Constitutional Law Reviewer Block c 2019

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IMidterms Reviewer

INTRODUCTION

Philippine Constitutionalism, Birth Pangs, and Traumatic GrowthSource: Casebook

I. Early Organic Acts

A constitution is a written instrument by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited, and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among several departments, for their more safe and useful exercise, for the benefit of the body politic. It is the supreme written law of the land. It is both a grant and limitation of governmental authority.

Classification According to Norms of Governmental Action

1. Normative Constitution – norms direct governmental action and government habitually adjusts to its actions.

2. Nominal Constitution – cannot yet be fully operative because of existing socio-economic conditions. Its value is educational. It points towards the mature state to which a fledging polity must grow.

3. Semantic Constitution – The primary purpose of a constitution is to limit power but this does the opposite. It is a tool for the perpetuation of power in the hands of power holders.

Constitution may be divided into three parts:

1. Constitution of government – provisions that set up government structure

2. Constitution of liberty – provisions that provide individual fundamental liberties against government abuse.

3. Constitution of Sovereignty – provisions that outline the process whereby the sovereign people may change the constitution

The Constitution is what the judges say it is. Judicial review involves the power and duty on the part of the Court of pronouncing void any such act which does not square with its own reading of the constitutional instrument.

Philippine Constitution grew from organic documents enacted by the US government:

1. President McKinley’s Instructions to the Second Philippine Commission

2. The Philippine Bill of 19023. The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916

Tydings – McDuffie Law – provided for the establishment of a Commonwealth government under a constitution drafted and ratified by the Filipino people.

II. The 1935 Constitution

The Constitutional Convention met on July 30 1934 until February 8 1935. On March 3 1935, the President of the US approved the draft. On May 14 1935, it was ratified by the Filipinos. On November 15, 1935, the Commonwealth government was created.

III. The 1973 Constitution

The 1971 Constitutional Convention began on June 1 1971. However, martial law was announced on September 21 1972. On November 29 1972, the Convention approved its draft. On November 30 1972, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 73 and set the date for the plebiscite on January 15 1973. This was postponed. On January 17, 1973, by Proclamation No. 1102, the proposed constitution was ratified by members of the Citizens Assembly. On March 31 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect (Javellana v. Executive Secretary).

Baquilod. Callejo. Callueng. Evangelista. Gaon. Go. Ladeza. Lim. Marquez. Ramirez. Young. 1


In 1976, the Constitution was amended to give birth to the interim Batasang Pambansa, a legislative body which functioned no better than as a rubber stamp for the will of the President. In 1981, the Constitution was amended again to give way to a regular Batasang Pambansa.

IV. The Freedom Constitution

Elections were held on February 8 1986. On February 15, Batasan Pambansa declared Marcos the winner. On February 22 1986, Juan Ponce Enrile (Minister of National Defense) and Fidel Ramos (Vice Chief of Staff General) revolted. They would have lost but were backed up by the civilians.

On February 25 1986, Cory was declared first woman president of the Philippines. She turned her back on the Batasan Pambansa and

the 1973 Constitution and instead through Proclamation No. 3, established the Freedom Constitution.

V. The 1987 Constitution

Article VI of Proclamation No. 3 provided the conditions for the establishment of the new Constitution. The 1986 Constitutional Convention convened on June 1 1986 and finished on October 15 1986. On February 2 1987, the Constitution was ratified by the plebiscite. The government has fought against coups and although there have been informal debates about changing the constitution, it still remains to be the same today.

PREAMBLE

We, the Sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this constitution.

The Preamble is not a source of rights or obligations. It sets down the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. It functions as an aid in ascertaining the meaning of ambiguous provisions. It is a source of light.

Its origin or authorship is the will of the “sovereign Filipino people.” Its scope and purpose is “to build a just and humane society and to

establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.


1935 Constitution 1987 Constitution“The Filipino People” suggests another power announcing that the Filipinos were finally being allowed to promulgate a Constitution

“We” stresses active and sovereign role of the Filipino people as the author of the Constitution.

“Divine Providence” “Almighty God” is more personal and more consonant with personalist Filipino religiosity. While Church and State are separate, God and the people are not.

