Cons Ti
Uploaded by
Cielo Claudette Rivamonte AbutazilCons Ti
Uploaded by
Cielo Claudette Rivamonte Abutazil1987 constitution
Basis: 1. 1987 Constitution 2. 1973 and 1935 Constitutions 3. Organic laws made to apply to the Philippines a. Philippine Bill of 1902 b. Jones Law of 1916 c. Tydings-McDuffie Law of 1934 4. Statutes, executive orders and decrees, and judicial decisions 5. US Constitution Constitution Statute
_legislation direct from the people; _states general principles; _intended not merely to meet existing conditions; _it is the fundamental law of the State _legislation from the peoples representative; _provides the details of the subject matter of which it treats; _intended primarily to meet existing conditions only; _it conforms to the Constitution
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
Constitutionit is the document which serves as the fundamental law of the State; that body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the power of sovereignty are habitually exercised. That written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic. It is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however noble its intention, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as the sovereign people have not changed it. Classification: 1. Written or unwritten
Written Unwritten -one whose precepts are embodied in one document or set of documents -consists of rules which have not been integrated into a single, concrete form but are scattered in various sources Examples: a. statutes of fundamental character; b. judicial decisions; c. commentaries of publicists; d. customs and traditions; e. certain common law principles 2. Enacted (conventional) or Evolved (Cumulative) Enacted (conventional) Evolved (Cumulative) -formally struck off at a definite time and place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler -the result of political evolution, not inaugurated at any specific time but changing by accretion rather than by any systematic method 3. Rigid or Flexible Rigid Flexible -one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process -one that can be changed by ordinary legislation The Philippine Constitution is written, conventional and rigid. It is embodied in one document and can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process. Interpretation: 1. Verba Legiswhenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. 2. When there is Ambiguityratio legis et anima--A doubtful provision shall be examined in the light of the history of the times and the conditions and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. (Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317) 3. Ut magis valeat quam pereatthe Constitution has to be interpreted as a
whole. (Francisco vs. HR, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003) If the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other aids is availableconstrue the Constitution from what appears upon its face. The proper interpretation, therefore, depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than in the framers understanding thereof. In case of doubt, the provision should be considered as self-executing; mandatory rather than directory; and prospective rather than retroactive. Self-executing provisionone which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies a sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected. Essential Qualities of the Written Constitution: 1. Broad; 2. Brief; and 3. Definite. Essential parts of a good written Constitution: a. Constitution of Libertysets forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposes limitations on the powers of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights. e.g. Bill of Rights b. Constitution of Governmentoutlines the organization of the government, enumerates its powers, lays down certain rules relative to its administration and defines the electorate. e.g. Legislative, Executive and Judicial Departments, Constitutional Commissions c. Constitution of Sovereigntythe provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about. e.g. Art. XVII-Amendments or Revisions Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality: 2 Views: a. ORTHODOX VIEW i. an unconstitutional act is not a law; ii. it confers no rights; iii. it imposes no duties; iv. it affords no protection; v. it creates no office; vi. it is inoperative, as if it had not been passed at all. b. MODERN VIEWCourts simply refuse to recognize the law and determine the rights of the parties as if the statute had no existence. Certain legal effects of the statute prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be recognized.
Thus, a public officer who implemented an unconstitutional law prior to the declaration of unconstitutionality cannot be held liable (Ynot vs. IAC). Partial Unconstitutionality Requisites: a. The legislature must be willing to retain the valid portion(s), usually shown by the presence of a separability clause in the lawINTENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE; and b. The valid portion can stand independently as lawINDEPENDENCE OF THE PROVISIONS.
PREAMBLE
WE, THE SOVEREIGN FILIPINO PEOPLE, IMPLORING THE AID OF ALMIGHTY GOD, IN ORDER TO BUILD A JUST AND HUMANE SOCIETY AND ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT THAT SHALL EMBODY OUR IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS, PROMOTE THE COMMON GOOD, CONSERVE AND DEVELOP OUR PATRIMONY, AND SECURE TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY THE BLESSINGS OF INDEPENDENCE AND DEMOCRACY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW AND A REGIME OF TRUTH, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, LOVE, EQUALITY, AND PEACE, DO ORDAIN AND PROMULGATE THIS CONSTITUTION. The Preamble is not a source of power or right for any department of government. It sets down the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. It bears witness to the fact that the Constitution is the manifestation of the sovereign will of the Filipino people. The identification of the Filipino people as the author of the constitution calls attention to an important principle: that the document is not just the work of representatives of the people but of the people themselves who put their mark approval by ratifying it in a plebiscite. 1. It does not confer rights nor impose duties. 2. Indicates authorship of the Constitution; enumerates the primary aims and aspirations of the framers; and serves as an aid in the construction of the Constitution.
ARTICLE I
NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarines areas. The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. Two (2) Parts of the National Territory: 1. The Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters embraced therein; and 2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. _ Do you consider the Spratlys Group of Islands as part of Philippine Archipelago? _Spratlys Group of Islands is not part of the Philippine Archipelago because it is too far away from the three main islands of the Philippines. It is found, geographically, almost in the middle of the South China Sea. It is not part of the Philippine Archipelago. Historically, when we talk about Philippine Archipelago, we refer to those islands and waters that were ceded by the Spain to the United States by virtue of Treaty of Paris in 1898. And that did not include the Spratlys Group of Islands yet. Under the treaty, the islands that were ceded by Spain were identifiedthe main islandsLuzon, Visayas and Mindanao. Clearly, it did not include the Spratlys Group of Islands. Spratlys Group of Islands was only discovered sometime in the 1950s by a Filipino, Tomas Cloma. The latter waived his rights over the islands in favor of the Philippine Government. In effect, the government stepped into the shoes of the discoverer. By then President Marcos, what he did the moment Tomas Cloma waived his rights over the Spratlys Group of Islands, is to have the islands immediately occupied by Philippine troops. He then issued PD 1596, constituting the Spratlys Group of Islands as a regular municipality claiming it the Municipality of Kalayaan placing it under the Province of Palawan. And then he had the elections immediately held in the islands so from that time on until now, we continue to hold elections there. The Philippine exercises not only jurisdiction but also sovereignty over the Spratlys Group of Islands, yet it is not part of the Philippine Archipelago. Geographically, it is too far away
from the Philippine Archipelago. On May 20, 1980, the Philippines registered its claim with the UN Secretariat. The Philippine claim to the islands is justified by reason of history, indispensable need, and effective occupation and control. Thus, in accordance with the international law, the Spratlys Group of islands is subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines. _Do you consider the Spratlys group of Islands as part of our National Territory? _Yes. Article I of the Constitution provides: The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, x x x, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, x x x. The Spratlys Group of islands falls under the second phrase and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. It is part of our national territory because Philippines exercise sovereignty (through election of public officials) over Spratlys Group of Islands. _What was the basis of the Philippines claim over the Spratlys? _Through discovery of Tomas Cloma and occupation Modes of acquiring territories: 1. Discovery and Occupationwhich are terra nullius (land belonging to no one)
Doctrine of Effective Occupationdiscovery alone is not enough. Mere discovery gives
only an inchoate right to the discoverer. For title to finally vest, discovery must be followed by effective occupation in a reasonable time and attestation of the same.
2. Cession by Treaty. Examples are Treaty of Paris, treaty between France and US
ceding Louisiana to the latter and treaty between Russia and US ceding Alaska to the latter; 3. Prescriptionwhich is a concept under the Civil Code. Territory may also be acquired through continuous and uninterrupted possession over a long period of time. However, in international law, there is no rule of thumb as to the length of time for acquisition of territory through prescription. In this connection, consider the Grotius Doctrine of immemorial prescription, which speaks of uninterrupted possession going beyond memory.
4. Conquest or Subjugation (conquistadores)this is no longer recognized,
inasmuch as the UN Charter prohibits resort to threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state; and
5. Accretionanother concept in the Civil Code. It is the increase in the land area of
the State, either through natural means, or artificially, through human labor.
Philippine Archipelago: _ _ 1. Treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898Cession of the Philippine Islands by Spain to the United States;
2. Treaty between Spain and US at Washington, November 7, 1900inclusion of Cagayan, Sulu and Sibuto; 3. Treaty between US and GB, January 2, 1930inclusion of Turtle and Mangsee Islands. Other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction: 1. Batanes(1935 Constitution); 2. Those contemplated under Article I, 1973 Constitutionbelonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title; 3. PD 1596, June 11, 1978-- constituting the Spratlys Group of Islands as a regular municipality claiming it the Municipality of Kalayaan, placing it under the Province of Palawan.
_xxx The waters around, between and connecting the islands of
the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. _This second sentence of Article I is not the Archipelago Doctrine. This is only our restatement/reaffirmation of our adherence to the Archipelago Doctrine simply because we are an archipelago consisting of 7,107 islands. It is essential for our national survival that we adhere to the archipelago principle. Archipelago Doctrinemerely emphasizes the unity of lands and waters. It is a body of waters interconnected with other natural features. Under the United Nation Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS), it consists of drawing imaginary baseline connecting the outermost islands of the archipelago in which all waters, islands is considered as one integrated whole. An archipelago is defined as group of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economical and political entity, or which historically been regarded as such. Correlate this doctrine to right of innocent of passage, right of arrival under stress and UNCLOS requiring the designation of archipelagic seaways so that foreign vessels may pas through an archipelago. 2 Kinds of Archipelago:
1. Coastal Archipelagosituated close to a mainland and may be considered a
part thereof.
2. Mid-Ocean Archipelagosituated in the ocean at such distance from the
coasts of firm land. The Philippines is classified as mid-ocean archipelago just like Indonesia. The Philippines is not in any way connected physically with the Asia mainland. Components of National Territory:
I. Terrestrialland mass on which the inhabitants live; _ _ II. Fluvialmaritime; _
a. Internal or national watersbodies of water within the land mass, among them are: i. Riverswhich may be: 1. National 2. Boundarydivides the territories of States 3. Internationalflows thru various States a. Thalweg Doctrinefor boundary rivers, in the absence of an agreement between the riparian states, the boundary line is laid on the middle of the main navigable channel. b. Middle of the Bridge Doctrinewhere there is a bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the middle or center of the bridge. ii. Bays and gulfsa bay is a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain a land-locked waters and constitutes more than a curvature of the coast. Also referred to as juridical bay. The area must be as large as, or larger than, a semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of such indentation, or if the mouth is less than 24 miles wide. e.g. Hudson Bay in Canada, one whose waters are considered internal because of the existence of a historic title. iii. Straitsnarrow passageways connecting 2 bodies of water. If the distance between the 2 opposite coast is not more than 6 miles, they are considered internal waters.
_ In international law, when a strait within a country has a width of more than six (6) miles, the center lane in excess of the three (3) miles on both sides is considered international waters.
iv. Canalsthe most famous is the Suez Canal, which is neutralized, and the Panama Canal, which is open to everyone in times of war or peace.
b. Archipelagic watersare the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. Archipelagic Statea state made up wholly of one or two archipelagos. It may include other islands. Straight Archipelagic Baselineto determine the archipelagic waters, the state shall draw straight baselines connecting the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs, provided that the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1:1 and 9:1. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except up to 3% of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum 125 miles. The baselines drawn should not depart, to any appreciable extent, from the general configuration of the archipelago. All the waters within the baselines shall then be considered internal waters. The breadth of the 12-mile territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall then be measured from the archipelagic baselines. _Vessels may be allowed innocent passage within the archipelagic waters, but this right may be suspended, after publication, in the interest of international security. The coastal state may also designate archipelagic sea lanes for continuous, unobstructed transit of vessels. c. Territorial Seathe belt of the sea located between the coast and the internal waters of the coastal state on the other hand, and the high seas on the other, extending up to 12 nautical miles from the low-water mark, or in the case of archipelagic states, from the baselines. Baselineis a line from which the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone is measured in order to determine the maritime boundary of the coastal state. Types of baseline: i. Normal Baseline Method ii. Straight Baseline method d. Contiguous Zoneextends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea; this shall not exceed 24 nautical miles from the archipelagic baselines. The coastal state may exercise limited jurisdiction over the contiguous zone:
1. To prevent infringement of customs, fiscal immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; and 2. To punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory. e. Exclusive Economic Zoneshall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the archipelagic baselines. f. Continental shelfit is the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas extending beyond the Philippine territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of the land territory. It extends up to: i. The outer edge of the continental margin; or ii. A distance of 200 nautical miles from the archipelagic baselines, whichever is the farthest. The continental shelf does not form part of the Philippine territory. The Philippines has the sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. g. High Seastreated as res communes, thus, not territory of any particular State. These are the waters which do not constitute the internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zones of a state. They are beyond the jurisdiction and sovereign rights of States. Freedom of navigationrefers to the right to sail ship on the high sea, subject to international law and the laws of the flag of the state.
ARTICLE II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
Sec. 1, Article II The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
(Relate this to Article XI)
1. Essential features: Representation and Renovation. 2. Manifestations: _ Ours is a government of law and not of men (Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil 778). _ Rule of the majority. (Plurality in elections) _ Accountability of public officials _ Bill of rights
Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws. _ Separation of powers.
_
Republicanism _What is a republican form of government?
_It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, a representative government wherein the powers and duties of government are exercised and discharged for the common good and welfare. _Characteristics of a republican form of government: 1. The people do not govern themselves directly but through their representatives; 2. It is founded upon popular suffrage; 3. There is the tripartite system of the government, the mutual interdependence of the three departments of the government. STATEa community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing a government to which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. (CIR vs. Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23) State Nation -is a legal or juristic concept -is an ethnic or racial concept State Government -possesses a government to which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience -merely an instrumentality of the State through which the will of the State is implemented and realized. Republican stateone constructed on the principle that the supreme power resides in the body of the people. Its purpose therefore is to guarantee against two (2) extremes: 1. On the one hand, monarchy and oligarchy; 2. On the other, pure democracy. Elements of State:
1. People
the inhabitants of the State; the # of which is capable for selfsufficiency
and self-defense; of both sexes for perpetuity. a. Inhabitants; b. Citizens; c. Electors.
