Constitutional Law - I

Pre-Final Exam Reviewer

Article 2 - Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.

 Governed by the rule of law and is not a despotic type of government.

 People enjoy basic and fundamental rights. Art. III of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the Bill
of Rights and sets limitations on the powers of government.

 The Philippines is a republican State where officials are elected to represent the interests of
the people, this is the ESSENCE of a republican government as it would be an
impossibility for everyone to participate in the governance of the State.

 Sovereignty is derived from the Filipino people. This explains why Sec. 1 of Art. 11 of the 1987
Constitution states "Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all
times be accountable to the people," as the people are the source of sovereign power.

Section 2. The Philippines renounces was as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

 Sec. 2 renounces war as an instrument of national policy, however, (1) Sec. 23 of Art. 6 states
"The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both houses in joint session assembled, voting
separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war."

-Both provisions are not in conflict with one another. The "war" being referred to in Sec.
2 Art. 2 is an "offensive war" or "wars of aggression."

 Sec. 2 likewise provides that the Philippines adopts generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land.

-CASE: Grace Poe - In resolving the case, the SC applied not only local statutes but also
the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child, The Hague
Convention, and the 1960 Declaration on Reduction of Statelessness.

-However, in Justice Carpio's dissenting opinion, he argued that the Philippines was
never a signatory to these conventions. Therefore, the principles laid down by these
declarations cannot be applied in this jurisdiction.
-BUT the majority opinion was that although the Philippines is not a signatory to these
conventions, the provisions therein partake the nature of recognized principles of
international law.

-Under the "Doctrine of Incorporation" as stressed by Sec. 2 Art. 2 of the 1987

Constitution these provisions are deemed as part of the law of the land even without
express incorporation. Sec. 2 Art. 2 provides the "Articles of Incorporation". This is
known as the "Doctrine of Incorporation".

-This is not the only manner by which principles of international law may be adopted in
this jurisdiction as the same can be done through the "Doctrine of Transformation"
where principles of international law are replicated through the enactment of local
statutes, i.e. The Extradition Treaty (PD 1069) where an extradition treaty between the
Philippines and the US was incorporated into local law by Marcos through copying the
same and promulgating it as a Presidential Decree.

-When there is a conflict between international law and local law:

CASE: Inchong vs. Hernandez - The SC held that our courts should uphold the validity of
local law as this power of the State cannot be bargained away by the medium of treaties
or contracts.

-But the modern view is that treaty obligations should be accorded respect. However,
Inchong vs. Hernandez is clear that local statutes must reign supreme as they are
enacted pursuant to the police power of the State.

-In short, principles of international law may be recognized in our jurisdiction in two
ways, through:

a. Doctrine of Incorporation - where recognized principles of international

law as espoused by treaties and conventions are followed in this jurisdiction
even without the Philippines' express consent or local legislation.

b. Doctrine of Transformation - where international law is incorporated

into local law through the enactment of a local statute copying said
international law.
Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the
Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State
and the integrity of the national territory.

 This explains why the President, under Sec. 18 of Art. 7 of the 1987 Constitution, is regarded as
the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines even when the President does
not have a military background. Sec. 18 of Art. 7 implements supremacy of civilian authority
espoused in Sec. 3 of Art. 2.

 Likewise, Sec. 18 of Art. 7, in relation to Sec. 3 of Art. 2, states that the declaration of Martial
Law will not supplant the functioning of civil courts nor will it confer jurisdiction on military
courts over civilians as civilian authority is supreme over the military.

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may
call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required,
under conditions provided by law, to render personal military, or civil service.

 In times of war, the State may call upon able-bodied citizens to render military service.

 Muhammad Ali was prosecuted and imprisoned for refusing to be enlisted in the US military to
fight in Vietnam.

 What if your religion prohibits you from killing, can you be validly excused from military service?

