TOPIC

ART. 1 AND 2

The Supremacy of the Constitution

Preamble - Purpose and Effect

Philippine Baseline Law

Doctrine of Parens Patriae

Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit

Applicability

Suit against the Republic of the Philippines

Suit against Foreign states under the principle of “Sovereign Equality of States”

Suit against the UN and other specialized agencies

Suit against International Organizations

Suit against the Philippines as a State

Suit against Government Officers

GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY LIABLE

OFFICER ULITIMATELY LIABLE

Suit against Government agencies

 Incorporated-test of suability is found in its CHARTER

Unincorporated

GOVERNMENTAL function

PROPRIETARY

XPN: NECESSARY INCIDENT to its GOVERNMENTAL function

Forms of Consent
Express
General Law

Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by PD 1445 *STRICT ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURE*

Must not perpetrate an injustice *ALTHOUGH PROCEDURE IS NOT STRICTLY COMPLIED*

Special Law
Implied
When the State itself commences litigation

When it enters into contract

Suability vs Liability
Suability vs Execution
SEPARATION OF POWERS
Republicanism

Ours is a Government of Laws and Not of Men

Doctrine of Checks and Balances

The Supremacy of the Constitution

Validly exercised by a particular department?

SUPREME COURT determines whether the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the department. Conferment
of power is either EXPREES, IMPLIED, INHERENT OR INCIDENTAL
THEN determines whether the act in question had been performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the
constitution
JUSTICIABLE
PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

GR: NON-DELEGATION (Potestas Delegata Non Potest Delegare)

XPN: PERMISSIBLE DELEGATIONS (PETAL)

1 Delegation to the
2 Emergency powers of the President
3 Tariff powers of the President
4 Delegation to
5 Delegation to
Tests of Delegation

Completeness Test

Sufficiency Standard Test

Principle of Sub-delegation of powers

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

SELF-EXECUTING and NON-SELF-EXECUTING
 Presumption is SELF-EXECUTORY (PREVAILING RULE): Unless the contrary rule is clearly intended, the provisions
of the Constitution should be considered self-executing as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion
to determine when, and whether, they shall be effective.
XPN: Expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary

ART 2, SEC. 10 SELF-EXECUTING

ART. 2 NON-SELF-EXECUTING

ART 2, SEC. 16 SELF-EXECUTING

1 Democratic and Republican

2 Renunciation of war; Doctrine of Incorporation; Adherence to policy of peace, freedom, amity

3 Civilian Supremacy

4 The Defense of the State - Posse Commitatus

5 Maintenance of Peace and Order

6 Separation of Church and State

STATE POLICIES
7 Independent Foreign Policy

8 Nuclear-Free Philippines
9 Just and Dynamic Social Order

10 Promotion of Social Justice

11 Human Dignity and Human Rights

Family as basic autonomous social institution Protect life of the unborn from conception Primary right and duty
12
of parents

13 Youth

14 Women

15 Right to Health

16 Right to Balance and Healthful Ecology

17 Priority to Education

18 Labor

19 Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy

20 Private Sector
21 Agrarian Reform
22 Indigenous Cultural Communities
23 Non-Governmental Organizations
24 Communications
25 Local Autonomy

26 Equal Access to Public Service; Political Dynasties

27 Honesty and Integrity in Public Service

28 Full Public Disclosure

CITIZENSHIP
Before the 1935 Constitution

Philippine Bill of 1902 (En Masse Filipinization)

Act 2927 - Naturalization Law of March 26, 1920

Roa Doctrine (re: res judicata)
Policy against Dual Allegiance

Naturalization
Direct
Judicial naturalization under C.A. 473,
Administrative naturalization under R.A. 9139
Special Act of Legislature
Derivative
1. wife of naturalized husband
2. minor children of naturalized person
3. alien woman upon marriage to a national
Loss of Citizenship
Reacquisition of Citizenship

Under R.A. 2630

Under R.A. 8171

Under R.A. 9225

SUFFRAGE

Suffrage as right and duty

Residence qualification

R.A. 9189 - The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003

R.A. 8189 - Voter's Registration Act of 1996

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

Amendment vs. Revision

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Statement of Policy - Public office is a public trust

Impeachment

Procedure for impeachment

"CANDLE DOCTRINE"

The Sandiganbayan

The Ombudsman
Ill-gotten Wealth
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth
munity from Suit

epublic of the Philippines

gn states under the principle of “Sovereign Equality of States”

N and other specialized agencies

national Organizations

ppines as a State
ernment Officers

ENT ULTIMATELY LIABLE

LITIMATELY LIABLE

ernment agencies
d-test of suability is found in its CHARTER

GOVERNMENTAL function

PROPRIETARY function

XPN: NECESSARY INCIDENT to its GOVERNMENTAL function

Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by PD 1445 *STRICT ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURE*

Must not perpetrate an injustice *ALTHOUGH PROCEDURE IS NOT STRICTLY COMPLIED*

ate itself commences litigation

ers into contract

vernment of Laws and Not of Men

cks and Balances

of the Constitution

d by a particular department?

