GR 182498, December 3, 2009;
• Mijares vs. Ranada, GR 139325, April 12, 2005;
• Poe-Llamanzares vs. Comelec, GR 221697, March 8, 2016 (focus on
discussion about foundlings as citizens under international law);
• Lantion vs. DOJ, GR 139465, January 18, 2000;
• Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Comelec, GR 190582, April 8, 2010;

3– Civilian Supremacy -
• IBP vs. Zamora, GR 141284, Aug. 15, 2000 (in relation to sec. 18, Article
VII);

4– The Defense of the State - Posse Commitatus -
• People vs. Lagman and Zosa, GR No. L-45892, July 13, 1938;

5– Maintenance of Peace and Order

6– Separation of Church and State –
• Imbong vs. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014;
o Read the facts;
o Focus only on the discussion about the Church and State (skip
discussion about Establishment Clause and Free Exercise
Clause);

STATE POLICIES

7– Independent Foreign Policy
 8– Nuclear-Free Philippines
• Magallona vs. Ermita, GR 187167, Aug. 16, 2011;

9– Just and Dynamic Social Order

10 – Promotion of Social Justice

11 – Human Dignity and Human Rights
• Simon vs. CHR, GR 100150, January 5, 1994;

12 – Family as basic autonomous social institution

Protect life of the unborn from conception
Primary right and duty of parents
• Imbong vs. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014;
o Read the facts;
o Focus only on the following substantive issues (disregard other
issues) -
§ The right to life;
§ The family and the right to privacy

13 – Youth

14 – Women
• Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. vs. NLRC, G.R. 118978, May 23,
1997 (in relation to sec. 3 and 14, Article XIII);

15 – Right to Health
• Imbong vs. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014;
o Read the facts;
o Focus only on the substantive issue of the right to health
(disregard other issues);

16 – Right to Balance and Healthful Ecology

• Oposa vs. Factoran, GR 101083, July 30, 1993
• MMDA vs. Residents of Manila Bay, GR 171947, Dec. 18, 2008;

17 – Priority to Education

18 – Labor
• JMM Promotion and Management vs. CA, GR 120095, Aug. 5, 1996 (in
relation to sec. 3, Article XIII);

19 – Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy
• Tanada vs. Angara, GR 118925, May 2, 1997;
• Espina vs. Zamora, GR 143855, September 21, 2010;

20 – Private Sector

21 – Agrarian Reform

22 – Indigenous Cultural Communities

23 – Non-Governmental Organizations

24 – Communications

25 – Local Autonomy
 • Basco vs. PAGCOR, GR 91649, May 14, 1991;
• Lina vs. Pano, GR 129093, Aug. 30, 2001;
• Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013;
o Read the facts;
o Focus only on the discussion about local autonomy (disregard
other issues);

26 – Equal Access to Public Service; Political Dynasties
• Pamatong vs. COMELEC, GR 161872, April 13, 2004;
• Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013;
o Read the facts;
o Focus only on the discussion about political dynasties
(disregard other issues);

27 – Honesty and Integrity in Public Service

28 – Full Public Disclosure

• Antolin vs. Domondon, GR 165036, July 5, 2010;