- NO. CASE: People vs. Lagman, People vs. Sosa - Lagman and Sosa were convicted for
refusing enlistment in the Philippine Army. Both men were convicted under the National
Defense Act. (Note: Both cases do not actually involve refusal to enlist due to religion
but for economic reasons. Read consolidated cases of People vs. Lagman, G.R. No. L-
45892; People vs. Sosa, G.R. No. L-45893.)

 Can it be argued that one is not fit to serve in the military because that person belongs to the
neuter gender?
- NO.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order , the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the
promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy.
Section 6. The separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable.

 There is no system of codified laws which, from their inception, are totally separate from
religion. In the past there was intermingling of law and religion.

 However, it has been observed that such fusion of law and religion is detrimental to law. As
such there has been a conscious effort to delineate the boundary between State and religion.

- "Good fences make good neighbors." - Mending Wall, Robert Frost.

 "Give unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar."

- Give to the State was is due the State and give unto God what is due unto God.

 There are other provisions beside Sec. 6, Art. II which highlight the separation of Church and
State:

a.) Sec. 5, Art. III - "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.
No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."

- The "Non-Establishment Clause" under the Constitution. While the State

should protect any and all forms of religion, it should not discriminate or give
favor to one particular religion.

- CASE: Aglipay vs. Cruz - Philippine gov't. issued commemorative stamps for the
33rd Eucharistic Congress of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines in
1937. This was assailed by Monsignor Aglipay as it violated the Non-
Establishment clause. HELD: SC held that such stamps were printed to promote
tourism in the Philippines as the venue for said Congress and that not a single
centavo was given to the Roman Catholic Church.

-CASE: Garces vs. Estenzo - Barangay bought a religious icon for the fiesta. It
was assailed as invalid as the barangay was favoring the Roman Catholic Church.
HELD: SC disagreed. Public funds were not used to purchase religious icon but
donations.

-CASE: Gerona vs. Secretary of Education - Jehova's Witnesses were expelled

for their refusal to participate in the Philippine national anthem. HELD: SC held
that penalty was proper. Philippine national flag is devoid of any religious
significance.
 -CASE: Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu - SC
overturned decision of Gerona vs. Secretary of Education. It is not for us to say
that the Philippine flag is devoid of any religious significance. Jehova's Witnesses
cannot be validly compelled to salute/participate in national anthem,
highlighting the importance of the separation of church and state.
CONTROLLING DOCTRINE.

b.) Sec. 29, par. (2), Art. VI - "No public money or property shall be appropriated,
applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support
of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any
priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when
such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any
penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium."

- Sinulog is not purely religious but is also celebrated also to promote tourism
and culture.

- State also appropriates funds for IEC.

- If a priest is elected to public office, can he collect his salary?

YES. Sec. 29, par. (2) Art. VI only prohibits the disbursement of funds to
religious ministers in their practice as religious ministers and not as public
officials. The salary he collects is acquired by virtue of his being an elected
official and not as a priest.

c.) Sec. 2, par. (5), Art. 9- C - "...Religious denominations and sects shall not be
registered..."

- Prohibits religious sectors from being registered as political parties.

d.) Sec. 5, par. (2), Art. 6 - "The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list....
except the religious sector."

- Prohibits religious groups from registering as party-lists.

 While the there is separation of the Church and State, the Constitution also grants favors to the
Church:

a.) Sec. 28, par. (3), Art. 6 - "Charitable institutions, churches, and parsonages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings
and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation."

-Exempts the Church from the payment of Real Property Taxes. This is granted
to the Church as the State recognizes the Church's role in developing the moral
values of the people.

-If the Church owns a parcel of land which is being leased to a private
corporation, is the said parcel of land still exempt from Real Property Tax?

-NO. In order for such exemption to apply, the land must be used be
"actually, directly, and exclusively used" for religious purposes.

-If the Church owns a parcel of land with a three-story building wherein the 2nd
and 3rd floors are being exclusively used by the Church and the 1st floor is being
leased to a private entity, should the entire building be subject to RPT?

-NO. Only the portion that is being leased to a private entity should be
assessed for RPT.

b.) Sec. 30, (E) of the National Internal Revenue Code - income derived by the Church is
also exempt from Income Tax.

- Income from Sacraments is tax exempt.

-Income from lease of property to a private entity is NOT. Last paragraph of Sec.
30 - "Notwithstanding the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, the income
of whatever kind and character of the foregoing organizations from any of
their properties, real or personal, or from any of their activities conducted for
profit regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject to
tax imposed under this Code." Therefore, rentals derived from lease of
property of the Church are not exempt from income tax even when they are
used for the sustenance of the Church.
 c.) Sec. 101, (A), (3) of the National Internal Revenue Code - Grants tax exemption to
donations made to the Church.

- Such donation is not to be assessed for the payment of donor's tax.

-CASE: Lladoc vs. CIR - Donations made to the Church had to be assessed for the
payment of donor's tax. NOT CONTROLLING.

d.) Sec. 29, par. (2), Art. 6 - As a general rule, no public money shall be given to
priests/ministers EXCEPT when such minister is assigned to the AFP, any penal
institution, or to any government orphanage or leprosarium.

e.) Sec. 3, par. (3), Art. 14 - Allows teaching of religion in public elementary schools and
high schools PROVIDED that such is expressed in writing by the parents/guardians and
is done without additional cost to the Government.

- General Rule: Teaching of religion in public schools is not allowed.

f.) Sec. 4, par. (2), Art. 14 - Allows educational institutions to NOT be wholly owned by
Filipinos if the same is established by religious groups or mission boards.

- General Rule: Educational institutions should be wholly owned by Filipinos.

Sec. 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the
paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the
right to self-determination.

Sec. 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom
from nuclear weapons in its territory.

 Does not altogether prohibit the Philippines from acquiring nuclear weapons so long as it's
consistent with the national interest.

Sec. 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for
all.
Sec. 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.

 Humanization of laws and equalization of socio-economic justice. Giving more to those who
have less in life.
 I.e. Labor Code(states that all doubt should be resolved in favor of labor), Kasambahay Law.

Sec. 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human
rights.

Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a
basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the
unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth
for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

 This provision is likely to be cited by opponents of possible divorce bills. But it's unlikely that
arguments using this provision against divorce will be sustained.
 "It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception."

- Art. 40 of the Civil Code - "Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall
be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later
with the conditions specified in the following article.

- This is why abortion is not allowed in this jurisdiction.

Sec. 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect
their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth
patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.

 SK elections supposedly consistent with Sec. 13.

 RA 9344, exempts minors 15 and below from criminal liability.

Sec.14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men.

 RA 9262, VAWC - allows the issuance of temporary or permanent restraining orders against the
husband pursuant to which the husband may be driven out of the conjugal dwelling even if the
conjugal dwelling is owned by the husband. The husband may also be derived of the use of the
family vehicle even if such is owned by the husband. But if the husband is the victim cannot
apply for temporary or permanent restraining orders.
 CASE: Garcia vs. Drilon - RA 9262 is constitutional, notwithstanding the argument that it is in
violation of the equal protection clause.

Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.
Sec.16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

 CASE: Oposa vs. Factoran - Petitioners (represented by their parents as minors), representing
their generation and generations unborn, filed a case against DENR Secretary Factoran, with the
prayer to order the DENR to (a) cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the
country; and to (b) cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or
appraising new TLAs.

-ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners had the legal standing to represent not only their
generation but also generations yet to come.

-HELD: YES. Petitioners had legal standing. SC applied Sec. 16 of Art. 2 and the principle
in international law on "Inter-generational Responsibility".

Sec. 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to
foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and
development.

Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers
and promote their welfare.