COURT determines whether the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the department. Conferment
either EXPREES, IMPLIED, INHERENT OR INCIDENTAL
mines whether the act in question had been performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the

JUSTICIABLE VS. POLITICAL QUESTIONS

NOT TRULY POLITICAL QUESTION

NOT TRULY POLITICAL QUESTION

POLITICAL
 POLITICAL

DELEGATION OF POWERS

GATION (Potestas Delegata Non Potest Delegare)

ISSIBLE DELEGATIONS (PETAL)

Delegation to the People at large
Emergency powers of the President
Tariff powers of the President
Delegation to Administrative Bodies
Delegation to Local Government Units

tandard Test

-delegation of powers

OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY

INCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

NG and NON-SELF-EXECUTING
 SELF-EXECUTORY (PREVAILING RULE): Unless the contrary rule is clearly intended, the provisions
on should be considered self-executing as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion
hen, and whether, they shall be effective.
ssly provided that a legislative act is necessary

SELF-EXECUTING

NON-SELF-EXECUTING

SELF-EXECUTING

Republican

ar; Doctrine of Incorporation; Adherence to policy of peace, freedom, amity

the State - Posse Commitatus

Peace and Order

hurch and State

oreign Policy
mic Social Order

ocial Justice

and Human Rights

autonomous social institution Protect life of the unborn from conception Primary right and duty

e and Healthful Ecology

d Independent National Economy

tural Communities
ntal Organizations

Public Service; Political Dynasties

tegrity in Public Service

5 Constitution

l of 1902 (En Masse Filipinization)

aturalization Law of March 26, 1920

e (re: res judicata)
Dual Allegiance

Judicial naturalization under C.A. 473,

Administrative naturalization under R.A. 9139
Special Act of Legislature

1. wife of naturalized husband

2. minor children of naturalized person
3. alien woman upon marriage to a national

f Citizenship
s Absentee Voting Act of 2003

stration Act of 1996

PUBLIC OFFICERS

Public office is a public trust

Liabilities and Networth
CASE to Cite

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

Aglipay v. Ruiz

Magallona vs. Ermita

Cabanas v. Pilapil

Republic v. Villasor

Syquia v. Almeda

Minucher v. CA

Arigo v. Swift

Lasco v. UNRFNRE

Callado v. IRRI

Calub and Valencia v. CA

Ruiz v. Cabahug
Olizon v. Central Bank of the Philippines

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Associatio

Mobil Philippines Exploration Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service

