Consti Finals Reviewer

Major Cases

DAP

Araullo v Aquino 2014

Consolidated petitions assailing constitutionality of DAP.

Relevant Laws:

1. Section 29(1) of Article VI, 1987 Constitution: ordains that funding being paid out the
national Treasury may be done in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
2. Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution: which granted to the President the
authority to augment an item for his office in the general appropriations law;
3. Section 49 (Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes) and Section 38 (Suspension
of Expenditure Appropriations), Chapter 5, Book VI of Executive Order (EO) No. 292
(Administrative Code of 1987); and
4. The General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) of 2011, 2012 and 2013, particularly their
provisions on the (a) use of savings; (b) meanings of savings and augmentation; and (c)
priority in the use of savings.
 3. Government

 Government is the three branches of legislative / executive / judicial.

US v Dorr: Libel case, libel was directed at administration rather than abstract concept of government

Government has constituent and ministrant functions:

CONSTITUENT: compulsory functions which MINISTRANT: optional functions of the
constitute the very bonds of society. government intended for a achieving a better life
for the community.

2. Government should do for public welfare

what private capital would not undertake.

2. Government should do things which is better

equipped to administer for public welfare

Bacani v NACOCO: NACOCO is a corporation with personality distinct from the government.

ACCFA v CUGCO: The functions of government are not static. Land reform is not strictly constituent, but
the urgency by which the constitution speaks of social justice points to land reform

De Facto Government Types

1. Can be a government by force or by voice of majority.
2. Can be established and maintained by military who invade a territory in time of war.
3. Can be independent government established by inhabitants of country against the parent state.

 Revolutionary Government: created in defiance of existing legal process (de facto).

Republic v Sandiganbayan: Case on PCGG seizure during time of no Constitution, is it legal?

The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government, assumed responsibility
for the State‘s good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory. Said
covenant requires signatory states to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and
subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant. The revolutionary government
had the duty to insure that no one else shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence.

 Parens Patriae: public policy of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent
parent/legal guardian/informal caretaker, and to act as parent of any child or individual who
needs protection.
Government v Monte Piedad: there is abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the
substitute sovereign, great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic rights continue in
force until abrogated or changed by new ruler.

 Immunity from suit: The State may not be sued without its consent.
- Article XVI, Section 3
- The application of the doctrine has been restricted to sovereign
or governmental activities (jure imperii)
- The mantle of state immunity cannot be extended to
commercial, private and proprietary acts (jure gestionis)

Republic v Feliciano: A suit against the State is not permitted, unless there is showing that it has
consented to such- either expressly or the use of plain statutory language.

Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly. but must be
construed in strictissimi juris. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory
authority. Waiver of State immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body.

Merritt v Government of the Philippines: Same.

 Method for suing the State: Act 3083, declaring that the govt may be sued upon “any moneyed
claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which can serve as a basis of
civil action between private parties.”
- CA 327, as amended by PD 1445: A claim must be filed with
COA. If rejected, it will authorize claimant to elevate to SC on
certiorari and in effect sue the State with its consent.

Philippine Agila Satellite v Lichauco: Government immunity from suit will not shield the public official
being sued if the liability of the officer is personal because it arises from their grave abuse of discretion.
Immunity only applies if public officials are in the exercise of their duties.

Spouses Ramos v ATO: Spouses’ Baguio land being used by ATO, refuses to pay.

The State’s immunity from suit does not extend to the petitioner (ATO) because it is an agency of the
State engaged in an enterprise that is far from being the State’s exclusive prerogative.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot be successfully invoked to defeat a valid claim for
compensation arising from the taking without just compensation and without the proper expropriation
proceedings being first resorted to of the plaintiff’s property.

Republic v Sandiganbayan: If Republic asks for affirmative relief or files a complaint, it would then
open itself up to suability.

Municipality of San Fernando v Firme: Municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant
them the competence to sue and be sued.
However, it is held that the municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular
employee, who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. Hence, the death of the
passenger –– tragic and deplorable though it may be –– imposed on the municipality no duty to pay
monetary compensation.

Professional Video, Inc., v TESDA: TESDA is an unincorporated instrumentality of the government,

directly attached to the DOLE through the participation of the Secretary of Labor as its Chairman, for the
performance of governmental functions. As an unincorporated instrumentality operating under a
specific charter, it is equipped with both express and implied powers, and all State immunities fully
apply to it.

Money Claims

Ministerio v CFI: Claim for payment of the value of a portion of land used for the widening of road.
Where the government takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going
through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain
a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from
suit without its consent.

Inherent Powers of the State

Rubi v Provincial Board: The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution no.25 wherein non-
Christian inhabitants will be directed to take up their habitation on unoccupied lands. Questioned
whether or not it was against their right of liberty, the SC decided that it was not. The state always has
the power to regulate liberty.

Agustin v Edu: Whether or not the government, in requiring early warning devices in automobiles, is
constitutional. It is constitutional because it is a valid measure of police power.

NTC v Oroville Development Corp: Eminent domain is not unlimited, for two mandatory requirements
should underlie the Government's exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely:

(1) that it is for a particular public purpose; and

(2) that just compensation be paid to the property owner. These requirements partake the nature of
implied conditions that should be complied with to enable the condemnor to keep the property
expropriated.

Manila Memorial Park v Secretary of the DSWD: Constitutionality of RA 7432 (Senior Citizens Discount)
questioned.

Under the police power of the State, "property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and
burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government." 61

The State "may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations to promote
the general welfare [as long as] the interference [is] reasonable and not arbitrary."
 Membership in the Legislature

a. Residence Qualification
- Romualdez-Marcos v COMELEC: Imelda’s conduct upon return to PH is indicative of
animus revertendi.
- Domino v COMELEC: Domino’s candidacy for the elections was being contested on the
ground that he did not satisfy the 1 and a half residency by election day requirement.
- Jalosjos v COMELEC: Jalosjos was sentenced to prision mayor, and the accompanying
disqualification. Candidacy was void ab initio for misrepresentation.
- Ongsiako Reyes v COMELEC: COMELEC voids her candidacy for not being a PH citizen. She
avers that HRET has sole jurisdiction over her case, forgetting that she is not a member of
the House.
b. Term and Tenure
- Dimaporo v Mitra: Petitioner attempts to secure governorship of ARMM while as Lanao
del sur congressman. The filling of a certificate shall be considered as an overt act or
abandoning or relinquishing his mandate to the people and he should therefore resign if
he want to seek another position which he feels he could be of better service.
- Fariñas et al., v Executive Secretary: Petition seeking to declare as unconstitutional
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006 (The Fair Election Act), insofar as it expressly repeals
Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (The Omnibus Election Code) on candidates being
considered ipso facto resigned upon filing of COC.
Does Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 discriminate against appointive officials as it violates
the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it repeals Section 67 only of the
Omnibus Election Code, leaving intact Section 66 thereof which imposes a similar
limitation to appointive officials?
Held: NO. Elective officials are different to those who are appointed. The former is a
public trust and thus of different nature as that of appointive offices.

 Party List System

- Veterans Federation Party v COMELEC: COMELEC declared 38 party-list as winners
despite the fact that these partylists did reach the 2% requirement of minimum votes
mandated by the Constitution on the belief that it is mandatory that at least 20% of the
members of the House of Representatives come from the party-list representatives.

20% is the ceiling for partylists. Congress required party-lists to obtain at least 2% of the
total votes cast for the party list system to be entitled to a party-list seat.