2. Territorya fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of
the State.
3. Governmentthe agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is
formulated, expressed and realized. Government of the Philippinesrefers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of the government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government. _De Jure vs. De Facto De Jure De Facto _Has a rightful title but no power or control, either because the same has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof. _Actually exercises the power or control but without legal title. a. De facto propergovernment that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter; b. Government of Paramount Forcesestablished and maintained by the military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war; c. Independent Government established by the inhabitants of the country who rise in insurrection against the parent State. _Presidential vs. Parliamentary Presidential Parliamentary _There is separation of legislative and
executive powers. The first is lodged in the President and the second is vested in Congress. _It embodies interdependence by separation and coordination. _There is fusion of both executive and legislative powers in Parliament, although the actual exercise of the executive powers is vested in a Prime Minister who is chosen by, and accountable to, Parliament. _It embodies interdependence by integration. _Unitary vs. Federal Government Functions of the government: a. Constituentcompulsory because constitutive of the society; b. Ministrantundertaken to advance the general interest of the society; merely optional. Doctrine of Parens Patriaethe government as guardian of the rights of the people may initiate legal actions for and in behalf of particular individual. (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 SCRA 738; Cabaas vs. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94)
4. Sovereigntythe supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is governed._
It is the right to exercise the functions of a State to the exclusion of any other State. While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations. In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution 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. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own
laws. Government of Laws and Not of Men.sovereignty of the people also includes the concept that government officials have only the authority given them by law and defined by law, and such authority continues only with the consent of the people. Kinds of Sovereignty: _ a. Legalthe power to issue final commands; b. Politicalthe sum total of all the influences which lie behind the law; c. Internalthe supreme power over everything within its territory; d. Externalalso known as independencefreedom from external control. Characteristics: a. Permanence b. Exclusiveness c. Comprehensiveness d. Absoluteness e. Indivisibility f. Inalienability g. Imprescriptibility Sovereignty, often referred to as Imperiumis the States authority to govern; it includes passing laws governing a territory, maintaining peace and order over it, and defending it against foreign invasion. It is the government authority possessed by the State expressed in the concept of sovereignty. Dominiumis the capacity of the State to own or acquire property such as lands and natural resources. (Lee Hong Hok vs. David, No. L-30389, December 27, 1972; Separate Opinion of Justice Kapunan in Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR, G.R. No. 135385, December 2000) It necessarily includes the power to alienate what is owned. It was the foundation for the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia that all lands were held from the Crown. Effect of Belligerent Occupationthere is no change in sovereignty. However, political laws, except those of treason, are suspended; municipal laws remain in force unless changed by the belligerent occupant. Principle of Jus Postliminiumat the end of the occupation, when the occupant is ousted from the territory, the political laws which have been suspended shall
automatically become effective again. (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, No. L049, November 12, 1945) Effect of Change of Sovereigntypolitical laws of the former sovereign are abrogated unless they are expressly reenacted by the affirmative act of the new sovereign. Municipal laws remain in force. (Macariola vs. Asuncion, Adm. Case No. 133-J, May 31, 1982) Effect of Revolutionary Governmentit is bound by no constitution. However, it did not repudiate the Covenant or Declaration in the same way it repudiated the Constitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for the States good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law. During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and orders issued by government officers did not exceed the authority granted them by the revolutionary government. The directives or orders should not have
also violated the Covenant or the Declaration. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003) Jurisdictionis the manifestation of sovereignty. a. Territorialpower of the State over persons and things within its territory subject to its control and protection. b. Personalpower of the State over its nationals, which may be exercised by the state even if the individual is outside the territory of the State. c. Extraterritorialpower of the State over persons, things or acts beyond its territorial limits by reason of their effects to its territory. Sec. 2, Article II (Incorporation Clause) The Philippine renounces war 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. Three (3) parts: 1. Renunciation of warthe power to wage a defensive war is of the very essence of sovereignty; 2. Adoption of the principles of international law; 3. Adherence to a policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation & amity. The second part is nothing more than a formal acceptance of a principle to which all civilized nations must conform. The third part is called the selfish policythe guiding principle of Philippine foreign policy is the national interest. However, this is tempered with concern for equality, peace, freedom and justice. Section 23 (1), Article VI: The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in join session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. Doctrine of Incorporationthe doctrine where the generally accepted principles of international law are made part of the law of the land either by express provision of the Constitution or by means of judicial declaration or fiat. The doctrine is applied whenever municipal tribunals or local courts are confronted with situations in which there appears
to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the Constitution or statute of a State. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them so as to give effect to both. In case of conflict between international law and municipal law, the latter shall prevail. However, the doctrine dictates that rules of international law are given equal standing with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments. Lex posterior derogate prioriin States where the constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the Constitution. (Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000)
Philip Morris, Inc. vs. CA, the fact that the international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. Doctrine of Autolimitation It is the doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international law as a limitation to the exercise of its sovereignty. _What war does the Philippines renounce? _The Philippines renounces an aggressive war because of its membership in the United Nations whose charter renounces war as an instrument of national policies of its member States. Sec. 3, Article II (Civilian Supremacy Clause) 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. Civilian Supremacy Clause Sec. 18, Art. VIIinstallation of the President as the highest civilian authority, as the commander-in-chief of the AFPexternal manifestation that civilian authority is supreme over the military. Sec. 5(1), Art. XVImembers of the AFP swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the civil government. Civilian supremacy is not a guaranteed supremacy of civilian officers who are in
power but of supremacy of the sovereign people. The Armed Forces, in this sense, is the protector of the people and the State. Sec. 6, Article XVIThe State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.
_IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, the deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of the marines in this case constitutes permissible use of military asset for civilian law enforcement. x x x The limited participation of the Marines is evident in the provisions of the Letter of Instruction (LOI) itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of the Marines authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones charge of the visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the Metro Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols. Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol procedures. It is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the Marines and render logistic support to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be properly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian authority. It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities in various forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The Philippine experience reveals that it is not averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and execution of certain traditionally civil functions. x x x Some of the multifarious activities wherein military aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities that bring both the civilian and the military together in a relationship of cooperation are: 1. Elections; 2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross; 3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and disasters; 4. Amateur sports promotion and development; 5. Development of the culture and the arts; 6. Conservation of the natural resources; 7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program; 8. Enforcement of customs laws; 9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities; 10. Conduct of licensure examinations; 11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and high school students; 12. Anti-drug enforcement activities; 13. Sanitary inspections; 14. Conduct of census work; 15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board; 16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices;
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government units. This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting from a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress and, yet, never before questioned. What we have here is a mutual support and cooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not derogation of civilian supremacy. Sec. 4, Article II 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. _Does the Philippines renounce defensive war? _No, because it is duty bound to defend its citizens. Under the Constitution, the prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the people. Posse Commitatusit is the power of the state to require all able-bodied citizens to perform civic duty to maintain peace and order. In People vs. Lagman, 66 Phil. 13, the accused in this case, prosecuted for failure to register for military service under the National Defense Act, assailed the validity of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld the law on the basis of the compulsory military and civil service provision of then 1935 Constitution. It said that: x x x. 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 to the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist thereinx x x the right of the Government to require compulsory military service is a consequence of its duty to defend the State and is reciprocal with its duty to defend the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. x x x. Sec. 5, Article II
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. Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The license to carry a firearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create a vested right.
Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of police power. The maintenance of peace and order, and the protection of the people against violence are constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear firearm is to be construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties. (Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004) Sec. 6, Article II The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. The State should not use its money and coercive power to establish religion. It should not support a particular religion. The State is prohibited from interfering with purely ecclesiastical affairs. But it does not mean that there is total or absolute separation. The better rule is symbiotic relations between the church and State. Constitutional provisions evidencing the Separation of Church and State: 1. Sec. 6, Art. II 2. Sec. 5, Art. IIINo 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 and political rights.
3. Sec.
2 (5), Art. IX-Creligious sect cannot be registered as political party 4. Sec. 5 (2), Art. VIno sectoral representative from the religious sector 5. Sec. 28 (3), Art. VICharitable 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. 6. Sec. 29 (2), Art. VINo 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. 7. Sec. 3 (3), Art. XIVAt the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.
8. Sec.
4 (2), Art. XIVFilipino ownership requirement for educational institutions, except those established by religious groups and mission boards.
Austria vs. NLRC and CPU Mission Corp. of the 7th Day Adventists, G.R. No. 124382, August 16, 1999, an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church and its members and relates to matter of faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation. Examples of these affairs in which the State cannot meddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordination of religious ministers, administration of sacraments, and other activities to which is attached religious significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the church.
STATE POLICIES
Sec. 7, Article II (Independent Foreign Policy) 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. The word relations covers the whole gamut of treaties and international agreements and other kinds of intercourse. This is the closest reference to military bases. There is a marked antipathy in the Constitution towards foreign military presence in the country, or of foreign influence in general. (Lim vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002)
Sec. 8, Article II (Policy of Freedom from Nuclear Weapons) The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. Clearly, the ban is on nuclear armsthat is, the use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, devices, and parts thereof. And this includes not only possessing, controlling and manufacturing nuclear weapons, but also nuclear test in our territory, as well as the use of our territory as dumping ground for radioactive waste. The provision, however, is not a ban on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nor is it a ban on all nuclear-capable vessels. For a vessel to be banned, it is not enough that it is capable of carrying nuclear arms; it must actually carry nuclear arms. Nuclear weapons, if stored in our territory, may invite threats of foreign invasion and there is a danger to the life and limbs of the people because of the threat of explosion.
Sec. 9, Article II (Just and Dynamic Social Order) 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. It reflects a preoccupation with poverty as resulting from structures that mire the people in a life of dependence. Sec. 10, Article II (Social Justice) The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development. (Read Sections 1 and 2 of Article XIII) Sections 1&2 of Article XIII: Section 1The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments. Section 2The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and selfreliance. The Constitution covers all phases of national development but with more emphasis not only on economic inequities but also on political and cultural inequities. Sec. 11, Article II (Personal Dignity and Human Rights) The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. (Read Sections 17-19 of Article XIII)
Section 12, Article II (The Family as Basic Social Institution) 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. (Read Article XV) The family here is to be understood as a stable heterosexual relationship whether formalized by civilly recognized marriage or not. Calling the family a basic social institution is an assertion that the family is anterior to the State and is not a creature of the State. The categorization of the family as autonomous is meant to
protect the family against instrumentalization by the State. Protection of the Unborn The unborns entitlement to protection begins from conception, i.e., from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization. The provision is intended to prevent the State from adopting the doctrine in US Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113, which liberalized abortion laws up to the 6th month of pregnancy by allowing abortion at the discretion of the mother any time during the first 6 months when it can be done without danger to the mother. Natural Right and Duty of Parents Parents are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid them in the discharge of their responsibility. The provision also highlights the inherent duty of the State to act as parens patriae and to protect the right of persons and individuals who, because of age or inherent incapacity, are in an unfavorable position vis--vis other parties. People vs. Larin, G.R. No. 128777, October 7, 1998, RA 7610, which penalizes child prostitution and other sexual abuses, was enacted in consonance with the policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, thus, the Court grants the victim full vindication and protection granted under the law.
Section 13, Article II Vital Role of the Youth in Nation-Building The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social wellbeing. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. Section 14, Article II (Equality of Women and Men)
The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. (Read Section 14, Article XIII) PT&T Co. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997, the SC held that the petitioners policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination, which is guaranteed all women workers under the Constitution. While a requirement that a woman employee must remain unmarried may be justified as a bona fide occupational qualification where the particular requirements of the job would demand the same, discrimination against married women cannot be adopted by the employer as a general principle. Section 15, Article II (Right to Health) The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. (Read Sections 11-13 of Article XIII as an aspect of Social Justice) Section 16, Article II (Right to A Balanced and Healthful Ecology) 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. _Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792, it was held that the 34 minors duly joined by their respective parents pleading the cause of inter-generational responsibility and inter-generational justice, had a valid cause of action in questioning the grant of Timber Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging purposes. The minors filed the action for themselves as representing their generation as well as generations yet
unborn. The SC, on the basis of Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health, recognized a right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala, G.R. No. 111088, June 13, 1997, on the issue that the total log ban is a new policy which should be applied prospectively and not affect the rights of petitioner vested under the Timber Licensing Agreement (TLA), the Sc held that this is not a new policy but a mere reiteration of the policy of conservation and protection the right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Section 17, Article II 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. (Read also Section 2, Article XIV) In PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004, while it is true that the SC has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements, the exercise of this right may be regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety and general welfare. Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation assumes particular pertinence in the field of medicine, in order to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance. PMMS, Inc. vs. CA, 244 SCRA 770, the Court said that the requirement that a school must first obtain government authorization before operating is based on the State policy that educational programs and/or operations shall be of good quality and, therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum standards with respect to curricula, teaching staff, physical plant and facilities and administrative and management viability.
Section 18, Article II The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the right of the workers and promote their welfare. In the case of Bernardo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122917, July 12, 1999, the SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabled
persons be granted the same terms and conditions of employment as qualified ablebodied employees; thus, once hey have attained the status of regular workers, they should be accorded all the benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbal contracts to the contrary. This treatment is rooted not merely in charity or accommodation, but in justice for all. Section 19, Article II The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. The Constitution does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither economic seclusion nor mendicancy in the international community. Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on equality and reciprocity, the fundamental law encourages industries that are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets, thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust industries that can compete with the best in the foreign markets. (Taada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18) Section 20, Article II The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. (Read Article XII) Doctrine of Free Enterprise Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA, G.R. No. 110526, February 10, 1998, the SC said that although the Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary for the promotion of the general welfare as reflected in Sections 6 & 19 of Article XII.
Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide
Authority, G.R. No. 156041, February 21, 2007 and Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III, G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007, it was held that despite the fact that our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of protective regulations. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade. Section 21, Article II The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. Rural development encompasses a broad spectrum of social, economic, human, cultural, political and even industrial development. (See the case of Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343) Section 22, Article II The state recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. [Read Section 5(2), Article VI; Section 5, Article XII; Section 17, Article XIV] Section 23, Article II The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation. (Read Sections 15-16 of Article XIII) Section 24, Article II The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nationbuilding. (Read Sections 10-11, Art. XVI; Sec. 23, Art. XVIII) Section 25, Article II The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. (Read Article X)
Basco vs. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52, The SC held that the local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means decentralization, and does not make the local governments sovereign within the State or an imperium in imperio.
Limbonas vs. Mangelin, 170 SCRA 786
Decentralization of Administration Decentralization of Power -delegation of administrative powers to the local government unit in order to broaden the base of governmental powers. -abdication by the national government of governmental powers Lina vs. Pano, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001, the Sc said that the basic relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. Without meaning to detract from that policy, Congress retains control of the LGUs although in a significantly reduced degree now under our previous Constitutions. The power to create still includes the power to destroy. The power to grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. True there are notable innovations in the Constitution, like the direct conferment on the LGUs of the power to tax which cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By and large, however, the national legislature is still the principal of LGUs, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it. Ours is still a unitary form of government, not a federal state. Being so, any form of autonomy granted to local governments will necessarily be limited and confined within the extent allowed by the central authority. Judge Dadole vs. COA, G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002, even as we recognize that the Constitution guarantees autonomy to LGUs, the exercise of local autonomy remains subject to the power of control by Congress and the power of general supervision by the President. xxx The President can only interfere in the affairs and activities of a LGU if he finds that the latter had acted contrary to law. The President or any of his alter egos, cannot interfere in local affairs as long as the concerned LGU acts within the parameters of the law and the Constitution. Any directive, therefore, by the President or any of his alter egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment on local affairs of a LGU is a patent nullity, because it violates the principle of local autonomy, as well as the doctrine of separation of powers of the executive and legislative departments in governing municipal corporations.
Section 26, Article II The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. Pamatong vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004, the SC said that this provision does not bestow a right to seek the Presidency; it does not contain a judicially enforceable constitutional right and merely specifies a guideline for legislative action. The provision is not intended to compel the State to enact positive measures that would accommodate as many as possible into public office. The privilege may be subjected to limitations. One such valid limitation is the provision of the Omnibus Election Code on nuisance candidates. Section 27, Article II The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption. Section 28, Article II Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. ----PRINCIPLE OF TRANSPARENCY DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS This principle operated as an implicit limitation on legislative powers as on the two other powers. In essence, separation of powers means the legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive, settlement of legal controversies to the judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the others. But the separation is not total. The system allows for checks and balances the net effect of which being that, in general, no one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other departments.
Purpose: To prevent concentration of powers in one department and thereby to avoid tyranny. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of governmental powers among the three departments, to save the people from autocracy. 1. To secure action 2. To forestall overaction 3. To prevent despotism 4. To obtain efficiency In La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, December 1, 2004, the court restrained itself from intruding into policy matters to allow the President and Congress maximum discretion in using mineral resources of our country and in securing the assistance of foreign groups to eradicate the grinding poverty of our people and answer their cry for viable employment opportunities in the country. The Judiciary is loath to interfere with the due exercise by co-equal branches of government of their official functions. Let the development of mining industry be the responsibility of the political branches of the government. The questioned provisions of RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995) are not unconstitutional. In Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464, in the absence of any administrative action taken against the RTC Judge by the SC with regard to the formers certificate of service, the investigation conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the SCs power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Principle of Blending of Powers: Instances when powers are not confined exclusively within one department but are assigned to or shared by several departments. Principle of Checks and Balances: This allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogative or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments. _The first and safest criterion to determine whether a given power has been validly exercised by a particular department is whether or not the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming its exercisesince the conferment is usually done expressly. However, even in the absence of express conferment, the exercise of the power may be justified under the doctrine of
necessary implication. The grant of express power carried with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it. Justiciable question- implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said breach of right. (Casibang vs. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642)
THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE
1. Police Power 2. Power of Eminent Domain 3. Power of Taxation Similarities: 1. Inherent in the State, exercised even without need of express constitutional grant. 2. Necessary and indispensable; State cannot be effective without them. 3. Methods by which State interferes with private property. 4. Presupposes equivalent compensation. 5. Exercised primarily by the legislature. Distinctions: Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation _Regulates both liberty and property _may be exercised only by government; cannot be delegated to administrative body _property taken is usually noxious(unpleasant and harmful) or intended for noxious purpose and may thus be destroyed _compensation is the intangible, altruistic feeling
that the individual has contributed to the public good _Affects property rights _may even be exercised by private entities _the property is wholesome and devoted to public use or purpose _compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken _affects property rights _may be exercised only by government; cannot be delegated to administrative body _the property is wholesome and devoted to public use or purpose _it is the protection and/or public improvements instituted by government for the taxes paid
Limitations: Generally, the Bill of Rights, although in some cases the exercise of the power prevails over specific constitutional guarantees. The courts may annul the improvident exercise of police power. These powers must not be exercised arbitrarily, to the prejudice of Bill of Rights. In Ericta vs. City Government of Quezon City, 122 SCRA 759, the City Government of QC was not exercising police power when they required private cemetery owners to reserve 6% of the burial lots for paupers burial ground. The SC held that in police power, the property to be taken is to be destroyed. The 6% are private property of the cemetery owners. This is a taking of private property. Sec. 9, Art.
III: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Clearly, this is an invalid exercise of police power. The City was made to pay the owners just compensation. In Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Sec. 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation in every province or city to provide free print space of not less than page as COMELEC space, was held to be an invalid exercise of police power there being no showing of the existence of a national emergency or imperious public necessity for the taking of print space, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable and calibrated response to such necessity. This was held to be an exercise of the power of eminent domain, albeit invalid, because the COMELEC would not pay for the space to be given to it by the newspapers.
_Police power and power of taxationcannot be delegated to administrative bodies. _Police power and power of eminent domain both involved taking. They differ in purpose. _Police powerto destroy; because the property is harmful, obnoxious, poses a risk to the public. _Power of eminent domainonly private property is the subject of taking; the purpose is to convert the private property to public use.
POLICE POWER It is the power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare. It is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people (now common good). (Binay vs. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508) It has been described as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. It is the power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable
laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. (Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD, G.R. No. 166494, June 29, 2007) Cabrera vs. Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, December 6, 2006, a careful reading of the questioned Resolution reveals that the Ombudsman dismissed petitioners criminal complaint because respondents had validly resorted to the police power of the State when they effected the demolition of the illegal fishpond in question following the declaration thereof as a nuisance per se. in the words of the Ombudsman, those who participated in the blasting of the subject fishpond were only impelled by their desire to serve the best interest of the general public; for the good and the highest good. Requisites (Limitations): 1. Lawful subjectthe interests of the public in general as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the exercise of this power. 2. Lawful meansthe means employed are reasonably for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals.
Affected with public interestan industry is subject to control for the public good; it has been considered as the equivalent of subject to the exercise of police power. Construction: construed strictly and any doubt must be resolved against the grant. Scope/Characteristics: It is the most pervasive, least limitable, and the most demanding of the three powers. The justification is found in: salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (use your property so as not to impair others). 1. It cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract. 2. The taxing power may be used as an implement of police power 3. Eminent domain may be used as an implement to attain the police power objective (Association of Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
175 SCRA 343). 4. In Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000, nonimpairment of contracts or vested rights clauses will have to yield to the superior and legitimate exercise by the State of the police power. 5. In PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004, the exercise of the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study may be regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people. This regulation assumes particular pertinence in the field of medicine, to protect the public from the potentially dead effects of incompetence and ignorance. In Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534, the right to bear arms is merely statutory privilege. The license to carry firearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create a vested right. A permit to carry outside ones residence may be revoked at any time. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered as absolute as to be beyond the reach of the police power. Who may exercise police power? The power is inherently vested in Congress. However, they may validly delegate this power to the following:
1. the President 2. administrative bodiespublic and quasi-public corporations 3. the lawmaking bodies of local government units Local government units exercise the power under the general welfare clause. CANORECO vs. Torres, G.R. no. 127249, February 27, 1998, while police power may be delegated to the President by law, RA 6939 and PD 260, as amended, do not authorize the President or any other administrative body, to take over the internal management of a cooperative. Accordingly, Memorandum Order No. 409, issued by the President, constituting an ad hoc committee to temporarily take over and manage the affairs of CANORECO is invalid. In MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000, there is no provision in RA 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its council to enact
ordinance, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. Thus, MMDA may not order the opening of Neptune St. in the Bel-Air Subdivision to public traffic, as it does not possess delegated police power. Section 11, Article Xthe Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination. MMDA is not a special metropolitan political subdivision. However, in MMDA vs. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005, although the law (RA 7924) does not grant the MMDA the power to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses without need of any legislative enactment, the same law vests the MMDA the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and regulations. Thus, where there is a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the legislature or those agencies to whom legislative power has been delegated, the MMDA is not precludedand in fact is dutybound to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses in the exercise of its mandate of transport and traffic management, as well as the administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and traffic education programs.
Additional Limitations (When exercised by delegate): a. express grant by law b. within territorial limits (for local government units, except when exercised to protect water supply) c. must not be contrary to law For municipal ordinance to be valid: 1. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2. it must not be unfair or oppressive; 3. it must not be partial or discriminatory; 4. it must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade; 5. it must not be unreasonable; and 6. it must be general in application and consistent with public policy. In City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005, the SC declared as an invalid exercise of the police power the City of Manila Ordinance No. 7783, which prohibited the establishment or operation of businesses providing certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities in the Ermita-Malate area, for being contrary to the Constitution, infringing the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws. In Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197 (1994), solicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the State in the exercise of police power. In Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs. CA, 329 SCRA 314 (2000), the issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is essentially regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units, to issue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police power of the State within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the LGC. The implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) is an exercise of police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also taking under the power of eminent domain. The
taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of rights provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law. The exercise of power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the
taking of private property. [Roxas and Co., vs. CA, 321 SCRA 106 (1999)] Republic vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 141314, November 15, 2002, the regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded upon the police power of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the control and regulations of public utilities are a valid exercise thereof. When a private property is used for a public purpose and is affected with public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only and becomes subject to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good. Submission to regulation may be withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but as long as the use of the property is continued, the same is subject to public regulation. In regulating rates charged by public utilities, the State protects the public against arbitrary and excessive rates while maintaining the efficiency and quality of services rendered. However, the power to regulate rates does not give the State the right to prescribe rates which are so low as to deprive the public utility of a reasonable return on investment. Philippine Press Institute (PPI) vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation in every province or city to provide free print space of not less than page as COMELEC space, was held to be invalid exercise of police power there being no showing of the existence of national emergency or imperious public necessity for the taking of print space, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable and calibrated response to such necessity. Public purpose and use has broader concept now. It now includes VICARIOUS BENEFITS that society may derive from a particular measure. e.g. CONCERN FOR THE POORSC recognized this as one for public purpose and use.
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN also known as the power of expropriation The power of eminent domain is the power of the State to forcibly take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. It is the right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular uses to promote public welfare.
It is governments right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose. (Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 586) The ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public, but even the private property of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, for public purpose. Power of Eminent Domain Destruction Due to Necessity _involves public rights _the property is converted to public use _there must be payment of just compensation _undertaken by the State _involves private rights such as selfpreservation and self-defense _there is no need for the conversion to public use _no need for just compensation _may be validly undertaken even by private individuals Object of Expropriation: 1. anything that comes under the dominion of man 2. real, personal, tangible and intangible 3. property right 4. churches and other religious properties 5. property already devoted to public use Except: money- because compensation is also money Who may exercise?
Generally, the legislature, but also upon valid delegation to: 1. the President; 2. lawmaking bodies of LGUs; 3. administrative bodiespublic and quasi-public corporations 4. Private enterprises performing public services. In the case of Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, the power of eminent domain must, by enabling law, be delegated to local governments by the
national legislature, and thus, can only be as broad as the real authority would want it to be. The grant of the power to local government units under RA 7160 cannot be understood as equal to the pervasive and all encompassing power vested in the legislative branch of government. JIL School Foundation vs. Municipality of Pasig, G. R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005Sec. 19, of the LGC requires the LGU to tender a prior written definite and valid offer to acquire the property before the filing of the complaint for eminent domain. Filstream Intl Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716the exercise of the power of eminent domain is clearly superior to the final and executor judgment rendered by the court in an ejectment case. RP vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620services were considered embraced in the concept of property subject to taking under the power of eminent domain. Republic, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, may require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of government service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined by the court. Where Expropriation Suit Is Filed: In the Regional Trial Courtbecause it is incapable of pecuniary estimation Requisites:
1. Necessitywhen exercised by:
a. Congressit is a political question; (Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 640)
b. Delegatethe determination of whether there is a genuine necessity for the exercise is a justiceable question (Republic vs. La Orden de Po. Benedictinos, 1 SCRA 649). The RTC has the power to inquire to the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for it (Bardillon vs. Brgy. Masili of Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, April 30, 2003). Lagcao vs. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004there was no showing at all why petitioners property was singled out for expropriation by the city
ordinance or what necessity impelled the particular choice or selection. The ordinance stated no reason for the choice of petitioners property as the site of a socialized housing project.
2. Private propertyall private property capable of ownership may be
expropriated except money and choses in action; may include services. (Republic vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620) In City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, 40 Phil. 349, a cemetery open to the public was already in public use and no part of the ground could be taken for other public uses under a general authority. The City of Manila was without authority to expropriate the property. (The Congress itself should expropriate or there must be special grant.)