Sayson v. Singzon

Amigable v. Cuenca

US v. Ruiz

US v. Guinto

Republic v. Sandiganbayan
Villavicencio v. Lukban

Belgica v. Ochoa

Angara v. Electoral Commission

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima

Belgica v. Ochoa

Francisco vs. HR

Tanada vs. Angara

Defensor vs. Guingona

Vinuya vs. Exec. Secretary

Ocampo v. Enriquez

Jaworski vs. PAGCOR

Belgica vs. Ochoa

People vs. Dacuycuy

Chiongbian vs. Orbos

Gerochi vs. Dept. of Energy

Belgica vs. Ochoa

Villena vs. Secretary of Interior

Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS

Tañada vs. Angara

Oposa vs. Factoran

Pharmaceutical & Health Care Assoc. of Phils vs. Duque

Mijares vs. Ranada

Razon vs. Tagitis

Poe-Llamanzares vs. Comelec

Lantion vs. DOJ

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Comelec

IBP vs. Zamora

People vs. Lagman and Zosa

Imbong vs. Ochoa

Magallona vs. Ermita

Espina vs. Zamora

BFAR Employees vs. COA

Simon vs. CHR

Imbong vs. Ochoa

PT & T vs. NLRC

Imbong vs. Ochoa

Oposa vs. Factoran

JMM Promotion and Management vs. CA

Tanada vs. Angara

Espina vs. Zamora

Espina vs. Zamora

Assoc. of Small Landowners vs. Sec. of Agrarian Reform

Basco vs. PAGCOR

Lina vs. Pano

Belgica vs. Ochoa

Pamatong vs. COMELEC

Belgica vs. Ochoa

Antolin vs. Domondon

Co vs. HRET
Mercado vs. Manzano

Lopez vs. Comelec

Jacot vs. Dal

Frivaldo vs. Comelec

Bengzon III vs. HRET

Altajeros vs. Comelec

Calilung vs. Secretary of Justice

POE-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC

GMA Network vs. Comelec

Gallego vs. Verra

Faypon vs. Quirino

Nicolas-Lewis vs, Comelec

Velasco vs. Comelec

Akbayan vs. Comelec

Defensor-Santiago vs. Comelec

Lambino vs. Comelec

Abakada Guro vs. Purissima

Ombudsman Carpio-Morales vs. CA and Binay

Ocampo vs. Enriquez

Francisco vs. HR

Estrada vs. Desierto

Gutierrez vs. HR

ITF vs. Comelec

Ombudsman vs. CA
Khan vs. Ombudsman

Corona vs. Senate

Presidential Ad Hoc vs. Desierto

Rabe vs. Flores
JURISPRUDENCE

When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does

not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in
reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to
determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution. This is in
truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which
properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution.

The elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized in the

Preamble. The same should act as a guide.

The court ruled that Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters"

under Article I of the Constitution or as "archipelagic waters" under
UNCLOS III, the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water
lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the
submarine areas underneath. RA 9522 simply seeks to conform to our
international agreement on the setting of baselines and provides nothing
about the designation of archipelagic sea-lane passage or the regulation
of innocent passage within our waters

The State cannot be sued without its consent. A sovereign is exempt

from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but
on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as
against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
A foreign government cannot be sued in the courts of another state
without its consent under the principle of sovereign equality of States.
Par in parem non habet imperium.
A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with
immunity from suit as long as it can be established that he is acting
within the directives of the sending state. The consent of the host state,
with respect to the foreign agent’s directives, is an indispensable
requirement.
The doctrine of state immunity is also applicable to complaints filed
against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the
discharge of their duties.
The court ruled that immunity is necessary to assure unimpeded
performance of their functions. The grant of privileges and immunities to
international organizations, its officials and functionaries is to secure
them legal and practical independence.
Where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the
executive branch of the government, it is then the duty of the courts to
accept the claim of immunity.

A suit against a public officer for his official acts is, in effect, a suit
against the State if its purpose is to hold the State ultimately liable.
The Government is not liable for the actions done by their public officials
beyond their official duties. And if the officials acted beyond their
authority to perform their official duties, a suit is filed not against the
State but against the Officials.
The court ruled that the suit is brought against the Central Bank of the
Philippines, an entity authorized by its charter to sue and be sued. The
consent of the State to thus be sued, therefore, has been given

That as an office of the government without any corporate or juridical

personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued, because its functions
are still considered a governmental function, and the rule is settled that
the government cannot be sued without its consent.

That although a function may be deemed proprietary, if it is a necessary

incident of the primary and governmental function, so that engaging in
the same does not necessarily render goverment agency liable to suit.
For otherwise, it could not perform its governmental function without
necessarily exposing itself to suit.

The court ruled that once consent is secured, an action may be filed.
There is nothing to prevent the State, however, in such statutory grant,
to require that certain administrative proceedings be had and be
exhausted.

Where the government takes away property from a private landowner for
public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or
negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against
the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental
immunity from suit. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit
cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen

When the government enters into a contract, it is deemed to have

descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested of its
sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent but this
restrictive application of state immunity is proper only when the
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign
sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. A state may be
said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be
deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters
into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates the
exercise of its sovereign function

When the State enters into contract, through its officers or agents,
in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to
constitutional legislative authority, whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits
accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom, the State may be
sued even without its express consent, precisely because by
entering into a contract the sovereign descends to the level of the citizen.
Its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering into such
contract, breach of which on its part gives the corresponding right
to the other party to the agreement.
The court ruled that we are a government of laws and not of men, that
serves to protect individual liberty from illegal encroachment.
The fact that the three great powers of government are intended to be
kept separate and distinct does not mean that they are absolutely
unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has also
provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the
government.

When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does

not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in
reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to
determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution. This is in
truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which
properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution.

Where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the

Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the
judiciary to settle the dispute.

