Summary of Doctrines
Summary of Doctrines
Summary of Doctrines
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Gonzales v. COMELEC
Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto: not inherent power of Congress but of the people; constituent
power of Congress
Tolentino v. COMELEC
The condition and limitation that all the amendments to be proposed by the same convention must be submitted in a single election or
plebiscite.
Imbong v. COMELEC
Competence of Congress acting as Constituent Assembly: Authority to call constitutional convention as Constituent Assembly
in enacting implementing details.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
-Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and proposing amendments) is valid in martial law.-Amending process is a
sovereign act, although the authority to institute the same and the procedure to be followed reside somehow in a particular body
(Pres. Marcos).
Santiago v. COMELEC
The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would
remain entombed in a cold niche until Congress provides for its implementation. Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.
Lambino v. COMELEC
Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must author; (2) they must sign the proposal; (3) proposal is embodied in petition
CONCEPT OF STATE
Bacani vs NACOCO
The mere fact that the Government happens to be a major stockholder of a corporation does
not make it a public corporation.
Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.
PVTA vs CIR
Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions obsolete.
Government has to provide for general welfare.
People vs Gozo
Principle of Auto-limitation:
Extent of Philippine sovereignty over American bases Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the
Philippine territory.
Laurel vs Misa
Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and permanent
Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the government not transferred to occupier
STATE IMMUNITY
Sanders v Veridiano
Mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of
the laws of public officers and doctrine of state immunity
Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states.
Republic v Sandoval
State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident; liability should fall on the public officers who committed acts beyond their
authority
3 instances when suit is proper: 1. when sued by its name 2. When unincorporated government agency is sued 3. When the suit is against a
government employee but liability belongs to the government
Festejo v Fernando
Officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable and maybe sued as any other citizen and held answerable for whatever injury
USA vs Guinto
-A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only
when it enters into business contracts.
Veterans Manpower vs CA
-The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to be sued when it enters into a contract. However, it does not apply where the contract
relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.