CONSTITUTIONAL

LAW CASES FOR MIDTERMS

(P.S. I didn’t include most of the facts, recall nalang po hehe)
Chapter 2
Issue: WON Congress have the right to call for a ConCon and set the parameters for such
convention
IMBONG VS COMELEC Held: YES, the Congress, acting as ConAss, has the authority to call a ConCon. The power to enact
the implementing details are within the competence of Congress in the exercise of its legislative
power
Issue: WON amendments may be submitted to the people simultaneous with general elections
Held: YES, Art. 11 of the Constitution has nothing to indicate that the “election” referred to is a
GONZALES VS COMELEC special and not a general election. Submitting constitutional amendments to the Filipino people
was at the discretion of the Congress
Issue: WON proposed amendments may be presented for ratification separately from other future
amendments
TOLENTINO VS COMELEC Held: NO, if advance plebiscite will be allowed, there will be an improper submission of the
amendments to the people. Proposed amendments must be presented to the people at the same
time, not piecemeal
Issue: WON Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people at a later date
ALMARIO VS ALBA Held: NO, under the Doctrine of Proper Submission, all amendments to the Constitution are to be
submitted in just one election

Chapter 3
Doctrine: Parens Patriae
Issue: WON the PH govt. is competent to file a complaint against the respondent bank
GOVT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS EL
(reimbursement of the 80,000 dollars)
MONTE DE PIEDAD
Held: YES, under the Doctrine of Parens Patriae, the govt. is the guardian of the rights of the
people, thus they have the right to take back what is intended for the people.
Doctrine: Parens Patriae
Issue: WON the state may interfere by virtue of Parens Patriae to the terms of the insurance policy
CABAÑAS VS PILAPIL
Held: YES, the application of Parens Patriae is in consonance with the country’s tradition of favoring
conflicts in favor of the family hence preference to the parent (mother) is observed
Doctrine: Effects of Cession – Suspension of Political Laws
Issue: WON the petitioners were subject to military law at the time of war during the Japanese
RUFFY VS CHIEF OF STAFF
occupation
Held: YES, suspension of political laws only affect civilian inhabitants
Doctrine: De Jure and De Facto Governments.
Issue: WON the govt. of Cory Aquino is legitimate
LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR BETTER
Held: YES, it is a political question where only the people are the judge – people have made the
PHILIPPINES VS AQUINO
judgment and accepted the govt. of Aquino. So that it is not merely a de facto govt. but in fact and a
law a de jure govt.
Doctrine: Law on Treason
Issue: WON the allegiance of the inhabitants to their legitimate government is suspended during an
occupation of the enemy
LAUREL VS MISA Held: NO, the absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the
enemy of their legitimate government is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation
because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred to the occupier.
No such thing as suspended allegiance
Doctrine: Political Laws During Belligerent Occupation
Issue: WON the creation of court by Ordinance No. 7 (political instrumentality of Japanese military
forces) is constitutional (Peralta was prosecuted for robbery)
PERALTA VS DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
Held: YES, non-political laws are deemed continued unless changed by the belligerent occupant.
These laws ceased to be valid upon the reoccupation of the legitimate govt. > Peralta was
acquitted.

