SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW 2/2018 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS PRE-WEEK NOTES POLITICAL LAWPOUTICAL LAW 2018 PRE WEEK NOTES ‘THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS Discuss the methods of proposing amendments the Constitution. First mode: through a constituent assembly. The Congress may directly propose amendments or revision by three- fourths (3/4) vote of all its members. Second: through a Constitutional Convention. A constitutional convention is a body separate and distinct from that of the Congress itself whose members shall be elected by the people of their respective districts. Third: through People’s Initiative. It is done through a petition, but the petition will have to be signed by atleast twelve (12) per cent of the total nutmber of registered voters provided that in cach legislative district, at least three (3) per cent of the registered voters therein shall sign the petition (CONST, Art. XVI, See. 13.) Discuss the Doctrine of Proper Submission and Plebiscite Window. The people must not only be given sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se as well asits relation to the other parts of the Constitution with which it has to form a harmonious whole. There should be no piecemeal presentation to the people of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, At the same time, they should have enough mnderstand what they are supposed to be deciding on. Included in the procedure for the amend jon is the window within which the people ‘must decide - ie. not earlier than sixty (90) days ftom the time the proposals had been made (Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R, No, L-$41505 Qxtobet 16, 1971; CONST. virt, XVI, Sec. 4) ae OF LAM CEE yi NS. f | USS Guardian. The USS Guardian was id SH the nofthwest side of the South Sheal of the n gainst/the commanding officers of the US navy was gad posttalvaging ‘operations of the USS Guardian gepisych magnitude as to affect several provinces. Will wt No. The US respondents were sued in thei ial capacity as céinmanding officers of the US Navy who had control * and supervision over the USS Guardian and ‘its W2The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate ‘grounding of the USS Guardian on the Tubbataha Reef National Park was committed while they were performing official military duties. This is a suit against the US government. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over the persons of respondents (Most Rev. Pedra D. Arvigo v Scott Swift, G.R. No, 206510, September 16, 2014). pene gy The US Embassy requested diploinatit ‘clebr: travelling through the Sulu Sea when tra ‘Tubbataha Reefs. A petition for filed. Petitioners claim that the a i cause and continue to cause envi the suit prosper? A filed an action for Unlawful Detainer with Preliminary Injunction against B, as General Manager of Air Transportation Office (ATO), a government agency involved in the management and maintenance of the Loakan Airport. A sought to eject ATO from the land as it has deprived him of the possession of his property, The court dismissed A’s complaint because he impleaded B, in his capacity as the General Manager of ATO. it ruled that any claim against Juan or the ATO is a claim against the Republic of the Philippines. Is the dismissal correct? No. State immunity from suit may be waived by general or special law. The special law can take the form of the original charter of the incorporated government agency. Jurisprudence is replete with examples of incorporated government agencies which were ruled not entitled to invoke immunity from suit, owing to provisions in their charters manifesting their consent to be sued. In the case at bar, ATO is an agency of the Government not performing 4 purely governmental or sovereign function, but was instead involved in the management and maintenance of the Leakan Airport (Percy Malonesio v. Arturo M. Jizmundo, G.R. No. 199259, August 24, 2016, Covered Case). ‘The Department of Transporation and Communications (DOTC) constructed telephone lines in the property of Maginoo Mejobas. Aggrieved, Mejobas filed an action to recover the property, but DOTC 2078 SAN BEDA CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 12018 PRE-WEEK NOTES POUTICAL Law invoked immunity from suit as it was performing the governmental function of eminent domain, although no formal expropriation proceeding has been filed. Was the defense of immunity correct? No, While the general rule is that the State may not be sued withont its consent, this rule admits of exceptions. Whenever private property is taken for public use, it becomes the ministerial duty of the concerned office or agency to initiate expropriation proceedings. By necessary implication, the filing of a complaint for expropriation isa waiver ‘of State immunity. Ifthe DOTC had correctly followed the regular procedure upon discovering that it had encroached ‘on the respondents’ property, it would have initiated expropriation proceeding instead of insisting on its immunity from suit. When the government takes any property for public use, which is conditioned upon the payment of just ‘compensation, to be judicially ascertained, it makes manifest that it submits to the jurisdiction of a court. The entry into and taking of possession of Sps. Love's property amounted to an implied waiver of its governmental immunity from suit (DOTC v. Sps. Abecina, GR. No. 206484, June 29, 2016). The University of the Philippines (UP) entered into a General Construction Agreement with Stern Builders Corporation (Stern Builders) for the construction of an extension building in one of its campuses. UP failed to pay the billing, prompting Stern Builders to file a suit, Stern Builders was granted a favorable decision, and moved for the garnishment of the funds of UP. Will the execution against its funds prosper? No. While UP has a personality separate and distinct from that of the Government, the funds of the UP are government funds that are public in character. They include the income accruing, from the use of real property ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the attainment of its institutional objectives. Hence, the funds subject of this action could not be validly made the subject of w xution or garnishutent. The adverse judgment rendered $8. Sitar immediately enforceable by execution against a on, GR, No, 171182, August 23, 2012). of Philippine Virginia Tobacco : ground that such funds are public in ‘contention of ABC Bank correct? 7. ABC Bank disputes the na Administration, a public corpokati character. ABC Bank invoked the doctrine pf no No. itis well-settled that fiunds of public cofporations sued are not exempt from garnishment. If the funds appertained to one of the regular department ernment, then, cevtainly. such a provision would be 2 bar to garnishment. in this cas f id tie. By engaging in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, the goverrif HELE pnt ha of its sovereign character, so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law g0 No. L-33112, June 15, 1978) Series " * ee 3. A pregnant woman was involved in a vehicul4# tnistixp which endangered her life and that of the unborn child. At the hospital, the attending doctor's prognosis was that the mother’s condition requires that a surgical operation be done immediately, but doing so would mean placing the unborn child’s life at risk. Thus, after careful deliberation, the doctor decided to wait until the condition of the mother has stabilized before performing the operation. Unfortunately, the child died even before the operation could be done. ‘The family of the mother now asks for your adviee on the possible criminal charges which may be filed against the doctor as the latter is insisting that in such cases, doctors cannot pursue a course of action which would consciously put in peril the life of either the mother or the unborn child. Decide. J would advise the family of the mother that no criminal charges may be filed against the doctor. Under the Principle ‘of Double Effect (Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No, 204819. Apri 8, 2014), whenever a conflict situation between the life of the child and that of the mother exists, the doctor is morally obliged to try to save both lives. If itis impossible, the doctor may act in favor of one, provided that no direct harm is intended to the other. In the present case, the doctor ‘could not opt to conduct the operation on the mother while consciously causing harm on the child, The subsequent loss of the child's life in this case is unavoidable and a consequence of the obligation to attempt to save both lives. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Passage 9. Congressman X filed House Bill No. 123 converting the Municipality of Santan to City of Sampaguita. A month later, Senator Y filed Senate Bill 456 also converting the Municipality of Santan to City of Sampaguita, The HB 123 was approved by the lower house and was subsequently transmitted to the upper 2 | 2018 Sat BEDA CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS