Constitutional topics

1. PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION MIDTERM
3 INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE
 The three inherent powers of state that interferes the property rights of the citizens are
taxation, police power, and power of eminent domain. Taxation is an inherent power
of state that is exercised through a legislature in order to Impose burdens upon subjects
and objects through financial obligation within its jurisdiction. Imposing taxation to the
state’s subject is crucial to the progress of the state in order to raise revenue in carrying
out its governmental function. The police power is vested by the constitution to create,
ordain, and establish laws and ordinance for the welfare and the good of the state and
its subject. And the power of eminent domain is the right of the state in acquiring
private property for public use with observance of just compensation and due process.
Doctrine of Suit Immunity/Non-suability
According to section 3, article 15 of the 1987 constitution that “The
State may not be sued without its consent”. The state immunity from suit is a
principle in which a certain sovereign state cannot be sued before the courts of any
other sovereign state without its consent.
3 Basic human rights
According to section 1, article 3 of Bill of Rights in the
Philippine Constitution, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied to access equal protection of
the laws. Moreover, the article 3 of Universal declaration of human rights by the
United Nations states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person”. Any persons are granted with these rights without regards to any difference
of race, color, or nationality, including aliens. (1)The right to life that is protected
by the constitution is something that extends than mere animal existence (such as
human life); (2) the right of liberty is something that is not bounded by freedom
from physical constraint (e.g. imprisonment), but also the right of man to use their
faculties that has been endowed by his divine creator that is only subject to limitation
that they do not violate the human rights of others; and lastly, (3) the right to
property is something that refers to the object or thing itself or the right to have that
thing which is not limited to the right to own, use, transmit or even to destroy, that is
subjected to the right of the state or other persons.
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUION, Article 3 Bill of Rights
These are the rights of Filipino that is stipulated in the 1987 constitution. A bill of rights,
sometimes called a declaration of rights or a charter of rights. Its purpose is to
safeguard and provide providence of the rights of the people, the way of life, liberty
and property, and even being on accused. All of the rights that are stipulated in this
article is vital for the general welfare.
Section 1 Right to life, liberty, and property, you should not be deprived of your life,
liberty, and property
Section 2 Right against unreasonable searches and seizures
Section 3 Every person has the right to keep his communication or correspondence
a secret.
Section 4 Freedom of Speech, Right to a Free Press; Freedom of Assembly; Right of
Petition
Section 5; Freedom of Religion
Section 6 The Liberty of abode and right to travel
Section 7 The right to information
Section 8 Right to form associations
Section 9 The Right to Just Compensation

2. Section 10 Non-impairment clause
Section 11 Free Access to Court
Section 12 Right of Person under Custodial Investigation
Section 13 The right to Bail and against Excessive Bail
Section 14 Rights of the accused; Right to Due Process of law in criminal cases;
Innocent until proven guilty; the right to confront one’s accuser; Basis for Trials in
Absentia
Section 15 Writ of Habeas Corpus
Section 16 Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
Section 17 Right against self-incrimination
Section 18 The right to political beliefs and aspirations
Section 19 The prohibition against cruel; degrading or inhuman punishment
Section 20 Non-imprisonment for debts
Section 21 Right against double jeopardy
Section 22 Ex-post facto law and bill of attainder
Rights of the accused
Right to Due Process of law in criminal cases; Innocent until proven guilty; the
right to confront one’s accuser; Basis for Trials in Absentia. In right to due process of
law in criminal cases. The first right refers to the accused receiving due process of law
in criminal cases, which includes being treated fairly through a normal judicial system,
receiving adequate legal assistance, being informed of his right to remain silent and
have a lawyer, and other aspects of the judicial process that are inherent to him as an
accused person. Second, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, one has the
right to be presumed innocent (equipoise rule, or the evidence is in favor of the
accused). This right was emphasized in the constitution to avoid coddling wrongdoers
or protecting those who might damage the reputation of the innocent. As a result, the
constitution prioritizes the acquittal of the innocent over the conviction of the guilty. In
the third right, the accused is granted the right to see the witness or accuser face to
face. There are two reasons for this: (1) the accused has the opportunity to cross-
examine witnesses against him in order to test their recollection and veracity, whether
or not they are telling the truth only and not lies; and (2) the accused has the
opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him in order to test their remember
and veracity, whether or not they are telling the truth only and not lies. As a result, he
cannot be convicted solely on the basis of depositions or ex parte (of or from one party)
affidavits (sworn written statements) of his accusers; hence, all of the depositions must
always be examined first before being convicted. (2) — The second is to give the
judge, as the trier of facts, an opportunity to see the demeanor and appearance of
witnesses while testifying. In that way, the trier of facts would be reasonable and
assesses empirical evidences thoroughly.