The legislature has no authority to execute or construe the law, the

executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and the judiciary
has no power to make or execute the law. The principle of separation of
powers and its concepts of autonomy and independence stem from the
notion that the powers of government must be divided to avoid
concentration of these powers in any one branch; the division, it is
hoped, would avoid any single branch from lording its power over the
other branches or the citizenry.

There are two species of political questions: (1) "truly political questions"
and (2) those which "are not truly political questions."
Truly political questions are thus beyond judicial review, the reason for
respect of the doctrine of separation of powers to be maintained. On the
other hand courts can review questions which are not truly political in
nature.
Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have
infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the
duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is
judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure
that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld." The SC will only
exercise its constitutional duty "to determine whether or not there had
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction"

In the absence of constitutional or statutory guidelines or specific rules,

this Court is devoid of any basis upon which to determine the legality of
the acts of the Senate relative thereto. On grounds of respect for the
basic concept of separation of powers, courts may not intervene in the
internal affairs of the legislature; it is not within the province of courts to
direct Congress how to do its work
The Court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the conduct of
foreign relations by the Executive Department. Accordingly, the Court
cannot direct the Executive Department, either by writ of certiorari or
injunction, to conduct foreign relations in a certain manner.
President Duterte’s decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) involves a political question that is
not a justiciable controversy

PAGCOR can not delegate its power in view of the legal principle of
delegata potestas delegare non potest, inasmuch as there is nothing in
the charter to show that it has been expressly authorized to do so.

There are two (2) fundamental tests to ensure that the legislative
guidelines for delegated rule-making are indeed adequate. The
"completeness test". A law is complete when it sets forth therein the
policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the
delegate; and "sufficient standard test." A law lays down a sufficient
standard it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to
map out the boundaries of the delegate‘s authority and prevent the
delegation from running riot.

What valid delegation presupposes and sanctions is an exercise of

discretion to fix the length of service of a term of imprisonment which
must be encompassed within specific or designated limits provided by
law, the absence of which designated limits well constitute such exercise
as an undue delegation, if not-an outright intrusion into or assumption,
of legislative power.
A legislative standard need not be expressed. It may simply be gathered
or implied.
SC has accepted as sufficient standards the following: "interest of law
and order;" "adequate and efficient instruction;" "public interest;" "justice
and equity;""public convenience and welfare;" "simplicity, economy and
efficiency;" "standardization and regulation of medical education;" and
"fair and equitable employment practices.

The phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by
the President" under the same provision of law should nonetheless be
stricken down as unconstitutional as it lies independently unfettered by
any sufficient standard of the delegating law.

The court ruled that the Secretary of Interior has the power to suspend
the petitioner by virtue of the “Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency”
which states that all executive and administrative organizations are
adjuncts of the agents of the Chief Executive, and except in cases where
the Chief executive is required by the Constutiion or the law to act in
cases where the Chief executive is demand that he act personally.
PREVAILING RULE - Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the
provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a
contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or
whether, they shall be effective.
These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing
principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are used by
the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial
review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.

The Court held that while the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not
under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than
any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right
belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns
nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and
fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may
even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of
fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for
they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.

TRANSFORMATION - Treaties become part of the law of the land

through transformation pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the
Constitution which provides that "[n]o treaty or international agreement
shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of
all the members of the Senate." Thus, treaties or conventional
international law must go through a process prescribed by the
Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal law that can be
applied to domestic conflicts

INCORPORATION - [G]enerally accepted principles of international

law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of
the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations.
The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules
accepted as binding result from the combination [of] two elements: the
established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of
States; and a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive
necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter
element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by
the existence of a rule of law requiring it
INCORPORATION - International custom, as evidence of a general
practice accepted as law. The material sources of custom include
(PLIRPUN):
1. State practice,
2. State legislation,
3. International and national judicial decisions,
3. Recitals in treaties and other international instruments,
4. A pattern of treaties in the same form,
5. The practice of international organs; and
6. Resolutions relating to legal questions in the UN General Assembly.
Sometimes referred to as "evidence" of international law, these sources
identify the substance and content of the obligations of States and are
indicative of the "State practice" and "opinio juris" requirements of
international law.

INCORPORATION - that "generally accepted principles of international

law" are based not only on international custom, but also on "general
principles of law recognized by civilized nations,". Justice, fairness,
equity and the policy against discrimination which are fundamental
principles underlying the Bill of Rights and which are "basic to legal
systems generally," are, therefore, "generally accepted principles of
international law" under the incorporation clause.

