Political Law Doctrines

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES De Leon v. ESGUERRA The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, date, ther theref efore ore,, the the Pro Prois isio ional nal Cons Consti titu tuti tion on !ust !ust be dee!e dee!ed d to hae hae been been superseded. "#ffectiity is i!!ediately upon ratification$ Gonzales v. COMELEC %ature of power to a!end the Constitution or to propose a!end!ents thereto& not inherent power of Con'ress but of the people( constituent power of Con'ress Tolentno v. COMELEC The condition and li!itation that all the a!end!ents to be proposed by the sa!e conention !ust be sub!itted in a )sin'le election* or plebiscite. I!"on# v. COMELEC Co!pete Co!petence nce of Con'res Con'ress s actin' actin' as Consti Constitue tuent nt +sse! +sse!bly bly&& +uthority uthority to call call consti constitut tution ional al conen conentio tion n as Consti Constituen tuentt +sse! +sse!bly bly in enacti enactin' n' i!ple! i!ple!ent entin' in' details. San$a$ v. COMELEC Presidential e-ercise of le'islatie powers "and proposin' a!end!ents$ is alid in !artial law. +!endin' process is a soerei'n act, althou'h the authority to institute the sa!e and the procedure to be followed reside so!ehow in a particular body "Pres. arcos$. Santa#o v. COMELEC The The ri'ht ri'ht of the the peopl people e to direc directl tly y propos propose e a!end! a!end!ent ents s to the the Cons Consti titu tuti tion on

throu'h the syste! of initiatie would re!ain ento!bed in a cold niche until Con'ress proides for its i!ple!entation. /ection 2 of +rticle 0 is not self e-ecutin'. La!"no v. COMELEC #ssence of people3s initiatie& "1$ people !ust author( "2$ they !ust si'n the proposal( "4$ proposal is e!bodied in petition CONCEPT OF STATE %a&an vs NACOCO •

•

The !ere fact that the 5oern!ent happens to be a !a6or stocholder of a corporation does not !ae it a public corporation. istinction between constituent and !inistrant functions.

P'TA vs CIR C IR • •

istinction between constituent and !inistrant functions  obsolete. 5oern!ent has to proide for 'eneral welfare.

Gov. o( t)e P)l. Islan$s vs. Monte $e Pe$a$ • •

octrine of Parens Patriae "state as 'uardian of the people$ Transfer of soerei'nty( effect on laws&  abro'ation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted soerei'n "political law$.  'reat body of !unicipal law re'ardin' priate and do!estic ri'hts continue in force until abro'ated or chan'ed by new ruler.

Co *! C)an vs. 'al$ez Tan *e) •

•

•

Continuity of :aw& :aw, once established, continues until chan'ed by so!e co!petent le'islatie power "not chan'ed by !ere chan'e of soerei'nty$  +ll acts and proceedin's of the 4 'o. depts. of a de facto 'oern!ent are 'ood and alid. ;inds of e facto 'oern!ent& "1$ de facto proper  'oern!ent obtained by force or oice of the !a6ority

•

"2$ para!ount force  by !ilitary forces who inade the territory "4$ independent 'oern!ent  established by inhabitants throu'h insurrection fficer or e!ployee co!!ittin' the tort is personally liable and !aybe sued as any other citi?en and held answerable for whateer in6ury

USA vs G,nto

-  + state !ay be said to hae descended to the leel of an indiidual and can thus be dee!ed to hae tacitly 'ien its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.

'ete-ans Man+o0e- vs CA

- The state is dee!ed to hae 'ien tacitly its consent to be sued when it enters into a contract. @oweer, it does not apply where the contract relates to the e-ercise of its soerei'n functions.

T)e Me--tt vs Govt o( t)e P)l

- By consentin' to be sued, a state si!ply waies its i!!unity fro! suit. t does not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his faor, or e-tend its liability to any cause not preiously reco'ni?ed. t !erely 'ies re!edy to enforce a pree-istin' liability and sub!it itself to the 6urisdiction of the court, sub6ect to its ri'ht to interpose any lawful defense. A!#a"le vs. C,en&a The 'oern!ent, when it taes away a property fro! a priate land owner for public use without 'oin' throu'h the le'al process of e-propriation or ne'otiated sale, the a''rieed party !ay properly !aintain a suit a'ainst the 'oern!ent without thereby iolatin' the doctrine of 'oern!ental i!!unity fro! suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetratin' in6ustice to a citi?en.

Re+,"l& vs. San$#an"aan

- Ahen the state files an action, it diests itself of the soerei'n character and shed its i!!unity for! suit, descendin' to the leel of an ordinary liti'ant.

Re+,"l& vs. Fel&ano  failure to alle'e in the co!plaint the e-istence of consent by the /tate is a fatal defect "construction !ust be strict a'ainst confer!ent of waier   !!unity !ay be inoed by the courts at any pointsta'e of the proceedin's.

USA vs. R,z Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states & /tates !ay be sued when the proceedin's arise out of co!!ercial transactions of the forei'n soerei'n.