 The Labor Code upholds the protection of workers. Any and all doubt should be resolved in
favor of labor.
 CASE: Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. - HELD: Subject clause of Sec. 10, par. (5) of RA
8042 is in violation of the right of OFWs to equal protection and unconstitutional under Sec. 18
of Art. 2.

Sec. 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.

 Local Government Code, RA 7160 - Confers police power and power of eminent domain. Police
power and the power of eminent domain are powers delegated to LGUs by Congress but the
power of taxation is granted to LGUs by the Constitution and is not a delegated power.

Sec. 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political
dynasties as may be defined by law.

 Although political dynasties are prohibited by the Constitution there is no law defining political
dynasties.
 Members of Congress are not likely to enact a law that would hurt their own political interests.
 Would have been more prudent for Sec. 26 to define political dynasties.
 State Immunity from Suit

Sec. 3, Art. 16 The State may not be sued without its consent.

Purpose: There can be no legal authority or right against the authority which makes the laws on which
our rights depend.

 If the State can be sued without its consent, government cannot be expected to deliver basic
services as it will be preoccupied with defending itself from cases, knowing the penchant of
Filipinos to file even baseless cases.
 CASE: Republic vs. Sandoval - Cases were filed not only against the officers of the PNP but also
against the Republic of the Philippines. HELD: Dismissed as it was done without the consent of
the State.
 State immunity from suit not only applies to the Philippines but also to foreign states.

-CASE: US vs. Ruiz

- "There is equality among equals." - par in parem non habet imperium

- The Philippines also cannot be sued in foreign courts without its consent just as foreign
States cannot be sued in our jurisdiction without their consent.

 State immunity from suit not only includes foreign States but also foreign delegates, diplomats,
and, to some extent, consuls.

- Ambassadors cannot be prosecuted if they commit a crime here EVEN IF such was
committed outside the performance of their functions.

-Foreign consular officers are also accorded immunity from suit. Such that they may
plead for dismissal of case by invoking state immunity from suit if they were sued
in the performance of their duties. But if crime committed outside the performance of
his functions, he may not invoke state immunity from suit.

 State immunity from suit is broad and encompassing .

- State immunity from suits extends to International organizations, foreign agents, etc.
such that they cannot be sued without their consent.

-CASE: Minucher vs. CA - DEA Agent Arthur Scalzo conducted surveillance operations on
Kirshow Minucher leading to his arrest by law enforcement. Minucher moved to sue
Scalzo. HELD: SC extended state immunity from suit to Scalzo as he was a foreign agent
 sent on a mission to the Philippines with the consent of the State and he was merely
performing his functions well within his given authority.

 HOWEVER, the State MAY be sued with its consent.

1. Expressly

- There is express consent on the part of the State to be sued when there is a
law enacted by Congress allowing the filing of cases against the Republic.

a. General - i.e. Act 3083

- CASE: DA vs. NLRC - SC ruled that under Act 3083 money claims may be filed if
said money claims arise from a contract EXPRESS or IMPLIED. CA 327 as
amended by PD 1445 prescribes that money claims against the State must first
be filed with COA as it is COA that will make the computation for Congress in
order for it to enact an appropriation law in light of its budget for the
appropriation of money claims. Act. 3083 allows State to be sued on money
claims but CA 327 as amended by PD 1445 requires that money claims must first
be filed with COA.

b. Special - Laws enacted allowing a specific person to sue the State.

-CASE: Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands - Act. 247 allowed
Merritt, and only Merritt, to file a case against the government.

-CASE: Republic vs. Feliciano - ONLY Congress can expressly waive state
immunity from suit.

-CASE: Republic vs. Sandoval - President cannot expressly waive state immunity
from suit.

2. Impliedly

a. When the State commences litigation

- Act of self defense on the part of the being sued.