“General welfare” means greatest good for the greatest number even if what the greatest number wants is harmful to human dignity.

“Common good” ensures a social order that enables every citizen to attain his fullest development economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually.


Additional Provisions in the Preamble of the 1987 Constitution:

“Under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace”

ARTICLE INATIONAL TERRITORY

Section 1: The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. 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.

The Philippine Territory

The 1935 Constitution included a definition of national territory because the Filipinos were scared of dismemberment. They wanted to ensure the preservation of the integrity of Philippine territory.

The 1971 Constitutional Convention placed the definition in the constitution for the preservation of the national wealth, for national security, and as a manifestation of our solidarity as a people.

The 1986 Constitutional Commission believed the definition would have an educational value. Also, it would be difficult to explain its absence since it was present in the 1935 and 1973 provisions.

A Constitution is a municipal law. Hence, the definition of national territory in the Constitution is only binding on the state. It must be supported by international law to be recognized internationally.

The scope of the national territory includes (1) the Philippine

Baquilod. Callejo. Callueng. Evangelista. Gaon. Go. Ladeza. Lim. Marquez. Ramirez. Young.

“love” - as a monument to the love that prevented bloodshed in the Revolution

“truth” - as a defiance to the previous regime

“peace” - as the result of truth, justice, freedom, love

“equality” - fight against the prevalent political and economic inequalities in the country

“the rule of law” - shows that power of government officials are defined by law and such authority continues only with the consent of the people.

3


archipelago; (2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction; and (3) the territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas corresponding to (1) and (2). Moreover, (1) and (2) consist of terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains.

An archipelago is a body of water studded with islands. The Philippine archipelago was delineated by the Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Washington, and finally the Treaty with Great Britain. The 1973 Constitution omitted specific mention of these treaties because Constitutional Convention delegates wanted to erase every possible trace of our colonial history from the new organic document.

The phrase, “all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,” includes any territory which presently or might belong to the Philippines in the future through international law provisions. This also includes what the 1935 Constitution referred to as “all territory over which the present (1935) Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction” meaning it includes the Batanes Islands which really belongs to the Philippines but lay outside the lines drawn by the Treaty of Paris.

It also includes what the 1973 Constitution calls as territories “belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal right”. This refers to other territories, which, depending on available evidence, might belong to the Philippines (i.e. Sabah, the Marianas, Freedomland). This phrase was dropped in the 1987 Constitution to avoid using language offensive to Malaysia. The 1987 Constitution instead uses the phrase “over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction” which neither claims nor disclaims Sabah but asserts a legal situation in which Sabah can have a place in the Philippines.

The Philippines lays claim on the territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the aerial domain, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas to the extent recognized by international law. The definition of these areas and right of the Philippines over these areas are provided for in customary and conventional international law, principally the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and the

Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944.

“Waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago” form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. The “internal waters” is one of the elements of the archipelagic principle, which is now recognized by the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. The vast areas of water between islands which we consider internal waters according to Article I (which are NOT subject to the right of innocent passage) are archipelagic waters (which are subject to the right of innocent passage) according to the 1982 Convention. Hence, there is a conflict.

The Philippines, however, said that the “signing of the Convention shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the Republic under and arising from the Constitution of the Philippines” nor “nullify the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic State over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of its authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty, independence and security.” The Philippines has designated sea lanes for foreign vessels in order to address this issue.

The straight baseline method consists of drawing straight lines connecting appropriate points on the coast without departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast. The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea requires coastal states to draw baselines in conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Baselines are lines drawn along the low water mark of an island or group of islands, which mark the end of the internal waters and the beginning of the territorial sea. RA 2046 and RA 5446 by the Congress did not completely conform to the requirements of the Convention so in 2009, RA 9522 was created to provide one set of baselines for the archipelago and another set of baselines for the regime of islands outside the archipelago but belonging to the Philippines.