4 elements of Nation
 People
Government
Territory
Sovereignty
Archipelagic doctrine
The Archipelagic Doctrine as enshrined in Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution
provides that an Archipelago shall be regarded as a single unit, so that the waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the state, subject to its exclusive sovereignty.

3. Res Nullius
property not subject to private ownership under Roman law/ nobody's property or a
thing which has no owner
Terra Nullius
land belonging to no one
Self Executory provisions
parts of the Constitution that do not need a law to be enforceable. (Bill of rights)
Non-executory provisions
they merely set forth a line of policy or principles without supplying the means by
which they are to be effectuated, or if the language of the constitution is directed to the
legislature (i.e. As may be defined by law)
SAMPLE CASE DIGEST
Jacobson v. Massachusetts - 197 U.S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358 (1905)
In this case, the petitioner, Jacobson filed a petition against the state of
Massachusetts against the compulsory smallpox vaccination, a regulation that is
authorized by a state statute. He insisted that the concept of “vaccination” had brought
his lifelong horror of the practice. The pivotal issue, in this case, is whether the scope
of the state’s police power includes the authority to enact reasonable regulations that
are relevant to protect public health and safety. The Court has ruled that the state’s
regulation on compulsory smallpox vaccination was a reasonable enactment of
regulation. The Constitution has provided all subjects within its jurisdiction liberty, but
not free from restraint at all times and in all circumstances such as the widespread of
smallpox that can endanger public health and safety. Thus, the state of Massachusetts
has decidedto execute such regulation for the common good. There has been nothing
to justify the Court holding the statute to be unconstitutional, and the court has affirmed
the state statute.
G.R. No. L-26379 December 27, 1969, WILLIAM C. REAGAN, ETC., petitioner,
vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
In this case, the petitioner, William C. Reagan sought the recovery of the sum
of P2,979.00 plus the legal rate of interest. He raised Art. XII of the Military Bases
Agreement wherein it states that he was indeed not to be taxed on his income. Since,
he had a business transaction inside the Clark Air Base, a US military base in the
Philippines, where he sold his 1960 Cadillac car. After deducting the landed cost of
the car and the personal exemption to which the petitioner was entitled, CIR rendered
him liable for income tax in the sum of P2,979.00. moreover, CTA ruled in favor of CIR,
that the respondent legally collected the income tax. The pivotal issue, in this case,
was whether or not the income tax collected from Reagan was within the territorial
jurisdictional of the Philippines to tax. Hence, the Supreme Court affirms the CTA
decision since the Philippines is independent and sovereign; Its decree is supreme
and can exercise such powers within its domain. And also, they are still subject to its
authority since the Clark Air Base is in the Philippines’ native soil, not foreign territory
for income tax legislation purposes. The article from a military base agreement that
the petitioner has cited did not apply to income derived in the bases which are derived
in the Philippines.

4. G.R. No. L-5 September 17, 1945, CO KIM CHAM (alias CO KIM CHAM),
petitioner, vs. EUSEBIO VALDEZ TAN KEH and ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of
First Instance of Manila, respondents.
In this case, Co Kim Cham file a petition that the respondent Judge would
continue the proceedings on her civil case which was civil case No. 3012, during the
Japanese occupation. The respondent Judge halted the proceedings because a
proclamation was issued by General McArthur to invalidate and nullify all judicial
proceedings pending in the court under the defunct Republic of the Philippines (the
Philippine government under the Japanese). The pivotal issue, in this case, is:
Whether or not the Judicial proceedings and decisions that were made during the
Japanese occupation could remain valid even after American occupation; Whether or
not the proclamation of General McArthur did invalidate all judicial proceedings and
decisions during the Japanese occupation; and whether or not if the judicial
proceedings and decisions were not invalidated, could those courts continue hearing
the pending cases before them. First, International law says the acts of a de facto
government are valid and civil laws continue even during occupation unless repealed.
Second, McArthur has annulled other proceedings of other governments, but cannot
be applied on judicial proceedings because it would violate the laws of the nation. And
third, since it can’t be applied on judicial proceedings, and the laws remain valid, the
court must continue hearing the case pending before it.
[CASE DIGEST] Marcos v. Manglapus (G.R. No. 88211) October 27, 1989, | 177
SCRA 668
In this case, Ferdinand Marcos, et al. filed a motion for reconsideration for their
family to allow their return from Honolulu, Hawaii to the Philippines. It was denoted
that on September 15, 1989, the Supreme Court dismissed their earlier petition for
their coming here to the Philippines. The Court held that President Corazon Aquino
did not act arbitrarily with grave abuse of discretion in barring the Marcoses from
coming back here in the Philippines because she feared the instability and security
issues that may arise once the remains of former President Marcos were to be brought
back to the country, that was also affirmed by the Supreme Court in their previous
decision. The pivotal issue, in this case, are: whether or not President Aquino has the
power to deny the return of Marcos' remains; and whether or not President Aquino's
refusal to allow the return of Marcos' remains is tantamount to dictatorship. Concerning
first issue, the court held that the president has executive and unstated residual
powers that are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution.
Constitutional Commission of 1986 has limited the powers of the President especially
in the Commander-in-chief clause, as a reaction to the Marcos administration’s abuse
of authority, but was not a diminution of the general grant of executive power such as
promoting the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the Marcoses
from returning to the Philippines complied with her bounden duty. And concerning the
last issue, her decision was not tantamount to dictatorship. Residual powers, wherein
the President can do anything which is not forbidden in the Constitution, should not be
confused with the defunct 1973 Constitution to legislate according to amendment no.6
which was the residual power were implied. The 1987 Constitution only outlines the
tasks of the President and is not defined and exclusive, as long as she is performing
her obligation to protect the people and promote their welfare and advance their
national interest.
G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E.
MARCOS (REPRESENTED BYHIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA
IMELDA [IMEE] MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE
MARCOS-ARANETA) AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, respondents CASE
DISCUSSION

5. In this Case, the petitioner, through Presidential Commission on Good
Governance (PCGG), represented by Office of the Solicitor General for forfeiture of
Swiss Funds. They declared an aggregate amount of US $356 Billion (estimated more
than US$ 658 Billion) deposited in the PNB, and that was also previously held in
different 5 account groups, using foreign foundations in Swiss bank as an ill-gotten
wealth from the Marcoses. And also, they the petitioner have also sought the forfeiture
of US$25 Million and 5 Million US Dollars treasury notes which exceeded Marcos
Couple’s salaries and their other lawful incomes, which are frozen at Central Bank of
the Phillippines, now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The petitioners, by the PCGG
Chairman and the respondent, the Marcoses children had a general and supplemental
agreement for a global settlement of the assets under conditions contained therein.
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the Swiss Funds can be forfeited in
favour of the Petitioners on the basis of the marcoses’s lawful income. Hence, the
court held petition granted since their only lawful income is only more than 300
thousand US Dollars and that serves as a prima facie case for forfeiture of Swiss
Funds. And that sum must be only the lawful income since they did not file any
Statement of Assets and Liabilities as required by law, since that is only way to know
their net worth. Likewise, the previous Constitutions did not also grant President
Marcos any emolument from the government and any other source, as stipulated in
1935 and 1973 Constitution; his businesses management and accumulation of funds
was also prohibited.
GREGORIO AGLIPAY, petitioner, vs. JUAN RUIZ, respondent. 64 PHIL 201 March
13, 1937 CASE DIGEST DISCUSSION
The Petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of Philippine
Independent Church sought writ of prohibition to prevent respondent Director of Posts
to issue and sell postage stamps of 33rd International Eucharistic Congress
commemorative postage stamps. In May 1936, the Director announced the issuance
and selling of the said postage stamp, having sent to the US for postage printing
designs. The Pivotal issue in this case is whether or not there is a violation of principle
of separation of state and church in this case. The court denied the petition for a writ
of prohibition, without pronouncement as to costs. The issuing and selling of
commemorative stamps were not made to contemplate any favor upon a particular
sect or church, but only to advertise Philippines and attracts tourist as the Government
only took advantage of an event considering its international importance. Hence, there
was no violation on the separation of the Church and the State. And the court stressed
that ‘‘Religious freedom, as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound
reverence for religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs’. Thus, Freedom
on religion was granted by the Constitution and not toleration, Moreover, the elevating
influence of religion in human society is recognized here as elsewhere. That is why
the act of the Director of Posts was still constitutional.
Key concept: Doctrine of Separation of State and Church
BINAY VS DOMINGO G.R. No. 92389, September 11, 1991 CASE DIGEST
DISCUSSION
In the case of Binay v Domingo in 1991, Jejomar Binay filed for himself a petition
against the disapproval of Commission on audit against their Resolution no.60 re-
enacted under Resolution no. 243 which is about the ongoing burial assistance
program of extending financial assistance of five hundred pesos (P500.00) to a
bereaved family. The pivotal issue in this case is whether Resolution No. 60 is a valid
exercise of the police power under the general welfare clause; Whether the questioned

6. resolution is for a public purpose; and whether the resolution violates the equal
protection clause.
First, Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations.
There must be a valid delegation of such power by the legislature which are the basis
of inherent powers of the state. Those powers are also exercised under general
welfare clause, which stipulates that municipal corporation can enact such ordinances
and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out duties conferred upon it
by law to provide and promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality
and the inhabitants thereof and insure the protection of property therein. Second, Due
to the police power’s comprehensive definition, COA positioned to redefine its scope
by circumscribing the state’s “public safety, general welfare, etc. of the inhabitants of
Makati”. It was deemed inadvisable to attempt to frame its definition that delimits the
police power; hence, it was also stated that public purpose is not unconstitutional
merely it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons; and lastly, it did not violate
any of the general welfare clause because the care for the poor is generally recognized
as a public duty. It was the resolution’s purpose to relief the paupers, that has been
also justified and correctly pointed out by the Office of Solicitor General.
Therefore, the petition was granted and the COA’s decision was set aside.
Key concept: Police Power
BELTRAN V SECRETARY OF HEALTH G.R. No. 133640 November 25, 2005 CASE
DIGEST DISCUSSION
In the case of Beltran v Secretary of Health in 2005, the RA 7719 (National
Blood Services Act) was enacted in 1994 that seeks to provide adequate and safe
supply of blood by promoting and regulating blood donation and blood banks in the
country respectively and phasing out all commercialized blood banks due to study
results that commercialized blood are three times more likely to have blood transfusion
transmissible diseases. Hence, the petitioners assailed the constitutionality and
validity of the republic act as its position is against the freestanding and discriminating
the commercialized blood banks.
The pivotal issue in this case is whether the RA 7719 violates the equal
protection clause, and whether the section 7 of RA 7719 constitutes unlawful
deprivation of personal liberty and property. One reason, the Republic act did not
violate the equal protection clause because nonprofit blood banks is rooted as
humanitarian and voluntary service, while commercial blood banks are motivated by
profit. After that, the classification and consequent phase-out of commercial blood
banks is pertinent to the law’s purpose as it promotes safe and voluntary blood
donation, rather than a commodity that sources the paid blood donors who are
considered unsafe as its source of profit. And most importantly, the Legislature
intended the general application of the Law; its enactment is not only addressed in this
case but to all commercialized blood banks without exception. The class legislation
prohibits discrimination against some and favoring others, and the classification must
be on a reasonable basis. Those who petition must observe grounds for nullification
of law that there is an unequivocal breach of the Constitution.