Chapter 4
Doctrine: Proprietary Acts Incidental to Govt. Functions
Facts: Petitioner contends that BoP has no juridical capacity to sue and be sued
BUREAU OF PRINTING Held: BoP undertakes private printing jobs for private parties – incidental to its functions, although
proprietary: it is not separate and distinct from its general governmental functions
: BoP, w/o any corporate or juridical personality, cannot be sued
Doctrine: Sovereign Immunity of a Foreign State
Held: Privilege of sovereign immunity of the Petitioner was sufficiently established by the
HOLY SEE VS ROSARIO
Memorandum and Certification of the DFA. Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic
mission to the PH exempt from local jurisdiction
 Doctrine: Non-Suability of an Unincorporated Agency
Issue: WON BoC can be held liable for actual damages
Held: NO, as an un-incorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of
FAROLAN VS COURT OF TAX APPEALS its own, the BoC enjoys immunity from suit. BoC cannot be held liable for actual damages that the
respondent sustained regards to its goods, since it demands that Customs be ordered to pay for
actual damage it sustained, for which ultimate liability will fall on the govt., it is obvious that his
case is technically converted into a suit against the state.
Doctrine: Claim for Damages must be filed before Commission on Audit/Auditor General
Held: CFI has no jurisdiction over the subject matter because it is a money claim against the
GARCIA VS CHIEF OF STAFF government
Claims for recovery of money against the govt. should be filed with the Auditor General in line with
the principle that the State cannot be sued without its consent
Doctrine: Liable Only for Negligent Acts of Employees as Special Agents
Held: State is only liable when it acts through a special agent (one who receives a definite and fixed
MERRITT VS GOVT OF PH ISLANDS
order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official)
In this case the chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not such an agent
Doctrine: Performance by Non-Corporate Government Entity of Proprietary Functions Does Not
Make It Suable
Held: Complaint was dismissed because Customs Arrastre Service nor BoC cannot be sued
Court held that when a non-corporate govt. entity performs a function prorprietary in nature, it
MOBIL PH VS CUSTOMS ARRASTRE does not result in its being suable. If this non-governmental function is undertaken as an incident to
its governmental function, there is no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity from suit extended
to such government entity. BoC is a part of DoF and arrastre service is a necessary incident.
Although it is proprietary it is necessary incident of the primary and governmental functions of the
BoC, so that engaging in the same does not necessarily render said Bureau liable to suit.
Doctrine: Public Funds Cannot Be Object of Garnishment for Judgments
Held: Respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction for issuing an alias writ of execution hence
RP VS VILLASOR
the Alias Writ of Execution and notices of garnishment issued pursuant thereto are null and void
State is immune from suit unless it gives its consent
Doctrine: Suits Not Related to the Government but Only to Officials in their Private Capacity
Facts: Suit between architects, to determine who is entitled to the amount retained by the officials
Held: In this case, the suit is not against the govt, or a claim against it, but one against the officials
RUIZ VS CABAHUG to compel them to act in accordance with the rights to be established by the contending architects,
or to prevent them from making payment and recognition until the contending architects have
established their respective rights and interests in the funds retained and in the credit for the work
done
Doctrine: Republic as a Donee
Held: Court ruled that where the govt. benefitted by taking of the land, the failure to institute the
necessary condemnation proceedings should not be a bar to an ordinary action for the collection of
SANTIAGO VS REPUBLIC the just compensation due. Here the alleged failure to abide by conditions under which a donation
was given should not prove an insuperable obstacle to civil action.
: in this case, a donor, with the Republic being the done, is entitled to go to court in case of an
alleged breach of the conditions of such donation. He has the right to be heard.
Doctrine: Cannot Sue in the Exercise of Governmental Functions
Facts: The complaint is to order the defendants to allow the plaintiff to perform the work on the
projects, and in the event that specific performance was no longer possible, to order the
defendants to pay the damage
: US contends that the subject matter of the complaint are acts and omissions of the individual
US VS VM RUIZ defendants as agents of US, a foreign sovereign which has not given consent to be sued. A
distinction should be made between a strictly governmental function of the sovereign state from its
private, proprietary, non-governmental acts
Held: In this case projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of
both US and the PH, indisputably a function of the govt. of the highest order; they are not utilized
for nor dedicated to commercial purposes
Doctrine: Immunity from Suits is Determined by Acts Undertaken by Agencies
: SolGen filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that courts lack jurisdiction to entertain CAA
because NAC has lost its juridical personality and that CAA being an unincorporated agency is
incapable of suing and being sued
NATIONAL AIRPORTS VS TEODORO Held: CAA has the power to sue and be sued because it is implied from their power to transact
private business and it must prosecute and defend suits for and against NAC, having acquired all
their properties
: CAA even if it is part of the govt, undertakes proprietary acts and falls under the category of a
private entity
 : Festejo demanded the return of the land and its restoration to its former condition (3 parcels of
lad that was constructed to an irrigation canal w/o obtaining of right of way and consent and
knowledge)
FESTEJO VS FERNANDO
Held: Court ruled that Fernando acted in excess of jurisdiction. Even though sovereign immunity is
extended to public officials, his acts were beyond the duties imposed on him by the law therefore
the liabilities of the case must be answered by him in his personal capacity.

Chapter 5
Doctrine: Social Justice
Facts: Moya contends that the CA committed errors in admitting and counting in favor of Del Fierro
several ballots. SC dismissed the petition because in result even if the ballots contested are counted
MOYA VS DEL FIERRO in favor of Moya, Del Fierro still wins by one vote.
In republicanism, citizens have the voice in the govt. and whenever called upon to act in justifiable
cases to give it efficacy and not to stifle. Ballots should be read and appreciated if not with utmost,
reasonable liberality
Doctrine: Social Justice
Facts: Petitioner assails legality of the regulation because it impairs the liberty of locomotion and
business ventures
CALALANG VS WILLIAMS
Issue: WON the rules and regulations infringe constitutional precept of social justice
Held: NO, social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all people , the adoption of the govt.
of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society
Doctrine: Separation of Church and State
Issue: WON the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps is constitutional
AGLIPAY VS RUIZ Held: YES, it does not contemplate any favor upon a particular sect or church, but the purpose was
only to advertise the PH and to attract more tourists, and the govt. just took advantage of an event
considered of international importance
Doctrine: Incorporation Clause
Issue: WON Kuroda who was the highest ranking JP officer stationed in the PH during the JP
occupation can be charged in PH courts
KURODA VS JALANDONI
Held: YES, EO 68 is constitutional – in pursuant to the constitutional provision that states that the
PH renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles
of IL as part of the law of the nation.
Doctrine: Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege loooolz
Issue: WON the act of Mayor Lukban (took custody of 170 women and shipped them to Davao) has
legal basis
VILLAVICENCIO VS LUKBAN
Held: NO, his intent of exterminating vice was commendable but there was no law saying that he
could force Filipino women to change their domicile from Manila to Davao. They were still Filipino
citizens.
Doctrine: ML over IL in case of conflict
ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ Issue: WON a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles
Held: YES, there is no conflict between the raised generally accepted principle and RA 1180.