CONFLICT - Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as

to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was
enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of
international law in observance of the observance of the Incorporation
Clause. Where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be
made between a rule of international law and municipal law,
jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the
municipal courts

NO INCORPATION - we are not prepared to declare that these

Yogyakarta Principles contain norms that are obligatory on the
Philippines. There are declarations and obligations outlined in said
Principles which are not reflective of the current state of international
law, and do not find basis in any of the sources of international law.
The deployment of the Marines in the metropolis for civilian law
enforcement does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy
clause.
The duty of The Government to defend The State cannot be performed
except through an army. to leave The organization of an army to The will
of The citizens would be to make this duty of The Government excusable
should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.

Verily, the principle of separation of church and state is based on mutual

respect. Generally, the state cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the
church. It cannot favor one religion and discriminate against another. On
the other hand, the church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on
the state and the rest of the citizenry.

Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the

Constitution39 or as "archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III, the
Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward
of the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine areas
underneath.
While Section 19, Article II of the 1987 Constitution requires the
development of a self-reliant and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipino entrepreneurs, it does not impose a
policy of Filipino monopoly of the economic environment.
The SC ruled that the social justice provisions of the Constitution are not
self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They
are merely statements of principles and policies.

CIVIL RIGHTS: rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his

citizenship in a state or community. Such term may also refer, in its
general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil
action.
POLITICAL RIGHTS: right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or administration of government, the right of suffrage, the
right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the rights
appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government.

The Moment of Conception is Reckoned from

Fertilization.
The State cannot, without a compelling state interest, take over the role
of parents in the care and custody of a minor child, whether or not the
latter is already a parent or has had a miscarriage. Only a compelling
state interest can justify a state substitution of their parental authority.
First Exception: Access to Information
Second Exception: Life Threatening Cases

Sec. 14, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, expressly recognizes the role
of women in nation-building and commands the State to ensure, at all
times, the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
These provisions are self-executing. Unless the provisions clearly express
the contrary, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-
executory. There is no need for legislation to implement these self-
executing provisions.

The Court held that while the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not
under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than
any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right
belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns
nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and
fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may
even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of
fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for
they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.

Apart from the State’s police power, the Constitution itself mandates
government to extend the fullest protection to our overseas workers.

The constitutional policy of a "self-reliant and independent national

economy" does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments,
goods and services. It contemplates neither "economic seclusion" nor
"mendicancy in the international community."
The 1987 Constitution requires the development of a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipino
entrepreneurs, it does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of the
economic environment. The objective is simply to prohibit foreign
powers or interests from maneuvering our economic policies and
ensure that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of
development.

The principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply

means “decentralization”. It does not make local governments
sovereign within the state or an “imperium in imperio.”

What is important is equal access to the opportunity. If you broaden, it

would necessarily mean that the government would be mandated to
create as many offices as are possible to accommodate as many people
as are also possible. To limit offices only to what may be necessary and
expedient yet offering equal opportunities to access to it; the word
"equal access" is used.
Political Dynasties - the foregoing provision is considered as not self-
executing due to the qualifying phrase "as may be defined by law."

The people's right to information is limited to "matters of public

concern," and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided
by law." Similarly, the State's policy of full disclosure is limited to
"transactions involving public interest," and is "subject to reasonable
conditions prescribed by law".
"Public concern" like "public interest" is a term that eludes exact
definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the
public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives,
or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an
ordinary citizen. It is for the courts to determine on a case by case
basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it
relates to or affects the public.

Under the Philippine Bill of 1902, inhabitants of the Philippines who

were Spanish subjects on the 11-APR-1899 and then residing in said
islands and their children born subsequent thereto were conferred
the status of a Filipino citizen. Spanish subjects: who may have
acquired domicile in any town in the Monarchy, like the Philippines.
Dual citizenship are aquired by:
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign
countries which follow the principle of jus soli;
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien
fathers if by the laws of their father's' country such children are
citizens of that country;
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter's country
the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission
they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a
person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more
states.
While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an
individual's volition.

Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines must meet the
requirements for holding such office, and make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath

Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos,

who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who
reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of
allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 and (2) for those
seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally
execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all
foreign citizenship.

Reptriation, if granted, retroacts to the date of filing of application.

That the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his
original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. There are only
two classes of citizens: (1) those who are natural-born and (2) those who
are naturalized in accordance with law. A citizen who is not a naturalized
Filipino, i.e., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization to
obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is natural-born Filipino.