3. Taking there is taking when:
a. The owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property; b. There is practical destruction or material impairment of the value of the property; c. The owner is deprived of the ordinary use of his property; d. The owner is deprived of jurisdiction, supervision and control of his property. Requisites for a valid taking: (EMADO) a. The expropriator must enter a private property; b. Entry must be for more than a momentary period; c. Entry must be under warrant or color of authority;
d. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected; e. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property. (Republic vs. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336) The taking of private property may include the impairment of the use of the property for which it was intended. In US vs. Causby, 328 US 256, the flight of planes from a nearby military airport over plaintiffs property below the navigable airspace resulting in the ruin of plaintiffs chicken farm was considered compensable taking. So
also were low landing and take-off flights which made nearby residential area unlivable (Griggs vs. Allegheny County, 369 US 84). This is taking in the constitutional sense. _Avenida, Rizal used to be the commercial center of Manila. However, when the Light Railway Transit (LRT) was built, the commercial value of Avenida was greatly diminished. The shops and stores had to close. The owners of these establishments suffered losses because of the operation of the LRT along Avenida, Rizal. Are they entitled to be paid just compensation? _No. SC held that the kind of injury or loss that one must suffer that will justify the payment of just compensation must be a special kind of injury or loss as in the case of Causby. If the injury or loss that one suffered is one which he suffered together with the rest of the community, his only compensation in such a case is the altruistic feeling that somehow he is able to contribute to the common good. CANORECO vs. CA, G.R. No. 109338, November 20, 2000, The owner of the property cut the electric lines alleging that it impaired him of the use of his property. The SC held that the property owner was not justified in cutting the electric lines. His property becomes the servient estate subject to the encumbrance, and the acquisition of an easement of right of way filed by an electric power company for the construction of transmission lines falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. However, since there was an impairment of the use of the property, he is entitled to the payment of just compensation. The establishment of an easement is a form of compensable taking. In NAPOCOR vs. Sps. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 60077, January 18, 1991, the owner of the land was awarded full compensation against the NAPOCORs argument that the owners were not totally deprived of the use of the land and could still plant the same crops as
long as they did not come into contact with the wires. The Court said: the right of way easement perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as manifested by
the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines no plant higher than 3 meters is allowed. Furthermore, because of the high-tension current conveyed through the transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be caused beneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all, plaintiff only pays the fee to defendant once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on said affected portion of their property. In People vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 44, a municipal ordinance prohibiting a building which would impair the view of the plaza from the highway was considered taking. The property owner was held to be entitled to payment of just compensation. In Velarma vs. CA, 252 SCRA 400, the owner of the property can recover possession of the property from squatters, even if he agreed to transfer the property to the Government, until the transfer is consummated or the expropriation case is filed. Taking under Eminent Domain Proceeding Taking under Police Power _Only private properties may be taken _The private property is taken in order to convert it to public use _All properties are subject to taking _The purpose of taking is to destroy the property because it is harmful or obnoxious to the public. Philippine Press Institute (PPI) vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation in every province or city to provide free print space of not less than page as COMELEC space, was held to be an exercise of power of eminent domain, albeit invalid, because the COMELEC would not pay for the space to be given to it by the newspapers. TELEBAP, Inc. vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 1998, the constitutionality of Sec. 92 of BP 881 (requiring radio and television station owners and operators to give to the COMELEC radio and television time free of charge) was challenged on the ground that it violated the due process clause and the eminent domain provision of the Constitution
by taking airtime from radio and television broadcasting stations without payment of just
compensation. The SC held that all broadcasting, whether by radio or by television stations, is licensed by the government. Airwaves frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast than there frequencies to assign. A franchise is thus a privilege subject, among other things, to amendment by Congress in accordance with the constitutional provision that any such franchise or right granted x x x shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires (Art. XII, Sec.11). In the granting of the privilege to operate broadcast stations and thereafter supervising radio and television stations, the State spends considerable public funds in licensing and supervising such stations. It would be strange if it cannot even require the licensees to render public service by giving free airtime. x x x As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private property is taken by the requirement that they provide airtime to the COMELEC. PPI vs. COMELEC TELEBAP vs. COMELEC _there was taking of property _newspaper space is the private property of the newspaper owners _print media do not enjoy privilege _there was no taking of private property _airwaves are scarce resources, the use is regulated by the State _franchise (privilege) is issued by the State (Art. XII, Sec. 11)
_Shifting argument alleged in TELEBAP: both PPI and TELEBAP are media of communication and information. Equal protection clause was raised as an issue. The SC ruled that equal protection clause does not guarantee absolute equality. There may be classification. Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be treated differently if there is a basis for valid classification.
4. Public usepublic interest; public benefit; public welfare; public
convenience (Reyes vs. NHA, G.R. No. 147511, January 20, 2003). The general conceptmeeting public need or public exigency; may include indirect public benefit or advantage. In Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. PEZA, 349 SCRA 240, public use is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare.
It has been broadened to include not only uses directly available to the public but also those which redound to their indirect benefit; that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of the property does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of public use. (Manosca vs. CA, 252 SCRA 412) In Filstream Intl Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716, the fact that the property is less than hectare and that only a few could actually benefit from the expropriation does not diminish its public use character, inasmuch as public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including, in particular, urban land reform and housing. By express legislative authority granted by Congress in Sec. 19, RA 7160, LGUs may expropriate private property for public use, or purpose, or welfare, for the benefit of the poor and the landless. Thus, in Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 568, the SC held that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur was without authority to disapprove Bunawan Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 because, clearly, the Municipality of Bunawan has authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and its Sanggguniang Bayan the capacity to promulgate the assailed resolution. However, in the case of Municipacility of Paraaque vs. V.M. Realty Corporation, 292 SCRA 676, the SC declared that there was lack of compliance with Sec. 19 of RA 7160, where the Municipal Mayor filed a complaint for eminent domain over two (2) parcels of land on the strength of the resolution passed by the Sangguniang Bayan, because what is required by law is an ordinance and not mere resolution. In Francia, Jr. vs. Municipality of Meycauayan, G.R. No. 170432, March 24, 2008, the Supreme Court held that the determination of a public purpose for the expropriated property is not a condition precedent before a court may issue a writ of possession. Once the requisite in Sec. 19 of the Local Government Code are satisfied, the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial matter for the court.
5. Just Compensationthe full and fair market value of the property taken; it is
the fair market value of the property. It is settled that the market value of the property is that sum of money which a person, desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner,
willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on a price to be given and received therefor. Medium: money except: payment other than money (Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343), payment is allowed to be made partly in bonds, because under the CARP it deals with the revolutionary kind of expropriation. The determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function and factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and reviewable only when the case falls within the recognized exceptions. (NAPOCOR vs. San Pedro, G.R. No. 170945, September 26, 2006) Land Bank vs. CA (and DAR vs. CA), 249 SCRA 149Sec. 16(e), RA 6657 the deposit of compensation must be in cash or in Land Bank bonds not in any other form, and certainly not in a trust account. Reckoning point of market value of the property: FMV at the date of: a) filing of the complaint; or b) the taking whichever is earlier. Rules in Just Compensation-Rule 67, Sec. 6: 1. Determine the actual or basic value of the property. 2. If entire property not expropriated: Value of property - consequential benefits + consequential damages (basic or actual) (CB) (CD) _If consequential benefits exceed consequential damages, CB and CD should be disregarded because the BASIC VALUE of the property should be paid in every case. Basic/market valuethe price that may be agreed upon by the parties willing but not compelled to enter into a contract of sale. _Factors to be considered: _Cost of acquisition _Actual or potential uses
_Current value of like properties _in particular case: size of lands, shape, location
and tax declaration Consequential damagesinjuries directly caused on the residue of the private property taken by reason of expropriation Example: the property left is in odd shape or with area virtually unusable Consequential Benefitsthe remainder is, as a result of the expropriation, placed in a better location, such as fronting a street where it used to be an interior lot. Association of Small Landowners vs. DAR, 175 SCRA 343 (1989) the power of eminent domain could be used as an implement of police power. The expressed objective of the law was the promotion of the welfare of the farmers, which came clearly under the police power of the state. To achieve this purpose, the law provided for the expropriation of agricultural lands (subject to minimum retention limits for the landowners) to be distributed among the landless peasantry. _DARAB determines just compensation (exception to the general rule that courts decide the value) _DAR may make initial valuation; owner goes to court if not satisfied. _Expropriation may be initiated by court action or by legislation. In both instances, just compensation is determined by the courts. In Republic vs. Salem Investment Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 137569, June 23, 2000, the Supreme Court held that it is only upon payment of just compensation that title over the property passes to the government. Therefore, until the action for expropriation has been completed and terminated, ownership over the property being expropriated remains with the registered owner. Consequently, the latter can exercise all rights pertaining to an owner, including the right to dispose of his property, subject to the power of the State ultimately to acquire it through expropriation. The Dela Ramas make much of the fact that ownership of the land was transferred to the government because the equitable and the beneficial title were already acquired by it in 1983, leaving them with only the naked title. However, xxx the recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of just compensation.
Legal interest for expropriation cases6% -from the time of taking until just compensation is actually paid -interest must be claimed, otherwise, it is deemed waived _Title to the property shall not be transferred until after actual payment of just compensation is made to the owner. Genuine Necessity National legislationquestion of necessity is POLITICAL; judiciary has no power to inquire. Delegateliberally in favor of the private property owner; judiciary can inquire into whether the authority conferred upon such delegate correctly and properly exercised/ whether expropriation contemplated by the delegate necessary or wise. May eminent domain be barred by res judicata or law of the case? _The principle of res judicata, which finds application in generally all cases and proceedings, cannot bar the right of the State or its agents to expropriate private property. The very nature of eminent domain, as an inherent power of the State, dictates that the right to exercise the power be absolute and unfettered even by a prior judgment or res judicata. The scope of eminent domain is plenary and, like police power, can reach every form of property which the State might need for public use. All separate interests of individuals in property are held of the government under this tacit agreement or implied reservation. Notwithstanding the grant to individuals, the eminent domain, the highest and most exact idea of property, remains in the government, or in the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity; and they have the right to resume the possession of the property whenever the public interest requires it. Thus, the State or its authorized agents cannot be forever barred from exercising said right by reason alone of previous non-compliance with any legal requirement. While the principle of res judicata does not denigrate the right of the State to exercise eminent domain, it does not apply to specific issues decided in a previous case. For example, a final judgment dismissing an expropriation suit on the ground that there was no prior offer precludes another suit raising the same issue; it cannot, however, bar the State or its agent, from thereafter complying with this requirement, as prescribed by law, and subsequently exercising its power of eminent domain over the same property. [Municipality of Paraaque vs. V.M. Realty Corp., 292 SCRA 678 (1998)]
When may the property owner be entitled to the return of the expropriated property in eminent domain cases? In Provincial Government of Sorsogon vs. Villaroya, the unpaid landowners were allowed the alternative remedy of recovery of the property. The Court ruled that under ordinary circumstances, immediate return to the owners of the unpaid property is the obvious remedy. However, in cases where land is taken for public use, public interest must be considered. (Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. PEZA, 349 SCRA 240) Right of landowner in case of non-payment of just compensationas a rule, it does not entitle the landowners to recover possession of the expropriated lots, but only to demand payment of the fair market value of the property. (Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002; Reyes vs. NHA, G.R. No. 147511, January 20, 2003). However, in RP vs. Vicente Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005, the SC said that the facts of the case do not justify the application of the rule. In this case, the Republic was ordered to pay just compensation twice; the first was in the expropriation proceedings, and the second, in the action for recovery of possession. Fifty-seven (57) years have passed since then. The Court construed the Republics failure to pay just compensation as a deliberate refusal on its part. Under such circumstances, recovery of possession is in order. It was then held that where the government failed to pay just compensation within 5 years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property. Plaintiffs right to dismiss the complaint in Eminent Domain In expropriation cases, there is no such thing as the plaintiffs matter-of-right to dismiss the complaint, precisely because the landowner may have already suffered damages at the start of the taking. The plaintiffs right to dismiss the complaint has always been subject to court approval and to certain conditions. (NAPOCOR & Pobre vs. CA, G.R. No. 106804, August 12, 2004)
Right to repurchase or re-acquire the property The property owners right to repurchase the property depends upon the character of the title acquired by the expropriator, e.g., if the land is expropriated for a particular purpose with a condition that when the purpose is ended or abandoned, the
property shall revert to the former owner, then the former owner can re-acquire the property. In this case, the terms of the judgment in the expropriation case were very clear and unequivocal, granting title to the lot in fee simple to the Republic. No condition on the right to repurchase was imposed. (Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. CA, G.R. No. 139495, Novermber 27, 2000) Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, in arguing for the return of their property on the basis of non-payment, respondents ignored the fact that the right of the expropriatory authority is far from that of an unpaid seller in ordinary sales to which the remedy is rescission may perhaps apply. Expropriation is an in rem proceeding, and after condemnation, the paramount title is in the public under a new and independent title.
POWER OF TAXATIONis the power to demand from the members of society their proportionate share/contribution in the maintenance of the government. It is the power by which the State raises revenue to defray the necessary expenses of the Government. Scope: covers persons, property or occupation to be taxed within the taxing jurisdiction. It is so pervasive; it reaches even the citizens abroad and their income outside the Philippines; all the income earned in the Philippines by a citizen or alien. Basis: power emanating from necessity (lifeblood doctrine) Importance of Taxation: 1. No constitutional government can exist without it; 2. It is one great power upon which the whole national fabric is based; 3. It is necessary for the existence and prosperity of the nation; and
4. It is the lifeblood of the nation. Who may exercise? Generally, the legislature, but also upon valid delegation: 1. Lawmaking bodies of LGUs (Sec. 5, Art. X); 2. President (limited extent-delegated tariff powers), under Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI of the Constitution or as an incident of emergency powers that Congress may grant to him under Sec. 23 (2), art. VI. Purpose: unavoidable obligation of the government to protect the people and extend them benefits in the form of public projects and services. Public purposeproceeds must be devoted to public use. It includes INDIRECT public advantage/benefits. The mere fact that the tax will be directly enjoyed by private individual does not make it INVALID so long as the same link to public welfare is established. Requisites: 1. It must be for public purpose; 2. It shall be uniform; 3. Person or property taxed shall be within the jurisdiction of the taxing authority; 4. In assessment & collection, notice and hearing shall be provided.