<INSERT THE REST OF MY PARTS>

ARTICLE II



DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

- Statement of the basic ideological principles and policies that underlie the Constitution- Shed light on the meaning of the other provisions of the Constitution and serve as a guide for all departments of the government in the

implementation of the Constitutions

Section 1: The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

1. “Democratic and republican state” State – community of persons more or less

numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience

o Four elements of a state: (i) people, (ii) territory, (iii) sovereignty, and (iv) government

Legal sovereignty – supreme power to make law Political sovereignty – sum total of all the influences

in a state, legal and non-legal, which determine the course of law

Republican state – a state wherein all government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by he representatives chosen by the people

Constitutional authoritarianism – the assumption of extraordinary powers by the President, including legislative and judicial and even constituent powers, where such assumption is authorized by the letter or at least by the spirit of a legitimately enacted Constitution (not allowed in the new Constitution)

2. Nature and functions of government Government of the Philippine Islands

o Refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippine Islands

o Legislative, executive, and judicialo Does not include government entities which

are given corporate personality separate and distinct from the government, which are governed by the corporation law

o National government has legal personality and is internationally responsible for the actions of other agencies and instrumentalities of the state

“Administration” is the aggregate of persons in whose hands the reigns of government are for the time being (different from “government”)

Functions may be classified intoi. Constituent/Governmental - compulsory

functions which constitute the very bonds of society

ii. Ministrant/Proprietary – optional functions of government intended for achieving a better life for the community

NOTE : when government chooses to operate not through a government-owned corporation but through an unincorporated agency, distinction

Baquilod. Callejo. Callueng. Evangelista. Gaon. Go. Ladeza. Lim. Marquez. Ramirez. Young.

Principles are binding rules, which much be observed in the conduct of government. Policies are guidelines for the orientation of the state.

5


between constituent and ministrant functions can be useful

Growing complexities of modern society have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic

3. Sovereignty

People v. GozoDOCTRINE: The Philippines Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. The Government retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all such ceded rights as the foreign country authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of

Facts

Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the US Naval Reservation in Olongapo City. She demolished the house and built another one in its place without a Mayor’s permit. She was then charged and convicted by both the City of Olongapo and the Court of First Instance of Zambales with the violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14 series of 1964, requiring a permit from the municipal mayor for the construction or erection of a building. She raised the constitutionality of the Ordinance on Appeal, and relied on the Court decision in People v. Fajardo. In the aforementioned case, the application of such an ordinance to Fajardo was oppressive. In this case, appellant never bothered to comply with the ordinance.

Issues1. W/N Gozo violated Municipal Ordinance No. 14 series of

1964

Held1. YES

LGUs have the authority to require building permits. If its exercise violated any constitutional right, then

its validity could be impugned, or at the very least, its applicability to the person adversely affected could be questioned

City of Olongapo exercises administrative jurisdiction over the said area

The Philippine government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein

Under the terms of the treaty, the US government has prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such offenses

The Philippine government retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also such ceded rights as the United States Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of

The Philippines is independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain

Principle of Auto-limitationo Any state may, by its consent, submit to a

restriction of its sovereign rights Sovereignty as auto-limitation

o A state then, if it chooses, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence

o At most, there is only diminution or reduction of jurisdictional rights but NOT disappearance thereof

4. Governments de jure and de facto It is legal truism in political and international law that

all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto government are good and valid

Kinds of de facto government:1. Government de facto in a proper legal sense



Government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter

2. Government de facto of paramount force Its existence is maintained by active military power

within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government

While it exists, it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens

3. Government de facto that is established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state

Powers and duties of de facto governments Regulated in Sec. 3 of the Hague Conventions of

1907 The occupant shall take all steps in his power to

reestablish, and insure public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country

The occupant can suspend the old laws and promulgate new ones, and make such changes in the old as he may see fit, but he is enjoined to respect the municipal laws in force in the country

Laws of a political nature, such as right of assembly and right to bear arms, freedom of press, right to travel freely in the territory occupied are considered suspended or in abeyance during the military occupation

In practice, the local ordinary tribunals are authorized to continue administering justice; and the judges and other judicial officers are kept in their posts and are required to continue in their positions under the supervision of the occupant authority