Poviding for the repatriation of Filipino women who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and of natural-born Filipinos;
Repatriation retroacts to the date of filing of one's application for
repatriation

Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it

is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law
on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers
were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of
naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of
origin even after their naturalization

Natural-born citizen upon reacquistion of citizenship by a Foundling.

Fundamental to the idea of a democratic and republican state is the right
of the people to determine their own destiny through the choice of
leaders they may have in government. Thus, the primordial importance
of suffrage and the concomitant right of the people to be adequately
informed for the intelligent exercise of such birthright.

In order to acquire a domicile by choice, there must concur (1)

residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) (animus manendi)
an intention to remain there, and (3) (animus non revertendi) an
intention to abandon the old domicile. The purpose to remain in or at the
domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time. The acts of
the person must conform with his purpose. The change of residence
must be voluntary; the residence at the place chosen for the domicile
must be actual; and to the fact of residence there must be added the
animus manendi

There is no provision in the dual citizenship law – RA 9225 – requiring

“duals” to actually establish residence and physically stay in the
Philippines first before they can exercise the right to vote – on the
contrary, RA 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are most
likely non-resident, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of
suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under RA 9189. It cannot be
overemphasized that RA 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much
as possible all overseas Filipinos, who, save for residency requirements
exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to
vote.
The right of dual citizens who vote as absentee voters pertain only to the
election of national officials, specifically: the president, vice-president,
the senators, and the party-list representatives. Thus, the local elections
are not included

The SC ruled that the COMELEC, acted within the bounds and confines of
of RA 8189 in denying the request to hold a special registration.
COMELEC simply performed its constitutional task to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
inter alia, questions relating to the registration of voters.

The SC declared that R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to
provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation
The SC that a people's initiative can only propose amendments to the
Constitution since the Constitution itself limits initiatives to amendments.
There can be no deviation from the constitutionally prescribed modes of
revising the Constitution.

Public office is a public trust. It must be discharged by its holder not for
his own personal gain but for the benefit of the public for whom he holds
it in trust. By demanding accountability and service with responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, efficiency, patriotism and justice, all government
officials and employees have the duty to be responsive to the needs of
the people they are called upon to serve.
The concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary
requirement of accountability to the people at all times, as mandated
under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly inconsistent with the idea that an
elective local official’s administrative liability for a misconduct committed
during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a
second term of office, or even another elective post (Condonation
Doctrine).

The court ruled that initiation takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice.
Rules and regulation contrary to this are deemed unconsititutional

The provision conveys two uncomplicated ideas: first, it tells us that

judgment in impeachment cases has a limited reach, it cannot extend
further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office
under the Republic of the Philippines, and second, it tells us the
consequence of the limited reach of a judgment in impeachment
proceedings considering its nature, that the party convicted shall still be
liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law.

The filing of an impeachment complaint is like the lighting of a

matchstick. Lighting the matchstick alone, however, cannot light up the
candle, unless the lighted matchstick reaches or torches the candle wick.
Referring the complaint to the proper committee ignites the
impeachment proceeding. With a simultaneous referral of multiple
complaints filed, more than one lighted matchsticks light the candle at
the same time. What is important is that there should only be ONE
CANDLE that is kindled in a year, such that once the candle starts
burning, subsequent matchsticks can no longer rekindle the candle.
To reiterate, when the Constitution uses the word "promulgate," it
does not necessarily mean to publish in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation. Promulgation, as used in Section
3(8), Article XI of the Constitution, suitably takes the meaning of "to
make known" as it should be generally understood.

The Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 endowed the Office of the
Ombudsman with wide latitude, in the exercise of its investigatory and
prosecutory powers, to pass upon criminal complaints involving public
officials and employees. Specifically, the determination of whether
probable cause exists is a function that belongs to the Office of the
Ombudsman.

Under the Ombudsman act of 1989, theOffice of the Ombudsman is

vested with the power to investigate any serious misconduct in the office
allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the
purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.
The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is armed with the
power to prosecute erring public officers and employees, giving him an
active role in the enforcement of laws on anti-graft and corrupt practices
and such other offenses that may be committed by such officers and
employees. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable
him to implement his own actions
The Office of the Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction over public officials/
employees of GOCCs with original charters. This being so, it can only
investigate and prosecute acts or omissions of the officials/employees of
government corporations. Therefore, although the government later on
acquired the controlling interest in PAL, the fact remains that the latter
did not have an "original charter" and its officers/employees could not be
investigated and/or prosecuted by the Ombudsman.

COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR

BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO
THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OFASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET
WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION.