III.

1) Explain briefly the following:

a. Doctrine of Parens Patriae

[It is in which] the State has the authority and duty to step in where parents fail
to or are unable to cope with their duties to their children.

Or, use this in the case of Government of the Philippine Islands v. Monte de Piedad:

The Govt as parens patriae has the right to enforce all charities of public
nature where no other person is entrusted with it.

b. Doctrine of Jus Postliminium

Where the territory of one belligerent State is occupied by the enemy during
war, the legitimate government is ousted from authority. When the belligerent
occupation ceases to be effective, the authority of the legitimate government is
automatically restored together with all its laws, by virtue of the jus
postliminium.

c. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

The Constitution 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. (Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS)

d. Act of State Doctrine

An act of State is an act done by the sovereign power of a country, or by its

delegate, within the limits of the power vested in him. A State should not inquire
into the legal validity of the public acts of another State done within the territory
of the latter.

e. Incorporation clause

It means that the rules of international law form part of the law of the land and
no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the
domestic sphere.

As defined in Kuroda v. Jalandoni:

Doctrine of Incorporation – Every state, by membership of the family of
nations, is bound by the general principles of international law, which
automatically is incorporated in (becomes a part of) its own laws.

2) Discuss with reasons and basis, whether or not RA 6735 is sufficient to provide for the
procedure of amending the Constitution through a People’s Initiative.

RA 6735 is not sufficient to provide for the procedure of amending the

Constitution through a People’s Initiative.

In one case decided by the Court, it held that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate
and wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to
the Constitution is concerned.
 Under the said Act, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to
amend. The people are not accorded the power to “directly propose, enact, approve, or
reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution” through the system of initiative. They can
only do so with respect to “laws, ordinances, or resolutions.” Secondly, the Act does
not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution.

Also, while the Act provides subtitles for initiative on national laws and local
laws, no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence
simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national
and local laws [only]. While the Act specially detailed the process in implementing
initiative and referendum on national and local laws, it intentionally did not do so on
the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution.

3) Enumerate the qualifications of a member of Senate and the House of Representatives.

The qualifications of a member of Senate, as found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution

(Article 6, Sec. 3) are as follows:

a. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;

b. On the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age;
c. Able to read and write;
d. A registered voter; and
e. A resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding
the day of the election.

The qualifications of a member of the House of Representatives are the following:

a. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;

b. On the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age;
c. Able to read and write;
d. Except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which
he shall be elected; and
e. A resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding
the day of the election.

4) What is social justice as defined in the case of Calalang vs. Williams?

Social justice, classically defined

- is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces xxx;
-is the promotion of the welfare of all the people xxx through the maintenance of a
proper economic and social equilibrium in their interrelations of the members of the
community xxx through the adoption of measures xxx [and] the exercise of powers
xxx of [the government] on the xxx principle of salus populi est suprema lex.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE EKLAVUH CASE

1. Was the Lone Court correct in refusing to take cognizance of the case filed by Mayaman?

Yes, the Lone Court is correct in refusing to take cognizance of the case filed by
Mayaman.
 As it has been held in a number of cases, a political question is concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not a legality of a particular measure. (e.g. Tañada v. Cuenco)

In the instant case, the court has no jurisdiction in deciding who is in a better position
to complete the project, as it is a political question. Further, there was no impediment as to
the whole process of the bidding that will constitute a question of legality. The choice of the
bidder is a prerogative of the government.

2. Supposing the lone court dismissed the case of Mayaman based on state immunity, would
the lone court be correct in doing so?

Yes, the Supreme Court is correct in doing so.

In a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, following the rule of the restrictive
application of State Immunity where it extends only to acts jure imperii as against jure
gestionis, it held that the repair of wharves are an integral part of the naval base which is
undisputedly a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor
dedicated to commercial or business purposes.

In the case at bar, the projects were for the construction of a naval base and for the
repairs of the damaged roads all over the kingdom. Thus, it was performing its governmental
function.

3. Decide whether or not the state gave consent to be sued in the damage suit filed by Ma.
Lakat?

No, the State did not give its consent to be sued.

The general rule of State Immunity under the 1987 Constitution provides that the
State cannot be sued without its consent.

Here, the State did not give its consent to be sued because the truck driver under the
Ministry of Tourism was performing a governmental function when the incident happened.

Therefore, the State did not give its consent to be sued in the damage suit filed by Ma.
Lakat.

4. Was the contention of the citizens of Eklavuh that a Constitution is essential to be

considered a state meritorious.

No, because under the Philippine laws, it is unconstitutional.

Establishing the territorial jurisdiction alone by the Royal Kingdom of Eklavuh will
create a conflict with the national territory and sovereignty of the Philippines as provided in
Article I of the 1987 Constitution where it comprises the whole Philippine archipelago, with all
the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines
has sovereignty.

In the instant case, the Royal Kingdom of Eklavuh is within the territory of the
Philippines. Thus, the contention of the citizens of Eklavuh that a Constitution is essential to
be considered a state is not meritorious.

5. Is the decision of the Lone Court upholding the contention of minister of public works
correct?
 No, because it is a political question.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, political questions are associated with the
wisdom and not the legality of an act. (Sanidad v. COMELEC)

In the case at bar, the provision in question is [still] merely a proposal of the draft
constitution; therefore, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

6. Was the government set up by Malaysian Army de jure or de facto? Explain briefly.

It is a de facto government.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it defined de facto government as a

government established over an enemy’s territory during the military occupation. (Co Kim
Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh)

Since Malaysia did not recognize Eklavuh as a state, it invaded the country in 2018 and
established a military government. Such is a de facto government.

7. Was the Lone Court correct in dismissing the treason case against Ma. Lakat?

No, the Lone Court was not correct.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, sovereignty is not abrogated during

belligerent occupation. Thus, the law on treason is still in effect during such times. (Laurel v.
Misa)

Here, Ma. Lakat took revenge against the kingdom; her help was instrumental in
capturing the various ministers of the kingdom but when arrested and charged with treason,
the Lone Court dismissed the case which was not correct.

8. Was decision of the Lone Court in dismissing the civil case for collection of money filed by
Mahirap against Eklavuh correct?

No, the Lone Court was not correct.

It is a well-known principle of international law that all judicial proceedings which are
not of a political complexion of a de facto government remain good and valid even after
occupation.

In the case at bar, the case for collection of money filed by Mahirap against Eklavuh
was a civil case and not a political complexion of a de facto government. Such a case should
have been decided by the Lone Court.

DOCTRINE OF PROPER SUBMISSION

It means that all the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be presented to
the people for the ratification or rejection at the same time, not piecemeal. It is for them to
be given enough time to study the proposals and whether or not they will approve or reject
them.
(Tolentino vs. COMELEC)
DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION

All powers necessary for the effective exercise of the express powers are deemed impliedly
granted.
(Pimentel v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-53581, Dec. 19, 1980)

What do you understand by the archipelagic doctrine? Is this reflected in the 1987
Constitution?

The ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE emphasizes the unity of land and waters by defining an
archipelago either as a group of islands surrounded by waters or a body of waters studded
with islands. For this purpose, it requires that baselines be drawn by connecting the
appropriate points of the "outermost islands to encircle the islands within the archipelago.
The waters on the landward side of the baselines regardless of breadth or dimensions are
merely internal waters.

Yes, the archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the 1987 Constitution, Article I provides
that the national territory of the Philippines includes the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein; and 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 ELEMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH IN ORDER TO PROPOSE CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENTS BY INITIATIVE (Lambino v. COMELEC)

Two elements to be complied with in order to propose constitutional amendments by

initiative:
(1) the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal; and
(2) the proposal must be embodied in a petition.

STATE, as defined in Collector of internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda

State – a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by

ties of nationhood, legally supreme, within its territory, acting through a government
functioning under a regime of law.

THE STATE, as defined in the book (Isagani Cruz)

THE STATE is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a

fixed territory, and possessed of an independent government organized for political ends to
which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.

PEOPLE

People refers simply to the inhabitants of the State

 numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend themselves; and
 small enough to be easily administered and sustained.
TERRITORY

Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the State.