Doctrine: the right of one belligerent to occupy and govern the territory of the enemy while in its military possession, is one of the incidents of war, and flows directly from the right to conquer

Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan KehDOCTRINE: All acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto government are good and valid. The principle of postliminy states that judicial acts and proceedings remain good and valid after the liberation or re-occupation of the Philippines by the American and Philippine forces

Facts

This is a petition for mandamus praying for the respondent judge to continue the proceedings in a civil case which was initiated under the regime of the so called Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation in the country. The respondent judge refused to take cognizance of the proceedings on the ground that the proclamation issued by Gen. Douglas MacArthur when the American forces took over the occupation of the island from the Japanese government, had the effect of invalidating and nullifying all the judicial proceedings and judgments of the court under the Philippine Executive Committee and the Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation. When the Imperial Japanese Forces occupied the City of Manila, the Japanese Commander in Chief proclaimed that all the laws in force in the Commonwealth, as well as the executive and judicial institutions, shall continue to be effective for the time being as in the past, and all public officials shall remain in their present posts and carry on faithfully their duties as before. In 1945, the City of Manila was partially liberated by General MacArthur on behalf of the Government of the United States, wherein the Commonwealth was restored. Gen. MacArthur proclaimed that all the processes of any other government be invalid and have no effect.

Issues1. W/N the Japanese occupation was a de facto government2. W/N all judgments and judicial acts are invalidated pursuant

to MacArthur’s Order3. W/N the proceedings should continue in court

Held



1. YES The government during the Japanese occupation

was a de facto government of the 2nd type given that the two (2) characteristics of a de facto government of paramount force are present.

2. NO The phrase “processes of any other government”

stated by MacArthur did not intend to annul all other judgments and judicial proceedings of court during the Japanese military occupation

If according to international law, non-political judgments and judicial proceedings of de facto governments are valid and remain valid even after the occupied territory has been liberated, then it could not have been Mac \Arthur’s intention to refer to judicial processes, which would be in violation of international law

3. YES From the above conclusions, it follows that the Court

of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to continue to final judgment and proceeding of the case which has been pending in said court at the time of the restoration of the said Government

In re: Letter of Associate Justice Reynato PunoDOCTRINE: A revolutionary government is instituted by the direct action of the people and in opposition to the authoritarian values and practices of the overthrown government. The right of revolution is an inherent right of the people to cast out their rulers, change their policy or effect radical forms in their system of government institutions by force, or a general uprising. The president in a revolutionary government has powers encompassing both executive and legislative powers, such that she could, if so desire, amend, modify, or repeal and law

Facts

Assoc. Justice Puno was appointed to the IAC (which had replaced the CA in accordance with BP 129). He was then appointed to

Deputy Minister of Justice, thus ceased to be part of the judiciary. Then EDSA Revolution came and Cory Aquino issue EO 33 reorganizing the judiciary. Persuant to this, Puno was returned to the CA with a ranking lower than what the Screening Committee has recommended. Puno then wrote a letter requesting for his seniority ranking of 12 be changed to 5. The reason is that it was an inadvertent mistake and should be corrected according Sec. 2 of EO No. 33 which states that justices have precedence by order of date of appointment, such that if they served other positions in other offices of government, they would still retain the precedence entitled to their original appointment. Court granted his request. However, Assoc. Justices Campos and Javellana filed a Motion for Reconsideration since their ranks were affected. They contended that the CA is a different court from the IAC in which Puno served.

Issues W/N the CA is a new court or a continuation of IAC

Held The CA is a new court

o A revolution is a sudden, radical and fundamental change in the government or political system

o The Aquino government’s mandate is taken from a “direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people” and it overtook the legal order at the time since the legal system ceases to be operative as a whole for it is no longer obeyed by the population nor enforced by the officials

o Aquino’s rise to the presidency was not due to constitutional processes. In fact, it was achieved in violation of the provisions of the 1973 Constitutions

The Court holds that the CA and IAC existing prior to EO No. 33 phased out as part of the legal system abolished by the revolution and that the CA established under EO No. 33 was an entirely new court with appointment thereto having no relation to earlier appointment to the abolished courts.