-BUT where the State intervenes in an action only to INTERPOSE state immunity
from suit, it cannot be deemed to have impliedly given its consent.
-CASE: Lim vs. Brownell - After WW2, authorities discovered that parcels of
land were registered to a foreign national, Kagawa. US gov't. seized said
properties and placed them in the care of the alien property
custodian of the US, Brownell. After Philippine independence,
such lands were still under the name of Brownell. Benito Lim filed a case for
recovery and claimed to be one of the heirs of Arsenia Enriquez, who was said
to be the original owner of the lands. Lim only filed a case against Brownell.
Upon learning of the case, the Republic, through Sol Gen, filed a motion for
intervention as it wanted to dismiss the case on the grounds of state immunity
from suit. Case against Brownell actually a case against the Republic. Through
intervention, Lim argued that the State has opened itself to suit. HELD: State
cannot be sued when it intervened in an action only to interpose state immunity
from suit.

b. When the State enters into a contract in the exercise of its proprietary
powers. (Jure Gestionis)

-State may be understood to have waived its immunity from suit.

- State cannot be sued for contracts entered into in the exercise of its sovereign
functions ( Jure Imperii).

- CASE: US vs. Guinto - A Mr. Dizon entered into a contract with the US for the
operation of a barbershop inside the Clark Air Base. Later, the contract was
terminated by US. Dizon filed a case for specific performance as he still wanted
to occupy the premises. US interposed state immunity from suit and pleaded for
the dismissal of the case. HELD: The State may be sued for contracts entered
into in the exercise of its proprietary functions. By entering into such contract
the State has abdicated itself of its sovereign functions and it descended to the
level of a private entity.

- CASE: US vs. Rodrigo - Genove was an employee in a restaurant in Camp John

Hay. He was terminated for mixing his urine with the soup so he filed a case for
damages. US interposed state immunity from suit in pleading for the dismissal
of the action. HELD: SC held that action cannot be dismissed as the contract for
the operation of a restaurant is proprietary in nature.

- CASE: US vs. Ruiz - Contract for the maintenance of wharves done in the
exercise of the State's sovereign functions where the it is not expected to
reap benefits.
- CASE: Republic of Indonesia vs. Vinzon - Contract for maintenance of
Indonesian Embassy in the Philippines. Contract was terminated and the
contractor filed for specific performance. HELD: Action was dismissed, contract
was done in the exercise of sovereign functions.

- CASE: DA vs. NLRC - DA entered into contract with Sultan Security Agency for
the protection of one of its premises. HELD: Contract was entered into in the
exercise of DA's sovereign functions as it did not expect to derive income from
such a contract. But DA can be sued as there was an express law (Act 3083) that
allowed gov't. to be sued for money claims arising from contract express or
implied. In the previous cases, the actions were not for money claims but for
specific performance, Act 3083 would be wanting in application in those cases.

-State can be sued without its consent for the taking of private property for
public use but without payment of just compensation. Sec. 9, Art. 3 provides
that private property shall not be taken without payment of just compensation.

- CASE: Amigable vs. Cuenca - SC sustained filing of the case against the
Republic even without the consent of the State. The State cannot invoke
state immunity from suit to perpetrate injustice against a private citizen. The
State cannot invoke state immunity from suit to commit a violation in the
Constitution. Any money claim involving just compensation may be filed directly
with the court and that such claim need not be filed first with COA pursuant to
CA 327 as amended by PD 1445.

- CASE: Santiago vs. Republic - Santiago donated a parcel of land to the Bureau
of Plant Industry on the condition that the Republic would put up electrification
infrastructure around the property. Donee did not uphold its end such that the
donor sought for recovery of property. Republic moved for dismissal invoking
state immunity from suit. HELD: State cannot invoke state immunity from suit if
only to commit an injustice against a private individual.

- Problems arise when the State is not directly named the defendant but other
gov't. depts. It has to be determined if gov't agency is an incorporated gov't.
agency or an unincorporated gov't. agency.
a. Incorporated - Agencies which have charters governing their existence (i.e.
GOCCs). Charter in the form of a special law.