Thus, petition against constitutionality of the republic act is dismissed and the
petition seeking to cite the Secretary of Health in contempt of court is denied for lack
of merit.
Key concept: Equal Protection Clause

7. SANTOS v SANTOS G.R. No. 187061. October 8, 2014 CASE DIGEST
DISCUSSION
In the case of Teodora Santos v Santos, Teodora Santos and her nieces filed
a complaint against Leoncio Santos from selling their undivided shared lot to the Civil
Aeronautics Administrator. The Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration
moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of the
complaint against him, invoking the case of Metropolitan Transportation Service
METRAN vs. Paredes, 45 Off. Gaz., 2835, where it has been held that the suit was
against the state which could not be brought without its consent. This motion was
granted on the ground that the Civil Aeronautics Administration not being a juridical
person has no capacity to sue and be sued and for that reason it cannot come under
the jurisdiction of the court. The order appealed from dismissing the complaint as to
the Civil Aeronautics Administration is reversed and the case remanded to the lower
court for further proceeding's in accordance with law. No costs shall be taxed.
Key concept: State Immunity Doctrine
METRAN v PAREDES 79 Phil. 819 CASE DIGEST DISCUSSION
In the case of Metran v Paredes 79 Phil. 819, the petitioner, the National Labor
Union allegedly implied against the respondent, Metropolitan Transportation Service
(METRAN) that their organization is a legitimate labor organization that they have thirty
affiliated members who are working under their “semi-governmental entity” who has
nine demands at length set forth in their petition. Metran filed a petition for case
dismissal because of the grounds that it belongs to the Republic of the Philippines,
and it cannot be sued. The pivotal issue is whether Metran will be able to invoke the
Doctrine of State Immunity. Hence, the court held the petition be denied because
Metran is an agency of the government with no juridical personality under the law
whose incapable of suing or being sued; because it would take effect against the
Government, which suit may not prosper without its consent.
Key concept: State Immunity Doctrine
PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE V REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-26386 September 30, 1969
In the case of Providence Washington Insurance v Republic of the Philippine
in 1969, the appellant is against an order of the lower court in dismissing its suit for
non-delivery of thirty cases of steel files which cargo was insured by it against loss
and damages. But the respondent, the Republic of the Philippines and Bureau of
Customs, as the court explicitly said that The Bureau of Customs, acting as part of
the machinery of the national government in the operation of the arrastre service,
pursuant to express legislative mandate and as a necessary incident of its prime
governmental function, is immune from suit, there being no statute to the contrary.
The pivotal issue in here is whether the Bureau of Customs can invoke the Doctrine
of non-suability. Hence, the court affirmed the order of dismissal of the lower court
due to the Doctrine of non-suability where no suit against the state will lie and
prosper except with its consent as provided by the law.
Key concept: State Immunity Doctrine

8. JUDICIAL LEGISLATION- THE LAWS IS CREATED
CONGRESS FUNCTIONS IS TO MAKE LAWS
ARTICLE1 NATIONAL TERRITORY
- it’s prone about conflict and fights, conflict about land or territorial rights because
of off limits.
JENUVA CONVINSION ON 1992- archipelago doctrine, as part of one vast state
2006- The Philippines Won in tribunal against China
China- eleven dash line, 95 percent. But don’t basis.
BILL OF RIGHTS IS A SELF-EXECUTORY
- no need to have enabling law or implemented
Non- executory
- it’s need an enabling law to prohibit political dynasty and stay as hypocrite.
SECTION 26 of ARTICLE 2- prohibiting political dynasty is intent as may be defined
by law.
- guiding principle on what state they will implemented.
SECTION 16 of ARTICLE 2- balanced and healthy ecology.
SECTION 13 of ARTICLE 2- nation-building