Republic v. Sandiganbayan



DOCTRINE: The revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed the responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both of which the Philippines is a signatory. Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary government was also obliged under international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.

Facts

Immediately after Cory Aquino’s assumption to office following the EDSA Revolution, E.O. No. 1 was issued, creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). EO No. 1 tasked the PCGG to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates. The PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, created an AFP Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board) tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired. AFP Board investigated alleged unexplained wealth of respondent, Major General Josephus Q. Ramas, a Commanding General of the Philippine Army. In its investigation of Ramas and his co-defendant and mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano, wealth amounting to at least P2M and $50,000 was found. Respondents were recommended to be tried for violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and RA 1379, Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property. It was alleged that Ramas acquired these funds with influence of being Marcos’ subordinate and close associate. Ramas filed an answer stating the other properties were not his, but only the house and lot in La Vista valued at P700,000, and that the evidence was unlawfully acquired as the properties confiscated were not explicitly enumerated in the search warrant. Petitioners averred that during this time, the respondents did not have rights during the interregnum. The trial was delayed due to lack of preparation and absence of witnesses and vital documents as evidence. Ramas and Dimaano filed ther motions to dismiss based

on Republic v. Migrino, stating that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of mere position held without showing that they are indeed “subordinates” of former President Marcos.

Issues1. W/N PCGG has jurisdiction to investigate and cause the

filing of a forfeiture petition against Ramas and Dimaano for unexplained wealth under RA No. 1379

2. W/N the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum, and in turn excludes as evidence the confiscated articles and things of Dimaano and Ramas

Held1. NO

PCGG can only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel who fall under either of the 2 categories mentioned: i) AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the administration of Marcos by being the latter’s immediate family, relative, subordinate, or close associate ii) AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the President assigns their cases to the PCGG. It was held that Ramas is not a subordinate since a position by a military officer does not automatically make him a subordinate. Moreover, there was no indication showing that he enjoyed close association with Marcos

2. YES The revolutionary government withheld the

operation of the 1973 Constitution, which guaranteed respondents’ exclusionary rights. According to petitioners, the Bill of Rights have been suspended an that the government may confiscate the monies and items taken from Dimaano and use the same in evidence against her since at the time of their seizure, private



respondents did not enjoy any constitutional rights. The revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed the responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both of which the Philippines is a signatory. Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary government was also obliged under international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.

ACCFA v. CUGCODOCTRINE: The growing complexities of modern society have rendered the traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally, and only because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals, continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times.

Facts

Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA)’s administrative machinery was reorganized and its name changed to Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under the Land Reform Code. The ACCFA Supervisors’ Association (ASA) and the ACCFA Workers’ Association (AWA) – Unions, are labor organizations composed of the supervisors and the rank and file employees, respectively in the ACA. On 1961, a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for 1 year was entered into by and between the

Unions and the ACCFA. After a few months, the Unions started protesting for allegations of non-implementation but strikers voluntarily return to work after a while. On 1952, Unions with its mother union, the Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices (CUGCO) filed a complaint with the CIR against ACCFA for having allegedly committed acts of unfair labor practice. The CIR decided in favor of the Unions and ACCFA moved to reconsider but failed and filed a petition for certiorari in Court. While the case is pending, the President signed into law the Agricultural Land Reform Code. On 1964, ASA and AWA filed a petition for certification election with the CIR praying that they be certified as the exclusive bargaining agents for the supervisors and rank and file employees, in the ACA. Trial court certified that AWA and ASA are the sole and exclusive bargaining representatives of the rank and file, and supervisors, respectively in ACA. The CIR affirmed the decision. ACA filed with the SC a petition for certiorari with urgent motion to stay the CIR order. In this appeal, ACA challenges the jurisdiction of the CIR to entertain the petition of the Unions for certification election on the ground that ACA is engaged in governmental functions

SC held that ACA is engaged in governmental functions. It was in furtherance of such policy that the Land Reform Code was enacted and the various agencies, including ACA, established to carry out its purposes.