Limitations on the Power of Taxation Inherent limitations: 1. Public purpose; 2. Non-delegability of power; 3. Territoriality or Situs of taxation; 4. Exemption of government from taxation; 5. International comitygenerally accepted principles of international law Constitutional limitations: 1. Due process of lawtax should not be confiscatory.
_Due process does not require previous notice and hearing before a law
prescribing fixed/specific taxes on certain articles may be enacted.
_If the tax to be collected is to be based on the value of the taxable propertyad
valorem taxthe taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the assessment proceeding and to be heard on the correct valuation. 2. Equal protection of lawtaxes should be uniform and equitable. 3. Uniformitypersons/things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the
same rate Equitabilitytaxes should be apportioned among the people according to their capacity to pay Progressivity 4. Non-impairment of contracts 5. Non-imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax 6. Revenue and tariff bills must originate in the HOR 7. Non-infringement of religious freedom 8. Delegation of legislative authority to the President to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues 9. Tax exemption of properties actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable and educational purposes 10. Majority vote of all the members of Congress required in case of legislative grant of tax exemptions 11. Non-impairment of the SCs jurisdiction in tax cases 12. Tax exemption of revenues and assets of, including grants, endowments, donations, or contributions to, educational institutions. Double taxationadditional taxes are laid: 1. On the same subject;
2. By the same taxing authority; 3. During the same taxing period; and 4. For the same purpose. Double taxation is allowed by law. However, it will not be allowed if the same will result in violation of the equal protection clause. What is prohibited is direct double taxation. In Punzalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila, 95 Phil. 46, there is no double taxation if one tax is imposed by the LGU and the other by the National Government. Taxesthe enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and for all public needs. TAX LICENSE 1. AS TO BASIS
Power of taxationto raise revenue Police powerto regulate 2. AS TO LIMITATION Rate or amount to be collected is unlimited provided it is not confiscatory Amount is limited to cost of: a)issuing the license; and b)necessary inspection of police surveillance 3. AS TO OBJECT Imposed on persons or property Paid for privilege of doing something but privilege is revocable 4. AS TO EFFECT OF NON-PAYMENT Business or activity does not become illegal Business becomes illegal Tax Debt _due to the government in its sovereign capacity _due to the government in its corporate capacity Taxes cannot be subject to off-setting or compensation for the simple reason that the government and the taxpayers are not creditors and debtors of each other.
(Philex Mining Corp. vs. CIR, 294 SCRA 687)
Tax exemptions: -discretion of the legislature 1. Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI 2. Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI 3. Sec. 4 (3), Art. XIV 4. Sec. 4 (4), Art. XIV 5. Where tax exemption is granted gratuitously, it may be revoked at will; but not if granted for a valuable considerationdeemed to partake of the nature of contract and obligation thereofprotection against impairment. In Lladoc vs. CIR, 14 SCRA 292, a parish priest accepted a donation to be used for the construction of a church. The money was spent for the purpose. The CIR imposed tax. The objection was based on constitutional exemption of church properties
from taxes. The SC rejected. Exemption referred only to property taxes imposed on lands, buildings and improvements used for religious purposes. The tax in this case is not an ad valorem tax on the church itself but an excise tax imposed on the priest (not on the properties) for his exercise of the privilege to accept the donation. Territoriality in Taxationthe power to tax operates only within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing authority. It cannot be exercised beyond the boundaries except under certain circumstances. Taxable Situs of Real Propertiesthe place where they are situated Mobilia Sequntur Personamthe intangible personal property such as credits, bank deposits, bonds, corporate stocks which do not admit of actual location and do not have inherent value but mere evidence of debts or property are usually taxable in the state of residence of the owner. Uniformity in Taxationall taxable articles, or kinds of property of the same class, shall be taxed at the same rate. There is uniformity when a tax operates in taxation with the same force and effect on its subject wherever found. Equality of Taxationtaxes shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the taxable property.
Article IV CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship- is membership in a political community which is personal and more or less permanent in character. Nationality- is membership in any class or form of political community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if member of a democratic community] or subjects [if members of a monarchial community]. It does not necessarily include the right or privilege of exercising political and civil rights. Usual modes of acquiring citizenship: a. By Birth i. Jus sanguinis-by blood ii. Jus soli-by birth b. By Naturalization c. By Marriage The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of JUS SANGUINIS. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his birth, as opposed to the doctrine of JUS SOLI which determines the nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543) Modes (by birth) applied in the Philippines A. Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution i. Jus Sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and residing in the islands who did not declare their intention of preserving Spanish nationality between said date and October 11, 1900, were declared citizens of the Philippines [Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916], and their children born after April 11, 1899. (en masse Filipinization) ii. Jus Soli. Those declared as Filipino citizens by the courts are recognized as such today, not because of the application of the jus soli principle, but principally because of the doctrine of res judicata. B. After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: Only the Jus Sanguinis doctrine. Section 1, Article IV The following are citizens of the Philippines: 1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; (February 2, 1987) 2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; (jus sanguinis) 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; 4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2, Article IV Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia, to spouses Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. Is she a Filipino citizen and, therefore, qualified to run for Governor of her province? _Historically, she was born a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the organic acts by which the US governed the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known as the Jones Law. These laws defined who were deemed to be citizens of the Philippine Islands. Xxx Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private respondents father, Telesforo, was born on January 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in the registry of Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the law in force at the time of her birth, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is likewise a citizen of the Philippines. The signing into law of the 1935 Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship xxx. This principle confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship. It was subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Thus, herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000)
Maria Jeanette Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 (on the controversy surrounding the citizenship of FPJ) The Court took note of the fact that Lorenzo Pou (grandfather of FPJ), who died in 1954 at the age of 84 years of age, would have been born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines was under the Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the en masse Filipinization that the Philippine Bill of 1902 effected. That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ). The 1935 Constitution, during which regime FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate. Marriage by Filipino to an alien: Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it [Sec.4, Art. IV]. Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999 Vicente Ching, a legitimate child, having been born on April 11, 1964 of Filipino mother and an alien father, was already 35 years old when he complied with the requirements of CA 625 on June 15, 1999, or over 14 years after he had reached the age of majority. By any reasonable yardstick, Chings election was clearly beyond the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege. All his acts (passing the CPA and Bar Exams) cannot vest in him citizenship as the law gives him the requirement for election of Filipino citizenship which he did not comply with. (He was not allowed to take the Lawyers Oath) The proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the Department of State of the US government to the effect that the election should be made within a reasonable time after attaining the age of majority. The phrase reasonable time has been interpreted to mean that the election should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority except when there is justifiable reason to delay. The span of 14 years that lapsed from the time he reached 21 until he finally
expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement of electing upon reaching the age of majority.
(If his parents were not married, he will follow the citizenship of his mother and he need not elect Philippine citizenship. )__
Caram provision. Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who, before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Islands are considered citizens of the Philippines. In Chiongbian vs. de Leon, the SC held that the right acquired by virtue of this provision is transmissible. Re: 1973 Constitution: Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Provision is prospective in application; to benefit only those born on or after January 17, 1973 (date of effectivity of 1973 Constitution). _ If born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, the person must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. [Within reasonable time=3 years except when there is justifiable reason to delay] Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship: 1. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any official authorized to administer oaths. 2. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines [Sec. 1, CA 625]. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the PhilippinesProspective application, consistent with the 1973 Constitution. _The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate right; during his minority, the child is an alien [Villahermosa vs. Commissioner of Immigration 80 Phil. 541]. _The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. In Republic vs. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004, it was held that the respondent, who was concededly an illegitimate child considering that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married, is not required to comply with said constitutional and statutory requirements. Being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent became a Filipino upon birth. Record shows that respondent elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of
the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of electing Philippine citizenship. Naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by RA 530. To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executor only after 2 years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant: 1. Has not left the Philippines; 2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession; 3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated rules; or 4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530] (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, may 7, 2001) Qualifications that must be possessed by an applicant: 1. He must be not less than 21 years of age on the day of the hearing of petition; 2. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than 10 years; may be reduced to 5 years if: a. he honorably held office in Government; b. He established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines; c. He is married to a Filipino woman; d. Has been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in a public or private school not established for the exclusive instruction of persons of a particular nationality or race) or in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than 2 year; or e. He was born in the Philippines 3. He must be of GMC and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; 4. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00,
Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; 5. He must be able to write and speak English or Spanish and any of the principal languages; and 6. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Bureau of private Schools of the Philippines where Philippine history, government and civic are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Filipino citizen. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, may 7, 2001) Disqualifications: 1. Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; 2. Those defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success of predominance of their ideas; 3. Polygamists or believers of polygamy; 4. Those convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5. Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease; 6. Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of Filipinos; 7. Those citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war; 8. Those citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. Procedure: 1. Filing of declaration of intention- 1 year prior to the filing of the Petition with the OSG Persons exempt from filing declaration of intention: a. Those born in the Philippines and received their primary and secondary education in public or private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality; b. Those resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the filing of the petition, and enrolled their children in elementary and HS recognized
by the government and not limited to any race or nationality; c. Those widows and minor children of aliens who have declared their intention to become citizens of the Philippines and die before they are actually naturalized. 2. Filing of the Petition, accompanied by the affidavit of 2 credible persons, citizens of the Philippines, who personally know the petitioner, as character witness; 3. Publication of the Petition in the O.G. or in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Failure to comply is fatal. (Po Yo Bi vs. Republic, 205 SCRA 400) 4. Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire proceedings. 5. Hearing of the Petition. 6. Promulgation of the decision. 7. Hearing after 2 years. During the 2-year probation period, applicant has: a. Not left the Philippines; b. Dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession; c. Not been convicted of any offense or violation of rules; and d. Not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government-announced policies. 8. Oath taking and issuance of Certificate of Naturalization. Modes of Naturalization: 1. DIRECT- through: a. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139 The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000grants Philippine citizenship to aliens born and residing in the Philippines b. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made an outstanding contribution to the country c. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation or subjugation d. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State where they are born 2. DERIVATIVE-Citizenship conferred on: a. Wife of naturalized husband; b. Minor children of naturalized person; c. Alien woman upon marriage to a national. Edison So vs. RP, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing him or her with privileges of a citizen. Under current and existing laws, there are 3 ways by
which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization: a. Administrative naturalization pursuant to RA 9139; b. Judicial naturalization pursuant to CA No. 473, as amendedcovers all aliens regardless of class; and c. Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien. It is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good moral character but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons. A naturalization proceeding is nota judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleadintg the court upon any material fact. RA 9139not all aliens may avail of this remedy. Only native born aliens who have been residing here in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other country and all along thought that they were Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines, and affinity to the customs and traditions of the Filipinos. Naturalization Repatriation -mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of citizenship -governed by CA 473 (for acquisition) and CA 63 (for reacquisition) -consists a lengthy process -mode for reacquisition for those who lost their citizenship -governed by various statutes -consists of taking of an oath of allegiance to the RP and registering said oath in the LCR of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided Effects of Naturalization: 1. Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully naturalized; (She need not
go through the naturalization process; if she doesnt suffer from any disqualification, no need to prove the qualifications)
2. Minor children born in the Philippines before the naturalization shall be considered citizens of the Philippines; 3. Minor children born outside the Philippines who were residing in the Philippines at the time of naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens.
4. Minor children born outside the Philippines before parents naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens only during minority, unless they begin to reside permanently in the Philippines; 5. Child born outside the Philippines after parents naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizen, provided that he registers as such before any Philippine consulate within one year after attaining majority age, and takes his oath of allegiance. Denaturalization Grounds: 1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally; 2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to some foreign country and establishes residence there; _Prima Facie evidence of intent to take up residence: a. Native country- 1-year stay b. Foreign country- 2-year stay 3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intent; 4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school; 5. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy; In Republic vs. Guy, 115 SCRA 244, although misconduct was committed after the 2year probationary period, conviction of perjury and rape was held to be valid ground for denaturalization. Effects of Denaturalization: 1. If the ground affects the intrinsic validity of the proceedings, denaturalization shall divest the wife and children of their derivative naturalization; 2. If the ground was personal to the denaturalized person, his wife and children shall retain their Philippine citizenship. Policy against Dual Allegiance: Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law [Sec. 5, Art. IV]. The phrase dual citizenship in RA 7160, Section 40(d) LGC must be understood as referring to dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon filing of their Certificates of Candidacy (COC), they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons
with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states. By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time, forswear allegiance to the other country of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate their status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the point of view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively renounced his foreign citizenship. That is of no moment. _The filing of a COC suffices to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as dual citizen. This is so because in the COC, one declares that he is a Filipino citizen and that he will support and defend the Constitution and will maintain true faith and allegiance to the same. Such declaration under oath operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. In this case, the Court adopted the liberal interpretation of the rule. Manzano is not really prohibited to run due to dual citizenship. Dual allegiance is the one prohibited. Dual citizenship referred to under Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code refers to dual allegiance under Section 5 of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.[Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999] Section 5, Article IVDual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. _This section is not a self-executing law. It needs an implementing law. Section 40 (d), LGCDisqualifications.The following persons are disqualified from running from any elective local election: xxx (d) Those with dual citizenship. x x x. _The provision prohibits dual citizenship but the Supreme Court ruled that it refers to prohibition on dual allegiance. Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE: an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality even if he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second State whose nationality he has acquired. Dual Citizenship Dual Allegiance _arises as a result of the concurrent
application of the different laws of 2 or more states, a person is simultaneously considered as a national of said states _involuntary _refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to 2 or more states _voluntary Calilung vs. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007, what RA 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces its foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, RA 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of RA 9225. Instances when a citizen of the Philippines may possess dual citizenship: 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 fathers country such children are citizens of that country; 3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. [Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999] Res judicata in cases involving citizenship: General Rule: It does not apply to questions of citizenship. Exception: In Burca vs. Republic, 51 SCRA 248, an exception to the general rule was recognized provided the following must be present: 1. A persons citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2. The Solicitor general or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and
3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by SC. Although the GR was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, the case did not foreclose the weight of prior rulings on citizenship. It elucidated that reliance may somehow be placed on these antecedent official findings, though not really binding, to make the effort easier or simpler. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000).
Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship
A. Loss of citizenship: 1. By naturalization in a foreign country (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245). However, this was modified by RA 9225An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent September 15, 2003 which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act. _ They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance _ Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country, may reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance _ Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of RA 9225 shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines. _ Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions: o Meet the requirements of RA 9189, The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, and other existing laws o For those seeking elective public office and appointive office, meet the qualifications, make personal and sworn renunciation, subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the RP o For those intending to practice their profession, apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice 2. By express renunciation of citizenship _ Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation
Labo vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1, Labo lost Filipino citizenship because he expressly renounced allegiance to the Philippines when he applied for Australian citizenship. _ Express renunciation means a renunciation made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference or implication. _ Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of foreign passport do not constitute effective renunciation. (Valles vs. COMELEC) _ In Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364, obtaining a Portuguese passport and signing commercial documents as a Portuguese were construed as renunciation of Philippine citizenship. 3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining the age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this manner while RP is at war with any country. an application of the principle of Indelible Allegiance.by virtue of RA 9225 4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country EXCEPT: _ If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; and _ The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine territory with the consent of RP 5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization 6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war UNLESS subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted. B. Reacquisition of citizenship: 1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance 2. By naturalization 3. By repatriation 4. By direct act of Congress Effect of repatriation: It allows the person to recover or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, the respondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the US Marine Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural-born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship through
repatriation. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001) Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. CA, G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006, the only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a) Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.
ARTICLE VI VacancySection 9, Article VIIn case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. SalariesSection 10, Article VIThe salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase. Inhibitions and Prohibitions: a. Incompatible officemay not hold office or employment in government during his term without forfeiting his seat; b. Forbidden officemay not be appointed to any office created or compensation thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. (Sec. 13, Article VI) c. Cannot appear as counsel before any court or before the Electoral Tribunals, quasi-judicial or other administrative bodies; d. Shall not, directly or indirectly, be financially interested in any contract with, franchise or special privilege granted by the government; e. Shall not intervene in any matter before any office in government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office (Sec. 14, Article VI). CONFLICT OF INTERESTall members of the Senate and the HOR shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are author. Incompatible Officeno Senator or member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. The purpose is to prevent him from owing loyalty to another branch of the
government, to the detriment of the independence of the legislature and the doctrine of separation of powers. The prohibition is not absolute, what is not allowed is the simultaneous holding of that office and the seat in the Congress. Any legislator may hold another office or employment in the government provided he forfeits his position in the Congress. Forfeiture of the legislators seat, or cessation of his tenure, shall be automatic upon holding of the incompatible office. Forbidden Officeno Senator or member of the House of Representatives shall be appointed to any office, which may have been created, or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. With this, even if the member of the Congress is willing to forfeit his seat therein, he may not be appointed to any office in the government that has been created or the emoluments thereof have been increased during his term. Such a position is forbidden office. The purpose is to prevent trafficking in public office. The provision does not apply to elective offices. The appointment of the member of the Congress to the forbidden office is not allowed only during the term for which he was elected, when such office was created or its emoluments were increased. After such term, and even if the legislator is reelected, the disqualification no longer applies and he may therefore be appointed to the office. Privileges: a. Freedom from arrestwhile Congress is in session for offense punished by not more than 6 years imprisonment (Article 145, RPC; Sec. 11, Art. VI) b. Speech and Debate clausenot to be questioned nor held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Section 11, Article VI) (See discussion under Parliamentary Immunity) _Composition and Qualificationsthey are exclusive under the principle of expressio unios est exclusio alterius, with the result that it is not competent for the Congress to provide by mere legislation for additional qualifications no matter how relevant they may be. (Justice Isagani Cruz, Philippine Political Law) In Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300, the Court upheld the qualification of Imelda Marcos, despite her own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in the district for only seven (7) months, because of the following: a. A minor follows the domicile of his parents; Tacloban became her domicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought their family to Leyte;
b. Domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose; in the absence of clear and positive proof of the concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin should be deemed to continue; c. The wife does not automatically gain the husbands domicile because the term residence in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law; when Mrs. Marcos married Ferdinand Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium; d. Even assuming that she gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired the right to choose a new one only after her husband died, her acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice. Coquilla vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002, the SC ruled that he petitioner had not been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar, for at least one year prior to the May 14, 2001 elections. Although Oras was his domicile of origin, petitioner lost the same when he became a US citizen after enlisting in the US Navy. From then on, until November 10, 2000, when he re-acquired Philippine citizenship through repatriation, petitioner was an alien without any right to reside in the Philippines. In Caasi vs. COMELEC, it was held that the immigration to the US by virtue of the acquisition of a green card constitutes abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. REPUBLIC ACT 7941 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR Nature of Party-List System 1. The party-list system is a social tool designed not only to give more law to the great masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable them to become veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them. It intends to make the marginalized and the underrepresented not merely passive recipients of he States benevolence, but active participants in he mainstream of representative democracy. Thus, allowing all individuals and groups, including those which now dominate district elections, to have the same opportunity to participate in party-list elections would desecrate this lofty objective and mongrelize the social justice mechanisms into an atrocious
veneer for traditional politics. 2. Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. The party-list system is one such tool intended to benefit those who have less in life. It gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine power. It is a message to the destitute and the prejudiced, and even those in the underground, that change is possible. It is an invitation for them to come out of their limbo and seize the opportunity. Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions xxx that the party-list system is, without any qualification, open to all. Such position does not only weaken the electoral chances of the marginalized and underrepresented; it also prejudices them. It would gut the substance of the party-list system. Instead of generating hope, it would create a mirage. Instead of enabling the marginalized, it would further weaken them and aggravate their marginalization. (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001) Inviolable parameters to determine the winners in Party-List election: 1. The Twenty Percent (20%) Allocationthe combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total membership of the House of Representative, including those elected under the party-list; 2. The Two Percent (2%) Thresholdonly those garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the HOR; 3. The Three (3) Seat Limiteach qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of 3 seats; that is, one (1) qualifying and two (2) additional seats. 4. The Proportional Representationthe additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total number of votes. (Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 136781, October 6, 2000) Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants 1. The political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other wordsit must show in its constitution, by-laws, articles of incorporation, history, platform of government and track recordthat it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. And it
must demonstrate that in a conflict of interest, it has chosen or likely to choose the interest of such sectors. 2. They must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives. In other words, while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are political parties, they must show, however, that they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented. 3. In view of the objections directed against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. The prohibition is on any religious organization registering as political party not against a priest running as a candidate. 4. A party or organization must not be disqualified under section 6 of RA 7941 which enumerates the grounds for disqualification. 5. The party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by the government. The party or organization must be a group of citizens, organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It must be independent of the government. 6. The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so; 7. Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees; and 8. The nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. (Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001) Aklat vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162203, April 24, 2004, the COMELEC has the power to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to enforce and administer election laws. This power includes the determination, within the parameters fixed by law, of appropriate periods for the accomplishment of certain pre-election acts like filing petitions for registration under the party-list system. This is exactly what the COMELEC did when it issued its Resolution No. 6320 declaring September 30, 2003, as the deadline for filing petitions for registration under the party-list system. Choosing Party-List Representativesthey are proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list of names submitted by the respective parties, organizations or coalitions to the COMELEC according to their ranking in the list.
Effect of change of affiliation Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat; provided that if he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within 6 months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization. Vacancy: In case of vacancy in the seat reserved for party-list representatives, the vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next representative from the list of nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the same party, organization or coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the party, organization or coalition concerned shall submit additional nominees. Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 172103, April 13, 2007, the correct formula in ascertaining the entitlement to additional seats of the first party and other qualified party-list groups was clearly explicated in Veterans wherein the multiplier used was the number of additional seats allocated to the first party. _ LABO DOCTRINEdoctrine of the rejection of the second placernot applicable in Party-List System Apportionment of legislative Districts: (Section 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, Article VI) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand (250,000), or each province, shall have at least one representative. This is intended to prevent gerrymandering. Gerrymanderingthe creation of representative districts out of separate portions of territory in order to favor a candidate. Within three (3) years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. Mariano vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118627, March 7, 1995, the Court held that the Constitution does not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law other than a general apportionment law. In fact, in Tobias vs. Abalos, 239 SCRA 106, the case involved the division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into two (2) representative districts. With the elevation of Mandaluyong from municipality into a highly urbanized city, both Mandaluyong and San Juan were recognized by RA 7675 as
distinct representative districts. This was challenged on the ground that RA 7675 did not mention any census indicating that San Juan and Mandaluyong had the minimal requirement of 250,000 inhabitants needed to constitute a district. Neither did the challengers, however, give any evidence that the respective populations of each of the two political units were less than the number required. Hence the court presumed that Congress had made due consideration of the minimum requirement. It ruled that reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law. To hold that reapportionment can be made only through a general law would create an inequitable situation where a new city or province created by Congress will be denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period of time. That intolerable situation would deprive the people in the city or province a particle of that sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot admit subtraction; it is indivisible. It must be forever whole or it is not sovereignty. In Montejo vs. COMELEC, it was held that while concededly the conversion of Biliran into a regular province brought about an imbalance in the distribution of voters and inhabitants in the 5 districts of Leyte, the issue involves reapportionment of legislative districts, and Petitioners remedy lies with Congress. This Court cannot itself make the reapportionment as petitioner would want. SESSIONS (Section 14, Article VI) 1. Regularconvene once every year. The 4th Monday of July until 30 days before the start of new regular session (Section 14, Article VI)adjournment is allowed30 days before the opening of its next regular sessionthis is compulsory; 2. Special a. Called by the President (Sec. 15, Article VI)the President has the power to call special session; without the call of Presidentimpeachment b. Due to a vacancy in the offices of the President and VP at 10:00 am on the 3rd day after the vacancies (Sec. 10, Article VII) c. Decide on the disability of the President because the majority of all the members of the Cabinet has disputed his assertion that he is able to discharge the powers and duties of his office (Section 11, par. 3, Article VII) d. To revoke or extend the Presidential Proclamation of Martial Law or suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Section 18, article VII) 3. Joint a. Voting separately i. Choosing the President (Section 4, Article VII);
ii. Determine the Presidents disability (Section 11, Article VII); iii. Confirming nomination of Vice-President (Section 9, Article VI); iv. Declaring existence of state of war (Section 23, Article VI); and v. Proposing constitutional amendments (Section 1, Article XVII). b. Voting jointly i. To revoke or extend proclamation suspending the privilege of writ of habeas corpus (Section 18, Article VII); and ii. To revoke or extend declaration of martial law (Section 18, Article VII). 4. AdjournmentNeither Chamber during session, without consent of the other, adjourn for more than 3 days, nor any other place than that in which the two Chambers shall be sitting (Section 16, par. 5, Article VI) Adjournment Sine Diethe interval between the session of one Congress and that of another; congress must stop the clock at midnight of the last day of session in order to validly pass a law _The Senate is a continuing body while the House is not. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS (Section 16, par. 3, Article VI) Each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior and, with concurrence of 2/3 of all its members, suspend (for not more than 60 days) or expel a member. The interpretation of disorderly behavioris the prerogative of the House concerned and cannot be judicially reviewed. In Osmea vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863, the determination of the acts which constitutes disorderly behavior is within the full discretionary authority of the House concerned, and the Court will not review such determination, the same being a political question.Members of Congress may also be suspended by the Sandiganbayan or by the Office of the Ombudsman. (Paredes vs. SAndiganbayan, G. R. No. 118364, August 10, 1995; Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001) The suspension in the Constitution is different from the suspension prescribed in RA 3019, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The latter is not a penalty but a preliminary preventive measure and is not imposed upon the petitioner for misbehavior as a member of Congress. (Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118364, August 10, 1995)
In Miriam Defensor-Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001, Section 13 of RA 3019 (where it appears to be a ministerial duty of the court to issue the order of suspension upon a determination of the validity of the criminal information filed before it) does not state that the public officer should be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts charged. Furthermore, the order of suspension provided in RA 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks. Neither does the order of suspension encroach upon the power of Congress. The doctrine of separation of powers, by itself, is not deemed to have effectively excluded the members of Congress from RA 3019 or its sanctions. PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY A Senator or member of the HOR shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any other committee thereof. Two (2) Kinds: a. Freedom from arrest or detentionwhile Congress is in session for offense punished by not more than 6 years imprisonment (Article 145, RPC; Sec. 11, Art. VI)it is intended to ensure representation of the constituents of the member of the Congress by preventing attempts to keep him from attending its sessions. The present Constitution adheres to the restrictive rule minus the obligation of Congress to surrender the Member of the House of Representatives to the custody of law. The requirement that he should be attending sessions or committee meetings has also been removed. For relatively minor offenses, it is enough that Congress is in session. (People vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689, February 20, 2000) in sessionnot day to day; refers to the entire duration of the session from its opening until its adjournment. b. Speech and Debate clausenot to be questioned nor held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Section 11, Article VI)it enables the legislator to express views bearing upon the public interest without fear of accountability outside the halls of the legislature for his inability to support his statements with the usual evidence required in the court of justice. in any other placebut not in the Senate or Congress itself Section 16, par. 3, Article VIEach House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of 2/3 of all its members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed 60 days. People vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689, the immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and Members of the HOR arises from a provision of the Constitution. The history of the provision shows that the privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its term. It may not be extended by intendment, implication or equitable considerations. x x x Because of the broad coverage of felony and breach of the peace, the exemption applied only to civil arrests. A congressman like the accused-appellant, convicted under Title 11 of the Revised Penal Code could not claim parliament immunity from arrest. He was subject to the same general laws governing all persons still to be tried or whose convictions were pending appeal. The present Constitution adheres to the same restrictive rule minus the obligation of Congress to surrender the subject Congressman to the custody of law. The requirement that he should be attending sessions or committee meetings has also been removed. For relatively minor offenses, it is enough that Congress is in session. Accused-appellant argues that a member of Congress function to attend sessions is underscored by Section 16 (2), Article VI of the Constitution which states that (2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide. However, the accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be exempted from the operation of Section 11, Article VI. The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for absence is legitimate a one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years is not merely authorized by law, it has constitutional foundations. When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to Congress, they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. They did so with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison. To give a more drastic illustration, if voters elect a person with full knowledge that he is suffering from a terminal illness, they do so knowing that any time, he may no longer serve his full term in office. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE; Varieties of:
It is the power of the government to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the Congress. (Schwartz) It is also the right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. (Rozell) 1. State secret privilegeinvoked by Presidents on the ground that the information is of such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial military or diplomatic objective. 2. Informers privilegeprivilege of the government not to disclose the identity of persons who furnish information in violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of the law. 3. Generic privilegefor internal deliberations has been said to attach to intragovernmental documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. In determining the validity of a claim of privilege, the question that must be asked is not only whether the requested information falls within one of the traditional privileges, but also whether that privilege should be honored in a given procedural setting. Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006, executive privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public, is recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. While executive privilege is a constitutional concept, a claim thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. Noticeably absent is any recognition that executive officials are exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of being executive officials. Indeed, the extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure. _General rule: DISCLOSURE(policy on transparency) Exceptions: Disclosure would subvert crucial diplomatic or military objective. 1. Supreme Court 2. Executive Secretary 3. Presidentmust invoke executive privilege PROTOCOL DE CLOTUREa final act; an instrument which records the winding up of the proceedings of a diplomatic conference and usually includes a reproduction of the text of treaties, conventions, recommendations and other acts agreed upon and signed by the plenipotentiaries attending the conference. It is not the treaty itself. It is rather a
summary of the proceedings of a protracted conference which may have taken place over several years. It will not require the concurrence of the Senate. The documents contained therein are deemed adopted without need for ratification. (Taada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, 1997) Commission on Appointments(Section 18, Article VI) The Commission is independent of the two Houses of Congress; its employees are not, technically, employees of Congress. It has the power to promulgate its own rules of proceedings. Powers: Act on all appointments submitted to it within 30 session days of Congress from their submission; to act on Presidential appointments; has power to promulgate its own rules of proceedings. Composition: _Senate Presidentacts as Ex-Officio Chairman _12 Senators and 12 Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each house on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. _Chairman shall not vote except in case of a tie. In Guingona vs. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789, a political party must have at least two (2) elected senators for every seat in the Commission on Appointments. Thus, where there are two or more political parties represented in the Senate, a political party/coalition with a single senator in the Senate cannot constitutionally claim a seat in the Commission on Appointments. It is not mandatory to elect 12 senators to the Commission; what the Constitution requires is that there must be at least a majority of the entire membership.