GOVERNMENT

Government is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is
formulated, expressed and realized.

DE JURE vs DE FACTO GOVERNMENT

De jure government – has the rightful title but without control. One that is established of a
legitimate sovereign.

De facto government – actually exercises power or control but without legal title.

Three Kinds of De Facto Government

1. That which gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority;
revolution
2. That which is established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who
rise in insurrection against the parent state
3. That which is established and maintained by invading military forces (case of Co Kim Chan)

SOVEREIGNTY

Is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is governed.

Two Kinds of Sovereignty:

1. Legal sovereignty – is the authority which has the power to issue final commands
2. Political sovereignty – is the power behind the legal sovereign
3. Internal sovereignty – refers to the power of the State to control its domestic affairs
4. External sovereignty – is the power of the State to direct its relations with other States; also known
as independence

CONSTITUTION

Is a written instrument enacted by the direct action of the people by which 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
benefits of the body politic.

Essential Parts of a Good Written Constitution

1. Constitution of Sovereignty – provisions applying out the modes or procedure in

accordance with which the formal changes in the constitution may be made.
(1987 Constitution, Art. XVII)
 2. Constitution of Liberty – series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and
political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the power of the government
as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.
(1987 Constitution, Art. III)

3. Constitution of Government – Provides for a structure and system of government

(Art. VI – Legislative Dep’t
Art. VII – Executive Dep’t
Art. VIII – Judicial Dep’t
Art. IX – Constitutional Commissions)

AMENDMENT vs REVISION

Amendment = merely adding, deleting or reducing without altering the basic principles
involved.

Revision = act of rewriting of the whole instrument altering the entirety of the Constitution.

SELF-EXECUTORY PROVISIONS

Provision which is complete by itself and becomes operative without the aid of
[supplementary or enabling] legislation.

What is the basis why the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987?

Because the Constitution [under Article XVIII, Sec. 27] provides that “This Constitution
shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite
held for the purpose [and shall supersede all previous Constitutions].”

What is the date of the ratification [of the 1987 Constitution]?

The act of ratification is the act of voting [in a plebiscite] by the people. So that is the
date of the ratification. (De Leon v. Esguerra)

If Section 3 of Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution is removed, can the principle of state immunity still
apply in the Philippines?

The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now expressed in Article
XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of
international law that we have adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, Section
2. This latter provision is intended to manifest our resolve to abide by the rules of the
international community.

FUNCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT

1. Constituent – Mandatory for the government to perform because they constitute the very
bonds of society.

2. Ministrant – Intended to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people.
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN NATION AND STATE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTHER APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE

UNINCORPORATED GOVERNMENT AGENCY

Immunity from suit of an unincorporated government agency is determined by the character

of the object for which the agency was organized.

If an unincorporated government agency was organized to carry out private or non-

governmental (proprietary) tasks, then it is not immune from suit. (Civil Aeronautics
Administration v. Court of Appeals)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

Municipal corporations are otherwise covered by State Immunity from suit, but because their
charter provides for it (there is consent to suit), they can sue and be sued nevertheless.

However, municipal corporations are generally not liable for torts unless it can be shown that
they were acting in a proprietary capacity. (Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Firme)

MUNICIPAL FUNDS

Municipal funds are public funds exempt from execution. There must be a corresponding
appropriation in the form of an ordinance before any money of the municipality may be paid
out. (Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez)

RULE ON THE IMMUNITY OF PUBLIC FUNDS

The rule on the immunity of public funds from seizure or garnishment does NOT apply where
the funds sought to be levied under execution are already allocated by law specifically for the
satisfaction of the money judgment against the government (even when the chief executive
does not authorize its release). (City of Caloocan v. Hon. Allarde)

POWER TO ISSUE OR GRANT LICENSES AND BUSINESS PERMITS

This Court has held that the power to issue or grant licenses and business permits is not an
exercise of the government's proprietary function. Instead, it is in an exercise of the
police power of the State, ergo a governmental act.

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.
(City of Bacolod vs. Visions, GR No. 190289)