The land reform program in the Land Reform Code is beyond the capabilities of any private enterprise to translate into reality. The complexities of modern society, however, have rendered the traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. Ministerial and governmental functions continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and are absorbed within the activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times and move towards a greater socialization of economic forces. Corollary, the Union is thus not entitled to a certification

Issues1. W/N ACA is engaged in governmental functions



2. W/N the Unions are entitled to certification election

Held1. YES

Sec. 3 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code established ACA together with other government agencies, to extend credit and similar assistance to agriculture

The implementation of the land reform program of the government according to RA 3844 is most certainly a governmental, not a proprietary function.

The land reform program in the said Code is beyond the capabilities of a private enterprise

The law itself declares that the ACA is a government office

2. NO Given that ACA is engaged in governmental

functions, under Section 11 of RA 875, strikes against the government by employees are prohibited

Hence, respondent Unions are not entitled to the certification elections. Such certification is admittedly for purposes of bargaining in behalf of the employees with respect to terms and conditions of employment, including the right to strike as a coercive economic weapon.

Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. COADOCTRINE: The true criterion to determine whether a corporation is public or private is found in the totality of the relation of the corporation to the State. If the corporation is created by the State as the latter’s own agency or instrumentality to help it in carrying out its governmental functions, then that corporation is considered public; otherwise it is private. Moreover, the fact that a certain juridical entity is impressed with public interest does not, by that circumstance alone, make the entity a public corporation.

Facts

An audit team from the Commission on Audit (COA) visited the office of Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Phil. Society) to conduct an audit survey pursuant to COA Office Order No. 2003-051. Phil Society refused on the ground that it was a private entity and is not under the jurisdiction of COA. COA General Counsel issued a Memorandum asserting that Phil Society was subject to its audit authority. Phil Society filed with COA a Request for Re-evaluation insisting that it was a private domestic corporation. However, COA maintained its position. Thereafter, Phil Society received and assailed Office Order and Letter by COA.

Issues W/N Phil Society qualifies as a government agency

that may be subject to audit by COA

Held NO

The Charter Test: test to determine whether a corporation is government owned or controlled, or private in nature. Is it created by its own charter for the exercise of a public function, or by incorporation under the general corporation law? Those with special charters are government corporations subject to its provisions, and its employees are under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and are compulsory members of the GSIS.

The Charter Test cannot be applied in this case since it has been introduced by the 1935 Constitution, and not earlier. It follows that the test cannot apply to the Phil Society, whish was incorporated by virtue of Act No. 1285, enacted on 19 January 1905.

Phil Society is not under subject to control or supervision by any agency of the State

Its employees are registered and covered under the SSS



The fact that a certain juridical entity is impressed with public interest does not, by that circumstance alone, make the entity a public corporation

4. Patterns of government Patterns of applications of constitutional democracy

1. Direct democracy If the people, organized as the electorate, are the

preponderant power holder

2. Assembly Government Least known to constitutional theory Parliament is the representation of the people as

the ascendant power holder Capable of serving as the organizational tool for

democracy and autocracy

3. Parliamentarism Most common patter of constitutional-democratic

government Equilibrium between the independent power

holders, parliament and the government, is attempted by integrating the latter into the former: personnel of government are simultaneously members of the assembly

Such an equilibrium makes it almost impossible for one of them to gain ascendancy over the other

Interdependence by integration

Prime Minister exercises undisputed supremacy Power is lost if the majority withdraws its support Government-cabinet has a pyramidal structure

4. Presidentialism If the independent power holders, government and

parliament are kept separated but are constitutionally obligated to corporate for the formation of the will of the state

Interdependence is achieved by coordination instead of integration

5. Cabinet government British version of parliamentary government Existence of 2 alternating parties possessing even

chances in the long run of becoming the major party at the general elections

Cabinet is a relatively small committee composed of the leaders of the majority party

The official leader of the majority winning the general elections is the prime minister designate

The Commons share in the policy decisions only to the limited extent that they confirm in principle

Policy control is vested in both houses of the parliament and in electorate

Cabinet government should be recognized as a fusion of the 2 independent power holders, cabinet and parliament, into a single power mechanism in which the 2 organs are practically integrated


Documents

Constitutional Law Reviewer Block c 2019