T)e Hol See v Rosa-o2 3-. •

Pursuant to the 191 ienna Conention on iplo!atic n the issue that the )total lo' ban* is a new policy which should be applied prospectiely and not affect the ri'hts of petitioner ested under the Ti!ber :icensin' +'ree!ent "T:+$, the /c held that this is not a new policy but a !ere reiteration of the policy of conseration and protection the ri'ht to a balanced and healthful ecolo'y. Se&ton 1? PRC vs. De G,z!an while it is true that the /C has upheld the constitutional ri'ht of eery citi?en to select a profession or course of study sub6ect to fair, reasonable, and eGuitable

ad!ission and acade!ic reGuire!ents, the e-ercise of this ri'ht !ay be re'ulated pursuant to the police power of the /tate to safe'uard health, !orals, peace, education, order, safety and 'eneral welfare. Thus, persons who desire to en'a'e in the learned professions reGuirin' scientific or technical nowled'e !ay be reGuired to tae an e-a!ination as a prereGuisite to en'a'in' in their chosen careers. This re'ulation assu!es particular pertinence in the field of !edicine, in order to protect the public fro! the potentially deadly effects of inco!petence and i'norance. PMMS2 In&. vs. CA the Court said that the reGuire!ent that a school !ust first obtain 'oern!ent authori?ation before operatin' is based on the /tate policy that educational pro'ra!s andor operations shall be of 'ood Guality and, therefore, shall at least satisfy !ini!u! standards with respect to curricula, teachin' staff, physical plant and facilities and ad!inistratie and !ana'e!ent iability.

Se&ton 1@ %e-na-$o vs. NLRC The /C held that the a'na Carta for isabled Persons !andates that Gualified disabled persons be 'ranted the sa!e ter!s and conditions of e!ploy!ent as Gualified able bodied e!ployees( thus, once hey hae attained the status of re'ular worers, they should be accorded all the benefits 'ranted by law, notwithstandin' written or erbal contracts to the contrary. This treat!ent is rooted not !erely in charity or acco!!odation, but in 6ustice for all.

Se&ton 1 Ga-&a vs. %OI B> co!!itted 'rae abuse of discretion because it repudiates the independent policy of 'oern!ent to run its affairs the way it dee!s best for the national interest. #ery proision of the Constitution on the national econo!y and patri!ony is infused with the spirit of national interest. The nonalienation of national resources, the /tate full control oer the deelop!ent and utili?ation of 

contributions to the econo!ic 'rowth and 'eneral welfare of the country and the re'ulation of forei'n inest!ent in accordance to national 'oals and priorities are too e-plicit not to be noticed and understood.

Se&ton 7= Asso&aton o( P)l++ne Co&on,t Des&&ato-s vs. PCA

,

the /C said that althou'h the Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it neertheless reseres to the 5oern!ent the power to interene wheneer necessary for the pro!otion of the 'eneral welfare as reflected in /ections   19 of +rticle 0. Pest Mana#e!ent Asso&aton o( t)e P)l++nes vs. Fe-tlze- an$ Pest&$e A,t)o-t and P)a-!a&e,t&al an$ Healt) Ca-e Asso&aton o( t)e P)l++nes vs. Se&. D,B,e III ,

espite the fact that )our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy*, it neertheless reseres to the 5oern!ent the power to interene wheneer necessary to pro!ote the 'eneral welfare. Free enterprise does not call for re!oal of Hprotectie re'ulationsD. t !ust be clearly e-plained and proen by co!petent eidence 6ust e-actly how such protectie re'ulation would result in the restraint of trade.

Se&ton 71 ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM #!inent do!ain is an inherent power of the /tate that enables it to forcibly acGuire priate lands intended for public use upon pay!ent of 6ust co!pensation to the owner. Priate ri'hts !ust yield to the irresistible de!ands of the public interest on the ti!ehonored 6ustification, as in the case of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is the supre!e law.

Se&ton 7; %ASCO 'S PAGCOR :ocal +utono!y under 1987 Constitution si!ply !eans the decentrali?ation and does not !ae the local 'oern!ents soerei'n within the /tate or an i!periu! i!perio. LIM%ONA 'S MANGELIN ecentrali?ation of ad!inistration is !erely dele'ation of ad!inistratie powers to the :5Is in order to broaden the base of 'oern!ental power. ecentrali?ation of power is the abdication by the national 'oern!ent powers.

Se&ton 7< Pa!aton# vs. COMELEC  There is no constitutional ri'ht to run for or hold public office and, particularly, to see the presidency. Ahat is reco'ni?ed is !erely a priile'e sub6ect to li!itations i!posed by law. /ection 2, +rticle  of the Constitution neither bestows such a ri'ht nor eleates the priile'e to the leel of an enforceable ri'ht. There is nothin' in the plain lan'ua'e of the proision which su''ests such a thrust or 6ustifies an interpretation of the sort. The MeGual accessM proision is a subsu!ed part of +rticle  of the Constitution, entitled Meclaration of Principles and /tate Policies.M The proisions under the +rticle are 'enerally considered not selfe-ecutin', and there is no plausible reason for accordin' a different treat!ent to the MeGual accessM proision. :ie the rest of the policies enu!erated in +rticle , the proision does not contain any 6udicially enforceable constitutional ri'ht but !erely specifies a 'uideline for le'islatie or e-ecutie action. The disre'ard of the proision does not 'ie rise to any cause of action before the courts. Se&ton 8= Le#s+ vs CSC The constitutional ri'ht to infor!ation on !atters of public concern is self e-ecutin' without the need for any ancillary act of le'islation.

'al!onte vs $e 'lla The constitutional ri'ht to infor!ation is li!ited on !atters of public concern and is further sub6ect to such li!itations as !ay be proided by law. @oweer, althou'h citi?ens are afforded the ri'ht to infor!ation, the Constitution does not accord the! the ri'ht to co!pel the custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, su!!aries and the lie in their desire to acGuire infor!ation of public concern. AB,noSa-!ento vs Mo-ato  Ahen a co!!ittee or board is created as public in its ery e-istence and character such as the T