- If an incorporated agency is being sued, see provisions of its charter. If the

charter provides that such agency has the power to sue and be sued then such
agency may be sued without the consent of the Republic.

- When charter is silent, IT DEPENDS on primary function of such agency. If the

agency is primarily tasked with governmental/sovereign functions then it may
NOT be sued without its consent. But if primary functions are proprietary, it
may be sued without the consent of the Republic.

b. Unincorporated - Agencies without charters.

- If primary function is governmental = may not be sued even when performing

incidental proprietary functions.
- If primary function is proprietary = may be sued.

- CASE: Mobil Philippines Exploratory Team vs. Customs Arrastre Services -

Mobil imported 3 rotary drills when the items got to the Phils., handling was
performed by the Customs Arrastre Services (part of the Bureau of Customs)
which exercises proprietary functions. But instead of receiving 3 rotary drills
only 2 arrived, 1 was stolen. Mobil Philippines filed a case against Customs
Arrastre Services to which Customs Arrestre Services contended that since it is
under the Bureau of Customs and that the Bureau performs governmental
functions, action should be dismissed. Mobil Philippines countered that
Customs Arrastre performed proprietary functions. HELD: Propriety functions of
Customs Arrastre Services are merely incidental as the Bureau of Customs
performs governmental functions. It may not be used without its consent.

- But if primary function is proprietary, it may be sued.

- CASE: National Airports Corporation vs. Teodoro - Part of the runway of the
Bacolod airport was owned by Capitol Subdivision Inc. National Airports
Corporation entered into an agreement with Capitol Subdivision whereby
planes will be paying landing fees and that such were to be paid to Capitol
Subdivision. National Airports Corporation did not remit the fees. Capitol
Subdivision filed an action against the National Airports Corporation. The latter
interposed state immunity from suit as a defense. HELD: National Airports
Corporation was an unincorporated government agency performing a
proprietary function.
- NOTE: DA is unincorporated, governmental functions, but was sued for money claims.
 May LGUs be sued without their consent?

- Although LGUs perform governmental functions LGUs have the power to sue and be
sued under Sec. 22, Local Government Code.

 May public officers invoke state immunity from suit as a defense?

- CASE: Garcia vs. Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines - Garcia suffered
injuries in the military, sued the Chief of Staff of the AFP. Chief of Staff filed a motion to
dismiss. HELD: Action was dismissed. Where the public officer acted within his
functions, within his authority, and, more so, where the action would require a positive
act on the part of the State to appropriate funds, supposedly to satisfy any decision, the
action is DISMISSIBLE if done without the consent of the State.

- If the action is not brought within the public officer's function, authority, or the action
would not require disbursement of public funds to satisfy a judgment, the state may be
sued without its consent.

Examples of actions against public officers which do not require consent of the State:

a. Case for mandamus, action is filed to command a public officer to perform his duty.

b. Action to enjoin public officer from performing an act which is illegal. (Injunction)

c. Action for the payment of money claims which have already bee n appropriated for
that purpose.

- CASE: Del Mar vs. PVB - Claim for pension. Filed against the head of the PVB.
Respondent moved for dismissal. HELD: Del mar was sustained. Although there was no
consent from the State, the action was for the claim of money from public funds which
had already been appropriated for Del Mar's purpose.

d. Action brought against public officer by reason of his bad faith or what is being
enforced against him is the result of his bad faith.

- CASE: Republic vs. Sandoval - PNP officers were sued because of their ill-will by firing
indiscriminately at protesters and breaking protocol.

- CASE: Lansang vs. CA - However, Lansang was exonerated as he was sued in his
personal capacity despite his being the head of the MPDC.
 d. When the State violated its own laws

- CASE: Amigable vs. Cuenca - Where the State took away Amigable's property without
just compensation.

 Will the State be necessarily held liable if it opens itself up to suit?

- NO.