POWERS OF CONGRESS
Classification: 1. LEGISLATIVE
_ _ _ _ _ General plenary power; Specific power of appropriation; Taxation and expropriation; Legislative investigations (Section 21, Art. VI); and Question hour (Section 22, Art. VI).
2. NON-LEGISLATIVEincludes power to:
_ _ _ _ Canvass presidential election (Section 4, Art. VII); Declare the existence of state of war (Section 23, par.1, Art. VI); Exercise delegation of emergency powers; Call special election for President and VP (Section 10, Art. VII);
_ Give concurrence to treaties and amnesties (Sections 19 and 21, Art. VII); _ Propose constitutional amendments (constituent power) (Sections 1-2, Art. XVII); _ Confirm certain appointments (Section 9 and 16, Art. VII); _ Impeach (Section 2, Art. XI); _ Decide the disability of President because majority of the Cabinet disputes his assertion that he is able to discharge his duties (Section 11, Art. VII); _ Revoke or extend proclamation of suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus or declaration of martial law (Section 18, Art. VII); _ Set the rules regarding the utilization of natural resources (Section 2, Art. XII).
Limitations on the Powers of Congress: 1. SUBSTANTIVE a. Express:
i. Bill of Rights (Article III); ii. On Appropriations (Sections 25 and 29 paragraphs 1 and 2, Article VI); iii. On taxation (Sections 28 and 29, paragraph 3, Article VI); iv. On Constitutional appellate jurisdiction of SC (Section 30, Article VI); v. No law granting title of royalty or nobility shall be passed (Section 31, Article VI); vi. No specific funds shall be appropriated or paid for use or benefit of any religion, sect, etc., except for priests, etc., assigned to AFP, penal institutions, etc. (Sections 29, paragraph 2, Article VI).
b. Implied:
i. Prohibition against irrepealable laws; ii. Non-delegation of powers.
2. PROCEDURAL
a. Only one subject, to be stated in the title of the bill (Sec. 26, par. 1, Article VI); b. Three (3) readings on separate days; printed copies of the bill in its final form distributed to members 3 days before its passage, except if President certifies to its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency; upon its last reading, no amendment allowed and the vote thereon taken immediately and the yeas and nays entered into the Journal (Section 26, paragraph 2, Article VI; c. Appropriation, revenue and tariff bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives.
How a bill becomes a law? 1. Approved and signed by the President; 2. Presidential veto overridden by 2/3 votes of all the members of both Houses; 3. Failure of the President to veto the bill and to return it with his objections to the House where it originated, within 30 days after the date of receipt; 4. A bill calling a special election for President and Vice-President under Section
10, Article VII becomes a law upon third and final reading. Bills exclusively originated in the House of Representative: (APRIL) 1. Appropriation bills; 2. Private bills; 3. Revenue or tariff bills; 4. Bills authorizing Increase in public debts; and 5. Bills of Local application. However, although these bills are required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, the Senate may propose or concur with amendments (Sec. 24, Art. VI). Amendments may include amendments by substitution. (Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance) What is required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives is the bill, not the law itself. (Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance) _If the nays prevail, then it is about time that a new bicameral committee be created until the bill will be accepted by both houses. (Bill is not killed.) _If yeas prevail, the bill is signed by the Executive Secretary. Two (2) Rules to be observedSection 26, Article VI: 1. One (1) subject, One (1) Title Ruleto prevent RIDERStotally unrelated matters 2. Three (3) Readings on Separate Days Except: when the President certifies to the necessity of the immediate enactment of the bill to meet the public calamity and emergency _political questionnot subject to judicial review Section 26 (par. 1), Article VIevery bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. The objectives of the above provision are: 1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation; 2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which the titles gave no information, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and 3. To fairly appraise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise if they shall so desire. _Literal interpretationthe subject or title need not be an index or catalogue. It must be
germane and related to the subject matter. Agripino A. De Guzman, Jr., et al. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118, July 19, 2000, Section 26 (1), Article VI is sufficiently complied with where the title is comprehensive enough to embrace the general objective it seeks to achieve, and if all the parts of the statute are related and germane to the subject matter embodied in the title or so long as the same are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and title. Section 26, par. 2 of Article VINo bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE It is one duly introduced and finally passed by both houses, authenticated by the proper officer of each, and approved by the President. It is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. Once the bill becomes an enrolled bill, it is conclusive upon the court of its due enactment. Courts may no longer validly inquire into the bill because of the doctrine of separation of powers. Casco (Phil) Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347, if a mistake was made in the printing of the bill before it was certified by Congress and approved by the President, the remedy is amendment or corrective legislation, not a judicial decree. The enrolled bill rule rests on the following considerations:
x x x As the President has no authority to approve a bill no passed by Congress, an enrolled act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the President of the United States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by the Congress. the respect due to co-equal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon the assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the court to determine, when the question properly
arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution. (Marshall Field & Co. vs. Clark, 143 US 649)
BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEEthe mechanism for compromising differences between the Senate and the Housecapable of producing unexpected resultbill will have to be sent back to both houses and subject to votation. A conference committee may deal generally with the subject matter or it may be limited to resolving the precise differences between the two houses. Even where the conference committee is not by rule limited in its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the freedom with which new subject matter can be inserted in to the conference bill. But occasionally it produces unexpected results, results beyond its mandate. These e4xcursions occurs even where the rules impose strict limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of an authoritarian power of conference committee. (Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703, November 11, 1993) DOCTRINE OF SHIFTING MAJORITY For each house to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the session, there being a quorum, is required. QuorumA majority of each House, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as such house may determine. Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17, the basis in determining the existence of a quorum in the Senate shall be the total number of Senators who are in the country and within the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate. Arroyo vs. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, June 26, 1998, the SC declared that the question of quorum cannot be raised repeatedly, especially when a quorum is obviously present for the purpose of delaying the business of the House. LEGISLATIVE JOURNALregarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the Constitution to be recorded therein. With respect to other matters, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the journals have also been accorded conclusive effects. Thus, in US vs. Pons, this Court spoke of the imperatives of public policy for regarding the Journals as public memorials of the most permanent character, thus: They should be public, because all are required to conform to them; they should be permanent, that rights acquired today upon the faith of what has been declared to be law shall not be destroyed tomorrow, or at some remote period of time, by facts resting
only in memory of individuals. (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268) Matters that are required to be entered on the Journal: 1. The yeas and nays on the 3rd and final reading of a bill; 2. The yeas and nays on any question, at the request of 1/5 of the members present; 3. The yeas and nays upon re-passing a bill over the Presidents veto; and 4. The Presidents objection to a bill he had vetoed. (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268) Journal entry vs. enrolled bill Enrolled bill prevails, except to matters, which under the Constitution, must entered into the Journal. (Morales vs. Subido, 26 SCRA 150) Presidents Options: 1. Sign and the bill becomes a law. 2. Vetoes the bill, it does not become a law. _2/3 votes of all its Members (for Congress to override) 3. Inactionthe bill automatically becomes a law within 30 days upon receipt of the bill from Congress. _There is no such thing as pocket veto here in the Philippines because inaction by the President for 30 days never produces a veto even if Congress is in recess. The President must still act to veto the bill and communicate his veto to the Congress without need of returning the vetoed bill with his veto message. Pocket veto occurs when: a. The President fails to act on the bill; b. The reason he does not return the bill to the Congress is that Congress is not in session. PRESIDENTIAL VETO VETOSection 27, Article VI 1. General veto of the Presidentparagraph 1 of Section 27, Article VI 2. Item/Line veto of the Presidentparagraph 2 of Section 27, Article VI The act of the Executive in vetoing the particular provisions is an exercise of a constitutionally vested power. But even as the Constitution grants the power, it also provides limitations to its exercise. The veto power is not absolute. xxx The OSG is correct when it states that the Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all. He or she cannot act like an editor crossing out specific lines, provisions, or paragraphs in a bill that he or she dislikes. In the exercise of the veto power, it is generally veto, however, when it comes to appropriation, revenue or tariff
bills, the Administration needs the money to run the machinery of the government and it can not veto the entire bill even if it may contain objectionable features. The President is, therefore, compelled to approve into law the entire bill, including its undesirable parts. It is for this reason that the Constitution has wisely provided the item veto power to avoid inexpedient riders being attached to an indispensable appropriation or revenue measures. The Constitution provides that only a particular item or items may be vetoed. The power to disapprove any item or items in an appropriation bill does not grant the authority to veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of the same item. (Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133, April 15, 1992) General rule: Selective/partial veto is not allowed. The President may not veto a provision of the bill without vetoing the whole/entire bill itself. Exception: Paragraph 2 of Section 27, Article VIItem/Line veto _Only Appropriation, Revenue and Tariff Bills (ART)selective veto is allowed here provided the vetoed bill shall not affect the items which was not vetoed. ItemRefers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose. Exceptions to the Exception: 1. DOCTRINE OF INAPPROPRIATE PROVISIONSection 25 (2), Article VI A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is not an appropriation or revenue item. It was invoked in the case of Gonzalez vs. Macaraig wherein President Aquino vetoed a provision of the general appropriation bill. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the veto power of the President. Section 25 (2), Article VINo provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriation bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein.Items which the President does not object, otherwise it becomes an inappropriate provisionit may be treated as an itemsubject to the item veto of the President. 2. Executive Impoundmentrefusal of the President to spend funds already allocated by Congress for specific purpose. It is the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type. This power is derived from Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987 on suspension. Appropriation Reserves Section 37 of the Administrative Code authorizes the Budget Secretary to establish reserves against appropriations to provide for contingencies and emergencies which may arise during the year. This is merely expenditure
deferral, not suspension, since the agencies concerned can still draw on the reserves if the fiscal outlook improves. 3. Legislative Vetoa congressional veto is a means whereby the legislature can block or modify administrative action taken under a statute. It is a form of legislative control in the implementation of particular executive action. The form may either be: a. Negativesubjecting the executive action to disapproval by Congress; or b. Affirmativerequiring approval of the executive action by Congress. A congressional veto is subject to serious questions involving the separation of powers. _Local Chief Executives have veto power except the Punong Barangay. POWER OF APPROPRIATION The spending power, called the power of purse belongs to the Congress, subject only to the veto power of the President. it carries with it a power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law. Appropriations LawA statute, the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize release of public funds from the treasury. The existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are indispensable pre-requisites to or conditions sine qua non for the execution of government contracts. (COMELEC vs. Judge Quijano Padilla and Photokina Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 151992, September 18, 2000) Classification: 1. General Appropriation Lawpassed annually, intended to provide for the financial operations of the entire government during one fiscal period. 2. Special Appropriation Lawdesigned for a specific purpose. Implied (Extra-Constitutional) Limitations on Appropriation Power: 1. Must specify public purpose; and 2. Sum authorized for release must be determinate, or at least determinable. Constitutional Limitations on Special Appropriation Measures: 1. Must specify public purpose for which the sum was intended; and 2. Must be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer or to be raised by corresponding revenue proposal included therein. Constitutional Rules on General Appropriation Laws: Section 25, Article VI 1. Congress may not increase appropriations recommended by the President for operation of the Governmentto prevent big budget deficits; 2. Form, content and manner of preparation of budget shall be provided by law; 3. No provision or enactment shall be embraced unless it relates specifically to
some particular appropriations therein; 4. Procedure for approving appropriations for Congress shall be the same as that of other departmentsto prevent sub rosa appropriations by Congress; 5. Prohibition against transfer of appropriations (Doctrine of Augmentation), however: a. President; b. Senate President; c. Speaker of the House; d. Chief Justice; and e. Heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. 6. Prohibition against appropriations for sectarian benefit; and 7. Automatic re-appropriation. POWER OF TAXATION Limitations: 1. Rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable and Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. 2. Charitable institutions, etc., and all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. 3. All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. 4. Law granting tax exemption shall be passed only with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL Section 17, Article VSenate and House of Representativessole judge of all contest relating to the election returns and qualifications of their respective Members _No appeal lies. Appeal is merely statutory. The remedy is Rule 65, Certiorari (Special Civil Action) based on Grave Abuse of Discretion. HRETalthough attached to the Congress, has separate and distinct personality. It was created as a non-partisan court. It must be independent of Congress and devoid of partisan influence and consideration. Members of HRET, once appointed thereto, they shall be accorded thereto of security of tenure to ensure their impartiality and independence.
Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792, Disloyalty to the party and Breach of party discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member. HRET members enjoy security of tenure; their membership may not be terminated except for a just cause such as the expiration of congressional term, death, resignation from the political party, formal affiliation with another political party, or removal for other valid causes. Pimentel vs. HRET, G.R. No. 141489, November 29, 2002, the SC said that even assuming that the party-list representatives comprise a sufficient number and have agreed to designate common nominees to the HRET and Commission on Appointments, their primary recourse clearly rests with the House of Representatives and not with the Court. Only if the House fails to comply with the directive of the Constitution on proportional representation of political parties in the HRET and Commission on Appointments can the party-list representatives seek recourse from this Court through judicial review. Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is necessary before the petitioners may bring the case to Court. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300As to the HRETs supposed assumption of jurisdiction over the issue of petitioners qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections, suffice it to say that HRETs jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of members of Congress begins only after a candidate has become a member of the House of Representatives (Article VI, Section 17 1987 Constitution). Petitioner not being a member of the House of Representatives, it is obvious that HRET at this point has no jurisdiction over the question. COMELEC is not ousted of jurisdiction. See also Section 6 of RA 6646. Guerrero vs. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 458 (July 26, 2000) While the Congress is vested with the power to declare valid or invalid certificate of candidacy, its refusal to exercise the power following the proclamation and assumption of Farias is a recognition of the jurisdictional boundaries separating the COMELEC and the HRET. Under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, the HRET has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the elections, returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a member of the HOR, COMELECs jurisdiction over election contests relating to his elections, returns and qualifications ends, and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins. Thus, the COMELECs decision to
discontinue exercising jurisdiction over the case is justifiable, in deference to the HRETs own jurisdiction and functions. Appeal from SET or HRET Decision The Constitution mandates that the HRET and the SET shall each, respectively, be the sole judge of all contest relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of their respective members. The Court has stressed that so long as the Constitution grants the HRET the power to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, any final action taken by the HRET on a matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The power granted to the Electoral Tribunal excludes the exercise of any authority on the part of this Court that would in any wise restricts it or curtail it or even affect the same. In Robles vs. HRET, the Court has explained that while the judgments of the Tribunal are beyond judicial interference, the Court may do so, however, but only in the exercise of the SCs so-called extraordinary jurisdiction upon determination that the Tribunals decision or resolution was rendered without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, or upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power as constitutes a denial of due process of law, or upon demonstration of a very clear unmitigated error, manifestly constituting such grave abuse of discretion that there has to be remedy for such abuse. The Court does not venture into the perilous area of correcting perceived errors of independent branches of government; it comes in only when it has to vindicate a denial of due process or correct an abuse of discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the Constitution itself calls for remedial action. (Libanan vs. HRET, 283 SCRA 520) Section 21, Article VIThe Senate or the HOR or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules and procedure. The right of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. _Constitutional limitation on inquiries in aid of legislation POWER OF LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION(Section 21, Article VI) Power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislationInvestigatorial Power not absolute; subject judicial review in view of the expanded power of the court to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Limitations: 1. The inquiry must be in aid of legislation; 2. It must be in accordance with duly published rules and procedure of the House concerned; and 3. The right of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. Remedy: invoke the Right against Self-Incrimination Section 21 (Legislative investigation) vs. Section 22(Question Hour) 1. Inquiry in aid of legislationthey may not validly refuse to appear: _It will impair the work of Congress _It will violate the rights of the people to information on matters of public concern (Section 7, Article III) 2. Members of the executive cabinet in view of EO 464 _These two (2) sections should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress oversight function. Section 21 (Legislative investigation) Section 22(Question Hour) 1. Any person may appear 2. The Committees conduct the investigation 3. The subject matter is any matter for the purpose of legislation 4. Appearance is mandatory 1. Only department head may appear 2. The entire body conduct the investigation 3. The subject matters are matters related to the department only 4. Appearance is Discretionary
Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No., 169777, April 20, 2006, while attendance to Congressional hearings is discretionary on the part of the department heads during question hour, such is not in the case in inquiries in aid of legislation, except upon a valid and express claim of executive privilege. The principle of separation of powers is the reason why executive officials may not be compelled to attend hearings when Congress exercises its oversight functions. Though, this is not the case when the Congress exercises its power of inquiry in aid of legislation. Sections 21 and 22 of Article VI, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress. one specifically relates to the power to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the object of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress oversight function. Sabio vs. Sen. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006, the Congress power of inquiry, being broad, encompasses everything that concerns the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It even extends to government agencies created by Congress and officers whose positions are within the power of Congress to regulate or even abolish. A mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation to the broad power of Congress, in the absence of any constitutional basis. QUESTION HOURintegral in a parliamentary government; the heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either house, as the rules of each house shall provide, appear before and be heard by such house on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House at least 3 days before their scheduled appearance. Interpolations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the scrutiny of the State or the public interest so requires, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29the inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body making it, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate or to expel a member. (The power to conduct Inquiry is integral and implied of legislative power) Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on Banks, G.R. No. 167173, December 27, 2007, the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before
a court or a quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or administrative complaint. Congressional Oversight Functions (Makalintal vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003) It embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. Clearly, oversight concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress: a. To monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives; b. To determine whether agencies are properly administered; c. To eliminate executive waste and dishonesty; d. To prevent executive usurpation of authority; and e. To assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest. The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. The oversight power has also been used to ensure the accountability of regulatory commissions like the SEC. Unlike other ordinary administrative agencies, these bodies are independent from the executive branch and are outside the executive department in the discharge of their functions. Categories of Congressional Oversight Functions: a. Scrutinyimplies a lesser intensity and continuity of attention to administrative operations. Its primary purpose is to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of government activities. In the exercise of legislative scrutiny, Congress may request information and report from the other branches of government. It can give recommendations or pass resolutions for consideration of the agency involved. It is based primarily on the power of appropriation of Congress. xxx But legislative scrutiny does not end in budget hearings. Congress can ask the heads of departments to appear before and be heard by either the House of Congress on any matter pertaining to their department. Likewise, Congress exercises legislative scrutiny thru its power of confirmation tofind out whether the nominee possesses the necessary qualifications, integrity and probity required of all public servants. b. Congressional investigationinvolves a more intense digging of facts. It is recognized under Section 21, Article VI. Even in the absence of constitutional mandate,
it has been held to be an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative functions. c. Legislative supervisionit connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. It allows Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated lawmaking authority, and permits Congress to retain part of that delegated authority. Congress exercises supervision over the executive agencies through its veto power. It typically utilizes veto provisions when granting the President or an executive agency the power to promulgate regulations with the force of law. These provisions require the President or an agency to present the proposed regulations to Congress, which retains a right to approve or disapprove any regulation before it takes effect. Such legislative veto provisions usually provide that a proposed regulation will become a law after the expiration of a certain period of time, only if Congress does not affirmatively disapprove of the regulation in the meantime. Less frequently, the statute provides that a proposed regulation will become a law if Congress affirmatively approves it. POWER OF CONCURRENCE The Constitution requires the concurrence of the Congress to an amnesty and to a treaty. THE WAR POWER The Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. LAW-MAKING POWERS OF CONGRESS Pertinently, the power to make lawslegislative poweris vested in Congress. Congress may not escape its duties and responsibilities by delegating that power to any other body or authority. Any attempt to abdicate the power is unconstitutional and void, on the principle of delegari potesta non potest delegaridelegated power may not be delegated. The rule which forbids the delegation of legislative power, however, is not absolute and inflexible. It admits of exceptions. An exception sanctioned by immemorial practice permits the legislative body to delegate its licensing power to certain persons, municipal corporations, towns, boards, councils, commissions, commissioners, auditors, bureaus and directors. Such licensing power includes the power to promulgate necessary rules and regulations. (Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004)
You might also like
- Constitutional Law 1 Lecture On Territory and ProvisionsNo ratings yetConstitutional Law 1 Lecture On Territory and Provisions52 pages
- Outline in 1987 Philippine Constitution (Preliminaries - Article I)No ratings yetOutline in 1987 Philippine Constitution (Preliminaries - Article I)3 pages
- 2014 Constitutional Law I (Reviewer) : Part I. Supremacy of The ConstitutionNo ratings yet2014 Constitutional Law I (Reviewer) : Part I. Supremacy of The Constitution33 pages
- Outline in 1987 Philippine Constitution_(Preliminaries-Article I)No ratings yetOutline in 1987 Philippine Constitution_(Preliminaries-Article I)3 pages
- Constitutional Law Review: Atty. John Paul B. Cubero100% (1)Constitutional Law Review: Atty. John Paul B. Cubero38 pages
- Part 1 Political Law Reviewer by Atty Sandoval100% (6)Part 1 Political Law Reviewer by Atty Sandoval161 pages
- Part 1 Political Law Reviewer by Atty Sandoval PDFNo ratings yetPart 1 Political Law Reviewer by Atty Sandoval PDF161 pages
- Utopia Consti Reviewer 2010 Part I Version 3No ratings yetUtopia Consti Reviewer 2010 Part I Version 3148 pages
- Pol - Sci. 101 Lecture On: The Philippine ConstitutionNo ratings yetPol - Sci. 101 Lecture On: The Philippine Constitution27 pages
- The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United StatesFrom EverandThe Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United StatesNo ratings yet
- Civil Government of Virginia A Text-book for Schools Based Upon the Constitution of 1902 and Conforming to the Laws Enacted in Accordance TherewithFrom EverandCivil Government of Virginia A Text-book for Schools Based Upon the Constitution of 1902 and Conforming to the Laws Enacted in Accordance TherewithNo ratings yet
- The Continental Monthly, Vol. 1, No. 6, June, 1862 Devoted To Literature and National PolicyFrom EverandThe Continental Monthly, Vol. 1, No. 6, June, 1862 Devoted To Literature and National PolicyNo ratings yet
- Government and Administration of the United StatesFrom EverandGovernment and Administration of the United StatesNo ratings yet
- The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political IdeasFrom EverandThe Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political IdeasNo ratings yet
- Gale Researcher Guide for: Overview of US Criminal Procedure and the ConstitutionFrom EverandGale Researcher Guide for: Overview of US Criminal Procedure and the ConstitutionNo ratings yet
- Behind the Bill of Rights: Timeless Principles that Make It TickFrom EverandBehind the Bill of Rights: Timeless Principles that Make It TickNo ratings yet
- The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, Volume II (of 2)From EverandThe Journal of the Debates in the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, Volume II (of 2)No ratings yet
- The Seven Pillars of Democracy: A US Constitution JourneyFrom EverandThe Seven Pillars of Democracy: A US Constitution JourneyNo ratings yet
- Remarks of Mr. Calhoun of South Carolina on the bill to prevent the interference of certain federal officers in elections: delivered in the Senate of the United States February 22, 1839From EverandRemarks of Mr. Calhoun of South Carolina on the bill to prevent the interference of certain federal officers in elections: delivered in the Senate of the United States February 22, 1839No ratings yet
- Was Frankenstein Really Uncle Sam? Vol Ix: Notes on the State of the Declaration of IndependenceFrom EverandWas Frankenstein Really Uncle Sam? Vol Ix: Notes on the State of the Declaration of IndependenceNo ratings yet
- The Decline of the Constitutional Government in the United States: A "Declaration of True Meaning" Procedure Could Help the People to Restore ItFrom EverandThe Decline of the Constitutional Government in the United States: A "Declaration of True Meaning" Procedure Could Help the People to Restore It3/5 (1)
- A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United StatesFrom EverandA Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United StatesNo ratings yet
- Mulund Rent Agreement - 23101299903466-CompressedNo ratings yetMulund Rent Agreement - 23101299903466-Compressed5 pages
- Go vs. Dimagiba 460 SCRA 451, June 21, 2005 PDFNo ratings yetGo vs. Dimagiba 460 SCRA 451, June 21, 2005 PDF17 pages
- Supporting Documents - Sundeep Dawale Consumer ComplaintNo ratings yetSupporting Documents - Sundeep Dawale Consumer Complaint13 pages
- Lawsuit Challenges Tennessee Driver's License Revocation Law100% (5)Lawsuit Challenges Tennessee Driver's License Revocation Law19 pages
- 3.0 Cooperative Law (Notes and Activities) PDFNo ratings yet3.0 Cooperative Law (Notes and Activities) PDF18 pages
- Insurance Regulation and Insurance Market in IndiaNo ratings yetInsurance Regulation and Insurance Market in India5 pages
- Commercial Law Suggested Answers (1990-2006), Word PDFNo ratings yetCommercial Law Suggested Answers (1990-2006), Word PDF107 pages
- Case Analyis of Nicaragua v. United StatesNo ratings yetCase Analyis of Nicaragua v. United States10 pages
- Customs Procedure Regarding Filing of Ex-Bond Bill of Entry - Taxguru - inNo ratings yetCustoms Procedure Regarding Filing of Ex-Bond Bill of Entry - Taxguru - in3 pages
- Rule 1-Application-Divina Palao Vs Florentino III International Inc.100% (2)Rule 1-Application-Divina Palao Vs Florentino III International Inc.2 pages
